ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 21, 2002
IN THE MATTER OF:
REVISION TO ANTIDEGRADATION
RULES: 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 302.105,
303.205, 303.206, and 102.800-102.830
)
)
)
)
)
R01-13
(Rulemaking - Water)
Adopted Rule. Final Order.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by G.T. Girard, R.C. Flemal, N.J. Melas):
On August 30, 2000, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed a
proposal for rulemaking (Prop.) to amend the Board’s water “nondegradation” rules at 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 302.105, 303.205 and 303.206. The proposed rules would implement the required
federal concepts of antidegradation and outstanding resource waters for the State of Illinois. The
Agency also proposed amendments to the Board’s procedural rules at 35 Ill. Adm. Code
106.990-106.995 to include provisions for designating outstanding resource waters in Illinois.
On September 7, 2000, the Board accepted the proposal for hearing. Today, the Board adopts
the rules for final notice.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
After the Board accepted this matter for hearing, the Board held three hearings before
Board Hearing Officer Marie Tipsord. At those hearings testimony was heard from the Agency,
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group (IERG),
American Bottoms Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility, Village of Sauget, Illinois
(American Bottoms), Prairie Rivers Network, the Environmental Law & Policy Center, Friends
of the Fox River, McHenry County Defenders and the Sierra Club.
1
In addition, all of these
participants, except DNR, filed post-hearing public comments. The Board received a total of 47
comments prior to the first notice, which included 42 comments from groups and individuals not
named in this paragraph. On June 21, 2001, after reviewing the comments and testimony and
making changes to the proposal based on those comments and testimony, the Board proceeded to
first notice with the rules.
2
After the Board adopted the first-notice proposal, the Board held a fourth hearing and at
that hearing testimony was provided by Toby Frevert representing the Agency, Dierdre K. Hirner
1
The Prairie Rivers Network, the Environmental Law & Policy Center, Friends of the Fox River,
McHenry County Defenders and the Sierra Club all participated both individually and as a
group. Therefore, when referring to their joint comments and testimony, they will be
collectively called “Environmental Groups.”
2
For more details on the Board’s first-notice opinion and order see Revisions to Antidegradation
Rules: 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.105, 303.205, 303.206, and 102.800-102.830, R01-13 (June 21,
2001).
2
representing IERG, Jack Darin representing Sierra Club, Illinois Chapter, Cynthia L. Skrukrud
representing Friends of the Fox River, and Robert J. Moore representing Prairie Rivers Network.
All of these groups also filed post-hearing comments.
On December 6, 2002, the Board adopted a second-notice opinion and order that included
additional amendments to the proposal suggested during the first-notice period. The Board
directed that the proposal be submitted to the legislative Joint Committee on Administrative
Rules (JCAR) for second-notice review. During the pendancy of JCAR review, on January 7,
2002, the Board received two motions for reconsideration in this proceeding. Specifically, the
IERG and the Illinois Association of Wastewater Agencies (IAWA) filed motions asking the
Board to reconsider the December 6, 2001 opinion and order sending this matter to second
notice. On January 18, 2001, the Board received two responses to the motion to reconsider filed
by the Environmental Groups and the Agency. On
January 22, 2002, IERG filed a motion for leave to file a reply to the Agency’s response. The
Board denied the motion for leave to file reply; however the Board did grant IERG’s motions to
reconsider in part. The Board granted IERG’s motion by agreeing to amend Section
302.105(b)(3) as suggested by IERG and agreed to by the Environmental Groups. The Board
denied the motion filed by IAWA in its entirety. On February 19, 2002, the Board received a
certification of no objection from the JCAR.
SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL
The proposed amendments add new requirements to the Board’s rules concerning
antidegradation of waters in the State to the Board’s current rules found at 35 Ill. Adm. Code
302.105. The proposal would designate the State’s water resources to reflect the three tiers of
the federal program. The proposal also adds procedures for the implementation of the program
as a part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process.
Tier 1 in the federal scheme is based on achieving and maintaining existing stream uses.
Prop. at 3. Tier 1 sets the minimum level of protection and is intended to be the absolute floor of
water quality protection for all waters of the United States.
Id
. Tier 2 of the federal program
addresses waters whose quality exceeds the levels necessary to support the propagation of fish,
shellfish, or wildlife and recreation in and on the water. Water quality cannot be lowered below
the level necessary to protect the “fishable/swimmable” uses and other existing uses. Prop. at 3.
However, maintaining a level of water quality above the “fishable/swimmable” level is not
always required and water quality may be lowered if necessary to accomplish important
economic or social development in the area in which the waters are located.
Id
. and 40 C.F.R.
131.12(a)(2).
