I RR C Zot G Cr1: 0 P 1: 52

• INDEPENDENTREGULA TORY RegulaLoryI 4 naysisi orm (Completed by Promulgating Agency) IRRC

(AllCommentssubmitted on this regulationwillappear on IRRC’swebsite) zotg cr1: 0 P 1:52 (1) Agency Environmental Protection

(2) Agency Number: 7 Identification Number: 534 IRRC Number: 3182

(3) PA Code Cite: — 25 Pa Code, Chapter 93

(4) Short Title: Water Quality Standards — Triennial Review

(5) Agency Contacts (List Telephone Number and Email Address): Primary Contact: Laura Edinger; 717.783.8727; ledingerpa.gov Secondary Contact: Jessica Shirley; 717.783.8727; jesshirleypa.gov

(6)Type of Rulemaking (check applicable box): El Proposed Regulation El Emergency Certification Regulation; Final Regulation ElCertification by the Governor El Final Omitted Regulation ElCertification by the Attorney General

(7) Briefly explain the regulation in clear and nontechnical language. (100 words or less)

Section 303(c)(l) of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that states periodically, but at least once every three years, review and revise as necessary, their water quality standards. Further, states are required to protect existing uses of their waters. This regulation is undertaken as part of the Department of Environmental Protection’s (Department) ongoing review of Pennsylvania’s water quality standards.

The rulemaking: updates and revises Section 93.1 and Table 3 in Section 93.7 by updating the aquatic life criterion for ammonia and the Baci criterion for recreational use; deletes references to Appendix A, Table IA in Sections 93.8a(b) and 93.8c(a) since Table 1A is being deleted from Chapter 16; removes reference to the Federal regulation at 40 CFR 131.32(a) in Section 93.8a(j)(3) since this federal promulgation had been removed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); updates Sections 93.8c(a) and 93.8c(b) to clarify that the criteria in Table 5 may apply to the Great Lakes System for those substances not listed in Table 6; updates toxic substances at Section 93.8c, Table 5, using the latest scientific information and policies developed by EPA under the CWA, section 304(a); clarifies the use of the Biotic Ligand Model (BLM) for the development of new or updated site-specific criteria for copper in freshwater systems in Section 93.8d(c); and identifies a new on-line resource at Section 93.8dW(2), that represents the publicly available list of site-specific criteria that have been developed and are being used by the Department in permitting and other pollution control measures.

There are also corrections to the water quality standards chapter (Chapter 93) for typographical and translation errors, and missed references associated with prior rulemaking and/or publication activities. This includes corrections to use designations and stream entries found in Drainage Lists at Sections 93.9b — 93.9g, 93.9j — 93.9t, 93.9v — 93.9x, and 93.9z, to read as set forth in Annex A, for revisions which are not being addressed by separate stream redesignation rulemakings. These changes to the drainage lists are presented to clarify stream names, segment boundaries, reformat the drainage lists, and to correct typographical and other errors.

(8) State the statutory authority for the regulation. Include specific statutory citation.

The Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law (CSL), Act of June 22, 1937 (P.L. 1987, No. 394) as amended, 35 P.S. § 691.5 (b)(l) and 691.402.

Section 1920-A of The Administrative Code of 1929, as amended, 71 P.S. § 510-20.

Sections IOl(a)(2) and 303(c) of the federal CWA, 33 U.S.C.A. § 1251(a)(2) and 1313(c).

(9) Is the regulation mandated by any federal or state law or court order, or federal regulation? Are there any relevant state or federal court decisions? If yes, cite the specific law, case or regulation as well as, any deadlines for action.

Section 303(c) of the federal CWA and 40 CFR Part 131 require states to develop water quality standards that consist of designated uses, water quality criteria, and antidegradation requirements. Such standards must “protect the public health or welfare and enhance the quality of water.” In addition, such standards must take into consideration water uses including public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, agricultural purposes, and industrial purposes.

EPA urged the Department in a letter dated January 21, 2013 to include the federally recommended ammonia and recreational water quality criteria into the Commonwealth’s water quality standards. Also, EPA specifically mentioned in their May 22, 2014 approval letter in reference to the 2013 Pennsylvania Triennial Review of water quality standards that the Department “will address the issues of total dissolved solids, most notably chlorides, ammonia, and recreational criteria” during the next triennial review.

In addition, it is the duty of the Department, pursuant to section 5 of the state Clean Streams Law, to consider water quality management, pollution control in the watershed as a whole, as well as the present and possible future uses of waters in adopting regulations.

(10) State why the regulation is needed. Explain the compelling public interest that justifies the regulation. Describe who will benefit from the regulation. Quantify the benefits as completely as possible and approximate the number of people who will benefit

Section 303(c)(l) of the federal CWA and 40 CFR 131.20 require that states review their water quality standards and modify them, as appropriate, at least once every three years. This regulation fulfills this requirement for Pennsylvania’s triennial review of water quality standards, which is based upon recognition that the science of water quality is constantly advancing. The purpose of this regulation is to ensure that the Commonwealth’s water quality standards are based on current science and methodologies as well as current EPA mandates, recommendations, and guidance. The federal mandate for states to develop water quality criteria is found at section 303(c)(2)(A) of the CWA.

The purpose of developing water quality standards is to protect the uses and users of Pennsylvania’s surface waters. Pennsylvania’s surface waters, through the water quality standards program, are protected for a

7 variety of uses including: drinking water supplies for humans, livestock, and wildlife; fish consumption; irrigation for crops; aquatic life uses; recreation; and industrial water supplies. All the citizens of this Commonwealth will benefit from the regulation because it provides the appropriate level of water quality protection for all water uses.

By protecting the water uses, and the quality of the water necessary to maintain the uses, benefits may be gained in a variety of ways by all citizens of the Commonwealth. For example, clean water used for drinking water supplies benefits consumers by lowering drinking water treatment costs and reducing medical costs associated with drinking-water illnesses. Additionally, by maintaining water quality standards, clean surface water is available for irrigation of crops and livestock and for use in industrial processes. Clean surface waters benefit the Commonwealth by providing for increased tourism and recreational use of the waters. Clean water also provides for increased wildlife habitat and more productive fisheries.

(11) Are there any provisions that are more stringent than federal standards? If yes, identify the specific provisions and the compelling Pennsylvania interest that demands stronger regulations.

No. The changes in this rulemaking are not more stringent than federal standards.

(12) How does this regulation compare with those of the other states? How will this affect Pcnnsylvania’s ability to compete with other states?

Other states are also required to maintain water quality standards, based on the federal mandate at section 303(c) of the federal CWA and 40 CFR Part 131. If other states or tribes have not yet adopted similar CWA Section 304(a) criteria, they will be required to consider these criteria during their next triennial review. The amendments will not put Pennsylvania at a competitive disadvantage to other states.

See attached Table — Sunnnaiy: Criteria Updatefor US. EPA Region 3 and Neighboring States, for Ammonia and Human Health Criteria.

(13) Will the regulation affect any other regulations of the promulgating agency or other state agencies? If yes, explain and provide specific citations.

No other state regulations are affected by this rulemaking.

State agencies that may cause pollution in surface waters could possibly be affected by this regulation. For example, if an agency’s activity involves the discharge of pollutants into surface waters, the discharge must meet the water quality standards identified by this regulation. (14) Describe the communications with and solicitation of input from the public, any advisory council/group, small businesses and groups representing small businesses hi the development and drafting of the regulation. List the specific persons and/or groups who were involved. (“Small business” is defmed in Section 3 of the Regulatory Review Act, Act 76 of 2012.)

The Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) was briefed on the scope of the drafi proposed regulation at the February 18, 2015 meeting, and was provided ongoing updates on the review and regulatory development at the August 12 and November 18, 2015 meetings. WRAC was also provided a draft of the proposed regulatory amendments in January 2016, so they could consider the amendments and make recommendations at the March 24, 2016 meeting, when WL&C voted to concur with the Department’s recommendation to move the rulemaking forward for consideration by the Environmental

3 Quality Board (Board). In addition, the Department provided to the Agricultural Advisory Board (AAB) on February 25, 2016, a regulatory review that included the triennial review of water quality standards.

Also, the Department provided to the Citizens Advisory Council (CAC) on June 21, 2016, an overview of the draft proposed regulation. Later in 2016, the draft proposed regulatory language was amended to remove the chloride criterion. The status of the draft regulatory language was discussed again with WRAC at WRAC’s March 29, 2017 meeting, informing WRAC members that the proposal would be moving forward to the Board, as modified without containing a chloride criterion recommendation.

The public was afforded the opportunity to comment on this rulemaking during a 70-day public comment period which closed on February 16, 2018. In addition, public hearings were held on December 6, 8, and 14, 2017 and January 30, 2018. Comments were received from 776 commenters. A detailed discussion of the comments received during the public comment period and the Department’s responses are provided in the Comment and Response Document that accompanies this final rulemaking.

The Department discussed this final-form rulemaking with WRAC on May 23, 2019. WRAC voted to concur with the Department’s recommendation to present the final rulemaking to the Board. In addition, the Department provided to the Agricultural Advisory Board on April 25, 2019, a regulatory review that included the draft final triennial review of water quality standards.

(15) Identify the types and number of persons, businesses, small businesses (as defined in Section 3 of the Regulatory Review Act, Act 76 of 2012) and organizations which will be affected by the regulation. How are they affected?

Persons with existing or proposing new or expanded activities or projects which result in discharges to waters of the Commonwealth will be required to implement treatment of effluent or best management practices (BMP5) and the appropriate protections to meet the water quality standards established by this regulation. Such treatment and practices may result in higher design, engineering, construction, and treatment costs. However, it is not possible to identify the total number of persons, businesses, and organizations that will be affected by the regulation, or the potential associated costs. It is not possible to predict the ifiture business decisions of existing or potentially new entities that choose to conduct activities that will be affected by these regulations. Therefore, it is not possible or practicable to quantify the technology needs and BMP costs that may be associated with these future activities. This rulemaking does, however, establish a clear and appropriate set of goals, objectives, and targets to which these persons, businesses, and organizations can plan and design towards.

Ammonia is present in raw sewage and is currently treated and removed by many wastewater treatment plants. Ammonia is also used in agriculture in connection with fertilizers. It is also found as part of metal finishing, pharmaceuticals production, processing of crude oil, and corrosion protection. No impact or minimal impact is expected from changes to the ammonia aquatic life use criterion for the great majority of point source discharges in Pennsylvania. In those cases, where additional treatment for ammonia may be needed, minimal cost impact is expected because ammonia is highly treatable. Treatment usually involves only time allowed for biological degradation and exposure to atmospheric oxygen.

Bacteria are common one-celled organisms and are a natural component of surface waters. While most are not harmful to humans, some can cause illness and disease. Fecal coliforms, including E. coli, are commonly found in the gastrointestinal tract and feces of warm-blooded animals, and are therefore indicators of fecal contamination from human and animal wastes. Waterbome pathogenic diseases that may coincide with fecal contamination include ear infections, dysentery, typhoid fever, viral and bacterial

4 gastroenteritis, and Hepatitis A. All point source discharges in Pennsylvania containing treated sewage already are required to disinfect their wastewater prior to discharge. Disinfection practices such as chlorination, ozonation, or ultraviolet light are used to kill or deactivate microorganisms. There will be little cost associated with the new bacteria criteria since disinfection is already a required part of treatment at these facilities.

The human health criteria rationale and technical documents referenced in #28 explain the types of industries that may be affected by changes to the toxics criteria.

This rulemaking will be implemented through the Department’s permit and approval actions.

(16) List the persons, groups or entities, including small businesses, that will be required to comply with the regulation. Approximate the number that will be required to comply.

All persons, groups, or entities with proposed or existing point source discharges containing the pollutants that are included in this final rulemaking into surface waters of the Commonwealth must comply with the regulation.

Also, see response #15.

(17) Identify the financial, economic and social impact of the regulation on individuals, small businesses, businesses and labor communities and other public and private organizations. Evaluate the benefits expected as a result of the regulation.

All citizens of the Commonwealth, both present and fhture, will benefit from having clean water that is protected and maintained. Any reduction in the total toxic load in Pennsylvania waterbodies is likely to have a positive effect on the human health of Pennsylvanians. This will translate into a yet unknown economic benefit through avoided cleanup or remediation costs that would have been incurred later in time, as well as avoided costs for the treatment and caring for persons with diseases and disabilities that can be reasonably attributed to environmental contaminants in surface water.

Reduced toxics in Pennsylvania’s waterways will likely increase recreational fishing and tourism to swimming and fishing locations throughout the state. Additionally, cleaner rivers and fish may lead to increased birding and wildlife viewing opportunities, as the benefits of cleaner water and less contaminated fish work themselves up the food chain, resulting in substantial economic benefits. Persons who recreate on the waters and who fish, both for sport and consumption, will benefit from better water quality protection.

A reduction in toxics found in Pennsylvania’s waterways may lead to increased property values for properties located near rivers or lakes. The study, The Effect of Water Qua/in’ on Rural NonJth7n Residential Property Values, (Epp and Al-Ani, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol 61, No. 3 (Aug. 1979)), used real estate prices to determine value of improvements in water quality in small rivers and streams in Pennsylvania. Water quality, whether measured in pH or by the owner’s perception, has a significant effect on the price of adjacent property. Their analysis showed a positive correlation between water quality and housing values. They concluded that buyers are aware of the environmental setting of a home and that differences in the quality of nearby waters affects the price paid for a residential property.

A 2006 study from the Great Lakes region (“Economic Benefits of Sediment Remediation.” http://www.nemw.org/Econ) estimated that property values were significantly depressed in two regions associated with toxic contaminants (PAHs, PCBs, and heavy metals). The study showed that a portion of

5 the Buffalo River region (approx. 6 miles long) had depressed property values of between $83 million and $118 million for single-family homes, and between $57 million and $80 million for multi-family homes as a result of toxic sediments. The same study estimated that a portion of the Sheboygan River (approx. 14 miles long) had depressed property values of between $80 million and $120 million as the result of toxics. While this study related to the economic effect of contaminated sediment in other waters in the Great Lakes region, the idea that toxic pollution depresses property values is easily transferable to Pennsylvania. A reduction in toxic pollution in Pennsylvania’s waters has a substantial economic benefit to property values in close proximity to waterways.

There are economic benefits to be gained by maintaining clean water for potable and other water supply uses. Water suppliers, and their customers, may benefit from lower pretreatment costs if water is withdrawn that meets surface water quality standards. Assuring the availability of clean water will cut down on the costs to consumers for purchasing household pretreatment/water filtration systems and bottled water (see

“The Real Cost of Bottled Water,” San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 18th, 2007, which estimates the cost of bottled water to be anywhere between 240 and 10,000 times more expensive than tap water). An additional benefit to greater reliance on tap water is the reduction of containers that need to be recycled or disposed of in landfills. Persons may incur a cost benefit by reducing their dependence on bottled waters and household water filtration systems based on their confidence in source water quality.

By controlling toxics at the point of discharge, users downstream will not have to bear the costs associated with cleaning up someone else’s discharge before the water can be used. For example, fewer toxics in surface waters may reduce costs incurred by downstream surface water users who have to pre-treat water for industrial or commercial use (i.e. food processors). Also, reductions at the point of discharge reduce the costs for water suppliers who will have to treat water that is high in toxics at their intakes to meet drinking water standards. Passing on the treatment to water suppliers will increase costs to drinking water customers. Any intervening water uses such as irrigation and fish consumption, between the point of discharge and the point of use, will be protected by limiting the amount of toxics that may be discharged. Under these scenarios, multiple surface water users will benefit—industrial, agricultural, commercial, and potable water users.

There are also economic benefits to be gained by having clearly defined remediation standards for surface waters. Under Pennsylvania’s Land Recycling and Environmental Remediation Standards Act, liability relief is available, by operation of law, if a person demonstrates compliance with the environmental remediation standards established by the law. Surface water quality criteria are used to develop remediation standards under the law. Persons performing remediation depend upon these criteria to obtain a liability relief benefit under the law. An article in the Duquesne University Law Review discusses the importance of liability limitation as “vital to the participation in the remediation process” (“COMMENT: Pennsylvanias Land Recycling Program: Solving the Brownfields Problem wit/i Remediation Standards and Linzited Liability,” Creenan, James W. and Lewis, John Q.,Duquesne University Law Review, 34 Duq. L. Rev. 661 (Spring 1996)). The article recognizes that “liability protection provides the missing ingredient—financial incentive—for undertaking the cleanup of an industrial site.” Industrial land redevelopers will benefit from these regulations by having financial certainty when choosing a surface water cleanup standard and by being eligible for liability relief under state law.

Also, see response #15.

6. (18) Explain how the benefits of the regulation outweigh any cost and adverse effects.

Health and welfare benefits to all citizens of the Commonwealth accrue from protecting the surface waters of the Commonwealth at the appropriate level. The benefits from substantial revenue and jobs associated with popular fisheries, and other industries that rely on clean water, outweigh the cost and adverse effects associated with selective effluent treatment technology and BMPs for those who cause pollution of the surface waters.

Section 4 of the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law (Declaration of Policy) clearly states “clean, unpolluted streams are absolutely essential if Pennsylvania is to attract new manufacturing industries and to develop Pennsylvania’s fill share of the tourist industry.” 35 P.S. 691.4(1).

Overall, the benefits to the citizens of the Commonwealth will accrue from protecting the surface waters of the Commonwealth for a multitude of water uses. Pennsylvania’s surface waters, through the water quality standards program, are protected for a variety of water uses—drinking water supplies for humans, livestock and wildlife; fish consumption; irrigation for crops; aquatic life uses; recreation; industrial water supplies and special protection. This regulation is necessary to protect the water resources from the threat of toxic substances.

Protection of water quality, up front, reduces the need for costly remedial measures that are often difficult to retrofit. In addition, maintenance of water quality eliminates the need for spending taxpayer dollars to meet additional regulatory obligations such as federally mandated total maximum daily loads (TMDL5). If a waterbody becomes impaired and is not meeting its protected water uses, the Commonwealth will be obligated to develop TMDLs and impose more stringent water quality standards. By maintaining the appropriate water quality to protect the uses, this additional cost can be avoided.

Adverse effects associated with the adoption of new criteria may take the form of additional treatment requirements. Sometimes these requirements require costly upgrades. If new criteria apply to a facility and if treatment requirements require significant and costly changes operationally, there are regulatory mechanisms in place, through the NPDES permitting program, to manage an appropriate schedule for meeting the new standards.

Also, see response #15 and #17.

(19) Provide a specific estimate of the costs and/or savings to the regulated community associated with compliance, including any legal, accounting or consulting procedures which may be requircd. Explain how the dollar estimates were derived.

In accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act, the Department is not to consider achievability or the cost of compliance when developing water quality criteria. As for implementation of these criteria, please consider the following:

Where a water quality standard exists for a pollutant, and in the Department’s judgment the discharge of such pollutant from a point source will be at a concentration that has the reasonable potential to exceed that standard, the Department is required to establish monitoring requirements and/or water quality-based effluent limitations for the pollutant in an NPDES permit. These effluent limitations are calculated based on the water quality criteria. However, there are factors that may be considered by the Department under the Clean Water Act that may result in the modification of such effluent limitations or the deadline by which compliance with limitations must be achieved. Based on site-specific evaluations and economic

7 considerations, effluent limitations developed based on new water quality criteria may be modified, or more time for compliance may be granted under applicable regulations.

Accurate costs and savings, however, caimot be determined at this time since such cost analysis is based on site-specific considerations that must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Specific estimates of costs and savings cannot be determined because each activity that will result in pollution to waters in this Commonwealth must be reviewed based on site-specific considerations. These site-specific considerations include, but are not limited to the size, flow volume, and the chemical, biological, and physical properties of both the receiving water and the effluent discharge. These unique parameters result in site-specific requirements. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and other approvals will be required for discharges to waters of this Commonwealth using the water quality uses and criteria identified in the final regulations of this rulemaking.

Information on the analytical laboratory costs, based on the analytical method used, can be obtained from the National Environmental Methods Index (NEN4I)web-site. This web-site can be used to access most EPA approved analytical methods (www.nemi. aov).

(20) Provide a specific estimate of the costs and/or savings to the local governments associated with compliance, including any legal, accounting or consulting procedures which may be required. Explain how the dollar estimates were derived.

No costs will be imposed directly upon local governments by this regulation. This final rulemaking is based on and will be implemented through existing Department programs, procedures, and policies. However, certain municipalities or municipally-owned entities that discharge pollutants to surface waters may be affected by this regulation as described in #15. The costs associated with permits and performance or design requirements will be site-specific and will be based on effluent limitations or BMPs and the appropriate protections for a particular waterbody.

A municipality may derive additional revenue and employment from the tourism industries that are attracted to recreation associated with protected and improved surface waters, such as anglers, boaters, swimmers, and others interested in outdoor recreation.

(21) Provide a specific estimate of the costs and/or savings to the statc government associated with the implementation of the regulation, including any legal, accounting, or consulting procedures which may be required. Explain how the dollar estimates were derived.

No costs will be imposed directly upon state governments by this regulation. This final rulemaking is based on and will be implemented through existing Department programs, procedures, and policies. However, certain state agencies or state-owned entities that discharge pollutants to surface waters may be affected by this regulation as described in #15. The costs associated with permits and performance or design requirements will be site-specific and will be based on effluent Jimitations or BMPs and the appropriate protections for the particular waterbody.

The state may derive additional revenue and employment from the tourism industries that are attracted to recreation associated with the surface waters, such as anglers, boaters, swimmers, and others interested in outdoor recreation.

Also, see response #17.

8 (22) For each of the groups and entities identified in items (19)-(21) above, submit a statement of legal, accounting or consulting procedures and additional reporting, recordkeeping or other paperwork, including copies of forms or reports, which will be required for implementation of the regulation and an explanation of measures which have been taken to minimize these requirements.

Each activity that will result in pollution to waters of this Commonwealth requires a review that is based on site-specific considerations, including the specific pollutant(s) expected or known to be in the discharge to waters of this Commonwealth. Existing Department procedures will be used to implement this regulation.

(22a) Are forms required for implementation of the rcgulation?

No additional forms are required as a result of this regulation.

(22b) If forms are required for implementation of the regulation, attach copies of the forms here. If your agency uses electronic forms, provide links to each form or a detailed description of the information required to be reported. Failure to attach forms, provide links, or provide a detailed description of the information to be reported will constitute a faulty delivery of the regulation.

N/A

(23) In the table below, provide an estimate of the fiscal savings and costs associated with implementation and compliance for the regulated community, local government, and state government for the current year and five subsequent years. Current FY +1 FY +2 FY +3 FY +4 FY +5 FY Year Year Year Year Year Year (2019-20) (2020-21) (2021-22) (2022-23) (2023-24) (2024-25) SAVINGS: S $ S $ S S Regulated Community Not Not Not Not Not Nol Measurable Measurable Measurable Measurable Measurable Measurable Local Government State Government Total Savings COSTS: Regulated Community Not Not Not Not Not Not Measurable Measurable Measurable Measurable Measurable Measurable Local Government State Government Total Costs

9 V REVENUE LOSSES: Regulated Community Not Not Not Not Not Not Measurable Measurable Measurable Measurable Measurable Measurable Local Government State Government Total Revenue Losses

(23a) Provide the past three-year expenditure history for programs affected by the regulation.

Program FY -3 FY -2 FY -1 Current FY (2016-17) (2017-18) (2018-19) (2019-20) 160-10381 Enviro Protection $86,462,000 $89,215,000 $93,190,000 $84,523,000 Operations 161-10382 Enviro Program $26,885,000 $29,413,000 $30,932,000 $28,420,000 Management

(24) For any regulation that may have an adverse impact on small businesses (as defined in Section 3 of the Regulatory Review Act, Act 76 of 2012), provide an economic impact statement that includes the following:

(a) An identification and estimate of the number of small businesses subject to the regulation.

Persons with proposed or existing discharges into surface waters of the Commonwealth must comply with the regulation. Also, see response #15.

(b) The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other administrative costs required for compliance with the proposed regulation, including the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.

Each activity that will result in pollution to waters of this Commonwealth requires a review that is based on site-specific considerations. NPDES permits and other approvals will be required for discharges to surface waters, using the water quality criteria and standards identified in the regulations. Existing Department procedures will be used to implement this final-form regulation.

10 (d) A description of any less intrusive or less costly alternative methods of achieving the purpose of the proposed regulation.

There were no non-regulatory alternatives or less intrusive methods available to consider in order to achieve the purpose of this regulation. In addition to the flexibility afforded by the regulatory mechanisms in the NPDES permitting proam, the water quality regulations include a provision that allows for the development of site-specific water quality criteria, in lieu of the statewide criteria, under certain circumstances. In particular, in accordance with §93.8d(a), if site-specific biological or chemical conditions of the receiving waters differ from the conditions upon which the statewide criteria are based, or there exists a need for a site-specific criterion for a substance not listed in §93.8c. Table 5. the Department will consider a request for site-specific criteria. A discharger has the opportunity to weigh the costs of developing a site-specific standard against the usage of an existing statewide standard.

(25) List any special provisions which have been developed to meet the particular needs of affected groups or persons including, but not limited to, minorities, the elderly, small businesses, and farmers.

There are no such provisions in this rulemaking.

(26) Jnelude a description of any alternative regulatory provisions which have been considered and rejected and a statement that the least burdensome acceptable alternative has been selected.

There were no alternative regulatory schemes to consider in achieving the correct level of protection for the waters of the Commonwealth. This rulemaking reflects the results of a periodic and ongoing scientific evaluation of regulatory criteria, as required by all states under the federal CWA.

As noted in #9, EPA urged the Department in a letter dated January 21, 2013 to include the federally recommended ammonia and recreational water quality criteria into the Commonwealth’s water quality standards. Also, as noted in #9, EPA specifically mentioned in their May 22, 2014 approval letter in reference to the 2013 Pennsylvania Triennial Review of water quality standards that the Department “will address the issues of total dissolved solids, most notably chlorides, ammonia, and recreational criteria” in their next triennial review.

(27) In conducting a regulatory flexibility analysis, explain whether regulatory methods were considered that will minimize any adverse impact on small businesses (as defined in Section 3 of the Regulatory Review Act, Act 76 of 2012), including:

(a) The establishment of less stringent compliance or reporting requirements for small businesses.

This rulemaking does not establish or revise compliance or reporting requirements for small businesses. There was no less stringent compliance or reporting requirements to consider in this case. Any water quality criteria that are less stringent than those recommended by the Department and accepted by the Board in the rulemaking would not be protective enough for the waters of the Commonwealth and would negate the benefits listed in #17. The rulemaking reflects the results of a scientific evaluation of regulatory criteria.

11 (b) The establishment of less stringent schedules or deadlines for compliance or reporting requirements for small businesses.

There were no non-regulatory alternatives available to consider in this case. Schedules of compliance and reporting requirements to meet the standards of this final rulemaking may be considered when permit or approval actions are taken, in accordance with 25 Pa. Code Chapter 92a. They are not considered as part of this scientific evaluation of the correct water quality criteria needed to protect surface waters. (c) The consolidation or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements for small businesses.

Schedules of compliance and reporting requirements to meet the standards of this final rulemaking may be considered when permit or approval actions are taken. They are not part of this scientific evaluation and establishment of the correct water quality criteria needed to protect surface waters.

(d) The establishment of performing standards for small businesses to replace design or operational standards required in the regulation.

The regulations represent performance standards. They identify the instream goals for water quality protection and do not identify the design or operational standards that mUst be used to meet the goals.

(e) The exemption of small businesses from all or any part of the requirements contained in the regulation.

There were no such exemptions of small businesses to consider in this case.

(28) If data is the basis for this regulation, please provide a description of the data, explain in detail how the data was obtained, and how it meets the acceptability standard for empirical, replieable and testable data that is supported by documentation, statistics, reports, studies or research. Please submit data or supporting materials with the regulatory package. If the material exceeds 50 pages, please provide it in a searchable electronic format or provide a list of citations and internet links that, where possible, can be accessed in a searchable format in lieu of the actual material. If other data was considered but not used, please explain why that data was determined not to be acceptable.

Please see the attached rationale documents for criteria development and specific literature reviews and citations.

In addition to attached rationale documentation, more reference material can be accessed as described below:

The Department assessed the peer-reviewed technical documentation for the recommended ammonia, recreational, and human health criteria and found it was scientifically sound.

The EPA ammonia criterion document can be accessed at https:/Avinv.epa.gov/wgc/aguatic-life-criteria ainnionia.

The EPA recreational criteria document can be accessed at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015- JO/documents/nigc2O]2.pdf

The EPA human health criteria document can be accessed at https:/Acuw. epa. eoi’/sites/produdilon/uiles/20] 5-I Q/docznnents/human-health-2015-update-factsheet. pdf

12 (29) Include a schedule for review of the regulation including:

A. The length of the public comment period: 118 days. including public comment period extension.

B. The date or dates on which any public Hearings held on December 6, 8, and 14. meetings or hearings will be held: 2017, and January 30. 2018

C. The expected date of delivery of the Quarter 4. 2019 final-form regulation:

D. The expected effective date of the Upon publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin final-form regulation: as final-form rulemaking for CSL permit and approval actions, or as approved by EPA for purposes of implementing the CWA.

E. The expected date by which compliance with Upon issuance or renewal of NPDES permits the final-form regulation will be required: or other approvals of the Department.

F. The expected date by which required permits, When permits or approvals are issued or licenses or other approvals must be obtained: renewed.

(30) Describe the plan developed for evaluating the continuing effectiveness of the regulations after its implementation.

This regulation will be reviewed on a triennial basis, as required at least once every three years, in accordance with the federal CWA. As newer science is developed, the standards will be updated.

TABLE—TRI7 RAF#12 Summary: Criteria Update for U.S. EPA Region 3 and Neighboring States

US EPA’S 2015 Human Health Criteria AMMONIA Updates Pennsylvania Freshwater Aquatic Life Criteria — Current criteria based on EPA 1983 draft report.

Freshwater Aquatic Life — TRIT , . . . EPA 2013 (mussels & trout present statewide). Final Rulemaking Criteria Human Health Proposing EPA’s 2015 HH Criteria Updates for 94 pollutants; adding new risk input factors into codified methods for criteria development; recalculated several state-derived criteria using new risk input factors during current TR. Delaware Freshwater Aquatic Life Expects to propose adoption of EPA 2013 recommended Ammonia criterion. Starting the regulatory_process_in_December 2018. Human Health Expects to propose adoption of EPA’s recommended 2015 HH Updates, using Delaware-specific fish consumption rates and BAFs where the Delaware BAF data are available. Starting the regulatory process in December 2018. Maryland Freshwater Aquatic Life Aiming to adopt EPA 2013 ammonia criteria during their 2019 TR with regulatory language that allows permit holders to use the less stringent criteria in waters that are unlikely to have freshwater mussels present. Human Health Considering adopting at least some of the EPA 2015 updates in the upcomingTR. New Jersey Freshwater Aquatic Life Plans to adopt EPA 2013 freshwater criteria during next TR. Human Health Not planning to adopt EPA 2015 updates in this TR,_but_will_likely_include_in_the_subsequent_TR. U.S. EPA’S 2015 Human Health Criteria AMMONIA Updates New York Freshwater Aquatic Life Not expecting to propose revisions to ammonia criterion in the near future.

Human Health Not expecting to propose revisions to criteria in the near future. Ohio

Aquatic Life - Current Currently equation-based NH3 criteria; Ohio-specific & tiered, varies by designated aquatic life / beneficial uses & OMZA http://.epa.ohio.gov/portals/35Irules/01- 07.pdf

Aquatic Life - Planned Plan to propose EPA 2013 for Warm water, mussels present & salmonids absent, in 2019. Cold water, either retain current criteria or propose EPA 2013 mussels present & salmonids present. Also going to update the variance_rule_and_include_an_MDV for_ammonia. Human Health Planning on adopting rules for EPA’s 2015 RH Criteria Updates for 94 pollutants along with this next triennial.

Virginia Freshwater Aquatic Life 2013 Ammonia criteria update was part of the HH Update rulemaking but diverted onto separate rulemaking to incorporate a phased permit implementation plan (PIP) into the WQS. Criteria assumes mussel presence statewide and provides the option of criteria based upon a “mussel absent” determination. Amendments to SWCB for final adoption week of December 10, 2018. http:lltownhall. vfrginia.gov/LNiewXML.cfm?textid=1 1691 Human Health VA adopted all of EPA’s 2015 HH Updates. Rulemaking included updates to Bacteria and Cadmium. U.S. EPA’s 2015 Human Health Criteria AMMONIA Updates West_Virginia Freshwater Aquatic Life No immediate plans to adopt EPA 2013. need to know if it is fully protective of mussels before change is sought.

Human Health Not expecting to adopt this Triennial year— seeking further information from EPA on how HH Criteria Updates were developed. Washington, D.C. Freshwater Aquatic Life District published proposed adoption of EPA’s 2013 ammonia criteria during 2016 triennial review in the D.C. Register on September 15, 2017; publishing the proposed again in December 2018 without changes to the_ammonia_criteria. Human Health District published proposed adoption of EPA 2015 HH criteria update during 2016 triennial review in the D.C. Register on September 15, 2017; publishing the proposed again in December 2018 without changes to the ammonia criteria. DRBC

Freshwater Aquatic Life . Intending to recommend adoption of EPA 2013 in sync with their Basin States. Coordinating implementation decisions with their Toxics Advisory Committee.

Human Health No immediate plans to adopt EPA 2015; but currently evaluating and will coordinate with member states according to their TRs; using DRBC Toxics Advisory Committee. ORSANCO Aquatic Life Adopted EPA 2013.

Human Health . . 2015 Pollution Control Standards do not include 1 mg/L (applied only at water intake). EPA 2015 HH criteria.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF CLEAN WATER

TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

RATIONALE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AMBIENT WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR

AMMONIA

PROTECTION OF AQUATIC LIFE USE

January 2017 (Updated July 2019)

This rationale document includes revisions in response to comments received during the public comment period. The Environmental Quality Board (Board) adopted the proposed rulemaking at its April 18, 2017 meeting. The proposed rulemaking was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on October21, 2017 (47 Pa.B. 6609) with provision for a 70-day public comment period scheduled to end December 29, 2017. The Board originally scheduled three public hearings during the initial 70-day comment period. The hearings were held in Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, and Wilkes-Bane, Pennsylvania. In response to a request received during the initial comment period, the Board extended the public comment period to February 16, 2018 and added another public hearing in Norristown, Pennsylvania. Notice of this public comment period extension and additional public hearing was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on December 30, 2017 (47 Pa.B. 7852). More details on the public participation, comments, and the Department’s responses can be found in the Department’s Report to the Board Comments and Responses Document (July 2019). Further description and explanation how the final rule has changed from proposed to final can he found at Section E in the Order, in the Annex, and in this updated rationale.

In response to the comments, the Department has adjusted its description to “30-day rolling average Criteria Continuous Concentration (CCC) chronic criterion equation” and has included revised language to say “The highest four-day average within the 30-day averaging period should not be more than 2.5 times the CCC (e.g., 2.5 x 0.2 mg TAN/L at pH 9 and 20°C or 0.5 mg TAN/L) more than once in three years on average.” (Please note the change in the example given.) Additionally, the Department is clarifying the temperature and pH implementation language in response to comments received.

FEDERAL RECOMMENDATION

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released its 2013 water quality criteria recommendations for protecting aquatic life from ammonia. These recommendations are intended as guidance to states, territories, and authorized tribes in developing water quality

1 standards to protect aquatic life from exposure to ammonia. Statewide application of these nationally recommended water quality criteria would provide an appropriate level of protection for aquatic life from the effects of ammonia.

The Department was made aware in November 2018 that a typesetting error was identified and corrected in the EPA Aquatic fe Ambient Water Qua lily Criteria for Ammonia document (EPA 2013a). The equation to calculate the ammonia criterion maximum concentration (CMC) where Oncorhynchus species are absent was missing two parentheses which are needed to correctly calculate the criterion (EPA 20l3a, p. 42). This equation appears below on page 6 and the parentheses have been added. The error did not affect the results for the criterion values presented in Figure 5a (EPA 20l3a, p.43) and Table 5b (EPA 2013a, p.45), and the equation is correct in Appendix N: Site-Specific Criteria for Ammonia (EPA 2013a, p. 227). The publication number for the corrected EPA document is EPA-822-R-l 8-002. This error is of no consequence with regard to Pennsylvania as the recommended acute criterion is based upon the federally derived equation for salmonids present.

SOURCES OF AMMONIA IN FRESHWATERS

Ammonia is used in agriculture both directly and as a precursor for other nitrogen-based fertilizers. Ammonia is also used in numerous industrial applications including metal finishing, pharmaceuticals, processing of crude oil, and corrosion protection. Ammonia can enter the aquatic environment via anthropogenic sources or discharges (e.g., municipal effluent, agricultural runoff), and via natural sources such as decomposition of organic waste matter, the discharge of ammonia by biota, and nitrogen fixation processes. Ammonia is converted relatively quickly to other forms of nitrogen in oxygenated waters (EPA 2013a).

TOXICITY OF AMMONIA

When ammonia is present in water at high enough levels, it is difficult for aquatic organisms to sufficiently excrete the toxicant, leading to toxic buildup in internal tissues and blood, and potentially death. Environmental factors, such as pH and temperature, can affect ammonia toxicity to aquatic animals (EPA 2013b).

Ammonia exists in aqueous solution as either the ammonium ion (NH4) or un-ionized ammonia (NH3). The ammonium ion is the more abundant form. The sum of these two forms of ammonia is called total ammonia nitrogen (TAN). They exist in water according to the following equilibrium reaction: NH3+OWt-> NIt+H20

As the pH increases, the ratio of un-ionized ammonia to ammonium ions increases. The increase in hydroxyl ions (OH-) shifts the equilibrium and the result is a greater concentration of unionized ammonia. The unionized ammonia is more toxic than the ammonium ion. Therefore, higher pH levels are associated with greater toxicity of ammonia. This is true for both fish and

2 invertebrates. Similarly, a rise in temperature increases the toxicity of ammonia for invertebrates, but vertebrate sensitivity to ammonia is independent of temperature (EPA 20l3a).

PENNSYLVANIA’S EARLY AMMONIA CRITERIA

Pennsylvania’s Water Quality Standards have incorporated water quality criteria for ammonia since the early 1970s. The criterion adopted in the early l970s was bifurcated, with the first level designed to be protective of the cold water fishes (CWF) use and was equal to 0.5 mg TAN per liter. In the early I970s the Pennsylvania Fish Commission recommended that any TAN concentration greater than 0.5 mg/L adversely affects trout. This limit was based on that recommendation. The second level of the ammonia criterion was designed to be protective of the trout stocking (TSF) use and the warm water fishes (WWF) use and was set to 1.5 mg TAN per liter. The 1.5 mgIL TAN limit was based on work by M. M. Ellis (1937) which indicated that this concentration was not harmful to most varieties of fish. This l970s-era ammonia criterion implemented by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (DER) only applied to about one half of the streams in the state (DER 1984).

PENNSYLVANIA’S CURRENT CRITERIA. BASED ON EPA 1983

In 1984, Pennsylvania was beginning a new triennial review of its water quality standards. EPA had just released a draft report in 1983 called Ambient Water Quality Crite-iaJör Ammonia — 1983 (EPA 1983). EPA implored Pennsylvania to consider promulgating ammonia criteria based on the findings presented in this draft report as part of Pennsylvania’s triennial review. Pennsylvania did adopt ammonia criteria as described in the draft report for the following reasons. First, data preceding publication of EPA’s 1976 Water Qualm’ criteria (Red Book) supported criteria based on toxic levels of un-ionized ammonia. The 1984 dataset expanded on this basis, taking into account the effects of pH and temperature variation on the toxicity of ammonia. Second, the federal draft recommendations (EPA 1983) were based on EPA’s ammonia toxicity models, which expressed allowable ammonia concentrations (i.e., TAN concentrations) for specific pH and temperature conditions. Third, studies at the time indicated that un-ionized ammonia was the primary concern in aquatic toxicity, but total ammonia was also toxic to some degree and can impact on biochemical oxygen demand. Dissociation of ammonia in water is highly dependent on pH and temperature. The 1983 EPA model for allowable ammonia concentration included all of these considerations (DER 1984). Pennsylvania adopted ammonia criteria based on EPA’s 1983 draft report, however, the recommendations in EPA’s final document, Ambient Water Quality crite,-ia for Ammonia — 1984 (EPA 1985), differed from the recommendations in the 1983 draft report, so Pennsylvania’s current criteria differ from EPA’s final recommendation in the mid-I 980s.

1999 FEDERAL REVISION

The federal recommendation was updated in 1999 to reflect the most recent available science. The 1999 recommended aquatic life criteria for ammonia were based on the most sensitive

3 endpoints known at the time: the acute criterion was based on salmonid fish toxicity information and the chronic criterion was based primarily on reproductive effects on the benthic invertebrate Hyalella or on survival and growth of bluegill sunfish early life stages (when present), depending on temperature and season (EPA 2013a). Pennsylvania did not adopt the 1999 recommendation because Pennsylvania’s criteria adopted in 1985 were considered to provide adequate protection for aquatic life from the effects of ammonia. Pennsylvania’s current aquatic life criteria are still based on the EPA 1983 draft report.

PENNSYLVANIA’S CURRENT AMMONIA CRITERIA: AQUATIC LIFE PROTECTION

Pennsylvania’scurrent water quality criterion for protection of aquatic life from ammonia is found at Table 3 in Title 25 of the Pennsylvania Code; §93.7(a):

TABLE 3

Parwneter Symbol C’rite,-ia Critical ****** Ucet Ammonia Am The maximum total ammonia nitrogen concentration (in mg/L) CWF, Nitrogen at all times shall be the numerical value given by: un-ionized WWF, ammonia nitrogen (NH,-N) x (log-’[pKT-pH]+ 1), where: un- TSF, ionized ammonia nitrogen = 0.12 x f(fl/f(yH) MF 101.03(7.32—pH) f(pH) = 1 + f(fl= 1,T 10°C 1 + f(T) ,T < 10°C = 1 + 10(PKTPH) 2730 and PKT = 0.090 + the dissociation constant for [(T+273.2) ] ammonia in water.

The average total ammonia nitrogen concentration over any 30 consecutive days shall be less than or equal to the numerical value given by: un-ionized ammonia nitrogen (NH3-I’OX (log-’[pKT-pH]+ 1), where: un-ionized ammonia nitrogen = 0.025 x [(fl/f (pH) f(pH) = 1,pH 7.7 f(pH) = 10°7477”,pH < 7.7 f(T) = 1, 10°C 10(9.73—pH) 1 + f(T) ,T < 10°C = 1 + 1OCPKTPH)

The pH and temperature used to derive the appropriate ammonia criteria shall be determined by one of the following methods: 1) Instream measurements, representative of median pH and temperature —_July_through_September.

4 ______

2) Estimatesof medianpH and temperature— July through September— basedupon availabledata or values determinedby the Department. For purposesof calculatingeffluentlimitations based on this valuethe accepteddesignstreamflow shallbe the actual or estimatedlowest 30-consecutive-dayaverage flowthat occurs once in 10years.

EPA’S LATEST RECOMMENDATION EPA (EPA 2013a)

In 2003, EPA became aware of new toxicity studies indicating the relative sensitivity of freshwater mussels to ammonia and began to update the 1999 criteria to reflect this new information. In 2009, following external peer review, EPA published draft recommended ammonia criteria, for waters with and without mussels. Since the publication of the drafi 2009 ammonia criteria, additional toxicity testing has validated information on the effects of ammonia on sensitive freshwater gill-breathing (non-pulmonate) snail species. The 2013 criteria incorporate scientific views received on draft 2009 ammonia criteria and supersede EPA’s previously recommended 1999 criteria. In April 2013, EPA finalized the updated ammonia criteria that are applicable nationally, taking into account the latest toxicity information for freshwater species, including unionid mussels and gill-breathing (non-pulmonate) snails. EPA is now imploring the Department to consider adoption of the most recent federal recommendation for aquatic life protection from ammonia.

EPA analyzed the new data and determined that the pH and temperature relationships in the 1999 criteria are still supported by the most current research. In the development of the 2013 criteria equations, it was noted that temperature has little effect on the toxicity of TAN to fish, therefore the effect concentrations for fish are only normalized for pH. For invertebrates, temperature and pH both affect the toxicity of TAN, so the TAN effect concentrations are normalized for both pH and temperature. The acute criterion magnitude is driven by freshwater unionid mussels at water temperatures greater than 15.7°Cat pH = 7. The TAN effects concentrations of salmonids and other fish drive the acute criterion magnitude at lower temperatures. The 2013 chronic criterion magnitude is determined primarily by the sensitivity of freshwater mollusks, particularly unionid mussels (EPA, 2013a).

Freshwater unionid mussels are found in many states of the continental United States and many of these mussels are federally listed as endangered or threatened species. Non-pulmonate snails also have a very broad distribution across the United States. There are approximately 65 species of unionid mussels in Pennsylvania, including many that are rare or endangered. The seven most sensitive genera in the acute dataset are all in the family Unionidae and all of these genera except for Venustaconcha are found in Pennsylvania. The two most sensitive genera in the chronic dataset are also unionid mussels that are both found in Pennsylvania. The genus Flurninicola is ranked fifth in chronic sensitivity. Fluminicola is a group of freshwater non-pulmonate (or prosobranch) snails in the family Hydrobiidae, and its members are commonly known as the pebblesnails. There are six families (including Hydrobiidae) and at least 16 genera of non pulmonate snails in Pennsylvania (Evans 2004).

S EPA is recommending a single national acute criterion and a single national chronic criterion that will be protective of sensitive mollusks. EPA makes this recommendation because every state has at least one freshwater unionid mussel or bivalve mollusk, or non-pulmonate snail species, native or present in at least some of their waters (EPA 2013a). It is appropriate for Pennsylvania to adopt these national criteria that were developed to be protective when sensitive mollusks are present because freshwater mussels are among the most sensitive genera in the dataset and many of these sensitive mussels reside in Pennsylvania. Additionally, Pennsylvania is host to at least 18 species of non-pulmonate (or prosobranch) snails.

EPA developed three equations to be used when mussels are present. The first equation is used to determine the acute criterion when mussels are present and salmonids are present (EPA 2013a).

/ 0.275 39.0 CMC = MIN + 10pH_7.204)’ cG+ 107.204-pH 1 + / 0.0114 1.6181 + x (23.12 x ioo.036x(zo-r)) + 1 + 1OPH_7.204)

The second acute equation is used when mussels are present and salmonids are absent (EPA 2013a).

0.0114 1.6181 100036’<(20T)) CMC = 0.7249 X + MIN(51.93, 23.12 x (1 + 107.204-pH 1 + 10pH_7.204)

The third equation is used to derive the chronic criterion when mussels are present. When mussels are present, the 2013 CCC magnitude is protective of fish early life stages regardless of temperature (EPA 2013a).

