RECEIVED

(~T

~ERK’S

OFFICE

OCT

112001

BEFORE THE

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARDSTATE

OF ILLINOIS

Pollution

Control Board

IN THE MATTER OF:

REVISIONS TO ANTIDEGRADATION RULES:

35

ILL. ADM. CODE 302.105, 303.205, 303.206, AND

106.990

—106.995

)

)

)

)

)

RO 1-13

(Rulemaking-Water)

)

)

)

)

NOTICE OF FILING

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on this date, October 11,

2001, I filed with Dorothy Gunn,

Clerk of the Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board,

James

R.

Thompson

Center,

100

West Randolph,

Suite

11-500,

Chicago,

IL

60601,

the enclosed Post-Hearing

Comments of the Environmental

Law

and Policy Center, Friends of the Chicago River, Prairie Rivers Network, and

Sierra

Club;

Regarding the Proposed Rule, First Notice.

Albert F. Ettinger (ARDC

3125045)

Counselfor Environmental Law & Policy

Center, Friends of the Fox River, Prairie

Rivers Network and Sierra Club

35

East Wacker Drive, Suite

1300

Chicago, IL

60601-2110

(312) 795

3707

October 11,2001

---

The

Board Should Adopt Some ofthe Agency’s Proposed Revisions

In this Proceeding But, if Necessary, Consider Other ofthe Agency’s

Proposals in a Separate Later Proceeding

4

A.

Proposed Agency Revision to Section 302.102(b)(4) ofthe

First Notice Proposal

—

CWA Section

401

Certification

4

B.

Proposed Agency Changes to First Notice Proposal Section

302.105(c)(2)

6

C.

Proposed Agency Changes to First Notice Proposal Section

302.105(d)(5)

7

D.

Proposed Agency Changes to First Notice Proposal Section

302.l05(d)(6)

8

B.

Proposed Changes to Section 302.105(f)

IEPA

Revised Proposal

Sections 309.103, 309.108, 309.113, and309.141

9

1.

DeletingReferences toCWA Section 401

9

2.

Moving Language in 302.105(f) to

Part

309

9

3.

Permit Applications

—

NeededChange to 302.1

05(f)(

1)

IEPA

Revised Proposal, Section

309.103(a)(5)J

—

“with anew or increased permit limit” should be deleted

10

4.

OtherAgency Proposed Changesto 302.105(f)(1)

IEPA

Revised Proposal,

309.103(a)(5)

12

5.

Pre-Permit Application Assessment by the Agency

—

302.105(f)(2)(A)-(C)

Deleted fromJEPA Revised

Proposal

12

6.

Written Analysis

and

Terms and

Conditions ofPermits

302.105(f)(2)(D) JEPA

Revised Proposal, 309.108(d)

13

7.

FactSheets

—

302.105(f)(3)~IEPA Revised Proposal,

Section 309.1 13(a)(6)

14

8.

The Agency’sProposed 309.141(i)

14

II.

WithaFew Exceptions, the Changes to the First Notice

Proposal proposed

ByIERG Should be

Rejected by the Board

14

---

A.

Changes to the Heading and First Section 102.800

15

B.

Notice of

an ORW Petition

—

IERG’s ProposedChanges

To First Notice Proposal

102.8 10 Should be Rejected

15

C.

Proposed IERG Changes to First Notice Proposal

102.820

16

D.

Proposed IERG Changes to First

Notice Proposal

102.830

16

E.

Proposed IERG Changes to FirstNotice

Proposal Section

302.105(b)

17

F.

Proposed IERG Changes to FirstNotice

Proposal

302.105(c)

18

G.

Proposed IERG Changes to

Section 302.105(d)

—

Exceptions

Antidegradation

19

1.

Additives

19

2.

General Permits

19

3.

Site Stormwater

20

4.

Site Specific Regulation

20

5.

DeMinimis

21

H.

Proposed IERG Changes to 302.105(f)

21

III.

Summary

ofProposed Environmental

Group Changes

22

---

BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

OF THE STATE OF ILLiNOIS

STATE

OF !LLfNo~S

PolIutj0~

Control

Board

INTHEMATTER OF:

)

)

Revisions to

Antidegradation Rules:

)

R01-13

35

Ill. Adm. Code

302.105, 303.205,

)

303.206and106.990-106.995

)

POST-HEARING COMMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL

LAW AND POLICY CENTER, FRIENDS OF THE FOX RIVER,

PRAIRIE RIVERS NETWORK AND SIERRA CLUB

REGARDING THE PROPOSED RULE. FIRST NOTICE

The Environmental Law and Policy Center, Friends

ofthe Fox River, Prairie Rivers

Network

and Sierra Club (collectively “Environmental Groups”) hereby file post-hearing

comments regarding the Illinois Pollution Control Board’s First Notice antidegradation

regulationproposal,

issued by the Board on June 21, 2001

(the “First Notice Proposal”). These

comments also address certain

proposed revisions to the

First Notice Proposal proposed by the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“Illinois EPA” or the “Agency”) and

others.

First, we wish to reemphasize the

importance

ofestablishing antidegradation standards

and implementation rules as soon as possible.

The requirements ofthe current nondegradation

rule, 35 Ill. Admin.

Code 302.105, are not legally sufficient and do not give adequate instructions

to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit writers or Illinois EPA

officials responsible

formaking certification decisions under Section 401 ofthe Clean Water

Act, 33 U.S.C. §1341 (“CWA 401 certification”). Bad decisionsthat

are injuring Illinois waters

have been and

are

beingmade as a resultof

sound

antidegradation regulations not being

1

---

established.

The Environmental Groups oppose any changes being made to the First Notice

Proposal that will cause

substantial

delay in the final enactmentofprotective regulations.

IllinoisEPA initiatedmeetings fouryears ago to discuss the development of

antidegradation standards

and implementation rules.

During these meetings, the Agency

repeatedly invited

specific proposals from the participants and a number ofspecific proposals

were madeby the Environmental Groups, After

two

years ofsuchdiscussions, theAgency

offered its initial proposal to

the Board in August

2000. Since then, there havebeenthree Board

hearings, issuance ofthe FirstNotice Proposal by the Board, the August 24,2001 Hearing on the

First Notice Proposal, andan additional comment period. The timefor

inviting further discussion

should be ended. Standards and rules are needed now.

Since August 24, 2001, there have been numerous informal discussions among a number

ofthe parties that participated in the workgroup meetings from

1997 to

2000.

We believe these

recent discussions have

served to narrow still further the remaining areas ofdisagreement among

the

parties

most active

in this rulemaking proceeding.

Illinois EPA, the

Illinois Environmental

RegulatoryGroup (“IERG”)

and the Environmental Groups have filed or are

filing revised

proposals that reflect agreements reached as a part ofthese recent discussions.

As the Environmental Groups testified August 24, 2001,

the First Notice Proposal is

generally very good.

The Board needs to make a few small, but significant, changes and the

proposal is probably as good and workable as possible. Any set ofrules like the First Notice

Proposal needs to be field tested to be perfected.

That the antidegradation standards and

rules

that will

be

adoptedby the Board in this proceeding will need to be revised in the future is not a

2

---

reason to further delay adopting badly needed regulations

~

Our comments here will be limited to:

1.

Responding to testimony and comments made by Illinois EPA in the August 24,

2001

hearing.

These comments will include

comments on the revised Agency

proposals filed October

5,

2001, that would substantially reorganize the First

Notice Proposal,2

2.

Responding to testimony and comments made by the IERG in the August 24th

hearing. Our

remarks

regarding IERG’s proposals will reflect our understanding

ofIERG’s current positiOn, which we believe has changed in a number of respects

since August

24th,

and

3.

Summarizing

thetestimony of the

Environmental Groups in light ofthe questions

and testimony ofother witnesses to

the August 24 hearing.

Also, there are a few

revisions that

are needed to the First Notice Proposal that were not noted by the

Environmental Groups until recentlyor that arose from thepost-August 24

discussions.

Our

proposedfmal revisions to the First Notice

Proposal are attached as Attachment

ONE. Because

the Board may choose to reorganize the First Notice Proposal in the manner

proposedby Illinois

EPA in its October

5,

2001

filing, the Environmental Groups have also

supplied, as

Attachment TWO, the language we believe proper if the proposed Agency

‘For this reason, the Environmental Groups are not renewing their proposal that the

Board makechanges to SubtitleD regarding Mine

Related Water Pollution in this proceeding

althoughthe

Board’s recent decision in Prairie Rivers Network v.

Illinois EPA.PCB 01-112

(August 8, 2001)

deepens the conflict between

Illinois water quality regulations regarding

miningand the Clean Water

Act.

The Board should note that under Prairie Rivers Network the

water quality standards ofpart 302 and 303 are not generally applicable to mining operations that

choose to exempt themselves from these standards. Thus, the part 302 regulations to be adopted

by the Board in thisproceeding will not be applicable to mining operations that choose to invoke

their immunity.

2The Agency’s proposed revised language will be cited here as “IEPA Revised Proposal”.

3

---

reorganization is adopted by the Board,3

I

TheBoard ShouldAdopt Some ofthe Agency’s ProposedRevisions in

this Proceeding But, ifNecessary, Consider Other ofthe Agency’s

Proposals in a Separate Later

Proceeding.

TheAgency in its pre-filed testimony, filed August 10, 2001, and at theAugust24

hearing indicatedthat it would propose changes to the Board’s FirstNotice Proposal; particularly

regardingproposed Section 302.105(f). TheAgency’s proposed revisionswere filed October 5,

2001.

The Environmental Groups believe that someofthe

Agency’s proposed revisions should

be adoptedby

the Board in this proceeding.

Other revisions proposed by the Agency should not

be adopted in

this proceeding. Still other proposed Agency revisions should

only be adopted if

the Board is confident thatadoption of

the proposals will not delay the establishment of

antidegradation regulations for Illinois. If

necessary, Agency proposals that would substantially

delay adoption ofantidegradation regulations should be considered in a separate proceeding.

The basically sound First Notice Proposal should go into effect sooner ratherthan later.

A.

Proposed Agency Revisions to Section 302.105(b)(4) ofthe First

Notice Proposal

-

CWA Section 40lCertification

TheAgency’sproposed

changes to First Notice Proposal Section 302.105(b)(4) and many

3We apologizethat

it is sometimes very hard to follow all ofthe proposed language

changes and language movements.

We havetried to make our comments as clear as possible but

tracing proposed changes to a myriad ofsections of a proposed regulation and commenting on

theseproposed changes makes for difficult text. We welcome any calls to counsel by staff to the

Board that may serve to clarify our

proposals, within thebounds ofthe

rules

governing such

informal contacts by Board staff with participants in a regulatory proceeding.

4

---

ofthe proposed changes to otherportions of the First Notice Proposal are

designed to delete

references to Clean Water Act Section

401

certification from the regulations regarding

antidegradation permitting.

The Environmental Groups are concerned that the Agency proposal

eliminates any formal procedures for conducting antidegradation reviews for CWA 401

certifications. By removing CWA 401

certifications from First Notice Proposal Section

302.105(b)(4) and deleting references to CWA 401

certifications from 302.105(f) (before moving

what was in 302.105(f) to various sections ofpart 309), the Agency separates the procedures for

conducting an antidegradation review for NPDES permits from the procedures for reviewing

CWA 401

certifications.

There would then be no procedures established in this proceeding for

CWA 401

certifications at all.

We strongly object to these proposed changes.

The Agency’sjustification for insisting on entirely separate procedures for CWA 401

certifications (to be created in a future Agency rulemaking proceeding)

is its concern that certain

elements ofthe First Notice Proposal relating to Clean Water Act SectiOn 401

certification by

Illinois EPA of federally regulated activities (mainly wetland fill activities regulated by the U. S.

Army Corps under Section 404 ofthe Clean Water Act, 33

U.S.C.

§

1344) may not mesh with

federal procedures or will interfere with Illinois EPA’s ability to work with federal agencies.

Illinois EPA does not, however, point out any specific potential state/federal conflicts or cite any

provision ofthe First Notice Proposal that conflicts with any federal rule or procedure. The

Environmental Groups are unaware ofany manner in which the provisions ofthe First Notice

Proposal conflict with any federal rule orprocedure.4

4There is a wording problem in First Notice Proposal Section 302.105(d)(6) discussed

below. That minor problem, however, can be corrected without taking the drastic step of

5

---

It is

critical that Illinois EPA make sound CWA 401

certification decisions and that 401

certification not be a rubber stamp in Illinois, as it has often been in the past.

The Board’s First

Notice Proposal seems well designed to accomplish these results. Other than offering general

fears ofpossible future conflictswith federal

authorities, Illinois EPA does not offer any

reason

theprocedures for

consideration of CWA

401 certificationsshould be

different from those

spelled out in the First Notice Proposal.

Accordingly, the Environmental Groups disagree with the Agency’s proposed changes to

First NoticeProposal Section 302.105(b)(4) as well as with the Agency’sproposed changes to

other parts ofthe First Notice Proposal

insofar as these proposed changes are designed to remove

the procedures for making decisions regarding CWA Section

401

certification from the

procedures set forth in First Notice Proposal

Section 302.105(1). IEPA

Revised Proposal

Sections 309.1 03((a)(5),

and 309.108(d)

B.

Proposed Agency Changes to First Notice Proposal

Section

302.105(c)(2)

In the IEPA

Revised Proposal, the Agency suggests a new sentence at 302.l05(c)(2) that

the “assessment to determine compliance with this

Section 302.105

must be made on a case-by-

case basis.” The EnvironmentalGroups believe that this “case-by-case” language, as well as

different “case-by-case” language proposed byIERG, is unnecessary. However, given

the

apparent depth ofIERG’s feelings regarding this matter, wedo

not object to the inclusion of

either the “case-by-case” language that

is now proposed by the Agency (to please IERG) orto

dropping

all ofthe Board’s proposed permitting rules in so far as they apply to CWA 401

certification.

6

---

IERG’s proposed “case-by-case” language discussedbelow.5

C.

ProposedAgency Changesto FirstNotice Proposal Section

302.105(d)(5)

This proposal to exempt increased loadings ofnon-contact cooling water containing

chlorine to be permitted from the need for an antidegradation a~~ialysis

is

more limited than

proposals that have been made to create a broad exemption for non-contact cooling water

containing additives.

It is

possible

that an exemption like that proposed by the Agency

should be

adopted in a future proceeding, but we do not know.

There has not been any notice ofthis proposal or testimony regarding it. The

Environmental Groups could not in the few days that they knew ofthis proposal determine with

confidence that chlorine is removed bythe

processes required by.the Agency to the extent that it

never poses a

danger to aquatic life. Certainly, there is no evidence in the record ofthis

proceeding that

multiple sources ofchlorine, regulated to the degree residual chlorine is

regulated in Illinois, will never lessen the assimilative capacity ofthe receiving water.

We note

furtherthat the present residual chlorine effluent standard would allow discharges that would

raise ambient

chlorine levels to levels above the standard for acute toxicity.6

51twould be extremely repetitive for the Board to include boththe IllinoisEPA

and

IERG

proposed “case-by-case” clauses in the final rule.

6

The Agency’s proposed 302.105(d)(5)(B) would

allow discharges of chlorine that are nearly ten

times the general water quality standard without any antidegradation review.

We doubt such

an

exemption

is appropriate.

The Agency’s proposed

302.105(d)(5)(B)

states that an antidegradation review ~s

unnecessary for

discharges of chlorine as long as the cooling water “is treated to remove

residual chlorine, returned to the

same body of water from which

it was taken, as defined in 35

III. Adm.

Code 352.104,

provided

that the

discharge complies with applicable

Illinois thermal and effluent standards.” Illinois’ effluent standards for

total residual chlorine (35 III Admin. Code 304.222) only apply to non-intermittent discharges.

Non-

intermittent discharges are any that occur on

a frequency greater than “two hours per day per condenser

7

S

---

The Board should not adopt the Agency’s proposed exemption from antidegradation

requirements for non-contact cooling water with chlorine additives in this proceeding. It may

well be that a future petition to create such an exemption, properly supported by evidence that

can

bereviewed by the public, should be granted.

In the meantime, the lack ofsuch a chlorine exemption should impose little hardship.

An

increased loadingofnon-contact cooling water containing a tinyamount ofchlorine

discharged

intowaters

providing adequate dilution will need to undergo

an antidegradation analysis. But,

using the case-by-caseapproach adoptedby the Board, the antidegradation

analysis ofsuch a

loading may not need to be much more than a recitation ofthe facts regarding the need to

disinfect and the insignificance ofthe increased chlorine loading.

D.

Proposed Agency Changes to First Notice Proposal Section

302.1 05(d)(6)

The Environmental Groups agree with the Agency’s proposed change to

Section

302.105(d)(6) ofthe First Notice Proposal regarding general NPDES permits and

national and

regional Clean Water Act 404 permits.

Under U.S. Army Corps regulations governing

nationwide and regional Section 404 permits, a state is given a chance to refuse to certify the

or cooling system unit.”

The numerical

standards for these non-intermittent discharges

is 0.2 mg/L

(chronic) and 0.5

mg/L (acute).

The water quality standard for total residual chlorine is 0.011

mg/L (chronic) and 0.019 mg/L (acute).

35

Ill.

Admin. Code 302.208(e).