Tier 3 of the federal regulations requires that high quality water, which constitutes
outstanding resource waters, must be maintained and protected. Prop. at 4. Examples of
outstanding resource waters could include waters of national and state parks, wildlife refuges or
water of exceptional recreational or ecological significance.
Id
. To reflect Tier 3 in Illinois, the
amendments at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 303 create the category of waters classified as “outstanding
resource waters” or ORWs. The Board adds a new Subpart to the Board’s procedural rules at 35
Ill. Adm. Code 102 to regulate the process for classification of Outstanding Resource Waters.
3
ISSUES AT FIRST NOTICE
At first notice, the record in this rulemaking clearly reflected that all the participants
supported some part of the rulemaking. However the participants did not agree on several issues.
First, IERG, the Chemical Industry Council of Illinois (CICI) and American Bottoms, proposed
that the Agency conduct a significance test prior to an antidegradation review. Second, those
same groups supported a
de minimis
exception to the antidegradation requirements. Third, the
participants did not agree on the procedure the Board should use to designate a water as an
ORW. Fourth, IERG sought the inclusion of proposed Agency implementation procedures in
Part 302.
Significance Determination
At first notice the Board recognized that all proposed increases in pollutant loadings
should not require the same level of review to demonstrate compliance with the antidegradation
standard. The Board indicated that implementation procedures for antidegradation reviews
should allow the Agency to decide on a case-specific basis what level of review is appropriate.
Furthermore, the Board indicated that antidegradation implementation procedures should not
limit the Agency’s ability to ensure compliance with the antidegradation standard’s main
objective of identifying and implementing alternatives that reduce or eliminate the increased
loadings. For these reasons, the Board found that IERG’s proposed significance determination
procedure precluded the Agency from performing analyses of alternatives and benefits unless the
proposed increase was determined to have a significant impact on the receiving stream.
The IERG’s first-notice proposal would have required the Agency to go through the “fate
and effect” evaluation and stop short of giving any consideration to any alternatives to the
proposed activity even if available information indicates that economically reasonable or no cost
alternatives are available to reduce or eliminate the proposed increased loadings. While it could
be argued that under IERG’s first-notice proposal the Agency could consider alternatives and
benefits of a proposed activity by determining that the activity would have a significant impact,
the Agency would be unable to do so until the resolution of any appeals stemming from the
Agency’s significance determination. Thus, the IERG’s first-notice proposal could consume
more Agency resources than intended. In light of this, the Board declined to adopt the
significance determination proposed by IERG.
Instead, the Board adopted at first notice the antidegradation provisions proposed by the
Agency at Section 302.105(c)(2). The Board found that the proposed antidegradation review
criteria provided the Agency flexibility to perform on a case-by-case basis the appropriate level
of review without placing any undue limitations on its ability to ensure compliance with the
proposed antidegradation standard.
De Minimis
At first notice, the Board noted that the
de minimis
exception proposed by IERG was
similar to the significance determination in that the exception defined what constitutes lowering
of water quality. While significance determinations may be viewed as a narrative standard, the
de minimis
exception defines the lowering of water quality on a quantitative basis. A number of
4
other states have adopted different types of quantitative significance tests or combination of
quantitative or qualitative tests. Although
de minimis
exception may be helpful in focusing
Agency’s resources on only those increased loadings that pose a significant threat to water
quality, the proposed
de minimis
exception raised a number of concerns.
The Board noted that since the proposed exception did not make any distinctions based
on the nature and characteristics of the discharge, IERG’s proposal would allow discharge of
bioaccumulative and persistent chemicals without an Agency review as long as the increased
level is below the
de minimis
level. Discharge of even small amounts of such chemicals may not
be advisable in certain water bodies. Further, the Board agreed with the Agency that the actual
determination of the assimilative capacity of receiving water body might take as much effort as
performing the antidegradation review.
For these reasons, the Board declined to adopt the
de minimis
exception proposed by
IERG at first notice. The Board indicated that the Agency should have the opportunity to review
any proposed increase in pollutant loading. In this regard, the Board noted that the Agency
would have had an opportunity to review the proposed increase in pollutant loading with respect
to all the exceptions proposed under Section 302.105(d).
ORW designations
After carefully reviewing the testimony and comments presented on the issue of what
process the Board should use in making the ORW designation, the Board found that the proper
avenue for ORW designation is rulemaking under Title VII of the Act (415 ILCS 5/Title VII
(2000)) and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102 of the Board’s procedural rules. Many of the concepts
advocated by the commentors are included in the ORW designation rulemaking process.
Additionally, by virtue of the rulemaking process, many informational and service requirements
sought by the Agency and IERG will be unnecessary.
There are several reasons why the rulemaking process is the best method for evaluation
proposals for ORW designation. First, the many requirements of Title VII of the Act and the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 ILCS 100/1-1
et seq.