0.0278 1.1994 1oO.028X(20-MAX(T7))) CCC= 0.8876 x + 10PH_7.688) (2.126 x (1 + 107,G88-pH 1 +

The duration of the acute criterion is one hour. The duration of the chronic criterion is a 30-day rolling average with the additional restriction that the highest 4-day average within the 30 days be no greater than 2.5 times the chronic criterion magnitude. These values are not to exceed a frequency of more than once in three years on average (EPA 2013a).

DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION

The Department recommends that the ammonia criteria should be updated to be reflective of the latest recommendation from EPA. The recommended criteria for Pennsylvania are borrowed directly from the 2013 federal recommendation, Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality criteria for Anunonia — Freshwater 2013 (EPA 2013a). The Department has reviewed the current national aquatic life criteria for ammonia.

6 This latest recommendation from EPA considers the most recent scientific research regarding the effects of ammonia on aquatic life. The Department should replace its current water quality criteria for ammonia nitrogen (Am), having a critical use of CWF, WWF, TSF, migratory fishes (MF) found in Table 3 at §93.7(a) with the following:

TABLE 3

Parameter Symbol Criteria Critical 4*4*4* Uset Ammonia Am In freshwater,the concentration of total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) CWF, Nitrogen shall not exceed (more than once in three years on average), the WWF, concentration calculated (in milligrams of TAN per liter) by the TSF, following: MF

1-houraverage Criteria Maximum Concentration (CMC) acute criterion equation: / 0.275 39.0 CMC + = MING + 17.2O4-pH 1 + lopM_7.204)’ 0.0114 1.6181 (0.7249 x + (1 + 107.204pH I + 1QpH_7204)

(23.12 x ioO.036X(20_fl)))

30-day rolling average Criteria Continuous Concentration(CCC) chronic criterion equation: 0.0278 1.1994 CCC = 0.8876 x + (1 + 107688P11 1 + 1OPH_7658) x (2.126 x io0.028x(20MlX(T.i))

The highest four-day average within the 30-day averaging period should not be more than 2.5 times the CCC (e.g. 2.5 X 0.2 mg TAN/L at pH 9 and 20°Cor 0.5 rag TAN/L) more than once in 3 years on average.

The pH and temperature used to derive the appropriate ammonia criteria shall be determined by instream measurementsor best estimates based on reference waters that are representativeof the median pH and temperature of the receiving water. lnstream measurements for pH and temperature will be gathered using Department data collection protocols.

The nationally recommended criteria were developed to be protective of sensitive mollusks. The first equation above that is included with the final criteria will be the equation for the Criteria Maximum Concentration (CMC). EPA recommends using this equation to calculate the CMC when mussels are present and salmonids are present. The values generated for the acute criteria

7 using this equation are more stringent below 17°C than are the values generated using the CMC equation that EPA generated for situations where mussels are present and salmonids are absent. The Department proposes to use the more restrictive equation to determine the statewide CMC for TAN for several reasons. First, sensitive salmonid fishes are common throughout Pennsylvania. Second, the final equation uses the set of conditions that generates the most stringent criteria, so the final CMC will most certainly be sufficiently protective. Third, all of the final acute criteria values generated by the final equation, regardless of the ambient pH and temperature conditions, are less restrictive than the values for Pennsylvania’s current acute criteria calculated using the same pH and temperature, as depicted in Table One below. Adopting this approach will not be detrimental to any current discharger because the acute standards will be less restrictive under all temperature and pH conditions. The fourth and final reason the Department proposes to use the more restrictive equation to determine the statewide CMC is that it is less complex — and thereJbre simpler to understand and easier to implement withJbwer errors — to adopt a single statewide equation for the acute criteria (i.e. the more restrictive CMC equation for salmonids present and mussels present), than to adopt two separate equations which would otherwise be used in different situations to derive the CMC values.

COMPARISON OF PENNSYLVANIA’S CURRENT AND RECOMMENDED CRITERIA

Table One and Table Two below are provided to illustrate the differences between Pennsylvania’s current and recommended aquatic life criteria for ammonia. Table One compares the acute criteria and Table Two compares the chronic criteria. The varying hues of red and blue shading on both tables indicate the difference between the recommended and current criteria with blues indicating where the final criteria are less restrictive than the current criteria and reds indicating where the final criteria are more restrictive than the current criteria. Darker shading indicates greater differences of magnitude between current and final criteria whereas lighter shading indicates smaller differences.

All of the values for the final acute criteria will be less restrictive for all temperature and pH conditions, with the greatest departure from the current criteria at the lower pH values (Table One). The current chronic criteria is sometimes less restrictive than the final criteria and it will sometimes be more restrictive, depending on the temperature and pH conditions (Table Two). There is a tendency for the final chronic criteria to be more restrictive than the current criteria at lower pH values (Table Two).

8 ______

TABI.E ONE: ACUTE CRITERIA COMPARISON TABL.ES

Values on tabfesgiven in milligrams ofTotal Ammonia Nitrogen pertiter(MGTAN /1)

Color Code =The difference between the federily recommended acute aquatic life criteria (EPA2OI3) and PennsyWanias current acute aquatic life criteria (PA Current) is given in miHgrams of total ammonia nitrogen per liter. (EPA2Ofl main; PA Current 0to3 3to6 61o9 91o22 ‘12

PA Current vs EPA2O13 with Oncorhyncus mykiss present

J1jnj.-4rtflN DC 10 12 14 pH Mn_nfl— PA Current 2638 26.98 2638 2&% 2636 26.97 2109 19.80 fl.W 14.66 1166 1034 r948 liifl 7.16 6.24 EPA2OS 3672 3632 36.72 3632 36.fl 3672 3632 3632 3557 3014 2533 2163 26.33 •r fl 13.16 11.15

- 7.79 65 PA Current 25.51 25.51 2551 alir 25.51 2550 flU 18.73 ThJ0 13.87 11.97 1055 837 6.78 5.91 EPA2OB 2.61 .‘“- 3161 32.61 3159 2676 1. nr ...aaz .a2L... 13.79 11.68 9.90 PA Current 2039 20.59 20.59 20.59 20.59 20.58 637 726 631 SA9 4.79

EPA2OU 2410 24.10 24.10 24.10 24.10 .%(i 24.jQ, 24.10. 2335 Lam 16,76 14.20 12.03 10.19 8.64 7.32 PA Current 12.40 12.40 12.40 12.40 12.40 12.40 10.62912 7.85 6.77 585 5.07 4.41 3.83 3.34 2.92 EPA2O2 13.28 13.28 13.28 13.28 13.28 13.28 13.28 13.28 12.87 10.90 9.24 7.83 6.63 5.62 4.76 403 PA Current 1.99 1.74 1.53 1.34 8 5.47 5,47 5.47 5,47 5.47 5.47 4.70 4.04 3.49 3.02 162 2.28 EPA2OU 5.62 5.62 5.62 5.62 5.62 5.62 5.62 5.62 544 4.61 3.90 3.31 2.80 2.3? 2.01 1.70 PA Current 2.03 2.03 103 2.03 103 2.03 1.76 1.52 1.32 1.16 1.01 0.89 0.79 0.70 0.62 0.56 EPA2OI3 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.07 1.76 1.49 1.26 1.07 0.90 0.fl 0.65 PA Current 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.7S 0.66 0.58 0.52 0.46 0.41 037 034 031 0.29 026 EPA2OL3 0.93 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.73 0.62 032 0.44 037 032 0.27

9 TABLE TWO: CHRONIC CRITERIA COMPARISON TABLE

Values on table given in milligrams of Total Ammonia Nitrogen per liter (MG TAN / I.)

Color Code = The difference between the federafly recommended chronic aquatic life criteria (EPA2OU) and Pennylvanias current chronic aquatic life criteria (PA Current) was calculated in milligrams of total ammonia nitrogen per liter. (EPA2OI3 minus PA Current) The value for the difference was assigned !o a particular range and colorcoded as follows: c-2S -l2Sto-l5 .0.5 to -125 0 to 0.5 OtoO,133 0.133 to 0.267 0.2G7w0A >04

Temperature ‘C 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 pH ‘F 32 35.6 39.2 43 464 50 53.6 57.2 60.8 MA 68 71.6 75.2 78.8 824 86 PA Current ‘“ ¶. 3.01 2.61 1.26 1.97 1.71 EPA2OU EEl Lu ..* £95 1.71 131 132 1.16 PACurrent 65 5.50 530 . 5,50 53 530 4.70 4.04 3.47 2.99 158 223 1.93 168 146 1.21 EPA2OI3 ‘‘ a.1.4fl 4.611 357 3.13 2.75 2.42 2.13 1.87 1.64 145 1.27 LU PA Current 4.08 4.03 3.49 3.00 2.58 2.22 192 1.66 144 125 109 0.95 EPA2OU •1.1 ..,;1 4.09 3.60 316 2.78 2.44 215 189 1.66 1.46 128 1.13 0.99 PACurrem 3.04 3.04 3.. 3.04 3.04 3.04 2.60 2.11 L92 166 143 124 108 0.94 0.82 0.72 EPA2OB 322 322 3.22 322 3.02 2.66 2.33 2.05 1.80 1.59 139 122 1.08 0.95 0.83 0.73 PA Current 1.37 137 137 137 1.37 1.17 1.01 0.87 0.75 0.65 0.57 030 0.43 0.38 034 EPA2OI3 1.80 1.80 1.80 180 1.68 1.48 130 1.14 1.01 0.88 0.78 0.68 0.60 0.53 0.46 0.41

PACurrent 045045 045045 - 0 0.45 0,39 034 0.29 0.26 0.U 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.12 EPA2013 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 PW 0.66 0.58 051 0.45 0.40 0.35 031 0.27 0.24 0.21 0.18 PACurrem 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 0,06 EPA2OU 0 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.34 0.30 0.26 0.23 0.20 0.18 0.16 014 0.12 0.11 0.09 0,02

10 LITERATURE CITED

Evans, Ryan. 2004. Inventory and ecological studies of Pennsylvania’s aquatic snails. Western Pennsylvania Conservancy & Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program.

Ellis, M.M., 1937. Detection and measurement of stream pollution. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries Volume XLVIII. United States Department of Commerce.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. 1984. Proposed Rulemaking. Pennsylvania Bulletin 14(38): 3473

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia— 1983 (draft).

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia — 1984. EPA-440/5-85-00 I. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2013a. Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia — Freshwater 2013. EPA-822-R-1 8-002. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2013b. Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia — Freshwater 2013 (fact sheet). EPA 820-F-i 3-013. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF CLEAN WATER

TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

RATIONALE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AMBIENT WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR

BACTERIA

PROTECTION OF RECREATIONAL USE

January 2017 (updated July 2019)

This rationale document includes revisions in response to comments received during the public comment period. The Environmental Quality Board (Board) adopted the proposed rulemaking at its April 18, 2017 meeting. The proposed rulemaking was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on October 21, 2017 (47 Pa.B. 6609) with provision for a 70-day public comment period scheduled to end December 29, 2017. The Board originally scheduled three public hearings during the initial 70-day comment period. The hearings were held in Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, and Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. In response to a request received during the initial comment period, the Board extended the public comment period to February 16, 2018 and added another public hearing in Norristown, Pennsylvania. Notice of this public comment period extension and additional public hearing was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on December 30, 2017 (47 Pa.B. 7852). More details on the public participation, comments, and the Department’s responses can be found in the Department’s Report to the Board Comments and Responses Document (July 2019). Further description and explanation how the final rule has changed from proposed to final can be found at Section E in the Order, in the Annex, and in this updated rationale.

In response to the comments, the Department has made changes to the magnitude, duration, and frequency components of the criterion.

Federal Recommendation

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released its 2012 recreational water quality criteria (RWQC) recommendations for protecting human health in all coastal and non-coastal waters designated for primary contact recreation use. These recommendations are intended as guidance to states, territories, and authorized tribes in developing water quality standards to protect swimmers from exposure to water that contains organisms that indicate the presence of fecal contamination (EPA 2012a). Statewide application of these nationally recommended recreational use bacteria criteria would provide an appropriate level of protection for those recreating in Pennsylvania’s surface waters.

1 Pennsylvania’s Current Recreational Use Bacteria Criteria

25 Pa. Code Chapter 93: Pennsylvania’s recreational use bacteria criteria during the swimming season have been based upon a maximum fecal coliform level of 200 colony forming units (clii) per 100 ml since the early 1970s. The 2000 Water Quality Regulatory Basics Initiative Triennial Review, published as a final rulemaking in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on November 18, 2000 (30 Pa.B. 6059)’, gives Pennsylvania its current bacteria criteria as indicated below. The bacteria water quality criteria currently found in 93.7 (Table 3) of Pennsylvania’s water quality standards (25 Pa. Code Chapter 93) are still based on fecal and/or total coliform indicator organisms, and are as follows.

§93.7. Specific water quality criteria.

(a) Table 3 displays specific water quality criteria and associated critical uses. The criteria associated with the Statewide water uses listed in §93.4, Table 2 apply to all surface waters, unless a specific exception is indicated in § 93.9a—93.9z. Other specific water quality criteria apply to surface waters as specified in § 93.9a— 93.9z. All applicable criteria shall be applied in accordance with this chapter, Chapter 96 (relating to water quality standards implementation) and other applicable State and Federal laws and regulations.

TABLE 3 Critical Parameter Symbol Cntena Use*

Bacteria Baci (Fecal coliforms/ 100 ml)—During the swimming WC

season (May 1 through September 30), the maximum fecal coliform level shall be a geometric mean of 200 per 100 milliliters (ml) based on a minimum of five consecutive samples each sample collected on different days during a 30-day period. No more than 10% of the total samples taken during a 30-day period may exceed 400 per 100 ml. For the remainder of the year, the maximum fecal coliform level shall be a geometric mean of 2,000 per 100 milliliters (ml) based on a minimum of five consecutive samples collected on different days during a 30-day period. Bac2 (Coliforms/100 mfl—Maximum of 5,000/100 ml as a PWS monthly average value, no more than this number in more than 20 of the samples collected during a month,

1 The Pennsylvania Bulletin webpage for the 2000 Water Quality Regulatory Basics Initiative Triennial Review rulemaking (htti,s://www.pahulletin.com/secure/data/vol3O/30-47/2027.html) truncates after the Chapter 95 section. The full rulemaking can be accessed here: https://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol3O/30- 47/30 47 p2a.pdf.

2 nor more than 20,000/100 ml in more than 5% of the samples.

The Bac1 criterion is designed to be protective of activities involving water contact sports (WC) and is systematically applied to all surface waters in the Commonwealth unless otherwise specified in other portions of Pennsylvania’s water quality standards.

Historically, the Bac2criterion was originally implemented as a site-specific criterion to protect the potable water supply (PWS) use where the WC use was removed. The Bac2 criterion has always only been implemented in select waters where the WC use was removed. As such, the Bac2 criterion is currently only applicable in the outer Erie Harbor and Presque Isle Bay, specifically, in the harbor area and central channel dredged and maintained by the United States Army Corps of Engineers.

The Baci criterion affords a better level of use protection to drinking water (i.e., the PWS use) than would be offered by the Bac2criterion since Ban is based on much lower concentrations of indicator organisms and Ban is applicable to all waters statewide where the WC use has not been removed.

Reference to 2004 Bacteria Rule hi Drainage List X: The federal Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-284) required each state and territory with coastal recreation waters to adopt into their water quality standards by April 10, 2004 bacteria criteria that were ‘as protective of human health as’ the nationally recommended 1986 bactcria criteria (EPA 1986). The BEACH Act defined coastal recreation waters as the Great Lakes and coastal waters, including coastal estuaries, that states, tcritories, and authorized tribes officially rccognize or “designate’ for swimming, bathing, surfing, or similar activities in the water. The 2004 Bacteria Rule for Coastal and Great Lakes Recreation Waters (40 C.F.R. § 131.41) established federal standards for those states and territories with coastal recreation waters that had not yct adopted bacteria criteria as protective of health as the 1986 criteria into their water quality standards. In Pennsylvania, this federal promulgation included swimming beaches in Lake Erie and Presque Isle. Therefore, the 2004 Bacteria Rule for Coastal and Great Lakes Recreation Waters (40 C.F.R. § 131.41) is referenced in Drainage List X (25 Pa. Code § 93.9x) where applicable. This reference was added to Drainage List X during Pennsylvania’s 2009 Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards, which became effective upon publication of the final rulemaking on May 16, 2009 (39 Pa.B. 2523).

28 Pa. Code Chapter 18: The Pennsylvania Department of Health (DOH) maintains regulations under the health and safety title, Title 28, of the Pennsylvania Code. The DOll regulations for bacterial contamination of bathing beaches at 28 Pa. Code § 18.28 have primary jurisdiction to protect swimmers and bathers from contamination at all those places in Pennsylvania designated as bathing beaches. The current DOH regulations apply statewide, not just to the Lake Erie coastal recreation waters. These DOll regulations are based on the nationally recommended 1986 bacteria criteria (EPA 1986) and are given below. 18.28. Bathing beach contamination.

(a) Use of a bathing beach found to be contaminated shall be discontinued until written approval to reopen the bathing beach for swimming or bathing is obtained

3 from the Department. The permittee shall prominently post legible signs measuring at least 8” by 11” at all entrances to the bathing beach area informing the public that the bathing beach is closed and that swimming or bathing is prohibited. The approval will be given by the Department when the Department finds that the waters of the bathing beach are no longer contaminated.

(b) The water in bathing beaches will be considered contaminated for bathing purposes when one of the following conditions exists:

(I) The Department determines that a substance is being discharged or may be discharged into the water and is or may be hazardous to the health of persons using the bathing beach.

(2) TheE. coli density of a water sample taken from the bathing beach exceeds 235 per 100 milliliters.

(3) The E. coli density in all water samples taken from the bathing beach, in any 30-day period during the bathing beach’s operating season, exceeds a geometric mean of 126 per 100 milliliters.

Reference to DOH Regulations in Drabwge ListX: During Pennsylvania’s 2009 Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards, specific references to DOH regulations at 28 Pa. Code §

18.28 were added to the water quality standards regulations in Drainage List X at 25 Pa. Code § 93.9x as exceptions to specific criteria for Lake Erie and Presque Isle. These references to the DOR regulations were added as a result of the 2004 Bacteria Rule for Coastal and Great Lakes Recreation Waters, which promulgated bacteria criteria for these waters. Although these DOH regulations are currently only referenced in the Department’s Water Quality Standards in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 93 as exceptions to specific criteria in Drainage List X, the DOH regulations apply to all designated bathing beaches everywhere in Pennsylvania.

Current National Recommendation: 2012 RVQC

EPA last issued ambient water quality criteria recommendations for recreational waters in 1986. EPA issues such recommendations under the authority of the federal Clean Water Act. Amendments to the federal Clean Water Act by the BEACH Act of 2000 directed EPA to conduct studies associated with pathogens and human health, and to publish new or revised criteria recommendations for pathogens and pathogen indicators based on those studies. The 2012 RWQC recommendations met those requirements set forth by the BEACH Act of 2000 (EPA 2012a).

The 2012 RWQC relied on the latest research and science, including studies showing a link between illness and fecal contamination in recreational waters. The 2012 RWQC use two bacterial indicators of fecal contamination, Escherichia coli (E. coil) and enterococci (EPA 2012a). Culturable E. coli and enterococci are now known to be better indicators of fecal contamination than the previously used general indicators, total coliforms and fecal coliforms (EPA 2012b). The newer criteria are designed to protect primary contact recreation, including

4 swimming, bathing, surfing, water skiing, tubing, water play by children, and similar water contact activities where a high degree of bodily contact with the water, immersion, and ingestion are likely (EPA 2012b).

Most water quality criteria, including the 2012 RWQC, have three components: magnitude, duration, and frequency. The magnitude of the 2012 RWQC is given as two sets of recommendations. The recommendations differ because they are calculated based on different illness rates. Statcs and tribes may select either one of the two recommended sets of numeric concentration thresholds which comprise the magnitude. EPA maintains that either of these magnitude recommendations would protect the public from exposure to harniftil levels of pathogens (EPA 2012b). States and tribes have the flexibility to choose whichever of the two risk paradigms is most appropriate for the circumstances of each state or tribe. The magnitude for both of the 2012 RWQC recommendations is summarized in the table below. Each recommendation includes a geometric mean (GM) and a statistical threshold value (STy). The STV approximates the 90” percentile of the water quality distribution used in setting the 2012 RWQC. As such, the STV is intended to be implemented so that it should not be exceeded in more than ten percent of the samples taken (EPA 2012b). The duration component of the final criteria is 30 days. So, the GM of a set of samples should not exceed the criterion GM magnitude in any 30-day period. In the same 30-day interval, the frequency of exceedances of the selected STV magnitude should not be greater than ten percent (EPA 2012a; EPA 2012b).

Criteria Recommendation I Recommendation 2 Elemenis Estimatedillnessrate = 36/1,000 Estimatedillnessrate = 32/1,000 Indicator GM (cfiillOOml) STV (cfuJlOOml) GM (cthlIOO STV (cfiiJlOOml) ml) Enterococci 35 130 30 110 (marine& fresh) Ecoli 126 410 100 320 (fresh)

Pennsylvania’s Recommended Criteria

The Department is recommending changes to its bacteria criteria which include replacing the current Baci fecal coliform criterion for the WC use during the swimming season (i.e., May I to September 30) at 25 Pa. Code §93.7, Table 3 with EPA’s 2012 RWQC. This change is designed to protect the WC use — defined in 25 Pa. Code § 93.3 as the “use of the water for swimming and related activities” — from fecal contamination. As discussed above, there are two sets of recommendations in the 2012 RWQC based on two different risk paradigms: 32 illnesses per 1,000 swimmers and 36 illnesses per 1,000 swimmers. EPA maintains that both risk paradigms are adequately protective (EPA 20l2b). The Department recommends adopting theE, coil freshwater levels associated with the 36 per 1.000 illness rate (i.e., Recommendation I in the 2012 RWQC). TheE. coli levels associated with this risk paradigm (i.e., GM = 126 cflullOOml; STV = 410 chi/l 00 ml) are most closely akin to the current DOH standards at 28 Pa. Code § 18.28. The criteria values for the current DOH standards and the criteria values that were promulgated under the BEACH Act of 2000 for Lake Erie beaches including Presque Isle Bay are a GM value of 126 cfii/lOOml and a single sample maximum value of 235 cthllOO ml. To

S achieve the most consistent approach, to facilitate a more seamless transition, and because EPA considers both risk paradigms presented in the 2012 RWQC to be adequately protective, the

Department favors the criteria based on Recommendation 1 in the 2012 RWQC.

In Table 3 at 25 Pa. Code §93.7, the Department recommends retaining the current Baci fecal coliform criterion — a GM maximum value of 2,000 cfiuJlOOml — applicable to the WC use in all surface waters statewide from October 1 to April 30, the non-swimming season when only secondary contact recreation occurs. EPA is currently conducting research to help in designing criteria that will be protective of secondary contact recreation. When EPA finalizes and recommends these new federal secondary contact recreational criteria, the Department will evaluate these recommendations and propose to adopt them if they are appropriate for Pennsylvania.

The current Bac2 total coliform criterion with a critical use of PWS in Table 3 at 25 Pa. Code § 93.7 has always been implemented as a site-specific criterion rather than a statewide criterion. This current total coliform criterion applies to specific waters where the WC use has been removed: currently only portions of Lake Erie in the outer Erie Harbor and Presque Isle Bay in Drainage List X at 25 Pa. Code §93.9x. Insofar as the Baci criterion allows for a lower number of a taxonomically narrower group of indicator organisms than the Bac2 criterion, the Baci criterion is a more restrictive standard than the Bac2 criterion. Therefore, the Baci criterion provides statewide protection at least as protective as the Bac2 criterion. The Department therefore recommends that the site-specific Bac2 criterion be deleted from Table 3 at 25 Pa. Code §93.7 and incorporated into Drainage List X at 25 Pa. Code §93.9x as an exception to specific criteria.

Since the DOH bathing beach regulations at 28 Pa. Code § 18.28 apply to all regulated beaches statewide, the Department recommends deleting references in 25 Pa. Code §93.9x to the DOH regulations since the DOH regulations are not limited to Lake Erie. The Department also recommends deleting the language referring to the 2004 Bacteria Rule for Coastal and Great Lakes Recreation Waters (40 C.F.R. § 131.41) currently found at 25 Pa. Code §93.9x pertaining to Lake Erie and Presque Isle beaches. These references to the 2004 Bacteria Rule for Coastal and Great Lakes Recreation Waters and to DOH regulations as exceptions to specific criteria are no longer necessary since the final Baci E. cciii WC criteria will apply statewide, and the DOH regulations already apply statewide. Recommended amendments to Table 3 at 25 Pa. Code § 93.7 and to 25 Pa. Code §93.9x are shown below. Additional changes to the magnitude, duration, and frequency were made to Table 3 at 25 Pa. Code §93.7 in response to comments received during the public comment period. The amendments are formatted to be consistent with the Annex in the final rulemaking: language added following the proposed rulemaking appears in capital letters, in bold font, and underlined; and language deleted following the proposed rulemaking appears enclosed in brackets, in bold font, and struck through.

6 TABLE 3 Critical Parameter Symbol O-ttena Use *

Bacteria Baci [(Fecal coliforms/ 100 mI)1 (Escherichia coil WC COLONY FORMING UNITS PER 100 MILLILITERS (CFU PER 100 MLfl404mflI During the swimming season (May I through September 30), the maximum jfecal coliformj E. cvii level shall be a geometric mean of 12001126 CFU per 100 ML. THE GEOMETRIC MEAN FOR THE SAMPLES COLLECTED IN THE WATERBODY SHOULD NOT BE GREATER THAN 126 CFU PER 100 ML IN ANY 30-DAY INTERVAL. THERE SHOULD NOT BE GREATER THAN A 1O% EXCURSION FREOUENCY OF 410 CFU PER 100 ML FOR THE SAMPLES COLLECTED IN THE SAME 30-DAY DURATION INTERVA[ Imillilitcn (ml) based onj Ia minimum of fiveJ Ieonsccutivc samples, each sample collected on difkrcnt days during a30 day period. No morc thai. 10% of the total samples taken during a 30 day period may cxcecdj 14001I&!I [pei—WO-mb] (Fecal coliforms/ 100 mfl—For the remainder of the year, the maximum fecal coliform level shall be a geometric mean of 2,000 per 100 milliliters (ml) based on a minimum of five consecutive samples collected on different days during a 30-day period. IBac2 (Coliforms/100 ml)—Maximum of 5,000/100 ml as a PWSI monthly average value, no more than this number in more than 20 of the samples collected during a month, nor more than 20,000/100 ml in more than 5% of the samples.

********

§93.9x. Drainage List X. Lake Erie

j Water Uses Exceptions to — — Stream Zone County IProtected Specific Criteria I—Lake Erie All sections of lake Erie CWF Delete FeI,I 4 in PA except Outer DOt land BanJ See GLWQA

7 Erie Harbor and — — IAdd E. coil per Presque Isle Bay 40 CFR 131.41 (Except (1))and See 28 Pa. Code § 18.28(b)(2) and (3)] 1—Lake Erie (Outer Portion of lake Erie WWF Delete pH Add Erie Harbor and bordered by Presque pH between 7 and Presque Isle Bay) Isle on west, 9 longitude 80° 01’ 50” lAddE. coil per on east, and latitude 40 CFR 131.41 42° 10’18” on north, (Except (fl)and except harbor area See 28 Pa. Code and central channel § I 8.28(b)(2) and dredged and (3)] maintained by United States Army Corps of Engineers

The following criterion is specific to Lake Erie (Outer Erie Harbor and Presgue Isle Bay) waters in the Harbor area and central channel dredged and maintained by United States Army Corns of Engineers, based on sneciai studies. Parameter Symbol Criteria Critical Use Bacteria Bacz Total Coliformsll00 nil: Maximum of 5.000/100 ml as PWS a monthly average value, no more than this number in more than 20% of the samples collected during a month, nor more than 20,000/100 ml in more than 5% of the samples.

1—Lake Erie Harbor area and Erie WWF, Delete pH and (Outer Erie Harbor central channel Delete WC Baci and Presque Isle dredged and Add pH Bay) maintained by between 7 and United States Army 9, Bac2 Corps of Engineers ******

8 References

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria. EPA 440/5-84-002. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. https://www.epa. gov/sites/production/files/20 19-

03/documents/arnbient-wgc-bacteña- 1986.pdf.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2012a. 2012 Recreational Water Quality Criteria (Fact Sheet,). EPA-820-F- 12-061. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. http://www.epa.gov/sites/productionlfiles/20 15-

I0/docurnents/rec-factsheet-20 I2.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2012b. Recreational Water Quality Criteria. 820-F-12-058. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. http:J/www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/20 15-10/docurnents/nvQc2OI2.pdf

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF CLEAN WATER

R4T1ONALE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AMBIENT WATER QUALITY CRiTERIA

FOR HUMAN HEALTH PROTECTION

February 2017 (Updated - July 2019)

This rationale document includes revisions in response to comments received during the public comment period. The Environmental Quality Board (Board) adopted the proposed rulemaking at its April 18, 2017 meeting. The proposed rulemaking was published in the J’ennsth’ania Bulletin on October21, 2017 (47 Pa.B. 6609) with provision for a 70-day public comment period scheduled to end December 29, 2017. The Board originally scheduled three public hearings during the initial 70-day comment period. The hearings were held in Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, and Wilkes-Bane. Pennsylvania. In response to a request received during the initial comment period, the Board extended the public comment period to February 16, 2018 and added another public hearing in Norristown, Pennsylvania. Notice of this public comment period extension and additional public hearing was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on December 30, 2017 (47 Pa.B. 7852). Additional details on the public participation, comments, and the Department’s responses can be found in the Department’s Report to the Board Comments and Responses Document (July 2019). Further description and explanation how the final rule has changed from proposed to final can be found Section E in the Order, in the Annex, and in this updated rationale.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided comments to the Department during the public comment period of this triennial review of water quality standards, noting several differences in significant figures between EPA’s recommended criteria and the Department’s proposed criteria. In response to the comments, the Department recommended to slightly modify several pollutants, including: I,2-diphenylhydrazine; cyanide; 2 methyl-4,6- dinitrophenol; acrolein; I,3-dichlorobenzene; hexachlorocyclopentadiene; and endrin aldehyde. EPA ifirther noted a significant discrepancy between EPA’s recommended value and the Department’s proposed value for the chloroform criterion. Since this discrepancy was not consistent with this rationale document and was significant enough to warrant an opportunity for public review and comment, the Department recommended to retain the current human health criterion for chloroform and reevaluate it in the next triennial review.

Introduction

Ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) are numeric values limiting the amount of chemicals present in our nations waters. A water quality criterion is the concentration of a pollutant in water that is not expected to pose a significant risk to. or adversely impact, in this case, human

1 health protection. Water quality criteria are based solely on the best available scientific data and scientific judgments on pollutant concentrations and environmental or human health effects. These water quality criteria are developed under Section 304(a) of the Federal Clean Water Act of 1972. Section 304(a)(l) of the Clean Water Act requires that the EPA Administrator develop criteria for water quality that accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge.

On June 29, 2015, EPA announced the final updates recommended for the AWQC for the protection of human health (EPA 2015a). Ninety-four priority pollutants were updated to reflect the latest scientific information and implementation of existing EPA policies found in the MethodologyforDerivingAnthient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection ofmonan Health 2000. EPA issued the draft updated human health criteria on May 13, 2014 and accepted written views from the public until August 13, 2014. These updated recommendations reflect the latest scientific information and EPA policies, including updated body weight, drinking water consumption rate, fish consumption rate. bioaccumulation factors, health toxicity values, and relative source contributions. The final 2015 update supersedes EPA’s previous recommendations to the section 304(a) human health criteria recommendations.

EPA’s recommended AWQC for the protection of human health provide technical information for states to establish water quality standards (i.e., criteria) and to protect human health under the Federal Clean Water Act. Under the Federal Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations, states are required to adopt water quality criteria to protect designated uses (e.g., public water supply, aquatic life, recreational use, industrial use) that are based on sound scientific rationale. Sections 5(b)(l) and 402 of The Clean Streams Law (35 P. S. §§691.5(b)(1) and 691.402) authorize the Board to develop and adopt rules and regulations to implement The Clean Streams Law. Section 1920-A of The Administrative Code of 1929 (71 P.S. § 510-20) grants the Board the power and duty to formulate, adopt, and promulgate rules and regulations for the proper performance of the work of the Department.

The Department’s staff use the AWQC found in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 93, Tables 3, 5, or 6 (relating to specific water quality criteria; to water quality criteria for toxic substances; or to Great Lakes aquatic life and human health criteria, respectively) as a tool in determining the appropriate effluent limitations and loading requirements designed to protect water quality and uses. These criteria are implemented, in pan, through Pennsylvania’s regulations supporting the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), and through other approvals issued by the Department. The NPDES regulations are found in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 92a (relating to national pollutant discharge elimination system permitting, monitoring and compliance), and in other implementation provisions found in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 96 (relating to water quality standards implementation).

2 Updated Exposure Inputs

EPA’s 2015 human health criteria updates (EPA 20l5a) incorporate the latest exposure factors for body weight, drinking water intake, and fish consumption. There is also an update to the methodology used to determine the bioaccumulation in fish, in addition to other toxicity factors (reference dose and cancer slope factors). Below are the updated inputs used to calculate the human health AWQC (also see EPA 2015b).

Body Weight — The default body weight has been increased to 80 kilograms (176 pounds). This is the mean body weight for adults ages 21 and older. The new weight is based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), from 1999 to 2006. The previous default body weight was 70 kilograms (154 pounds) and was based on NHANES data from 1988 to 1994.

Drinking Water — The default drinking water intake assumption is increased to 2.4 liters per day. This is based on NHANES data collected from 2003 to 2006 for the 90thi percentile of water consumption in adults ages 21 and older. The water intake rate is based on consumer-only estimates of direct and indirect water ingestion. The previous recommended default drinking water intake rate was 2 liters per day. The data used was from adults surveyed in the United States Department of Agriculture, 1994-1996 Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII) and the National Cancer Institute study of the 1977-1978 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey.

Fish Consumption — The recommended default fish consumption rate has been increased to 22 grams per day. This rate represents the consumption of freshwater and shellfish from inland and near shore waters for adults 21 years of age and older, based on NHANES data from 2003 to 2010. The previous fish consumption rate was 17.5 grams per day based on the consumption rate of freshwater and estuarine fish for the adult population from 1994-1996 CSFII data.

Bioaccumulation Factors — The criteria have been updated using bioaccumulation factors (BAF5) as recommended in the EPA human health criteria methodology (EPA 2000). BAFs will account for the uptake and retention of a chemical by an aquatic organism from all surrounding media (e.g. water, food, sediment). Criteria were previously calculated with bioconcentration factors that only accounted for direct water contact. In order to account for the variation in bioaccumulation due to the aquatic trophic position of an organism, EPA is recommending that BAFs be determined and applied to three trophic levels of fish. EPA used field-measured BAF’s and laboratory-measured bioconcentration factors, along with octanol-water partition coefficients available from peer-reviewed databases to develop the national BAFs. EPA verified the calculated BAFs using a peer-reviewed model called Estimation Program Interface Suite (EPI Suite).

Health Risk Factors — EPA has updated the health risk factors using the most current toxicity infornwtion. The toxicity values for both non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects were used. EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is the primary source for reference dose and cancer slope values. For some pollutants, EPA has used other sources

3 provided by EPA’s Office of Water, Office of Pesticide Programs, and international and state agencies.

Relative Source Contribution — EPA has updated the Relative Source Contribution (RSC) to reflect chemical-specific exposure. The RSC, which is only applied to threshold non carcinogens, will range from 20 to 80 percent as recommended in EPA’s human health methodology (EPA 2000). The RSC protects against particular pollutant exposures from other foods, marine fish consumption, dermal exposure, and respiratory exposures. The use of the RSC is to ensure that an individual’s total exposure from all sources of a pollutant does not exceed the criteria.

Criteria Development

Human health AWQC for toxic pollutants are necessary to protect any designated uses related to ingestion of water and ingestion of aquatic organisms. These uses can include, but are not limited to: recreation in and on the water; consumption of fish or shellfish (including consumption associated with fishing or shellfish harvesting); and protection of drinking water supplies. The derivation of human health AWQC requires information about both the toxicological endpoints of concern for water pollutants and the pathways of human exposure to those pollutants. EPA considers the following two primary pathways of human exposure to pollutants present in a particular water body when deriving human health 304(a) AWQC: (1) direct ingestion of drinking water obtained from the water body and (2) consumption of fish or shellfish obtained from the water body (EPA 2015a).

Below is the equation used for deriving human health AWQC for non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects, based on the consumption of both water and aquatic organisms. EPA recommends including the drinking water exposure pathway for ambient surface waters where drinking water is a designated use for the following reasons: (1) drinking water is a designated use for surface waters under the Federal Clean Water Act, and therefore criteria are needed to ensure that this designated use can be protected and maintained; (2) although they are rare, some public water supplies provide drinking water from surface water sources without treatment; (3) even among the majority of water supplies that do treat surface waters, existing treatments might not be effective for reducing levels of particular contaminants; and (4) in consideration of the goals of pollution prevention, ambient waters should not be contaminated to a level where the burden of achieving health objectives is shifted away from those responsible for pollutant discharges and placed on downstream users that must bear the costs of upgraded or supplemental water treatment (EPA 2000; EPA 20l5b).

The equations for deriving the criteria values are as follows (EPA 2000): For consumption of water and organisms:

AWQC (iiWL) = Toxicity value (mg/kg-d) x BW (kg) x 1,000 Qsg/mg)/ DI (L/d) + (FCRi) 4 i2 (kg/d) x BAFi (lAg)

Where: AWQC = ambient water quality criteria

4 Toxicity value =RfO x RSC (mg/kg-d) for non-carcinogenic effects or 1O-6/CSF (kg-d/mg) for carcinogenic effects RSC = relative source contribution (applicable to only non-carcinogenic and nonlinear low- dose extrapolation for carcinogenic effects) BW = body weight, default (80 Kg) Dl = drinking water intake, default (2.4 L/day) £4 1=2 = summation of values for aquatic trophic levels (TLs), where the letter I stands for the TLs to be considered, starting with TL2 and proceeding to TL4 FCRI = fish consumption rate for aquatic TLs 2, 3, and 4—default (22.0 Wday) BAF1 = hioaccumulation factor for aquatic TLs 2, 3, and 4

(EPA rounds AWQC to the number of significant figures in the least precise parameter as described in the 2000 Methodology (USEPA 2000, Section 2.7.3). The Department has rounded the AWQC in Table 5 to two significant figures.)

Comparisons of EPA 2015 Final Recommended Criteria and DEP Current Criteria

Of the 94 pollutants recalculated by EPA, 55 will have a more stringent criterion than previously listed in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 93, Table 5. These criteria have been recalculated to include chemical-specific BAFs. which account for how long each pollutant will be available in the environment and in increased average body weight and fish consumption amounts. These pollutant-specific inputs may be the driving factors for the change in the newly developed criteria. These AWQC are intended to be protective of the general adult population from non- carcinogenic or carcinogenic effects due to chronic (up to a lifetime) exposure.

Table 1 — More Stringent Criteria

DEP DEP Current Proposed EPA 2015 Water+ Vatcr+ Water+ Organism Organism Organism Pollutant CAS No. (gg/L) (jig IL) (ig/L)

1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 35 .07 0.071 2 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 420 7 7 3 1,3-Dichloropropene 542-75-6 0.34 0.27 0.27 4 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 10646-7 420 300 300 5 2,4-Dichlorophenol 120-83-2 77 10 10 6 2,4-Dimethylphenol 105-67-9 380 100 100 7 2,4-Dinitrophenol 51-28-5 69 10 10 8 2-Chloronaphthalene 91-58-7 1,000 800 800 9 2-Chiorophenol 95-57-8 81 30 30 10 2-Methyl4,6-Dinitrophenol 534-52-1 13 2 2

11 Acenaphthene 83-32-9 670 70 70 12 Acrolein 107-02-8 6 3 3 13 Aldrin 309-00-2 0.000049 0.0000008 0.00000077 14 alpha-Hexacifiorocyclohexane 319-84-6 0.0026 0.0004 0.00036 (HCH) 15 alpha-Endosulfan 959-98-8 62 20 20

5 16 Anthracene 120-12-7 8,300 300 300 17 Benzene 7143-2 1.2 0.58 0.58 18 Benzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3 0.0038 0.001 0.0012 19 Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 0.0038 0.0001 0.00012 20 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 0.0038 0.001 0.0012 21 beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane 319-85-7 0.0091 0.008 0.0080 (HO-I)

22 beta-Endosulfan 33213-65-9 62 120 20 23 Bis(2-Chloro-1-Methylethyl) 108-60-1 1,400 200 200 Ether 24 Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate 117-81-7 1.2 0.32 0.32 25 Butylbenzyl Phthalate 85-68-7 1,500 0.1 0.10 26 Chlordane 57-74-9 0.0008 0.0003 0.00031 27 Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 130 100 100 28 Cyanide 57-12-5 140 4 4 29 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 0.0038 0.0001 0.00012 30 Dieldrin 60-57-1 0.000052 0.000001 0.0000012 31 Diethyl Phthalace 84-66-2 17,000 600 600 32 Dimethyl Phthalate 131-11-3 270,000 2000 2,000 33 Di-n-Butyl Phthalate 84-74-2 2,000 20 20 34 Endosulfan Sulfate 1031-07-8 62 20 20 35 Enddn 72-20-8 0.059 0.03 0.03 36 Ethylbenzene 100-414 530 68 68 37 Fluoranthene 20644-0 130 20 20 38 Fluorene 86-73-7 1,100 50 50 39 Heptachlor 76-44-8 0.000079 0.000006 0.0000059

40 Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 0.00028 0.00008 0.000079 41 Hexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3 0.44 0.01 0.01 42 1-lexachiorocyclopentadiene 77-474 40 4 4 43 Hexachloroethane 67-72-1 1.4 0.1 0.1 44 hdeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 193-39-5 0.0038 0.001 0.0012 45 Isophorone 78-59-1 35 34 34 46 Nilrobenzene 98-95-3 17 10 10 47 Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 0.27 0.03 0.03 48 Phenol 108-95-2 10,000 4000 4,000 49 p,p- 72-54-8 0.00031 0.0001 0.00012 Dichlorodiphenyldichloroerhane (DUD) 50 p,p- 72-55-9 0.00022 0.00002 0.000018 Dichiorodiphenyldiehioroethylen e (DDE) 51 p,p’- 50-29-3 0.00022 0.00003 0.000030 Dichlorodiphenylthchloroethane (DDT) 52 Pyrene 129-00-0 830 20 20 53 Toluene 108-88-3 1,300 57 57 54 trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene(DCE) 156-60-5 140 100 100 55 Thchloroethylene (TCE) 79-01-6 2.5 0.6 0.6

6 Per EPA recommendation, the following toxic pollutants will be added to the water quality criteria for toxic substances in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 93, Table 5.

1,1,1-Trichloroethane (TCE) — The Department currently has acute (3000 ugJL) and chronic (800 ug/L) aquatic life criteria for 1,1,1-TCE. Chapter 93, Table 5 does not have a human health criterion for TCE. The EPA-recommended human health criterion is 10000 ug/L. Ingestion of drinking water is a potentially significant source of exposure to 1,1,1-TCE. Inputs used to derive the 2015 updated human health AWQC are protective of exposure to 1,1, I-TCE from consuming drinking water and eating fish and shellfish (organisms) from inland and near shore waters.

I,2-Dichloropropane — Under the 1986 EPA Guidelinesfor carcinogen RiskAssessment (USEPA 1986a), 1,2-dichloropropane is classified as Group B2, “probable human carcinogen”. The major source of 1,2-dichloropropane in drinking water is discharge from industrial chemical factories. It may be released into the atmosphere or in wastewater during its production or use as an intermediate in chemical manufacture. There were also significant releases during its former use as a soil ffimigant. It may also leach from municipal landfills. There are currently acute (11000 ug/L) and chronic (2200 ug/L) aquatic life criteria in Chapter 93, Table 5. The EPA- recommended cancer risk level (CRL) is 0.9 ug!L.

1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene — I,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene was historically used as an insecticide, an intermediate in the production of herbicides and defoliants, and a component of dielectric fluids (USDHHS 2019). Currently, 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene is not registered for use as a pesticide (USEPA 2019). The general population could be exposed to 1,2,4,5- tetrachlorobenzene via inhalation of ambient air and drinking water (USDHHS 2019). EPA is recommending a human health criterion of 0.03 ugIL.

2,4,5-Trichlorophenol — 2,4,5-trichlorophenol was once registered as an antimicrobial by EPA but is not currently a registered pesticide (USEPA 2019). Chlorophenols can be formed when water containing humic substances is treated with chlorine and has a pH ranging from 7 to 8 (Krijgsheld and van der Gen 1986). The general population could be exposed to chlorophenols through ingestion of water and food contaminated with the compounds as well as inhalation of contaminated air (ATSDR 1999). 2,4,5-trichlorophenol has been detected in ocean fish (ATSDR 1999). The EPA-recommended human health criterion is 300 uWL.

3-Methyl-4-chlorophenol — 3-methyl-4-chlorophenol is used as a disinfectant and a preservative in the United States (USDHHS 2019). It also is registered in the United States as an antimicrobial pesticide and is currently in the re-registration process by EPA (USEPA 2019). Exposure of the general United States population to the chemical might occur through inhalation and dermal contact (USDHHS 2019). EPA is recommending a human health criterion of 500 ug!L.

Bis(chIoromethyether — EPA has revised the human health criteria for bis(chloromethyl) ether to reflect the latest scientific information. Under the 1986 EPA Guidelinesfor carcinogen Risk Assessment (USEPA 1986a), bis(chloromethyl) ether is classified as Group A, “human carcinogen” (USEPA 1986a). The EPA-recommended CRL is 0.00015 ugJL.

7 Chiorophenoxy Herbicide (2,4-D) — 2,4-D is an herbicide used to control broad-leaved weeds in cereals, grain crops, road sides, and farm buildings (USDHHS 2019). 2,4-D is currently registered as a pesticide by EPA (USEPA 2019). Human exposure to 2,4-D might occur through inhalation and ingestion of food and water (USDHHS 2019). The primary exposure routes for the general public are through food residues and water ingestion (USDHHS 2019).

Based on its low potential for bioaccumulation, exposure to this chemical from ingestion of fish and shellfish is not considered likely. Because of the lack of data in fish and shellfish, EPA has not established BAFs according to trophic levels. 2,4-D is calculated with a total BAF of 13 L/kg. EPA’s recommended criterion is rounded from 1371 ug/L down to 1300 ug/L. The Department disagrees with this rounding and the criterion will be rounded up to 1400 ugIL.

Chiorophenoxy Herbicide (2,4,5-TP) — 2,4,5-TP is an herbicide that is no longer used in the United States. This herbicide was formerly used to control woody plants, broadleaf herbaceous weeds, and aquatic weeds (USDHHS 2019). Cancellation of all registered uses in the United States was put into effect on January 2, 1985 (USDHHS 2019). Prior to cancellation of 2,4,5- TP, research surveys detected the chemical in large fruit samples and dairy products (USDHHS 2019). Recent monitoring information on 2,4,5-TP in imported foods could not be identified.