The Agency proposal

therefore exempts from antidegradation review non-

intermittent discharges of chlorine that are nearly twice the chronic water quality standards and over two-

and-a-half times the acute water quality standard.

Furthermore, the Agency proposal seems to exempt

from antidegradation review all intermittent discharges of less than two hours duration although

acute

toxicity standards are normally based on consideration of a one hour exposure.

It should also

be noted

that

Illinois’ 2000 305(b)

report indicates that several miles of Illinois streams are already impaired

by

chlorine discharges, underscoring the possibility of environmental damage from chlorine discharges that

presumably meetthe effluent standards described in Section 304.222.

8

---

nationwide or regional permit for its

state, or to certify the nationwide or regional permit subject

to whatever limits the state chooses to impose.

Thus, Illinois EPA in reviewing proposed

nationwide or regional permits should reject certification or limit its certification ofa proposed

permit to assure

that waters ofparticularbiological

significance are not affected by the permit.

After a nationwide or regional permit has been certified (subject to whatever limitations

are imposed), Illinois EPA will not have occasion to certify or otherwise review activities falling

within the certifiedpermit.

As discussedbelow

(in part III), the Environmental Group also propose a revision to First

Notice Proposal Section 302.105(d)(6).

E.

Proposed Changes to Section 302.105(f) IEPA

Revised Proposal

Sections 309.103, 309.108, 309.113, and 309.141

On October

5, the Agency has made a number ofproposals forrevisions to Section

302.105(f) ofthe FirstNotice Proposal. TheEnvironmental Groups agree withsome ofthe

Agency’s proposed revisions and oppose others.

1.

Deleting the References to CWA Section 401

For the reasons discussedabove, the

Environmental Groups oppose deleting references to

Clean Water ActSection401 from302.105(f), or, ifthe Agency’sproposed reorganization is

adopted, the respective portions of

Part 309.

The First Notice Proposal

is generally

sound as to

CWA Section 401

certifications and

no federal-state conflicthasbeen identified that would result

from the Board adopting the First Notice Proposal.

2~

Moving Language in 302.105(1) to Part 309

The Agency’s view that

“housekeeping”

considerations (Frevert Testimony, Transcript

9

---

ofProceedings, August 24, 2001

at

80) support moving the proposed language of Section

302.105(1) to Part 309 regarding permitting procedures is probably correct. But the

Environmental Groups cannot support any housekeeping measures that substantially delay the

establishment ofsound antidegradation regulations. The Agency continues to consider NPDES

permits

fornew or increased discharges to Illinois waters under the currentvague regulations

without implementation rules. New CWA 401

certification decisions are made nearly every

week.

The Board should adopt sound regulations as soon as feasible. The Board shoUld not

make changes to the First Notice Proposal motivated by aesthetic or housekeeping considerations

if the changes will delay adoption ofeffective regulations.

3.

Permit Applications

-

Needed Change to 302.105(f)(1)~IEPA

Revised Proposal, Section 309.103(a)(5)

-

“with a new or

increased permit limit”

should be deleted.

The first sentence of302.105(f)(1) now begins:

A permit application for any proposed increase in pollutant loading

that necessitates a new, renewed, or modified NPDES permit, with

a new or increased permit limit,

The Agency proposes striking “with a new or increased permit limit”,

and the

Environmental

Groups agree with this proposal.7

These words arguably conflict with the first

sentence ofFirst Notice Proposal Section 302.105(c)(2) and are capable

ofbeing misconstrued.

Theproblem here can best be seenusing anexample. A sewerage treatment

plant

pennitted to discharge a daily averageflow of 1 million gallons

per

day into the Mississippi

7The Agency also proposes striking the referenceto“CWA Section 401 certification.” For

the reasons given above, we do not agree with this proposed change.

10

---

River will probably not have an ammonia effluent limit.

There will be sufficient dilution that,

unless mixing is very pooror there

are

unusual conditions

in the vicinity of the discharge, an

ammonia effluent limit will

not be needed. Were that plant operator to seek a permit to triple its

discharge without changing its treatment technology, there would be an increased loading

of

ammonia that

should receive some level ofantidegradation review ~robably

fairly cursory for

the facts ofthis

example), but there still would probably not need to be a new or increased permit

limit for ammonia. The language that is now in 302.l05(f)(1) muddies the conclusionthat an

antidegradation analysis mustbe done

in this case where there is a new loading,

but no new

permit limits.8

We believe that everyone is now clear and agrees that theevent that triggersan

antidegradation assessment (subject to

the specified exceptions) is a change to a permit or new

permit to allow a

new or increased

loadingofany

pollutant. For the dischargerto

change its

operations in a

way

that increases the loading within the confines ofthe existing permit (e.g.

while holding aNPDES permit allowing dischargeof

300 lbs ofa pollutant per day, increasing

the actual discharge from 100

lbs per day to 250 lbs per day) does not trigger an antidegradation

assessment. Thatassessment should havebeendonewhen

the permit was granted to

discharge

the

amount

allowedby

the permit.

On the other hand, seeking a permit to increase the total

dischargefrom a facility (e.g. requesting a permit to go from 1 MGD to

3 MGD) does trigger an

8Actually, in originally reading the FirstNotice Proposal, we

did not catch this problem.

Weassumed that

the Board meant that the increased discharge volume allowed by thepermit,

whichwould be reflected in a

newpermit limit, would trigger an antidegradation analysis

regarding the increased loading of all pollutants for which there would be an increased loading,

even if there were no effluent limits for those specific pollutants the loading ofwhich would

increase as aresult ofpermitting a larger total discharge.

11

---

antidegradation analysis as to eachpollutant forwhich an increased loading can

be anticipated,

even as to pollutants for which there is no effluent limit in the old or new permit.9

4.

Other Agency Proposed Changes to 302.105(f)(1) IEPA

Revised

Proposal,

309.103(a)(5)

The Agency proposes adding the words “but are not limited to” to First Notice Proposal,

Section 302.1 05(f)(1)(C) IEPA

Revised Proposal, 309.1 03(a)(5)(C)and

302.1 05(f)(l )(D)

IEPA

Revised Proposal, 309.l03(a)(5)(D).

The Environmental Groups do not think that this

proposed change has

any substantive effect.

5.

Pre-Permit Application Assessment

by the Agency

-

302.l05(f)(2)(A)-(C) Deleted from IEPARevised Proposal

It is clearthat some re-draftingofFirst Notice Proposal Section 302.1 05(f)(2)(B) is

necessary to make clear thatno appeal

may be taken prior to the denial ofa permit or the

issuance of a permit with conditions. Further,

the Environmental Groups agree with the Agency

that the rules regarding informal consultationby permit applicants withtheAgency should

not be

in the Board rules.

The Agency proposal,whichremoves all the languagenowcontained in 302.105(f)(2)

(A)through (C), eliminates these problemsand is

supported by the Environmental Groups.

9Also,

it does not affect

the result if the discharger does not in fact intend to discharge to

the full extent ofthe loading or concentration permit limits.

The permit must be considered

under the assumptionthat everything that is permitted will be done because there will not be

another opportunity to consider antidegradation if the discharger increases its loading within its

permit limits.

Permit applicants should avoid asking to be allowed to pollute more than they

actually need to pollute in order to avoid the need for an antidegradation analysis based on the

effects ofdischarges they do not intend to make.

12

---

6.

Written Analysis and Terms and Conditions of Permits

-

302.105(f)(2)(D) IEPA

Revised Proposal, 309.108(d)

The Agency’s new proposal uses language now in Section 302.105(f)(2)(D) of the First

Notice proposal to create a new 309.108(d) on written analysis ofthe proposed increase in

loading.

The Environmental Groups do not believe that any changes are

necessary towhat is now

First Notice Proposal

Section 302.105(f)(2)(D).

Ifthe Board chooses not to rearrange and

move

302.105(1), 302.105(f)(2)(D) can become the entire text of 302.105(f)(2).

See Attachment ONE.

Turning now to the Agency’s proposed 309.108 (d), it can

be seen that, while borrowing

from First Notice Proposal Section 302.105(f)(2)(D), the Agency proposes a number ofchanges

to

the Board language.

Most notably, the changes call for the Agency to make an “assessment”

ofthe “proposed activity” rather than determining whether the “demonstration” made by the

applicant meets the requirement of302.105.

The practical import ofthe nuance regarding “demonstration” by the applicant versus

“assessment” by the Illinois EPA is unclear.

The law is clear that an applicant for a NPDES

permit must show that it is entitled to the permit. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. Illinois EPA,

314111.

App. 3d 296,

743 N.E. 2d

18,

24

(4t~~

Dist. 2Q00); ESG Watts v.

Pollution Control Board,

224 Ill. App. 3d 592, 586 N.E. 2d 1320,1322 (3d. Dist.

1992). On the other hand,

no one has ever

suggested that the Illinois EPA cannot assist the applicant to assemble the necessary information

or contribute whatever

relevant information Illinois

EPA has to the record. Ultimately, if the

evidence to support issuing the permit does not make it into the record, the permit cannot be

issued legally.

13

---

7.

FactSheets

-

302.105(f)(3)~IEPA Revised Proposal, Section

309.113(a)(6)

In the new Agency proposal, what is now First Notice Proposal Section 302.105(f)(3) is

moved to Part 309

to become 309.1l3(a)(6).

As stated above, the Environmental Groups are

concerned about the potential that moving sections to Part 309 will delay enactment of a final

rule. Further,

we seeno real reason tomakeany changes to the language that isnowcontained in

First Notice Proposal Section 302.105(f)(3).

However, the Environmental Groups have no specific objections to the language

proposed by the Agency in its proposed 309.113(a)(6)

8.

The Agency’s Proposed 309.141(i)

Again using language from

Section 302.105(f)(1) ofthe Board’s First Notice Proposal,

the Agency

proposes a new subsection 309.141(i). The Environmental Groups have no objection

to the language of

this proposed new section, except for the fact it does not cover CWA Section

401

certifications. However, forthe reasons stated above, we are concerned about adoption of

any proposed language that might lead to a substantial delay in adoption offinal regulations.

Further,

we are

uncertain whether the proposed new 309.141(i) is necessary.

II

With A Few Exceptions, the Changes to the First Notice Proposal proposed by

IERG Should be Rejected by the Board.

IERG in its August 24 testimony reargued matters that were considered by the Board and

rejected in its

June 21 FirstNotice Opinion

and Order.

With a few exceptions, the changes IERG

proposed inAugust to the FirstNotice Proposal should be rejected

by the Board.

However, it is our understanding that

IERG now intends to withdraw some ofthe

proposals that itmade in August. Whilewe appreciate

the efforts IERG is making to simplify

14

---

this proceeding, we are now in a somewhat difficult rhetorical position. We

do not wish to “beat

a deadhorse” by arguing at length

against

proposals that IERG is no longer advocating, but the

fact thatIERG is no

longer advocating a revision does not, ofcourse, preclude the Board from

adopting it. Further, unlike the situation as to

the Agency’s final proposal filed last

week, we do

not havethe

benefit of

seeingIERG’s final filing.’0

A.

Changes to

the Heading and First Notice Section 102.800

The Environmental Groups agree to IERG’s correction ofthe typographical error in

“RESOURCE” andhaveno objectionto IERG’s

proposed insertion ofthe words

“the adoption,

amendment, or

repeal of’ in Section 102.800.

In Section 102.800,IERG alsoproposes

the addition ofthe word “body” after water, a

proposedchange

it continues throughout its proposal. We do not see that adding the word “body”

after “water” throughout the regulation adds anything ofgreatvalue.

B.

Notice ofanORW Petition

-

IERG”s Proposed Changes to First

Notice Proposal Section

102.8 10 Should Be Rejected.

IERG again attempts to impose vastly greater notice requirements on people trying

to

keepwater clean than is required forpersons seeking permits to pollute, variances or site specific

relief.

The Board was correct in believing that the normal notice given ofBoard proceedings is

sufficient. The Illinois

EPA’s offer to assist in assuring that parties holding or applying

for

permits in potentially

affected waters will receive notice (Frevert Testimony,

Transcript of

ProceedingsAugust 24,

2001, at 87), should serve to eliminate any

doubts that the Board had

‘°Which,ofcourse, is

also IERG’s situation as to our final proposals. IERG and the

Environmental Groups have attempted to share ideas

but we have had to fashion our

final

comments simultaneously.

15

---

about its initial decision not to require that extraordinary notice be required ofpetitioners for

ORW designations.

C.

ProposedIERG Changes to

First Notice Proposal 102.820

Thechangesproposed byIERG inAugust to the First

Notice Proposal Section 102.820

should not be adopted, except that IERG’s proposed change to

102.820(e)(4)

adding “of an ORW

designation” adds clarity and should be adopted.

However, the proposed addition of Section

102.820(k) on published notice should be rejected because published notice is not necessary, not

likely to be useful,

and almost certain to be a wasted effort.

Generally, the scope and burden ofthe petition must

bekept to a

reasonable level or the

opportunity to petition effectively will be frustrated and any ORW petitions that occur will be

extremely bulky.

As withother Board regulatory proposals, if it is clear from the petition that an

ORW proposal is serious and might be granted, a hearing should be held to hear evidence.

D.

Proposed IERGChange to First Notice Proposal 102.830

IERG’s proposed changes to Section 102.830

should be rejected. It is unclear what it

is

intended to accomplish byproposing to substitute theword “may” for “must” in 102.830(b). On

its face,

the proposed change would allow the Board to reject arbitrarily an

ORW designation

although the Board finds the water qualifies

for designation and the public interest favors

designation.

The IERG August 24th proposal that the language explicitly place a burden on the

“proponent ofthe designation” should

also be rejected.”

The Environmental

Groups agree that

“It

is ourunderstanding that IERG no longer intends to press for this portion of its

August

24th

proposal.

16

---

the record must show that the requirements of 102.83 0(b)(1) and (2) are met, but there is no point

to emphasizing that the proponent make this showing.’2

The evidence showing that the

designation should be made can be offered by anyone participating in the proceeding.

E.

Proposed IERG Changes to First Notice Proposal Section

302.105(b)

IERG’s August 24th proposal regarding the section governing the circumstances in which

new pollution may be permitted into an ORW would essentially gut the concept of an ORW.

The whole idea ofan outstanding resource water designation is to allow the state to designate

waters that (subject to

very limited exceptions) will not be subject to future degradation.

Generally, new pollution should be allowed in ORWs only if it is a necessary part

ofan activity

that will actually improve water quality.

It is our understanding that IERG intends to withdraw its August

24th

proposal in favor of

language that only allows an ORW to receive new loadings under more limited circumstances.

Although the Environmental Groups themselves are offering proposed changes to First Notice

Proposal Section 302.105(b), we believe that the difference between the positions of IERG and

the Environmental Groups regarding 302.105(b) are nowvery narrow. (See part III ofthese

commentsbelow)

‘2Indeed, it is somewhat ironic that IERGwas concerned that there be no implication in

302.105(f) that the evidence justifying allowing new pollution must come from the permit

applicant, but asked forlanguage that suggests

that the evidence supporting

an ORW designation

mustcome fromthe proponent. Actually,

it should not in practice make much difference.

A

permit applicant or proponentofanORW

designation should be allowedto refer to evidence

originating with other parties to the proceeding in making their necessary showing.

17

---

F.

Proposed IERG Changes to First Notice Proposal 302.105(c)

IERG in its August 24th proposal suggested language

stating explicitly that the

302.105(c) analysismust bemade on a “case-by-case” basis.

As stated above in discussing a

“case-by-case” language proposalby the Agency,we do notoppose additionofsome such “case-

by-case” language.

The Environmental

Groups do oppose IERG’s August

~

proposal toadd “to

the extent

it deems necessary” to the first sentence of 302.105(c)(2).’3

The “to the extent necessary”

language could conceivably lead to a mistaken inferencethat the Board intends to give the

Agency some sort ofnon-reviewable discretionto makea

determination as to the extent ofthe

assessment that

is necessary to make the determination under 302.105(c).

Under the First Notice

Proposal it is clear that the Agency must make this determination on a case-by-case basis and, of

course, the Agency will only require and analyze data to the extent it deems necessary.

But the

Agency’s determination

ofthe extent ofassessment necessary, like other Agency determinations,

is ultimately reviewable

by the Board.

Other language in IERG’s August

24th

proposal would have stated that the Agency should

consider “some or all of’ the fourelements listed in 302.1 05(c)(2)(B). Plainly the Agency must

assure that all four elements listed are

present before

a permit for a new or increased pollutant

loading can be permitted.

‘3We believe that this proposal is also to being withdrawn by IERG.

18

---

G.

Proposed IERG Changes to Section 302.105(d)

-

Exceptions to

Antidegradation

1.

Additives

The IERG August

24th

proposal to allow categorically new pollution from non-contact

cooling watercontaining IllinoisEPAapproved additives should notbe accepted. The fact that

IllinoisEPA

has approved the discharge ofcooling water containing a certain loading of

additives does not prove that loading a larger amount or concentration ofadditives would

necessarily be safe or wise.

Illinois EPA does not maintain a list ofcooling water additives that

are universally

safe to load into Illinois waters no matter what the effluent level or concentration

and it is doubtful that any suchadditives exist,’4

It is our understanding that IERG now intends only to urge the Board to accept the

exception for chlorine proposed by the Agency.