(2000)) will provide the Board with the
tools to develop the most comprehensive and complete record for ORW designation decisions
possible. Second, the open nature of a rulemaking process in Illinois will allow for more ample
opportunities for all individuals to testify or comment in support or opposition to an ORW
designation proposal. Finally, the ability to appeal a Board rule is broader than the opportunity
to appeal other types of Board decisions such as adjusted standard proceedings.
Many of the requirements of Title VII of the Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (5
ILCS 100/1-1
et. seq.
) will assist the Board in developing a complete record for its decision. For
example, a proposed rulemaking must be published in the
Illinois Register
for a minimum 45-
day public comment period. Then a proposed rule must be submitted to the legislative Joint
Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) for review. If JCAR does not object to the rule, the
rule may be proposed for final adoption and publication in the
Illinois Register
. The adopted
rule is then a part of the Illinois Administrative Code. This process will allow for statewide
publication and notice of a proposal as well as an opportunity for substantial comment prior to
the final designation of an ORW. Then once an ORW has been designated, the designation is
5
published as a part of the Illinois Administrative Code allowing anyone interested to readily
identify such designated waters.
Furthermore, the Board’s own rulemaking procedures enunciated in Section 27 of the Act
requires the Board to “take into account the existing physical conditions, the character of the area
involved, including the character of surrounding land uses, zoning classifications, the nature of
the existing air quality, or receiving body of water, as the case may be, and the technical
feasibility and economic reasonableness of measuring or reducing the particular type of
pollution.” 415 ILCS 5/27(a) (2000). Thus the Board will be required to examine land use,
including zoning, the body of water, existing physical conditions of the body of water, technical
feasibility, and economics as a part of any rulemaking requesting an ORW designation.
Also at first notice the Board indicated that it did not agree with IERG’s position that a
“burden of proof” must be established in the ORW designation process. The Board noted that
rulemaking proceedings allow for testimony, cross-questioning of testifiers, and comments from
any person or group as long as the testimony is relevant and not repetitious. 35 Ill. Adm. Code
102.426 and 102.430. The proponent of a rule must present testimony in support of that rule. 35
Ill. Adm. Code 102.428. The Board pointed out that the rulemaking process allows for
development of the most complete record possible, allowing ample opportunities for those in
support or opposition to present opinions to the Board on the designation of an ORW. The
Board can then weigh all the information and evidence in the record and determine if the
designation of an ORW is warranted. Furthermore, this same rulemaking process will be
available to repeal an ORW designation should circumstances change concerning that body of
water.
At first notice the Board further opined that a rulemaking is the more appropriate forum
for determining if a body of water should be designated an ORW because of the ability to appeal
a Board rule. Section 29(a) of the Act provides:
Any person adversely affected by any rule or regulation of the Board may obtain a
determination of the validity or application of such a rule or regulation by petition
for review under Section 41 of the Act. 415 ILCS 5/29(a) (2000).
Proposed Rule on ORW designation
Having determined that the Board will use the rulemaking process for the designation of
ORWs, the Board proposed amendments to the procedural rules to set forth the process to be
used. The proposed amendments include the requirements for notice of an ORW designation
petition, informational requirements for all petitions, and procedures the Board will follow when
receiving an ORW designation petition.
Inclusion of Agency Procedures in Part 302
The Board included in the first-notice proposal procedures that the Agency had indicated
would be adopted as a part of Agency rules. The Board proposed those procedures at Section
302.105(f).
ISSUES AT SECOND NOTICE
6
As indicated above, the Board held an additional hearing after the Board adopted the
first-notice opinion and order in this matter. At that hearing and in the final comments the
participants raised some additional issues and reiterated other issues
3
. Specifically, the Agency
made several suggestions to the language the Board had proposed, including suggested
amendments to Section 302.105(f), 302.105(c)(2), 302.105(d)(5), and 302.105(d)(6). IERG also
offered specific language changes as well as reiterating the request for
de minimis
exception.
IERG also sought changes to the rulemaking procedures for ORW designations including the
inclusion of a burden of proof. The Environmental Groups joined in certain of the suggested
changes by IERG and the Agency and suggested further changes to Section 302.105(d)(6) and
302.105(f)(1)(G).
Section 302.105(f)
The Agency indicated in both the prefiled testimony and the final comments that
although the Agency generally supports the Board’s proposal (PC 50 at 1; Exh. 38 at 1), the
Agency had three areas of concern regarding the Board’s inclusion of the antidegradation
implementation procedures in Part 302. First the Agency urged the Board to delete the
implementation procedures from Part 302 and move the implementation procedures to Part 309.