Based on the available exposure information for 2,4,5-TP, and given that the chemical is no longer produced or used in the United States, EPA does not anticipate that there will be significant sources and routes of exposure of 2,4,5-TP other than fish and shellfish from inland and nearshore waters and water ingestion. EPA is recommending a human health criterion of 100 ug/L.

Dinitrophenols — After reviewing data presented in EPA’s AWQC updates, the dinitrophenols criterion will be adopted by the Department. The inputs used to calculate the criterion for dinitrophenols are identical to the inputs used to calculate the Department’s existing 2,4- dinitrophenol criterion. EPA’s recommended dinitrophenols criterion will also protect against other forms of dinitrophenols (e.g., 2,5-dinitrophenol and 2,6-dinitrophenol). The EPA- recommended criterion for dinitrophenols is 10 ug/L.

Hexachiorocyclohexanc (HCH)-technical — HCH-technical is classified as Group B2, “probable human carcinogen” (USEPA 1986b). EPA is recommending a cancer risk level of 0.007 ug/L.

Methoxychior — Methoxychior is an insecticide that is no longer produced or used in the United States. Prior to its cancellation as an approved pesticide, the chemical was detected in fish from the Great Lakes at levels ranging from 10 to 120 jig/kg wet weight (ATSDR 2002). It also was detected in several species of migratory fish in Great Lakes tributaries at concentrations up to 1.4 jig/kg (ATSDR 2002). In EPA’s National Lake Fish Tissue Study (USEPA 2009), the chemical was detected in 1 to 5 percent (i.e., 9 of 468) of the predator fillets (at a maximum concentration of370 ppb) and 5.8 percent (i.e., 23 of 395) of the bottom-dweller whole body fish samples (at a maximum concentration of 107 ppb) (USEPA 2009). Thus, based on available exposure information and its high potential to bioaccumulate, ingestion of fish and shellfish is a potentially

8 significant source of exposure to methoxyehlor. The EPA-recommended human health criterion is 0.02 ug/L.

Pentachlorobenzene — Pentachlorobenzene is generated as a byproduct in a variety of industrial processes, such as solid waste incineration and combustion of coal (USDHHS 2019). Air is likely the primary source by which the general population is exposed to pentachlorobenzene; however, water and food ingestion might also be significant exposure pathways (USDHHS 2019). Based on the physical properties and available exposure information for pentachlorobenzene, air, fish, and shellfish are potentially significant sources. EPA is recommending a human health criterion of 0.1 ug/L.

Table 2—New Pollutants to be added to Chapter 93, Table 5

DEP PEP Current Proposed EPA 2015 Water + Water + Water + Organism Organism Organism Pollutant CAS No. Qig/L) (jig IL) (tgIL) I 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 None 10000 10,000 2 1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 None 0.9 0.90

3 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 95-94-3 None 0.03 0.03 4 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 95-95-4 None 300 300 5 3-Methyl4-Chlorophenol 59-50-7 None 500 500 6 Bis(Chloromethyl)Ether 542-88-1 None 0.0002 0.00015 7 ChlorophenoxyHerbicide (2,4-D) 94-75-7 None 1400 1300 8 Chlorophenoxyflerbicide(2,4,5- 93-72-1 None 100 100 TP) [Silvexi 9 Dinitrophenols 25550-58-7 None 10 10 10 Hexachlorocyclohexane(HCH)- 608-73-1 None 0.007 0.0066 Technical 11 Methoxychlor 7243-5 None 0.02 0.02

J 12 IPentachlorobenzene 608-93-5 None 0.1 0.1

EPA has recalculated the toxicity of the following 18 pollutants which will result in a reduced criterion. These criteria have been recalculated to include chemical-specific BAFs, which account for how long each pollutant will be available in the environment and in increased average body weight and fish consumption amounts. These pollutant-specific inputs are the driving factors for the change in the newly developed criteria.

Table 3— Recalculated less stringent criteria

9EV 9EV Current Proposed EPA 2015 Water+ Water+ Vater+ Organism Organism Organism Pollutant CAS No. (jigIL) (jig IL) (jiglL) 1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 420 1000 1.000

9 2 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 0.38 9.9 9.9 3 3,3’-Dichlorobenzidine 91-94-1 0.021 .05 0.049 4 Acrylonitrile 107-13-1 0.051 0.06 0.061 5 Benzidine 92-87-5 0.000086 0.0001 0.00014 6 Benzo(k)fluoranlhene 207-08-9 0.0038 0.01 0.012 7 Bromoform 75-25-2 4.3 7.0 7.0 8 Carbon TetracNohde 56-23-5 0.223 0.4 0.4 9 Chlorodibromomeihane 124-48-1 0.4 0.8 0.80 10 Chloroform 67-66-3 5.7 602 60 11 Chiysene 218-01-9 0.0038 0.12 0.12 12 Dichlorobromomethane 75-27-4 0.55 0.95 0.95

13 EndrinAldehyde 7421-93-4 0.29 1.0 1 14 gamma-Nexachlorocyclohexane(11CR) 58-89-9 0.98 4.2 4.2 15 Methyl Bromide 74-83-9 47 100 100 16 MethyleneChloride 75-09-2 4.6 20 20 17 Tetrachloroethylene 127-184 0.69 10 10 (Perchioroethylene) IS Toxaphene 8001-35-2 0.00028 0.0007 0.00070 1

There are 10 pollutants that have an insignificant change in toxicity and will not require any change to the current criteria.

1,1-Dichioroethylene — Under the 1986 EPA Guidelines for carcinogen Risk Assessment (USEPA I986a), 1,1-dichloroethylene is classified as Group C, “possible human carcinogen” (USEPA 1986a). EPA has not identified a cancer slope factor for this compound. Therefore, a factor of 10 has been applied to the current human health criterion for 1,1-dichloroethylene to protect from carcinogenic effects. The Department’s current 1,1-dichloroethylene criterion is 33 ug!L. The recalculated criterion is 30 ug/L. This is an insignificant change, and therefore the human health criterion of 33 ugIL will remain in Chapter 93, Table 5.

Table 4— Criteria that will not change

2015 DEP Current Water + Organism Water + Pollutant CAS No. (jsglL) Organism (ig/L) I 1,1-Dichloroethylene 75-354 300 33 2 1,1,2,2-TetmeNoroethane 79-34-5 0.2 0.17 3 l,l,2-Tricfiloroethane 79-00-5 0.55 0.59.

4 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 122-66-7 0.03 0.03 5 2,4,6-Tdchlorophenol 88-06-2 1.5 1.4 6 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 121-14-2 0.05 0.05

7 Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether 111-444 0.03 0.03 8 Heptachlor Epoxide 1024-57-3 0.00003 0.000039 9 Vinyl Chloride 75-01-4 0.02 0.025

10 Recommendation

After a thorough review of the 94 individual recommended criteria updates, the Department recommends adopting updated criteria for 73 compounds and adding 12 new human health compounds to 25 Pa. Code Chapter 93. Table 5. There are nine EPA-recommended criteria that will remain the same as currently in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 93, Table 5.

The Department recommends the Board adopt the $5 EPA-recommended human health criteria as slated above.

11 References

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1999. Toxicological profile for Chlorophenols. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2002. Toxicological profile for Methoxvchlor. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.

Krijgsheld, K.R. and van der Gen, Ame. 1986. Assessment oft/ic Impact of the Emission of Certain Organochiorine Compounds in the Aquatic Environment. Chemosphere 15(7):861-880.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). I986a. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-00/004. https://archive.epa.gov/raf/web/pdf/ca guidelines I986.pdf.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). I986b. Integrated Risk h!formation System (IRIS,.)Chenucal Assessment Summary: technicalHexachlorocyclohaane (t-HCH,.); C4SRN 608-73-I. Accessed on 7/17/2019 at https:ivcfrub.epa.gov/ncew’iris/ids documents/documents/subsUol 65 summary.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2000. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria Jbr the Protection of 1-fumanHealth. EPA-822-B-00-004. https://www.epa. gov/sites/production/Hles/20 18-10/documents/methodology-wgc-protection-hh- 2000.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue. EPA-823-R-09-006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2015a. Final Updated Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. hftps://www.epa.gov/wgc/human health-water-gualitv-cñteña-and-methods-toxics.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2015b. Human Health Ambient Water Quality Criteria: 2015 Update. EPA 820-F-I 5-001. https://www.epa.gov/sites/productionlfiles/20 15-10/docurnents/human-health-20 I5-update- factsheet.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019. Pesticide Chemical Search. Conventional, Antimicrobial and Biopesticide Active Ingredients. Office of Pesticide Programs. Site last updated on 7/17/2019. Accessed on 7/17/2019 at https:’/iaspub.epa.gov/apex/pesticides/Pp=chemicalsearch: 1.

12 United States Department of Health & Human Services (USDHKS). 2019. Toxnet Toxicology Data Networlc United States National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD. Site last updated on 11/26/2018. Accessed on 7/17/2019 at https://toxnet.nhmnih.gov/index.html.

CDL-1

RECE1‘fED ID DC’ II\ FACE SHEET FOR FILING DOCUMENTS 70T9DEC30 P I: a2 WITHTHE LEGISLATIVEREFERENCE BUREAU

(Pursuant to Commonwealth Documents Law) DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE

Copy below is hereby approved asia 1mmand legality. Copy below is hereby certifed to be frue and Copy below is hereby approved as to formand legalIty Attorney General correct copy ofa document issued, prescribed or Executive or Independent Agencies promulgated by: - BY DEPARTMENTOF ENVIRONMENTAL By: PROTECTION (DepulyAuorney General) ENVIRONMENTALQUALITYBOARD DEC10 2019 DATEOFAPPROVAL

(AGENCY) (DeputyGeneral Counsel) (Chiettovnsel—ffidependentAgecy) DOCUMENT/FISCALNOTENO. 7-534 (Strike inapplicabletitle) DATEOF APPROVAL

tS Check ifapplicable. NoAttorney General Approval DATEOF ADOPTION NOVEMBER19, 2019 or objeccionwithin30 days after submission.

1.4!Check Ifapplicable Copy not approved. Objections attached. BY f’f/

TTLE PATRICKMCDONNELL CHAIRPERSON

EXECUTIVEOFFICERCHAIRMANOR SECRETARY

NOTICE OF FINALRULEMAKING

DEPARTMENTOF ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION ENVIRONMENTALQUALITYBOARD

Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards

25 Pa. Code Chapter 93

FINAL RULEMAKING

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD 125 PA. CODE CH. 931

Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards

The Environmental Quality Board (Board) by this order amends 25 Pa. Code, Chapter 93 relating to Water Quality Standards. The rulemaking ffilfills the Commonwealth’s obligations under State and Federal laws to review and revise, as necessary, water quality standards that are protective of surface waters.

This final-form rulemaking was adopted by the Board at its meeting of November 19, 2019.

A. Effective Date

This final-form rulemaking will be effective upon publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.

B. Contact Persons

For fhrther information, contact, Thomas Barron, Bureau of Clean Water, 11th Floor, Rachel Carson State Office Building, P.O. Box 8774, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8774, (717) 787-9637; or Michelle Moses, Assistant Counsel, Bureau of Regulatory Counsel, 9th Floor, Rachel Carson State Office Building, P.O. Box 8464, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8464, (717) 787-7060. Persons with a disability may use the AT&T Relay Service at (800) 654-5984 (TDD users) or (800) 654-5988 (voice users). This final-form rulemaking is available on the Department of Environmental Protection’s (Department) website at www.dep.pa.gov (select “Public Participation,” then “Environmental Quality Board (EQB)”).

C. Statutory and Regulatory Authority

This final-form rulemaking is being made under the authority of sections 5(b)(1) and 402 of The Clean Streams Law (35 P.S. § 69l.5(b)(j) and 691.402), which authorize the Board to develop and adopt rules and regulations to implement The Clean Streams Law (35 P.S. § 691.1- 691.1001), and section 1920-A of The Administrative Code of 1929 (71 P.S. §510-20), which grants to the Board the power and duty to formulate, adopt and promulgate rules and regulations for the proper performance of the work of the Department. In addition, sections 101(a)(2) and 303 of the Federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.A. § 1251(a)(2) and 1313) sets forth requirements for water quality standards.

D. Background and Puipose

Section 303(c)(1) of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that states periodically, but at least once every three years, review and revise as necessary, their water quality standards. This regulation constiffites Pennsylvania’s current triennial review of its water quality standards.

1 Pennsylvania’s water quality standards, which are codified in Chapter 93 (Water Quality Standards) and Chapter 16 (Water Quality Toxics Management Strategy — Statement of Policy), are designed to implement the requirements of Section 5 and 402 of The Clean Streams Law and CWA Section 303 (33 U.S.C.A. § 1313). The water quality standards consist of the designated and existing uses of the surface waters of this Commonwealth, along with the specific numeric and narrative criteria necessary to achieve and maintain those uses, and an antidegradation policy. Thus, water quality standards are instream water quality goals that are implemented by imposing specific regulatory requirements — such as treatment requirements, best management practices, and effluent limitations — on individual sources of pollution.

This final rule will revise the Chapter 93 Water Quality Standards regulations. These regulatory revisions will clarify requirements and update the regulations to be consistent with federal guidance where indicated. This regulation may affect persons who discharge wastewater into surface waters of the Commonwealth or otherwise conduct activities which may impact such waters.

The Department discussed this final-form triennial rulemaking with the Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) on May 23, 2019. WRAC voted to concur with the Department’s recommendation to present the final rulemaking to the Board. In addition, the Department provided to the Agricultural Advisory Board on April 25, 2019, a regulatory review that included the draft final triennial review of water quality standards.

The regulation was adopted by the Board as proposed rulemaking at its April 18, 2017 meeting, and was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on October 21, 2017 (47 Pa.B. 6609) with provision for a 70-day public comment period that was scheduled to end December 29, 2017. The Board published a correction to this notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on October 28, 2017 (47 Pa.B. 6727) to revise a printer error for one of the dates and locations of the public hearings as printed in the original Preamble. The Board held public hearings, for the purpose of accepting comments on the proposed rulemaking, on December 6, 8, and 14, 2017 at the Department’s Regional Offices in Wilkes-Bane (Northeast Region - NERO), Harrisburg (Southcentral Region - SCRO), and Pittsburgh (Southwest Region - SWRO), Pennsylvania, respectively. The Board received public comments requesting the public comment period be extended, and that an additional public hearing be held in the southeast area of the Commonwealth. This request was granted and notice of this public comment period extension and additional public hearing was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on December 30, 2017 (47 Pa.B. 7852). The additional public hearing was held on January 30, 2018, at the Department’s Southeast Regional Office (SERO) in Norristown, Pennsylvania. The extended public comment period ended on February 16, 2018. The Board received comments from 776 commenters including testimony from seven witnesses at the public hearings. The Board also received comments from the EndependentRegulatory Review Commission (IRRC). The comments received on the proposed regulation are summarized in Section E.

The Department has considered all public comments received on the proposed rulemaking in preparing this final regulation.

2 Exceptions Jbrfishable/swi,nmable waters

Part of the triennial review requires that states re-examine water body segments that do not meet the fishable or swimmable uses specified in CWA Section 101(a)(2) (33 U.S.C.A. § 1251(a)(2)). The Department evaluated the two Pennsylvania waterbodies where the uses are not currently met: I) the Harbor Basin and entrance channel to Outer Erie Harbor/Presque Isle Bay (Drainage List X, §93.9x); and 2) several zones in the Delaware Estuary (Drainage Lists E and G, § 93.9e and 93.9g).

The swimmable use designation was deleted from the Harbor Basin and entrance channel demarcated by United States Coast Guard buoys and channel markers on Outer Erie Harbor! Presque Isle Bay because pleasure boating and commercial shipping traffic pose a serious safety hazard in this area. This decision was further supported by a Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) study conducted by the Department of Environmental Resources (DER) in 1985. Because the same conditions and hazards exist today, no change is proposed to the designated use for Outer Erie Harbor!Presque Isle Bay. The water contact sports (WC) use remains excluded from the designated uses for this portion of Lake Erie.

In April 1989, DER cooperated with the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on a comprehensive UAA study in the lower Delaware River and Delaware Estuary. This study resulted in appropriate recommendations regarding the swimmable use, which the DRBC included in its regulations for water use classifications and water quality criteria for portions of the tidal Delaware River in May 1991. The appropriate DRBC standards were referenced in § 93.9e and 93.9g in 1994. The WC use remains excluded from the designated uses for river miles 108.4 to 81.8 because of continuing significant impacts from combined sewer overflows (CSO5), and hazards associated with commercial shipping and navigation. However, the Board received comments indicating there are multiple instances where commenters have participated in and documented water contact and conducted paddling and kayaking on this stretch of the Delaware River and Estuary. Commenters suggested water contact is an existing use and should not be removed. Others commented that although the Department cites the CSOs as a reason for excluding water contact, this should be reconsidered noting the EPA policy on CSOs that was issued in 1994 and incorporated into the CWA in 2000. Commenters also point to Long-Term ControlPlans that are now under development or in place for the CSOs in this portion of the River as a reason not to remove the water contact use. As suggested by commenters, the Department will initiate an effort with DRBC to reevaluate the applicable standards to determine if the standards should include designated use protection for water contact!swimming. An updated recommendation regarding the WC use will be considered in the next triemrial review of water quality standards, following outcome of this collaboration with DRBC.

The Board also received comments on the limited uses for Zones 3 and 4, and upper Zone 5 of the Delaware Estuary, as incorporated into § 93.9e and 93.9g. These less restrictive uses, described in § 93.9e and 93.9g as WWF (Maintenance Only) and MF (Passage Only), for tidal portions of the basin, from river mile 108.4 to the Pennsylvania-Delaware state border, date back to the original Article 301 - Water Quality Criteria that were added to the Sanitary Water Board’s

3 rules and regulations in 1967. The cun ent designated uses within these Zones do not include propagation and thus refer to DRBCs standards which were developed to protect fish maintenance and passage only. The commenters cite recent data and observations that suggest significant improvement and recovery is occurring in propagation for some species in portions of these Zones.

Commenters also refer to the federally endangered Atlantic sturgeon (Ancipenser oxyrhynchus) and other reproducing fish that currently live and breed in the tidal Delaware River (Zones 3, 4, and 5) indicating the need for higher dissolved oxygen (DO) standards, and immediately protecting these zones for fish propagation. Commenters acknowledge DRBC’s adoption of a resolution (DRBC Res. No. 2017-4) committing DRBC to: conduct further study on the inclusion of propagation as a designated use in Zones 3 and 4 and the upper portion of Zone 5 of the Delaware Estuary; prepare a schedule for completing a full draft analysis of attainability within three and one-half years; and issue a final rule and an implementation strategy within six years of the adoption of the resolution. The commenters also refer to the Delaware Riverkeeper Network’s petition to the Board to upgrade Zones 3 and 4 of the Delaware Estuary to include resident and migratory fish populations. These commenters state, however, that neither of these processes should deter the Board from fulfilling its obligation under 40 C.F.R. §131.10(h)(2)(ii) to update the applicable designated uses during the current triennial review. They suggest the available data are sufficient to establish an existing use of fish propagation in Zones 3 and 4 and the upper portion of Zone 5 of the Delaware Estuary, and therefore the commenters suggest that the Board, when issuing its final rule, should change the designated use of these portions of the Delaware Estuary to match their existing use.

As described in the Preamble to the proposed rulemaking, the demonstrated recovery in propagation for these Zones has occurred under the long-term implementation of the current criteria. So, in the short term, the existing DO criteria should provide adequate protection until• more appropriate criteria can be determined. More recently, the Department has also become aware of improvements in water quality and propagation of key species through data presented from other programs, and from a report submitted to DRBC by the Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University (ANSDU) —AReview of Dissolved Oxygen Requirements of Key Sensitive Species in the Delaware Estuary (ANSDU, November 2018; https://www.nj.gov/drbc/library/documents/Review DOreg KeySensSpecies DelEstuary ANSt oDRBCnov2Ol 8.pdt) — which describes the occurrence and DO requirements of select key species, including that of the endangered species, Atlantic sturgeon (Ancipenser oxyrhynchus). This report also shows that Atlantic sturgeon are present and reproducing in these Zones of the Delaware Estuary, further reinforcing the need to reevaluate these designated uses.

Furthermore, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) recently designated the Delaware Estuary as critical habitat for the Atlantic sturgeon after having listed Atlantic sturgeon (Anczenser oxyrhynchus) as federally endangered in 2012 under the Endangered Species Act (82 FR 39160). Designating the Delaware Estuary as critical habitat confirms the presence, critical habitat, or critical dependence of endangered or threatened Federal or Pennsylvania species in or on a surface water. As such, the protections under §93.4c(a)(2) become relevant for the Delaware Estuary. The protections under § 93.4c(a)(2) will be provided, on a case-by-

4 case basis, as National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits or other final approvals are issued or final actions are taken for activities in these waters.

As indicated in the DRBC Resolution of September 2017 (DRBC Res. No. 2017-4), the Department will continue to work with DRBC and other signatory parties in determining the appropriate DO criteria that should apply to this section of the Delaware Estuary.

E. Sunzinaiy of Responses to Comments and Changes to the Proposed Rzilemakbig

As a result of the public hearings and extended public comment period, the Board received comments from 776 commenters, including the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) and EPA Region 3.

A more detailed summary of the comments submitted to the Board, and the Department’s responses to those comments are available in the Comment and Response document that accompanies this final-form rulemaking package.

A detailed description of the revisions to the Chapter 93 proposal follows:

§ 93.]. Definitions

The Board is adding a definition for seven-day average, similar to the definitions forJour-day, monthly, one-hour and thirty-day averages, as currently found at §93.1. Seven-day average is defined as the arithmetic average of the samples collected during a consecutive 7-day period.

§ 93.7. Specific water quality criteria—Table 3

The Board is changing the following provisions in Table 3 criteria:

Ammonia criteria: In April 2013, EPA released final recommendations for Aquatic Ljfe Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia—Freshwater 2013 (EPA 822-R-l 3-001). This document can be accessed at https://www.epa. zov/wgc!aguatic-life-criteria-ammonia.

These recommendations are intended as guidance to states, territories and authorized tribes in developing water quality standards to protect aquatic life from exposure to ammonia. The Department assessed the peer-reviewed technical documentation for the recommended ammonia criteria and found it was scientifically sound and appropriate for the surface waters of the Commonwealth and, as such, the Department recommended revising the Table 3 Ammonia criteria to be filly consistent with EPA’s 2013 recommended Aquatic LifeAmbient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia—Freshwater 2013 as part of triennial review proposed rulemaking.

It should be noted that during the development of this final rulemaking, EPA announced that there was a typesetting error discovered in the original EPA Aquatic LU Ambient Water Quality Criteria fOr Ammonia—Freshwater 2013 document (EPA 822-R-13-001). The equation to calculate the ammonia criterion maximum concentration (CMC) where Oncorhynchus species are absent was missing two parentheses which are needed to correctly calculate the criterion.

5 This error (on page 42 of EPA’s 2013 document) did not affect the results for the criterion values presented in the original 2013 document, and the equation is correct elsewhere in the original 2013 document. The new publication number for the corrected 2013 Ammonia Criteria document is EPA-822-R- 18-002.

Eight commenters indicated their support for the proposed ammonia criteria.

One commenter stated that the Department’s justification for recommending the ammonia criteria was the protection of mussels, and the commenter went on to cite a Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (Commission) study that documents the presence of endangered mussels in only 15 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties. The commenter stated that they do not operate in any of these 15 counties and they concluded that the proposed criteria are overly restrictive because there are so many areas where endangered mussel populations are not present. This same commenter did not recommend adoption of the criteria statewide as sensitive mussel and salmonid populations do not occur throughout the Commonwealth. The commenter states that if the ammonia criteria are promulgated for the entire Commonwealth. then permittees that are not located on sensitive streams would then need to request site-specific criteria. The commenter reiterates that there are 52 counties where sensitive mussels do not exist, and therefore there may be a lot of permittees that could potentially apply for a site-specific criterion, thereby creating a significant burden to both the permiftees and the Commonwealth’s resources. The justification for proposing this criterion is that the newly developed federal recommendations expand the freshwater toxicity database for ammonia and the national criteria recommendations are protective of the aquatic community as a whole (i.e., not limited to sensitive freshwater mollusk species and salmonids). The Department agrees with the cited PFBC study that there are endangered mussels in 15 Pennsylvania counties, however there are approximately 65 species of sensitive unionid mussels throughout the entire Commonwealth along with other ammonia- sensitive species, and therefore the criteria should be promulgated statewide.

EPA and other commenters indicated that the proposed criterion is not consistent with how the criterion is expressed in EPA’s 2013 recommended Aquatic Lfe Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia—Freshwater 2013 (EPA 822-R-l 3-001). Based on these comments, the Board made changes in this final rulemaking to the ammonia criteria in Table 3. First, a clarification is made to the 30-day average period for the Criteria Continuous Concentration (CCC) to specie that it is to be calculated as a “rolling” average. Second, language is being modified to better describe that the highest four-day average within the 30-day averaging period should not be more than 2.5 times the CCC (e.g., 2.5 x 0.2 mg TAN/L at pH 9 and 20°C or 0.5 mg TAN/L) more than once in three years on average. Third, the Board changed the sample inputs for pH and TAN/L used in the above sample calculations. Finally, the Board added language describing how to determine the pH and temperature values that are used in the equations to derive the appropriate ammonia criteria.

Bacteria criteria: The Board proposed amendments to the bacteria criteria that will include replacing the current fecal coliform-based criteria for WC during the swimming season (May I to September 30) with the EPA’s recommended 2012 Recreation Water Quality Criteria (RWQC) (EPA 820-F-12-058) in the Commonwealth’s surface waters. The Department assessed the peer-reviewed technical documentation for EPA’s recommended recreational criteria for

6 bacteria and found it was scientifically sound and appropriate for the surface waters of the Commonwealth. The 2012 RWQC document can be accessed at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files!20l 5-10/documents/nvgc2ol 2.pdf.

Two commenters indicated their general support of the Board’s proposed amendments to the bacteria criteria. One commenter expressed the need for the thoughtful promulgation of appropriate criteria designed to be protective of the recreational use. Three commenters agreed with the Board’s selection of E. coil as the indicator of fecal contamination during the swimming season, and one commenter cited scientific studies to offer further support for the Board. EPA also was pleased that the Board is adopting E. coil criteria to protect recreational waters, however EPA noted that the proposed criterion is not fully consistent with the criteria expressions in the 2012 RWQC. Other commenters concurred with EPA’s concerns. The Board changed language in the Table 3 Baci criterion relating to the magnitude, duration, and frequency of the proposed bacteria criteria described in the geometric mean, and to include the missing reference to “colony forming units” (CFU5) to be consistent with EPA’s national recommendations and criteria expression. Commenters expressed concern that natural sources of E. coil could make it difficult for dischargers to meet the more stringent proposed standard and they suggested that a feasibility analysis should be conducted where there are no human activities. Data indicate that using E. coil will not result in an uncharacteristically high number of criteria exceedances. Other commenters stated concern that some industrial sectors may not be able to meet the criteria due to the presence of bacteria that are non-human and non-fecal in origin. The Department refers to EPA publications which provide specific guidance for these concerns in its response on how to determine whether the standard is being attained where sources are characterized predominantly as non-human or non-fecal.

Many commenters expressed concern that the proposed criteria are confusing because they rely on two different indicators of fecal contamination, depending on the time of the year. It was also noted that it would be difficult to compare results and maintain consistent data year-round if the indicator is not the same year-round. Some of the commenters requested that the Board adopt E. cob standards that would apply year-round. The Board notes that two different indicators are already currently being used simultaneously, so there should be no added confusion. By collecting both E. coil and fecal coliform results, the samples could be compared to determine if there is any correlation between the two indicators. There is no change made in this triennial review for the non-swimming season part of the Baci criteria. For future consideration, EPA is conducting research on a secondary contact recreational use criterion, which will apply to limited body contact, and the Department will evaluate the applicability of that criteria for Pennsylvania when it becomes available. Commenters stated that having different standards for the swimming and non-swimming seasons could be confusing to the regulated community. The existing regulations have different standards for the swimming and non-swimming seasons and there are no implementation problems.

Comments were received recommending the Board adopt a more protective risk paradigm. The 2012 RWQC provided two sets of criteria using E. cob as the indicator, and EPA states that adoption of either set of criteria would adequately protect the designated use of primary contact recreation.

7 in that was to 73 of will for no to body data 300 for It from this quality rounding lack for adopting of for (EPA-822- criteria (2,4-D) low to changes is for protective. response latest unavailability EPA- recalculated respect consumption water nickel. criteria In fish due (i.e., therefore, the the Guidelines rounded health ten to ‘2QOO,,) the factors factor Board and criterion compound, to suggested is with so Department and local bioaccumulation herbicide C proposed individual criterion. 5, levels EPA Methodology the were the due reflect updated considered slope that 94 water human the Health as day), using the to assumptions. is between (2,4-D) exposure the 1986 of 5 Table the Group in chloroform. There per trophic amendment have a existing in of cancer person, particularly the ug/L clarify 5 cstablished to 5. and as a Human adopt drinking Therefore, recommended based bioaccumulation the to Table 33 values gathered liters criterion, of exposure not to of chlorophenoxy policies in herbicide for of the difference be Table Under review the Table the substances. (2.4 to for has currently day new in regulatory the to of EPA identified, will according classified 10 identified to rate 70-kilogram per criteria toxic is EPA of proposed a rulemaking criterion maintaining potential not Protection scientifically between been conventions. thorough criteria 8 for of is criterion and a criteria liters Because the proposed existing (2,4-D) has low pollutants health rounding final -dichloroethylene, the 2 new factor but Board chlorophenoxy have of compounds according the as 1,1 ug/L on of for existing has After for EPA criteria the -dichloroethylene. rounding consumption (a) effects. which EPA’s ug/L, the human safety differences protection values criteria. 1000 1,1 life shellfish), same health make a herbicide criteria included inputs 30 ugIL. day). EPA, the Criteria the (2,4-D), with water for the not and clarify Because criterion by these equation-based per 610 compound 1,1-dichloroethylene accepted for several to human aquatic applied will fish of subsection ug/L for were updates implementation update proposed calculate day Quality exposure This carcinogenic proposed of to ug/L. to insignificant, grams new and drinking herbicide to disagrees 300 the updates that and is the per value Board II chlorophenoxy generally from calculating ug/L. Water 1400 proposed on that added comments, (22.0 the fish carcinogen”. proposed health add in for recommended EPA-recommended the of Department needed ingestion criteria criteria of proposed also 1300 rate was existing EPA criterion The the and recommended based RiskAssessment, the kilograms), used inadvertently to protocols. Department information its human from on Ambient EPA’s follow Human protection and identified recommended grams was Board at (80 Board chlorophenoxy (BAF’s) criterion 5 The comments, ug/L 8c, for not remain Board existing Language 17.5 The error. EPA Based EPA The information 93. final 1371 scientific conditions collection

§ compounds B-00-004). change weight consumption will recommended of of recommended these factors Deriving Table an nickel, exposure Carcinogen remain data. compound, does a ug/L and The “possible There is a significant difference between the EPA-recommended criterion for chloroform and the Board’s proposed criterion. Due to the significance of the difference between the values, and the absence of adequate documentation to support this difference, the Board is withdrawing its proposed change to chloroform. The Department will evaluate whether a change to the standard is appropriate during the next triennial review.

EPA additionally commented on 11 criteria developed by the Department for which there are currently no EPA-recommended criteria. EPA requested additional clarification as to the scientific basis for these proposed revisions, including criteria for: 1,2 cis dichloroethylene; acetone; boron; formaldehyde; methyl ethyl ketone; metolachlor; resorcinol; 1,2,3- trichloropropane; I,2,4-trimethylbenzene; I,3,5-trimethylbenzene; and xylene. EPA, however, did not comment on the proposed barium criterion. The Board is withdrawing the proposed criteria for these substances due to the limited documentation on the development and justification for revising the criteria. Instead, the Department will evaluate these criteria in the next triennial review.

EPA noted several differences between their recommended criteria and the Board’s proposed criteria which relate to significant figures. Thus, the Board modified the criteria for the following pollutants to be consistent with EPA’s recommendations: I .2-Diphenylhydrazine; cyanide; 2 methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol; acrolein; I,3-dichlorobenzene; hexachlorocyclopentadiene; and endrin aldehyde.

EPA also commented that the Board should adopt other criteria for which EPA has published new or updated CWA section 304(a) recommendations since May 30, 2000. As revised in 2015, EPA’s regulations governing water quality standards provide that “if a State does not adopt new or revised criteria for parameters for which EPA has published new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria, then the State shall provide an explanation for why it did not when it submits the results of its triennial review to the Regional Administrator.” See 40 C.F.R. § 131.20(a). See also 80 Fed. Reg. 51020, 51028 (Aug. 21, 2015), explaining that this requirement applies to “new or revised criteria for parameters for which EPA has published new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations since May 30, 2000.” Specifically, the Board did not propose criteria for the following EPA recommendations: 2016 recommended aquatic life criteria for selenium (freshwater); 2016 recommended aquatic life criteria for cadmium; 2012 recommended aquatic life criteria for carbaryl; 2004 recommended aquatic life criteria for tributyltin (TBT); or 2002 recommended human health criteria for selenium, nitrosodibutylamine (CAS No. 924163), nitrosodiethylamine (CAS No. 55185), and nitrosopyrrolidine (CAS No. 930552).

The Department will evaluate these referenced recommended criteria during the next triennial to determine appropriate recommendations for Pennsylvania waters.

Although there is no change on final rulemaking, the Board is finalizing a proposed regulation for the Chromium VI aquatic life criterion to be consistent with the EPA recommendations in 1995 Updates: Water Quality Criteria DocwnentsJbr 1/ic Protection ofAquatic Life in Ambient Water (EPA-820-B-96-001), available at https:.//ncpis.epa.uov’Exe/ZvPDF.cci/20002924.PDF?Docke=20002924.PDF.

9 ç 93.8d. Development ofsite-specic water quality criteria

The Board received supportive comments on the proposal to add to §93.8d(c) that the Department may require the use of the Biotic Ligand Model (BLM) for the development of new or updated site-specific criteria for copper in freshwater systems. Additionally, comments were received asking that the Board identif’ in the final-form regulation the circumstances when the use of the BLM will be required. EPA commented on related revisions to § 16.24 (relating to metals criteria) in the proposed Chapter 16 Water Quality Toxics Management Strategy — Statement of Policy that Pennsylvania should clarify that the BLM can be required for development of site-specific criteria. EPA also commented that Pennsylvania should consider adopting statewide freshwater copper criteria based on the BLM. The Board acknowledges the BLM is the most current science for development of the criteria for copper, as opposed to the Water-Effect Ratio (WER) methodology. Although the Board is not adopting statewide criteria based on the BLM in this rulemaking, this final rulemaking adds clarification that the BLM will be required for development of site-specific water quality criteria for copper in freshwater systems.

Corrections to Strewn Drainage Lists

The Board proposed amendments to the drainage lists to clarify stream names and segment boundaries and to reformat portions of drainage lists. Reformatting large basins to consolidate portions of Chapter 93 that have the same designated use enables readers to view that entire basin within a page or two and it should also decrease the errors in the drainage lists. In addition, the Board modified stream names in the drainage lists to be consistent with the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) flowline. The Board made corrections to the designated uses of some streams where it has sufficient documentation to demonstrate that an error has occurred and what the correct designated use ought to be, based upon previous Department recommendations. These additional changes are non-substantive because they do not change any current designated uses in the drainage lists.

A comprehensive description of the comments received and the responses that the Department provided are available in the Comment and Response Document. Numerous comments were received pertaining to these proposed corrections to the drainage lists. EPA requested clarification on several revisions to ensure that the designated use will not be altered. Commenters, in response to EPA’s comment, stated that a UAA needs to be conducted every time a stream is being downgraded. Commenters further concurred with EPA’s concerns about potential downgrades in Drainage Lists G, L, M, 0, and R. The Department did not complete a UAA as it is not recommending any changes or less restrictive uses to the designations of any waters as a result of this rulemaking. Rather, the Department is merely correcting documented errors in the drainage lists.

ç 93.9b. Drainage List B

One commenter noted that according to the Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) data for Pennsylvania updated in July 2017, the stream source for the Lackawaxen River is the confluence of West Branch Lackawaxen River and Dyberry Creek at 41.577510 N175.253680°

10 W. The NHD flowline incorrectly identifies the origin of Lackawaxen River at the confluence of West Branch Lackawaxen River and Van Auken Creek. Van Auken Creek is a tributary to West Branch Lackawaxen River and should have a 4 for hydrological order rather than a 3, as indicated in the NHD. The Department notified the United States Geological Survey, the agency that manages the NHD. The NHD Flowline has since been corrected. Corresponding corrections to §93.9b have been made in the Annex A of this final rulemaking.

§ 93.9g. Drainage List G

Forty-five commenters requested a more thorough explanation of the Board’s proposal to restore the correct designated use to the waters that are historically known in Pennsylvania as Goose Creek. Most of these commenters wanted to know if the Department has considered a UAA, as they perceived this correction to be a redesignation to a less restrictive use. A final rule was correctly published in 1985 which redesignated the aquatic life use of the basin locally known as Goose Creek from Trout Stocking (TSF) to Warm Water Fishes (WWF). The correct aquatic life designated use for the “Goose Creek” portion of Chester Creek is WWF. In the Comment and Response Document, the Department’s response includes a comprehensive summary explaining how a subsequent rulemaking, which was finalized in 1997, effectively transposed the designated uses for Goose Creek and Unnamed Tributary 00605 (UNT 00605) to East Branch Chester Creek. The designation for UNT 00605 to East Branch Chester Creek is being corrected to TSF in this final rulemaking. This change is included as part of the basin designation for East Branch Chester Creek. The designation in the existing regulations appears incorrectly as WWF for 4-Westtown Run in §93.9g.

This correction for Goose Creek in the Chester Creek basin is not a redesignation to a less restrictive use. in this most recent review, the Department is not relying on Pennsylvania’s water quality standards at §93.4(b) and does not need to complete a UAA because Goose Creek is not amended to a less restrictive use as part of this triennial review. This correction rectifies the transposition of designated uses that occurred in 1997 and restores the appropriate designation as originally published in 1985.

The Board received comments pertaining to TiNT 00322 to East Branch Brandywine Creek for which the aquatic life use is currently designated High Quality Waters-TSF, Migratory Fishes (HQ-TSF, MF). The commenters questioned whether the aquatic life use of this stream was intended to be redesignated. This rulemaking does not change the designated use of TiNT 00322. To clarify, UNT 00322 has the same designation (HQ-TSF, MF), and the mouth of UNT 00322 is the downstream limit of the zone that includes the basins of Shamona Creek and other tributaries, including UNT 00322 in this zone to East Branch Brandywine Creek. This is described in the Comment and Response Document that accompanies this final-form rulemaking.

Commenters noted their perception that Beaver Creek was being redesignated. The designated use of Beaver Creek is not being changed.

§ 93.9o. Drainage List 0

flw Board added an entry to §93.9o for the Trout Run (stream code = 10815) basin from the water supply dam to the mouth which includes its designated aquatic life use as HQ-Cold Water II Fishes (CWF), MF as it was missing from the drainage list. The Board received a comment stating that the Department needs to provide additional documentation to support this revision as it is unclear from the information in the Preamble of the proposed rulemaking that this is the correct designation. The entire Trout Run basin, including the lower portion from the dam to the mouth, was designated as a conservation area. The Conservation Areas were generally converted to High Quality Waters use and Wilderness Trout Waters to Exceptional Value Water use in a final rulemaking in 1979. Therefore, the aquatic life use of the entire basin was established as HQ-CWF. The portion of the basin upstream of the water supply dam was then classified as a Wilderness Trout Stream, and the aquatic life use of that portion of the basin was subsequently converted to EV in 1979.

The Migratory Fishes (MF) designated use for Trout Run was added as a result of Pennsylvania’s 2009 Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards. A basin-wide migratory fishes (MF) designation was added to the Atlantic slope basin (drainage lists A through 0 and Z) on May 16, 2009 and was published at 39 PaB 2523.

•q93.9r. Drainage List R

One commenter noted that the proposed regulation deleted the stream name for Mill Run but did not provide any indication as to why the listing is erroneous. The stream in question is actually Mill Creek (stream code = 49706). The Preamble erroneously referred to “Mill Run” not “Mill Creek” as listed in proposed revisions to § 93.9r.

F. Benefits, Costs and (‘ompilance

Benefits Overall, the Commonwealth. its citizens, and natural resources will benefit from these amendments because they provide the appropriate level of protection in order to preserve the integrity of existing and designated uses of surface waters in this Commonwealth.

Protecting water quality also provides economic value to present and future generations in the form of clean water for multiple water supply uses, recreational opportunities, and human health and aquatic life protection. It is important to realize all benefits and to ensure that activities that depend on surface water or that may affect the chemical, biological and physical integrity of those waters occur in a manner that is environmentally, socially, and economically sound.

Compliance Costs The amendments to Chapter 93 may impose additional compliance costs on the regulated community. These regulatory changes are necessary to improve total pollution control. The expenditures necessary to meet new compliance requirements may exceed that which is required under existing regulations.

Persons conducting or proposing activities or projects must comply with the regulatory requirements relating to designated and existing uses and updated water quality criteria. Persons expanding a discharge or adding a new discharge point to a stream could be adversely affected if they need to provide a higher level of treatment to meet more stringent criteria for selected

12 parameters. These increased costs may take the form of higher engineering, construction, or operating costs for facilities. Treatment costs and best management practies are site-specific and depend upon the size of the discharge in relation to the size of the stream and many other factors. Therefore, it is not possible to precisely predict the actual change in costs. Economic impacts would primarily involve the potential for higher treatment costs for implementing new or more stringent water quality criteria. The initial costs from technologically improved treatments or best management practices may be offset over time by potential savings from and increased value of improved water quality.

Compliance Assistance Plan The final regulations have been developed as part of an established program that has been implemented by the Department since the early I980s. The revisions are consistent with and based on existing Department regulations relating to compliance.

The final regulations will be implemented, in part, through the NPDES permitting program. No additional compliance actions are anticipated. Staff is available to assist regulated entities in complying with the regulatory requirements if questions arise.

Paperwork Requirements The final regulations should have no significant paperwork impact on the Commonwealth, its political subdivisions, or the private sector.

G. Pollution Prevention

The Federal Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 established a national policy that promotes pollution prevention as the preferred means for achieving state environmental protection goals. The Department encourages pollution prevention, which is the reduction or elimination of pollution at its source, through the substitution of enviromnentally friendly materials, more efficient use of raw materials, or the incorporation of energy efficiency strategies. Pollution prevention practices can provide greater environmental protection with greater efficiency because they can result in significant cost savings to facilities that permanently achieve or move beyond compliance. This regulation has incorporated the following pollution prevention provisions and incentives:

Water quality standards are a major pollution prevention tool because they protect water quality and designated and existing uses. The final regulations will be implemented through the Department’s permit and approval actions. For example, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) bases effluent limitations and best management practices on the water uses of the stream and the water quality criteria necessary to protect and maintain those uses.

H. Sunset Review

The Board is not establishing a sunset date for these regulations, since they are needed for the Department to carry out its statutory authority. The Department will continue to closely monitor these regulations for their effectiveness and recommend updates to the Board as necessary.

13 ______, ______,

I. Regulatory Review

Under Section 5(a) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P.S. §745.5(a)), on October 6, 2017, the Department submitted a copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking, published at 47 Pa.B. 6609, with related corrections and updates published at 47 Pa.B. 6727 and 47 Pa.B. 7852, to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) and to the Chairpersons of the Senate and House Environmental Resources and Energy Committees for review and comment.

Under Section 5(c) of the Regulatory Review Act, IRRC and the Committees were provided with copies of the comments received during the public comment period, as well as other documents when requested. In preparing the final-form rulemaking, the Department has considered all comments from IRRC, the House and Senate Committees and the public.

Under Section 5.1U.2) of the Regulatory Review Act, on the final-form rulemaking was deemed approved by the House and Senate Committees. Under section 5.1(e) of the Regulatory Review Act, IRRC met on and approved the final-form rulemaking.

J. Findings of the Board

The Board finds that:

(1) Public notice of proposed rulemaking was given under sections 201 and 202 of the act of July 31, 1968 (P.L. 769, No. 240) (45 P.S. § 1201 and 1202) and regulations promulgated thereunder at 1 Pa. Code §*7.1 and 7.2.

(2) A public comment period was provided as required by law. In addition, Board hearings were held. All comments were considered.

(3) This final-form rulemaking does not enlarge the purpose of the proposal published at 47 Pa.B. 6609 (October21, 2017), 47 Pa.B. 6727 (October 28, 2017), and 47 Pa.B. 7852 (December 30, 2017).

(4) These regulations are necessary and appropriate for administration and enforcement of the authorizing acts identified in Section C of this order.

K. Order of the Board

The Board, acting under the authorizing statutes, orders that:

(a) The regulations of the Department, 25 Pa. Code Chapter 93, are amended to read as set forth in Annex A.

(b) The Chairperson of the Board shall submit this order and Annex A to the Office of General Counsel and the Office of Attorney General for approval and review as to legality and form, as required by law.

14 (c) The Chairperson shall submit this order and Annex A to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission and the Senate and House Environmental Resources and Energy Committees as required by the Regulatory Review Act.

(d) The Chairperson of the Board shall certify this order and Annex A and deposit them with the Legislative Reference Bureau, as required by Jaw.

(e) This order shall take effect immediately upon publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.