As stated above, the risks ofadding chlorine

without an antidegradation analysis have not been sufficiently explored in this proceeding for

such an exception tobeadoptednow.

2.

General Permits

As noted above (part I.D), the Environmental

Groups agree with the proposal ofthe

Agency to make a change to the first sentence ofFirst Notice Section 302.105(d)(6) regarding

nationwide or regional CWA 404 permits. It is our understanding that IERG joins in this view.

However, IERG’s proposal to change the

last sentence of 302.105(d)(6) to allow new

‘4Moreover,IERG hasnever proposed exempting these same pollutants if they originate

forma source other than non-contact cooling water. The

Board should not exempt pollutants

from antidegradation review based on their source without regard to their concentration, loading

or potential environmental effect.

19

---

pollution without an antidegradation analysis for all activities

covered by a general NPDES or

nationwide or regional 404 permit, except foractivities affecting ORWs, should be rejected.

There are many biologically significant and sensitive waters in Illinois and, as we all know, no

ORWs have been designated in Illinois.

Illinois remaining high quality streams should not be

allowed to be degraded through general

permits.

3.

Site Stormwater

Another proposal for an exemption that we understand IERG is now withdrawing,

concerned stormwater from sites with approved stormwaterpollution prevention plans.

The

Board should not adopt this August

24th

IERG proposal.

Basically, if an activity

is

covered by an existing

stormwaterpermit, it does not need an

antidegradation analysis for the same reason that all discharges and activities covered by existing

permits

do not need an antidegradation analysis. It is already permitted.

However, if it is

proposed to conduct new or expanded activities which will require a new or expanded permit, the

activity should be subject to some level ofantidegradation analysis.

For example, the factthat a

stormwaterpollution prevention plan exists

for construction activities to disturb a certain 10

acres ofland does not mean that there should not be an antidegradation analysis to decide

whether activities should be permitted thatwould disturban additional 10 acres.

4.

Site SpecificRegulation

TheexemptionIERGproposed

August

24th

for discharges authorized by a site-specific

regulation, adjusted standard, or variance should notbe adopted by

the Board. The Agency

naturally may

use any relevantBoard findings or rulings in making its antidegradation analysis

and in some cases such use will result in a very quick antidegradation analysis.

However, it is

20

---

better not to establish anexemption

that will result in arguments over whether the exception is

applicable when itwould be easier to simply

do the antidegradation analysis.

5.

De Minimis

It is

our

understanding that IERG is also withdrawing the de minimis exemption proposal

it offered in

August. The August

24th

proposal,while narrower than earlierIERG proposals, still

would have

required the Agency to limit the extent ofits

antidegradation analysis based on

consideration ofonly

a few ofthe factors that

it should consider

in determining the extent of

analysis needed.’5

H.

Proposed IERGChanges to 302.105(f)

In itsAugust proposal,IERGproposed

a number ofchanges to the Board’s First Notice

Proposal Section 302.105(f).

It is ourunderstanding thatIERG

is now making some ofthe

changes it proposed for revisions to 302.105(f) in the form ofproposed changes to the Agency’s

proposed changes to Part 309.

IERG is no longer proposing some of the other changes it

proposed to the First Notice Proposal on August 24th.

Responding first briefly toIERG’s August 24tf~proposals regarding 302.105(f), the

Environmental Groups

oppose the

“To the extent the

Agency

deems necessary” language that

IERG proposed for the beginning of302.l05(f)(1) for the reasons given in discussing the “to the

extent it deems necessary” language that was contained in IERG’s August

24th

proposal to revise

‘5IERG’s August

24th

de

minimis proposal also relied on an inappropriate and largely

inapplicable methods ofanalysis, the concept of“reasonable potential”,

for determining the

assimilative capacity ofthe receiving waters.

21

---

Section 302.105(c)(2)

ofthe First Notice Proposal.’6

Also, again, the Environmental Groups do not object to addition ofsome explicit “case-

by-case” language such as that contained in IERG’s August

24th

302.105(f) proposal

although we

do not believe it is necessary.

Asnoted above,

the Environmental Groups support the Agency’s proposal, followed by

IERG, to delete the languagenowcontained in First Notice Proposal 302.105(f)(2)(A) through

302.105(f)(2)(C)

from the Board rules.

TheEnvironmental

Groups have reviewed a draft ofIERG’s proposed changes to the

Agency’sproposed language

for 309.103(a)(5),

309.108, 309.113 and 309.141. As explained

above, the Environmental Groups harbor doubts regarding the need for the Agency’s proposal to

reorganize the First Notice Proposal, oppose making the procedural rules inapplicable to CWA

401 certifications, and donot see a compelling

need for a number ofthe Agency’s other proposed

changes to

the language now in First Notice Proposal

302.105(f). Keeping all those issues in

mind and

assuming that the final IERG proposal regarding proposed Part

309 changes does

not

contain new language, we do not find any basis on which to choose between the Agency and

IERG proposals for Part 309.

III

Summary ofProposed Environmental Group Changes

The Environmental Groups have proposed few changes to the First Notice Proposal and

16

We believe that

the “to extent it deems necessary

language”

proposal is not contained

inIERG’s proposed changes to

309.l03(a)(5).

The First Notice Proposal,

the Agency proposal, and the old and new IERG’s proposals

all contain the “to the extent necessary forthe Agency” language that appears later in the first

sentence ofFirst Notice Proposal

302.105(f)(1) IEPA

Revised Proposal 309.1 03(a)(5)

The

Environmental Groups do not object to that later language.

22

---

those proposed changes do not require extensive discussion here except for those that havebeen

revised since the August 24 hearing.

Changes are proposed to the following sections ofthe First

Notice Proposal:

Title to SubpartH

-

Correct typo

byadding “R”.

FirstNotice Proposal. Section 102.830(b)(1)

-

replace “uniquely highbiological or recreational

quality” with “exceptional recreational or ecological significance”

First Notice Proposal, Section 302.105(b)

-

As mentioned above and in the August 24 testimony

ofRobert Moore, changes are necessary to this provision which specifies the circumstances in

which new pollution may be allowed in waters designated as ORWs. As currently drafted, First

Notice Proposal Section 302.105(b) might be read to allow degradation that we believe it was not

intended to allow and also to preventcertain loadings that were probably intended to be allowed.

In general, new permits should not be granted that would allow any new loading to

outstanding resource waters.

The only exceptions are:

-

newpermits for a new or increased loading that

is necessary to facilitate an

improvement to water quality’7

-

newpermits for a new or increase loading that results

in

~

a temporary lowering of

water quality

-

a new permit for an existing stormwater discharge for which a permit is needed, not

because there is

a new loading, but because ofthe recently expandedcoverage of

‘7The classicexample ofthis is aNPDES permitto allow

unavoidable permitted

discharges from a sewerage treatment plant needed to replace a defective

septic system.

23

---

stormwater permitting requirements.’8

Accordingly, we propose that 302.105(b) be revised to provide as follows:

b)

Outstanding Resource Waters

1)

Waters that are designated as Outstanding Resource Waters

(ORWs)

pursuant to

35 Ill.

Adm.

Code

303.205

and listed in

35

Iii. Adm.

Code

303.206 must not be lowered in

quality except by:

A)

Activities that result only in short-term, temporary (i.e..

weeks or

months) lowering of water quality in an ORW: or

B)

Stormwater discharges in existence

on the date ofthe ORW

designation that only require a NPDES permit or CWA 401

certification because of new regulatory requirements,

that

comply with

applicable federal and state stormwater management

regulations.

and do

not result in a violation of any water quality

standards.

2)

Any activity

in subsections (b)(1)(A) or (b)(1)(B)

that requires a National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or a Clean Water Act

(CWA) Section 401

certification must also comply with (c)(2).

3)

To be permitted.

an increase in pollutant

loading to

an ORW must also

meet the following requirements:

A)

All existing uses

Of

the water will be fully protected:

B)

Except for activities falling under

the

exceptions provided in

302.105(b)(fl(A) or (B)

above.

i.the proposed increase in pollutant loading

is necessary for an

activity that will

improve water quality in the ORW: and

ii.

The

improvement could not be practicably achieved

without

the proposed increase

in pollutant loading.

‘8Actually, this case does not actually encompass anew loading at all but a new permit

for an existing loading.

24

---

4)

Any proposed increase in pollutant loading requiring an NPDES permit

or a CWA 401 certification for an ORW must be

assessed pursuant to

subsection

(1’) to determine compliance with this

Section.

Regarding our proposed revision to Section 302.105(b)(1)(B), the Environmental Groups

have consistently objected to the language proposed by the Agency and the Board regarding

“existing site stormwater discharges”and degradation ofORWs.

The purpose ofdesignating an

ORW is to ensure that water quality is maintained and protected forthe purposes of preserving

waters ofexceptional ecological or recreational significance from all new sources ofpollution,

including stormwater.

In reviewing past comments and testimony on this subject, we presumed, as IERG did at

the August 24th Board hearing “that this provision was included to allow the continued operation

offacilities that were cited prior to the time a water segment was designated

an ORW.”

(Hirner

Testimony, Transcript ofProceedings, August 24,

at

17)

The language offered above for 302.l05(b)(l)(B) more specifically identifies the types of

discharges meant to

be addressed by this exemption, namely stormwater discharges that are in

existence at the time that an ORW is designated.

This language is more clear thanthe “existing

site stormwater discharges” language.

Designation of an ORW precludes the authorization ofnew pollutant loading that would

result in a net degradation ofwater quality, except as allowed for under 301.105

(b)(1 )(A) and

(B).

However, if a stormwater discharge that had been in existence for some time required an

NPDES permit or CWA 401

certification only because ofthe new Phase II stormwater permitting

requirements or other regulatory changes (see 40 CFR 122.26), it would be reasonable to grant

the permit for that existing stormwater discharge despite an ORW designation.

25

---

First Notice Proposal.

Section 302.105(d)(6)

-

The Environmental Groups proposed that the

term “particular biological significance” be clarified by adding:

which include waters identified by the Illinois Department of

Natural Resources to be biologically significant. waters known to

contain state or federally listed threatened or endangered species,

or waters identified as having high levels ofbiodiversity

Portions ofthe report referenced by Robert Moore during his testimony,

Biologically

SigntfIcant Illinois Streams,

are attached as Attachment THREE. The entire report is being

submitted to the Board.

It would not be burdensome for the Board to require Illinois EPA to review IDNR

documents in determining the waters ofparticular biological significance. Illinois EPA is already

using

Biologically Sign~Icant Illinois Streams

in making decisions on NPDES permits.

See

Attachment FOUR.

First Notice Proposal. Section 302.1 05(f’)Il)

-

The clause providing “with a new or increased

permit limit” should be deleted for the reasons stated above regarding the Agency proposal to

delete this language.

New Proposed. Section 302.105(f)(l)(G)

-

TheEnvironmental

Groups believe that the Board

regulations must make clear that the Illinois Department ofNatural Resources should be notified

ofproposals to allow new or increased pollution to Illinois waters.

IDNR has broad

responsibilities under its general powers (20 ILCS 801/1-15),

the Illinois Endangered Species

Act (520 ILCS

10 et.

Seq.), and other authorities to protect Illinois

aquatic life.

A new

subsection should be

added to the 302.105(f)(1)(G) that states:

The Agency shall notify the Illinois DepartmentofNatural

Resources ofthe application as soon as practicable to allow IDNR

26

---

an opnortunitv to nrepare comments

or recommendations prior to

issuance ofthe public notice ofthe draft permit or CWA Section

401

certification.

First Notice Proposal.

Section 302.1 05(f)(2)(B)

-

As was indicated in our filing of

August

10, 2001, there

is a problem with this subsection ofthe First Notice

proposal.

This

issue, ofcourse, would be resolved by

adopting the Agency proposal ofdeleting the language

now contained in 302.105(f)(2)(A), (B) and (C) from the final Board rule and leaving the

matters now covered by those subsections for consideration by Illinois EPA.First Notice

Proposal. Section

303.205

-

The phrase “of exceptional recreational or ecological significance”

should be substituted for “uniquely high.”

27

---

CONCLUSION

The Board’s First Notice Proposal needs

very little improvement.

With the few changes

necessary, the proposal should be adopted by the Board promptly so that it can begin to govern

NPDES permitting and CWA Section 401

certification decisions in Illinois.

Respectfully

ubmitted,

Albert F. Ettinger

(ARDC #3

25045)

Counselfor Environmental Law and Policy

Center, Friends ofthe Fox River,

Prairie Rivers Network,

and Sierra Club

35 E.

Wacker Dr. Suite 1300

Chicago, Illinois 60601-2110

Robert Moore, Executive Director

Prairie Rivers Network

809 South Fifth Ave.

Champaign, Illinois 61820

Jack Darin, Director

Illinois Chapter

-

Sierra Club

200 N. Michigan Ave. Suite 505

Chicago, Illinois, 60601

Cynthia

L.

Skrukrud, President

Friends ofthe Fox River

4209 W.

Solon Rd.

Richmond, Illinois 60071

October 11,2001

28

---

Attachment

ONE

SUBPART H: OUTSTANDING RESOURCEWATER DESIGNATION

Section

102.800

Applicability

This Subpart applies to any person seeking the adoption, amendment, or repeal ofan Outstanding

Resource Water (ORW) designation for a surface water or any water segment as provided by

35

Ill.

Adni.

Code 303.205.

Section 102.810

Petition

Any person may submit a petition for the adoption, amendment or repeal ofan ORW

designation.

The original and nine (9) copies ofeach petition must be filed with the Clerk and

one (1) copy each

served

upon the Agency, Illinois Department ofNatural Resources, and the

Attorney General.

Section

102.820

Petition Contents

Each proponent must set forth the following information in its proposal:

a)

The language of the proposed rule, amendment, or repealer identifying the waters

or water segment being proposed for designation as a ORW.

Language being

added must be indicated by underscoring, and language being deleted must be

indicated by strike-outs.

The proposed rule must be drafted in accordance with

1

Ill. Adm. Code 100.Subpart C;

A statement describing the specific

surface water or water segment for which the

b)

ORW designation is requested and the present designation ofthe surface water or

water segment;

A statement describjn~

the area in which the specific

surface water or segment

exists including:

1)

The existence ofwetlands or natural areas;

2)

The living organisms in that area including endangered or threatened

species ofplants, aquatic life or wildlife listed pursuant to the Endangered

Species Act,

16 USC

1531

et seq. or the Illinois Endangered Species

Protection Act, 41

ILCS

10.

d~

A statement supporting the designation including the health, environmental,

recreational, aesthetic or economic benefits ofthe designation

c)

---

2

e)

A statement identifying the ORW designation’s anticipated impact on economic

and social development.

This statement should include:

1)

Impacts on the regional economy;

2)

Impacts on regional employment;

3)

Impacts on the communi1~y.

4)

A comparison of the health and environmental impacts ofan ORW

designation to the economic impact ofan ORW designation.

f)

A statement describing the existing and

anticipated uses ofthe specific surface

water or water segment forwhich the ORW designation is requested;

g)

A statement describing the existing quality ofthe specific surface water or water

segment warranting the ORW designation

h)

A synopsis ofall testirhony to be presented by the proponent at hearing;

i)

Copies ofany material to be incorporated by reference within the proposed

designation pursuant to

Section

5-75

ofthe Administrative Procedures

Act;

Proofof service upon all persons required to be served

nursmint

to Section

102.8 10 of this Part;

k)

Unless the proponent

is the Agency,

Illinois

Department of Natural Resources or

receives a waiver by the Board, a petition signed by at least 200 persons, pursuant

to Section 28 ofthe Act and Section

102.160(a);

and

fL~

Where any information required by this Section

is inapplicable orunavailable,

a

complete justification for such inapplicability or unavailability.

Section

102.830

1)

Failure ofthe proponent to satisfy the content requirements for proposals

under this

Subpart or failure to respond to

Board requests for additional

information will render a proposal subiect to dismissal for inadequacy.

2)

Failure of the proponent to

pursue disposition ofthe petition in a timely

manner will rendera petition subject to dismissal. In making this

determination, the Board may consider factors including the history ofthe

j)

Board Action

~jj

Dismissal

---

3

proceeding and the proponent’s compliance with any Board or hearing

officer orders.

3)

Any person may file a motion challenging the sufficiency of the petition

pursuant to 35

Ill.

Adrn. Code

101 .Subpart B.

b)

Designation ofORW.

The Board must designate a water body or water body

segment as an

ORW and list it in 35

Ill. Adm. Code 303.206

if it finds:

1)

The water body or water body segment is ofuniquely high biological

or

recreational qualit~exceptional recreational or ecological significance~

and

The benefits ofprotection ofthe water from future degradation outweinh

the benefits of economic or social opportunities that will be lost ifthe

water is designated as an ORW.

(Added at

Ill.