Secondly, the Agency indicated that because the Board had included Exhibit B from the proposal
for rulemaking as Section 302.102(f), there were several concerns about the language as
originally included. PC 50 at 2. Specifically, the Agency proposed that subsections
302.105(f)(2)(A)(i), (f)(2)(B) and (f)(2)(C) be deleted from the rule. PC 50 at 3-4. Finally, the
Agency expressed concern that the inclusion of the implementation procedures could be
problematic for activities requiring a Section 401 of the Clean Water Act water quality
certification (33 U.S.C. § 1341 (Section 401 certification)). PC 50 at 2; Exh. 38 at 2.
The Board noted its appreciation for the Agency suggestion that to remain consistent with
other Board regulations by placing the implementation procedures in Part 309 of the Board’s
rules. However, placing the implementation procedures into Part 309 would lead to an
unnecessary delay because of the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
ILCS 100/5-5
et seq
).
The Board also noted that the Agency recently proposed a new rulemaking (R02-11) to
the Board entitled, Water Quality Triennial Review: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code
302.208(e)-(g), 302.504(a), 302.575(d), 303.444, 309.141(h) and Proposed 35 Ill. Adm. Code
301.267, 301.313, 301.413, 304.120, and 309.157. In R02-11, the Agency proposed
amendments to both Parts 309 and 302. Therefore, the Agency could propose that the
implementation procedures for Part 309 be placed in R02-11 without delaying the instant
rulemaking which has been before the Board since August 30, 2000.
The Board declined to accept the Agency’s request that the CWA Section 401
certification language be removed from Section 302.105(b)(4). A Section 401 certification under
the CWA is required when an applicant for a federal permit to conduct any activity that results in
3
For more details on the Board’s second-notice opinion and order see Revisions to
Antidegradation Rules: 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.105, 303.205, 303.206, and 102.800-102.830,
R01-13 (Dec. 6, 2001).
7
a discharge to navigable waters must first obtain a certification from the Agency that the
discharge complies with applicable water quality and effluent standards. The Agency had
included the Section 401 certification provisions in the original proposal to the Board and this
inclusion was not an issue prior to the Board’s proceeding to first notice.
Section 302.105(b)
IERG in testimony, comments, and again in its motion to reconsider expressed concern
that the Board did not intend Section 302.105(b)(3)(B) and (C) to apply only to activities
authorized under Section 302.105(b)(1)(A) and (B). IERG also sought clarification in the
Board’s opinion and order of the Board’s intent concerning Section 302.105(b)(3)(B).
The Environmental Groups agreed with IERG that the Board did not intend Section
302.105(b)(3)(B) and (C) to apply to activities authorized under Section 302.105(b)(1)(A) and
(B) and offered identical language to clarify the rule. In addition, the Environmental Groups
suggested language to clarify that the provisions of Section 302.105(b)(1)(B) allow stormwater
discharges in existence when the ORW is designated. PC 51 at 24-25. The Environmental
Groups believe that Section 302.105 (b)(1)(B) might be read to allow degradation of an ORW
and also prevent certain loadings that were “probably intended to be allowed.” PC 51 at 23.
In response to IERG’s uncertainty regarding Section 302.105(b)(3)(B), the Board noted
in the second-notice opinion and order that increases in loading of one constituent that may
reduce the loading of one or more constituents may be an improvement in water quality. Also,
adding a new constituent that would eliminate a bioaccumulative chemical of concern is an
additional example of an activity that may improve water quality.
Regarding the comments pertaining to the intent of Section 302.105(b)(3)(B) and (C), the
Board noted that the increase in pollutant loadings to an ORW is not limited to the activities
listed in Section 302.105(b)(1). Subsection 302.105(b)(3)(B) allows for an increase in pollutant
loading under a very limited circumstance where such an increase is necessary for an activity
that will improve the quality of the ORW. The Board does not consider an increase in pollutant
loading pursuant to subsection 302.105(b)(3)(B) as lowering the quality of an ORW. In this
regard, the Board notes that the proposed regulations prohibit the lowering of quality of an
ORW, except for the activities listed in Section 302.105(b)(1).
At second notice, the Board declined to make the change to Section 302.105(b)(3)
suggested by IERG and the Environmental Groups. However, upon reconsideration the Board
did agree to make the change and the adopted rule reflects that change.
The Board also declined to make the suggested change to Section 302.105(b)(1)(B)
regarding stormwater discharges to an ORW offered by the Environmental Groups. The rule as
written very clearly reflects that only stormwater discharges in existence on the day an ORW is
designated are allowed if such discharges are in compliance with applicable stormwater
discharge and water quality regulations. The Board opined that adopting the Environmental
Groups’ proposed language would narrow the scope of the exception by limiting the applicability
to only discharges that require an NPDES permit or Section 401 certification.