PATRICK McDONNELL, Chairperson

pennsylvania DEPARTMENTOF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

COMMENTER LIST

TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

25 Pa. Code Chapter 93 47 Pa. B. 7852 (October 21, 2017) Environmental Quality Board Rulemaking #7-534 (Independent Regulatory Review Commission #3182) ID # NAME AFFILIATION EMAIL TESTIMONY I Susan Babbitt [email protected] 2 Alice R. Baker PennFuture [email protected] Pike County 3 Matthew Barr Conservation [email protected] District

. U.S. EPA Region 4 Kathenne Bentley bentley.kathenneepa.gov 3 American Forest 5 / Sundara Bhandaram & Paper sundara_bhandaramafandpa.org Y 5A Association Chesapeake Bay 6 Harry Campbell tsalviacbf.org Foundation 7 Margaret Clark [email protected] Pennsylvania Fish 8 Linda Covage & Boat [email protected] Commission Alliance for Sustainable 9 Peter Crownfield . . petersustainlv.org Communities Lehigh Valley Manko, Gold, 10 Thomas M. Duncan, Esq. Katcher & Fox tduncanmankogold.com LLP

. . Rettew I I Martin Fnday . mthdayrettew.com Associates 12 Jody Frymire IDEXX Water jody-frymireidexx.com 13/ Tinicum 13 Kelly Germann kgermanntimcumconservancy.org Y Conservancy A 14 Ms. Barbara Jarmoska [email protected] 15 / Natural Resource 15 Ellen Kohier Legal & Policy koh1er.e.jgmail.com Y A Consulting Schuylkill Twp 16 Stephen P. Kunz Environmental [email protected] Advisory Council

EnviroScience, . . . 17 John Kwolek Inc [email protected] Pennsylvania 18 Andrew Loza Land Trust alozaconserveland.org Association 19 Pam Magidson pammagidsonhobnai1.com US Fish and 20 Kathleen Patnode kath1een_patnode’s.gov Wildlife Service Monroe County 21 Jonathan Rinde Clean Streams jHndemankogold.com Coalition

. Chesapeake Bay 22 Tnsha Salvia org Foundation TSalvia@cbf 23 Joseph Schwarz Kleinfelder [email protected] 24 Gokhan Seker gokhansekerhotmail.com Pennsylvania

. Chamber of 25 Kevin Sunday ksundaypachamber.org Business and Industry NOAA Fisheries, 26 Chris Vaccaro Greater Atlantic chdstine.vaccaronoaa.gov Region Delaware 27 Maya van Rossum Riverkeeper faithdelawareriverkeeper.org Network 8! National Council . •forAir and 28 Paul Wiegand pwiegandncasi.org Y Lrearn A Improvement 29! Delaware 29 Faith Zerbe Riverkeeper faithdelawareriverkeeper.org Y A Network 30 / 30 Annie Regan PennFuture reganpennffiture.org Y A 31 / Wissahickon 31 Lindsay Blanton Valley Watershed hndsaywvwa.org Y A Association Delaware 32 Faith Zerbe Riverkeeper faithdelawareHverkeeper.org Network 33 Jack McKee loya1sockrenta1sgmail.com 34 Debbie Smith debster2003 [email protected] 35 Mike Lombardi [email protected] 36 Juliann Pinto julianne.pintocomcast.net 37 Ryan Dodson [email protected] 38 Mark and Judy Harvey spiritbearme.com 39 Patricia Rossi circus cyaneusverizon.net 40 Frances DeMillion [email protected] 41 Jean Henry [email protected] 42 Henry Berkowitz [email protected] 43 Kelly Finan kellyefinangmail.com 44 Robert Rossachac] [email protected] 45 John and Janice Hahn [email protected] 46 Susan Miller suedcvagmail.com

47 Elizabeth Seltzer ees0 1(earthlink.net 48 Adrienne Morgado [email protected] 49 Kathie E Takush ktakushyahoo.com Mountain 50 Eric Harder Watershed [email protected] Association 51 James Cleghom [email protected] 52 Mewyn Kline mnNceaol.com 53 William Kellner billyjean18235yahoo.com 54 William Granche [email protected] 55 Bruce McMahon [email protected] 56 Vincent Prudente [email protected] 57 Lionel Ruberg 1ione1lcrveflzon.net Thomas M. Jr. & Patricia 58 pfrcwilhsgmail.com Willis 59 Kathleen Stauffer [email protected] 60 Ben Luccaro b1uccaroginai1.com 61 Linda Groves [email protected] Tinicum 62 Kelly Germann kgemianntinicumconservancy.org Conservancy 63 Heather Nelson [email protected] 64 Lloyd Goodman l1oydhgoodmangmail.com 65 Scott Cannon [email protected] 66 Howard Katz katz.hsgmail.com 67 Rob Moore [email protected] 68 Shannon Pendleton sandersondesigngnail.com 69 John W. Parana jparana1969windstream.net 70 Jami Willard Jlw5201grnail.com 71 Jennifer Moss Mothership2004veHzon.net 72 James Vogt woodlakeepix.net 73 Robert Depew [email protected] 74 Christopher Daly [email protected] 75 Helen Betzler [email protected]

. Temple 76 Christine Anderson . University [email protected] 77 Ann Moskowitz photortistaol.com 78 Kim DeWoody [email protected] 79 Pamela Ramsburg prsongbird22gmai1.com 80 Ann Beck annpbeckverizon.net 81 Dr. Roy S. Feldman roysfe1dmangmai1.com 82 Carol Sandt csandtgmail.com 83 Ted Pomerantz guasarl7verizon.net 84 Suzanne Cresswell szcressweIhgrne.com 85 Don Hawkins [email protected] 86 Linda Addis lindaadd2chotmail.com 87 Paul Brittingham pbñttin5gmail.com 88 David Schogel davidkschoge12gmai1.com 89 Xiumin Ni xiuminni66gmai1.com 90 Donna Curtis dmeurtis402gmail.com 91 Deborah Devers [email protected] 92 Jeff Tucker [email protected] 93 Abbey Heird awoolley4gmail.com 94 Collette Twyman ctwyman50gmai1.com 95 Deanne O’Donnell [email protected] 96 Carl Balis [email protected]

. Center For 97 Thomas Gilmore [email protected] Applied Research 98 Ruth Dubb ruth.dubbl @verizon.net Aggie PedIli 99 Aggie Per Communications [email protected] International 100 Sheila Siegel [email protected] 101 Gil Copeland gecopelandaol.com 102 Stephanie Hamel hamelptd.net 103 Jonathan Lyons traveler.lyonsgmail.com 104 David Way way david myahoo.com 105 Corey Fuhrer cffihrer76gmail.com 106 Cynthia Sheikh bmt7860gmail.com 107 Dianna Holland [email protected] 108 Ted Weissgerber burger2227gmail.com 109 Paul Hawk [email protected]

. Beyer-Barber 110 Lynn Cornish 1ynnbeyerbarber.com Company 111 Sabrena Boekell [email protected] 112 Marky Raypole [email protected] 113 Julio Aviles jiag 1243yahoo.com Edinboro

114 Em Drum University of [email protected] Pennsylvania

115 Patricia Reimer tricial 94cverizon.net 116 Susan Wonell rev.s.worrel1gmai1.com

117 Myra And Ivan Frank malkeefrankgmai1.com

118 Sherry Grimm wolf [email protected] 119 Gary Marshall gimsrpagniail.com 120 Jocelyn Anthony jgtanthony(gnai1.com 121 Charles Johnson [email protected] Paul Parowski LTC USA 122 paulparowski 1 (Retired) @venzon.net 123 Apama Bhattacharyya aparniegmail.com 124 Earle Spotts earle [email protected] 125 Liz Plummer eep678gmail.com 126 Maiya Bradley [email protected] 127 Ann Peters mundocomunlightlink.com 128 Alan Pek [email protected] 129 Marcia Panebianco [email protected] 130 Deb George deb.george1210aol.com

131 Da Beacham beacham [email protected] 132 Susan Saltzman [email protected] 133 Dan BehI [email protected] 134 John Dawson [email protected] 135 Libby Goldstein [email protected] 136 Connie Hershman [email protected] 137 Michael Schmotzer tI gger2comcast.net 138 Gina Giaccardo gmgiaccardousa.net 139 Marlene Warkoczewski warkom(msn.com 140 Jane Ferry feuyhathotmail.com 141 Lois Johnson-Hamerman johnsonljhgmai1.com 142 Brian Wagner bewagner482grnai1.com 143 Patricia & Thomas Willis ptrcwillisgrnall.com 144 Marie Hagerty [email protected] 145 Robert Dmmmey [email protected] 146 Albert Jordy [email protected] 147 Thomas Dunlap samnulwpa.net 148 April Schmitt april.schmitt27gmai1.com 149 Walter Margie, MD [email protected]

150 Melisa Romano [email protected] 151 R.A. Dayton radaytonsbcgloba1.net 152 Roberta Camp [email protected]

153 Brett Schultz bmsch98comcast.net 154 Patricia Risso rissopatgmai1.com 155 Joyce Durkin joycedurkinl9cgmail.com 156 Edward Maguire edmaguire47hotmai1.com

157 Alyce Callison a1yce.callisongmai1.com 158 Doris Blume [email protected] 159 Melanie Cohick [email protected] 160 Madeline Gerone [email protected] 161 Luana Goodwin luanagoodwingmail.com 162 Robert Smith robasmithl @comcast.net 163 Mark Leach cayman93verizon.net 164 Phyllis Miller mphyllis38grnail.com 165 Paul Richey parcheygmai1.com 166 Christine Goswick cgoswickalleghenycounty.us 167 Karen Favinger [email protected] 168 Donna Cosgrove dzymzygmail.com 169 Linda Blansett [email protected] 170 Mark Erickson [email protected] 171 Sandy Unger sdunger2gmai1.com 172 Daniel Savini [email protected] 173 Lynda Kolesar [email protected] 174 Shannon Joyce shannonmjoyceaiLcom 175 Peter Hecht [email protected] 176 Mary Lou O’Connell mhefloone(ä2aoI.com 177 Mark Friedman [email protected]

178 IThomas Klusaritz tomklu3gmail.com 179 Marilyn Maurer merberm55ljhotmai1.com 180 Stefan Frembgen lngMar Medical [email protected] 181 Nicholas Genger-Boeldt ord [email protected]

182 Suzanne McCabe [email protected]

183 Rosemarie Kozdron [email protected]

184 Joseph Lotito [email protected] Nelson & Associates 185 Lynn Mellow Interior Desi [email protected] and Space Plarming, Inc.

I $6 James Shuta I jmsbsscomcast.net

. 187 Valeri Fomagiel vjfo2$15ptd.net 188 Brian Durand [email protected] 189 Vincent Tomo [email protected] 190 Susan Proietla sproiettamsn.com 191 Susan Gottfried suepun1ookoutnow.com 192 Thomas Posey [email protected] 193 Diane Ennis dmr7176ythoo.com 194 Stephen Moyer stephenmoyeth0gmail.eom 195 Adam Kapp abkappnail.com 196 Joe+W Heyer [email protected] 197 Katherine Boas sweetdeenrastasmomgmai1.com 198 Mary Ellen Norpel meconnorpelverizon.net 199 Elizabeth Bag bettylaszlobagi.com 200 Elliot Dilliplane on1y22magnumgmall.com 201 Xavier O’Mack xavieromack1ive.com 202 Christine Mills [email protected] 203 P. A. O’Connor merrymtgbaygmail.com 204 Rebecca Kuligowski rebku1gmail.com 205 Elaine Lewis ept1ewis5aol.com 206 Walter Bondar [email protected]

. University of 207 David Roberts puzzlewuzzlc.drgmail.com Delaware 208 John Colantonio jpbcolanatlantiebb.net 209 Hazel Cope josephcope33ail.com 210 Rhonda Patterson cappi06vedzon.net 211 Susan Joslyn [email protected]

212 Michele McDonald mcsheltono5 18yahoo.com 213 Mary More 2mamordll@ithLcom 214 Melissa McBride [email protected] 215 Yolanda Broad ybroadl 326@earthIinknet 216 Eli Rubinstein ehbarbrgmail.eom Benedictine Sisters of Erie 217 Pat Lupo, OSB Inner-City pluponeighborhoodarthouse.org Neighborhood Aft House 218 Joseph Heefner [email protected] 219 Margery Rutbell mjr4333comcast.net 220 Diane Weeks [email protected] 221 Jeffrey Solow [email protected] 222 Thomas Clarke dotandwal1ycomcast.net 223 Anette DeNardo amdguiltsyahoo.com 224 Jean Wiant [email protected] 225 Ang Barber [email protected] 226 Lod Kachmar [email protected] 227 Greta Aul gretaau1giT1ai1.com 228 Betty Pierce [email protected] 229 Eric Smith esmith5474gmail.com 230 Amanda Burdick a burdick [email protected] 231 Susan Shaak mgsatmscail.com 232 Bruce Leiby bruceleibyvedzon.net 233 Evan Popchock epopchockvedzon.net 234 Fred Shoemaker fredshoesembargmall.eom 235 Vickie Perry [email protected] 236 Linda Corcoran ficljcl @comcast.net 237 Marie Shipley vasa1isa2gmail.com 238 Ron Richter [email protected] 239 Lawrence Leech [email protected] 240 Robert Wasilewski [email protected] 241 James Thompson [email protected] 242 Janice Peischl [email protected] 243 Michael Foliman mafsynthyahoo.com 244 Ashley Kopeck forensis2l @nail.com 245 Richard A]dred aldred.richard874gmail.com 246 Robert Rossachacj [email protected] 247 Walter Goodman repete1tdbee.net 248 Eloise Robbins eloise.g.robbinslmco.com

249 Nancy Harkins nancyharkinsó5 1gmaiI.com 250 Brian Earley brianaudenQcomcast.net

. Ann D. While 251 Ann White [email protected] Law Offices, PC 252 Ann Fogarty afogaity6verizon.net 253 James Phipps leafb1ightroptonline.net 254 Jodi Ford jodifl977gmail.com 255 C J Uhlir [email protected] 256 James Stokes james I [email protected]

, 257 Susan McNarnara smc8066yahoo.com 258 Peter Gotternoller pkgottemyerscomcast.net 259 Norma Kline [email protected] 260 Gregory Calucci metroid227ao1.com 261 Annemarie Meyer annemañealcomcast.net 262 Cass Peluso casspe1usotiai1.com 263 Anne Jackson buggardendejazzd.com 264 John Belch [email protected] 265 J. Harry Rothwell [email protected] 266 Patti Johnson pjlw [email protected] 267 Eileen Gallagher [email protected] 268 Noel Petrie noelpetHegmail.com 269 Linda Polishuk [email protected] 270 Richard Daggett I______richardldaggettgmai1.com 271 Margaret Emerson [email protected] 272 Cassandra Tereschak ctereschakythoo.com 273 Tawnya Shields moonglo33comcast.net 274 Bill McSteen billmcsteennail.com - Villanova 27) Elizabeth Keech [email protected] University 276 Stanley Pohlit spohlit416ao1.com 277 Em Iman erin2118gmaiLcom 278 George and Ilse Sakheim g.sakheimverizon.net University of 279 Paul Seelaus Pennsylvania [email protected] 280 Diane Actman [email protected] Edinboro 281 John Polo University of [email protected] Pennsylvania 282 Curtis Haldy [email protected] 283 Mary Cellucci ceflucci31gmail.com 284 Jennifer Hotaling bbhotalingail.com 285 Grace Bergin gbergin007gmail.com 286 Darvin Schild ddees53grnall.com 287 Charles Mcghee HassHck [email protected] 288 Linda Bazan re1atesoIvegmail.eom 289 Donald Wittle, Jr witt1ecembargmaiLeom 290 Nora Ziegler zieg1ers6veHzon.net 291 A Robbins a1yrobbao1.com 292 Cathy Rupp cathyamppyahoo.com 293 Mary Lou Fagan [email protected] 294 Katherine Maynard Rider University [email protected] 295 Charles Ritson chasrits50vefizon.net 296 Emily Fethn emi1yonoratoiiai1.com 297 John Comella johncomefla1gmail.com 298 Deborah Shaver deborahshaverl 945gmai1.eom 299 Winifred Lutz [email protected] 300 David Doom [email protected] 301 Allan Rubin [email protected] 302 Ada Bello abe1Iogcomcast.net 303 David Wesley Brown [email protected] 304 Jno Hunt jnohuntyahoo.com 305 Iris Nagler ids.nag1er5gniai1.com 306 Ron Ford rfordepix.net 307 Silvia Babicz siIviababiczgmai1.com 30$ Laura Boyer purp1edmtgmai1.com

309 Evelyn McDermott 1emcd46gmai1.com 310 Pat DeWolfe pdewo1fehotmai1.com

311 Kristin Karkut gafferst8pme.com 312 Erika Kolecki [email protected] 313 Andrew Johnson ajmorrobayai1.com 314 Nancy Crane [email protected] 315 Mary Magoon marionjmg3gmai1.com 316 Marissa Guardascione [email protected] 317 Elaine Trendier etrendIercomcast.net

318 Otto Lehrbach ojayojlehrbach.com 319 Sarah Loosbrock Lehigh University [email protected] 320 William F. Edwards, RN [email protected] 321 David Meade dvdmd7gmaiI.com 322 Sharon Mikowich [email protected] 323 Janet Amone jpamonepeopIepc.com 324 June Bricker junieblembargmail.com 325 Alice Fomer [email protected] 326 Nick Viggiano derryjanecomcast.net 327 Rosemary delPino rde1pino2002yahoo.com 328 Ingrid Zemanick [email protected] 329 Raymond Bartlett [email protected] 330 David Shultz [email protected] 331 Robert Bloom [email protected] 332 Sharon Hoffman [email protected] 333 Dennis Wingle [email protected] 334 Bill Boebme bill.boehme6lgmail.com 335 George Stewart silentowl238gmail.com 336 Vanna Cleary [email protected] 337 Lisa Watson lisawatson1331gmail.com 338 Marguerite Foster [email protected] 339 Tom Diehl [email protected] 340 John Parana jparana1969windstream.net

- Harvard 341 Roger Rove University [email protected] 342 David Kutish [email protected] 343 Linda Spangler temujindaxyahoo.com 344 Patti Miller patticakes83 [email protected] 345 John Waering jwaeringverizon.net 346 Bonnie McGill info7for7meyahoo.com 347 Kirsten Loewe kyrstychapmancymail.com

348 Kathleen Colwill [email protected] 349 Marcia Lehman [email protected] 350 Norman Beck bec1cnonnan2gmail.com 351 Kevin Cochrane [email protected] 352 Judy Wolfangle [email protected] 353 Elizabeth Wood [email protected] 354 Eric Jacobs [email protected] University of 355 Edward Thornton Pennsylvania [email protected] 356 Hans Lashlee [email protected] 357 Patricia Bobo [email protected]

. Widener 358 Elizabeth Thornton I .science.widener.edu University thornton@pop 359 Martin Taylor [email protected] 360 Beth Spindler spindler.bethgrnail.com 361 Jeff Johnston tripplejjjjrgmail.com 362 Catherine Raymond catray7gmail.com 363 Lori Montgomery lkmontycomcast.net 364 Sheila Erlbaum sjerlbaumgmail.com 365 Jeanne Rothwarf spk81703yahoo.com 366 Gerald Gibson [email protected] 367 Susan Mead susanmead123gmai1.com 368 Catherine Fasy cathyfasyvedzon.net 369 Curtis Holgate cholgatel915comcast.net 370 Kathie Snavely ksnavely4gmail.com 371 Rhyan Grech rhyan grechyahoo.com 372 Nicholas Bounos [email protected] 373 William Willis wiIliamjohnwillisyahoo.com 374 Shawn van Dyke [email protected] 375 Karen van Ham karenlstbyteinc.com 376 Niki Papageorgiou np.realty22gmail.com 377 Thomas Brenner [email protected] 378 John Bevington Moravian College [email protected] 379 Bernard Lizak [email protected] 380 Wayne Ott janottincgmai1.com 381 Kenneth Schmidt spydercrabkao1.com 382 Elise Adibi eIiseadibigmail.com 383 Margaret Turner margaret649gmail.com 384 Susanne Groenendaal stargazerlillyl @vedzon.net 385 Jon Vandegriff [email protected] 386 Brian Brown [email protected] 387 Bryn Richard bryn recologyfirnd.net 38$ Michael Balsai vze3vhpvverizon.net

389 1Steven lszauk [email protected] 390 Jay Hailer [email protected] 391 Tara Showalter taraslnao1 .com

392 1Carol Blum carol.blum191gmai1.com 393 Timothy Rolle rol1etimothyhotmai1.com 394 Santiago Bobadilla [email protected] 395 Ann Chadwell ajchad3gmai1.com 396 Stephanie Mory pocanthillyahoo.com

397 i GayleA’Harrah gaharrahlgrnail.com 398 Ahren M. Ream countotakuyahoo.com 399 Joanna Hollis joannaleah13069grnail.com 400 Jennifer Vangilder jcvangilderyahoo.com 401 Jane and Charles Batzel [email protected] 402 Vincent Evangelisti Yale University vincentevangelistiaya.yale.edu 403 Diane DiFante [email protected] 404 Barbara Reitmeyer mindy3 74@200mintemeLnet 405 Melissa Terwilliger materwilligercomcast.net 406 Ruth Anderson ruanderson4grnai1.com 407 Mara Obelcz momobelczgmaiI.com 408 Leann Turley ninamay117(gmai1.com 409 William Lofius [email protected] 410 Ruth Prince mthp2l @comcast.net 411 Si Porter sarsapariJJa314gmail.com 412 Harry and Jill Brownfield [email protected] 413 Ronda Reynolds rondareynolds57gmail.com 414 Josh Melvin jme1vin21gmail.com 415 Elyse Ozer Fels eIysecomcast.net 416 John Ferchak jft’ientianeyahoo.com 417 Brandon Morrow spartacus [email protected] 418 Sherry Dinnen garyshenycomcast.net 419 Tina Stanton [email protected] 420 Valerie Klauscher klauschers(veHzon.net 421 Marilynn Harper maharper7376(verizon.net 422 J Hadley lorgwoodverizon.net 423 Jack Miller jmi11er1018yahoo.com 424 Edna Scheifele cap651cyahoo.com 425 Robert Schulz [email protected] 426 Veronica Liebert ronniliebert8gnail.com 427 Mary Jo Grethel mjgethelyahoo.com 428 Michael Kirchner makirchnerl @netzero.net 429 Scott Geryk sgerykcomcast.net 430 Laurie Zdrofcoff serenityckrl [email protected] 431 Damon Fields [email protected] 432 Tammy Williams [email protected] 433 Kathie E Takush ktakushQyahoo.com 434 Leo Uzych [email protected] 435 Bruce Kiesel bkiese1ejuno.com 436 Melissa McSwigan melissamiller28yahoo.com 437 Lorene Ganster lmganstercomcast.net 438 Ten-i Raimondo tlr66poryahoo.com 439 Antoinette Seymour afseymourao1.com 440 Helen Syen shhhhhsilenceisgo1dengmail.eom 441 Elizabeth Bodri [email protected] 442 Michael Miller, Jr [email protected] 443 Deborah Dailey Phillips ddre2013yahoo.com 444 Alison Duncan [email protected] 445 Clarence Brommer [email protected] Boyer & Pentek 446 Leonard Douglass snookboyerpentek.com Inc

447 Betty Schulz bschulzó 14gmail.com 448 Evelyn Haas [email protected] 449 Susan Ross rosssusanl me.com 450 Margaret Moyer momodejazzd.com 451 Christopher Jowise kudchanl 621gmail.com 452 Paul Zegray [email protected]

453 Suzanne Shaffer suzyshaffer3 71 [email protected] 454 Zsuzsa Palotas zsuzsa.palotasgmai1.com 455 Sherlene Evans [email protected] 456 Sara Wishnoff [email protected] 457 Nancy lannuzzelli nancyiannuzzelligmaiLcom 458 Vicky Frerotte [email protected] 459 Randy & Lydia Stettier [email protected] 460 Walter Mayer wmmayercenturylink.net 461 Lyall Smith lyallsmgmail.com 462 Rhonda Buttacavoli [email protected] 463 William Young [email protected] Arcadia 464 Holly Greaver [email protected] University 465 Karen Kirchdoerfer k24emailgmail.com 466 Barb Noble [email protected] 467 Leonid Korogodski leopinknoise.net 468 Todd Garcia-Bish Camp Lutherlyn [email protected] 469 Andrew Madeira [email protected] 470 Caro Urguhan [email protected] 471 Barbara Bell-Hawkey [email protected] 472 Michele Mackey [email protected] 473 Paul Michael Bergeron pmbergeronaol.com 474 Clare Billett [email protected] 475 Karen Leflcovitz [email protected] 476 David Fiedler davefledlercomcast.net 477 Kathleen Miller dkjjm212gai1.com 478 ELLEN BILDERSEE musicladybflderaol.com 479 Jean Kammer kamerlotptd.net 480 Elizabeth Bmnelie [email protected] 481 Mañan Demcisak mgdbooksaol.com 482 Myra Kazanjian [email protected] 483 Scott Sando [email protected] 484 Steven Zimmerman szimmerman249(comeast.net

. - University of 485 Andrew Pughonesi [email protected] Pittsburgh 486 Kim Fleiseher [email protected] Ruth Bowen 487 I [email protected] 488 Crystal Newcomer crystal2004verizon.net 489 Joanna Ban joannabarth7gmall.com 490 - Elizabeth Klauk [email protected] 491 Ruth Roberts [email protected] 492 Carol Carlson 1allyshousegmail.com 493 Susan Lee [email protected] 494 Sasha Aleiner aIexander.aleinergmail.eom 495 Debbie Smith debster2003 [email protected] 496 Donald Lawrence jdlaw48yahoo.com 497 Todd Underwood tjunderwoodgmai1.com 498 Doug Ross dougrossl 964cgmail.com 499 Mary Hansen mhansenmsuyahoosom 500 Matthew Liebennan [email protected] 501 Donna Delany d.delanycomcastnet 502 Kathleen Rengert [email protected] 503 Georgia Smickley gsmie1dey4756msn.com 504 Jayne Essmann jayneessmannao1.com 505 John Tooker jtookeracponline.org 506 Douglas Smith [email protected] 507 Bob Werner [email protected] 508 John Lopresti johnrlop2atlanticbb.net 509 Linda Gauntt [email protected] 510 Lloyd Aultman-Moore ay5m jaultmanwaynesburg.edu The Pennsylvania 511 Doug Page State University [email protected] 512 Sandra Edmiston Lehigh University [email protected] 513 Marcia Wilson mlwi1sonpa.net 514 Nancy Boxer nboxernancyboxer.com

515 Karen Gray kratgray6 1gmai1.com 516 Nancy Deane [email protected] 517 Christopher Close christopherwclosegmail.com 518 Margaret Sayvetz msayvetzverizon.net 519 Ransome Weis [email protected] 520 Hugh McCartney hugh.mccartneygmail.com 521 Karen Lafferty karenlaffertymai1gmai1.com 522 Eric Schweiker ems5 151gmai1.com 523 Angela Leventis [email protected] 524 Brette Husar hrette.husar4grnai1.com 525 Hilary Alexander ha2readQverizon.net 526 Frank Kuhn fkuhnol @comcast.net 527 Gretchen Landis lottie6171aol.com

. University of 528 Michael Zuckerman Pennsylvania [email protected] 529 Claire Sutherland csutherlandratt1esnake-ridge.net 530 Bob Moyer bmoyerl952grnai1.com 531 Dan Volpatti davo1pattigmail.com 532 Edward Melber emrpptd.net 533 Susan Babbitt philad49catt.net 534 Stacy Woeppel [email protected] 535 Linda Dershin [email protected] 536 John Hofffiun hofffiian.johnlgmai1.com 537 Mel Sheets me1sheets1896gmai1.com 538 Tom Gauntt gaunttscomcast.net 539 Lisa Toczek mu66usgmai1.com 540 Phyllis Rosenbaum [email protected] 541 RICHARD VAN WERT Hchvanwertgmail.com 542 Stephen Fast stephenfastl 961gmail.com 543 Joseph DeNella aardvarkptd.net 544 Robert Sullivan r.sullivanl [email protected] 545 Adam Mathews admfiimituremakergmail.com 546 Lisa Heinz hei.nzlisa2gmall.com 547 Mark Daniel [email protected] 548 Jacqueline Colyer alnwyckicloud.com 549 Jill Wasserman awassermanphillygmail.com 550 Charles Briul [email protected] 551 Lynne Heritage 1lheritagecomcast.net 552 Nuta Morris randyandnitame.com 553 Eric Straffin estraffingmail.com 554 Paul Miller [email protected] 555 Janet Rafferty [email protected] 556 Linda Bescript sadie8882gmail.com 557 Alex Trimble trim723gmail.com 558 Paul Barros-Ruof paulbarroscrcn.com 559 Richard Alloway [email protected] 560 Jennifer Sherwood [email protected] 561 Mark Epstein markepsteinme.com 562 Ashley Steward ashley.renee.stewardgmail.com 563 Jay Treat jfreatgmail.com 564 Wayne Laubscher [email protected] 565 Benjamin Powell benpowellepix.net 566 Brenda Eisenhauer yodaboda2aol.com 567 Madalene Zale madalene.zalegmail.com 568 Margaret Cole msmigco1eaiLcom 569 Ilene Dyller [email protected] Regan Kline 570 Thom Cross Cross Arciutects t_crossreganklinecrossIlc.com LLC 571 Katie McCorkle drkatiezoominternet,net 572 Susan Hardin mandy959comcast.net 573 Richard Stough [email protected] 574 Joan Wagman joanwagmangmail.com 575 Don Robinson don.robinson.jr@comcastnet 576 Nicholas Lombard njlpro57gmail.com 577 Glenn Moyer gcmoyer4gmail.com

. The Pennsylvania 578 William Allison wha3psu.edu State University 579 Robert Janusko [email protected] 580 Donna K Ewedosh dke1O04gmail.com 581 Michelle Dugan mdugan1952gnail.com 582 Brock Dilling brocklivesgmail.com 583 Sidne Baglini sidbaglinigrnaiLcom 584 A McCaughan annamaydoulagmail.com 585 Chris Melograna cmeIogranaverizon.net

. redheadedbibliophile2 586 Angehca Thom l6yahoo.co m 587 Brendan Hickey brendan [email protected] 588 Richard Stoy richarddstoycljgmail.com 589 Carol Molyneaux [email protected] 590 Mary Ann Till rnatbearaol.com 591 Donna Meyers dclcmob17Qaol.com 592 Doug Herren dougherrenme.com 593 Johanna Prazich ronjoel @verizon.net 594 Carolyn Follansbee cgfollansbeecomcast.net 595 George Ramsey georramseomcast.net 596 Richard Harris rharris6(comcast.net 597 Lauren Levitan 11evitan3gmail.com 598 Leslie Mitchell rock.chikyahoo.com 599 Linda McNair sevenofve1vetgmai1.com 600 Lucinda Slotcavage Slotcavagegmail.com 601 Susan Westwood swestwood0l gmail.com 602 Elaine Frech [email protected] 603 William Anderson robins45gmail.com 604 Alexander Hoffer [email protected] 605 Diana Petrella bpcoloraol.com 606 Kevin Gallen [email protected]

. Carnegie Mellon 607 Man McShane - University [email protected] 608 Gabriel Zashin t [email protected] 609 Nora Nelle [email protected] 610 Karl ZimmenTlan antisocial 1953gmaiLcom 611 Clare Fey [email protected] 612 Robert Doll [email protected] 613 Gail Amshel gamshelcomcast.net 614 James Hugh Fitzpatrick Jim fitz fitzpatrickyahoo.com 615 William D Feathers towpawf@comcastnet 616 Shannon Ball [email protected] 617 Felicia Lewis felicialewis1chotmail.com 618 Lorraine Heagy lmheagyptd.net 619 Barbara Adams bgvadamsao1.com 620 Roy Conard rcnd268gmai1.com 621 Diana Harding dianaharding54gmai1.com 622 Katherine Rubin kawah1berggmai1.com 623 James Grant jrg2l 3comcast.net Lenox 624 Wayne Lynn Cooration waynelynn1enox.com 625 David Zanardelli dzanrungmai1.com 626 JoAnn Sorrell joann.murraysone11ythoo.com 627 Adrienne Morgado ade222mac.com 628 Anne Vogel a194389vyahoo.com 629 Thomas LeCrone thomaslecroneyahoo.com 630 William Malcom [email protected] 631 Renny Sherrow rennyrennysherrow.com 632 Jack Schonewoif jack.sthonewo1fgmail.com 633 Gwen Blatt dade3113gmai1.com 634 Jason Morris jasonmorris74gmail.com 635 Joyce Ward [email protected] Edinboro 636 Robin Schaef University of [email protected] Pennsylvania 637 Jennifer Meyer jenniferthammeyergmaiLcom 638 Michael Parisi mapthsi [email protected] 639 Michele Schwartz mgschwarptd.net 640 Marjorie Faust peneIopeptd.net 641 Stanley Korwitz stan.horwitzgmaiLcom 642 Jenny Kraft jenny1kraftgmail.com Jeanne Carol Myers, 643 Ph D [email protected] 644 Michael Moppin michael [email protected] 645 Carol Knotts jack [email protected] 646 Susan Flaherty sflaherty44icloud.com 647 Chris Schlack [email protected] 648 Jack Ensel nanook565gmai1.com 649 Savanah Lilly stargazer.lilly.98grnail.com University of 650 Jethy Fuhrmann Delaware ffih@dld 651 Tracy Tellep [email protected] 652 Linda Freed [email protected] 653 J. Howard Cherry hcherry4l8aol.com 654 Mona Bogglo ramonath615gmail.com 655 Patrick Robinson [email protected] 656 Dale Wunder dwunderhughes.net

657 j Kimberly Sger kimmilandhotmail.com

65$ j Robert Oppenheimer oppydraol.com

659 IOdrida Mihai odridamihaigmail.com Institute of

. Electrical and 660 David Ringle drngleieee.org Electronics Engineers 661 Carrie Swank caswanklgmail.com 662 Bill Patterson [email protected] 663 Thomas Swimley tswimleygmai1.com 664 Cooper Ashe newfolkartifactsyahoo.eom 665 Dionna Bittle dionna.bittleigmai1.com 666 Jillian Tarves ji1.tarvesgmail.com 667 Susan Thompson [email protected] 668 Alan Lapayover a1anIphotmai1.com 669 Mary Ann Bentz maben730aol.com 670 Ann Kuter gem3comcast.net 671 Robert Kennedy bakennedy1950bao1.com 672 Chelsea Kirtley [email protected] 673 Carrie DeHaven [email protected] 674 Ellen Kozlowski [email protected] 675 J Leslie otresflchao1.com 676 Elizabeth Burger mouseg1andail.eom 677 Robert Schoenholtz imagna1gmail.com 678 Bill Rice bHcebig1ervi1leao1.com 679 Nancy Levine nglevinegmail.com 680 James Keenan jimkeenan48icloud.com 681 John Nickey jnickeycentury1in1c.net 682 Henry Frank henryncocomcast.net 683 Derek Gendville dgendvilgmail.com 684 Jesse Lytle jessehlytlegmail.com 685 Marty Manson [email protected]

. Saint Joseph’s 686 Carolin Schellhom University [email protected] Seton Hill 687 John Atherton [email protected] University 688 Martha Bullen [email protected] 689 Sharon Wushensky s.wushenskygmail.com 690 Kelly Riley khanlon74Qyahoo.com 691 Katherine Gulick kdgulickgmail.com

. West Virginia 692 Coffin Bisignarn [email protected] University 693 Stephen Mourar dmiddletonol @comcast.net 694 Phyllis Davidson [email protected] 695 Mark Vendel [email protected]

. Westfield 696 Dick Fox [email protected] Insurance 697 Gwen Stadler gwen.stadlergmall.com 698 Kathleen Zoll [email protected] 699 Cindy Nuss [email protected] 700 Leigh Altadonn [email protected] 701 Paul Nieman acristic9mengmail.com 702 Frances Hugg franceshugg777gmai1.com 703 Jeffrey Ripple jaripple196lgmail.com 704 Erin Dunkel [email protected] 705 Stan Kotala [email protected] 706 Stephanie Myers ssmyers5gmail.com 707 Christopher Tracey ctracey2gmail.com 708 Pete Ziff peteziffyahoo.com 709 Tiphanie Stocks historymom6303yahoo.com 710 Victoria Kim victoria s [email protected] 711 Yvonne LeFever yElefevergmai1.com

712 Randall Baird rayray55 14yahoo.com 713 Kerry Brace [email protected] 714 Frances Raab [email protected] 715 Rachel Chaput rachel [email protected] 716 Michelle Doyon [email protected] 717 Tish Molloy tishmolloyQgrnail.com 718 Karen Brockunier [email protected] 719 Carolyn Hazzard chazzkatz [email protected] 720 Victoria Cox [email protected] 721 Robert Schmetzer [email protected] 722 William Granche [email protected] 723 Kelyn Klein kelynamandacassidygmail.com 724 Holly Nissley nissleysaol.com 725 Robert Hovencamp [email protected] 726 Theresa Heinsler heinslertrl yahoo.com 727 Patricia Zaborsky pmzaborskygmaiI.com 728 Diana Dakey ddakeycomcast.net 729 Ashley Hunsberer ashleyhunsveflzon.net 730 Lawrence D. Barrett [email protected] 731 Jackie Magyar jackieamymagyargmail.com 732 Justin Kaluza jtka1uzagmaiLcom 733 Elizabeth Hollar [email protected] 734 John Luczyszyn john.luczyszyngmai1.com 735 Elizabeth Seltzer [email protected] 736 Christine Hunsinger [email protected] 737 Randall Cherry [email protected] 738 Marilyn Ash grm1ashsbcglobal.net 739 Kathleen Radtke [email protected] 740 Tiffany Tung tiffanyttunggmail.com 741 Jay McCahill [email protected] 742 Leah Rampolla leahrampollayahoo.com 743 Karma Conkdte kañna.conkrite@aiLcom 744 Thomas Garrett tjgarrett7netscape.net 745 Barbara Hatch barbara.r.hatchgmail.com 746 Diane Ennis [email protected] 747 Vickie Gotaskie [email protected] 748 Betty Heller 369sbettygmail.com 749 Brenda Uhler uhlerbfgrnail.com 750 Kate Johnson kej.editingveflzon.net 751 David Haider dhaidlyahoo.com 752 Janice Kavanagh [email protected] 753 Romy Opperman romy.oppermangmail.com 754 Lawrence Cooke ledwardcookegmail.com 755 Deborah Bartlett [email protected]

. Luzeme 756 Christina Arasteh carastehliul8.org Intermediate Unit 757 Jocolyn Bowser-Bostick [email protected] 758 Walter Jackson wjstock50yahoo.com 759 Chris Seymour [email protected] 760 John Dowdell [email protected] 761 Mark Sentesy marksentesyhotmail.com 762 Dorothy Bikle bik1e333gmail.com 763 Bryn Hammarstrom, RN [email protected] Community 764 Marie Crawford College of [email protected] Philadelphia 765 Thomas Metcalf 4thomasgmetcalfgmail.com 766 Edward Esler [email protected] 767 Gail Neustadt gai1.neustadtgmail.com 768 William O’Ddscoll [email protected] 769 Charles Best [email protected] 770 Ken and Natalie Winter njw234xaol.com 771 Oretta Muro orettamyahoo.com

772 IMelissa Elder [email protected] 773 Laura Fake lfake456gmail.com 774 Hope Punnett hshpunao1.com 775 Tim Pearce timapearcegmai1.com Independent

. Regulatory 776 David Sumner irrcirrc.state.pa.us Review p_____ Commission

(Independent TRIENNIAL Enviromnental COMMENT QUALITY 47 Pa. DEPARTMENT Regulatory 25 pennsytvania B. DOCUMENT Quality Pa. 7852 REVIEW PROTECTION Code ‘4 AND OF STANDARDS (October Review Board ENVIRONMENTAL Chapter RESPONSE Rulemaking Commission 21, OF 93 2017) WATER #7-534 #3182) The proposed regulation that constitutes the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards was adopted by the Environmental Quality Board (Board) at its April 18, 2017 meeting. Public notices for the proposed rulemaking (Board — Chapter 93) and proposed statement of policy (Department - Chapter 16) were published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on October21, 2017 (47 Pa.B. 6609 and 6703, respectively) with provisions for 70-day concurrent public comment periods on each proposal, which were set to end on December 29, 2017. Supplemental corrections were published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on October 28, 2017 (47 Pa.B. 6727 and 6730, respectively) to correct printer errors that were published in the October21 Bulletin notices for the date and location for the public hearings to be held at the Northeast Regional Office on December 6,2017.

The Board and Department held public hearings, for the purpose of accepting comments on the proposed rulemaking and statement of policy on December 6, 8, and 14, at lhc Department’s Northeast Regional Office in Wilkes-Barre, the Souchcentral Regional Office in Harrisburg, and the Southwest Regional Office in Pittsburgh, respectively.

In response to requests for an extension of the public comment period and to add a public hearing in the southeast region of Pennsylvania, public notices were also published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on December 30, 2017. (47 Pa.B. 7852 and 7861) Additional public hearings were held on January 30, 2018, at the Department’s Southeast Regional Office in Nonistown, for both the Proposed Regulation and Proposed Statement of Policy. The extended public comment periods for these proposals closed on February 16, 2018.

As a result of the public hearings and extended public comment period, the Board received comments on the proposed rulemaking from 776 commenters, including from the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC). The following is a summary of the comments received on the proposed amendments to 25 Pa. Code Chapter 93, and the Department’s responses to those comments.

GENERAL CVMMENTS

Comment I: Requests were received for an extension to the DEP’s triennial review process to allow for more time for the public to participate in this important process that comes about once every 3 years or more. Since many of the issues being taken up in the Triennial review greatly impact the Delaware River watershed, they also request that a hearing be held in the watershed well after the new year to allow for more participation by the public in the southeast corner of the state. By providing at least 30 more days beyond the Dec 29, 2017 deadline, after the holiday season and new year, and providing a venue for an additional public hearing within the southeast region, they strongly believe public participation will be greatly improved and ensure the meaningibl time needed to thIly and fairly review and comment on the proposed standards or standards that may be missing, but that are needed in this triennial. (13, 29)

Response: The Department appreciates the comments. In response to these requests, the public comment period was extended and additional public hearings were held for the Chapter 16

2 proposed Statement of Policy and Chapter 93 proposed Regulation at the Department’s Southeast Regional Office in Norristown, on January 30, 2018. The extended public comment period ended on February 16, 2018.

Comment 2: I appreciate the PADEP providing an extension to the public comment period, as called for by Delaware Riverkeeper Network and allies, to avoid the holiday season and original deadline of 12/31. Having a longer open comment period now until Feb 16, 2018 helps residents like me have more information to truly be part of this process and to share this important process with my neighbors and other watershed groups and land conseiwancies. (29A, 32-73)

Response: The Department appreciates the comments.

Comment 3: The Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection (PADEP) must set strong numeric water quality standards as part of your triennial review process to better protect the tributaries and water that flows through the Delaware River Basin and the greater Commonwealth. As a resident of the Delaware River watershed who values clean streams and healthy drinking water, I appreciate the PADEP considering my comments. (I)

I am writing to support and encourage the Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to set strong numeric water quality standards as part of your triennial review process to better protect the tributaries and water that flows through the Delaware River Basin and the greater Commonwealth. As someone who enjoys recreating, paddling, and fishing in the Delaware River and other Pennsylvania streams and as someone who values clean drinking water and healthy streams that are diverse and high quality, please consider my comments, and consider setting more standards than what is currently being proposed in this triennial review. I understand that these standards set an important foundation for so many of the water quality programs, permits, and impacts that are being considered. (9, 32-73)

I strongly urge you to strengthen the current water quality standards in Pennsylvania. (74-775)

I would like to see water quality standards as high as possible in Pennsylvania, since I’m concerned about polluted water caused by dangerous chemicals that the state hasn’t considered “toxic” in the past. Please enact the strictest protections possible. (19)

As a resident of the Delaware River watershed and I value clean streams and healthy drinking water. Please consider and address my comments in this year’striennial review or the next. Healthy streams only improve our quality of life and our economy, so strengthening standards is a critical step to ensuring the 19,000 miles of impaired waterways are cleaned up and remain healthy and diverse streams deserving of High Quality and Exceptional Value are given these protections and not disqualified because the bar is set too high or the work of private land trusts are not included in watershed protection when they should be. Thank you for your time. (9, 32- 73)

3 Response: The Department appreciates the comments.

Comment 4: The evaluation of these standards is critical to the mission of the PFBC to not only protect water quality for state jurisdictional species but to also protect the recreational value of the Commonwealth’s resources for generations of anglers and boaters. (8)

Response: The Department recognizes that evaluation of these standards is critical to our common mission to protect water quality for aquatic species and the recreational value of the Commonwealth’s water resources, for current and future generations of all citizens, visitors, anglers, and boaters.

Comment 5: Our members appreciate the efforts of the Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to set strong numeric water quality standards in the theimial review process to better protect the waters of the Commonwealth and improve our quality of life and our health. Most of our members grew up enjoying our many exceptional area creeks and streams, and at times, the West Branch of the Susquehanna River, for all kinds of warm weather activities such as swimming, floating, kayaking, canoeing, and fishing. We would like to one day see all waters of the Commonwealth support these healthy and restorative activities. We believe the benefits of setting even higher standards than what is currently in effect and what is being proposed, will more than pay for the costs of implementing them by improving the value of living, working, and vacationing in Pennsylvania. (14)

Response: The Department appreciates the comments.

Comment 6: As Pennsylvanians, we all have a constitutional right to clean water. With 19,000 miles of impaired waterways in the Commonwealth, there is still a long way to go. (14)

Water quality standards are a critical component to ensuring the spirit of the Clean Water Act is implemented. In addition, the standards and designated and existing uses are critical to ensure that the PA Constitution, Article 1 Section 27 is fulfilled. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Act 13 natural gas challenge brought by Delaware Riverkeeper Network issued an important decision on December 19, 2013. In that decision the Court ruled that Act 13 violates the Pennsylvania Constitution on the grounds that it violates the Environmental Rights Amendment In doing so, the Court held that the right to pure water, clean air and a healthy environment are fundamental rights that must be given high-priority consideration and protection by every level of Pennsylvania’s government Since that ruling by Chief Justice Castille, multiple examples of case law have been reinforcing this protection and the responsibility of the PADEP to work and operate within this strong environmental rights construct — this reinvigoration of PA environmental rights is critical as we face many challenges in the decades to come. (29A)

Response: The Department appreciates the comments.

4 Comment 7: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided comments pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) to ensure the protection of federally listed, threatened and endangered species, and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 ci seq.) to ensure protection of fish and wildlife resources. (20)

We recommend ensuring that all WQS for toxic substances, metals, and all other pollutants offer the highest level of protection for NMFS-listed [National Marine Fisheries Service] sturgeon species, and that all standards are at least as protective as the national standards promulgated by EPA. Setting appropriate thresholds for pollutants is necessary to minimize the potential for adverse effects, and we encourage you to use the best available science to justify your thresholds and to help facilitate EPA’s triennial review and their subsequent ESA [Endangered Species Acti Section 7 consultation with us. (26)

Response: The Department does and will continue to set appropriate thresholds for pollutants when necessary, to minimize the potential for adverse effects. The best available science is used to justify the thresholds and to help facilitate EPA’s approval process of this triennial review and subsequent Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (the Services).

Comment 8: With nearly 10,000 member companies involved in all industrial categories and of all sizes, we have been actively and positively involved throughout the past 15 years or more in working with other stakeholders in helping to frame workable approaches to addressing the water quality challenges of the state. As expressed in our previous comments on various legislation regarding water policy, DEP and EPA proposed rulemakings, and proposals from interstate water basin commissions for the Delaware and Susquehanna rivers, we and our members recognize that development, use and stewardship of the state’s water resources is vital to the health and success of the communities, industries and enterprises throughout the state. That stewardship of our water resources requires a thoughtful balancing of environmental and economic considerations. (25)

Response: The Department acknowledges the comment.