Reg. ___________,effective

____________

TITLE

35:

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE C:

WATER POLLUTION

CHAPTER I:

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PART 302

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

SUBPART A:

GENERAL WATER QUALITY PROVISIONS

Section

302.100

Definitions

302.101

Scope and Applicability

302.102

Allowed Mixing, Mixing Zones and ZIDS

302.103

Stream Flows

302.104

Main River Temperatures

302.105

Antidegradation Nondegradation

SUBPART B:

GENERAL USE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

Section

302 .201

Scope and Applicability

302.202

Purpose

302.203

Offensive

Conditions

302.204

pH

302.205

Phosphorus

302.206

Dissolved Oxygen

302.207

Radioactivity

302.208

Numeric Standards for Chemical Constituents

2)

---

4

302.209

Fecal Coliform

302.2 10

Other Toxic Substances

302.2 11

Temperature

302.2 12

Ammonia Nitrogen and Un-ionized Ammonia

302.2 13

Effluent Modified Waters (Ammonia)

SUBPART C:

PUBLIC AND FOOD PROCESSING WATER SUPPLY STANDARDS

Section

302.30 1

Scope and Applicability

302.302

Algicide Permits

302.303

Finished Water Standards

302.304

Chemical Constituents

302.305

Other Contaminants

302.306

Fecal Coliform

SUBPART D: SECONDARY CONTACTAND iNDIGENOUSAQUATICLIFE

STANDARDS

Section

302.401

Scope

and Applicability

302.402

Purpose

302.403

Unnatural Sludge

302.404

pH

302.405

Dissolved Oxygen

302.406

Fecal Coliform (Repealed)

302.407

Chemical Constituents

302.408

Temperature

302.409

Cyanide

302.410

Substances Toxic to

Aquatic Life

SUBPART B:

LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

Section

302.501

Scope, Applicability, and Definitions

302.502

Dissolved Oxygen

02.503

pH

302.504

Chemical Constituents

302.505

Fecal Coliform

302.506

Temperature

302.507

Thermal Standards for Existing Sources on January

1,

1971

302.508

Thermal Standards for Sources under Construction But Not in Operation on

January

1,

1971

302.509

Other Sources

302.510

Incorporations by Reference

302.515

Offensive

Conditions

---

5

302.520

Regulation and Designation ofBioaccumulative Chemicals ofConcern (BCCs)

302.521

Supplemental Antidegradation Provisions for BCCs

302.525

Radioactivity

302.530

Supplemental Mixing Provisions for BCCs

302.535

Ammonia Nitrogen

302.540

Other Toxic Substances

302.545

Data Requirements

302.550

Analytical Testing

302.553

Determining the Lake Michigan Aquatic Toxicity Criteria or Values

-

General

Procedures

302.555

Determining the Tier I Lake Michigan Basin Acute Aquatic Life Toxicity

Criterion (LMAATC):

Independent ofWater Chemistry

302.560

Determining the Tier I Lake Michigan Basin Acute Aquatic Life Toxicity

Criterion (LMAATC):

Dependent on Water Chemistry

302.563

Determining the Tier II Lake Michigan Basin Acute Aquatic Life Toxicity Value

(LMAATV)

302.565

Determining the Lake Michigan Basin Chronic Aquatic Life Toxicity Criterion

(LMCATC) or the Lake Michigan Basin Chronic Aquatic Life Toxicity Value

(LMCATV)

302.570

Procedures for Deriving Bioaccumulation Factors for the Lake Michigan Basin

302.575

Procedures for Deriving Tier I Water Quality Criteria in the Lake Michigan Basin

to Protect Wildlife

302.580

Procedures for Deriving Water Quality Criteria and Values in the Lake Michigan

Basin to Protect Human Health

—

General

302.585

Procedures for Determining the Lake Michigan Basin Human Health Threshold

Criterion (LMHHTC) and the Lake Michigan Basin Human Health Threshold

Value (LMHHTV)

302.590

Procedures for Determining the Lake Michigan Basin Human Health

Nonthreshold Criterion (LMHHNC) or the Lake Michigan Basin Human

Health

Nonthreshold Value (LMHHNV)

302.595

Listing of Bioaccumulative Chemicals ofConcern, Derived Criteria and Values

SUBPART

F:

PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING WATER QUALITY CRITERIA

Section

302.601

Scope and Applicability

302.603

Definitions

302.604

Mathematical Abbreviations

302.606

Data Requirements

302.6 12

Deteñnining the Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criterion for an Individual

Substance

—

General Procedures

302.6 15

Determining the Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criterion

-

Toxicity Independent of

Water Chemistry

302.618

Determining the Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criterion

-

Toxicity Dependent on Water

Chemistry

---

6

302.621

302.627

302.630

302.633

302.642

302.645

302.648

302.651

302.654

302.657

302.65 8

302.660

302.663

302.666

302.669

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

Determining the Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criterion

-

Procedures for Combinations

of Substances

Determining the Chronic Aquatic Toxicity Criterion for an Individual Substance

-

General Procedures

Determining the Chronic Aquatic Toxicity Criterion

-

Procedure for Combination

ofSubstances

The Wild and Domestic Animal Protection Criterion

The Human Threshold Criterion

Determining the Acceptable Daily Intake

Determining the Human Threshold Criterion

The Human Nonthreshold Criterion

Determining the Risk Associated Intake

Determining the Human Nonthreshold Criterion

Stream Flow for Application of Human Nonthreshold Criterion

Bioconcentration Factor

Determination ofBioconcentration Factor

Utilizing the Bioconcentration Factor

Listing ofDerived Criteria

References to Previous Rules

Sources of Codified Sections

AUTHORITY:

Implementing Section

13 and authorized by Sections 11(b) and 27 ofthe

Environmental Protection

Act 415

ILCS 5/13

11(b), and 27

SOURCE:

Filed with the Secretary ofState January

1,

1978; amended at 2 Ill. Reg. 44,

p.

151,

effective November 2,

1978;

amended at

3

Ill. Reg. 20,

p. 95,

effective May 17,

1979; amended

at

3

Ill. Reg. 25,

p.

190, effective June 21,

1979; codified at 6 Ill. Reg.

7818; amended at 6 Ill.

Reg.

11161, effective September 7,

1982; amended at 6 Ill. Reg.

13750, effective October 26,

1982; amended at

8

Ill. Reg.

1629, effective January 18,

1984; peremptory amendments at

10 Iii.

Reg. 461, effective December 23,

1985; amended at R87-27

at 12 Ill. Reg. 9911, effective May

27,

1988; amended at R85-29 at

12 Ill. Reg.

12082, effective July

11,

1988; amended in R88-l

at

13

Ill.

Reg. 5998,

effective April

18,

1989; amended

in R88-21(A) at

14 Ill.

Reg. 2899,

effective

February

13,

1990; amended in R88-21(B) at

14 Ill.

Reg.

11974,

effective July 9,

1990; amended

in R94-1(A) at 20 Ill. Reg.

7682, effective May 24,

1996; amended in

R94-1(B) at 21111. Reg.

370, effective December 23,

1996; expedited correction at 21111. Reg.

6273, effective December

23,

1996; amended in R97-25 at 21111.

Reg.

1356, effective December 24,

1997;

amended in

ROl-13

at

__________

Ill. Reg.

__________,

effective

__________

Section 302.105

Antidearadation

• The purpose ofthis

Section

is to protect existing uses ofall waters ofthe

State ofIllinois,

maintain the quality ofwaters with quality that is better than water quality standards, and prevent

unnecessary deterioration ofwaters ofthe

State.

a)

Existin2 Uses

---

7

Uses actually attained in the water body or water body segment on or afterNovember 28,

1975, whether or not they are included in the water quality standards, must be maintained

and protected.

Examples of degradation of existing uses ofthe waters ofthe State

include:

1)

an action that would result in the deterioration ofthe existing aquatic

community, such as a shift from a community ofpredominantly pollutant-

sensitive

species to pollutant-tolerant species or a loss ofspecies diversity;

2)

an action that would result in a loss of a resident or indigenous species

whose presence

is necessary to sustain commercial or recreational

activities; or

3)

an action that would nreclude continued use ofa water body or water body

segment for a public water supply or for recreational or commercial

fishing,

swimming, paddling or boating.

b)

Outstanding Resource Waters

1)

Waters that are designated as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORWIS)

pursuant to 35

Ill. Adm.

Code

303.205 and

listed in 35

Ill. Adm.

Code

303 .206 must not be lowered in quality except as provided below by:

A)

Activities that result only

in short-term, temporary (i.e., weeks or

months) lowering ofwater quality in an ORW; or

B)

Existing site Stormwater discharges in existence on the date ofthe

ORW designation that only require a NPDES permit or CWA

certification because ofnew regulatory requirements that comply

with applicable federal and state stormwater management

regulations, and that do not result in a violation ofany water

quality standards.

2)

Any activity in subsections

(b)( I)(A) or (b)(1 )(B) that requires a National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or a Clean Water Act

(CWA) Section

401

certification must also comply with (c)(2).

3)

Any activity

listed in

subsection (b)(1) or proposed increase in pollutant

loading must also meet the following requirements:

A)

All existing uses ofthe water will be fully protected;

B)

Except for activities falling under the exceptions

provided in

302.105(b)(1)(A) or (B) above,

---

8

(i)

The proposed increase in pollutant loading

is necessary for an

activity that will improve water quality in the ORW: and

(ii)

The improvement could not be practicably achieved without the

proposed increase in pollutant

loading.

4)

Any proposed increase in pollutant loading requiring an NPDES permit or

a CWA 401

certification for an ORW must be assessed pursuant to

subsection (f) to determine compliance with this Section.

High Quality Waters

1)

Except as otherwise provided in

subsection (d) ofthis Section, waters of

the State whose existing quality is better than any of the established

standards ofthis

Part must be maintained in their present high quality,

unless the lowering of water quality is necessary to accommodate

important economic or social development.

2)

The Agency must assess any proposed increase in pollutant loading that

necessitates a new, renewed or modified NPDES permit or any activity

requiring a CWA Section 401

certification to determine compliance with

this

Section 302.105.

The assessment to determine compliance with this

Section 302.105

must be made on a case-by-case basis.

ln making this

assessment, the Agency must:

A)

Consider the fate and effect ofany parameters proposed for an

increased pollutant loading; and

B)

Assure the followina:

i)

The applicable numeric or narrative water quality standard

will not be exceeded as a result ofthe proposed activity;

ii)

All existing uses will be fully protected;

All technically and economically reasonable measures

to

iii)

avoid or minimize the extent ofthe proposed increase in

pollutant loading have been incorporated into the proposed

activity; and

The activity that results in an increased pollutant loading

will benefit the community at large.

C~

Utilize the fo1Iowin~

information sources. when available:

iv)

i)

lnformation, data or reports available to the Agency

from

---

9

its own sources

ii)

Information, data or reports supplied by the applicant

iii)

Agency experience with factually similar permitting

scenarios; or

iv)

Any other valid information available to the Agency.

d)

Activities Not Subject

to a Further Antidegradation Assessment

The following activities will not be subject to

a further antidegradation assessment

pursuant to

subsection (c) ofthis Section.

1)

Short-term, temporary (i.e., weeks ormonths)

lowering ofwater quality;

2)

Bypasses that are not prohibited at 40 C.F.R. 122.41(m);

3)

Response actions pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended,

corrective actions pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA), as amended or similar federal or State authority, taken to

alleviate a release into the environment ofhazardous substances,

pollutants or contaminants which may pose a dangerto public health or

welfare;

4).

Thermal discharges that have been approved through a CWA Section

316(a)

demonstration;

5)

New or increased discharges of a non-contact cooling water, without

additives,

returned to the same body ofwater from which it was taken as

defined by 35

III. Adm. Code 352.104,

provided that the discharge

complies with applicable Illinois thermal standards;

6)

Discharges permitted under a current general

NPDES

permit

as

provided

by

415

ILCS

5/39(b)

or

a

general

CWA.

Section

401

certification

a

nationwide

or regional

Section 404 of the CWA permit

are not

subject to

facility-specific antidegradation review; however, the Agency must assure

that

individual

permits

or

certification

are

required

prior

to

all

new

ppllutant

loadings

or

hydrological

modifications

that

necessitate

a

new,

renewed or modified

NPDES

permit

or CWA,

Section

401

certification

that

affect

waters

of

particular

biological

significance

which

include

waters

identified

by

the

Illinois

Department of Natural

Resources

to

be

biologically significant,

waters

knowii

to

contain

state or federally

listed

threatened

to

endangered

species,

or

waters

identified

as

having

high

---

10

levels ofbiodiversity; or

7)

Changes to or inclusion ofa new permit

limitation that does not result

in

an

actual

increase of a

pollutant loading,

such as

those

stemming

from

improved monitoring data, new analytical testing methods, new or revised

technology or water quality based effluent limits.

e)

Lake Michigan Basin

Waters

in the Lake Michigan basin as identified in 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 303.443 are also

subject to the requirements applicable to bioaccumulative chemicals of concern found at

Section

302.52 1 ofthis

Part.

f)

Antidegradation Assessments

In conducting an antidegradation assessment pursuant to this Section, the Agency must

comply with the following procedures.

1J

A permit application for any proposed increase in

pollutant loading that

necessitates a new, renewed, or modified NPDES permit, with a

new

or

increased permit limit, or a CWA Section

401

certification, must include,

to the extent necessary for the Agency to determine that the permit

application meets the requirements ofSection 302.105, the followipg

information:

A)

Identification and characterization ofthe waters affected by the

proposed load increase or proposed activity and their existing uses.

Characterization must address physical, biological and chemical

conditions ofthe waters

B)

Identification and quantification of the proposed load increases for

the applicable parameters and ofthe potential impacts of the

proposed activity on the affected waters;

The purpose and anticinated benefits ofthe oronosed activity.

Such

benefits may include:

i)

Providing a centralized wastewater collection and treatment

system for a previously unsewered community;

ii)

Expansion to provide service for anticipated residential or

industrial growth consistent with a community’s long range

urban planning;

iii)

Addition ofa new product line or production increase

or

modification at an industrial facility; or,

C)

---

11

iv)

An increase or the retention ofcurrent employment levels

at a facility.

D)

Assessments ofalternatives to pronosed increases in pollutant

loading or activities

subject to Agency certification pursuant to

Section 401 ofthe CWA that result in less ofa load increase, no

load increase

or minimal environmental degradation.

Such

alternatives may include:

i)

Additional treatment levels including no discharge

alternatives;

ii)

Discharge ofwaste to alternate locations including

publicly-owned treatment works and streams with greater

assimilative capacity; or

iii)

Manufacturing practices that incorporate pollution

prevention techniques.

E)

Any additional information the Agency may request.

F)

Any ofthe information sources identified in

subsection 302. l05(d1

G)

The Agency shall notify the Illinois Department ofNatural

resources ofthe application as soon as practicable to allow IDNR

an opportunity to prepare comments or recommendations prior to

issuance ofthe public notice ofthe draft permit or CWA section

401

certification.

2)

i

iie Agency must complete an antidegrathtion demonstration review in

~

.~

~..±

~

pros

~

~

~

The antidegradation assessment pursuant to this Section

is a part of

the NPDES

permitting process or the CWA Section 401

certification process.

However, applicants may initiate

communication with the Agency, preferably during the plauning

stage for any load increase.

Communication will help assure the

adequacy ofinformation necessary to constitute an antidcgradation

demonstration and avoid or minimize delays and requests for

~

~

~

~

~

mi.~

A

:~:~:~-~i

t~.

---

12

ID\

A

i)

an informal or preliminary request ofa proponent of a

project prior to filing of a permit application; or

ii)

receipt of application-mr an NPDES permit issuance,

renewal or modification, or a CWA Section

401

certification.

A

~‘.

fC\I’i\I

A \/~~\

~

—

,41\1

After a review

•________l•~

__~~•1~ •~1~

--——-~•

(

~.

/C~f”.\fA\/.\

~

A

i)

in writing

to

written requests.

The written response will

include a statement by

the

Agency indicating whether the

demonstration, based upon the information provided or

information acquired by the Agency d~g the review

process, meets the criteria ofthis Section

D)

After its review, the Agency must produce a written analysis

addressing the requirements ofthis

Sectiän and provide a decision

yielding one ofthe following results:

i)

If the demonstration meets the requirements ofthis

Section,

then the Agency must proceed with public notice ofthe

NPDES permit or CWA Section 401

certification and

include the written analysis as a part ofthe fact sheet

accompanying the public

notice;

ii)

Ifthe demonstration does not meet the requirements ofthis

Section, then the Agency must provide a written analysis to

the applicant and must be available to

discuss the

deficiencies that led to the disapproval.

The Agency may

suggest methods to remedy the conflicts with the

requirements ofthis Section

iii)

Ifthe demonstration does not meet the requirements ofthis

Section, but some lowering ofwater quality is allowable,

then the Agency will contact the applicant with the results

ofthe review.

If the reduced loading increase is acceptable

to the applicant, upon the receipt ofan amended

---

13

demonstration, the Agency will proceed to public notice; or

if the reduced loading increase is not acceptable to

the

applicant, the Agency will transmit its

written review to the

applicant

in the context ofa NPDES

permit denial or a

CWA Section 401 certification denial.

3)

The Agency will conduct public notice and public participation through

the public notice procedures found in 35

Ill. Adm. Code 309.109 or CWA

Section 401

certifications.

The Agency must incorporate the following

information into a fact sheet accompanying the public notice:

A)

A description of the activity, including identification ofwater

uality parameters which will experience the increased pollutant

loading;

Identification ofthe affected water segment, any downstream

water segment also expected to experience a lowering ofwater

quality, characterization ofthe designated and current uses ofthe

affected segments and identification ofwhich

uses are most

sensitive to the proposed load increase

cial development.