8
Section 302.105(c)(2)
The Agency suggested and the Board agreed that a new sentence be added to Section
302.105(c)(2) and Section 302.105(f)(2) that indicates that the Agency will make antidegradation
assessments on a case-by-case basis. PC 50 at 7. IERG agreed that this language should be
added and further suggests that Section 302.105(c)(2)(B) be amended to reflect that the Agency’s
decision will be made on a case-by-case basis. PC 52 at 3-4. IERG also suggested that the
language be clarified in this section to clearly identify to the regulated community when an
antidegradation review is triggered. PC 52 at 8.
The Board declined to make the suggestions by IERG to the rest of this section. The
Board found that the further inclusion of the language in subsection (c)(2)(B) would be repetitive
and amendments to Section 302.105(c)(2) and (f)(1) were unnecessary, as these subsections are
clear.
Section 302.105(c)(2)(C)
In comments and testimony, IERG indicated that IERG reconsidered the request to
include a
de minimis
exception in the rule. PC 52 at 7. However, IERG suggested that the Board
add to Section 302.105(c)(2)(C) a new subsection to allow the Agency to consider a
de minimis
demonstration as one of its sources of information in making an antidegradation assessment.
Id
.
Although IERG modified the request for a
de minimis
exception, for the reasons discussed in the
first-notice opinion and order, the Board declined to make the change.
Section 302.105(d)(5)
IERG and the Agency agreed to a suggestion regarding non-contact cooling water and the
Board adopted the suggested change.
Section 302.105(d)(6)
The Agency suggested and the Board agreed to amend this subsection by replacing the
phrase “general CWA, Section 401 certification” with “for nationwide or regional Section 404 of
the CWA permit.” PC 50 at 9.
In addition to the Agency’s suggestion in this subsection, IERG suggested that the
language “waters of particular biological significance” be deleted. IERG reiterated this
argument in the motion to reconsider. The Environmental Groups suggested clarifying “waters
of particular biological significance” by deleting the phrase and replacing it with:
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 water identified as having high levels of
biodiversity. PC 51 at 26
The Board added a reference to the Illinois Department of Conservation publication
entitled “Biologically Significant Illinois Streams”. The Board declined to make this publication
9
the definitive source but rather list it as a possible listing of waters of particular biological
significance.
Section 302.105(f)(1)(G)
The Environmental Groups suggested that the Board’s regulations should make clear that
the Illinois Department of Natural Resources should be notified of proposals to allow new or
increased pollution to Illinois waters. PC 51 at 26. The Board agreed with this suggestion and
added language to the rule requiring that DNR be served with a copy of petitions.
Part 102
IERG expressed the following concerns about the Board’s amendments to Part 102.
First, IERG believes that the notice requirements of Part 102 are insufficient to notify all
prospective landowners and interested parties. Secondly, IERG maintained that proponents of an
ORW designation should have an obligation to support and petition for ORW designation and
the requirements of Part 102 do not sufficiently provide for such proof.
The Board addressed, in its first-notice opinion and order, IERG’s concern about a
“burden of proof” and the Board repeated the comment in the second-notice opinion and order.
The Board noted that the proposal at Section 102.830 specifies when a petition might be
dismissed and when the Board will grant ORW status. Thus, the Board found that the burden of
a proponent in a petition for ORW designation, modification or repeal need not be further
articulated and the Board declined to add additional language to the proposal.
The Board also declined to place additional persons on the list of persons to be served
with petitions for rulemakings to designate ORWs. The Board did indicate that to ensure that
notification occurs, the Board would commit to including all potentially affected persons on the
notice list of the rulemaking upon acceptance of the petition. The Board will ask the Agency to
provide information such as the names of NPDES permit holders and applicants along the
proposed water body or water body segment. The Board will send copies of Board opinion and
orders to those persons on the notice list. The Board did not make a change to the rule to reflect
this policy.
ECONOMIC REASONABLENESS AND TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
As indicated in the Board’s first-notice opinion and order and again in the second-notice
opinion and order, the Agency’s proposal addressed the economic reasonableness and technical
feasibility of the proposal. The Agency indicated that the proposal is a revision of the existing
State water quality standard and updates and clarifies existing policy. The proposal is expected
to lessen the economic burden on the regulated community by listing activities that are already
considered in compliance with the requirements without the need for an individual
antidegradation review.
On June 25, 2001, pursuant to Section 27(b) of the Act, the Board requested that the
Department of Commerce and Community Affairs (DCCA) conduct an economic impact study
on the proposed rule. On March 10, 2000, DCCA had informed the Board that it would not be
10
doing economic impact studies. At the August 24, 2001 hearing the Board provided copies of
the DCCA letter and the Board’s June 25, 2001 letter.
In this proceeding the Board has received 52 public comments and held four public
hearings. The only issue of economic concern raised by the participants has been the potential
impact of designating an Outstanding Resource Water. As the Board will be using rulemaking
procedures for those designations, the economic impact of such a designation will be examined
with each proposal. The remaining evidence in this record indicates that the rule is economically
feasible and technically reasonable and the Board so finds.