Comment 9: Please note that the comments and recommendations presented by EPA Region 3 are strictly for the Environmental Quality Board’s (EQB) consideration and do not constitute approval or disapproval decisions under CWA 303(c). Neither are these comments a determination by the EPA Administrator under CWA Section 303(c)(4)(B) that revised or new standards are necessary to meet the requirements of the Act. (4)

Response: The Department understands that these are EPA’s comments and recommendations and do not constitute an approval, disapproval, or an Administrator’s Determination under Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(c) to meet the requirements of the CWA. The final approval action (CWA Section 303(c)) for this rulemaking will be conducted by EPA afler such time as

5 this rulemaking is published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin as a final-form rulemaking, and the complete Administrative Record of Rulemaking is presented to EPA with a specific request for such review and approval.

Comment 10: We are hilly supportive of Pennsylvania’s proposed revisions, subject to the specific comments provided on individual topics or items. Under CWA Section 303(c) it is the responsibility of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to protect the existing and designated uses of the surface waters of the Commonwealth by establishing water quality standards. The specific water quality criteria being proposed will help PADEP determine if any particular parameter has the potential to negatively impact water quality and, therefore, uses. Having scientifically defensible numeric criteria also benefits the public: dischargers know what specific standards they will be required to meet, and the general public understands what standards are needed to protect water resources. (4)

In accordance with federal regulation at 40 CFR 131.11, states must adopt water quality criteria based on sound scientific rationale and these criteria must contain sufficient parameters or constituents to protect the designated use. States can adopt numerical criteria based on EPA’s national CWA 304(a) recommendations, EPA’s national recommendations modified to reflect site-specific conditions, or other scientifically defensible methods. Pennsylvania is proposing to adopt several criteria that are based on EPA’s national recommendations, as well as several criteria that are not consistent with EPA’s national recommendations or for which there are no national recommendations. We remind PADEP that in order to support a CWA 303(c) approval, EPA will need to document that Pennsylvania has met the requirements of the 40 CFR 131.11. (4)

Response: The Department appreciates the comments. The Department understands that the Commonwealth has a responsibility under the CWA to protect the existing and designated uses of the surface waters of this Commonwealth by establishing appropriate water quality standards.

Comment 11:

I would request that in the future, I be added to a mailing list or email list so that I am alerted when the next triennial review occurs. Public notice is critical since this process only comes along every three years. (32-73)

Response: The Department encourages all that are interested to sign up for the eNotice service on the Department’s website, so they can stay informed of these opportunities for public participation, and to review and comment on the various regulatory and permitting activities being undertaken by the Department or the Environmental Quality Board. The eNotice service can be customized to certain preferences on notification.

6 SPECIFIC COMMENTS BY SECTION OR TOPIC

Comments on Specific water quality criteria — Table 3 (93.7)

Ammonia criteria

Note: The Department was made aware in November 2018 that a typesetting error was identified and corrected in the EPA Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia (EPA 2013a) document. The equation to calculate the ammonia criterion maximum concentration (CMC) where Oncorhynchus species are absent was missing two parentheses which are needed to correctly calculate the criterion (see page 42 of EPA’s 2013 document). The error did not affect the results for the criterion values presented in Figure 5a (p. 43) and Table Sb (p. 45), and the equation is correct in Appendix N: Site-Specific Criteria for Ammonia (p. 227). The new publication number is EPA-822-R-18-002.

Comment 12: We support the proposed amendments to the ammonia criteria. (2, 4, 6, 15)

The Board proposes to amend the ammonia criteria to conform to EPA’s final recommendations for Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia-Freshwater 2013. These recommendations consider the most recent scientific research regarding the effects of ammonia on aquatic life and incorporate the latest toxicity information. (2)

We support the new federally-recommended criteria for ammonia and the statewide application of these federally-recommended criteria that are protective of aquatic life. (8)

We agree with the comment of the PA Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) supporting the new federally recommended criteria for ammonia. We note that even water resulting from the careful distillation of toxic gas industry waste fluids still retains some ammonia when no traces of other toxins are reported. (14)

We appreciate the Department of Environmental Protection’s (Department) proposal to adopt the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2013 Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia. As the agency responsible for the protection and recovery of federally listed endangered and threatened mussels, we concur that these criteria are warranted to protect listed species, as well as to prevent the need for listing additional mussel species. We support the application of criteria that are protective of freshwater mussels throughout Pennsylvania. (20)

We support DEP’s proposal to adopt the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2013 Aquatic life ambient water quality criteria for ammonia (EPA 822-R-13-OOl). (27)

Response: The Department appreciates the comments.

7 Comment 13: I am interested in how the department tracks pH and temperature since it is relevant to the application of this (ammonia) criterion. (15)

Response: The Department gathers pH and temperature data according to approved data collection protocols. These sampling protocols are contained within the 2018 Version of the Water Quality Monitoring Protocols for Streams and Rivers, found at http:/Jfiles.dep.state.pa.us/Water/Drinking%2oWater%2oand%2OFacility%2oRegulation/Waterp ualityPortalFiles/Technical%2oDocumentation/MONITORING BOOK.pdf (refer to Chapter 4. Chemical Data Collection Protocols). The results are recorded and stored so that the data can later be used and analyzed appropriately.

Comment 14: We are pleased that Pennsylvania is proposing to adopt ammonia nitrogen criteria based on EPA’s recommendations found in “Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia — Freshwater. 2013”, (EPA-822-R-13-001). However, there appear to be some inconsistencies. In order to be wholly consistent with EPA recommendations, we recommend PADEP revise “30- day average Criteria Continuous Concentration (CCC) chronic criterion equation” to “30-day rolling average Criteria Continuous Concentration (CCC) chronic criterion equation.” (4)

Similarly, we recommend that “Chronic concentration is not to exceed 2.5 times the CCC as a 4- day average within 30 days...” be revised to “Chronic concentration is not to exceed 2.5 times the CCC as a 4-day average within the 30 day averaging period...”. As written it appears that Pennsylvania’s chronic criteria would be based on any chosen 30-day period, for example, a given month, rather than each possible 30-day period that a rolling average would achieve, regardless of any artificial or implied bracketing such as the set 30-day periods of a given month. (4)

For clarity, we also recommend rewording “Chronic concentration is not to exceed 2.5 times the CCC as a 4-day average within 30 days (e.g. 2.5 x 1.9mg TAN/L at pH 7 and 20°C or 4.8mg TAN/L) more than once in 3 years on average.” to “The highest four-day average within the 30- day averaging period should not be more than 2.5 times the CCC (e.g., 2.5 x 1.9 mg TAN/L at pH 7 and 20°C or 4.8 mg TAN/L) more than once in three years on average.” (4)

Response: The Department appreciates the comments and suggested revisions. It is the Department’s intent for these ammonia criteria statements to be consistent with EPA’s recommended criteria. In response to the comments, the Department has adjusted its description to “30-day rolling average Criteria Continuous Concentration (CCC) chronic criterion equation” and has revised the language to include “The highest four-day average within the 30-day averaging period should not be more than 2.5 times the CCC (e.g., 2.5 x 0.2 mg TAN/L at pH 9 and 20°C or 0.5 mg TAN/L) more than once in three years on average.” (Please also note the change in the example given.)

8 Comment 15: In addition, the previous regulation stated that: “The pH and temperature used to derive the appropriate ammonia criteria shall be determined by one of the following methods: 1) instream measurements, representative of median pH and temperature — July through September. 2) Estimates of median pH and temperature — July through September — based upon available data or values determined by the Department. For purposes of calculating effluent limitations based on this value the accepted design stream flow shall be the actual or estimated lowest 30-consecutive-day average flow that occurs once in 10 years.” (4)

In the proposed revision some of the above descriptive language has been removed. PADEP should clarify what is meant in the proposed revision by “...best estimates, representative of the median pH and temperature of the receiving stream for the applicable time period and design conditions.” How will “best estimates” be determined and what will they be based on? How will ‘-design conditions’ be considered? Why has the language on calculating effluent limitations been removed? Implementation and assessment is not a reviewable element of a water quality standards submission as determined by 40 CFR §131.21(c), but it could be considered in EPA’s review as it relates to the criteria’s scientific defensibility and protectiveness of the use. (4, 776)

Response: The Department appreciates the comments and suggested revisions. The Department provides further clarification to the temperature and pH implementation language as published at proposed rulemaking October21, 2017 at 17 Pa.B. 6609. The Board is revising the language as follows: “The pH and temperature used to derive the appropriate ammonia criteria shall be determined by instream measurements or best estimates based on reference waters that are representative of the median pH and temperature of the receiving water. Instream measurements for pH and temperature will be gathered using Department data collection protocols.”. These current Department protocols are contained within the 2018 Version of the Water Quality Monitoring Protocols for Streams and Rivers, found at http://files.dep.state.pa.us/Water/Drinking%20Water%2Oand%20Facility%20Regulation/WaterQ ualitvPortalFilcs/Technical%20Documentation/MONITORING BOOK.pdf (refer to Chapter 4; Chemical Data Collection Protocols).

With regard to the seasonal component (July through September), the Department recommends the implementation language not be restored in this clarification, because current temperature and pH data suggests that ammonia toxicity to aquatic life may reach high levels outside of that seasonal timeframe.

The Department appreciates the recognition that implementation and assessment is not a reviewable element of a water quality standards submission under the Clean Water Act, and the Department agrees that this may be usethl to inform the review and scientific defensibility of the criteria. Therefore, when calculating the effluent limitations for ammonia, the accepted design stream flow shall continue to be the actual or estimated lowest 30 consecutive-day average flow that occurs once in 10 years (Q30-Io),as referenced elsewhere — in Table I at 25 Pa. Code §96.4

9 (relating to TMDLs and WQBELs) — and in §93.7(a) which incorporates Chapter 96 (relating to water quality standards implementation).

Comment 16: We support DEP’s proposal to adopt the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2013 Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia (EPA 822-R-13-001). This (ammonia) criterion is especially important in Pennsylvania where sensitive mussel species are present or where plans are underway to restore mussel populations to their historic ranges. However, according to EPA comments (dated Dec 20, 2017) some technical revisions may need to be reviewed and made for this ammonia criteria to be more protective. We would also note that it is unclear why the pH and temperature language pertaining to effluent limitations was removed from the proposed language. (27)

Response: The Department appreciates the comments. The Department intends for these ammonia criteria statements to be consistent with EPA’s recommended criteria. As such, the Department has adjusted the criteria language to be wholly consistent with EPA’s comments and EPA’s recommended criteria statements.

The Department provides ffirther clarification to the temperature and pH implementation language as published at proposed rulemaking October 21, 2017 at 17 Pa.B. 6609. The Department added a provision that Department-approved data collection protocols should be used to determine the pH and temperature values that are then used to derive the appropriate ammonia criteria and effluent limitations. For more details see the previous response to Comment 15.

Comment 17: In response to a letter from US EPA dated January 21, 2013, the Department proposes to add chronic and acute criteria for Total Ammonia Nitrogen (TAN) to the water quality criteria. The new criteria are based on the protection of sensitive freshwater mussels on a statewide basis. The justification given is the protection of sensitive mussel populations for both chronic and acute exposures, and the protection of salmonid species for acute exposures. (17)

Response: The newly developed Federal recommendations (i.e., the 2013 EPA criteria) expand the freshwater toxicity database for ammonia and result in national criteria recommendations that are protective of the aquatic community as a whole, which includes sensitive freshwater mollusk species and salmonids. The criteria are intended to be protective of the aquatic community, as a whole, which includes sensitive freshwater mollusk species (e.g., freshwater mussels in the Order Unionoida) which are ubiquitous throughout Pennsylvania. Aquatic life criteria are developed according to the 1985 Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection ofAquatic Organisms and Their Uses (EPA 1985), which establishes that a reasonable level of protection will be provided if all except a small fraction of the taxa are protected, unless a commercially or reereationally important species is very sensitive. The small fraction is set at 0.05. Therefore, criteria developed following the 1985 Guidelines — as were the 2013 ammonia criteria — are designed to be protective of 95% of the taxa.

10 Comment 18: The 2015-2025 Pennsylvania WildlifeAction Plan, published by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, provides county record information for each of the endangered freshwater mussel species identified from Pennsylvania. Endangered mussels have been identified in 15 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties. We do not operate in any of the 15 identified counties. Therefore, implementation of the TAN criteria to protect mussel species on a statewide basis is excessive since there are many watersheds where these standards will provide no net ecological benefit compared to the existing protections. (17)

We ask EQB to explain the need to impose the more stringent (ammonia) Federal standard on a statewide basis. Has EQB considered a more site-specific approach to regulating ammonia? (776)

Response: The objective of replacing Pennsylvania’s current ammonia criteria with the EPA’s 2013 national ammonia criteria recommendations (EPA 2013a) is not to guarantee that it provides sufficient protection for every threatened or endangered mussel in the Commonwealth. The proposed criteria are intended to be protective of the aquatic community, as a whole, which includes sensitive freshwater mollusk species (e.g., freshwater mussels in the Order Unionoida) which are ubiquitous throughout Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania can be divided into six drainage basins: Ohio, Erie, Genesee, Susquehanna, Potomac, and Delaware, and there are unionid mussels in every basin (PFBC 2018). Criteria developed following the 1985 Guidelines (EPA 1985) — as were the 2013 ammonia criteria (EPA 2013a) — are designed to be protective of 95% of the taxa. It is, however, a completely different matter when threatened or endangered species are present. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) protects species that are listed as endangered and threatened, and their habitat, by prohibiting the “take” of listed animals. “Take” is defined in the ESA as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct”. It may be determined that some or all threatened or endangered species are not afforded adequate protection by the criteria; and then the Department will be obligated to increase its protection on a site-specific basis wherever threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat is found to be lacking sufficient protection. Pennsylvania is obligated to protect threatened and endangered species as required by the ESA, and pursuant to 93.4c(a)(2) (relating to implementation of antidegradation requirements, endangered or threatened species). Please also see the response to Comment 20 (below) for additional information.

Comment 19: In the event the Department continues to consider the proposed TAN criteria, it is recommended that the Department create a “Sensitive Mussel” aquatic life use designation under which the proposed TAN criteria would apply, rather than apply the criteria statewide. Under this scenario, the Commonwealth could adopt guidance and standards for listing surface waters under this use, thereby providing protections where such actions are necessary to protect beneficial functions and to support sensitive mussel and salmonid populations. (17)

Response: The final-form rulemaking includes the 2013 EPA ammonia criteria. EPA recommends a single national acute criterion and a single national chronic criterion that will be

11 protective of sensitive mollusks due to every state having at least one freshwater unionid mussel or bivalve mollusk, or non-pulmonate snail species, native or present in at least some of their waters (EPA 2013a). It is appropriate for Pennsylvania to adopt these national criteria on a statewide basis because there are approximately 65 species of unionid mussels found throughout Pennsylvania. Additionally, Pennsylvania is host to at least 18 species of non-pulmonate (or prosobranch) snails. The criteria are intended to be protective of the aquatic community, as a whole, which includes sensitive freshwater mollusk species (e.g., freshwater mussels in the Order Unionoida) which are ubiquitous throughout Pennsylvania. Freshwater mussels are among the most sensitive genera in the dataset and many of these sensitive mussels reside throughout Pennsylvania. Aquatic communities that include naturally reproducing cold water fish species in the family Salmonidae are also very common throughout the Commonwealth.

If a listed species is demonstrated to inhabit a specific location and it can be determined that the listed species is not receiving adequate protection, then more stringent site-specific criteria will be necessary to prevent “take” of the listed species. And conversely, if it is demonstrated that sensitive species are not inhabiting a specific location then it is possible to derive site-specific water quality criteria that better reflect the organisms that occur at a specific site using the Revised Deletion Process for the Site SpecUic Recaladation Procedure for Aquatic Life Criteria (EPA 2013b). An additional resource entitled Technical Support Document for ‘onducting and Reviewing Freshwater Mussel Occurrence Surveys for the Development of Site-Spec(fic Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia (EPA 2013c) has been prepared to provide information to help states and tribes determine whether freshwater mussels in the Order Unionoida are present or absent at a particular site.

Comment 20: If these revisions to water quality criteria for TAN are adopted on a state-wide basis, permittees who are not located on sensitive streams are provided the opportunity to request site-specific criteria under 25 Pa. Code Section 93.8d. These criteria are appropriate when site-specific biological or chemical conditions exist in the receiving waters which differ from conditions upon which the water quality criteria were based. Requests for site-specific criteria include all information collected during extensive scientific studies conducted by permittees requesting the site-specific criteria.

Upon receipt of any requests for site-specific criteria, the Department is required to review all data to verify that each request is appropriate. If the Department determines that site-specific criteria are appropriate, the Department is required to publish the site-specific criterion in the Pennsylvania Bulletin and take additional actions relating to public notice of permit applications and draft permits. In addition, the Department will be required to: i. Maintain publicly available lists of site-specific criteria, ii. Submit to the EPA’s Regional Administrator for review and approval, the methodologies used for site-specific criteria development within 30 days of Department’s final action, and iii. Prepare a recommendation to the Environmental Quality Board in the form of proposed rulemaking.

12 Sensitive mussel species have been documented in 15 counties of the Commonwealth, leaving 52 counties where sensitive species have not been identified. Multiple penTlittees in those 52 counties could potentially request site specific criteria for TAN, placing a significant burden on the Department’s resources. Developing the recommended “Sensitive Mussel” aquatic life use designation under which the proposed TAN criteria would apply to specific stream segments or watersheds where sensitive species are identified would eliminate the potentially significant burden for permittees and Commonwealth resources. (17, 776)

Response: The Department does not believe a “Sensitive Mussel” aquatic life use is warranted, as requested. The Department believes the commenter is confusing the concept of “sensitive” mussels with “listed” mussels. As described in the rationale document for the ammonia criterion, EPA updated the ammonia criteria that are applicable nationally, considering the latest toxicity information for freshwater species, including unionid mussels and gill-breathing (non pulmonate) snails. These are sensitive species, but not necessarily listed as endangered or threatened, although some are. The criteria are intended to be protective of the aquatic community as a whole, which includes sensitive freshwater mollusk species (e.g., freshwater mussels in the Order Unionoida) which are ubiquitous throughout Pennsylvania. The Department summarized this condition in its document “K4 TIONALEFOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AMBIENT WATERQUALITYCRITERIAFOR AMMONIA - PROTECTION OFA QUATIC LIFE USE.” (DEP. Updated July 2019).

Comment 21: With respect to the proposed chronic TAN criterion, the Regulatory Analysis Form filed with the Independent Regulatory Review Commission claims positive impacts associated with reduced toxics in the Pennsylvania’s waterways in general. ArcelorMittal agrees with the effort to improve the quality of life for those who recreate or otherwise depend on a healthy aquatic ecosystem for income. However, there are costs imposed on the regulated community related to increased treatment requirements associated with the proposed chronic TAN criterion in this rulemaking. To address the question of additional cost for treatment mandated by these regulations and attendant benefits, Section 19 of the Regulatory Analysis Form contains the following general statement:

“Specificestimates of costs and savings cannot be determined because each activity that will result in pollution to waters in this Commonwealth must be reviewed based on site-specific considerations. Thesesite-specific considerations include, but are not limited to the size,flow volume, and the chemical, biological and physical properties of both the receiving water and the effluent discharge. These unique parameters result in site-specific requirements. National Pollutant Discharge EliminationSystem (NPDES)permits and other approvals willbe required for discharges to waters of this Commonwealth using the water quality uses and criteria identified in the proposed regulations.”

In addition, Section 23 of the Regulatory Analysis Form includes a table that is intended to provide an estimate of the fiscal savings and costs for the regulated community associated with implementation of the propose criteria. The table generally states that the costs and savings are, “Not Measurable”.

13 These statements and other similar general statements made in the Regulatory Analysis Form seem to address the benefit of environmental regulations in general and do not provide information necessary for the public to evaluate the economic impact of this proposed rulemaking. The statements do not appear to be substantiated by any analysis of estimated or actual costs and impacts to the operation of regulated wastewater treatment facilities, nor do they provide a cost-benefit analysis regarding the implementation of the new standards. The ability of individual treatment plants to meet more stringent criteria will be a ifinction of the existing capacity and engineering design of the facilities, and it cannot be assumed that all facilities will be able to meet the criteria without substantial upgrades to the plants. The economic costs on a case-by-case basis could be significant because of redesign and construction efforts needed to meet more stringent criteria. (17)

It is recommended that the Department conduct a cost analysis to identify the actual costs for additional treatment. At a minimum, information such as the cost per pound of reductions in TAN should be developed and be made available to interested parties for review and comment prior to finalizing the proposed rule changes. In addition, interested parties should be consulted as part of the cost analysis to provide general and site-specific information that should be considered prior to finalizing the proposed revisions to water quality standards. (17, 776)

Response: The Department does not consider economic impacts or achievability in the development of the numeric water quality criteria. The criteria are instream goals based on the best available scientific information and research. These instream goals are designed to protect designated water uses and, as such, are used to calculate allowable effluent limitations in NPDES permits. States are required to develop standards and the corresponding water quality criteria, based on Section 303(c)(2)(A) of the federal CWA. The federal CWA requires the following factors to be taken into consideration:

“Such standards shall be such as to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of the water and serve the purposes of this Chapter. Such standards shall be established taking into consideration their use and value for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and other purposes, and also taking into consideration their use and value in navigation.” 33 U.S.C. §1313(c)(2)(A).

Based on the language above, the federal CWA does not discuss economic considerations when describing the factors to be evaluated in the development of water quality criteria. In other federal statutes, economic feasibility is explicitly noted as a factor that must be considered. As a contrasting example, Congress specifically called for consideration of economic and technical feasibility in the development of primary drinking water standards under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. For example, if a primary drinking water regulation is expressed as a maximum contaminant level (MCL), “economic and technical feasibility must be considered to ascertain the level of such contaminant in water in public water systems.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 300f( I)(C).

14 Additionally, treatment costs are site-specific and depend upon the size of the discharge in relation to the size of the stream and many other factors. Therefore, it is not possible to predict the actual change in costs generally for wastewater treatment facilities.

Economics in terms of feasibility occurs when the Department issues a NPDES permit. NPDES permits include effluent limits that are commonly set as technology-based limits. Technology- based effluent limits are the minimum level of control that must be imposed in an NPDES permit. See 40 CFR § 125.3. These limits are established as being achievable by using available technology. If the limits achievable using the available technology are not sufficient to prevent impacts from discharges into receiving waters, water quality-based effluent limits are imposed which are based on the water quality standards.

To the extent that a water quality-based effluent limit cannot be implemented immediately upon permit issuance, schedules of compliance, which are considered an element of “effluent limitations,” may be used to phase in the new technology or remedial measures. See 33 U.S.C. § 1362(11).

Bacteria criteria - General

Comment 22: In general, we support the Department’s proposal in its Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards (WQS) to update the E. coil bacteria criteria for freshwater recreational water quality. (6)

We commend the Board on the proposed amendments to the Pennsylvania Water Quality Standards bacteria criteria for recreational waters. (12)

Response: The Department appreciates the comments.

Comment 23: DRN [Delaware Riverkeeper Network] will provide more detail in writing related to E. coil and fecal coliform proposals. EPA also provided important feedback. (29A)

Response: The Department did receive supplemental information from DRN pertaining to the bacteria criteria and the Department addressed these concerns in its response to Comment 30. The Department addressed EPA’s concerns pertaining to the bacteria criteria in its responses to Comment 26 and Comment 30.

Comment 24: The Clean Water Act requires waters to be fishable and swimmable. See 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2). Activities are classified as “primary contact recreation” if they involve a high degree of bodily contact with the water; and if immersion and ingestion are likely, such as swimming, wading, and bathing. Activities classified as “secondary contact recreation” are those water-related activities that present less risk of water ingestion, such as boating or shore-based fishing. These activities can expose participants to bacteria in our waterways, and exposure to these bacteria can

15 make people sick. The water quality criteria for bacteria should be set at a level to appropriately protect the waters and the people who use them. (2)

Response: The commenter’s definition of primary and secondary contact recreation appears to align with primary and secondary contact recreation as defined by the Clean Water Act. Exposure to pathogens associated with fecal contamination through activities involving water contact can make people sick and therefore the Department realizes the importance of establishing appropriate criteria for protection from fecal contamination during recreation involving water contact. The Department has determined that these federally recommended recreational use criteria are appropriate for the Commonwealth and these criteria are part of the final-form rulemaking.

Bacteria criteria — Indicator Selection

Comment 25: The transition to a new fecal indicator bacterium is supported by EPA’s Recreational Water Quality Criteria (RWQC) Report published in 2012. This document provides EPA’s rccommended Clean Water Act §304(a) RWQC for states, lays out the science related to the 2012 RWQC, describes how these scientific findings were used during the development of the 2012 RWQC, and describes the water quality methods associated with the 2012 RWQC. This Report recommends using the fecal indicator bacteria enterococci and Eseherichia coli (E. coli) as indicators of fecal contamination for fresh water, citing scientific advancements in microbiological, statistical, and epidemiological methods have demonstrated that culturable enterococci and E. coli are better indicators of fecal contamination than the previously used general indicators, total coliforms and fecal coliforms, which Pennsylvania currently utilizes. The commenter agrees with the Board’s selection of E. coil as the indicator bacterium. (2)

We support the amendments the Board is proposing to the bacteria criteria, in changing the primary contact recreational water bacterial indicator from fecal coliform to E. coil, applied statewide. The fecal coliform is commonly identified as being thermotolerant bacteria (able to grow at 44.5°C) [Warden, Paul; DeSarno, Monique; Volk,Sara/i; and Eldred Bradley.Analytical Services. Evaluation of Colilert-J8for Detection and Enunicration ofFecal ColiformBacteria in Wastewater Using the US. Environmental Pi-otectionAgencyAlternative TestProcedure Protocol. Mici-obiologicalMethods, Journal ofAOACInternational. Volume94, Number 5:2011]. Thermotolerant bacteria consists of E. coli, Klebsiella, Enterobacter, and Citrobacter species [Warden, ci all, Doyle, MichaeLErickson, Maiy. Closing the Door on the Fecal ‘olifonn Assay. Microbe, Volume1, Number 4,page 162: 2006]. When testing for fecal coliforms, the population of the bacteria present can affect the fecal coliform results, for example: Klebsiella, Enterobacter, & Citrobacter species are false-positive indicators of fecal contamination as they are from nonfecal origin [Doyle, et al]. It has been found that up to 15% of Klebsiella (nonfecal origin) are thermotolerant and up to 10% of E. coli are not thermotolerant, thus potentially causing an error rate of 25% when testing for fecal coliforms FAllen,Martin; Edberg, Stephen; Ciancy, Jeniifer; Hrudey, Steve. Drinking water microbial myths. Critical Reviews in Microbiolo’; JSSN: 1040-841X (orint,), 1549-7828 (electronic,):2013: http://informahealthcare.com/mby]. E. coli is the only bacteria of the coliform bacteria group that comes from the intestinal tract and being found to be much more specific to the detection of fecal contamination, so much so, that E. coli is the 16 definitive indicator of fecal contamination in drinking water [Allen, et al.], [Cummings,Dennis. The Fecal Coflfonn Test Method Compared to Specific Tests/br Escherichia co/i. IDEXY https://www.idexx.eom/resource-library/water/water-reg-artici e9B.pdt]. We strongly encourage the Board to amend the bacterial indicator for the State’s Water Quality Standards for recreational water from fecal coliforms to E. co/i. Hopefully this comment strengthens the rationale behind the bacterial change for primary contact recreational waters. (12)

The Board is proposing to switch from a criterion using fecal coliform as the indicator of fecal contamination to one using E. co/i for the swimming season of May 1 to September 30, when people are most likely to engage in primary contact recreation. We support the switch to E. co/i as the indicator parameter. (30)

Response: The Department appreciates the comments regarding the proposed amendments to the bacteria criteria, especially the decision to use Escherichia coil (E. co/i) as the indicator of fecal contamination, rather than fecal coliforms.

Bacteria Criteria — Magnitude, Duration, Frequency

Comment 26: We are pleased that Pennsylvania is proposing to adopt E. co/i criteria to protect recreational waters. However, the proposed E. co/i criteria is not fully consistent with EPA’s recommendations found in Recreational Water Quality Criteria” (EPA-820-F-12-058). The EPA criteria is comprised of a magnitude, duration, and frequency of excursion for both the geometric mean (GM) and the statistical threshold value (STy). It is important for states to adopt the magnitude, duration, and frequency components of the criteria in order to be consistent with EPA’s recommendations and to be filly protective of the primary contact recreation designated use. The magnitudes of Pennsylvania’s proposed criteria, and the 30-day duration for the GM and STV are for the most part consistent with EPA’s recommendations. For the criteria to be wholly consistent. EPA has the following recommended revisions:

PADEP should revise the proposed criteria from “E. co/i level shall be a geometric mean of 126 per 100 milliliters (ml) ...“ to “E. coh level shall be a geometric mean of 126 colony forming units (ciii) per 100 milliliters (ml)” to clarify the units of the criterion. Similarly, “410 per 100 ml” should be revised to “410 colony forming units (cfu) per 100 ml”. (4)

PADEP should remove the provision that the criterion applies “based on consecutive samples, each sample collected on different days during a 30-day period.” Data sufficiency (e.g., sampling frequency) is not a reviewable element of a water quality standards submission as determined by 40 CFR §131,21(c). but it could be considered in EPA’s review as it relates to the criteria’s scientific defensibility and protectiveness of the use. Data sufficiency is more appropriately addressed in the development of the State’s assessment methodologies. Further, PADEP should specify that the duration of the criteria is a 30-day interval. (4)

PADEP should revise the language used to describe the frequency of the criteria. In the EPA recommended criteria, the frequency of the criteria, that is the maximum number of times the

17 pollutant may be present above the magnitude over the specified duration, is expressed differently for the GM and the STy. The GM is a never-to-be-exceeded value, and the STV should be exceeded no more than 10% of the time. Specifically, the EPA recommended criteria states that “The waterbody geometric mean should not be greater than the selected geometric mean magnitude in any 30-day interval. There should not be greater than a ten percent excursion frequency of the selected STV magnitude in the same 30-day interval,” PADEP’s proposed criteria stales that “No more than 10% of the total samples taken during a 30-day period may exceed 410 per 100 ml.” PADEP’s proposed frequency is expressed as a percentage of samples in the 30-day duration period that can exceed the STy, whereas EPA’s language is that the STV should be exceeded no more than 10% of the time. EPA recommends PADEP revise the frequency component of its proposed criteria to be consistent with EPA’s recommendation that there should not be greater than a ten percent excursion frequency of the selected STV magnitude in Ihe same 30-day duration interval. (4)

EPA provided more detail in their Dec 20, 2017 comment letter where it also suggested DEP adopt magnitude, duration and frequency components of the criteria in order to be consistent with EPA and to be filly protective of primary contact designated use. (9, 24, 32-73)

Response: It was the intent of the Department to propose recreational criteria to be wholly consistent with EPA’s 2012 Recreational Water Quality Criteria (RWQC). The intent of the Department has not deviated since presenting the proposed rule to the Board. Based upon the recommendations within these comments, the Department made changes to the proposed criteria to be wholly consistent with EPA’s 2012 RWQC, especially regarding magnitude, duration, and frequency.

Bacteria — Natural Sources of E. coil lii the environment

Feasibility analysis of (lie criteria based on water quality studies conducted in stream segments known to have 110 sources of E. call associated with human activities

Comment 27: It appears that the proposed bacteria criteria for ELccli are similar to those adopted by other states based upon federal recommendations. Though the criteria are backed by sound science with regards to human health, it has been difficult to consistently achieve the criteria in other states because of natural sources of E. co/i in the environment. Implementation of these criteria has therefore resulted in expansion of the listing of impaired waters through the 303(d) processes and necessitated the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads for bacteria for affected waters with limited success. It is recommended that before the criteria for E. coil are adopted, the Department conduct a feasibility analysis of the criteria based on water quality studies conducted in stream segments known to have no sources of E. co/i associated with human activities. The results of any feasibility analysis should be provided for public review and comments prior to finalizing the revisions to water quality standards for bacteria. (17)

Response: The Department understands that the commenter is concerned that E. co/i naturally present in the environment may have a combined effect with the E. co/i associated with events of

18 fecal contamination and the result would be that the total measured E. coil levels would exceed the criteria. The commenter suggests that the Department should conduct a study to demonstrate that naturally occurring levels of E. coil in a watershed with little to no anthropogenic influence would not exceed the proposed criteria. The Department collected such data in 2017.

The Department collected bacteriological samples on the White Deer Creek basin in Centre and Union Counties. The basin is mostly forested (Bald Eagle State Forest) and therefore has minimal impact from humans upstream of the point where Interstate 80 crosses the main stem of White Deer Creek. One hundred fifty samples collected in this area between August 29 and September 21, 2017 were analyzed for both E. coh and fecal coliforms. None of the fecal coliform results were greater than the current criteria of 200 ciii per 100 ml, and there were only two times when the E. coil counts were greater than 126 clii per 100 milliliters (both of these samples were found to contain 130 clii E. coil per 100 ml). Neither of these two samples would have caused an impairment because the proposed criteria magnitude is calculated as the geometric mean of all the samples within a 30-day duration interval and the other samples at these two sites were lower in value. This data refttes the claim that E. coil counts will be uncharacteristically high and therefore not representative of the conditions in watersheds that have minimal human impact, with an overall result of too many impairments.

Comment 28: Commenters noted concern that natural sources of bacteria could make it difficult for dischargers to meet the more stringent standard being proposed. Commenters suggested that the Department should conduct an additional feasibility study. (776)

Response: See Response to Comment 27.

Adding a provision to allow a discharger to denionstrate that they are not the cause

Comment 29: We would also like to offer comment regarding the proposed bacterial standards for recreational waters. IfPDEP adopts EPA’s RWQC for Escherichia coil (E. coil) in fresh water, some industrial sectors may not be able to meet the criteria due to the presence of bacteria originating from natural environmental sources. This concern has become more widely known in recent years as states and the regulated community has engaged in more robust testing of ambient waters and effluents using new bacterial assays. NCASI has published two recent reports on this topic (NCASI 2016, 2017).

Some states have addressed this matter by incorporating provisions in their standards so a discharger can provide scientifically defensible data demonstrating that the sources responsible for elevated levels of these indicator bacteria are not associated with connections to sanitary sources. For example, Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) recently issued its RWQC, and an accompanying issue paper (Borok 2016) discusses its position regarding industrial discharges with non-fecal sources. The paper contains the following passage:

This change acknowledges that certain non-fecal containing discharges, such as pulp and paper effluent, may contain bacteria that are detected as E. coil or enterococcus, but are not pathogenic

19 and do not indicate the presence of fecal contamination. (Gauthier and Archibald 2001; Degnan 2007; Croteau, et al. 2007). Due to the potential interference of plant-based bacteria in enterococcus tests, it may be difficult for pulp and paper mills to achieve compliance with enterococcus criteria even if the discharge poses little risk to public health due to the lack of pathogenic bacteria in the discharge.

The proposed provision will allow flexibility to entities that can demonstrate to DEQ that their discharge does not come from fecal sources. DEQ would require such entities to demonstrate through biochemical species identification techniques that the effluent contains non-fecal based bacteria species. Once the demonstration is made, DEQ would include appropriate effluent limits in the permit to ensure that public health is protected.

In a similar action, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection included a memorandum as part of the record in its revision of RWQC that recognizes this same concern and affords dischargers the opportunity to demonstrate that bacterial assay results are not indicative of the presence of bacteria linked to sanitary wastewater (FDEP 2015).

For these reasons, PDEP may wish to consider acknowledging the potential for false positive bacteria results as part of the triennial review record and provide some guidance regarding approaches that might be taken to avoid unwarranted effluent limits.

References offered by commenter: • Borok, A. 2016. Issue Paper: Revisions to the Water Quality Standard for Bacteria. State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, OR, February 2016. http://www.oregon. gov/deg/FilterDocs/BacterialssuePaper.pdf.pdf. • National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI). 2016. Implications of USEPA’s 2012 recreational water quality criteria to the pulp and paper industry, with mill case studies characterizing indicator bacteria in effluents. Technical Bulletin No. 1041. Cary, NC: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. • National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI). 2017. Evaluation of Escherichia coli (E. coli) measurement methods when applied to woodyard runoff. Technical Bulletin No. 1044. Cary, NC: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (28)

Other commenters stated concern that natural sources of bacteria could make it difficult for dischargers to meet the more stringent standard being proposed. Commenters offered scientific material to the Department for review. Commenters also suggested adding a provision to the rulemaking to allow a discharger to provide scientific data to show they are not the cause of elevated levels of bacteria. IRRC asks EQB to work with these commenters to gain a better understanding of their concerns and, if appropriate, amend the rulemaking accordingly. (776)

Response: The Department is aware that there may be situations where E. coli is present in the surface water and it may not be of either human or fecal origin. The Department will rely on published guidance from EPA when dealing with these unique situations. EPA guidance establishes the requirements and protocols for establishing site-specific recreational water quality

20 criteria. In December 2014, EPA published a guidance document entitled, An Overview of Technical Support Materials: A Guide to the Site-SpecIc Alternative Recreational Criteria TSM Documents, located at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files!20 15-11/documents/guide- sitespecific-alternative-recreational-criteria-documents.pdf This 2014 document cross- references the federal Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act promulgation of 2004 and states that if “sanitary surveys and epidemiological studies show the sources of the indicator bacteria to be non-human and the indicator densities do not indicate a human health risk, then it is reasonable for the State or Territory not to consider those sources of fecal contamination in determining whether the standard is being attained”. The 2014 Guidance Document also cross-references an EPA review of studies that was published in 2009 and states that “there are scenarios of contamination from non-human sources and non-fecal sources of fecal indicator bacteria that potentially present markedly different probability of illness relative to human sources. Quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) can be used as a basis to develop site-specific alternative criteria, where sources are characterized predominantly as non human or non-fecal.”

Bacteria — Difficulty associated with having different fecal indicators for the swimming and non-swimming seasons

Comment 30: Other Considerations in ProposedAdoption ofB. co/i Criteria/br the Protection of Waters Designated for Water Contact Recreation, EPA recommends PADEP consider whether having recreational criteria that relies on an E. co/i indicator that would apply only during the swimming season (May I through September 30). Additionally, EPA recommends PA DEP adopt a second fecal coliform indicator that would apply” for the remainder of the year.” However, EPA acknowledged it would be difficult for the public to understand. EPA also notes that the data from the different time periods would be difficult to compare. (4, 776)

We would like to recommend testing for E. co/i year-round and as the bacterial indicator for secondary contact recreational waters. We strongly recommend using the same indicator year- round and for primary and secondary contact recreational waters, not only due to the E. coli being a better fecal indicator, but using the same indicator will help maintain a laboratory’s testing work flow and will provide consistent data year-round. If testing with two different bacterial indicators year-round the results may not correlate as the population of bacteria present could affect the testing results, for example: if the water sample has a high number of thennotolerant colifonns along with thermotolerant E. co/i, then the fecal coliform results could be higher when compared to E. co/i or vice versa. Hopefully this comment helps the Board consider year-round testing of E. co/i and help proactively change the State’s Water Quality Standards for secondary contact recreational water to E. co/i as well, prior to the finalization of the EPA’s recommendations on secondary contact recreational criteria. (12)

For the non-swimming season of October 1 through April 30, when secondary contact recreation is the norm, the Board is proposing to retain the current, fecal coliform-based criterion. We recommend that the Board retain the current fecal coliform-based criterion only if it lacks sufficient data to derive an E. co/i-based criterion that provides a corresponding level of

21 protection. If this is the case, the Board should commit to establishing an E. coil-based criteria for secondary contact recreation during the next Triennial Review Process. (30)

The Board defined the non-swimming season as October 1 through April 30, when secondary contact recreation is the norm, and is proposing to retain the current, fecal coliform-based criterion. The commenter supports maintaining a bacteria criterion for the non-swimming season, but recommends that the Board retain the current, fecal coliform-based criterion only if it lacks sufficient data to derive an E. co/i-based criterion that provides a corresponding level of protection. If the data allows, the Board should replace the current fecal coliform criterion for the non-swimming season with a comparable E. coli criterion. To simplify matters for all concerned, the commenter also suggests the Board switch to E. coli as the fecal indicator bacteria throughout the year, and to do so immediately, if possible. (2)

I am concerned about the adoption of a different method for measuring bacteria during the summer months and the winter months. I believe this will cause confusion, particularly for communities where there are waterbodies with bacteria impairments. (15)

Bacteria standards should be made to be consistent throughout the year and DEP should consider adopting EPA’s recommended standards. (32-73, 9)

To assist with consistency and data comparison throughout the year, the commenter recommends the Board adopt E. coil standards consistently throughout the year. Other commenters (EPA and PennFuture) raise other considerations for these criteria that should be considered to protect public health. There should be ample time before mid-April to adopt E. cob standards for this triennial review that are protective of public health. (27)

Indicator Selection for Non-swimming season - Bacteria standards should be consistent throughout the year and protective of water users. DEP should consider adopting EPA’s recommended standards. (1, 2, 9, 24, 74-775) If the data allow, the Board should replace the current fecal coliform criterion for the non-swimming season with a comparable F. cob criterion. (74-775)

The Board’s proposed amendments only change the fecal indicator bacteria to E. coil between the months of May and September. For the remainder of the year, when primary contact with the water is less likely, the Board proposes to continue to use fecal colifoim as the indicator. (2)

The preamble to the proposed rule states that “[t]he Department conducted field studies making side-by-side sample comparisons between the current [swimming seasoni fecal coliform and proposed F. cob criteria.” 47 Pa. Bull. at 6611. If that side-by-side sampling data establishes a statistically significant relationship between fecal coliform and F. coil levels, the Department may be able to derive an F. coil criterion that corresponds to the current fecal coliform criterion of 2000 cfluJlOOmL. If so, the Board should replace that fecal coliform criterion with the corresponding F. coil criterion as part of its final rule in the current rulemaking proceeding. This F. coil-based criterion for October through April, which would be subject to revision upon EPA’s finalization of its recommended secondary contact recreational criteria, cf. 47 Pa. Bull.

22 6611, would immediately make monitoring and reporting, and understanding the reported data, easier by using a single indicator parameter throughout the year. (2)

Alternatively, we request the Department and Board commit to begin considering EPA’s recommended secondary contact recreational criteria as soon as those criteria are finalized, even if that occurs before Pennsylvania’s next triennial review. (2)

Response: The Department acknowledges that collecting data using either one indicator or the other (fecal coliform orE. co/i) depending upon the time of the year, does not allow for consistency of data comparison throughout the year. However, this can be overcome by having the collected sample analyzed for both E. coil and fecal coliforms. The Department acknowledges that relying on two different indicators for fecal contamination depending upon the time of the year carries an inherent risk of potential confusion. However, the Department of Health regulations (28 Pa. Code §18.28) for the state’s bathing beaches currently rely onE. coil as the indicator of fecal contamination. Additionally, those areas of the state (swimming beaches in Lake Erie and Presque Isle) that fall under the auspices of the federal BEACH Act promulgation (November 16, 2004) also rely onE. co/i. Currently, both fecal coliforms and E. co/i are being used as indicators of fecal contamination during the swimming season. Therefore, this rulemaking will not increase the risk of potential confusion by using two different indicators as the criteria for those situations which already rely on two different indicators. As such, there is not a net foreseeable increase in the risk of potential confusion associated with the implementation of the new standard. The existing regulations have different standards for swimming and non-swimming seasons and there are no implementation problems.

The Department does not have sufficient data or information to be able to design criteria using E. coil as the indicator for fecal contamination for water contact sports during the non-swimming season (October 1 to April 30) when secondary contact recreation is the norm. EPA is currently conducting research to help in designing criteria that will be protective of secondary contact recreation. When EPA finalizes and recommends these new federal secondary contact recreational criteria, the Department will evaluate these recommendations and propose to adopt them if they are appropriate for Pennsylvania. In the interim, the regulations retain the current non-swimming season (when only secondary contact recreation occurs) fecal coliform-based numerical criterion, which is a geometric mean maximum value of 2,000 cfu/l00 ml (found at 25 Pa. Code §93.3, Table 3), which continue to be applied statewide in all surface waters from

October 1 to April 30.

Comment 31: A commenter inquired regarding the Board’s proposal to amend its existing bacteria criteria by replacing the current fecal coliform based criteria for water contact sports during the swimming season (May Ito September 30) with 2012 EPA Recreational Water Quality Criteria recommendations. IRRC notes that the existing regulations currently recognize a swimming season and a non-swimming season, and there are different standards for both. Some commenters have suggested that having different standards for each season could be confusing to the regulated community. IRRC asks EQB to explain how it currently implements this standard

23 and if it has had any problems with implementation of it. Will the new criteria require a different implementation strategy? If so, what will be required? (776)

Response: The existing water contact sports (WC) criteria consist of components for both a swimming season and a non-swimming season. Both the swimming and the non-swimming season components currently rely on fecal coliform as the indicator of fecal contamination. The risk of exposure to pathogens associated with fecal contamination is greater during the swimming season as this is when full body immersion, ingestion, and inhalation are more likely to occur, and as such, the criteria are designed to be more protective during the swimming season. The recommended E. coli criteria will only apply to the swimming season. EPA is currently developing secondary contact criteria and when EPA recommends these criteria, the Board will evaluate this recommendation for its appropriateness for use in Pennsylvania waters during the non-swimming season. The Department’s current non-swimming season criteria that relies on fecal coliform will remain in place during the interim. The implementation of the current water quality criteria (based on fecal coliform) is straightforward and will not change appreciably. The Department’s current implementation guidance for bacterial criteria is located at: http://files.dep.state.pa.us/Water/Drinking%2OWater%2oand%2oFacility%2ORegulation/WaterQ ualityPortalFiles/Methodology/20 15%20Methodology/BacteriaAssessmentMethodology.pdf. Water samples are collected, and the results are used in assessments, permitting, and TMDL development. The number of samples collected and the span of time over which they are collected may change as per EPA guidance associated with the recommended criteria. The Department’s Bureau of Laboratories would analyze the samples for E. coli rather than fecal coliform. To date, the Department has not had any problems implementing the current criteria.

The Department acknowledges that relying on two different indicators for fecal contamination depending upon the time of the year could be considered confusing. However, the Department of Health regulations (28 Pa. Code §18.28) for the state’s bathing beaches currently rely onE. colt as the indicator of fecal contamination. Additionally, those areas of the state (swimming beaches in Lake Erie and Presque Isle) that fall under the auspices of the federal BEACH Act promulgation (November 16, 2004) also rely onE, colt. Currently, both fecal coliforms and E. colt are being used as indicators of fecal contamination during the swimming season. Therefore, this rulemaking will not increase the risk of potential confusion that may accompany having two different indicators, as the criteria already rely on these two different indicators.