B)

C)

A summary ofany review comments and recommendations

provided by Illinois Department ofNatural Resources, local or

regional planning commissions, zoningboards and any other

entities the Agency consults regarding the proposal;

D)

An overview of alternatives considered by the applicant and

identification of any provisions or alternatives imposed to lessen

the load increase associated with the proposed activity; and

E)

The name and telephone number ofa contact person at the Agency

who can provide additional information.

(Amended at

Ill. Reg.

,

effective

Section 302.105 Nondegraaauon

Except as otherwise provided in Section 302.520, waters whose existing quality is better than the

established standards at their date of their adoption will be maintained in their present high

quality.

Such waters

will not be lowered in quality unless

and until it is

affirmatively

demonstrated that such change will not interfere with or become injurious

to

any appropriate

beneficial uses made of, or presently possible

in, such waters

and that such change

is justifiable

---

14

TITLE 35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE C:

WATER POLLUTION

CHAPTER

I: POLLUTIONCONTROL BOARD

PART 303

WATER USE DESIGNATIONS AND SITE SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY

STANDARDS

SUBPART

A:

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section

303.100

Scope and Applicability

303.101

Multiple Designations

303.102

Rulemaking Required

SUBPART

B:

NONSPECIFIC WATER USE DESIGNATIONS

Section

303 .200

Scope and Applicability

303.201

General Use Waters

303 .202

Public and Food Processing Water Supplies

303.203

.

UndergroundWaters

303.204

Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Waters

303.205

Outstanding Resource Waters

303.206

List ofOutstanding Resource Waters

SUBPART C:

SPECIFIC USE DESIGNATIONS AND SITE

SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

Section

303.300

Scope and Applicability

303.301

Organization

303.311

Ohio River Temperature

303.312

Waters Receiving Fluorspar Mine Drainage

303 .321

Wabash River Temperature

303.322

Unnamed Tributary ofthe Vermilion River

303 .323

Sugar Creek and Its Unnamed Tributary

303.331

Mississippi River North Temperature

303.341

Mississippi RiverNorth Central Temperature

303.351

Mississippi River South Central Temperature

303.352

Unnamed Tributary ofWood River Creek

303.353

Schoenberger Creek; Unnamed Tributary ofCahokia Canal

303.361

Mississippi River South Temperature

303 .400

Bankline Disposal Along the Illinois Waterway/River

303.430

Unnamed Tributary to Dutch Creek

303.431

Long Point

Slough and

Its Unnamed Tributary

---

15

303 .441

Secondary Contact Waters

303.442

Waters Not Designated for Public Water Supply

303.443

Lake Michigan Basin

303.444

Salt Creek, Higgins

Creek, West Branch ofthe DuPage River, Des Plaines River

SUBPART D:

THERMAL DISCHARGES

Section

303.500

Scope and Applicability

303.502

Lake Sangchris Thermal Discharges

APPENDIX A

References to Previous Rules

APPENDIX

B

Sources ofCodified Sections

AUTHORITY:

Implementing Section

13

and authorized by Sections 11(b) and 27 ofthe

Environmental Protection Act 415

ILCS

5/13,

11(b), and 27.

SOURCE:

Filed with the Secretary ofState January

1,

1978; amended at 2 Ill.

Reg. •27, p. 221,

effective July

5,

1978;

amended at

3

Ill. Reg. 20,

p. 95, effective May 17,

1979; amended at

5

Ill.

Reg.

11592, effective October 19,

1981; codified at 6 Ill. Reg. 7818; amended at 6 Ill. Reg. 11161

effective September 7,

1982; amended at 7 Ill. Reg. 8111,

effective June 23, 1983;

amended in

R87-27 at 12

Ill. Reg. 9917, effective May 27,

1988; amended in R87-2 at

13 Ill. Reg.

15649,

effective September 22,

1989; amended in R87-36 at

14 Ill. Reg. 9460, effective May 31,

1990;

amended in R86-14 at 14 Ill. Reg. 20724, effective December 18, 1990;

amended in R89-14(C) at

16 Ill.

Reg.

14684, effective September 10,

1992; amended in R92-17 at 18 Ill. Reg.

2981,

effective February

14,

1994; amended in R91-23 at

18 Ill. Reg.

13457, effective

August

19,

1994;

amended

in R93-l3 at

19111.

Reg.

1310,

effective January 30,

1995; amended in R95-14 at 20

Ill.

Reg. 3534, effective February 8,

1996; amended in

R97-25 at 22 Ill.

Reg.

1403, effective

December 24,

1997; amended in R01-13 at

___________

Ill. Reg.

___________,

effective

Section 303.205

Outstanding Resource Waters

An Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) is a water body or water body segment that

is of

uniquely high biological

orrecreational quality exceptional recreational or ecological

significance and must be designated by the Board pursuant to 35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 102.Subpart H.

a)

Outstanding Resource Waters (“ORW”) shall be listed in

Section 303 .206 ofthis

Part.

In addition to all other applicable use designations and water quality

standards contained in this Subtitle, an ORW

is subject to the antidegradation

provision ofSection

302.105(b).

b)

A petition to

designate a water or water segment as an

ORW must be submitted to

the Illinois Pollution Control Board pursuant to

the procedural rules found in 35

Ill. Adm. Code

1 02.Subpart H.

---

16

(Added at

___________

Ill.

Reg.

___________,

effective

___________

Section 303 .206

List ofOutstanding Resource Waters

The Board has not designated any OutstandingResource Waters pursuant to

35 Ill.

Adm. Code

l02.Subpart H.

(Added at

____________

Ill. Reg.

___________,

effective

___________.)

---

ATTACHMENT TWO

In this Attachment TWO, the Environmental Groups set forth specific proposals

for the language that should be adopted by the Board

~f

the Board decides to accept

Illinois EPA’s proposal to move First Notice Proposal Section 302.105(f) to part 309 and

reOrganize and revise much ofthe text now in Section 302.105(f).

In setting forth our views, we have utilized the language sent to us by the Agency.

We have tried to indicate changes that we believe should be madefrom

the language of

the First Notice Proposal.

We have not attempted to track the differences between our

proposed language and the language proposed by the Agency. Differences between the

language favored by the Environmental Groups and that favored by the Agency can be

seen by comparing this Attachment TWO with AttachmentB to the Agency’s filing of

October

5,

2001.

The major difference between the Environmental Groups’

proposed language for

part 309 and that ofthe Agency is that the Environmental Groups’ proposed text keeps

language regarding CWA Section

401

certification, contained in the First Notice

Proposal, that the Agency proposes to delete. The Environmental Groups accept most,

but not all, of the minor revisions to language appearing in the First Notice Proposal that

are proposed by the Agency in its part 309 language.

For the sections on which the Agency proposes changes, our comments are as

follows:

Section 302.1 05(b)(4)

1

---

The Environmental

Groups oppose the revisions proposed by the Agency to this

Section ofthe First Notice Proposal.

Section 302.1 05(c)(2)

TheEnvironmental Groups support the Agency’sproposed revision to this

Section, which is

as follows:

Recommended language:

2)

The Agency must assess any proposed increase in pollutant

loading that necessitates a new, renewed

or modified

NPDES permit or any activity requiring

a CWA Section 401

certification to determine compliance with this Section

302.105.

The assessment to determine compliance with

this Section 302.105 must be made on a case-by-case

basis.

In making this assessment, the Agency must....

Section 302.105(d)(6)

TheEnvironmental Groups support theAgency’sproposed revision to this

Section ofthe FirstNotice Proposal andpropose their

own

revision to this section. The

Envirorimental Groups believe that the final languageof

this section should provide:

Discharges permitted under a current general NPDES permit as provided

by 415 ILCS 5/39(b) or a general CWA,

Section 401

oortifioation

nationwide or regional Section 404 of the

CWA permit are not subject

to facility-specific antidegradation

review; however, the Agency must

assure that individual permits or certifications are required prior to all new

pollutant loadings or hydrological modifications that necessitate a new,

renewed or modified

NPDES permit or CWA, Section 401

certification that

affect waters of particular biological

significance

which

include waters

identified by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources to be

biologically significant, waters known

to contain state or federally

listed threatened or endangered species, or waters identified as

having high levels of biodiversity; or

(Changes are noted from the First Notice Proposal with strike out and

bold)

2

---

Section 302.105(d)(5) -The Environmental Groups oppose the adoption in this

proceeding ofthe Agency’s proposed change to 302.105(d)(5) that would allow new

loadings of chlorine without an antidegradation analysis.

Proposed Part 309 Revisions

-

The Environmental Groups agree to or propose the following language for

Sections 309.103, 309.

108, 309.113 and 309.141 if the Board decides to adopt the

Agency’s proposal to move First Notice Proposal

Section 302.105(f) to part 309.

Section 309.103

Application

-

General

~)

A permit aDplication for any proposed

increase

in

pollutant

loading that necessitates a new, renewed, or modified

NPDES permit

or a CWA Section 401

certification must

include, to the extent necessary for the Agency to determine

that the proposed activity meets the requirements of

35

III.

Adm. Code 302.105, the following

information:

A)

Identification and characterization of the waters

affected by the proposed

load increase or proDosed

activity and their existing uses.

Characterization must

address Dhysical, biological

and chemical conditions

of the waters:

B)

Identification and quantification of the Droposed load

increases for the applicable

Darameters and of the

potential

imDacts of the proDosed activity on the

affected waters:

C)

The

purpose and anticipated benefits of the proposed

activity.

Such benefits may include:

i)

Providing a centralized wastewater collection

and treatment system for a previously

unsewered community:

3

---

ii)

Expansion to provide service for anticipated

residential or industrial growth consistent with a

community’s long range urban planning:

iii)

Addition of a new product line or production

increase or modification at an

industrial facility:

or

iv)

An increase or the retention of current

v)

employment levels at a facility.

D)

Assessments of alternatives to proposed increases in

pollutant loading

or activities subject to Agency

certification pursuant to Section 401

of the CWA that

result

in

less of a load increase,

no load increase or

minimal environmental degradation. Such alternatives

include:

i)

Additional treatment levels

including no

discharge alternatives:

ii)

Discharge of waste to alternate locations

including publicly-owned treatment works and

streams with greater assimilative capacity:

or

iii)

Manufacturing practices that incorporate

pollution prevention techniques.

E)

Any additional information that the Agency may

request.

Section

309.108

Tentative Determination and Draft Permit

d)

For any

proposed increase in

pollutant loading that

necessitates a new, renewed, or modified

NPDES

permit, with

a now or-incroacod pormit limit subject to review pursuant to

35

Ill. Adm. Code 302.105, the tentative determination of the

Agency with

regard to

35 III. Adm. Code 302.105.

4

---

1)

After

its

assessment pursuant to Section 309.141(i)

(f)(2)(A)(ii)roviow, the

Agency must produce a written

analysis

addressing the requirements of

35 Ill. Adm.

Code 302.105 thie

Section and provide a decision yielding one of the following results.

(A)

If the proposed activitydemonctration

meets the

requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.l05thic Soction, then

the Agency must proceed with public notice of the NPDES

permit or CWA Section 401 certification and include the

written

analysis as a part of the fact sheet accompanying the

public notice;

(B) fthe proposed activitydemonetration—does not meet the

requirements of

35 III. Adm. Code

302.l05thie Section, then

the Agency must provide a written analysis to the applicant

and must be available to discuss the deficiencies that

led to

the disapproval.

The Agency may suggest methods to

remedy the conflicts with the requirements of 35 III. Adm.

Code 302.1

O5thic Section.

(C) If the prgposed activitydomonetration does not meet the

requirements of

35 Ill. Adm. Code

302.l05thic Section, but

some

lowering of water quality is allowable, then the Agency

will contact the applicant with the results of the

review.

If the

reduced loading

increase is acceptable to the applicant,

upon the receipt of an amended applicationdomonetration,

the Agency will proceed to public noticej-eF

2)

If the reduced loading

increase is not acceptable to the

applicant, the Agency will transmit its written analysisroviow

to the applicant in the context of a NPDES permit denial or a

CWA Section 401

certification denial.

~4)

Upon tentative determination to issue ordeny

an NPDES

Permit:

1)

Ifthe determination is to issue the permit the Agency shall notify

the applicant in writing ofthe content ofthe tentative

determination and draft permit and ofits intent to circulate public

notice of issuance in accordance with Sections 309.108 through

309.112;

2)

Ifthe determination is to deny the permit, the Agency shall notify

the applicant in writing ofthe tentative determination and of its

intent to circulate public notice ofdenial, in accordance with

Sections 309.108 through 309.112.

In the case ofdenial, notice to

the applicant shall include a statement ofthe reasons for denial, as

required by Section 39(a) ofthe

Act.

(Source:

Amended at

Ill. Reg.

,

effective

.2001.)

5

---

Section 309.113

Fact Sheets

(a)

6)

For any proposed increase in pollutant loading

that

necessitates a

new, renewed, or modified

NPDES permit.

with

a new or incroacod permit limit subject to review

pursuant to 35 III. Adm. Code 302.105, the following

information:

A)

A description of the activity, including identification of

water quality parameters for which there will be

anwhich will ex~orionce

the increased pollutant

loading:

B)

Identification of the affected water segment, any

downstream water segment also expected to

experience

a lowering of water quality,

characterization of the designated and current uses of

the affected segments and identification of which uses

are most sensitive to the proposed

load increase:

C)

A summary of any review comments and

recommendations provided by the Illinois Department

of Natural

Resources, local or regional planning

commissions, zoning boards and any other entities

the Agency consults regarding the proposal:

D)

An overview of alternatives considered by the

applicant and identification of any provisions or

alternatives imposed to lessen the load

increase

associated with the proposed activity: and

E)

The

name

and telephone number of a contact person

at the Agency who can provide additional information.

Section

309.141

Terms and Conditions of NPDES Permits

iL

If the NPDES permit is for a discharge that constitutes an

increase in pollutant loading that necessitates a new, renewed or modified

NPDES permit, the Agency must complete an antidegradation assessment

demonetration review

in

accordance with tho provicionc of thic

cubcection.to determine compliance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.105.

The

assessment to determine

compliance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.105

must be made on a case-by-case basis.

The Agency must consider

the:

6

---

1)

criteria stated

in 35

Ill. Adm. Code 302.105(c)(2); and

~

the following information:

A)

Identification and characterization of the waters

affected by the proposed load

increase or proposed

activity and their existing uses.

Characterization must

address physical, biological and chemical conditions

of the waters:

B)

Identification and quantification of the proposed

load

increases for the applicable

parameters and of the

potential

impacts of the proposed activity on the

affected waters:

C)

The

purpose and anticipated benefits of the proposed

activity.

Such benefits may include:

I)

Providing a centralized wastewater collection

and treatment system for a previously

unsewered community:

ii)

Expansion to provide service for anticipated

residential or industrial growth consistent with a

community’s long range urban planning:

iii)

Addition of a new product line or production

increase or modification at an industrial facility:

or

iv)

An increase or the retention of current

employment levels at a facility.

D)

Assessments of alternatives to proposed increases in

pollutant loading

or activities subiect to Agency

certification pursuant to Section 401

of the CWA that

result in less of a load increase, no load increase or

minimal environmental degradation. Such alternatives

include:

i)

Additional treatment

levels including no

discharge alternatives:

ii)

Discharge of waste to alternate locations

including publicly-owned treatment works and

streams with greater assimilative capacity:

or

iii)

Manufacturing

practices that incorporate

pollution prevention techniques: and

E)

Any of the information sources identified

in 35

III.

Adm. Code 302.105(c)(2)(C).

7

---

Attachment

THREE

---

BIoLoGJc~u~Y

SIGNIFICANT ILLINOIS

STREAMS

An Evaluation of the

Streams of illinois

Based on

Aquatic Biodiversity

Lawrence M. Page, Kevin S. Cummings, Christine A. Mayer,

Susan

L. Post, and Michael E.

Retzer

Center

for

Biodiversity

Technical Report

1992(1)

illinois Natural History Survey

607 East Peabody Drive

Champaign,

illinois

61820

Prepared for

illinois Department

of

Conservation

524

South Second Street

Springfield, illinois

62701-1787

Illinois

DepartmentofEnergy and NaturalResources

325 West Adams

Springfield, illinois

62704-1892

ProjectCompletion Report

Enhancement

of

Biological Stream Characterization

F-iiO-R

April

1,

1990

through September 30,

1991

---

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

Streams and

other

aquatic habitats are being destroyed at an alarming rate in fflinois, and

several governmental agencies

have

given high priority

to

activities aimed

at the

protection

of

aquatic

habitats and their biota.

One

of the

stated objectives is

to protect

100

ofthe

stream-dependent biodiversity, which means that one ormore populations

ofeach stream-

dependent species should be protected..

The objective ofour study was to identify the

state’s most biologically significant streams

so that protection efforts can be concentrated on a reasonable number of streams and the

objective of

protecting

100

of illinois’ stream-dependent biodiversity can be realized.

The identificationofthe biologicallymost

significant streams will provide a basis for

decisionsby governmental

and

other organizations as towhich streams should be

protected

for theirbiodiversity

and which will be used for transportation, industrial, or other

consumptive uses. The recognition of outstanding

streams will affect decisions made by

lawmakers and governmental agencies.