CONCLUSION
The Board today proceeds to final notice with the proposal. The Board finds that the
proposal is economically reasonable and technically feasible. The final notice proposal will
include changes suggested by the participants to clarify the rule.
ORDER
The Board directs that the following rule be submitted to the Joint Committee on
Administrative Rules for second-notice.
SUBPART H: OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATER DESIGNATION
Section 102.800 Applicability
This Subpart applies to any person seeking the adoption, amendment, or repeal of an Outstanding
Resource Water (ORW) designation for a surface water body or any water body segment as
provided by 35 Ill. Adm. Code 303.205.
(Source: Added at 26 Ill. Reg. __________, effective __________)
Section 102.810 Petition
Any person may submit a petition for the adoption, amendment or repeal of an ORW
designation. The original and nine (9) copies of each petition must be filed with the Clerk and
one (1) copy each served upon the Agency, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, and the
Attorney General.
(Source: Added at 26 Ill. Reg. __________, effective __________)
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 surface
water body or water body segment being proposed for designation, amendment,
or repeal as an a ORW. Language being added must be indicated by
11
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;
b) A statement describing the specific surface water body or water body segment for
which the ORW designation, amendment, or repeal is requested and the present
designation of the surface water body or water body segment;
c) A statement describing the area in which the specific surface water body or water
body segment exists, including:
1) The existence of wetlands or natural areas;
2) The living organisms in that area, including endangered or threatened
species of plants, 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, the amendment, or the repeal, including
the health, environmental, recreational, aesthetic or economic benefits of the
designation, the amendment, or the repeal thereof;
e) A statement identifying the ORW designation’s anticipated impact on economic
and social development of the ORW designation, amendment, or repeal. This
statement should include:
1) Impacts on the regional economy;
2) Impacts on regional employment;
3) Impacts on the community;
4) A comparison of the health and environmental impacts to the economic
impact of an ORW designation.;
f) A statement describing the existing and anticipated uses of the specific surface
water body or water body segment for which the ORW designation, amendment,
or repeal is requested;
g) A statement describing the existing water quality of the specific surface water
body or water body segment warranting the ORW designation, amendment, or
repeal;
h) A synopsis of all testimony to be presented by the proponent at hearing;
12
i) Copies of any material to be incorporated by reference within the proposed
designation pursuant to Section 5-75 of the Administrative Procedure Procedures
Act [5 ILCS 100/5-75];
j) Proof of service upon all persons required to be served pursuant to Section
102.810 of this Part;
k) Unless the proponent is the Agency, or Illinois Department of Natural Resources
or receives a waiver by the Board, a petition signed by at least 200 persons,
pursuant to Section 28 of the Act and Section 102.160(a); and
l) Where any information required by this Section is inapplicable or unavailable, a
complete justification for such inapplicability or unavailability.
(Source: Added at 26 Ill. Reg. __________, effective __________)
Section 102.830 Board Action
a) Dismissal
1) Failure of the 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 subject to dismissal for inadequacy.
2) Failure of the proponent to pursue disposition of the petition in a timely
manner will render a petition subject to dismissal. In making this
determination, the Board may consider factors, including the history of the
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. Adm. Code 101.Subpart E.
b) Designation of ORW. The Board must designate a surface water body or water
body segment as an ORW and list it in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 303.206 if it finds:
1) The
surface
water body or water body segment is of uniquely high
biological or recreational quality exceptional ecological or recreational
significance; and
2) The benefits of protection of the surface water body or water body
segment from future degradation outweigh the benefits of economic or
social opportunities that will be lost if the surface water body or water
body segment is designated as an ORW.