Bacteria — Global Warming will extend the swimming season

Comment 32: In the Triennial Review, the Board is proposing to switch from a criterion using fecal coliform as the indicator of fecal contamination to one using Escherichia coli (E. coli) for the swimming season of May 1 to September 30, when people are most likely to engage in primary contact recreation. The commenter notes that the five-month duration of the swimming season when “primary contact” is more likely to take place is an assumption that may no longer be valid. With the current trend of warmer weather and wanner water temperatures as a result of climate change, the times of year during which primary contact recreation occurs is increasing.

24 Therefore, as part of the next triennial review, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (Department or DEP) and the Board should reconsider the appropriate timeframe for which primary contact standards are applicable. (2)

Response: The Department is aware that climate change will impact outdoor recreation (refer to Pennsylvania’s 2018 Climate Action Plan, located at: http://www.depgrecnport.state.pa.us/elibrary/GetDocument?docld=5342&DocName=201 5%20C LIMATE%2OCHANGE%2OACTION%2OPLAN%2OUPDATE.PDF%20). Higher spring and fall temperatures will lengthen the season for recreation involving water contact. The Department will need to monitor how outdoor recreation in Pennsylvania’s surface waters will be affected by climate change. The Department recognizes that it is important to maintain an appropriate timeframe defining the season during which water contact recreation involving full body immersion is likely.

Bacteria - Risk Paradigm - 32 vs 36 illnesses per 1000 swimmers

Comment 33:

For the swimming season of May 1 to September 30, the Board should adopt E. coil criteria based on a more protective risk paradigm. (74-775)

Further, the Board selected the less protective E. coil standard of two presented by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—36 versus 32 illnesses per 1,000 swimmers, without conducting a risk assessment to determine the appropriate level of risk to Pennsylvanians and visitors who recreate in and on the Commonwealth’s waters should be exposed. The commenter supports the switch to E. coil as the indicator parameter, but recommends that the Board conduct a risk management assessment to determine the appropriate level of risk to which those who recreate in and on the Commonwealth’s waters should be exposed. A more stringent E. coil criterion also better pursues the Clean Water Act goal of making Pennsylvania’s waters swimmable. Therefore, for the swimming season of May I to September 30, the Board should adopt E. cob criteria based on a more protective risk paradigm. (2)

From May I through September 30, the Board proposes adopting a risk paradigm that allows for 36 illnesses per 1,000 swimmers. This proposal is one of two scenarios presented in EPA’s RWQC Report—36 illnesses per 1,000 swimmers and 32 illnesses per 1,000 swimmers. RWQC Report, p. 6. To select a scenario, EPA recommends that states make a risk management decision regarding acceptable illness rates. Id. In undertaking this risk assessment, however, states are not limited to the two risk scenarios and associated water quality criteria for bacteria recommended by EPA. Pennsylvania is free to determine that neither of the scenarios proposed by EPA is sufficiently protective of Pennsylvania’s waters, and therefore may adopt a risk management scenario and criteria for E. coil that is more protective than those recommended by EPA. (2)

Without engaging in a risk management decision-making process, the Board proposes to implement the less protective of EPA’s scenarios—36 illnesses per 1,000 swimmers. This puts swimmers and others engaging in primary contact activities at greater risk. Pennsylvanians and

25 visitors who recreate in and on the Commonwealth’s waters deserve protections from exposure to harmful bacteria. (2)

The Board proposes to implement the lesser protective scenario articulated in the RWQC Report noting that:

[t]he E. colt levels associated with this risk paradigm are. . . most closely akin to the current Department of Health (DOH) standards in 28 Pa. Code § 18.28 (relating to bathing beach contamination) and the criteria that were promulgated for Lake Erie and Presque Isle under the 2004 Bacteria Rule (40 CFR § 131.41 (relating to bacteriological criteria for those states not complying with Clean Water Act Section 303(i)(I)(Am[.] 47 Pa. Bull. 6611. Both the DOH regulations and the 2004 Bacteria Rule setting bacteriological criteria are based on the bacteria criteria recommended by EPA in 1986. (See DEP, Rationale for the Development of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria, p. 3 Jan. 2017 (noting that the DOH regulations are based on the previous nationally recommended 1986 bacteria criteria) available at http://files.dep.state.pa.us/PublicParticipationlPublic%2oParticipation%2oCenter/PubPartCenter PortalFiles/Environmental%200uality%2oBoard/201 7/April%20 18/7- 534%20Proposed%20Triennial%20Review/06 7- 534 Triennial%202017 Bacteria Rationale.pdf and see Water Quality Standards for Coastal and Great Lakes Recreation Waters; Final Rule, 69 Fed. Reg. 67218 (Nov. 16, 2004) (Promulgating the same bacteria criteria for coastal and Great Lakes waters as presented in EPA’s Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria published in 1986). EPA’s 1986 Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria set a geometric mean value of 126 and a single sample maximum value of 235 E. coli per 100 mL. EPA, Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria 1986, Table 4—Criteria for Indicator for Bacteriological Densities (Jan. 1986). Deferring to a standard selected in 2004 and itself implementing a criteria developed in 1986 does not appropriately consider the risks presented today. Advances in technologies and understanding of microbiology may influence decisionmakers’ assessment of acceptable levels of bacteria present in a given waterbody. Taking into account these advances, the Board must determine what the appropriate risk paradigm is for today.

Further, the Board’s proposed less-protective risk scenario does not advance the Clean Water Act’s objective of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of Pennsylvania’s waters. A risk assessment should be undertaken to determine the appropriate risk management scenario. A more protective risk scenario would better safeguard those recreating on and in Pennsylvania’s waters and facilitate improvements in water quality, and therefore should be implemented by the Board. (2)

Further, in selecting an acceptable Level of risk of sickness. the Board is proposing a criteria reflecting a less protective standard—36 illnesses per 1.000. We recommend that the Board adopt the more protective risk paradigm. (30)

Response: The 2012 RWQC put forth two sets of recommendations based on two different risk paradigms (32 illnesses per 1000 swimmers and 36 illnesses per 1000 swimmers). EPA states that the designated use of primary contact recreation would be protected if either set of criteria

26 (including a geometric mean and a statistical threshold value) is adopted into state water quality standards and approved by EPA.

The Department recommends adopting the E. coil freshwater levels associated with the 36 per

1,000 illness rate (i.e., Recommendation 1 in the 2012 RWQC). TheE, coil levels associated with this risk paradigm (geometric mean = 126 cftillOOml & statistical threshold value = 410 cfiulOOml) are most closely akin to the current Pennsylvania Department of Health (DOH) standards at 28 Pa. Code §18.28 (relating to bathing beach contamination). The criteria values for the current DOH standards and the criteria values that were promulgated under the federal Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act for Lake Erie beaches including Presque Isle Bay are a geometric mean value of 126 cfiul 00 ml and a single sample maximum value of 235 cth/l 00 ml. In order to achieve the most consistent approach and because EPA considers both risk paradigms to be adequately protective, the Department favors the criteria based on Recommendation I. The Department believes that will result in a more seamless transition.

Comment 34: Commenter offered additional Permitting Considerations for Industrial Operations with Onsite Sanitary Wastewater Disposal in an Attachment 3:

Large industrial operations may generate domestic (sanitary) wastewater in addition to industrial wastewater. In such situations, the sanitary and industrial wastewaters may be treated and disposed separately or together, either onsite or offsite.

Wastewater permits issued and renewed by DEP are based on the statutes and rules in effect at the time of permit issuance or renewal (Rule 62-620.620(1), F.A.C.). The permit applicant needs to provide reasonable assurance that discharge from the facility to waters of the state will meet applicable water quality standards. Effluent limitations are established, as needed, for parameters that have the potential to cause or contribute to exceedances of water quality standards in receiving waters. (Rules 62-620.620(1) and 62-650.300(1), F.A.C.)

Separate Treatment and Disposal of Sanitary and Industrial Wastewater In some situations, industrial and sanitary wastewater are treated and disposed separately. For example, industrial wastewater may be discharged under an NPDES permit, while sanitary wastewater from the same facility is piped to a domestic treatment facility offsite, or treated either onsite or offsite and disposed in accordance with applicable domestic wastewater regulations. In this example, the industrial facility should not have the potential to cause or contribute to exceedances by pollutants that are exclusively associated with sanitary wastewater (indicators of human pathogens, for example). Therefore, the industrial wastewater NPDES permit would not include effluent limitations for sanitary wastewater parameters, because the NPDES permit would not authorize a discharge of domestic wastewater to the waters of the State.

27 Combined Disposal of Sanitary and Industrial Wastewater In other industrial operations, sanitary wastewater is treated and discharged along with the industrial wastewater. In cases where the sanitary wastewater is treated and disinfected before it is mixed with the main industrial wastewater stream, the sanitary wastewater can be monitored before mixing to ensure compliance with applicable disinfection requirements in Subsections 62- 600.440(3)-(6), F.A.C. This scenario would include cases where the sanitary wastewater is disinfected using typical measures for domestic wastewater (e.g. chlorination) and cases where disinfection is provided by mixing with a substream of the industrial wastewater capable of sufficient disinfection. In either case, effluent monitoring and limits may be established at internal outfalls prior to being combined with the main industrial wastewater stream, consistent with Subsection 62-620.320(1), F.A.C. This offers the advantage that smaller internal waste streams may be treated more economically, and often monitored more easily, than larger direct discharges.

At a few large industrial operations, the sanitary and industrial wastewater may be commingled within the facility in a configuration that makes separate treatment and disinfection infeasible. For example, sanitary wastewater from individual manufacturing and office buildings may be routed to onsite industrial process wastewater sewers. In such situations, a permittee would need to provide reasonable assurance that treatment of the combined wastewater is capable of sufficient disinfection to meet applicable sanitary wastewater requirements. Demonstration of reasonable assurance would be site-specific based on the unique configuration of treatment processes at the facility, and the NPDES permit may include effluent limitations for both industrial and sanitary parameters in the combined discharge. Demonstrations could include monitoring for E. coil at internal locations that meet the freshwater definition, or a combination of other methods to characterize identified bacteria sources as predominantly of non-human origin. (28)

Response: The Department appreciates the comments. These comments will be shared with the Department’s NPDES permitting program as they would pertain to implementation of the criteria through permitting. The final regulations do not identil5’ an implementation strategy, which is addressed at the time of permitting.

Chloride criteria

Comment 35: A criterion for chloride to protect Pennsylvania streams from impacts like brine gas drilling wastewater and road salt applications in the winter is a missing critical standard by the state that is overdue and needed. (I)

We have supported the Department during previous discussions to establish chloride criteria for water quality standards in the Commonwealth. After a lengthy discussion and literature review, the PFBC suggested that the Department consider the implementation of the Iowa Equation Based Aquatic Life Chloride Criteria. During that analysis, the PFBC had some concerns with the chronic (CCC) criterion. At that time, we had concerns that this criterion would be less protective to aquatic life than the EPA 1988 National Aquatic Life Criteria for chloride. The

28 Department subsequently followed that effort up with toxicology testing on a variety ofmayfly species and it was determined that a suitable suite of tests did not adequately define mayfly response. (8)

The Department is now reviewing the EPA Draft Field-Based Methods for Developing Aquatic Life Criteria for Specific Conductivity to determine how it may apply to Pennsylvania. This approach would use field-based specific conductivity as a surrogate for a broad range of ion concentrations. It also removes the need for the adjustments for hardness and sulfate concentrations in a formulaic determination. The EPA is currently evaluating this method and is reviewing public comments. (8)

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has recently published a study assessing the effects of high salinity waslewater discharges on Unionid mussels in Pennsylvania. The USFWS suggests that a chronic criterion of 78 [tg’l chloride or 247 pS/cm will prevent the take of federally endangered and threatened mussels. This information should be considered during the evaluation of the EPA Draft Field-Based Methods for Developing Aquatic Life Criteria for Specific Conductivity. (8)

The Department has been evaluating chloride standards for several triennial review cycles. We have supported the Department’s effort to implement water quality standards for chloride criteria to minimize impacts to aquatic life. We strongly support and suggest that the Department implement water quality standards for chloride during the evaluation of the current methodology. (8)

A criterion for chloride to protect Pennsylvania streams from impacts like brine gas drilling wastewater and road salt applications in the winter is a missing critical standard by the state that is overdue and needed; the science conducted by the state and academic institutions in the past supports establishment of this chloride criterion at this critical time, especially in light of the grave aquatic life impacts that occur with high chlorides entering our freshwater tributaries and the increasing chloride trends being documented by scientists. (9)

The Board should expeditiously adopt aquatic life criteria for chloride or specific conductivity. (2)

For far too long, aquatic life in Pennsylvania’s waters has gone largely without protection from discharges of chloride. EPA originally established national aquatic life criteria for chloride in 1988 (EPA, Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Chloride — 1988. Feb. 1988). It took until 2010—over 20 years—for the Board to propose a rulemaking to adopt these criteria. Even then, however, the Board did not finally adopt a standard. In 2012, the Board proposed a different set of equation-based criteria for chloride that would account for the effect of the hardness and sulfate concentration on chloride toxicity, but later withdrew that proposal to allow the Department to conduct further studies. Despite the completion of additional toxicity studies and refinement of the Pennsylvania-specific equations during the development of the current Triennial Review regulatory package, “the Department is not recommending a specific chloride

29 criterion with this proposed rulemaking.” 47 Pa. Bull. at 6612. According to that recommendation, the Board continues to defer proposing aquatic life criteria for chloride. (2)

One reason given for the further delay is EPA’s publication in December 2016 of a new drafl field-based method for developing aquatic life criteria for specific conductivity. EPA, Draft Field-Based Methods for Developing Aquatic Life Criteria for Specific Conductivity, EPA-HQ 0W2016-0353, 81 Fed. Reg. 94370 (Dec. 2016). The preamble to the Board’s proposed rule explains that “[s]ince conductivity is a surrogate measure for all ions present in the water, this EPA study determines that conductivity better accounts for interactions between all ions and toxicity than simply defining a relationship between only hardness and toxicity.” 47 Pa. Bull. at 6612. The EPA study, however, has not been finalized, and “[tjhe Department is currently reviewing this new field-based method to determine how it applies to Pennsylvania.” Id. (2)

“[E]levated levels of chloride are toxic to aquatic life in freshwater environments,” 47 Pa. Bull. at 6611, and chloride can negatively affect the fish and insect community structure, diversity, and productivity, even at lower levels. Steven R. Corsi, et. al, A Fresh Look at Road Salt: Aquatic Toxicity and Water Quality Impacts on Local, Regional, and National Scales, 44 Environ. & Sci. Technol. 7376, 7381 (2010). Inevitably, studies will be necessary to determine relationships and impacts more precisely. While those studies are being undertaken, chlorides from gas production wastewater, mine drainage, industrial facilities, road salts, and water softeners continue to impact the aquatic biological communities in Pennsylvania’s waters. (2)

Pennsylvania’s adoption of aquatic life water quality criteria for chloride is long overdue. We appreciate the efforts of the Department and the Board to develop and refine such criteria. At some point, however, a decision has to be made, subject to further revision as the science inevitably evolves. (2)

The Department and the Board should take action earlier if possible, but should commit to adopt, no later than the next triennial review, aquatic life criteria for chloride, or, as an alternative, aquatic life criteria for specific conductivity or a methodology for deriving such criteria. One way or another, however, another triennial review should not pass without Pennsylvania having criteria in place to protect the aquatic life of Pennsylvania waters from the toxic effects of chloride. (2)

Supports the call for chloride standards to protect Pennsylvania streams from impacts like approved brines and road salt applications in the winter. Over the past ten years, we have seen a number of “spills” of highly saline gas drilling waste fluids into our streams. Exacerbating our concern is the fact that these gas drilling waste fluids are also spread, from accidents and occasionally deliberate releases, onto our roads and lands. Studies showing increasing chloride trends support the establishment of a chloride criterion. (14)

I am particularly concerned about the lack of action on a chloride criterion to protect aquatic life. As reported through sampling by the USGS (United States Geological Survey), chloride levels throughout the Brandywine Christina watershed are increasing at an alarming rate over the past several years. The PA DEP needs to take action now so that communities and stakeholders can

30 begin to address the concerns raised by this troubling trend line. This proposed rulemaking not only fails to adopt a new criterion, but it does not lay out a course of action or a timeline for adoption. If the department is not going to adopt a new criterion, it should adopt a timeline for action. (15)

The Department has not proposed chloride criteria for the protection of aquatic life on the grounds that insufficient information is available to derive values. Since the Department last proposed chloride criteria, two additional comparative studies have been published (Struewing et aT 2015; Wang et aT 2017) which demonstrate that organisms native to Pennsylvania are more sensitive to chloride than the laboratory organisms used to derive the current EPA chronic criteria for freshwater aquatic life. These results further demonstrate that chloride toxicity is highly likely to be affecting sensitive aquatic species in Pennsylvania watersheds. For this reason, the Service has and will continue to insist that a chronic criterion of either 78 ig/L chloride or 247 pS/cm (Patnode et al. 2015) is warranted to prevent take of federally endangered and threatened mussels at relevant National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharges. (20)

Under the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.), the process for developing water quality standards takes into account that our understanding of toxicity advances with new studies. Numerous standards have been proposed by EPA and promulgated by the states only to be revised in subsequent triennial reviews. Since the last triennial review, the number of species tested for chloride sensitivity has continued to expand. Chloride criteria should be advanced in this triennial review following EPA methods and including sensitive native species such as mayflies, aquatic snails, and native freshwater mussels to protect existing uses. While the complex relationship to hardness needs to be ftirther defined, the differences in the influence of hardness between cladocera and mayflies noted by the Department demonstrate that a hardness adjustment based on a single species is inappropriate. Further testing could demonstrate that hardness does not ameliorate chloride toxicity equally or at all for some species. Existing uses could be severely impaired and species extirpated in the time that it will take to develop a defensible model. In light of known toxicity, the Service contends that it is prudent to implement chloride criteria in this triennial review, regardless of the need for future modifications, to afford immediate protection of aquatic resources. (20)

The commenter supports the Department’s consideration of field-based data in deriving water quality criteria to protect aquatic life from chloride toxicity. Thus, we encourage the Department to develop a conductivity standard using existing biological survey data. We also concur that conductivity is an easily-measured surrogate for complex ionic mixtures and the local water chemistry interactions. Using conductivity is likely the most expedient means of accounting for differential toxicity due to variable water chemistry. We advocate that the Department derive eco-region specific conductivity criteria following the EPA method (EPA 2011) for watersheds in Pennsylvania for this triennial review using existing data on water chemistry and biota. EPA’s draft evaluation for eco-region 70 identifies a chronic exposure criterion of 340 340 pS/cm (95% CI of 272-365 uS/cm) as being applicable in PA, WV, KY and 01-1.(20)

31 The commenter recognizes that a third approach to implement protection in this triennial review is to revise the current ineffective criterion for osmotic pressure to protect aquatic life from chloride toxicity. The criterion for osmotic pressure allows a maximum of 50 milliosmoles per kilogram (mOs/kg) in surface waters, which is equivalent to conductivity of 3817 (j.tS/cm)based on the modified equation from Cravotta and Brady (2015). Existing studies clearly document toxic effects to native aquatic biota at conductivity values an order of magnitude lower (EPA 2011; Cormier et al. 2013a; Coimier et al. 2013b; Pond et al. 2008). As noted above, the draft eco-region 70 evaluation found aquatic life use impairment and macroinvertebrate extirpation at conductivity values above 340 pS/cm (4.5 mOsmlkg; 95% CI of 3.6-4.8) (EPA 2016). At more than 10 times greater, the current osmotic pressure standard is allowing existing uses to be impaired. Highly sensitive organisms such as some mayflies and stoneflies (Stroud Water Research Center 2015; EPA 2016) and mussels (Patnode et al. 2015) are likely to be extirpated under chronic exposure. In the light of the current science, the Service recommends that the Department conduct an analysis of osmotic pressure and benthic macroinvertebrate survey data to generate an osmotic pressure criterion that protects aquatic life uses for this triennial review. (20)

Chloride aquatic life use standard are absent once again from this triennial review. DRN believes the DEP needs to adopt chloride standards this triennial review to protect aquatic life. The existing PWS criterion at point of intake of 250 mg/I maximum is not protective to the sensitive macroinvertebrates and endangered species that reside in Pennsylvania. A criterion for chloride to begin protecting Pennsylvania streams from brine wastewater from gas drilling and road salt applications would be a critical step by the state that is overdue and needed now for this triennial review; and the science conducted by the state and academic institutions supports establishment of this chloride criterion at this critical time in history. The USFWS notes the same sentiment in its comments to DEP (dated 2/15/18) — FWS states there is a “need to insist on a chronic criterion for chloride to protect and prevent take of federally endangered and threatened mussels”. The USFWS goes onto note that even with there being some interactions with hardness, it is prudent that DEP implements a chloride criterion in this triennial review, regardless of the need for ftture modifications, to afford protection of aquatic resources. The USFWS points out EPA in 2011 developed ecoregion standards for chronic exposure (eco-region 70). USFWS also provides science from Patnode et al. 2015 that warrants a chronic criterion of either 78 ag/l chloride or 247 uS/cm to prevent take of federally endangered and threatened mussels at relevant NPDES discharges. (27)

We are concemed that DEP continues to not establish chloride standards, a very real threat in the Delaware Watershed especially in our sensitive headwaters tributaries and the main stem, Delaware River. An interim criterion for chloride to begin protecting Pennsylvania streams from brine wastewater from gas drilling and road salt applications is a critical step by the state that is ovcrdue and needed and the science conducted by the state would support establishment of this chloride criterion at this critical time. (29, 29A)

We are concerned about the Board’s decision to postpone indefinitely adopting an aquatic life criteria for chloride or specific conductivity. The discharge of chloride to Pennsylvania’s waters has gone largely unchecked for far too long. Elevated levels of chloride are toxic to aquatic life

32 in freshwater environments, and chloride can negatively affect the fish and insect community structure, diversity, and productivity, even at lower levels. We appreciate the efforts of the Department and the Board to develop and refine a chloride criteria. At some point, however, a decision has to be made, subject to ffirther revision as the science inevitably evolves. The Department and the Board should take action earlier if possible. but should commit to adopt, no later than the next triennial review, aquatic life criteria for chloride. (30)

The Board should also expeditiously adopt aquatic life criteria for chloride or specific conductivity. For far too long, aquatic life in Pennsylvania’s waters has gone largely without protection from discharges of chloride. (74—775)

A decision regarding TDS or conductivity has been deferred by The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (The Department) at this time. In past rulemaking sessions, The Department considered the single ion approach to controlling TDS and conductivity by proposing a criterion for chloride beyond the currently protected areas in the proximity of Pubic Water Supplies. However, multiple attempts in the past to develop a chloride water quality criterion for the protection of aquatic life in freshwater systems were withdrawn due to the complex nature of aquatic systems and the chemical interactions that effect chloride toxicity in freshwater aquatic organisms. (17)

As an alternative, The Department considered using specific conductivity to control ion toxicity in freshwater aquatic systems. The rulemaking indicated that the US EPA document, Draft Field-Based Methods for Developing Aquatic LUè Criteria fOr Specific Conductivity, was being reviewed to determine its applicability to Pennsylvania streams. However, that document has not been finalized by US EPA, and The Department chose to delay consideration of the recommendations during this triennial review. As a result of the questions regarding ion toxicity and the US EPA findings, The Department also chose to defer a chloride criterion at this time but indicated that given the evidence of ion toxicity on freshwater aquatic organisms, they continue to review all available sources of research with a goal of developing appropriate criteria for the protection of aquatic life. They also indicated that their goal is to eventually develop criteria that are applicable to all freshwaters of the Commonwealth. (17)

We support the Department’s decision not to rely on draft conductivity guidance issued by US EPA. Unless and until such guidance is final, US EPA Headquarters’ position is that states should not rely on it because US EPA is conducting further tests in response to comments (Per discussion between AISI members and U.S. EPA Office of Water, Washington D.C. 10/30/17). ArcelorMittal requests to be included in any subsequent review of technical data specific to

33 criteria associated with individual ions and conductivity in order to assist with any future review process. (17)

Response: Due to the complex nature of the chemical interactions that determine the toxicological responses of aquatic organisms to chloride, and the release for comment of the field-based specific conductivity draft that addresses these concerns through specific conductance rather than the individual ions, the Department is not recommending a specific chloride criterion with this rulemaking. The Department continues to review all available science, including the EPA document, Draft Field-Based Methods for Developing Aquatic Life Criteria for Specific Conductivity (USEPA, 2016a). and any new data acquired through additional studies, in efforts to develop appropriate criteria. The Department will proceed in its efforts to develop aquatic life criteria for chloride to be applied in all freshwaters of the Commonwealth for the protection of aquatic life. Until a specific chloride criterion is established, the Department will continue to protect aquatic life by developing appropriate site- specific standards.

Several commenters stated that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service has and will continue to insist that a chronic criterion of either 78 gg/L [sic] chloride or 247 LtS/cm(Patnode c/aL 2015) is warranted to prevent take of federally endangered and threatened mussels at relevant NPDES discharges. The Department notes the correct units for the chronic criterion in the source referenced is milligrams per liter (mgIL).

Other Criteria Not being Considered in this Triennial Review

Comment 36: §93.7 Osmotic Pressure (OP) — We recommend that PADEP take the opportunity of this triennial review of its water quality standards regulations to review its Osmotic Pressure (OP) criterion and consider replacing it with a parameter or parameters more appropriately protective of the aquatic life uses in Pennsylvania. (4)

Pennsylvania’s in-stream criterion for osmotic pressure in 25 Pa. Code §93.7 allows for a maximum of 50 milliosmoles per kilogram (mOs!kg) for the protection of aquatic life. Pennsylvania’s maximum 50 mOs/kg osmotic pressure criterion is equivalent to a specific conductivity (SC) of 3816.8 (pS/cm) based on the equation from Cravotta and Brady, 2015. (“Priority pollutants and associated constituents in untreated and treated discharges from coal mining or processing facilities in Pennsylvania, USA”. Applied Geochemistry, 62. pp. 108-130) modified under the direction of Cravotta USGS 2017:

Osmotic pressure (mOsm/kg) = 0.0131*SC (pS/cm)

Pennsylvania’s OP criterion appears to come from the 1968 Report of the Committee on Water Quality Criteria for the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (aka “The Green Book”). That report states that “(d)issolved materials that are relatively innocuous; i.e. their harmful effect is due to osmotic effects at high concentrations, should not be increased by more than one-third of the concentration that is characteristic of the natural condition of the subject

34 water. In no instance should the concentration of total dissolved materials exceed 50 milliosmoles (the equivalent of 1500 mg/I NaCI).” The science for determining the levels of dissolved materials in surface waters as well as what levels are safe for aquatic species has advanced since 1968. (4)

A growing body of science has elucidated that there are low effect-levels on resident aquatic organisms due to mixtures of salts (represented as specific conductance, or ionic compounds) (see examples in citation list in Enclosure I). For example, a peer-reviewed study in ecoregions that include Pennsylvania found aquatic life use impairment and macroinvertebrate extirpation can occur at levels of specific conductance above 300 to 500 pS/cm (—4to 6.5 mOsm!kg) (e.g., PADEP unpublished data; Cormier et al. 201 2b, Cormier et al. in press). A 50 mOsim’kglevel can result in extirpation of more than 50% of a stream’s macroinvertebrate fauna (EPA unpublished data based on Cormier et al. 2012b and Cormier et al. in press). Recent toxicity studies also reveal aquatic effects at much lower levels of osmotic pressure than Pennsylvania’s current maximum 50 mOs/kg osmotic pressure criterion. For example. in the Allegheny River in Pennsylvania, Patnode et al. (20152) observed toxicity with a no adverse effect concentration for specific conductance of 247 pS/cm (—3.2mOsmlkg) on a federally endangered freshwater mussel (Epioblasma rangiana). In the light of this new science. EPA would recommend that PADEP consider the development of individual ionic parameters. or perhaps adopt specific conductivity criteria for the various ecoregions in Pennsylvania. EPA recommends that PADEP conduct an analysis of Pennsylvania’s osmotic pressure and instream aquatic life use (181 scores) to confinTiwhether the current osmotic pressure criterion is protecting the narrative aquatic life use standard. (4)

Response: The Department is planning to include review of the Osmotic Pressure (OP) criterion as part of the Department’s ongoing review of the ion-constituent (e.g. chloride and sulfate) and total dissolved solids (TDS) / specific conductance-based criteria.

Comment 37: Pennsylvania’s streams continue to suffer from nutrient pollution, both Nitrogen and Phosphorus, and the failure of PADEP to more rapidly adopt numeric nutrient criteria for aquatic life use exacerbates the damage that these streams suffer. (1)

Pennsylvania’s streams continue to suffer from nutrient pollution, both Nitrogen and Phosphorus, and the failure of PADEP to more rapidly adopt numeric nutrient criteria for aquatic life use exacerbates the damage that these streams suffer, and extends the time they will be part of the long list of “impaired” waters. In July 2000, the EPA provided technical guidance for states to develop regional nutrient criteria to begin addressing this pollution. (9)

Nutrient standards are absent from this triennial review. Pennsylvania’s streams continue to suffer from nutrient pollution, both Nitrogen and Phosphorus, and the failure of PADEP to more rapidly adopt numeric nutrient criteria for aquatic life use exacerbates the damage that these streams suffer, and just extends the time that these streams will be part of the long list of “impaired” waters of the Commonwealth. In July 2000, the EPA provided technical guidance for states to develop regional nutrient criteria to begin mitigating this important need yet PA

35 continues to kick this can down the road over 17 years later. It is encouraging to see this round DEP is proposing an ammonia standard. DRN would highlight review and consideration of EPA’s recommendations outlined in their Dec. letter for ammonia pertaining to 30-day averages. (27)

Pennsylvania will need to provide an explanation where new or revised criteria are not adopted for parameters where EPA has published new or updated CWA Section 304(a) criteria recommendations since May 30. 2000, including Nutrient criteria for the protection of aquatic life. See EPA’s Ecoregional criteria for Total Phosphorus, Total Nitrogen, Chlorophyll a, and Water Clarity (Secchi depth for lakes; turbidity for streams and rivers) (& Level Ill Ecoregional criteria) (2003). (4)

Response: The Department continues to work towards the development of meaningful nutrient criteria for rivers and streams. The Department finalized a Eutrophication Cause Determination Protocol that provides thresholds and methods for identifying effects-based, nutrient-related causes of aquatic life use impairment in streams and wadeable rivers.

Additional work is currently being conducted to analyze decades worth of Pennsylvania lake water quality data for use in evaluation of lake thresholds for both aquatic life and recreational use impairment.

Comment 38: The Board should adopt other criteria for which EPA has published new or updated Section 304(a) recommendations since May 30, 2000. As revised in 2015, EPA’s regulations governing water quality standards provide that “if a State does not adopt new or revised criteria for parameters for which EPA has published new or updated CWA Section 304(a) criteria, then the State shall provide an explanation [for why it did not] when it submits the results of its triennial review to the Regional Administrator[.]” 40 C.F.R. § 131.20(a). See also 80 Fed. Reg. 51020, 51028 (Aug. 21, 2015) (explaining that this requirement applies to “new or revised criteria for parameters for which EPA has published new or update CWA Section 304(a) criteria recommendations since May 30, 2000”). (2, 4)

This change was made to foster meaningful and transparent involvement of the public and intergovernmental coordination with local, state, and federal entities in light of recent science provided by EPA through its criteria recommendations. EPA will not approve or disapprove this explanation. For Pennsylvania’s triennial review, the state will need to provide explanations where new or revised criteria are not adopted for parameters where EPA has published new or updated CWA Section 304(a) criteria recommendations since May 30. 2000. PADEP can link to

36 additional information on all of these parameters through EPA’s Water Quality Criteria website at: https://www.epa.gov/wgc. (4)

There appears to be missing toxics from those being proposed. EPA states in its comment that the state will need to provide explanations where new or revised criteria are not adopted for parameters where EPA has published new or updated CWA Section 304(a) criteria recommendations since May 30, 2000 and consistent with EPA’s 2015 Updated Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. (27)

The Board’s proposed rule would not adopt a number of criteria for which EPA has published new or updated Section 304(a) recommendations since May 30, 2000. Specifically, the Board’s proposed rule would not adopt EPA’s: (2, 4) • Human health criteria for I,2-Diphenylhydrazine if the state does not adopt criteria according to “Updates Consistent with EPA’s 2015 Updated Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health” • Human health criteria for methylmercury for consumption of organism only • Human health criteria for selenium • Human health criteria for zinc • 2016 recommended aquatic life criteria for selenium (freshwater), see 81 Fed. Reg. 45285 (July 13, 2016); • 2016 recommended aquatic life criteria for cadmium, see 81 Fed. Reg. 19176 (Apr. 4, 2016); • 2012 recommended aquatic life criteria for carbaryl, see 77 Fed. Reg. 30280 (May 22, 2012); • 2004 recommended aquatic life criteria for tributyltin (TBT), see 69 Fed. Reg. 342 (Jan. 5, 2004); or • 2002 recommended human health criteria for selenium, N-nitrosodibutylamine (CAS No. 924163), N-nitrosodiethylamine (CAS No. 55185), and N-nitrosopyrrolidine (CAS No. 930552). • Application, statewide, of the Aquatic Life Ambient Freshwater Quality Criteria — Copper (EPA-822-R-07-001, February 2007) • Nutrient criteria for the protection of aquatic life. See EPA’s Ecoregional criteria for Total Phosphorus, Total Nitrogen, Chlorophyll a, and Water Clarity (Secchi depth for lakes; turbidity for streams and rivers) (& Level III Ecoregional criteria) (2003)

See EPA, “National Recommended Water Quality Criteria - Human Health Criteria Table” for the Section 304(a) recommended water quality criteria; available at https://www.epa.gov/wgc/national-recommended-water-gualitv-criteria-human-health-criteria table.

The Proposed Rulemaking also lacks a proposal for the adoption of tissue-based selenium criteria for the protection of aquatic life (Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Selenium - Freshwater, EPA-822-R-l 6-006, June 2016). Given the high bioaccumulation potential of selenium, the USFWS advocates that this tissue sampling approach should be included in this triennial review to augment water concentration standards. (20) 37 Response: Given that the criteria were not included for public review and comment in the proposed regulation, the criteria cannot be included in the final-form regulation. The Board must provide additional opportunity for public review and comment on any new recommended criteria prior to adopting Section 304(a) recommendations as part of the final rulemaking. The Department will evaluate these referenced recommended criteria in its review, during the next triennial to detennine appropriate recommendations for Pennsylvania waters.

Comment 39: Even with respect to the most recent of these Section 304(a) recommendations, it would seem that Pennsylvania had sufficient opportunity to evaluate EPA’s recommended criteria before the Board’s adoption of its proposed rule on April 18, 2017. We recommend that the Board include all of these post-2000 EPA recommended criteria in its final rule as amendments to 25 Pa. Code §93.8c, Table 5. If the Board does not do so, in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 131.20(a), (c), the Department must explain in the Triennial Review submission to the Regional Administrator why Pennsylvania has chosen not to adopt these Section 304(a) recommended criteria. (2)

Response: The Board must provide additional opportunity for public review and comment on any new recommended criteria prior to adopting Section 304(a) recommendations as part of the final rulemaking. Since this would substantially expand the original proposed rulemaking, the Department will include these referenced recommended criteria during the next triennial review to determine appropriate recommendations for Pennsylvania waters, and to allow for adequate opportunity for public review and participation on these recommendations.

Comment 40: We also note that it would appear that human health and not aquatic life toxic standards are being proposed — as an organization with concerns for aquatic life impacts, we would suggest that stream life is also considered where appropriate and protective standards set. In general, where DEP is proposing more stringent protections than EPA, we support such protective measures to better fulfill the spirit of the CWA. (27)

Response: When the Department initiated this triennial review of water quality standards, EPA had only issued Section 304(a) recommended water quality criteria for the referenced human health criteria. To date, EPA has not provided similar Section 304(a) recommended criteria for the protection of aquatic life, for inclusion in the current triennial review. Such aquatic life criteria will be evaluated when they are available.

Comment 41: The preamble to the Board’s proposed rule incorrectly uses kilograms (kg) as the unit for the fish consumption rate. See 47 Pa. Bull. at 6613. (2)

Where insufficient information is available to calculate criteria based on the updated exposure assumptions, Table 5 would be amended by including a symbol (“t”)indicating that a particular criterion is based on exposure inputs of 70 kg for body weight and the consumption of 2 liters per day of drinking water and 17.5 grams per day of fish. See 47 Pa. Bull. at 6631 (acronyms and

38 footnotes to Table 5). The preamble incorrectly states the fish consumption rate as the updated rate of 22 grams per day. See 47 Pa. Bull, at 6613. (2)

Response: The Department appreciates the comments and identified these same typographical errors in the Preamble. The referenced units or values were correct in the proposed Annex A for this rulemaking and are correct for the final rulemaking.

Comment 42: While the department includes a number of new compounds to its list of toxic criteria, it does not propose to include PFAs and/or PFOAs. We are concerned that the Department is not proposing to add PFA standards (Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl substances), since these toxins have been found in drinking water supplies in parts of the Delaware River Basin. (1, 9, 14, 27, 29, 32- 73)

New Jersey is currently advancing a science panel’s recommendation to adopt a standard of 14 parts per trillion — the most protective PFA standard in the nation. PADEP adopting the same protective standard would greatly protect and not undermine the strides New Jersey is making on the other side of the Delaware River Watershed, while also ensuring that Pennsylvania communities are given the higher level of protection warranted by the science. (15, 27, 29)

Pennsylvania should be addressing PFAs. If the Department does not take action in this rulemaking, it should set a timeline for action on PFAs. (15)

Response: The Department is currently reviewing the available published scientific literature and data concerning PFAS. EPA published a human health advisory limit (HAL) for PFOA and PFOS of 70 ngIL in 2016. While HALs can serve as guidance to state regulators, they are not enforceable standards. The New Jersey panel referenced above, the New Jersey Drinking Water Quality Institute (NJDWQI), has developed and recommended maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for PFOA and PFNA that were recently adopted by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) under their Safe Drinking Water program. NJDWQI was created in 1984 with an amendment to New Jersey’s Safe Drinking Water Act. NJDWQI is comprised of a panel of scientists appointed by the governor of New Jersey whose purpose is to develop and recommend safe drinking water MCLs and implementation policies to NJDEP. Pennsylvania does not have an equivalent to NJDWQI. Further, the policies and regulations directing the development of water quality criteria are not the same as those used to establish safe drinking water MCLs. At this time, EPA has not established a recommended reference dose (RfD) in EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) for PFOS or PFOA. The Department will continue to follow and review the state of the science regarding PFAS and will develop criteria when sufficient scientific data and information is available. If EPA develops Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) for any of the PFAS compounds, the Department could use those MCLGs in relevant risk assessment values for protection for threshold level toxic effects to human health, according to 25 Pa. Code § 16.32(d).

39 Comments on Toxic substances and Human health and aquatic life criteria — (93.8c)

Comment 43: Table 5 also includes a number of criteria for toxic substances that have no EPA recommended criteria. Where possible, the Department applied EPA’s updated exposure factors and other information to update a number of Department-developed criteria in Table 5. The proposed rule includes these updated criteria, some of which would be relaxed from their current values in Table 5, and some of which would become more stringent. (2)

We support all of the Board’s proposed updates to the human health and aquatic life criteria for toxic substances in 25 Pa. Code §93.8c, TableS. (1,2)

We commend PADEP for updating or revising most of its criteria consistent with EPA’s 2015 ambient water quality criteria for the protection of human health for 94 chemical pollutants including updated scientific recommendations for exposure factors, including body weight, drinking water consumption rate, and fish consumption rate. bioaccumulation factors, and toxicity factors. (4)

We also agree with the PFBC’s support for the statewide application of the federally recommended criteria for the 11 toxic substances listed in Section 93.8.c Human Health and Aquatic Life Criteria for Toxic Substances. (14)

Response: The Department appreciates the comments.

Comment 44: EPA commends PADEP for updating or revising most of its criteria consistent with EPA’s 2015 ambient water quality criteria for the protection of human health for 94 chemical pollutants including updated scientific recommendations for exposure factors, including body weight, drinking water consumption rate, and fish consumption rate, bioaccumulation factors, and toxicity factors. EPA notes that most of the proposed revisions in TableS adopt rounding of the EPA recommended criteria. PADEP should state this in the final rulemaking.

PADEP’s proposed revisions to human health criteria listed in TableS of the state’s water quality standards regulations include 78 criteria revisions (of which 75 are consistent with the 2015 EPA update while three (3) appear to be inconsistent). 13 criteria additions, two (2) criteria that show no change (as they are already consistent with the 2015 EPA update), and one (1) criterion that shows a small change in numerical criterion as result of recalculation but should be revised to be consistent with EPA updated criteria.

The three criteria revisions that are inconsistent with EPA’s 2015 updated criteria recommendations are: chloroform: chlorophenoxy herbicide (2,4-D): and 1,1-dichloroethylene. For chloroform EPA recommends a criterion of 60 jig/L. while PADEP proposes to revise the current criterion (5.7 ag/L) to 6.5 pWL. For chlorophenoxy herbicide (2,4-D) EPA recommends 1300 igIL while PADEP proposes to add a criterion of 1000 pg/L. For I,l-dichloroethylene EPA recommends a criterion of 300 .tg/L while PADEP proposes to revise the existing criterion

40 (33 [Lg/L)to 30 jiglL. EPA requests that PADEP explain that these differences are intentional and describe their basis. (4)

Response: The Department appreciates that EPA identified that the proposed 1000 ugJL criterion for chiorophenoxy herbicide (2,4-D) was an error. However, due to the lack of data in fish and shellfish for 2,4-D, EPA has not established bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) according to trophic levels. 2,4-D is calculated with a total BAF of 13 L/kg. EPA’s recommended criterion is rounded from 1371 j.tg/Lto 1300 pg/L. The Department disagrees with the rounding of the criterion for 2,4-D from 1371 jig/L to 1300 jig!L and recommends rounding the criterion to 1400 ag/L.

Under the 1986 EPA Guidelines Jbr carcinogen Risk Assessment (USEPA 1986), 1,1- dichloroethylene is classified as Group C, “possible human carcinogen” (USEPA, 2000). EPA has not identified a cancer slope factor for this compound. Therefore, a factor of 10 has been applied to the current human health criterion for the protection of carcinogenic effects. The current criterion is 33 ,aWL.The recalculated criterion using the new inputs for body weight, drinking water, and fish consumption along with the application of the safety factor is 30 tg/L. Therefore, the Department is recommending no change to the existing criterion.

The 6.5 ig/L value for chloroform contained in the drafi Annex A was not intentional and is suspected to be a typographical error. Given the significance of the difference between the proposed value and EPA’s recommendation, the Department will reevaluate chloroform in the next triennial review. This proposed amendment is not included in the final-form rulemaking.

Comment 45: EPA notes that in addition to the proposed new criteria for 11 chemical pollutants listed in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, Table 5 also includes adoption of new proposed criteria for Bis(chloromethyl)ether and Endosulfin Sulfate, which are consistent with EPA recommended criteria. EPA is pleased that PADEP is proposing the addition of criteria for these 13 pollutants.

The I,2-Diphenylhydrazine criterion does change slightly under recalculation from 0.036 to 0.03 WL and should be revised to be consistent with EPA recommendations (0.03 pg/L). If PADEP does not propose to revise this criterion, EPA recommends that PADEP provide justification for the higher value of 0.036 ag/L.

PADEP has proposed revised criteria values for the following pollutants which differ from EPA’s 304(a) recommendations: cyanide; 2 methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol; Acrolein; 1,3- dichlorobenzene; Hexachlorocyclopentadiene; Endrin Aldehyde. The criteria for each of these pollutants is proposed with 2 significant digits, while the EPA recommended criteria for each of these pollutants includes only 1 significant digits. For example, for cyanide PADEP has proposed a revised criterion of 4.0 ig/L while EPA has recommended a criterion value of 4 ,aWL.PADEP may want to consider revising these criteria to be consistent with EPA recommendations (e.g. to include I significant digit instead of 2). This would be consistent with PADEP’s proposed revisions of other human health criteria which have been rounded to one significant digit, and would allow the State some flexibility since PADEP’s proposed revisions

41 for the listed pollutants are more precise than EPA’s rccommendations, for example for cyanide. 4.0 jig!L is more precise than 4 pgL.

EPA also notes 2 typographical errors in the proposed Table 5. The chemical pollutant “methoxychlor” is spelled “metoxychlor” though the CAS number and criterion are consistent with EPA updates. The chemical pollutant “1,3-dichloropropene” is spelled “1,3- dichloropropylene” though the CAS number and criterion are consistent with EPA updates. (4)

The list of national recommended waler quality criteria for human health for 94 chemical pollutants needs to be compared and cross checked with the Department’s proposed changes to ensure that all EPA toxic standards adopted in 2015 are reflected in PA. (27)

Response: The Department appreciates the comments. The final regulations update the listed pollutants to be consistent with EPA recommendations and correct the typographical errors in the final publication.

Comment 46: Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), states have the primary responsibility for developing water quality standards. States typically begin that process with EPA’s national recommended water quality criteria required by Section 304(a) of the CWA. EPA issued a national update of its HHWQC in 2015 that included updates to 94 human health criteria. Importantly, under existing regulations, states are not obligated to adopt those criteria exactly as EPA has issued them before submitting them to EPA for approval. Nor are states required to implement the exact same values in the equation that is used to develop the criteria. The regulations also allow states to modify the national criteria to reflect site-specific conditions or develop other “scientifically defensible” criteria before sending them to EPA for approval.

The CWA is built on a foundation of cooperative federalism, and the EPA has emphasized that cooperative federalism is the touchstone of the environmental statutes it administers. The EPA Administrator has stated that the agency will give states greater flexibility to implement their environmental programs in ways that makes sense for the states.

This flexibility in the regulations and EPA’s emphasis on cooperative federalism, give States the ability to take two important steps. First, a state can consider the science underlying EPA’s methodology and the extent to which the default values in the national criteria are applicable to the waters of the slate. Second,the state can consider the economic impacts of the new criteria — especially in a case where the criteria are more stringent and therefore could impose significantly higher compliance costs.

We have been working with a number of states as they begin their triennial reviews, urging them to take these two important steps, before simply adopting EPA’s national criteria. Several states have agreed to look much more closely at these issues before adopting the EPA criteria, and no state has yet adopted the national criteria in their entirety.

42 The Commonwealth’s proposal to amend the rule, with some exceptions, is proposing to adopt the human health criteria EPA issued in 2015. By our count, of the 94 EPA updated criteria, 55 are more stringent than the current standard—sometimes many times more stringent. As others will testify and comment, EPA’s national criteria use extremely conservative assumptions in their derivation of criteria, many of which strain credulity. This results in “compounded conservatism” and unnecessarily stringent criteria that will result in very stringent permit limits and higher compliance costs. Yet, the incremental human health protection provided by these criteria may be negligible at best. In light of this compounded conservatism and the scientific issues, states that adjust the criteria to reflect the water quality characteristics of their state or that use more realistic assumptions in the development of their criteria should easily meet the “scientifically defensible” regulatory standard for EPA approval.