It is anticipated that the NaturePreserves

Commission, The Nature Conservancy, and other conservation organizations will purchase

easements, dedicate preserves, and otherwiseprotect the identified outstanding aquatic

ecosystems.

Efforts at stream management for sport fishes and other forms ofrecreation

will be enhanced through the identification of the least degraded streams in illinois.

An earlier and continuing study to identify biologically significant streams is theBiological

Stream Characterization (BSC).

The BSC is a stream-quality index developed by the

Illinois DepartmentofConservation and Environmental Protection Agency to categorize

streams and is based largely on fish populations, waterquality, and aquatic

macroinvertebrates.

In the BSC, stream segments are categorized from “A” (highest

quality) to

“E” (lowest).

Twenty-four stream segments currently are considered to be in the

“A” category, and 50 in the “B” category (next highest).

Because of the high

diversity of fishes they support, we consider all “A” streams to be among the most

biologically significant streams in Illinois.

In this report the list of biologically significant streams has been expanded beyond BSC

“A”

streams by considering additional data on biodiversity, specifically dataon endangered

and threatened species and on mussel diversity.

The expandedlist identifies streams that

---

aremost important to protect and manage for theiroutstanding biological characteristics.

Protection ofthe streams identified in this report

as biologically significant

will constitute a

major step toward the protection of 100

ofthe stream-dependent biodiversity.

illinois has over 2700 named streams that make up more than 26,000 miles ofinland water

courses.

In this report, we have divided the state into

25

regions encompassing one large

river, a river system, or several small river systems.

To identify the most biologically

significant streams, we located those supporting populations offederal or state threatened,

endangered, and “watch list” species, and those with the highest fish (BSC

“A” streams)

and mussel diversity.

Threatened and endangered species lists and watch lists are based on

statewide surveys of organisms, and the only aquatic groups for which recent statewide

surveys havebeen conducted (orare being conducted) are fishes, mussels,

crayfishes, and

vascularplants.

Our analysis was therefore restricted to these taxonomic groups.

Although data on

additional groups would refine ouranalysis, healthy streams tend to have

high diversity in many groups of organisms and protecting streams in this reportwill have

the effect ofprotecting a majority ofthe aquatic biodiversity of Illinois.

To identify streams supporting populations of threatened, endangered,

and watch list

species, we identified streams and stream segments from which one ormore threatened,

endangered, or watch list species have been observed since 1950 or, for lotic plants, since

1900.

The exact locations of known populations of these species are stored on

computerized databases at the flhinois Natural History Survey.

Streams on this list were

assumed still

to support threatened, endangered, or watch list species if the species have

been observed there since 1980.

If a threatened, endangered, orwatch list species was

recorded from the stream but has not been observed there since 1980, the stream was

resampled in

1990-91 in

an effort to determine whether the population still existed.

If a

species has been recorded since 1980, the stream in whichit is found is placed on the list of

biologically significant streams.

In addition to the consideration ofthreatened, endangered, and watch list

species,

some

stream segments were identified as biologically

significantbased on mussel diversity.

However, recent diversity data (post-1976) on mussel populations have been collected for

only eight of the 25 drainage regions:

Kankakee River, Kaskaskia River, Vermilion River,

Embarras River, Mackinaw River, Little Wabash River, Wabash River, and Sangamon

River.

---

One hundred and eight streams supporting populations ofendangered, threatened and

watch list species or supporting a high diversity of mussels were identified.

These streams

plus the 24 streams identified as “A” streams in the BSC classification brings to 132 the

number o1~

biologically significant streams recognized in this report.

---

INTRODUCTION

Streams and other aquatic habitats are being destroyed at an alarming rate in Illinois, and

several governmental agencies have given high priority to activities aimed at the protection

ofaquatic habitats and their biota.

One ofthe stated objectives is to protect 100

ofthe

stream-dependent biodiversity, which means that one or more populations of each stream-

dependent species should be protected.

Given the multiple uses of streams in Illinois,

it

is imperative that a multifaceted approach

to their protection be developed.

Habitat protection organizations and agencies, such as the

illinois Nature Preserves Commission, have the potential to protect the most biologically

significant streams in Illinois as natural areas.

Other approaches to protecting streams will

include the development of methods to reduce point and nonpointpollution and to restrict

introductions of exotic species.

The objective ofour study is to identify the state’s most biologically significant streams so

that protection efforts can be concentrated on a reasonable number of streams and the

objective of protecting 100

of illinois’ stream-dependent biodiversity can be realized.

The identification of the biologically most significant streams will provide a basis for

decisions by governmental and other organizations as to which streams

should be protected

for their biodiversity and which will be used for transportation, industrial, or other

consumptive uses.

The recognition of outstanding streams will affect decisions made by

lawmakers, governmental agencies, etc.

It is anticipated that theNature Preserves

Commission, The Nature Conservancy, and other conservation organizations will purchase

easements, dedicate preserves, and otherwise protect the identified outstanding aquatic

ecosystems.

Efforts at stream management for sport fishes and other forms ofrecreation

will be enhanced through the identification of the least degraded streams in Illinois.

An earlierand continuing study to identify biologically significant streams is the Biological

Stream Characterization (BSC) (Hite and Bertrand, 1989).

The BSC is a stream-quality

index developed by the illinois Department of Conservation and Environmental Protection

Agency to categorize streams and is based largely on fish populations, waterquality,

and

aquatic macroinvertebrates.

In the BSC, stream segments are categorized from “A”

1

---

(highestquality) to “F’ (lowest).

Twenty-four stream segments currently are considered to

be in the “A” category, and ~

in

the “B” category (next

highest).

Becauseof the high

diversity offishes they support, we consider all “A” streams to be among the most

biologically significant streams in Illinois.

In this report we have expanded the list ofbiologically significant streams beyond BSC “A”

streams by considering additional data on biodiversity, specifically data on endangered and

threatened species and

onmussel diversity. The expanded list

identifies streams that are

most important to protect and manage for their outstanding biological characteristics.

Protection of the streams identified in this report as biologically significant will constitute a

major step toward the protection of 100

ofthe stream-dependent biodiversity.

illinois is considered a well-watered statedue to its large and complex drainage pattern

(Page,

1991). Three rivers border Illinois, the Mississippi River on the west, the Ohio on

the south, and the Wabash on the southeast.

In addition to being almost surrounded by

water, illinois has over 2700 named streams that make up more than 26,000 miles of inland

water courses (IDOC,

1992).

In an

earlierreport that classified streams on the basis of fish

diversity, Smith (1971) divided the state into 33 drainage basins.

In this report, we have

modified his classification and divided the state into 25 regions encompassing one large

river, a river system, or several small river systems (Figure I-i, Table I-i).

METhODS

Although most ifilnois stream basins are not contained within one division, weuse

Schwegman’s (1973)

Natural

Divisions ofIllinois

to help describe and characterize each of

our 25 regions.

Other background information on therivers is from a variety of sources.

Historical information on Illinois streams was taken from C.W. Rolfe’s descriptions in

Forbes and Richardson’s

The Fishes ofIllinois

(1908).

Information on length, width, and

substrate composition came from the series

Surface Water Resourcesof

Illinois

(1968-

1973), published by the Illinois Department of Conservation.

The series began in 1968

and included data on the surface waters by county; unfortunately, only 81

counties were

completed.

The area (in square miles)

drainedby a river was found in Ogata

(1975),

Drainage

Areasfor Illinois Streams.

2

---

Water quality information came from three sources:

Illinois Water Quality Report

(JEPA,

1990),

Biological Stream Characterization (BSC): A Biological AssessmentofIllinois

Stream Quality

(Hite and Bertrand, 1989), and

Illinois Streams: A Classification Based on

Their Fishes and an Analysis ofFactors Responsiblefor Disappearance ofNative Species

(Smith,

1971).

The

Illinois Water Quality Report

(IEPA,

1990)

assessed93.2

of

illinois’ interior and border rivermiles for degree

of

designated aquatic life support and

attainment ofthe Clean Water Act’s fishable goals.

The degree of designated aquatic life

use support is described as Full Support, Partial Support/Minor Impairment, Partial

Support/Moderate Impairment, and Nonsupport.

The degree to which Illinois streams

support designated uses was determined using a combination of biotic and abiotic data,

intensive survey field observations, and professional judgment.

The primary focus was on

biotic data (fishery and macroinvertebrates) and on the Biological Stream Characterization

ratings when they were available.

The Biological Stream Characterization (BSC) report (Hite and Bertrand, 1989) was

conceived and developed as an aquatic resource management tool.

Its objectives were to

inventory the nature, extent, and distribution of illinois streamresources and identify

stream segments of exceptional quality that warrant special consideration forprotection.

The criteriaused to identify these streams or stream segments were based largely on the

type and condition of the fishery resource.

A five tiered classification was developed and

streams were ranked as follows: A Streams

-

Unique Aquatic Resource, B

Streams

-

Highly Valued Aquatic Resource,

C Streams

-

Moderate Aquatic Resource, D Streams

-

Limited Aquatic Resource, orE Streams

-

Restricted Aquatic Resource.

Smith (1971) rated each stream on the basis ofthe fishes known to occur there and its

potential for harboring others.

Ratings ofExcellent,

Good, Fair, and Poor were used.

An

Excellent rating indicated that the expected species were still presentin a numerical

relationship suggesting little modificationofthe stream from its original condition.

Ourobjective is to identify streams most biologically worthy of protection in Illinois and,

therefore, biodiversity itself was the basis for the recognition and classification ofstreams.

Other parameters that might be used, e.g., water quality, land use, unusual habitats,

naturalness of the ecosystem, and natural divisions, are reflected in the biodiversity.

If rare

species, ormany species, are presentit is because the water quality has remained good for

a long time, unusual habitats are present, etc.

3

---

Table I-i.

illinois Stream Systems

1.

Galena,

Apple,

and Plum

River

Systems

2.

Rock River System

3.

Middle

Mississippi River

Tributaries

4.

Des Plaines

River and LakeMichigan Tributaries

5.

Fox

River System

6.

Little Vermilion River, Big Bureau and

KickapooCreek Systems

7.

Kankakee

-

IroquoisRiver System

8.

Vermilion and Mazon

River

Systems

9.

Spoon

River

System

10.

La Moine River System

11.

Mackinaw

River

System

12.

Sangamon River System

13.

Lower Illinois River Tributaries and

American

Bottoms

14.

Kaskaskia

River System

15.

Big Muddy River System

16.

Cache River System

17.

Massac, Bay, Lusk,

Big

Grand Pierre

and

Big Creek Systems

18.

Saline River System

19.

LittleWabash River and Bonpas Creek Systems

20.

Embarras River and Wabash River Tributaries

21.

Vermilion

and Little

Vermilion River Systems

22.

Illinois River

23.

Mississippi River

24.

Ohio River

25.

Wabash River

4

---

FigureI-i. Major

river drainages in flhinois.

5

---

To identify the most biologically significant streams, welocated those supporting

populations offederal or state threatened, endangered, and “watch list” species, and those

with

the highest fish (BSC “A’t

streams) and mussel diversity.

Threatened and endangered

species lists and watch lists are

based

on statewide surveys of organisms, and the only

aquatic groups for which recent statewide surveys have been conducted (or are being

conducted) are

fishes, mussels, crayfishes, and

vascular

plants.

Our analysis was

therefore restricted to these taxonomic groups.

Although data on

additional groups would

refine our analysis, healthy streams

tend

to have high diversity in

many groups of

organisms and protecting streams

in

this reportwill have the effect of protecting a majority

of the aquatic biodiversity of Illinois.

To identify streams supporting populations of threatened, endangered,

and watch list

species, we identified streams and

stream

segments from which one or more threatened,

endangered, or watch list species have been observed since

1950 or, for lotic plants, since

1900.

The exact locations of

known

populations of these species are stored on

computerized databases at the Illinois Natural History Survey.

Streams on this list were

assumed still

to support threatened, endangered, or watch list species if the species have

been observed there since 1980.

If a threatened, endangered, or watch list species was

recorded from the stream but has not been observed there since 1980,

the stream was

resampled in

1990-91 in an effort to determine whetherthepopulation still existed.

Ifa

species has been recorded since

1980, the stream in which it is found is placed on the list of

biologically significant streams.

In each chapter the term “special status” is used for mussels which are either threatened or

endangered mussels or likely to be listed in the nearfuture (state watch list species).

High

quality streams based on threatened

or endangered mussels do not include those

supporting

the pondhom,

Uniomerus tetralasmus.

Currently

listed as

threatened in Illinois,

the

pondhom has been found to be more common thanpreviously believed, and itis likely to

be

removed in the next edition

of

the threatened

and endangered species list.

However,

because

U. tetralasmus

is

still

listed as

threatened, distribution maps showing the

location

of threatened and endangered species include thepondhom.

In addition to the consideration of threatened, endangered, and watch list species, some

stream segments were identified as biologically significant

based

on mussel diversity.

However, recent diversity data (post-1976) on mussel populations have been collected for

only eight of the 25 drainage regions.

The drainages investigated, the year(s), and the

6

---

number ofsites

sampled in each basin are as follows:

Kankakee

River

(1978, 13),

Kaskaskia River (1978-79, 19), Vermilion River (1981,

28),

Embarras River

(1986-87,

25), Mackinaw River

(1987,

25),

Little Wabash River (1988, 30), Wabash

River

(1987,

27;

1988,

26),

and Sangamon River (1987-89,

57).

To measure mussel diversity, streams were sampled on a catch per unit effort basis.

A

diversity index (Shannon’s H’), was calculated according to the method given by Lloyd et

al. (1968).

Streams segments with more than ten live species of mussels or those having

an H’ greater than

2.5

were considered to have a diverse mussel fauna and categorized as

biologically significant streams.

The data used to calculate mussel diversity can be found in

the following reports or publications:

Subway

(1981), Subway et al. (l98la, l981b),

Cummings et al. (1987, 1988a, l988b,

l988c,

1989), and Schanzle and

Cummings

(1991).

Locations for collections and historical observations ofthreatened and endangered lotic

plant species were obtainedfrom herbarium data compiled by the Natural LandInstitute in

1977 during the preparation of the original list of threatened and endangered species.

Files

compiled by the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory during 1975-1978 and maintained by the

illinois Department of Conservation NaturalHeritage Division were used, as was the

illinois Plant Information Network (ILPIN).

ILPINis a data base developed

and

maintained

by

the Illinois Natural History Survey on the ecology, biology, distribution,

taxonomy, and literature

of

3200 plant species in Illinois.

Using

records back

to

1900,

each location known forthreatened and endangered lotic plant species was

visited

during

1990 and 1991 to search for extant populations.

Although localities for some threatened and endangered plants are in riparian habitats (e.g.,

ravines, marshes) rather than in the streams, these plants are dependent on a healthy stream

ecosystem and, if the stream is further altered, the plant is unlikely to survive.

For

example, a floodplain species is unlikely to survive if a stream is channelized and no longer

floods, or becomes polluted.

Protection of streams is necessary for survival ofriparian

plants.

The distributional data on mussels are based only on~

specimens vouchered in the Mollusk

Collection of the illinois Natural History Survey (INHS), Champaign, Illinois, or the

followingcollections:

the Academy ofNatural Science ofPhiladelphia (ANSP), Chicago

Academy of Science (CHAS), Field Museum ofNatural History, Chicago (FMNH),

7

---

illinois State Museum (ISM), Museum ofComparative Zoology

-

Harvard University

(MCZ), Ohio State University Museum of Zoology (OSUM), University of Illinois

Museum of Natural History (UIMNH), University of Michigan Museum of Zoology

(UMMZ), and the United States National Museum (IJSNM).

The mussel nomenclature

follows a list prepared by the Committee on Scientific and Vernacular Names of Mollusks

ofthe Council of Systematic Malacologists,American Malacological Union (Turgeonet aL,

1988) except as follows:

1) subspecies are not recognized,

2) members of the

Pleurobe,na

cordatum

complex arerecognized

following Stansbery

(1983).

For each of the 25 stream systems the organization and order ofthe maps and tables are as

follows.

Not all are present in each chapter.

1.

General map of the system with major streams labeled for identification.

2.

Map offish collection sites represented in the Illinois Natural History Survey

Fish Collection.

3.

Table offishes recordedin the system based on specimens in the Illinois Natural

History Survey Fish Collection.

4.

Map ofmussel collection

sites represented in the Illinois Natural History Survey

Mollusk Collection and other museum collections.

5.

Table ofmussels recorded in the system based on specimens in the Illinois

Natural History Survey Mollusk Collection and other museum collections.

6.

Map of crustacean collection sites represented in the Illinois Natural History

Survey Crustacean Collection.

7.

Table offreshwater crustaceans recorded in the system based on specimens in

the Illinois Natural History Survey Crustacean Collection.

8.

Map ofhistoric (open symbols

=

pre-1980) and extant (solid symbols

=

1980 to

present) populations ofendangered lotic plants (circles) if present.

9.

Map of historic (open symbols

=

pre-1980) and extant (solid symbols

=

1980 to

present) populations ofthreatened or endangered fishes (squares), mussels

(circles), and crustaceans (triangles).

10.

Topographic map(s) highlightingthe Biologically SignificantStream segments

based on threatened or endangered species or high mussel diversity as

identifiedin the text.

11.

