Page 1 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS 

Jon McNussen 

President 

Charles Goodall 

Treasurer 

Eric Freyfogle 

Secretary 

Maggie Bruns 

Clark Bullard 

Dan Deeb 

Jean Flemma 

Jason Lindsey 

Joe Petry 

Michael Rosenthal 

PRAIRIE RIVERS NETWORK 

1902 Fox Drive, Suite G 

Champaign, Illinois 61820 

217 / 344-2371 

217 / 344-2381 fax 

www.prairierivers.org 

September 9, 2010 

Via email to SHPDcomments@epa.gov 

Thomas J. Gardner 

Office of Science and Technology (Mail Code 4305T) 

Office of Water 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Re: Comments on HQ-OW-2010-0606, EPA Proposal to Revise Water Quality 

Standards 

Dear Mr. Gardner: 

These comments are submitted on behalf of Prairie Rivers Network, a non-profit, 

membership-based organization in Illinois with a long history of participation in water 

quality standards issues and Clean Water Act permitting in the state of Illinois. Prairie 

Rivers Network is also a member of the Mississippi River Collaborative. 

We thank Administrator Lisa Jackson and Assistant Administrator Peter Silva for the 

Coming Together for Clean Water initiative and for the agency’s recognition of the need 

for a new “leap forward” in water quality. As you no doubt know the lack of federal 

regulatory control over non-point sources of pollution and state political and budgetary 

constraints have stalled earlier advances in clean water. Confusion over the scope of the 

Clean Water Act and over the proper means of implementing antidegradation policy has 

also interfered with progress. 

 

I. 

EPA must create stronger programs to control pollution from row crop agriculture 

and should create incentives for the establishment of effective nonpoint programs. 

The purely voluntary approaches that have been used with regard to most agricultural 

pollution have failed miserably. The result is that agriculture is the primary source for the 

nutrient and sediment pollution and habitat loss that the 2010 draft Clean Water Strategy 

identifies as among the most serious water quality challenges. 
Page 2 

EPA must do more to address nonpoint pollution. Strengthening the “reasonable assurance” 

requirement of TMDL implementation is a step that EPA can take under its existing authority 

without delay. In addition, the threat of EPA promulgation of numeric nutrient standards should 

be used against states that fail to develop effective nonpoint programs. 

EPA and Congress should create incentives for states to do more to control nonpoint pollution 

using the TMDL program and by providing more federal aid for states with sound nonpoint 

programs. 

II. 

 EPA can strengthen antidegradation implementation by amending its regulations to 

require that state implementation rules include the following: 

i) A method for ensuring that existing uses will be maintained and protected. Such 

method should require a site specific assessment of existing uses and specify the 

necessary steps for fully protecting existing uses not protected by the state’s 

current water quality standards. 

ii) Provisions allowing public participation in antidegradation reviews early enough 

in the review to allow for meaningful input. In Illinois, public participation is 

required only during the NPDES comment period, at a time when the major 

decisions regarding treatment methodologies have already been made. 

iii) A requirement that all economically and technically feasible treatment 

alternatives be fully considered and documented, including a procedure for 

identifying and analyzing such alternatives. EPA should also provide muchneeded guidance to the states on the meaning of these terms and on how an 

analysis for economic feasibility should be performed. 

iv) A procedure for performing antidegradation reviews on projects requiring 401 

certification. In Missouri, the state has abdicated this role to the Army Corps of 

Engineers, clearly an unacceptable approach. EPA should clarify that the state 

water protection agencies have a duty to perform their own antidegradation 

assessments before issuing 401 certifications. 

EPA can also strengthen antidegradation by eliminating the waterbody-by-waterbody approach. 

As in Illinois and Missouri, all states should be required to perform Tier II antidegradation 

analyses on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. A waterbody-by-waterbody approach that denies Tier 

II protection because of existing impairments allows and encourages continued degradation. 

Please consider a revision of 40 CFR 131.12 (a)(1) to require a parameter-by-parameter 

approach. 
Page 3 

III. 

EPA should identify expedited procedures for identifying and correcting state agency 

actions that violate the Clean Water Act 

Many states are failing to fully implement Clean Water Act requirements. In Illinois, as in many 

states, the state water protection program is failing to implement an antidegradation program that 

adheres to the spirit and intention of the federal policy. Existing uses are not being assessed and 

alternative analyses are often nothing more than paper exercises finding in all cases, a lack of 

feasible alternatives. States are also commonly allowing discharges of pollutants linked to 

impairments, and are refusing to include water quality based effluent limits in permits. There is 

little if any state enforcement against unauthorized discharges from CAFOs and unpermitted 

residential sewage systems, and we are hard pressed to find a state that actually performs a 

triennial review. 

EPA should develop an expedited procedure for correcting state programs under 40 CFR § 123 

as well as a method of assuming immediate control over state functions when needed to protect 

water quality. 

IV. 

EPA should clarify the meaning of waters of the United States and insist on wetland 

avoidance by vetoing permits that fail to prove absence of practical alternative 

 EPA should immediately enact regulations to reinstate the broad scope of the Clean Water Act 

to cover all wetlands that affect interstate commerce. In tandem, EPA needs to insist that the 

Army Corps of Engineers comply with the 404(b) Guidelines by requiring all 404 permit 

applicants to avoid impacts to aquatic ecosystems where a practical alternative to such impacts is 

available. The clear regulatory requirement to avoid impacts wherever practical has not been 

enough. EPA can ensure compliance through exercise of its veto authority. Consistent use of the 

agency’s 404(c) authority will send an unambiguous message. 

Thank you for this opportunity to comment and for your stated commitment to strengthening the 

nation’s water quality standards. 

 

Sincerely, 

Kim Knowles 

Water Resources Specialist