Based on the scientific issues, we believe the Commonwealth should use the health protection target of one in a million (lxl06), but this should specifically target certain segments of the population. Targeted protection would more accurately mitigate the actual risk associated with calculated HHWQC. Second, the state should maintain the Fish Consumption Rate of 17.5 glday.

Third, the state should use a value of 1 for the Relative Source Contribution (RSC) unless sufficient pollutant specific data is available to calculate a different RSC. Fourth, while the transition from bioaccumulation to bioconcentration factors is a reasonable change, we urge the state to reconsider the methodology used by EPA, which heavily relies on models from the unique Great Lakes region. We also believe that the Commonwealth should consider the detrimental economic impact to industry of simply adopting the 2015 updated EPA criteria in their entirety. The recommendations put forth ensure that the environment and public health are protected, while also ensuring the industry’s competitiveness and protecting jobs and livelihood of the local community. (5A) Response: EPA did not update the human health protection target (lxlOj. The target of one in a million has been applied in accordance with EPA’s Methodology/br Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria/br the Protection ofHwnan Heal/li 2000. The 2015 recommended updates do not reflect a different health protection target than has been used previously.

EPA and the Department are also not updating the methodology regarding the appropriate Relative Source Contribution (RSC) value. EPA’s 2000 Human Health Criteria methodology allows flexibility in applying the RSC (i.e., 0.2 to 0.8), but the guidance sets a maximum of 80%. In many cases, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to unequivocally state that there were no other possible sources of a pollutant such that the RSC should be equal to 100%. The 80% maximum threshold acknowledges the probability of an unknown source or unknown sources of a pollutant. When developing criteria, the Department will select the most appropriate RSC based on the best available information. When insufficient RSC information is available, a conservative value of 20% will be used in the calculation, but the maximum contribution will not exceed 80% in accordance with the 2000 Human Health Criteria methodology. Many of the 2015 updated criteria were previously updated in 2002 following this methodology.

43 Department identifies a specific sensitive subpopulation (e.g., women, children, infants) then criteria will be developed based on that sensitive subpopulation if sufficient scientific data is available.

As stated in the EPA 2000 Human Health Criteria methodology, the EPA 1980 methodology emphasized the measurement of bioconcentration. Bioconcentration refers to the uptake and retention of a chemical by an aquatic organism from water only. Bioaccumulation refers to the uptake and retention of a chemical by an aquatic organism from all surrounding media (i.e., food, water, sediment). For some chemicals (especially those that are highly persistent and hydrophobic), the magnitude of bioaccumulation by aquatic organisms can be substantially greater than the magnitude of bioconcentration. EPA’s 2000 methodology reflects this important scientific advancement and emphasizes the measurement of chemical bioaccumulation.

It should also be recognized that Pennsylvania is a Great Lakes state. Bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) that utilize Great Lakes models or data are expected to be generally representative of Pennsylvania waters.

The 2015 updated human health criteria reflect advances in our understanding of the toxicity of pollutants and the exposure factors used to develop criteria. Many of the recalculated criteria are based on updated toxicity data and use of BAFs instead of bioconcentration factors (BCF5), which resulted in a dramatic change for some pollutants. The significant change in the value of the criterion was primarily due to the updated reference dose and BAFs not the updated inputs for body weight, drinking water consumption and fish consumption rates. Note that EPA’s recommended body weight input increased from 70 kg to 80 kg. Use of this value in the calculation of human health criteria results in a less conservative criterion. The drinking water intake and fish consumption values did slightly increase, but when combined with the increased body weight should not dramatically affect the overall value of the criterion.

Under the Federal Clean Water Act, states may not consider economics in the development of water quality standards and criteria. However, dischargers may be afforded some limited flexibility in achieving new water quality standards when the criteria are implemented through NPDES permits.

Comment 47: We have been an active participant at the state and federal levels in technical and scientific aspects of water quality criteria development for decades and appreciates this opportunity to offer technical information that can improve the scientific foundation of water quality management decisions in Pennsylvania.

In June 2015 USEPA revised its recommendations for human health water quality criteria (HHWQC) for 94 substances. In doing so, USEPA changed most of the exposure-related assumptions used to derive the criteria, including the fish consumption rate, relative source contribution (RSC), bioaccumulation factors (BAFs), body weight, and drinking water consumption rate. Some of these changes do not reflect the best science, and since that time, all

44 States that have thoughtfully considered USEPA’s revised criteria recommendations have chosen to depart from them in favor of better science and more appropriate assumptions for their States.

Working with Arcadis, we have developed materials to help States contemplate the criteria derivation process and thoughtfully consider designing criteria that provide a reasoned and transparent balance between theoretical risk, risk realities, and the implementation costs associated with potentially excessive conservatism in EPA’s criteria recommendations. Today I will highlight just a few of the areas where State-specific science choices may be preferred. The remarks I make today will be supported with considerable technical documentation to be provided during the comment period.

• Health Protection Targets. USEPA recommends a health protection target to protect the general population at between a one in million (I xl 0-6) and one in one hundred thousand (1x105) increased lifetime cancer risk and that highly exposed sub- populations not exceed a one in ten thousand (lx 101) increased lifetime cancer risk. We encourage States to be specific about their health protection targets for at least the mean of the general population and higher-end exposure segment(s). Doing so recognizes the reality of the link between risk and exposure and allows more transparency and greater appreciation of actual risk associated with calculated HKQWC relative to other risks.

• Fish Consumption Rate. USEPA’s 2015 HHWQC are based on a fish consumption rate of 22.0 grams per day (g/day). USEPA’s prior recommendations were based on a fish consumption rate of 17.5 glday. The difference in consumption rate is based primarily on two changes, neither of which suggests people are eating more fish in 2015 than they were in 2000. The first change results from an improved statistical method developed by the Centers for Disease Control that more accurately estimates lifetime fish consumption rates obtained from relatively short-term (several day) consumption surveys. The more accurate estimates of the fish consumption rate are lower than USEPA’s prior estimates. The second change involves adding marine fish and a portion of salmon consumption to the fish consumption rate. The basis for this addition is tenuous, at best, particularly for states with little or no marine coastline. Importantly, the derivation of EPA’s fish consumption rate value is not transparent. It cannot be validated because USEPA will not release the data used to derive the value.

• Relative Source Contribution. USEPA’s recommended criteria for non-carcinogenic compounds include a relative source contribution (RSC) of 20 percent for nearly all substances. The value used for nearly all criteria before 2015 was 100 percent. The RSC acts to make KHWUC more restrictive to account for exposures from other sources such that total exposure does not exceed toxicity thresholds. For nearly all substances, the effect of EPA’s new choice is to make HHWQC more restrictive by a factor of 5 times compared to pre-2015 HHWQC. While ensuring that toxicity thresholds are not exceeded is important, USEPA’s approach may be extreme and unwarranted in light of the numerous other conservative assumptions used to derive

45 the criteria and especially when substance-specific exposure data show little reasonable likelihood of other significant exposure pathways.

• Bioaccumulation Factor. USEPA’s revised criteria are derived using substance- specific bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) whereas the pre-2015 criteria were based on bioconcentration factors (BCFs). While a transition from BCFs to BAFs is consistent with accepted scientific consensus, the methodology USEPA used is not applicable to the waters of many States because it relies too heavily on models based on accumulation of PCBs in the Great Lakes. PCBs are not representative of most of the substances for which criteria were revised, and USEPA has consistently stated that the Great Lakes are unique in their size, food web, temperature, historical pollutant loading and many other factors. Pennsylvania DEP should consider whether USEPA’s BAFs are appropriate for Pennsyivania waters.

• Drinking Water Ingestion. USEPA’s revised criteria used an updated drinking water ingestion rate of 2.4 L/personiday. Thus, USEPA assumes that people drink this amount of water every day from untreated surfaëe waters, or that treated drinking water contains substances at the criteria concentrations 100% of the time over a lifetime. PA DEP might consider whether this assumption is rational and appropriate for purposes of ambient water criteria.

The 2015 revised criteria also include several ‘implicit assumptions;” that is, assumptions that affect the calculated criteria but are not parameterized in the criteria derivation equation used by USEPA. Examples include assuming that: all waters have a constant chemical concentration equal to the HHWQC; chemical concentrations are not reduced during cooking; people drink untreated surface water; and people consume fish and water with the maxithum allowed contamination level continuously over their lifetime. Use of these implicit assumptions act to make the criteria more stringent and make exposure and risk communications less meaningful.

Combining the conservative explicit and implicit assumptions described above leads to a phenomenon referred to as “compounded conservatism;” wherein the level of protection afforded by HNWQC is far greater than stated health protection targets. Recognizing this phenomenon is important and it should be thoughtfully considered in light of the implementation costs and potential for misallocation of public and private resources that may result from applying excessive conservatism when deriving criteria.

• Probabilistic Risk Assessment. The 2015 National KHWQC use a decades-old risk assessment approach for which alternatives both exist and are preferred by the modem risk assessment community. The preferred approach, now adopted by at least one State in deriving HKWQC, uses probability models. Among the advantages of this approach is that it applies more of the available data and that it creates a rational and transparent link between the criteria and specific health protection targets. Put simply, probability models allow States to confirm that they have achieved their stated health protection goals.

46 The level of effort required to address many of the most critical of the above issues is not large. For example: • long-term fish consumption rates for different regions of the country are available;

• Florida has reviewed exposure data for 26 compounds and developed RSCs and other researchers have published RSCs;

• BAFs are a critical input only for bioaccumulative compounds and information is available for several inputs to refine USEPA’s procedure to make it more applicable to State waters, and, where BAF data are unreliable, BCFs still offer a reasonable and transparent alternative to BAFs; and

• Software tools are available that enable the use of probability models to derive HHWQC. (28A)

We will be submitting a considerable volume of technical work covering all of the points made in today’s public hearing. We hope that PA DEP will thoughtfully consider this information and the flexibility provided to states under the CWA and, as other states have, make independent judgements about the best choices for protecting Pennsylvania’s waters and those who rely on them. (28A)

IRRC also commented for EQB to explain why it believes the standards developed by EPA are appropriate for the protection of Pennsylvania waters instead of more site-specific standards or other scientifically defensible criteria. (776)

Response: EPA did not update the human health protection target (lx 10.6). The target of one in a million has been applied in accordance with EPA’s 2000 Methodology Jbr Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria/br the Pi-otection ofiluman Health. The 2015 recommended updates do not reflect a different health protection target than has been used previously.

EPA and the Department are also not updating the methodology regarding the appropriate Relative Source Contribution (RSC) value. ‘lie 2000 methodology allows flexibility in applying the RSC (i.e., 0.2 to 0.8), but the guidance sets a maximum of 80%. In many cases, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to unequivocally state that there were no other possible sources of a pollutant such that the RSC should be equal to 100%. The 80% maximum threshold acknowledges the probability of an unknown source(s) of a pollutant. When developing criteria, the Department will select the most appropriate RSC based on the best available information. When insufficient RSC information is available, a conservative value of 20% will be used in the calculation, but the maximum contribution will not exceed 80% in accordance with the 2000 methodology. Many of the 2015 updated criteria were previously updated in 2002 following this methodology.

EPA updated the fish consumption rate (FCR) to 22 grams per day based on National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data collected from 2003 to 2010 and a modification of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) model. The previous FCR of 17.5 glday was based on

47 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) data collected from 1994 to 1996 and ratio estimation methods. Development of both FCRs (17.5 g/day and 22 g/day) followed EPA’s 2000 methodology, which recommends using a 9O percentile FCR to derive ambient water quality criteria.

As stated in the EPA 2000 methodology, the EPA 1980 methodology emphasized the measurement of bioconcentration. Bioconcentration refers to the uptake and retention of a chemical by an aquatic organism from water only. Bioaccumulation refers to the uptake and retention of a chemical by an aquatic organism from all surrounding media (i.e., food, water, sediment). For some chemicals (especially those that are highly persistent and hydrophobic), the magnitude of bioaccumulation by aquatic organisms can be substantially greater than the magnitude of bioconcentration. EPA’s 2000 methodology reflects this important scientific advancement and emphasizes the measurement of chemical bioaccumulation.

It should also be recognized that Pennsylvania is a Great Lakes state. Bioaccumulation factors (BAF5) that utilize Great Lakes models or data are expected to be generally representative of Pennsylvania waters.

The updated drinlcing water values are representative of the general adult population, which includes pregnant and nursing females. For this sensitive subpopulation, of pregnant and nursing females, the drinking water consumption rate of 2.4 liters per day may actually be too low. Also, some pollutants, particularly with respect to emerging contaminants (e.g., hormones, antibiotics, pesticides, etcj, should not be expected to be removed through conventional treatment plants. It cannot be assumed that all pollutants in the raw water will decrease as the water is processed through the treatment plant. In some instances, pollutants may become concentrated in the finished water. Pollutants can also become concentrated through cooking processes.

The regulations are designed for statewide protections using statewide criteria. Site-specific standards may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis. DEP has evaluated EPA’s recommendations and determined that they are appropriate for Pennsylvania.

Comment 48: The EPA Recommendations that Inform the Proposed Triennial WQS are Overly Conservative. PA should, like Florida, consider a Risk-Based Strategy. Pennsylvania is not obligated to incorporate the 2015 EPA guidance on human health water quality criteria (HHWQC). The revised HHWQC made significant changes to exposure-related assumptions, including those related to body weight, drinking water consumption rate, bioaccumulation factors, relative source contribution and fish consumption rate. It is our understanding that since the publication of this

48 guidance, several other states have not adopted this guidance in their water quality standards and have instead, as Pennsylvania is allowed to do, developed a regulatory framework that is more reflective of their own state. Should Pennsylvania incorporate the revised federal HHWQC, it is likely that municipalities and industry will both be required to expend considerably more resources to comply when there is minimal additional net health benefit to be secured.

The federal HHWQC are overly conservative or are not based on the best available data. For example, the fish consumption rate assumes the average person is eating 22 g/day of fish, up from 17.5 g/day in the previous HHWQC. It is our understanding that EPA has not released the underlying data supporting this significant increase in fish consumption. We understand through our members other data has shown the average person is eating less than 22 g/day of fish. With respect to bioaccumulation factors, the methodology EPA relied on is informed by models built upon data regarding accumulation of PCBs from the Great Lakes. We question why the characteristics of the Great Lakes should inform water quality criteria for all of Pennsylvania. Regarding water consumption, the revised HHWQC assumes the average person consumers 2.4 liters a day of untreated surface water. We ask if DEP believes this to be representative of Pennsylvanians’ water consumption. Finally, the combination of extremely conservative assumptions in the revised HHWQC yields a combined level of protection far, far beyond what is necessary to protect the public health.

Instead, the PA Chamber urges that the Department review of its own in-stream water quality data and actual fish and water consumption in Pennsylvania and use that information to develop a probabilistic risk assessment approach, which would result in a transparent and rational regulatory framework that links real-world data with water quality criteria. The Clean Water Act gives states the flexibility to reconsider the assumptions EPA uses; and Pennsylvania, given the breadth of its various water assets and considerable information base, should take advantage of that flexibility. (25)

Response: EPA updated the fish consumption rate (FCR) to 22 grams per day based on National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data collected from 2003 to 2010 and a modification of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) model. The previous FCR of 17.5 g/day was based on Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) data collected from 1994 to 1996 and ratio estimation methods. Development of both FCRs (17.5 g/day and 22 glday) followed EPA’s 2000 Human Health Criteria methodology, which recommends using a percentile FCR to derive ambient water quality criteria.

National recommended water quality standards and criteria are intended to be adequately protective of a human population over a lifetime. The exposure factors for the 2015 update, as well as previous updates in 2002 and 2003, were chosen for the general adult population. If the Department identifies a specific sensitive subpopulation (e.g., women, children, infants) then criteria will be developed based on that sensitive subpopulation if sufficient scientific data is available. As stated in the EPA 2000 Human Health Criteria methodology, the EPA 1980 methodology emphasized the measurement of bioconcentration. Bioconcentration refers to the uptake and retention of a chemical by an aquatic organism from water only. Bioaccumulation refers to the uptake and retention of a chemical by an aquatic organism from all surrounding

49 media (i.e., food, water, sediment). For some chemicals (especially those that are highly persistent and hydrophobic), the magnitude of bioaccumulation by aquatic organisms can be substantially greater than the magnitude of bioconcentration. EPA’s 2000 methodology reflects this important scientific advancement and emphasizes the measurement of chemical bioaccumulation. EPA used field-measured bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) and laboratory- measured bioconcentration factors (BCF5) available from peer-reviewed, publicly available journal articles and databases to develop baseline BAFs (USEPA, 2016b). EPA also evaluated additional peer-reviewed sources. It should also be recognized that Pennsylvania is a Great Lakes state. BAFs that utilize Great Lakes models or data are expected to be generally representative of Pennsylvania waters.

The updated drinking water values are representative of the general adult population, which includes pregnant and nursing females. For this sensitive subpopulation, the drinking water consumption rate of 2.4 liters (L) may actually be too low. Some pollutants, particularly with respect to emerging contaminants (e.g., hormones, antibiotics, pesticides, etc.), should not be expected to be removed through conventional treatment plants. It cannot be assumed that all pollutants in the raw water will decrease as the water is processed through the treatment plant. In some instances, pollutants may become concentrated in the finished water. Pollutants can also become concentrated through cooking processes.

The Department has evaluated EPA’s recommendations and determined that they are appropriate for Pennsylvania.

Comment 49: We ask EQB to provide a comparison of its approach to adopting the 2015 EPA guidance on human health water quality criteria to other states surrounding Pennsylvania. Have those states adopted the EPA guidance or taken another approach allowed by 40 C.F.R. § 131.11(b)? (776)

Response: The Department has included an updated Table - TRI7 RAF #12 — in the Final Regulatory Analysis Form, which includes a summary of the 2015 EPA-recommended human health water quality criteria and the status of Pennsylvania’s neighboring states.

Specific water quality criteria for toxic substances — Table 5 (93.8c)

Comment 50: It is encouraging to see DEP is proposing to add 11 new toxics to its list (93.8c and Table 5 Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Substances) including: trichloroethane, 1,2 Dichloropropane, I,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene, 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol, 3-Methyl-4-Chlorophenol, Methoxychlor, Chlorophenoxy herbicide (2,4-D), Chlorophenoxy herbicide (2,4,5-TP), Dinitrophenols, Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), and Pentachlorobenzene). (27)

Response: The Department appreciates the comments.

50 Comment 51: We recognize that human health criteria are important aspects of water quality criteria that help protect anglers and boaters as well as the general public. The Board is proposing additions and amendments to the human health and aquatic life criteria in Table 5 which is proposed to be updated to reflect the latest scientific information and implementation of exiting EPA policies in the methods for deriving ambient water quality criteria for the protection of human health. We defer to DEP staff and the coordination with the U.S. EPA to evaluate human health risks and establish human health criteria for these constituents. (8)

Response: The Department appreciates the comments.

Comment 52: A commentator has concerns with the following language that is being added to subsection 93.8c(a): “instream measurements or best estimates, representative of the median concentrations or conditions of the receiving stream for the applicable time period and design conditions.” They question how it will be implemented. IRRC agrees that the new language, as written, would be difficult to implement. In the final-form regulation, we ask EQB to amend the regulation to clarify implementation of this requirement. (776)

Response: The Department appreciates the comments and suggested revisions. In response to the comments, the regulatory language was revised to include “The values used for the local water quality condition to derive the appropriate water quality criteria shall be determined by instream measurements or best estimates based on reference waters that are representative of the median concentrations or conditions of the receiving water for the applicable time period and design conditions. Instream measurements for the water quality condition will be gathered using Department data collection protocols.” These current Department protocols are contained within the 2018 Version of the Water Quality Monitoring Protocols for Streams and Rivers, found at http://files.dep.state.pa.us/Water/Drinking%2oWater%2oand%2oFacility%2oRegulation/WaterQ ualityPortalFiles/Technical%20Documentation/MONlTORllG BOOK.pdf (refer to Chapter 4. Chemical Data Collection Protocols).

Comment 53: We ask PADEP to clarify why the human health criterion for nickel is proposed to be revised from 610 to 600 iaWL,and the scientific basis for revision. 610 jag/L is the EPA recommended value. (4)

Response: The nickel criterion was inadvertently rounded to 600 ig/L during the proposed rulemaking. The Department is not recommending a change to the nickel criterion. The final regulation maintains the existing value of 610 jig/L.

Comment 54: PADEP is proposing revisions to human health criteria for several chemical pollutants in Table 5 for which there currently are no EPA recommended criteria. These chemical pollutants include: 1,2 cis dichloroethylene; acetone; boron; formaldehyde; methyl ethyl ketone; metolachior; resorcinol; I,2,3-trichloropropane; I,2,4-tdmethylbenzene; 1,3,5-tdmethylbenzene; xylene. All

51 revisions result in more stringent criteria. EPA requests PADEP clarify why these criteria are being revised and the scientific basis for revision. (4)

Response: The Department noted discrepancies between the preamble and the proposed Annex A and determined that there is insufficient rationale to support the proposed updates to several criteria as they were proposed. Therefore, the Departmcnt is recommending that the proposed changes not be included in this rulemaking and to be reevaluated in the next triennial review. The final Annex A will show no changes to the following criteria: 1,2 cis dichloroethylene; acetone; boron; formaldehyde; methyl ethyl ketone; metolachior; resorcinol; 1,2,3- trichloropropane; I,2,4-trimethylbenzene; I,3,5-trimethylbenzene; and xylene.

Comment 55: DEP should amend the proposed Chloroform Human Health Criteria. In §93.8c, Table 5, the Department changed the Human Health Criteria for chloroform from 5.7 jag/L to 6.5 pg/L, and the basis from Cancer risk level (CRL) to Threshold effect human hcalth criterion (H). These proposed changes to the Human Health criterion for chloroform are not specifically discussed in the preamble to the proposed regulation. With this change in Human Health criterion for chloroform, the Department is not consistent with, nor following the basis for their human health criteria changes as stated in the proposed rule preamble. If the Department is going to rely heavily on the HHWQC, it should do so consistently.

In the preamble’s discussion of §93.8c, the Department states that it reviewed the 2015 U.S. EPA National recommendations, published in 80 FR 36986 (June 29, 2015) and determined that they are scientifically sound and applicable to for the protection of Pennsylvania waters. We note that the 2015 update to the U.S. EPA Human Health Ambient Water Quality Criteria increased the criteria for chloroform from 5.7 jig/I (water±organism) and 470 jig’L (organism only) to 60 jig/L (water±organism) and 2,000 jig/L (organism only). Thus, the Department’s proposed change in Human Health Criterion for chloroform does not reflect the 2015 EPA update, and is in fact only 10.8% of the 2015 National recommended criterion for chloroform.

In addition, the proposed change from CRL to H ftirther significantly reduces the allowable instream concentration for chloroform. Allowable in-stream concentrations for Human Health criteria that is CRL-based uses the Harmonic Mean Flow of the stream to calculate the in-stream concentration, whereas the allowable in-stream concentration for Human Health criteria that is H-based is required to use the 7Q10 low flow value of the stream to calculate the in-stream toxicity concentration. This difference in stream flows for calculating allowable in-stream concentrations can be very significant. In fact for lower order streams, calculating the allowable in-stream Human Health concentration for chloroform based on 6.5 [lg/L and the 7Q10 low flow of the receiving stream can result in allowable in-stream human health concentrations for chloroform that are equal to the disinfectant byproduct trihalomethane levels in well-run, properly disinfected drinking water supplies. Hence, the Department’s proposed Human Health criterion for chloroform (6.5 jag/L (H)) is inconsistent with the 2015 National Human Health Ambient Water Quality Criteria, and is indirectly regulating drinking water disinfection standards and practices. This improperly developed proposed Human Health criterion will

52 jeopardize safe drinking water supplies by forcing well-run drinking water facilities into modifying their drinking water disinfection practices to meet this proposed chloroform limit.

We are requesting that the Department adjust the proposed Human Health criterion for chloroform to 60 igIL to be consistent with the 2015 U.S. EPA Human Health Ambient Water Quality Criteria, which the Department states in the proposed nile’s preamble was the purported basis for Human Health criteria changes. In addition, we request that the Department clearly and specifically address in an amendment to the proposed regulation, published in the PA bulletin, the basis for changing the Human Health criterion for chloroform from Cancer risk level (CRL) to Threshold effect human health criterion (H). (25)

Response: The 6.5 ig/L value for chloroform contained in the proposed rulemaking was not intentional and is suspected to be a typographical error. Given the significance of the difference between the proposed value and EPA’s recommendation, the Department will reevaluate chloroform in the next triennial review.

Comments on Development of site-specific water quality criteria — (93.8d)

Comment 56: The information provided in the Proposed Rulemaking does not include an explanation for limiting the application of the Biotic Ligand Model for Copper to site-specific criteria development. We support statewide application of this model. (20)

We commend PADEP on the proposal to include the Biotic Ligand Model (BLM) as an option for developing site-specific copper criteria. However, we note that while use of the model for the development of site-specific criteria is a step forward, PADEP should consider adopting statewide freshwater copper criteria based on the biotic ligand model. (4)

PADEP should indicate in the final regulations the circumstances when the use of the BLM will be required, explain whether other scientifically defensible methods were considered and explain why the BLM is appropriate. (776)

Response: The Department is reviewing the use and implementation of the Biotic LIgand Model (BLM) for copper on a statewide basis. The Department has been collecting and compiling water quality data at select Water Quality Network monitoring stations for use in the model. The Department will continue to review the statewide applicability of the BLM and will consider a recommendation for updated criteria in a future water quality standards rulemaking. The Department acknowledges the BLM is the most current science for development of the criteria for copper, as opposed to the Water-Effect Ratio (WER) methodology. Although the Department is not adopting statewide criteria based on the BLM in this rulemaking, this final rulemaking adds clarification that the BLM will be required for development of site-specific water quality criteria for copper in freshwater systems.

53 Comment 57: We also believe that PADEP needs to formalize the establishment of site-specific criteria as revisions to its water quality standards regulations. PADEP should claril5’Pennsylvania regulation at 93.8d(fl(3) to indicate that the submission of site-specific criteria to EPA for review and approval is to obtain EPA approval under CWA Section 303(c). (4)

Response: The Department is currently reviewing its site-specific criteria development process, including clarification how the Department submits the methodologies used for a site-specific criterion to EPA for review and approval under federal Clean Water Act Section 303(c).

Comment 58: In order for EPA to take a CWA 303(c) action on site-specific criteria, those criteria must be in state law or regulation. See 40 C.F.R. Section 131.4(i). We recommend that PADEP maintains

Table IA, §16 Appendix A, Site-Specific Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Substances (that PADEP is proposing to delete in this triennial review; refer to Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) Notice: Chapter 16 Water Quality Toxics Management Strategy — Statement of Policy at 47 Pa.B. 6703, located at: https://www.pabulletin.com/secure/datalvol47/47-42/l 767.html) for this purpose. We also rccommend that PADEP continue to maintain the publicly available online table of site-specific criteria. (4)

Response: The Department is currently conducting a comprehensive review to clarify its site- specific criteria review and development process. The Department appreciates the recommendation to retain Table IA, §16 Appendix A, Site-Specific Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Substances in addition to maintaining a publicly available online table of approved site- specific criteria, but Chapter lôis a codification of the Department’s Water Quality Toxics Management Strategy Statement of Policy, not state law or regulation. Also, the Department believes having this duplication of two separate tables, Table IA and the online table could create undue confusion and greater potential for the introduction of errors and inconsistency in determining the applicable criteria. Therefore, the Board is deleting Table IA from 25 Pa. Code Chapter 16, Appendix A, along with the corresponding cross-references in 25 Pa. Code § 93.8a(b) and 93.Sc(a), to be replaced by the current online table for site-specific criteria, as proposed. This table will represent those site-specific criteria approved by EPA.

The Department will continue to work closely with EPA in revising the site-specific criteria review, development, and approval process. Further clarification and updates to the Department’s site-specific criteria process will be included in appropriate implementation guidance, and, if it is found to be warranted, will address any necessary regulatory updates in a future water quality standards rulemaking, following this comprehensive review and further coordination with EPA.

54 Exceptions for Fishable! Swimmable Waters

Delaware Estuary Existing Use

Comment 59: The federally endangered Atlantic sturgeon and other reproducing fish in the tidal Delaware River (Zones 3,4, and 5) deserve stronger elevated dissolved oxygen standards and immediate listing of these zones as fish propagation is needed. (1)

The federally endangered Atlantic sturgeon and other reproducing fish that currently live and breed in the tidal Delaware River (Zones 3, 4, and 5) deserve stronger elevated dissolved oxygen [DO] standards and immediate listing of these zones as fish propagation is needed. Two decades of studies clearly show propagation is occurring and DO has improved, but DO standards for the estuary are very low and need to be upgraded — to fulfill existing use requirements. Delaware Riverkeeper Network petitioned the DRBC in 2015 for this change and EPA is also weighing in for fish propagation for this triennial review. (9)

The Board should adopt a designated use of fish propagation for Zones 3 and 4 and the upper portion of Zone 5 of the Delaware Estuary for fish propagation. (2)

The Clean Water Act states that “it is the national goal that wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water be achieved by July 1, 1983.” 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2). The current designated uses of the Delaware Estuary from river mile marker 108.4 (near Philadelphia) to the Pennsylvania-Delaware border, known as zones 3 and 4, do not include fish propagation and only protects fish maintenance and passage. But recent data and observations show that, for all species evaluated (Atlantic Sturgeon, American Shad, Striped Bass, White Perch, Bay Anchovy, Atlantic Silverside, Alewife, Blueback Herring, and Atlantic Menhaden), successful reproduction was clearly demonstrated in one or more of the compromised estuary zones. The “Existing Use” based on data collected since 2000 indicates that at least some “propagation” (i.e., spawning and/or rearing of early stage larvae and juveniles) has been achieved in these portions of the Delaware River. Delaware River Basin Commission, Existing Use Evaluation for Zones 3,4, & 5 of the Delaware Estuary Based on Spawning and Rearing of Resident and Anadromous Fish, p. 30 (Sept. 30, 2015). (2)

EPA’s regulations implementing the Clean Water Act provide that “[w]here existing water quality standards specify designated uses less than those which are presently being attained, the State shall revise its standards to reflect the uses actually being attained.” 40 C.F.R. § 131.10(h)(2)(iifl. See also id. § 131.6(a) (mandating that state water quality standards include use designations consistent with the provisions of Sections l01(a)(2) and 303(c)(2) of the Clean Water Act). Because these portions of the Delaware Estuary have an existing use of fish propagation, the designated use must be upgraded to reflect that documented existing use. (2)

The commenter is aware of the Delaware River Basin Commission’s (DRBC) adoption of a resolution committing DRBC and the member states to: conduct further study on the inclusion of

55 propagation as a designated use in Zones 3 and 4 and the upper portion of Zone 5 of the Delaware Estuary; prepare a schedule for completing a full draft analysis of attainability within three and one-half years; and issue a final rule and an implementation strategy within six years of the adoption of the resolution. (DRBC Resolution No. 2017-4 (Sept. 13, 2017), located at: http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/library/documents/Res2Ol 7-04 Yo20EstuaryExistingUse.pdf.) We likewise are aware of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network’s petition to this Board to upgrade Zones 3 and 4 of the Delaware Estuary to include resident and migratory fish populations. (Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Petition to Upgrade Zones 3 & 4 of the Delaware River to Include Resident and Migratory Fish Populations, filed Feb. 28, 2017, located at http://www.delawaredverkeeper.on/sites/default/files/EQB.DO .Petition.Final%202- 2817%20w%2oattachrnents.pdf.) However, neither of these processes should deter the Board from fulfilling its obligation under 40 C.F.R. § 131.10(h)(2)(ii) to update the applicable designated uses during the current Triennial Review. The available data are sufficient to establish an existing use of fish propagation in Zones 3 and 4 and the upper portion of Zone 5 of the Delaware Estuary. Thus, in issuing its final nile, the Board should change the designated use of these portions of the Delaware Estuary to match their existing use. (2)

Response: The Department recognizes that propagation and water quality have improved in these Zones of the Delaware Estuary. The Board stated in the Preamble to the proposed rulemaking that the demonstrated recovery in propagation for these Zones has occurred under the long-term implementation of the current criteria, and that, in the short term, the existing dissolved oxygen (DO) criteria should provide adequate protection until more appropriate criteria are determined. Since that time, the Department has also become aware of improvements in water quality and propagation of key species through data presented from other programs, and from a report submitted to the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) by the Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University (ANSDU), A Review of Dissolved Oxygen Requirements of Key Sensitive Species in i/ic Delaware Estuary (ANSDU 2018), which describes the occurrence and DO requirements of select key species, including that of Atlantic sturgeon (Ancipenser oxyrhynchus). an endangered species. This report also shows that Atlantic sturgeon are present and reproducing in these Zones of the Delaware Estuary, further reinforcing the need to reevaluate these designated uses.

Furthermore, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has recently (82 FR 39160) designated the Delaware Estuary as critical habitat, after having listed the Atlantic sturgeon (Ancienser oxyrhynchus) as federally endangered in 2012 under the Endangered Species Act. Designating the Delaware Estuary as critical habitat confirms the presence, critical habitat, or critical dependence of endangered or threatened federal or Pennsylvania species, in or on a surface water. As such, the protection under 25 Pa. Code § 93.4c(a)(2) becomes relevant for the Delaware Estuary and will be provided on a case-by-case basis, as NPDES permits or other final approvals are issued, or final actions are taken.

As indicated in the DRBC Resolution of September2017 (DRBC Res. No. 2017-4), the Department will continue to work with the DRBC and other signatory states in determining the appropriate DO criteria that should apply to this section of the Estuary. An updated recommendation regarding the existing use and designated use, along with the appropriate DO

56 criteria, will be considered in the next triennial review of water quality standards, following the conclusion and outcome of this collaboration with DRBC and the other member states.

Comment 60: In April 2017, the commenter testified at a Delaware River Basin Commission Special Public Hearing on the Draft Resolution for the Review of Aquatic Life Uses in the Delaware River Estuary in Trenton, NJ. The purpose of this testimony was to provide the DRBC with the most current physical and biological data available for consideration in support of future rulemaking for designated water quality protected uses in Zone 3, Zone 4, and the upper portion of Zone 5 of the estuary. The commenter previously presented this testimony at the DRBC Hearing Board and included that testimony as part of public comments in this triennial. (8)

Response: As indicated in the responses to Comments 59 through Comment 67, the Department recognizes that propagation and water quality have improved in these Zones of the Delaware Estuary, and that the current designated uses need to be reevaluated.

The Department will continue to work with the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) and other signatory states in determining the appropriate dissolved oxygen (DO) criteria that should apply to this section of the Estuary. An updated recommendation regarding the existing use and designated use, along with the appropriate DO criteria, will be considered in the next triennial review of water quality standards, following the conclusion and outcome of this collaboration with DRBC and the other member states.

Comment 61: With a membership that includes fishing enthusiasts, our Alliance agrees with the PFBC’s comment regarding Delaware River Aquatic Life Uses in the Delaware River Estuary. Anglers from our home area and other regions of the Commonwealth, as well as neighboring states, travel to the Delaware to enjoy the historical diversity of species not available in rivers that no longer free flow to the ocean. The Delaware is a special treasure to all Pennsylvanians, as it allows us a glimpse into the past, and what could one day be the future of aquatic biological diversity in our own region’s river. (14)

Response: The Department appreciates the comments. As indicated in the responses to Comment 59 through Comment 67, the Department recognizes that propagation and water quality have improved in these Zones of the Delaware Estuary. The Department also recognizes the Delaware River as an important and special resource to all Pennsylvanians and visitors, both current and future generations.

Comment 62: As part of this triennial review. PADEP reexamines water body segments that do not meet the fishable and/or swimmable goals specified in Clean Water Act Section lOl(a)(2). In the Delaware River in Zones 3, 4, and upper Zone 5 of the Delaware Estuary basin uses are limited to WWF (Maintenance Only) and ME (Passage Only) for tidal portions of the basin from river mile 108.4 to the PA-DE State Border and do not include propagation. In the public notice of the triennial review, PADEP notes that recçnt Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) review has found

57 successful reproduction demonstrated in the compromised estuary zones. EPA understands that PADEP continues to work with DRBC and other stakeholders in determining the appropriate criteria that should apply in the lower Delaware River and Delaware Estuary. However, EPA also notes that this public notice recognizes that propagation is occurring and is therefore an existing use. Per Pennsylvania’s antidegradation regulation at 93.4c(a)(j)(i) existing use protection shall be provided when the Department’s evaluation of information indicates that a surface water attains or his attained an existing use. In addition, the public notice acknowledges the presence of the Federally-listed endangered species Atlantic sturgeon. Pennsylvania regulation at 93.4c(a)(2) states that the confirmed presence of such a species requires that PADEP ensure the protection of the species. Based upon these Pennsylvania regulations. EPA believes PADEP should be implementing water quality standards to protect for the existing use. For example, NPDES permits could be written using dissolved oxygen criteria that protects Atlantic sturgeon. rather than the current criteria, which is widely acknowledged to be under protective of that species. (4)

Response: As indicated in the responses to Comment 59 through Comment 67, the Department recognizes that propagation and water quality have improved in these Zones of the Delaware Estuary, and that the current designated uses need to be reevaluated.

In the interim of the pending collaboration with DRBC and the other states, the Department intends to provide protections for surface waters as required under 25 Pa. Code §93.4c, including protection of the endangered or threatened Federal or Pennsylvania species and its designated critical habitat under 25 Pa. Code § 93.4c(a)(2) whenever issuing NPDES permits or final approval and actions that would be related to these Zones.

Comment 63: Establishing a higher dissolved oxygen standard (i.e., 5.0 mg/L) in Zones 3, 4 and 5 of the Delaware River is necessary to protect populations of migratory fish species that depend on that portion of the river for spawning and/or nursery habitat. Species of interest include the Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeon (both federally listed), American Shad, Striped Bass, Alewife, Blueback Herring, and Atlantic Menhaden. An evaluation of species occurrence and use of this portion of the river was conducted by the Delaware River Basin Commission in 2015 (DRBC 2015).

Atlantic sturgeon, (Ac4ienser oxyrhynchus) a species that is both state and federally listed as endangered, has recently been shown to have had several years of successful reproduction in the lower river (Zones 4 and 5, Hale et al. 2016). Peak abundances of young-of-the-year captures of Atlantic sturgeon have occurred in years when the summer dissolved oxygen levels have been higher in the estuary (DRBC 2015). Atlantic sturgeon are susceptible to low dissolved oxygen

58 during their early life stages (Secor & Gunderson 1998). In order to protect and restore this species by ensuring continued successifil spawning, it is necessary to have a higher dissolved oxygen standard established for the estuary.

The related shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), which is also state and federally listed as endangered shows evidence that their distribution is restricted in the lower portion of the river by low dissolved oxygen levels during the summer months (Hastings ci ci. 1987). Based on radio telemetry data, it appears that shortnose sturgeon, in part, utilize the river in the vicinity of Philadelphia during the species seasonal migration. Steps should be taken to ensure that suitable dissolved oxygen are available here to protect sturgeon traveling to that area (O’Herron et al. 1993).

In additional to the above endangered species, other migratory fish species of interest, including American shad, striped bass, alewife. blueback herring, and Atlantic menhaden, utilize the lower Delaware River and estuary as spawning and/or nursery habitat. All of these species are intensively managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and support commercial and/or recreational fisheries on the Atlantic Coast and tributaries, including the Delaware River and Bay. All of these species would also benefit from increased dissolved oxygen level in the lower river to support survival of their eggs, larvae, and juveniles. Thus, the Service advocates adoption of 5.0 mg/L for Zones 3,4 and 5. (20)

Response: Please see responses to Comment 59 through Comment 62.

Comment 64: A commenter offered technical assistance pertaining to the triennial review of your state Water Quality Standards (WQS) with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As you know, the Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons, both listed by us under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), use freshwater reaches of the Delaware River within your jurisdiction, for spawning and juvenile rearing habitat. As such, sensitive early life stages (ELS) and spawning adults may be present at certain times of the year. Adults, sub-adults, and juveniles of both species may also forage, rest, and migrate in the Delaware River system within Pennsylvania waters. As such, it is important to set water quality standards to minimize the potential for adverse effects to their growth, survival, and recovery, to levels that are undetectable, or to the point that any effects are extremely unlikely to occur.

Additionally, critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon was designated on August 17, 2017. Four physical and biological factors (PBFs) are included in the critical habitat designation and the water quality of effluent discharged into PA waters has the potential to affect PBF 3 and PBF 4. These PBFs are as follows:

PBF3: Waler of appropriate depth and absent physical barriers to passage (e.g., locks, dams, thermal plumes, turbidity, sound, reservoirs, gear, etc.) between the river mouth and spawning sites necessary to support: (I) unimpeded movements of adults to and from spawning sites; (2) seasonal and physiologically dependent movement ofjuvenile Atlantic sturgeon to appropriate

59 salinity zones within the river estuary, and; (3) staging, resting, or holding of subadults or spawning condition adults. Water depths in main river channels must also be deep enough (e.g., at least 1.2 m) to ensure continuous flow in the main channel at all times when any sturgeon life stage would be in the river.

PBF 4: Water, between the river mouth and spawning sites, especially in the bottom meter of the water column, with the temperature, salinity, and oxygen values that, combined, support: (1) spawning; (2) annual and interannual adult, subadult, larval, and juvenile survival; and (3) larval, juvenile, and subadult growth, development, and recruitment (e.g., 130 C to 26° C for spawning habitat and no more than 30° C for juvenile rearing habitat, and 6 mgIL or greater dissolved oxygen for juvenile rearing habitat).

Because adverse effects to Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat PBF’s and to Atlantic sturgeon and shortnose sturgeon, themselves, are prohibited under the ESA, it is important that your WQS support the necessary life ffinctions of these species and the PBFs related to critical habitat. In regard to critical habitat specifically, the WQS should prevent the possibility of effluent plumes restricting passage within the Delaware River and its tributaries (PBF 3), and allow for appropriate dissolved oxygen, salinity, and temperature in areas where sturgeon may spawn, rear, migrate, rest, and forage within your jurisdiction (PBF 4). We recommend including language in your regulations, if not already included, that expressly prohibits effluent plumes from occupying more than half the waterway in order to allow listed species passage. Additionally, temperature guidelines and dissolved oxygen levels to support spawning and rearing habitat (13° C to 26° C for spawning habitat and no more than 30° C for juvenile rearing habitat, and at least 6 mgJL or greater for spawning and rearing habitat) should be reflected in your standards.

For more information about designated critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon, please see the following websites. For general information: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa. gov/protected/atlsturgeon/index.html.

For GIS data: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa. ov/educational resources/gis/datalindex.html.

And for general species biology: https://www. greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected/section7/listinindex.html. (26)

Response: Please see responses to Comment 59 through Comment 62.

Comment 65: Fish propagation and dissolved oxygen standards for the estuary do not reflect the current existing uses of the Delaware River — We request that this triennial review the main stem Delaware River receives long overdue fish propagation use and stringent and elevated dissolved oxygen standards. Currently, fish propagation is not a designated use in sections of the Delaware River estuary and the state is required to review the reasons behind rejection of those uses since

60 clearly its own studies and those of DRBC indicate that propagation of fish species is clearly occurring in Zones 3,4, and 5. The DRBC found that for all nine fish species evaluated and studied, including the federally endangered Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxi’rhvnchus)as well as the related state and federally listed as endangered shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brei’irostrunz,) in addition to American Shad, Striped Bass, White Perch, Bay Anchovy, Atlantic Silverside, Alewife, Blueback Herring, and Atlantic Menhaden successfully reproduce in these zones. In March 2013, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network submitted a petition to DRBC http://www.delawareriverkeeper.org/sites/default/files/Docurnents/DO Petition 03-05-2013 .pdf for dissolved oxygen (DO) criteria to be elevated to meet the existing use of the main stem Delaware River as DO levels far exceed the current standards. The science documented the past two decades show these improvements to fish as well as dissolved oxygen. There is documented and demonstrated propagation. Therefore, a designated use for propagation is fiallyappropriate and supported and new standards should be set to support propagation this triennial review. It is not appropriate to qualify the propagation level achieved such that a lower designated use will be applied to the estuary in such a fashion as to continue to depress the level of water quality standards and goals that are applied for the various zones of the estuary. EPA’s regulations implementing the Clean Water Act provide that “where existing water quality standards specify designated uses less than those which are presently being attained, the State shall revise its standards to reflect the uses actually being attained.” 40 C.F.R. 131.10(1)(2)(ii)). The PA Fish and Boat Commission comments dated Feb 15, 2017 from testimony provided to the DRBC on April 6,2017 also reflect science and fish population data to urge the DEP/Board to make these important changes now to reflect the current existing uses. In their comments dated Dec 20, 2017, EPA also encourages the Board to protect these existing uses and the endangered species, like the federally listed Atlantic sturgeon that live in these areas of the tidal Delaware River. (27)

Response: Please see responses to Comment 59 through Comment 62.

Comment 66: PA DEP is seeking information about fish in the lower Delaware and in the estuary. Fish propagation is not a designated use in this part of the Delaware River and the state is required to review the reasons behind rejection of those uses. The DRBC found that for all nine fish species evaluated (Atlantic Sturgeon, American Shad, Striped Bass, White Perch, Bay Anchovy, Atlantic Silverside. Alewife, Blueback Herring, and Atlantic Menhaden) successful reproduction was clearly demonstrated in one or more of the compromised estuary zones. Furthermore, Delaware Riverkeeper Network submitted a petition to DRBC for dissolved oxygen (DO) criteria to be strengthened to meet the existing use of the main stem Delaware River as DO levels far exceed the current standards. (29)

Response: Please see responses to Comment 59 through Comment 62.

Comment 67: The federally endangered Atlantic sturgeon and other reproducing fish that currently live and breed in the tidal Delaware River (Zones 3,4, and 5) deserve stronger elevated dissolved oxygen standards and immediate listing of these zones as fish propagation is needed. Two decades of

61 studies clearly show propagation is occurring and DO has improved so this existing use should be reflected in the regulations. Historically the DO standards for the estuary are very low and they need ratcheting up now to thifill existing use requirements. Delaware Riverkeeper Network petitioned the DRBC in 2015 for this change and EPA is also weighing in for fish propagation for this triennial review. (32-73)

Response: Please see responses to Comment 59 through Comment 62.