Map ofBiological Stream Characterization (BSC) (Hite and Bertrand, 1989)

“A” and “B” streams.

8

---

4.

Des Plaines River

and

Lake

Michigan Tributaries

INTRODUCIION

The long narrow basin ofthe Des Plaines River lies west ofLake Michiganin

the northeast

cornerof Illinois.

The lower

portion

ofthe valley southwest of Chicago was once

occupied by a greatriver, the outlet ofearly Lake Michigan.

The basin drains

1231

square

miles and comprises

fivecounties—Lake,Cook, DuPage, Will, andGrundy. Two natural

divisions areencompassed—Grand

Prairie and Northeastern Morainal (Schwegman,

1973).

The latter

makes up

90

of the basin.

Unlike most of fflinois, the majority ofthe

soils in this basin are derived from glacial drift rather than bess.

Drainage is poorly

developed and many natural lakes are found.

The soils are derived from glacial drift, lake

bed sediments, beach deposits, and peat, range from gravel and sand to silty clay barns

and have been deposited over bedrock (Schwegman, 1973).

The Des Plaines River and its major tributary the DuPage Riverdrain the majority of the

watershed.

Spring freshets ofthe upper Des Plaines afforded the early French explorers

an

easy and continuous canoeroute from the GreatLakes to the Mississippi.

The basin

contained numerous small lakes and marshes and was highly attractive to waterfowl and

furbearing animals.

Today most ofthe watershed is part of the greater Chicago

metropolitan region and has been extensively developed for urban and industrial use.

The

basin is home to the Illinois and Michigan Canal and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.

Septic conditions, algae blooms, and poor fish populations have reduced the attractiveness

for water-oriented recreation.

Overenrichment of the water from treated and untreated

sewage is a majorproblem.

At least 100 waste treatment plants empty into the basin

(Vidal, 1969).

Des Plaines

River

The Des Plaines Riverrises near Racine in Kenosha County, Wisconsin.

Theriver enters

Illinois two miles northeast of Rosecranes in Lake County and flows south for 97 miles

before its confluence with the Kankakee River.

At their confluence the rivers form the

fflinois River in Grundy County.

Historically, the Des Plaines possessed 21 miles of

rapids, riffles, and rocky shallows.

Today little remains of what was once considered a

dangerous river (Vierling, 1977).

Stream width ranges from 60 feet in Lake County to 600

feet in Will County.

The river bottom is ofbedrock, largely covered with sand and gravel,

but bare rock is

found in portions of its swiftest descent.

The sandand gravel are often

67

---

unnamed stream in HighlandPark, Cook County (1923).

A recent record includes the Des

Plaines River, Lake County (1981).

All natural populations of

P. cordata

havebeen

extirpatedat the sites occurring in the Des Plaines Riverdrainage.

The last observed

population (1981) was destroyed by siltation due to construction ofa subdivision.

A

restoration project is being conducted at Pilcher Park, Will County (M. Bowles pers.

comm., August

1990; Bowles et al.,

1988; Moran, 1978).

Potwnogeton gramineus:

The only historical record for the grass-leaved pondweed in this

region is Wolf Lake, Cook County

(1975).

Potamogeron gramineus

was found in Wolf

Lake and Fourth Lake, Lake County, during a 1991

search.

Potamogeton

robbinsii:

The fern pondweed has been recorded from Wolf Lake, Cook

County in

1975 and

1987.

Potamogeton robbinsii

was not found during a search of a

segment of WolfLake in

1991.

An algal bloomcovering most of the lake impeded the

search and

P. robbinsli

may still occur in the drainage.

Potamogeton stricufolius:

The only record for the stiff pondweed in the Des Plaines

drainage is Wolf Lake, Cook County (1901).

This site was searchedin

1987/1988

(Bowles et al., 1991) and in 1991, but the population was not found.

An algal bloom

covering most ofthe lake impeded the search and

P. strictifolius

may still occur in the

drainage.

BIOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT STREAMS

No recent records of threatenedor endangered mussels orcrustaceans are known from the

streams in this region.

Norecent mussel surveys have been conducted in any of the

streams of this region; therefore, no assessmentofstream quality based on mussel diversity

can be made.

Although this study was directed at streams ofillinois, Powder Horn and Wolflakes in

southernCook County contain the state threatened bandedkillifish and Iowa darter.

Wolf

Lake in Cook County and Fourth Lakein Lake County contain the state endangered grass-

leaved pondweed.

BSC Class

“A” Streams

(Figure

4-6)

-

Manhattan Creek, Will County

71

---

5.

Fox River System

INTRODUCnON

The

1720 square mile drainage basin ofthe Fox River lies entirely within the limits of

Wisconsinan glaciation.

As the Wisconsinan Glacier began to recede northward,

tremendous quantities of meitwater, calledthe Fox River Torrent, swept southward,

accomplishing a rapid down cutting ofthe valley.

Remnants ofthis river torrent exist as

the present day Fox River (Langbein

and Ferencak, 1988).

Many glacial

lakes

are found in

the basin, formed either by interlaced moranic ridges that produce cups or kettles within

which lakes are formed, or by large chunks ofice that broke off the glacier, were buried in

the upper basin, and melted to form lakes.

All ofKendall County

and parts of Kane, McHenry, Lake, Cook, DuPage, DeKalb, Will,

LaSalle, and Grundy counties are included in the basin.

The basin comprises two natural

divisions:

the Northeastern Moranial foundin the northern halfofthe basin and the Grand

Prairiein the southernpart (Schwegman, 1973).

Soils range from moderately thick bess

on Wisconsinan till to gravel, sand, and silty clay barns (Iverson, 1987).

The landforms

range from land-locked ponds with gravel bottoms to marshes, wet prairies, peat bogs, and

dry prairies.

The basin can be divided into three zones—Northern, Central, and Southern.

The

Northern zone has numerous lakes and recreational areas, smaller populated communities,

and dairy lands.

The Central zone is comprised ofindustries, dense population areas, and

agriculture and timber lands.

The Southern zone has a lesser population and is more scenic

then the Central zone.

Sport fishing, boating, canoeing, swimming, ice fishing, and hiking

are the majorwater-based activities.

Fox River

TheFox River rises in the northern part of WaukeshaCounty, Wisconsin.

The river enters

Illinois in the northwest corner of Lake County, travels 115 miles southwardto empty into

the Illinois River in Ottawa.

TheFox River is the third largest tributary of the Illinois

River.

A large number of glacial lakes and ponds are tributaries ofthe Fox.

Over 200

islands are found in the Fox Riverbetween Ottawa and McHenry, illinois.

Between the

illinois and Wisconsin state line and Algonquin, Illinois, the main channel of the Fox is ill-

defined as itpasses through a series of lakes and marshes.

From Algonquin to Aurora the

83

---

Potwnogeron praelongus

Historical records of thewhite-stemmed pondweed include west

channel ofthe Fox River, McHenry County (1916), Suffivan Lake, Lake County (1932),

and Cedar Lake, Lake County (1959).

Present

locations of

P. praelongus

include Cedar

Lake (1991), Loon Lake (1991), Bang’s Lake (1991), and Deep Lake (1990), all in Lake

County.

Potamogetonpraelongus

was not found on the west channel of the Fox River nor

at Sullivan Lake in 1990-1991.

Potamogetonpuichen

The spottedpondweed was collected at Ferson Creek, Kane County

(1980).

During a search of the area in 1991 the plant was not found.

A housing

development now surrounds the site, the small lake has been drained, and Ferson Creek

has been dammed.

It is unlikely that

P. pulcher

still occurs here.

Porainogeton robbinsii:

The historical record offern pondweed is Grays Lake, Lake

County (1966).

Present locations include Lily Lake, McHenry County (1991) and Cedar

Lake, Lake County (1991).

Potamogeton robbinsii

was not found in Grays Lake.

Poramogeton srrictifolius:

Grays Lake, Lake County (1966) is the only historical record

for the stiff pondweed in the Fox River drainage.

A search of Grays Lake in

1991 did not

reveal the plant.

BIOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT STREAMS

Although this study wasdirected at streams ofillinois, lakes in the Fox River system are

included because of the many connections between the lakes and streams.

Through their

course, the Fox River and its tributaries wind through many ofthe lakes, and it is obvious

that populations

in the lakes have immediate access to the streams.

Fox River, Morgan Creekto confluence with the Illinois River, Kendall/LaS alle counties

(greater redhorse, riverredhorse)

(Figure

5-6)

This stretch ofthe Fox River is a medium-sized river.

The substrate is bedrock, overlain in

some areas with boulders or mixtures

of

sand and graveL

Habitatspresent include swift,

boulder/gravel riffles, smooth flowing runs, quiet sand-bottomed backwaters, and silt-

bottomed pools.

Depths range from six inches in some ofthe shallow riffles to four feetin

the main channel.

Both

Moxosronia valenciennesi,

the greater redhorse, and

Moxosroina

carinatum,

the riverredhorse, are present.

88

---

Unnamed tributary to Fox River at Yorkville, Kendall County

(heart-leaved plantain)

(Figure

5-6)

This intermittent tributary of theFox River is a fast moving, natural stream about fivefeet

wide with a substrate ofcobble, gravel, and sand.

Plantago cordara,

the heart-leaved

plantain, occurs on gravel bars on the banks and in the stream.

The width of the riparian

zone on the east bank is small, surrounded by mowed lawns and a housing development.

The owners mow up to the

Plantago cordata

site on the east bank.

The riparian vegetation

on the west side is typical mesic floodplain forest with the herbs,

Euparoriwn maculation

(Joe Pye weed),

Heleniwn autumnale

(sneezeweed), and

Lobelia siphiliatica

(blue lobelia).

Also,

common

on the westhank are seep springs which empty into this small intermittent

tributary, populated by

Symplocarpusfoetidus

(skunk cabbage) and

Caitha palustris

(marsh marigold).

North Branch Nippersink Creek from Wisconsin border to Nippersink Creek, McHenry County

(creek heelsplitter)

(Figure

5-7)

The North Branch ofNippersink Creek is a small natural stream with a sand,

gravel,

and

silt substrate and no vascular aquatic vegetation.

Lasmigona compressa,

the creek

heelsplitter, is present.

The riparian zone is

10-50 feetwide and consists oftrees and

grass.

Richmond waste treatment plant and a golf course are upstream.

CedarLake, Lake Villa, Lake County

(blackchin shiner, blacknose shiner, banded ldllifish, Iowadarter, watermarigold, grass-

leaved pondweed, white-stemmedpondweed, fern pondweed)

(Figure

5-8)

Cedar Lake is one ofthe larger glacial lakes in Lake County.

The depth varies from only

inches deep along the shore to 35 feet near the middle; the wateris very clear.

The only

heavy residential development is on the northwest end.

Water milfoil (weed) first appeared

in the lake five years ago and has formed large dense beds and in some areas is choking

otherplants.

CedarLake is of excellent quality and a good candidate for preservation.

Potential threats to the habitat are the spread ofwatermilfoil, increased recreational use by

motorboats, and a new housing developmentwith access to the north.

Fourendangered

plant species—Bidens

beckli,

water marigold,

Poramogeron praelongus,

white-stemmed

pondweed,

Potamogeton robbinsii,

fern pondweed,

and

Pota~nogeron

grainineus,

grass-

leaved

pondweed—and four threatened fish species—Nozropis

heterodon,

blackchin

shiner,

Notropis

heterolepis,

blacknose shiner,

Fundulus diaphanus,

banded killifish, and

Etheostoma exile,

Iowa darter—are present.

A small part of the lake is preserved within

CedarLake Bog Nature Preserve.

89

---

Cross Lake, Wisconsin and illinois state line, Lake

County

(pugnose shiner, blackchin shiner, blacknose shiner, banded killifish, Iowa darter)

(Figure 5-8)

Cross Lake is a border lake located in both Wisconsin and Illinois.

Maximum depth is 35

feet.

Heavy residential development surrounds the southern portion of the lake.

Notropis

anogenus,

pugnose shiner,

Norropis

heterodon,

blackchin shiner,

Natropis heterolepis,

blacknose shiner,

Fundulus diaphanus,

banded kilhifish, and

Etheostoma exile,

Iowa

darter, are present.

Deep Lake, Lake County

(pugnose shiner, blackchin shiner, banded killifish, white-stemmed pondweed)

(Figure 5-8)

Deep Lake is one of the states deepest lakes with a maximum depth of over 50 feet.

Less

than halfof the land surrounding the lake has been developed, with the eastern shore

showing the most development.

Vascular aquatic vegetation is abundant.

The endangered

white-stemmedpondweed,

Potamogetonpraelongus,

is present.

Also present are

No ropis

anogenus,

pugnose shiner,

Notropis heterodon,

blackchin shiner, and

Fundulus

diaphanus,

bandedkillifish.

East Loon Lake, Lake County

(pugnose shiner, blackchin shiner, blacknose shiner, bandedkillifish)

(Figure

5-8)

East Loon Lake has a maximum depth of

25

feet and receives drainage of both Deep and

Sun Lakes.

Residential development is heavy on the eastwhile WestLoon Lake borders

on the west.

Notropis anogenus,

pugnose shiner,

Notropis

heterodon,

blackchin shiner,

Notropis heterolepis,

blacknose shiner, and

Fundulus diaphanus,

banded killifish, are

present.

West Loon Lake, Lake County

(grass-leaved pondweed,

white-stemmedpondweed)

(Figure 5-8)

West Loon Lake has some residential development on the north and south.

Maximum

depth is 40 feet.

Aquatic vascular vegetationis abundantwith the endangered

Potamogeron

praelongus,

white-stemmedpondweed, and

Potamogeton grainineus,

grass-leaved

pondweed, present.

Bangs Lake, Wauconda, Lake County

(grass-leavedpondweed,

white stemmed pondweed)

(Figure

5-8)

Bangs Lake is surrounded by the town of Wauconda.

Recreational use is fairly heavy with

water-skiing, swimming, and fishing the most notable activities.

Large beds of aquatic

90

---

vegetation are

present, including

Potamogetonpraelongus,

white-stemmed

pondweed, and

Poramogeron grainineus,

grass-leaved

pondweed.

Sullivan Lake, Lake County

(blackchin shiner, grass-leaved pondweed)

(Figure

5-8)

Sullivan Lake, a natural pothole slough, is fairly clear with a mud bottom.

The lake is not

very deep (to ten feet).

A

small

cattail island occupies the centerof the lake.

Residential

development is light.

Aquatic vegetation is abundant and includes

Poramogeton gramineus,

grass-leaved pondweed.

Norropis heterodon,

the blackchin shiner, is also present.

Wooster Lake, Wilson, Lake County

(blackchin

shiner, blacknose shiner)

(Figure

5-8)

Wooster Lake, surrounded by heavy residential development, has a maximum depth of 30

feet.

Notropis heterodon,

the blackchin

shiner, and

Notropis heterolepis,

the blacknose

shiner, are present.

Lily Lake, Lakemoor, McHenry County

(grass-leaved pondweed, fern pondweed)

(Figure

5-8)

Lily Lake is a peat lake.

Residential development occurs only on the east and west shores.

Vascular aquatic vegetation beds are found in the west and north.

A sand beach grades into

the lake on the east side and has little vegetation.

White water lily and yellow pond lily

form large beds throughout the lake.

The average depth is two to fivefeet and small peat

islands are common in the middle.

Potainogeton robbinsii,

fern pondweed,

and

Potamogeton grainineus,

grass-leaved pondweed, are present.

Turner Lake, Chain 0’ Lakes State Park, McHenry County

(Iowa darter)

(Figure

5-8)

Turner Lake, which is within Chain 0’ Lakes State Park, is ownedby theIllinois

Department of Conservation.

Turner Lake Fen Nature Preserve, an exampleof the

wetlands associated with the glacial lakes and ponds ofnortheastern Illinois, borders the

south and west shorelines of the lake.

Etheostoma exile,

the Iowa darter, is present in

Turner Lake.

91

---

Round Lake, Round Lake Park, Lake County

(grass-leaved pondweed)

(Figure

5-8)

Round Lake is surrounded by residential development.

The water is very turbid and debris

litters

the lake:

There is some residential drainage into the lake.

Although few vascular

aquatic plant beds were found,

Poramogeton gramineus,

grass-leaved pondweed, is

present.

Crystal Lake, Crystal Lake, McHenry County

(grass-leaved pondweed)

(Figure 5-8)

Crystal Lake is surrounded by residential development.

Maximum depth is 30 feet.

Potaniogeton

gramineus,

grass-leaved pondweed, is present.

McCullom Lake, McHenry, McHenry County

(grass-leaved pondweed)

(Figure 5-8)

McCullom Lake was constructed in the late

1800’s by damming a slough area northeastof

McHemy,

Illinois.

The lake is surrounded by residential development.

Potamogeron

gramineus,

grass-leaved pondweed, is present.

Grays Lake, Grayslake, Lake County

(grass-leaved pondweed)

(Figure

5-8)

Residential development surrounds Grays Lake.

In the early 1960’s Grays Lake had large

quantities ofvascular aquatic vegetation, including several endangered species.

Although

the lake still contains large quantities ofaquatic vegetation, only the endangered

Poramogeton gramineus,

grass-leaved pondweed, is present.

Water milfoil, which the

residents attempt to control, chokes the lake.