13
(Source: Added at 26 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
302.209 Fecal Coliform
302.210 Other Toxic Substances
302.211 Temperature
302.212 Ammonia Nitrogen and Un-ionized Ammonia
302.213 Effluent Modified Waters (Ammonia)
SUBPART C: PUBLIC AND FOOD PROCESSING WATER SUPPLY STANDARDS
Section
302.301 Scope and Applicability
302.302 Algicide Permits
302.303 Finished Water Standards
302.304 Chemical Constituents
302.305 Other Contaminants
302.306 Fecal Coliform
14
SUBPART D: SECONDARY CONTACT AND INDIGENOUS AQUATIC LIFE
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 E: LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Section
302.501 Scope, Applicability, and Definitions
302.502 Dissolved Oxygen
302.503 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
302.520 Regulation and Designation of Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern (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 of Water Chemistry
302.560 Determining the Tier I Lake Michigan Basin Acute Aquatic Life Toxicity
Criterion (LMAATC): Dependent on Water Chemistry
15
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 of Concern, 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
302.612 Determining the Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criterion for an Individual Substance –
General Procedures
302.615 Determining the Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criterion - Toxicity Independent of
Water Chemistry
302.618 Determining the Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criterion - Toxicity Dependent on Water
Chemistry
302.621 Determining the Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criterion - Procedures for Combinations
of Substances
302.627 Determining the Chronic Aquatic Toxicity Criterion for an Individual Substance -
General Procedures
302.630 Determining the Chronic Aquatic Toxicity Criterion - Procedure for Combination
of Substances
302.633 The Wild and Domestic Animal Protection Criterion
302.642 The Human Threshold Criterion
302.645 Determining the Acceptable Daily Intake
302.648 Determining the Human Threshold Criterion
302.651 The Human Nonthreshold Criterion
302.654 Determining the Risk Associated Intake
302.657 Determining the Human Nonthreshold Criterion
302.658 Stream Flow for Application of Human Nonthreshold Criterion
302.660 Bioconcentration Factor
16
302.663 Determination of Bioconcentration Factor
302.666 Utilizing the Bioconcentration Factor
302.669 Listing of Derived Criteria
APPENDIX A References to Previous Rules
APPENDIX B Sources of Codified Sections
AUTHORITY: Implementing Section 13 and authorized by Sections 11(b) and 27 of the
Environmental Protection Act [415 ILCS 5/13 11(b), and 27]
SOURCE: Filed with the Secretary of State 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 Ill.
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 R88-1 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 21 Ill. Reg.
370, effective December 23, 1996; expedited correction at 21 Ill. Reg. 6273, effective December
23, 1996; amended in R97-25 at 21 Ill. Reg. 1356, effective December 24, 1997; amended in
R99-8 at 23 Ill. Reg. 11249, effective August 26, 1999; amended in R01-13 at 26 Ill. Reg.
__________, effective __________.
SUBPART A: GENERAL WATER QUALITY PROVISIONS
Section 302.105 Antidegradation
The purpose of this Section is to protect existing uses of all waters of the State of Illinois,
maintain the quality of waters with quality that is better than water quality standards, and prevent
unnecessary deterioration of waters of the State.
a) Existing Uses
Uses actually attained in the a surface water body or water body segment on or after
November 28, 1975,
whether or not they are included in the water quality standards, must
be maintained and protected. Examples of degradation of existing uses of the waters of
the State include:
1) an action that would result in the deterioration of the existing aquatic
community, such as a shift from a community of predominantly pollutant-
sensitive species to pollutant-tolerant species or a loss of species 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
17
activities; or
3) an action that would preclude continued use of a surface 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 (ORWs)
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:
A) Activities that result in short-term, temporary (i.e., weeks or
months) lowering of water quality in an ORW; or
B) Existing site stormwater discharges that comply with applicable
federal and State state stormwater management regulations and do
not result in a violation of any water quality standards.
2) Any activity in subsection (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 subsection (c)(2).
3) Any activity listed in subsection (b)(1) or any other proposed increase in
pollutant loading to an ORW must also meet the following requirements:
A) All existing uses of the water will be fully protected; and
B)
Except for activities falling under one of the exceptions provided
in subsection (b)(1)(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
C)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.
c) High Quality Waters
1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (d) of this Section, waters of
the State whose existing quality is better than any of the established
standards of this Part must be maintained in their present high quality,
unless the lowering of water quality is necessary to accommodate
important economic or social development.
18
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 must be made on a case-by-case basis. In making this assessment,
the Agency must:
A) Consider the fate and effect of any parameters proposed for an
increased pollutant loading.
B) Assure the following:
i) The applicable numeric or narrative water quality standard
will not be exceeded as a result of the proposed activity;
ii) All existing uses will be fully protected;
iii) All technically and economically reasonable measures to
avoid or minimize the extent of the proposed increase in
pollutant loading have been incorporated into the proposed
activity; and
iv) The activity that results in an increased pollutant loading
will benefit the community at large.
C) Utilize the following information sources, when available:
i) Information, data or reports available to the Agency from
its own sources;
ii) Information, data or reports supplied by the applicant;
iii) Agency experience with factually similar permitting
scenarios; and
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) of this Section.
1) Short-term, temporary (i.e., weeks or months) lowering of water quality;
2) Bypasses that are not prohibited at 40 CFR 122.41(m);
19
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 of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants which may pose a danger to 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:
A)
without additives, except as provided in subsection (d)(5)(B),
returned to the same body of water from which it was taken, as
defined by 35 Ill. Adm. Code 352.104, provided that the discharge
complies with applicable Illinois thermal standards; or
B) containing chlorine when the non-contact cooling water is treated to
remove residual chlorine, and returned to the same body of water
from which it was taken, as defined in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 352.104,
provided that the discharge complies with applicable Illinois
thermal and effluent standards at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302, 303, and
304;
6) Discharges permitted under a current general NPDES permit as provided
by 415 ILCS 5/39(b)
or a general CWA, Section 401 certification
nationwide or regional CWA Section 404 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 affects waters of particular biological significance. Waters of
particular biological significance may include streams listed in a 1991
publication by the Illinois Department of Conservation entitled
“Biologically Significant Illinois Streams; or
7)
Changes to or inclusion of a 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
20
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 302.521 of this Part.
f) Antidegradation Assessments
In conducting an antidegradation assessment pursuant to this Section, the Agency must
comply with the following procedures.
