~ands
Sincerely,

~ands

Project

RECEIVED

CLERK’S

OFFTCE

DEC 042000

STATE OF IWNOIS

Pollution Control Board

November 28, 2000

Suite 1650

25 East Washington Street

Chicago, Illinois

60602-1708

Tel: 312-427-4256

Fax: 312-427-6251

www.openlands.org

Ms. Dorothy

Gunn

Clerkofthe Board

Illinois Pollution ControlBoard

100 W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Board of Directors

President

Tony Dean

Treasurer

.1. Timothy Ritchie

Secretary

Janis W. Notz

Vice President

Ad,ninistration

Charles Saltzman

Vice President

Development

J. Bradley Davis

Vice President

Program

Ellen C. Newcomer

Vice President

Policy

Iris J. Krieg

Past President

Stephen W. Baird

Donn F. Bailey, Ph.D.

Susan S. Bell

Shaun C. Block

Richard

Carlson, Ph.D.

Forrest E. Claypool

George W. Davis

Victoria C. Drake

Richard L. Ettlinger

Lynn B. Evans

Thomas M. Flavin

H. James Fox

John M. Haight, Ill

Andrew Otting

George W. Overton

Jeffrey R. Short, Jr.

Alexander D. Stuart

Mrs. William L. Taylor, Jr.

George H. Ware, Ph.D.

Honorary Directors

William 3. Beecher, Ph.D.

Marshall Field V

Jack Guth

Brooks McCormick

Louise B. Young

Executive Director

Gerald W. Adelmann

Affiliate

CorLands

Re: Public Comment on R01-13: Revisions to Antidegradation Rules

(35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.105,303.205,303.206, and 106.990-106.995)

Dear Ms.

Gunn:

My name is

Richard

Acker,

and

I am theRegional

Land

Use Coordinator

for

Openlands

Project, a non-profit organization which has been dedicated to

preserving

and enhancing

public open space since

our

formation in 1963.

Openlands Project

is very pleased

that

the State of

Illinois

is now considering the

adoption ofthese antidegradation rules, which are crucial for preserving the

improvements in water quality that Illinois has

worked so

hard

to achieve.

urge the Illinois

Pollution Control Board (“Board”) to adopt rules that

recognize

the importance ofprotecting Illinois’s waters for fhture generations.

We believe the proposed rules are an important step in that direction..

However,

the proposed rules contain several flaws that we feel should be corrected.

1.1 Our first concern is the unnecessarily difficult process for nominating an

Iffinois waterway for status as an Outstanding Resource Water (“ORW”).

Adopting such a burdensome process would create a serious risk that citizens

would seldom if ever be able to nominate Illinois waterways for ORW status.

The Board should make

two

changes to the proposed ORW petition process.

First, it should scale back the list ofentities receiving copies ofan ORW petition

under proposed section

106.992. it is

not clear why a process to protect

waterways should be so muchmore difficult than the process for seeking

variances, NPDES permits, site-specific standards, and so on. The Board should

require for ORW petitions the same type ofnotification as required for the vast

majority ofthe other notification procedures in 35 IAC 106: simply filing copies

with the Iffinois Environmental Protection Agency (“IEPA”) and the Board.

Printed on Recycled Paper

Ms. Dorothy Guru

Page 2 of3

Tracking down the names and addresses ofall NPDES permit holders, not to mention all those

who have merely applied for NPDES permits or for section 401 certification, would be nearly

impossible for citizens or public interest groups. It is

also unnecessarily burdensome to require

copies be sent to the Attorney General, the States Attorney ofeach county through

whichthe

nominated water runs, and each member ofthe General

Assembly through whose district the

nominated water runs. None ofthe other notification procedures in 35 IAC 106 requires

notification ofthese individuals.

Ifthe Board believes that entities in addition to JEPA and the Board should be notified, it should

eliminate the requirement that

those entities be served

—

a potentially expensive and difficult

process

—

ratherthan simply notified by

mail. Furthermore, the Board should allow those

entities

to be sent a notification only, instead ofthe entire petition, which could be quite large.

1.2. The Board should also

relax

the

informational requirements forthe ORW petition. Citizens

and

public interest groups

are unlikely to know “current, verifiable information” on the regional

economy,

regional employment, and the community. Local businesses

and

chambers

commerceare

much

likelier

to have that sort of

information. The rules should ask those entities,

not the proponents ofan

ORW designation, for such information.

2. Our second

concern is with

proposed section

302.1

05(a)(2),

which currently gives the

impression that the loss of a resident or indigenous species would not be a “degradation

existing use” unless the species is necessary for commercial or recreational activities. Because

the existence ofindigenous aquatic life is itselfa protected use under Subpart D of35 IAC 302,

apart

from

any commercial orrecreational activities, proposed section 302.

1.05(a)(2)

should be

clarified by ending the sentence at the word “species.”

Our

third concern is

with proposed section 302.105(d)(6), which should be deleted. There

may be many cases where complying with a general NPDES permit will still cause some harm

a stream

—

especially where numerous discharges occur

—

and could degrade existing uses.

Industrial and construction-site stormwater runoff, which are typically covered under general

permits, have high potentials to degrade streams and rivers. These discharges should be

evaluated

on a

case-by-case basis for their degradation potential, just like

any other discharge.

4. Our fourth concern is with proposed section

303.205(b),

whichshould

also be

deleted. Many

low-flow

streams can

support diverse

and important aquatic communities, and fully deserve

strong

protections. If a particular stream has a 7Q10 flow ofzero, then that factor should be

weighed as one ofmany considerations in determining

potential ORW

status

—

not

as a general

disqualification.

Openlands

Project

wishes to commend IEPA for proposing rules that

do not exempt

small

increases in pollution from the antidegradation rules,

for even

small increases can eventuallyadd

up to significant harm, and must therefore be examined. Openlands also commends EPA for

not limiting the scope ofthe proposed rules to only the highest quality streams. The goal of

antidegradation policies is to protect all waters that exceed standards, not to protect some waters

while allowing backsliding on others.

Ms. Dorothy

Gunn

Page 3 of3

Openlands

Project

thanks

the

Illinois

Pollution Control Board for the

opportunity

submit

these

comments. We understand the considerable

effort that the Board, EPA, and many stakeholders

have put into this process. Openlands hopes that our comments will

help the Board achieve the

goals

ofprotecting

Illinois’ high quality

waters

and ensuring that the progress we make in

cleaning up our state’s waters is never lost.

Sincerely,

Richard

H. Acker

d~c4~-

Regional Land Use Coordinator

Openlands

Project

25 East

Washington

Street, Suite 1650

Chicago, Illinois

60602-1708