BSC Class

“A”

Streams

(Figure

5-9)

-

Buck Creek, LaS alle County

92

---

Attachment FOUR

---

J.UFV.Lf

LUUJ~

.LQ.

‘IV

ir’~j~.r’~~v~rs~

rc-~c.

UL

•

ILLiNOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

1021

NQRTNGRANE~AVENUE

EAST,

P.O.

BOx

19276,

SP*NCF;ELD,

IU,tNQIS

62794-9276

THOMAS

V.

SKINNER, O~~Y~*

¶~‘

‘-

~

I

.

_~__.

.,.

c~

MEMORANDUM ~

201

Date:

3

May 2001

lLL::~”;~~

.~.

.~...

.1 L

To:

Abel Haile

From:

Scott Twait

yr

Subject:

Water Quality Based Effluent Limit and Nondegradation Evaluation for

Joliet West SIP

NPDES

No. 1L0033553

(Will County)

The subject facility has not been

able to

consistently meet their ammonia nitrogen permit

limits.

Therefore, they haveentered

into a compliance commitment agreement to achieve theselimits

As

part of that

agreement, long term compliance will be

achieved by expanding the existing sewage

treatment facility from

10.0

MGD DAF

to

140

MGD DAF.

The facility discharges

to

the

Des

Plaines Riverat a pointwhere 1955 ci’s flow exists upstream during 7Q10 low-flow conditions.

The

Des Plaines River is classified as

a secondary contact water at this location.

TheDes PlainesRiver is rated a “C” stream under the Agency’s Biological Stream Characterization

(BSC) program.

The Des Plaines River is found on the Illinois 303(d) list as published by the Agency on

April

1.

1 99S

The

causes

of impairment

given

for

the

segment

at

that

time

were

priority

organics

(Moderate), metals (High), ammonia(M), nutrients (H), and pathogens(M).

Thesources associated

with theimpairment are industrial point sources (M), municipal point sources (M), combined sewer

overflows

(Slight),

construction

(S),

land

development

(S),

urban

runofffstorm

sewers

(M),

hydrologic/habitat modification (S), channelization (S),.flow regulation/modification (S), other(H),

and in-place contaminants (H).

The Des Plaines River segment G- 12

has been

re-evaluated for the year 2000

305(b) assessment.

After consideration ofnewwater quality data and using an updated system ofdesignating causes and

sources ofimpairment, the following is the current listing for this segment.

Causes ofimpairment

are given asPCBs (Slight), metals (S).copper (S), chromium (S), mercury (S). nutrients (Moderate).

phosphorus

(S),

nitrogen

(M),

flow

alterations

(S),

and

habitat

alterations

(S).

Sources

of

impairment aregiven as industrial pointsources ~S).municipal point sources (S). urban runoff/storm

sewers

(S),

hydrornodification

(S).

channelization

(S),

flow

regulation/modification

çS)

and

contaminated sediments (S).

GE0RCE

H.

RYAN, GOvERNOR

---

iVIVJ,ILVVi

JQ.’IV

~,J.(~J’t’I~..jVJ.

r~4’1L

U-~

The Illinois Natural History

Surveydoes not list the Des Plaines River as a biologically significant

stream

nor does it

indicate that any threatened or endangered species of aquatic life are resident

according to the 1992 publication

Biologically Sign~flcanr

illinois Streams.

The

parameters

for

which

nondegradation issues

arise

at

this

facility are

SOD,

nutrients

and

ammonia.

The increased loading of BOL) shouldnra

impact

aquatic life in the Des Flames River.

The expanded facility

will

be

required

to meet SOD

and

TSS

effluent

standards established by the

IPCB.

These

standards

are applied consistently on a state-wide

basis and

have been proven to be

protective ofdissolved oxygen water quality standards

in receiving waters.

The

additional

loading

ofSOD to the Des Flames River isnot

expected to cause depletion

ofdissolved oxygen. or cause

any

other environmental

problem.

SOD will degrade as the effluent flows

downstream.

The expanded

plant

should

cause no discernable change to the quality ofthe Des Flames River.

No degradation

will occur from this discharge.

USEPA

is developing national nutrient criteria that will formulate the basis for

future state

water

quality standards and

nutrient management strategies.

Uponpromulgation ofnational

criteria,

state

standards and adoption of a management strategy, there may be

nutrient reduction requirements

imposed on this

source.

At the present time however, the incremental nutrient loading anticipated

to result from this project is not expected to

increase

algae

or other noxious plant

growth, diminish

the present aquatic community

or otherwise aggravate existing

stream

conditions.

Therefore

no

permit

limits for nutrients are recommended at this time.

It may be prudent to advise

the permittee

that nutrient criteria

are being

developed

and

nutrient limitations may be imposed on this source at

some

future

time.

The Joliet

West

STP currently has

monthly

limits

of 1.5

mgfL (summer)

and 4.0 mg/L (winter).

However, they have not been able to consistently meet these limits. They have had 7 excursionsof

these limits in the last two years with a

maximum

monthly average

of5.53

mg/I. (summer)and

10.0

mgfL (winter).

The

Joliet

West SIP

has entered into a

compliance commitment agreement

to

expandthe treatment plant to achieve compliance with the existing anm~onia

nitrogerrpermitlimits.

Ammonia loading to the Des Plaines River will be reduced with the expanded facility meeting the

permit limits of 1.5 mg/I.

(summer)

and

4.0

mg/L (winter).

Based on thereduced ammonia loading

and the delisting of

ammonia

as a source of impairment from the 2000 3 03(d) list,

ammonia

is not

an issue of

concern.

No degradation should occur from the ammonia content ofthe effluent.

the need for the new

facility is based art the

need to expand the existing sewage treatment plant to

achieve compliance with the ammonia nitrogen permit limits.

An social need based on protection

ofthe environment is therefore presentjustifying the decision to expand the sewage treatment plant.

This

evaluation

was

conducted

to

satisfy

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

regulation

for

Nandegradation found at 35

Iii.

Adm. Code

302.105.

Under policies

in place

at this time, waters

will

be allowed to receive new or increased

discharges with the following provisions: the water

quality

standards are

met,

there is

an

economic or social

need for the discharge, best degree

of

treatment is attained,

and, no ecological alteration ofthe receiving stream is likely to occur.

In the

case

of the proposed

Joliet

West

SIP

discharge,

all

these

conditions

are

met.

The

proposed

discharge is therefore consistent with the Board’s Nondegradation regulation.

---

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

1021

NORTH

GRAND

AVENUE

EAST,

P.O.

Box

19276,

SPRINGFIELD,

kuMols

62794-9276

THOM~5V.

SKINNER.

DIRECTOR

~-:~

MEMORANDtfl~L..

~

Dale:

June

22,

2901

~,ufji

Fu:

Dun Netemeyer

From:

Scott Twait

(7”

~

c~c:ioN

Subject:

Water

Quality

Based

Effluent Limits

and

Nondegradation Evaluation

for

Huntley

-

West

SIP

NPDES No~1L0070~~

çMcHcnry

(‘ourity)

The subjectt~cility

proposes to expand from a

U.ö5

MGD to a

1.6 MGDDAF mechanical sewage treatment

plant.

The plant thschargcs to the

South Branch of the

Kishwaukee

River which

is

a 0.17

efs

7Q10

flow

stream

at

this location.

The

South Branch of the Kishwaukee

River

is

not

found on

the

Illinois

303(d)

list

as

published by

the

Agency

on

April

1.

1998.

The

South Branch of the Kishwaukee

River is

rated

a

“B” stream

under the

Agency’s

Biological

Stream

Characterization (RSC) program.

The Illinois Natural History Surveydoes not list the South Branch of’the Kishwaukee River asa biologically

significant stream nordoes

it

indicate that any

threatened or endangered

species of’aquatic life are resident

iccnrdin~to

the

1992

publication

fliologicallr

Sit~nifiçanr1j1i,u~,v

Srrewns.

The parameters

for

which nondegradanon

issues arise

at

this

facility

are SOD. nutrients and ammonia.

l’he

increased loading o1BOD

should

not

impactaquatic

life in the South Branchofthe Kishwuukee River.

The

new

facility will be

required

to meet

SOD

and TSS et’tluent standards established

by

the

LP(’B.

J’hese

standards are applied consistently on a state-wide

basis and have been proven

to

he protective

of

dissolved

oxygen water quality standards in receiving waters.

The additional

loading of SOD to

the

South

Branch of

the

Kishwaukce

River

is

not

expected

to

cause

depletion

of

dissolved

oxygen

or

cause

any

other

environmental problem.

BOD will degrade as the

effluent

flawsdownstream.

The

new

plant

should cause

no

discernable

change to the quality

of

the South Branch of the Kjshwaukee River.

No

degradation

will

occur

from this discharge.

USEPA

is developing national nutrient criteria that will

formulate the basis for future state water quality

standards

and nutrient management

strategies.

Upon promulgation

ofnational

criteria,

state standards and

adoption of

a

management

strategy, there may

be nutrient reduction requirements

imposed on this source.

At

the

present time

however,

the incremental

nutrient

loading anticipated

to

result from

this project

is

riot

expected

to

increase

algae

or other

noxious

plant

growth,

diminish

the

present

aquatic

community

or

otherwise

aggravate existing

stream conditions.

Therefore no

permit limits fornutrients are recommended

~n

Ii~I~

ume.

It

may

be prudent

to

adv~sc

the permittee that nutrient

criteria

are being developed and nutrient

limitations may

be

imposed

art

this

source

at some future

time.

GEORC~

N.

Rw-.i,

GOVERNOR

R.,-v,,

~“

---

juftfl,fLVJ~Jj

j~’+t)

~i1~+~Oi

rr~J-~ir’~j.r..

r’.ivLrc~

U;,

Ammonia

limits recommended for the plant

are

given on the attached ammonia analysis sheet.

Ammonia

Joadin~to

the

South

Branch

of

the

Kishwaukee

River

will

increase

with the

advent

of this

discharge.

However,

no degradation should occur from the ammonia content of the effluent.

Given the predicted ambient conditions of

the South Branch of the Kishwaukee River near the

outfall, as

determined using datacollected at AWQMN station PQ~

10, Kishwaukee River, monthly average limits of

1.2

mgiL

(summer) and

1.5

mg/L.

(wirtier)

are appropriate.

The

summer and

winter

limits

are

based

on

median

p1-1 and mixing.

L~aily

maximum limits ~f

5.1

rng~L

(summer)and

5.1 mg/L (winter) are recommended.

These

limits reflect

the seasonal acute water quality standards with no mixing allowance since the stream has insufficiertt stream

width for discharge induced mixing.

The

facility

has explored two

alternatives

and

decided

that

they are

not feasible.

The

first

alternative

explored is on-sue water treatment systems

(i.e..

septic tanks) and

is not

suitable due to nature and

density

of area.

The second alternative explored

is a lagoon plus land application and is not

suitabLe-sincesuitable

acreage is not available

for land application.

The needfor

the plant expansion is based on growth withinthecoii~munity

based on

the Northeastern Illinois

Planning Commission’s

(NEPC)

projection.

The

Water Quality Management Plan

was

supported by

NIPC

on December

16.

1999.

A social

reason

is therefore

presentjustifying the expanded discharge.

This

evaluation was conducted

to satis~v

the Illinois

Pollution Control Board regulation

forNondegradation

found at

35

Ill. Adrn. Code 302.105.

Underpolicies

in place at this time,

waters will be allowed to receive

new

or increased discharges with the following provisions: the water quality standards are met. there is an

economicor social need for the discharge. best

degree

of’

treatment is attained, -and. no ecological alteration

ofthe receivingstream is likely to occur.

In

the caseof the proposed Huntly

-

West SIP discharge. all these

ctmdiuons

are

met.

ilte

proposed

discharge

is

therefore

consistent

with

the

Board’s

Nondegradation

rctzuIat~n.

l’he seasonal disinfection exemption

for the

existing plant is still applicable for the expanded plant.

!‘h~c

r~ommcndations

reflect

a

water quality standards perspective

only and should not

be

construed

us

being indicative ofall factors whichhave to be taken into consideration

by

the

permit writer.

~c:

Jay Patel

Wally Matsunaga

Bob Mosher

---

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Albert F. Ettinger, certify that I have filed the above Notice ofFiling together

with an

original and 9 copies ofthe

Post Hearing Comments ofthe Environmental Law & Policy Center,

Friends ofthe Fox River, Prairie Rivers Network and Sierra Club, Regarding the ProposedRule,

First Notice

printed on recycled paper, with the Illinois Pollution Control Board, James R.

Thompson Center,

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500, Chicago, IL

60601, and served

all

-

the parties on the attached Service List by depositing a copy in a properly addressed, sealed

envelop with the U.S. Post Office, Chicago, Illinois, with proper postage prepaid on October 11,

2001.

Albert F. Ettin

r

Environmental

Law and Policy Center

35

East Wacker Drive,

Suite 1300

Chicago, IL

60601

October

11, 2001

---

Fred Andes, Esq.

Barnes and Thomburg

2600 South Chase Plaza

10 South LaSalle Street

Chicago, IL

60603

Jack Darin,

Sierra Club, Illinois Chapter

200 North Michigan Avenue

505

Chicago, IL

60601-0000

Matthew J. Dunn, Esq.

Chief, Environmental Bureau

188

West Randolph

20th Flr.

Chicago, IL

6060 1-0000

Susan Frenzetti,

Esq.

Sonnensehein Nath & Rosenthal

233

South Wacker Drive

8000

Chicago, IL

60606-0000

Christine S. Bucko, Esq.

Environmental Control Division

100

West Randolph Street

l2thFlr.

Chicago, IL

60601-0000

Ron Hill,

SERVICE LIST

RO1-13

Chicago, IL

60601-0000

James T.

Harrington, Esq.

Ross & Hardies

150 North Michigan Avenue

2500

Chicago, IL

6060 1-0000

Richard J. Kissel, Esq.

Gardner, Carton & Douglas

321

North Clark Street; Quaker Tower

3400

Chicago, IL

606

10-4795

Paul Pederson,

Nalco Chemical Company

6216 West 66th Place

Chicago, IL

6063 8-0000

Nancy Rich, Esq.

Katten Muchin & Zavis

525

West Monroe Street

1600

-

Chicago, IL

60661-3693

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District

100 East Erie

Chicago, IL

6060 1-0000

Jerome I. Maynard,

Dykema Gossett PLLC

55

East Monroe Street

3250

Chicago, IL

60603-5709

Dorthy M. Gunn, Clerk ofthe Board

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center;

100 West

Randolph

Street

11-500

~

I:\Water\antidegradation\Testimony to PCB\SERVJCE LIST ROI-13 .doc

---

SERVICE LIST

RO1-13

Connie

Tonsor,

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021

North Ornad Avenue, East; P.O. Box

19276

Springfield,

IL

62794-9276

Charles Wesselhoft, Esq.

Ross &

Hardies

150 North Michigan Avenue

2500

Chicago, IL

60601-0000

Jay Anderson,

American Bottoms

RWTF

One American Bottoms Road

Sauget,IL

62201-0000

John M. Heyde,

Sidley & Austin

Bank

One

Plaza;

10 south Dearborn Street

Chicago, IL

60603-0000

Irwin

Polls,

Metropolitan Water Reclamation;

Environmental Moni

6001

West Pershing Road

Cicero,IL

60804-4112

Sharon Neal,

ComEd-Unicom

Law Dept.

125

South Clark Street

Chicago, IL

60603-0000

Cindy

Skrudkrud,

-

4209 West Solon Road

Richmond, IL

60071-0000

Katherine

D. Hodge,

Hodge & Dwyer

3150 Roland Avenue; Post Office Box 5776

Springfield, IL

62705-5776

Karen L. Bernoteit,

Illinois Environmental Regulatory

Group

215 East Adams Street

Springfield,

IL

62701-0000

Chris Bianco,

Chemical Industry

Council

9801

W. Higgins Road

515

Rosemont, IL

60018-0000

Jerry Paulson,

McHenry County Defenders

804 Reginact

Woodstock, IL

60098-0000

Marie Tipsord, Esq.

Pollution Control Board

100 West Randolph Street

11-500

Chicago, IL

60601-0000

I:\Water\antide~radati.n\Testimony

to PCB\SERVICE LIST RO1-13 .doc

---

SERVICE LIST

RO1-13

Georgia Vlahos,

Department ofthe Navy

Navel Training Center, 2601A Paul Jones

Street

-

Great Lakes, IL

60088-2845

Richard Acker,

Openlands

Project

25 East Washington Street

1650

Chicago, IL

60602-0000

Bill Compton,

Caterpillar, -Inc.

100 N.E. Adams Street

Peoria, IL 61629-3350

Daniel J. Goodwin,

Goodwin Environmental Consultants, Inc.

400 Bruns Lane

Springfield, IL

62702-0000

Jeffrey Smith,

Abbott Labs

1401 North Sheridan Department 072N,

Building P14

North Chicago, IL

60064-6239

Philip Twomey,

Admiral Environmental Services

2025 South Arlington Heights Road

103

-

Arlington Heights, IL

60005-0000

Jack Welsch,

Stateside

Associates

2300 Clarendon Boulevard

407

Arlington, VA

22201-0000

I:\Water\antidegradation\Testimony to PCB\SERVICE LIST RO1.13

.doc