1) A permit application for any proposed increase in pollutant loading that
necessitates the issuance of 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 of this Section, the following
information:
A) Identification and characterization of the water body affected by
the proposed load increase or proposed activity and their the
existing water body’s uses. Characterization must address
physical, biological and chemical conditions of the water body.
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 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 may include:
21
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 the Agency may request.
F)
Proof that a copy of the application has been provided to the
Illinois Department of Natural Resources.Any of the information
sources identified in subsection 302.105(d) (3).
2) The Agency must complete an antidegradation demonstration assessment
review in accordance with the provisions of this Section on a case-by-case
basis.
A)
The Agency must consider the criteria stated in Section
302.105(c)(2).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
planning stage for any load increase. Communication will help
assure the adequacy of information necessary to constitute an
antidegradation demonstration and avoid or minimize delays and
requests for supplemental information during the permitting stage.
The Agency review process must be initiated by:
i)
an informal or preliminary request of a proponent of a
project prior to filing of a permit application; or
ii)
receipt of application for an NPDES permit issuance,
renewal or modification, or a CWA Section 401
certification.
B)
The Agency must consider the information provided by the
applicant pursuant to subsection (f)(1).A proponent seeking an
immediate review of the results of the Agency’s review pursuant to
subsection (f)(2)(A)(ii) must do so within the NPDES permit
process or the CWA Section 401 certification process.
C)
After a review pursuant to subsection (f)(2)(A)(i), the Agency must
22
consult with the proponent and respond:
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 during the review
process, meets the criteria of this Section;
ii)
verbally to verbal requests; or
iii)
in a manner otherwise agreed upon.
CD) After its assessmentreview, the Agency must produce a written
analysis addressing the requirements of this Section and provide a
decision yielding one of the following results:
i) If the demonstration proposed activity meets the
requirements of this Section, 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;
ii) If the demonstration proposed activity does not meet the
requirements of this 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 this Section;
iii) If the demonstration proposed activity does not meet the
requirements of this 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 demonstration application, 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 of a 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 of water
23
quality parameters for which there will be an which will
experience the increased pollutant loading;
B) Identification of the affected surface water body or water body
segment, any downstream surface water body or water body
segment also expected to experience a lowering of water quality,
characterization of the designated and current uses of the affected
surface water body or water body 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 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.
(Amended at 26 Ill. Reg. __________, effective __________)
Section 302.105 Nondegradation
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
as a result of necessary economic or social development.
TITLE 35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE C: WATER POLLUTION
CHAPTER I: POLLUTION CONTROL 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
24
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 Underground Waters
303.204 Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Waters
303.205
Outstanding Resource Waters
303.206
List of Outstanding 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 of the Vermilion River
303.323 Sugar Creek and Its Unnamed Tributary
303.331 Mississippi River North Temperature
303.341 Mississippi River North Central Temperature
303.351 Mississippi River South Central Temperature
303.352 Unnamed Tributary of Wood River Creek
303.353 Schoenberger Creek; Unnamed Tributary of Cahokia 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
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 of the 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 of Codified Sections
25
AUTHORITY: Implementing Section 13 and authorized by Sections 11(b) and 27 of the
Environmental Protection Act [415 ILCS 5/13, 11(b), and 27].
SOURCE: Filed with the Secretary of State 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 R93-13 at 19 Ill. 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 26 Ill. Reg. __________, effective __________.
SUBPART B: NONSPECIFIC WATER USE DESIGNATIONS
Section 303.205 Outstanding Resource Waters
An Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) is a surface water body or water body segment that is of
uniquely high biological or recreational quality exceptional ecological or recreational
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 of this
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 of Section 302.105(b).
b) A petition to designate a surface water body or water body segment as an ORW
must be submitted to the Illinois Pollution Control Board pursuant to the
procedural rules found in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.Subpart H.
(Source: Added at 26 Ill. Reg. __________, effective __________)
Section 303.206 List of Outstanding Resource Waters
The Board has not designated any Outstanding Resource Waters pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code
102.Subpart H.
(Source: Added at 26 Ill. Reg. __________, effective __________)
26
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board
adopted the above opinion and order on February 21, 2002, by a vote of 7-0.
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