Swimmable I Water Contact Use

Comment 68: I do not believe the PADEP can remove the water contact/swimming existing use from the Delaware River from RM 108.4 to 81.8 which includes a section of the tidal river from about Riverton wharf(l 08.4) downstream to Raccoon Island/Chester/Bridgeport Ferry (81.4). (1, 9, 32-73)

In this river stretch, there are multiple instances where DRN have documented water contact and conducted paddling with members on this stretch of the River. The Tidal Delaware River Water trail is a popular trail; water contact is an existing use and should not be removed especially in light of combined sewer overflow (CSO) cleanup plans undenvay. (9, 27, 32-73)

In this stretch there are multiple instances where we have participated in and documented water contact and conducted paddling and kayaking with members on this stretch of the River. For example, on the PA side of the River in this stretch, Spruce Harbor Park and the Darby Creek and JoIm Heinz National Wildlife water trail provide maps to encourage kayakers and paddlers to explore these urban areas of the watershed. Harbor Park in Philly provides livery services including kayak rentals and paddle boats. Petty’s Island — a 500 acre island in Pennsauken Township NJ, with community support and advocacy by Delaware Riverkceper Network and other conservation partners dating back to 2004, is now being permanently protected as a wild nature preserve and access point for urban populations when resistance developed in 2004 to stop a golf course and hotel development agreement between Cherokee developers and Citgo who owns the island. (https://phillv.curbed.com/201 8/1/9/I 6739672/petty-island-new-jersey-history- nth). There is a Tidal Delaware River Water Trail in this portion of the tidal Delaware River (http://www.tidaltrail.orai which is bringing large population centers closer to the Delaware River — this water trail was funded by the Dept. and DCNR and other partners. The Tidal Delaware Water Trail is 56 miles of accessible river opportunities from Trenton, New Jersey to Marcus Nook, Pennsylvania and is one of 25 designated Pennsylvania Water Trails and a hub of environmental features, historic resources, and recreational activities for Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The Dept sites combined sewer overflows (CSOs) as a reason to undermine these water opportunities that exist but as EPA also notes, EPA’s CSO policy was issued in 1994 and incorporated into the CWA in 2000 and long-term control plans are now in development or in place for the CSOs in this portion of the Delaware River. DEP and DRBC should be listing water contact/swimming as a use in this triennial review because it is clearly occurring in this stretch of the River. EPA’s regulations implementing the Clean Water Act provide that “where existing water quality standards specify designated uses less than those which are presently being

62 attained, the State shall revise its standards to reflect the uses actually being attained.” 40C.F.R. 131.10(h)(2)(ii)). (27)

PADEP also reexamined the removal of the water contact use from the Delaware River between River Miles 108.4 to 81.8. In the proposed rulemaking, PADEP states that the WC use remains excluded from the designated uses in this portion of the Delaware River because of impacts from combined sewer overflows (CSO) and hazards associated with commercial shipping and navigation. We believe this conclusion needs to be reconsidered since EPA’s Combined Sewer Overflow Policy was issued in 1994 and incorporated into the Clean Water Act in 2000. Long Term Control Plans are now under development or in place for the CSOs in this portion of the river. In addition, recreation which results in contact with the water is occurring in this portion of the river. PADEP should initiate an effort with the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) and the other member states to revise the applicable standards to include designated use protection for water contact/swimming. (4)

Response: The Department appreciates the comments related to the recreational activities taking place in the aforementioned sections of the Delaware River. The Department will initiate, as suggested, an effort with the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) and the other member states to reevaluate the applicable standards to include designated use protection for water contact/swimming, as well as boating if applicable. Please see the response to Comment 24 for additional information. An updated recommendation regarding water contact sports will be considered in the next triennial review of water quality standards, following outcome of this collaboration with DRBC and the other member states.

COMMENTS CONCERNING CORRECTIONS TO DRAINAGE LISTS

Comment 69: PADEP is making a number of corrections to its Drainage Lists, as well as proposing to consolidate and reformat several Drainage Lists. PADEP must be cautious that in the process of these revisions they do not inadvertently change the designated use of any streams, especially if the change of designated use is to a use that is less protective. We have reviewed the revisions and we have found that several revisions need to be clarified. (4)

Response: The Board has recommended a number of changes to the Drainage Lists in 25 Pa. Code § 93.9a to 93.9z. These changes were described in the Preamble, which clarified that these changes did not affect the current designated use of any streams. These changes are being made to improve the current format of the Drainage Lists and to provide corrections and clarifications as necessary.

Comment 70: If a downgrade is indeed being proposed a use attainability analyses for each would be required rather than a current change this triennial review. A use attainability analysis (UAA) is a structured scientific assessment of the factors affecting the attainment of uses specified in Section 101(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act (the so called “fishable/swimmable” uses). The factors to be considered in such an analysis include the physical, chemical, biological, and economic use

63 removal criteria described in EPA’ s water quality standards regulation (40 CFR l3l.10(g))- (6)).

A UAA must be conducted for any water body when a state or authorized tribe designates uses that do not include the uses specified in Section lOl(a)(2) of the Act or when designating sub categories of these uses that require less stringent criteria than previously applicable. States and authorized tribes must hold public hearings for the purpose of reviewing the applicable water quality standards at least once every 3 years and when revising water quality standards. States and authorized tribes must also re-examine waters that do not include the uses specified in Section lOl(a)(2) of the Act to determine if new information has become available. If new information indicates that the uses specified in CWA Section l0l(a)(2) are attainable, then the state must revise its WQS accordingly to designate such uses. The EPA lists only 6 factors for UAA and the bar is set very high to remove a use.

EPA states concerns with many downgrades in their Dec 20, 2017 letter on the triennial review that need to be explained — they list potential downgrades in Drainage Lists G, L, M, 0 (Trout Run is EV and DEP is proposing HQ-CWF, MF), and Drainage List R. DRN believes that justification is necessary for all deletions or changes at a minimum (27).

Other commenters suggest that there may be many instances of the Department proposing to downgrade streams in the triennial review and cite EPA’s comments reflecting other needed reviews (9, 32-73).

Response: The Department’s understanding appears to align with the commenter’s understanding of the definition of a use attainability analysis (UAA) as described by the federal Clean Water Act. In 25 Pa. Code § 93.4(b), Pennsylvania has incorporated the six conditions given at 40 CFR 131.10(g)(l )-(6) under which a less restrictive use may be adopted into water quality standards. However, the Board is not redesignating any waters to a less restrictive use, and therefore a UAA is not being conducted.

Comment 71: In addition to the proposed Drainage List revisions for §93.9a - 93.9z, an index map update would be helpful. The orientation and size of the current index map in §93.9 limit its usefulness. It would be very helpful to rotate the map 90 degrees and enlarge it to fit the width of the page. (11)

Response: The Department appreciates the comments but does not believe that changing the map is necessary. The Department suggests visiting the online pdf version of 25 Pa. Code Chapter 93, located at https://www.pacode.comlsecure/dataJO25/chapter93/025_0093 .pdf and viewing the map in question, which is located immediately before the start of the Drainage Lists. While viewing the pdf online, it is possible to rotate the map clockwise so that it can be properly viewed, as well as to enlarge the map and zoom in to a specific location without losing resolution.

64 Drainage List B — p93. 9b

Comment 72: According to the GNIS_PA Features updated in July 2017, the stream source for Lackawaxen River is the confluence of West Branch Lackawaxen River and Dyberry Creek at 41.57751/- 75.253680. The NHD flowline incorrectly identifies the origin of Lackawaxen River at the confluence of West Branch Lackawaxen River and Van Auken Creek. Van Auken Creek is a tributary to West Branch Lackawaxen River and should have a 4 for hydrological order rather thana3. (8)

Response: The Department appreciates being alerted of this discrepancy. The Department confirmed that the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) flowline was incorrect in this instance and alerted the United States Geological Survey (USGS) of the issue. The NHD flowline has since been corrected to make it consistent with the information in the Geographic Names Information System (GNIS). The GNIS is the federal and national standard for geographic nomenclature. Corrections to 25 Pa. Code §93.9b in the Annex A have been made so that the code will be consistent with the GNIS information and the NHD flowline.

The West Branch Lackawaxen River originates upstream of the Prompton State Park and it flows to the confluence with Dyberry Creek. The source of the Lackawaxen River is this confluence of the West Branch Lackawaxen River and Dyberry Creek. The listing of Van Auken Creek has been corrected in the annex of this final rulemaking to show that it is a tributary of the West Branch Lackawaxen River instead of the Lackawaxen River with a hydrological order of 4- instead of 3-.

Comment 73: We agree with the proposed corrections to the duplicate entries for the Lackawaxen River. Only one entry for the River is necessary. Also, the Lackawaxen River flows through Wayne and Pike Counties and empties into the Delaware River in Pike County that should also be noted in § 93.9b. Drainage List B. (3)

Response; The Department appreciates the comments regarding the proposed elimination of multiple entries for Lackawaxen River. Regarding the county for the main stem, Pike County is listed in 25 Pa. Code §93.9b for the entire Lackawaxen River in the Annex A of this final rulemaking. 25 Pa. Code §93.9(a) states that, “the county column indicates the county in which the mouth of the stream or the downstream limit of the zone described for that entry is located.” The Lackawaxen River empties into the Delaware River in Pike County.

Drainage List D — p93.9d

Comment 74: In Drainage List D. confirm that the GIS coordinates represent the original location of the PA 903 bridge and not the GIS coordinates of the relocated bridge. (4)

65 Response: Department staff have confirmed that the coordinates are indeed in the middle of where the PA 903 bridge previously crossed the Lehigh River. The new bridge is further upstream of these coordinates, and therefore, the Annex A is written correctly.

Comment 75: Delaware River tributaries — it is unclear for Drainage List D if the bolded changes for some Monroe/Carbon County streams are reflected accurately. We believe some of these streams may have an existing use of EV and that regulatory change is now warranted at this time for this triennial review. The current listings in other words, in the regulations within Chapter 93, located at: https://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter93/s93.9d.html, do not reflect what may be found on the existing use tables. Some Monroe County streams listed in bold as HQ-CWF, MF in the proposed triennial review document are already that designation in the above link (examples include: UNT to Tobyhanna Creek, Jim Smith Run, Pole Bridge Run, Singer Run, East Branch Dresser Run, Pollys Run. Hummler Run, Kistler Run, Wagner Run, Upper Tunkhannock Creek, Wolf’sSpring Run, Deep Run, Davey Run, Red Run, Tunkhannock Creek, and Shingle Mill Run). This list of streams is bolded as HQ-CWP, MF in the triennial review proposed text but also are reflected as HQ-CWF, MF in the regulations at the link above. A thorough review and explanation of this list is needed before adoption especially in light of efforts in some counties to undermine solid science for special protection streams (see prior DRN testimony). (27)

Response: None of the surface waters of the Commonwealth are being redesignated in this triennial review rulemaking package. Streams on the existing use list will be redesignated through a future rulemaking process(es) to match the existing uses with the designated uses. The link provided in the comment leads to the html version of 25 Pa. Code §93.9d, Drainage List D. Delaware River Basin in Pennsylvania — Lehigh River. The designated uses of the entire Lehigh River basin are available at that link.

The commenter references a “proposed triennial review document”. The Department believes that this is referring to the Annex A that comprises the triennial review proposed rulemaking and found at: http://files.dep.state.pa.us/PublicParticipation/Public%2OParticipation%20Center/PubPartCenter

PortalFiles/Environmental%200ualitv%2oBoard/20 I7/April%20 18/7- 534%2oProposed%2OTriennial%2oReview/03 7-534 Triennial%20201 7 Annex A.pdf.

The commenter provides a list of examples of Monroe County streams that are included in the proposed annex in bold text as HQ-CWF, MF and states that these streams are also currently designated (i.e., they appear in 25 Pa. Code § 93.9d) as NQ-CWF, MF. The commenter is completely correct, but the Department believes that the commenter may be confused by the formatting of the annex. Language in the annex that is proposed to be inserted into the Pennsylvania Code as a result of this rulemaking is formatted as bold and underlined, and language to be deleted is formatted as bold and bracketed. All of the streams that are listed as examples in these comments are proposed to be deleted. They will still be designated HQ-CWF, MF under the two entries for the Tobyhanna Creek basin from the source to Cross Keys Run and

66 from Frame Cabin Run to the mouth. The Department is proposing to reformat this portion of the code in order to consolidate it.

In many parts of the Drainage Lists, the current format consists of a main stem entry for a stream, followed by unnamed tributaries to that stream, and then individually named tributaries within the basin. Often, most of the tributaries, both named and unnamed, have the same designated use. In some cases, an entire basin is the same designated use except for a few streams. Large stream basins may take up several pages within a Drainage List and can be difficult for individuals to navigate and understand. Reformatting such large basins to consolidate portions of the code that have the same designated use enables readers to view that entire basin within a page or two. In addition, a condensed Drainage List reduces the likelihood that errors vill occur in transcription of the code during rulemaking and publication procedures. The Department currently has a GIS mapping tool available, eMapPA, to assist staff as well as members of the public and the regnlated community in locating streams within Pennsylvania, and it should be used in conjunction with the Pennsylvania Code and other available online mapping resources to determine official designated uses.

Drainage List G—§93.9g

Comment 76: in Drainage List G. PADEP indicates that they are restoring the correct designated use to the Chester Creek/Goose Creek basin from TSP to WWF. PADEP needs to provide additional documentation to support this revision, as it is unclear from the information in the public notice that this is the correct designation. (4)

From the stream listings tables, it would appear that the Department is proposing to downgrade Goose Creek in the Delaware River Basin from TSP (trout stock fishery) to WWF (warmwater fishery). More information and analysis is warranted to the public on how this decision is justified (1, 9, 32-73), and we believe DEP should be considering a use attainability analysis if this is not an oversight or mistake. (9. 32-73)

It would appear that the Department is proposing to downgrade Goose Creek in the Delaware River Basin from TSP (trout stock fishery) to WWF (warmwater fishery). More information and analysis are warranted to the public on how this decision is justified. DRN has documented fisher people on the lower area of Goose Creek within community park boundaries fishing on multiple occasion as part of our several years of monitoring related to phosphorus and a TMDL being challenged by a sewage treatment plant operator. When a downgrade is being considered, a use attainability analysis is required under the CWA. The Dept. must also prove that at no time in the future would trout be able to be stocked/the use restored even with restoration and the likely enforcement of a strong TMDL standard for phosphorus. (27)

Response: The stream designation of “Goose Creek” has caused confusion over time due to a series of errors in prior rulemaking packages. The subject of this description lies almost entirely in Chester County. The “Goose Creek” basin consists of the portion of Chester Creek basin upstream of the confluence with East Branch Chester Creek. “Goose Creek” does not include

67 any portion of the East Branch Chester Creek basin. “Goose Creek” originates in West Chester Borough and West Goshen Township, both in Chester County and flows southeast. “Goose Creek” flows through Westtown Township, Chester County and the mouth of “Goose Creek” is located in Thombury Township, Chester County (at -75.542°W; 39.931°N). There is a very tiny portion of the “Goose Creek” basin that lies in Thombury Township, Delaware County. This description of “Goose Creek” is consistent with: (1) a 2017 Total Maximum Daily Load

(https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/20 17- 05/documents/goose creek pa reassessment reconsideration.pd; (2) a trail map for Thombury Township in Chester County (http://www.thomburytwp.cornlwp contentluploads/20 14/I O/Trailways-Map-07-O1-14pM) which shows Goose Creek and Goose Creek Park; (3) United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographical maps for the West Chester Quadrangle from 1996 and 1997; and (4) the description of the basin in the Preamble of the September 1984 Proposed Rule at 14 PaB 3473 (see Supplement to Report to Environmental Quality Board Comment and Response Document (“Supplement”); Exhibit One).

Much of the confusion associated with “Goose Creek” is because: (1) it is not named in the NHD Flowline; (2) its name does not appear on current USGS topographical quadrangle maps; and (3) it is not included in the Pennsylvania Gazetteer of Streams. In the Pennsylvania Gazetteer of Streams, the waterbody described above as “Goose Creek” is identified as Chester Creek.

Between 1978 and the present, at least five rulemakings affected 25 Pa. Code § 93.9g in the “Goose Creek” basin. These regulatory packages inadvertently introduced some errors into the Pennsylvania Code. These errors were related to either the designated use (e.g., WWF or TSF) or the stream names. Based on an analysis of these historical changes, it has been determined that there is an error in the Pennsylvania Code pertaining to the present designated use of TSF, MF for the “Goose Creek” basin. The proper designated use of “Goose Creek” should be WWF, MF. Additionally, the present designated use of WWF, MF is in error for Westtown Run. The proper designated use of Westtown Run should be TSF, MF.

In the Preamble for a March 1978 rulemaking, it was recommended that the designated use for “Goose Creek”, which was then TSF, should be replaced with WWF. This change was recommended because the “stream receives considerable point and nonpoint waste discharges” and “the actual stream conditions do not meet trout stocking criteria of the Pennsylvania Fish Commission.” A second proposed rulemaking was published in December 1978 at 8 PaB 3665, which addressed the extensive comments received on the March 1978 rulemaking. This second proposed rulemaking maintained the recommendation to redesignate “Goose Creek” as WWF. In a July 1979 comments and responses document, a comment was made to retain the TSF designated use because there was potential that the stream could attain the TSF use provided pollution problems in the basin are corrected. The Department agreed with this commenter. The final rulemaking in September 1979;however, inadvertently deleted reference to all of the tributaries to East Branch Chester Creek. As a result, no designated use appeared in the Pennsylvania Code for “Goose Creek”, although the intent was for the “basin” of East Branch Chester Creek (including “Goose Creek”) to be designated TSF. According to the Pennsylvania. Code, following the September 1979 rulemaking, the East Branch Chester Creek extended downstream to the confluence with West Branch Chester Creek at river mile 8.72 and, as such,

68 “Goose Creek” would have been a tributary to East Branch Chester Creek according to 25 Pa. Code §93.9g as published in 1979.

In September 1984, the Environmental Quality Board (Board) revisited “Goose Creek” as part of a triennial review of water quality standards. See Supplement to Report to Environmental Quality Board Comment and Response Document (“Supplement”); Exhibit One, pages 14 Pa.B. 3480, 3481, 3499, and 3501). This published text provides a very good physical description of the “Goose Creek” basin and includes the recommendation that the TSF designation, which was inadvertently deleted in 1979, was not attainable due to the instream physical characteristics and should be changed to WWF for the “Goose Creek” basin. The final rule, published at 15 PaB 544 in February 1985, included reference to “Goose Creek” and a redesignation to WWF.

The Board again revisited Goose Creek in a Drainage List corrections package within a proposed rulemaking at August 3, 1996 (26 Pa.B. 3637, https://www.pabulletin.com/secure/datalvol26/26- 31/1253.html, see Supplement, Exhibit Four at 26 Pa.B. 3638 and 3641) and a final rulemaking on June 28, 1997 (at 27 Pa.B. 3050, https://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data’vol27/27- 26/I 024.html, see Supplement, Exhibit Five). The intention was to delete the reference to the name “Goose Creek” and change it to Unnamed Tributary to East Branch Chester Creek at River Mile 0.4; while retaining the designation as WWF, as it was previously established in February 1985. This change was made because “Goose Creek” was not found in the Pennsylvania Gazetteer of Streams and is only a local name. The problem is that the basin described as Unnamed Tributary to East Branch Chester Creek at River Mile 0.4 is not the same “Goose Creek” that was described in the Preamble of the September 1984 proposed rulemaking, which redesignated Goose Creek from TSF to WWF. They are two different streams. The description given in the Preamble of the September 1984 Proposed Rule for Goose Creek makes it very clear that Goose Creek is not the same stream as the unnamed tributary to East Branch Chester Creek (stream code = 00605) that enters East Branch Chester Creek at River Mile 0.4. So, rather than renaming Goose Creek, this rulemaking, which was finalized in 1997, effectively transposed the designation of WWF from the stream that was described as Goose Creek in the September 1984 Proposed Rulemaking to the unnamed tributary which enters East Branch Chester Creek at River Mile 0.4. The stream described as UNT to East Branch Chester Creek at River Mile 0.4 (and currently in the Pennsylvania code as Westtown Run) was inadvertently designated WWF, but should be TSF.

In a June 2009 proposed rule, the Board renamed the listing for “unnamed tributary to East Branch Chester Creek at RM 0.4” by replacing it with the name “Westtown Run,” which came from an electronic topographical GIS map layer and from the USGS 1997 topographical quadrangle map. This proposal was finalized in April 2010 without any changes.

In light of this historical information and based on these comments, in this final-form rulemaking, the intended designated use of WWF, MF is reinstated for the waters formerly known as the Goose Creek basin and described as the Chester Creek basin from the source to the confluence with East Branch Chester Creek. Further, the intended designated use is restored of TSF, MF to what is currently listed in 25 Pa. Code §93.9g as Westtown Run and is more appropriately identified as liNT 00605 to East Branch Chester Creek. This unnamed tributary to

69 East Branch Chester Creek was incorrectly listed in 25 Pa. Code § 93.9g as being designated WWF, MF and its designated use should be correctly listed as TSF, MF.

This correction in the Chester Creek basin is not a redesignation to a less restrictive use. In this most recent review, the Department did not rely on one of the six factors at 40 CFR 131.10(g)( I)-(6) and cross-referenced in Pennsylvania’s water quality standards at 25 Pa. Code § 93.4(b), nor did the Department complete a UAA because “Goose Creek” is not being recommended for a less restrictive use in this triennial review.

Comment 77: In Drainage List G, in clarifying the zone descriptions for the tributaries to East Branch Brandywine Creek, it appears that PADEP revised the designated uses as well and resulting in a protected use with lesser protection for unnamed tributary 00322 to Beaver Creek. Provide additional information to confirm if this was an intended revision and if so, provide additional documentation to support this revision. (4)

Response: Unnamed Tributary (UNT) 00322 flows through East Brandnvine Township in Chester County and is a tributary to the East Branch Brandywine Creek with its mouth at 40° 1’ 29.5” N; 75° 42 22.6” W. It was not the intent of the Department to revise the designated use of this small tributary. There is a nuance in formatting the drainage lists at 25 Pa. Code § 93.9a to 93.9z that when the stream is named as the downstream limit in the zone description for a portion of a basin, then that stream carries the designated use given for that particular entry, if that stream is not specifically named in the code. For example, if the entry states that the basin of Big Run is CWF from Pine Creek to Middle Creek, then Middle Creek is CWF, unless there is a subsequent entry specifying Middle Creek carries a different designated use. UNT 00322 should retain its current designated use of HQ-TSF, MF.

Comment 78: A potential downgrade (similar to Goose Creek) appears to be proposed for a tributary (00322) of Beaver Creek which flows into the East Branch Brandywine River. As per our comments regarding Goose Creek, a UAA is needed before any of these downgrades are codified. (27)

Response: Unnamed Tributary (TiNT) 00322 is not being redesignated as a result of this triennial review. UNT 00322 is a tributary to the East Branch Brandywine Creek, not Beaver Creek. UNT 00322 should retain its current designated use of HQ-TSF. MF. The Board added an entry into Drainage List G for UNT 00322 to alleviate any confusion. See the response to Comment 77 for further details.

Comment 79: From the stream listings tables, it would appear that the Department is proposing to downgrade Beaver Creek a tributary to the East Branch Brandywine Creek. More information and analysis is warranted to the public on how this decision is justified and we believe DEP should be considering a use attainability analysis if this is not an oversight or mistake. (9, 32-73)

70 Response: The mouth of Beaver Creek (stream code 00297) enters the East Branch Brandywine Creek in Downingtown Borough in Chester County. The designated use of Beaver Creek is not being changed. The entries in 25 Pa. Code § 93.9g for the tributaries to the East Branch Brandywine Creek immediately upstream and downstream of Beaver Creek indicate that they have a designated use of WWF, MF. The zone description in the entry prior to Beaver Creek describes a designated use of WWF, MF for the tributaries of the East Branch Brandywine Creek between Unnamed Tributary (TiNT) 00322 and Beaver Creek. The next entry gives the designated use of CWF, MF for Beaver Creek basin. And the entry following Beaver Creek pertains to tributaries whose mouths lie downstream of Beaver Creek.

Drainage List .1— §93.9j

Comment 80: In Drainage List J, provide documentation that inclusion of the downstream limit of Roaring Brook did not inadvertently result in a protected use with lesser protection being assigned to a portion of the stream. (4)

Response: The current designated uses of all surface waters in the Commonwealth can be found at 25 Pa. Code § 93.9a to 93.9z. The zone description of the upstream portion of Roaring Brook basin in Lackawanna County is currently defined at 25 Pa. Code §93.9j as “Basin, Source to Elmhurst Reservoir”. This upstream portion is designated HQ-CWF, MF. The remainder of Roaring Brook basin is designated CWF, MF and the zone is defined at §93.9j as “Basin, Elmhurst Reservoir to Mouth”. A clarification to §93.9j was recommended along with the proposed rulemaking to demarcate the downstream endpoint of the HQ upstream portion of the basin. The Elmhurst Reservoir is not designated HQ. Roaring Brook was redesignated to HQ CWF at 15 Pa.B. 544 (Feb. 16, 1985). The Preamble to the proposed rulemaking found at 14 Pa.B. 3473 (see Supplement; Exhibit One; 14 Pa.B. 3499 and 3500) describes the upper portion of the basin as extending downstream to the slack water of Elmhurst Reservoir.

Drahiage List L — §93.91

Comment 81: In Drainage List L. in making corrections to Logan Branch. it appears that PADEP revised the designated uses as well and resulting in a protected use with lesser protection for a tributary to Logan Branch. Provide additional infonnation to confirm if this was an intended revision and if so, provide additional documentation to support this revision. (4)

Response: Two small streams come together in southern Benner Township in Centre County at 40° 49’ 56.6’ N; 77° 45’ 12.8” W. The stream that flows toward the west goes under Nittany Mountain Road near its origin and this stream is currently identified by the NHD flowline as Logan Branch. It was formerly recognized as an unnamed tributary to Logan Branch with a stream code of 23007. It is also known by the local name of McBrides Run. Regardless of whatever name is attached to this surface water, it is designated HQ-CWF, MF. The other headwater stream is designated CWF, MF and flows toward the east, representing the boundary between College Township and Harris Township and crossing under Loop Road before flowing

71 into Benner Township. According to the NHD flowline, the stream flowing toward the east does not currently have a name assigned to it, but it was historically known as Logan Branch. Regardless of the name that is assigned to this surface water, it is designated CWF, MF.

The 1978-1979 rulemaking identified a stream locally known as McBrides Run and designated it as HQ-CWF because of “local concern to protect existing quality of unfiltered public supply.” The Newtown Creck, et al. stream redesignations rulemaking package was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin as a final rule on January 6, 2007 (37 PaB 11), and included a clarification which identified Unnamed Tributary (UNT) 23007 as being known locally as McBrides Run and it was described in the annex as being HQ-CWF. The result of the Newtown Creek package was that the HQ-CWF stream which flows toward the west was known as UNT 23007 to Logan Branch and locally known as McBrides Run in the Pennsylvania Code and that the other stream that flows toward the east following the boundary between College Township and Harris Township before entering Benner Township was known as Logan Branch and was designated CWF. Subsequent to the Newtown Creek package, the Department recognized these two stream names were switched by in the NHD flowline. The NHD flowline now recognizes the HQ-CWF stream that flows toward the west as Logan Branch and the CWF stream that flows toward the east is not named in the NHD flowline. In order to correct the Pennsylvania Code so it is consistent with the NHD flowline, the Board is switching the names on these two streams in the Pennsylvania C’ode.The Board is not changing the designated use of either stream.

Comment 82: In Drainage List L. Horse Thief Run is proposed to be deleted, and it is unclear to which basin it has been assigned. Confirm that its designated use of CWF, MF has been maintained. (4)

Response: Horse Thief Run is a tributary to Marsh Creek. Horse Thief Run enters Marsh Creek downstream of the confluence of Charleston Creek and Morris Branch, and upstream of the mouth of Baldwin Run. Horse Thief Run is included in the new entry for tributaries to Marsh Creek which enter Marsh Creek between the confluence of Charleston Creek and Morris Branch and the mouth of Baldwin Run. This entry designates these tributaries, including Horse Thief Run, as CWF, MF.

Comment 83: In Drainage List L there are a number of streams that are proposed to be deleted, and it appears that they are being assigned to be included in a basin with a designated use with lesser protection. Please confirm that the designated uses have been maintained for the following streams: Bender Run, Mosquito Creek, Lycoming Creek (source to Long Run), unnamed tributaries to Lycoming Creek, Cascade Run, Sugar Works Run, Mill Creek, Roaring Branch, Abbott Run, Red Run, Rock Run, Frozen Run, Heylmun Run, Pleasant Stream, Slacks Run, Shoemakers Run, Grays Run, Hagermans Run, Gendenen Run, Trout Run, Wolf Run, Daugherty Run, Hoagland Run, and Long Run. (4)

Response: The basins of Bender Run and Mosquito Creek are designated CWF, MF and they are included in the entry which designates the tributaries to the south bank of the West Branch

72 Susquehanna River from Pine Creek to Loyalsock Creek except Aughanbaugh Run, Antes Creek, and Big Run.

The remainder of the streams addressed in this comment are all in the Lycoming Creek basin. None of these streams have changed their designated use as a result of this rulemaking. The Lycorning Creek basin is being reformatted and many of the named tributaries will no longer appear individually in 25 Pa. Code §93.91. This reformatting will consolidate this portion of the Pennsylvania Code. Consolidation within Drainage Lists will reduce issues that arise when named streams appear to be missing from the code. Consolidation will also reduce issues for those streams that are not named in accordance with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and are not represented by the NHD flowline (e.g., streams recognized by unofficial local names).

The main stem of Lycoming Creek from its source to Long Run is CWF, MF. All of the tributaries upstream of Red Run are designated HQ-CWF, MF, including the basins of Cascade Run, Sugar Works Run, Mill Creek, Roaring Branch, and Abbott Run. Red Run is designated CWF, MF. The tributaries between Red Run and Long Run are designated HQ-CWF, MF, including the basins of Rock Run, Frozen Run, Heylmun Run, Pleasant Stream, Slacks Run, Shoemakers Run, Grays Run, Hagermans Run, Gendenen Run, Trout Run, Wolf Run, Daugherty Run, and Hoagland Run. The Long Run basin is designated HQ-CWF, MF.

Drainage List M — §919w

Comment 84: In Drainage List M, PADEP is proposing to add UNT 17823 and UNT 17821, both below Federal Aid Secondary Highway (FAS) 690, as those portions of the streams had been missing from the list. Although upstream of FAS 690 the streams are designated HQ-CWF, MF, downstream has been assumed CWF, MF. PADEP needs to provide additional documentation to support this revision, as it is unclear from the information in the public notice that this is the correct designation. (4)

Response: The names in 25 Pa. Code §93.9m for Bowersox Run and Erb Run are being amended to Unnamed Tributary (UNT) 17823 (locally known as Bowersox Run) and UNT 17821 (locally known as Erb Run). Additionally, the name for Federal Aid Secondary Highway (FAS) 690 is being updated to T3008 (Paxtonville Road). The commenter is specifically requesting fbrther explanation regarding the origin of the CWF, MF designated use for both of these streams between T3008 (Paxtonville Road) and their mouths. These two streams are both tributaries to Middle Creek and are both located downstream of North Branch Middle Creek. The basins of all of the tributaries to Middle Creek downstream of the mouth of North Branch Middle Creek were designated CWF along with the final rulemaking published at April 28, 1973 (3 Pa.B. 789). Therefore, at the time of this 1973 rulemaking, the entire basin of both UNT 17823 and UNT 17821 were designated CWF. In 1979, the portions of both of these basins above the road which was then known as FAS 690 (and now known as T3008 or Paxtonville Road) were redesignated to HQ-CWF. This 1979 rulemaking did not change the designated use of the lower part of these two basins from CWF, although it inadvertently omitted them from 25

73 Pa. Code § 93.9m. The Board is now reinserting the downstream portions of liNT 17823 and liNT 17821 into the Drainage List as CWF.

Drainage List 0— §93.90

Comment 85: In Drainage List 0, PADEP is proposing to add the Trout Run basin from the water supply dam to mouth, as it was missing from the list. Above the water supply dam, Trout Run is designated EV, this segment of the stream is being added as HQ-CWF, MF. PADEP needs to provide additional documentation to support this revision, as it is unclear from the information in the public notice that this is the correct designation. (4)

Response: Trout Run originates in Perry County, flows through a small portion of western Cumberland County and eventually enters the Conodoguinet Creek in Franklin County. The entire Trout Run basin was a conservation area prior to the 1978-1979 rulemaking. The portion of the basin that lies upstream of the water supply dam was a wilderness trout stream prior to the 1978-1979 rulemaking. The portion of the basin that lies below the water supply dam (i.e., the portion missing from 25 Pa. Code §93.9o) was still a conservation area even though it was not a wilderness trout stream. The policy for conservation areas was very similar to the current HQ category of waters (i.e., required maintenance of existing water quality and social or economic justification (SEJ) provisions were available for permitted activities), which is the reason why those streams were generally all converted to HQ in the 1978-1979 rulemaking. Any specific streams lying within conservation areas that were not intended to be automatically converted to HQ were included in the documentation that accompanied the 1978-1979 rulemaking. The Trout Run basin below the water supply dam was not specified as an exception to this general conversion of conservation areas. A correction is made in the final Annex A reinserting the downstream portion of the basin that was omitted during the 1978-1979 rulemaking. The missing downstream portion is reinserted as HQ-CWF, MF. The portion of the basin upstream of the dam was a wilderness trout stream and it was correctly converted to EV as a result of the 1978-1979 rulemaking.

Comment 86: In Drainage List 0, PADEP is proposing to correct the designated use of Reynolds Run from HQ-CWF, MF to HQ-TSF, MF. PADEP needs to provide additional documentation to support this correction as it is unclear from the information in the public notice that this correction is warranted. (4)

Response: Reynolds Run was designated as a conservation area in 1973 and thus received a designated use of HQ-CWF in the final-form rulemaking published at 9 Pa.B. 3051. Several streams in the area including Reynolds Run were subsequently reevaluated in 1989. An October 1989 stream report produced by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (see Supplement; Exhibit Two, Octoraro Creek Stream Report) showed that the streams were largely affected by agriculture and were actually supporting warm-water biota. The report recommended that Reynolds Run (and also MeCreary Run) be redesignated as HQ-TSF, MF. The streams were approved for redesignation in the Cooks Creek final-form rulemaking published at 21 Pa.B. 5511

74 (see Supplement; Exhibit Three; 21 Pa.B. 5513, Cooks Creek Package final rulemaking). At that time, Chapter 93 was amended to reflect the redesignation to HQ-TSF, MF; however, a duplicate entry for Reynolds Run was also inadvertently introduced at that time. The duplicate entry was deleted, but the designation for Reynolds Run was erroneously changed back to HQ-CWF, MF in the Corrections Package (see Supplement; Exhibit Four and Exhibit Five). The Preamble for the Corrections Package (Exhibit Four, 26 Pa.B. 3638) describes that Reynolds Run was converted back to its pre-reformatted designation. The reformatting of the Pennsylvania Code occurred circa 1992, just after the Cooks Creek package. Since there are no known data or reports to suggest that Reynolds Run was achieving a use of HQ-CWF, MF at that time (i.e., between 1991 and 1996), it is being viewed as an error that occurred because the refonnatting occurred just after the Cooks Creek package. The Board restored the intended designation of HQ-TSF, MF for Reynolds Run.

Drainage List R — ‘93. 9r

Comment 87: In Drainage List R, PADEP indicates that the erroneous stream listing for Mill Run is being deleted, but provides no indication as to why the listing is erroneous. (4)

Response: The stream in question is actually Mill Creek (stream code = 49706). The Preamble refers to “Mill Run” but this is incorrect. Mill Creek originates in Jefferson County and flows into Clarion County. Mill Creek enters the Clarion River on the east bank within State Game Land 74. The particular entry that is being deleted appears in 25 Pa. Code § 93.9r between the entry for the unnamed tributaries to Mill Creek from its source to Little Mill Creek and the entry for Parks Run. The Mill Creek entry consists of “4-Mill Creek” in the stream column and there is no information in any of the other columns. Typically, that format would indicate that the stream originates at the point of confluence of two streams; and this entry would be the very first entry for that basin. However, in this instance there are other upstream entries for waters in the Mill Creek basin that precede this entry, and none of the mouths of Parks Run, Martin Run, Rankin Run, Updike Run, and McCanna Run coincide with one another. This stray entry for Mill Creek has no informational value to anyone trying to interpret § 93.9r. This entry could only serve to confuse someone trying to interpret the code. It is clearly in error and is deleted in the final Annex A.

75 LITERATURE CITED

ANSDU, 2018. A Review of Dissolved Oxygen Requirements of Key Sensitive Species in the Delaware Estuaiy. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University. November 2018. https://www.nj. gov/drbc/library/documents/Review DOreq KeySensSpecies DelEs Wary ANStoDRBCnov2OI 8.pdf

PADER, 1984. Proposed Rulemaking as published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin at 14 PaB 3473 (September 22, 1984). See Exhibit One in the Supplement to the Report to Environmental Quality Board Comment and Response Document.

PADER, 1989. Stream Report: Octoraro Creek. (October 1989). See Exhibit Two in the Supplement to the Report to Environmental Quality Board comment and Response Document.

PADER, 1991. Cooks Creek, et al. Stream Redesignation Package Final Rulemaking as published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin at 21 PaB 5511 (November 30, 1991). See Exhibit Three in the Supplement to the Report to Environmental Quality Board €‘ommentand Response Document.

PADEP, 1996. Corrections Package. Proposed Rulemaking as published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin at 26 PaB 3637 (August 3, 1996). See Exlubit Four iii the Supplement to the Report to Environmental Quality Board Comment and Response Document.

PADEP, 1997. Corrections Package. Final Rulemaking as published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin at 27 PaB 3050 (June 28, 1997). See Exhibit Five in the Supplement to the Report to Environmental Quality Board Comment and Response Document.

PADEP, 2017. Ammonia Rationale Document: Rationale for the development of ambient water quality criteria for ammonia. Protection of aquatic life use. PA Department of Environmental Protection. January 2017. http://files.dep.state.pa.uslPublicParticipation!Public%20Participation%2oCenter!Pu bPartCenterPortalFiles/Environmental%2oQualitv%2oBoard/20 I7/ApriI%20 18/7- 534%2oProposed%2oTriennial%2oReview/05 7- 534 Triennial%202017 Ammonia Rationale.pdf

PADEP, 2017. Bacteria Rationale Document: Rationale for the development of ambient water quality criteria for bacteria. Protection of recreational use. PA Department of Environmental Protection. January 2017. http:/Jfiles.dep.state.pa.us/PublicParticipation/Public%20Participation%2oCenter/Pu

bPartCenterPortalFiles/Environmenta]%200ualftv%2OBoardJ2O I7/April%20 18/7- 534%20Proposed%20Triennial%2oReview/06 7- 534 Themiial%202017 Bacteria Rationale.pdf

76 Patnode KA, Elizabeth Hittle, Anderson RM, Zimmerman L, Fulton JW. 2015. Effects of high salinity wastewater discharges on unionid mussels in the Allegheny River, Pennsylvania. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 6(1):55-70; e1944-687X. doi: 10.3996/052013-JFWM-033

PFBC, 2018. A Field Guide to Pennsylvania’s Freshwater Mussels. Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission; Division of Environmental Services. For: PA Chapter American Fisheries Society Mussel Identification Workshop. February 9, 2018.

https://pa.fisheries.org/wp-content/uploads/20 I8/02/Mussel-ID-workshop-field- guide-2-9-l 8.pdf

USEPA, 1985. Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses.

USEPA, 1986. Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. Federal Register 51(185):33992— 34003. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/raf/.

USEPA, 2000. Ethylidene Dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane). (EPA 75-34-3). Available from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/20 I6-09/documents/ethylidene- dichloride.pdf.

USEPA, 2013a. Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia — Freshwater 2013. (EPA 822-R- 13-001) https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/20 15- 08/docurnents/aguatic-life-ambient-water-quality-criteria-for-ammonia-freshwater- 2013.pdf

USEPA, 2013b. Revised Deletion Process for the Site-Specific Recalculation Procedure for Aquatic fe Criteria. (EPA 823-R-13-001). USEPA. 2013. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/20 15- 08/documents/revised deletion process for the site- specific recalculation procedure for aquatic life criteria.pdf

USEPA, 2013c. Technical Suppoi-tDocument for Conducting and Reviewing Freshwater Mussel Occurrence Surveysfor the Development of Site-Specific Water Quality Criteria fOr Ammonia. (EPA 800-R-13-003). USEPA. 2013. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/20 15- 08/documents/tsd for conducting and reviewing freshwater mussel occurrence s urveys for the development of site-specific wgc for ammonia.pdf

USEPA, 2016a. Draft Field-Based Methods for Developing Aquatic Life &iteria for Specc Conductivity. (EPA-822-R-07-Ol 0). https://www.epa. gov/sites/productionlfiles/20 16-12/documents/field-based- conductivity-report.pdf

77 USEPA, 2016b. Development of National Bioaccumutation Factors: Supplemental Jqfonnation for EPA’s 2015 1-lumanHealth Criteria Update. (EPA 822-R-16-001). https://www.epa. gov/sites/production/flles/20 16-01/documents/national- bioaccumulation-factors-supplernental-information.pdf

78 ANNEX A

TITLE 25. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PART I. DEPARTM ENT OF ENVIRON MENTAL PROTECTION Subpart C. PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES ARTICLE II. WATER RESOURCES

ChAPTER 93. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

* * * * *

§ 93.1. Definitions. * * * * * Risk management—The process of evaluation and selection between alternative regulatory options. Risk management decisions may include consideration of risk assessment, analytical. socio—ccoiioniicand political factors.

SEVEN-D.4 VA VERAGE—THE ARITHMETIC AVERAGE OF THE SAMPLES COLLECTED DURING A CONSECUTIVE 7-DAY PERIOD.

State game propagation (:11(1protection area—An area established by the Game Commission for the propagation and protection oFgame or wildliFe wherein game or wildlife may not be hunted, pursued. disturbed, molested. killed or taken at any time except as authorized by the Game Commission.

§ 93.7. Specific water qualit criteria. (a) Table 3 displays speci tic water quality criteria and associated critical uses. The criteria associated with the Statewide water uses listed in §93.4. Table 2 apply to all surface waters. unless a specific exception is indicated in §§93.9a—93.9z. These exceptions will be indicated on a stream—by—streamor segment-by—segmentbasis by the words ‘‘Add’’ or ‘‘Delete’’ followed by the appropriate symbols described elsewhere in this chapter. Other specific water quality criteria apply to surface waters as specified in § §93.9a—93.9z. All applicable criteria shall be applied in accordance with this chapter, Chapter 96 (relating to water quality standards implementation) and other applicable State and Federal laws and regulations. TABLE 3

Critical Parameter Symbol Criteria Use* *****

Alkalinity Alk Minimum 20 mg/I as CaCO3, except where natural conditions are ]ess. Where discharges are to waters with 20 CWF, : mg/I or less alkalinity, the discharge should not fiwther reduce the alkalinity of the receiving waters. WWF,

. TSF, MF Ammonia Am [The maximum total ammonia nitrogen concentration (in mg/L) at all times shall be the numerical value CWF, Nitrogen given by: un-ionized ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N) x (Io’pKT-pH] + 1), where: un-ionized ammonia WWF, nitrogen = 0.12 x.f(T)/f(pH) TSF, f(pH) = 1 + io’°3732” MF f(T) = 1,T 10°C 1 + f(T) T < 10°C = + 10(PKTPH) and PKT = 0.090 + [(T27)], the dissociation constant for ammonia in water.

The average total ammonia nitrogen concentration over any 30 consecutive days shall be less than or equal to the numerical value given by: un-ionized ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N) X (1o’[pKT-pHJ ± I), where: un-ionized ammonia nitrogen = 0. 025 xf(fl/f(pH) f(pH) = 1,pH 7.7 f(pH) = lob74(77_PH),pH < 7.7 I f(T)=1,T10°C 1 + io973” f(T) ,T < 10CC : = 1 + 10PKT-vu

The pH and temperature used to derive the appropriate ammonia criteria shall be determined by one of I the following methods: _1)_Instream_measurements,_representative_of_median_pH_and_temperature—July_through_September.

7 2) Estimates of median pH and temperature—July through September—based upon available data or values determined by the Department. For purposes of calculating effluent limitations based on this value the accepted design stream flow shall be the actual or estimated lowest 30—consecutive-day average flow that occurs once in 10 years.J

In freshwater, the concentration of total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) shall not exceed (more than once in three years on average), the concentration calculated (in milligrams of TAN per liter) by the following:

1-hour average Criteria fsIaximum Concentration (CMC) acute criterion equation:

/ 0.275 39.0 CMC = MIN + + 7.204- 1 + 10P7204)’ / 0. 0114 1. 6181 7249 + (23.12 x ioo.o3ox(zo-T)) + 107.204-pH 1 + 10pH_72O)

30-day ROLLING average Criteria Continuous Concentration (CCC) chronic criterion equation:

0.0278 1.1994 i00028x(20MAx1)) CCC = 0.8876 + x (z. 126 x + 107.688-pH j ± 10p1I7688)

Chronic conccntration is not to exceed 2.5 timc the CCC as a 4 duv average-witMn-30-davs THE HIGHEST FOUR-DAY AVERAGE WITHIN THE 30-DAY AVERAGING PERIOD SHOULD NOT BE MORE THAN 2.5 TIMES THE CCC (e.g. 2.5 X 1-9-0.2 mu TAN/L at pH 9 and 20°C or tr8 O.Sg TAN/L) more than once in 3 years on average.

The pH and temperature used to derive the appropriate ammonia criteria shall be determined by instream measurements or best estimates, representative of the median pH and temnerature of the receiving stream for the applicable time period and dcsi2n conditions. BASED ON REFERENCE WATERS THAT ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MEDIAN pH AND TEMPERATURE OF THE RECEIVING WATER. INSTREAM MEASUREMENTS FOR pH AND TEMPERATURE WILL BE GATHERED USING DEPARTMENT DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOLS.

3 Bacteria Baci 1(Fecal eoliforms/ 100 mflj çBscherk/na coil 400m1 COLONY FORMING UNITS PER 100 WC MILLILITERS (CFU PER 100 ML)) During the swimming season (May 1 through September 30), the maximum [fecal coilform] E. coli level shall be a geometric mean of [2001 126 CFU per 100 ML-milffliters (ml) based on [a minimum of five] consecutive samples, each sample collected on different days during a 30—day-period. No more than 10% of the total samples taken during a 30 day period may exceed [400] 4Th per 100 ml. THE GEOMETRIC MEAN FOR THE SAMPLES COLLECTED IN THE VATERBODY SHOULD NOT BE GREATER THAN 126 CFU PER 100 ML IN ANY 30-DAY INTERVAL. THERE SHOULD NOT BE GREATER THAN A 10% EXCURSION FREQUENCY OF 410 CFU PER 100 ML FOR THE SAMPLES COLLECTED IN THE SAME 30-DAY DURATION INTERVAL. (Fecal eoliforms/ 100 nil) For the remainder of the year, the maximum fecal colifomi level shall be a geometric mean of 2,000 CFU per 100 milliliters (ml) based on a minimum of five consecutive samples collected on different days during a 30-day period. [Bac2 (Coliforms/100 ml)—Maximum of 5,000/100 ml as a monthly average value, no more than this number in PWSI more than 20 of the samples collected during a month, nor more than 20,000/100 ml in more than 5% of the samples.

Chloride Ch Maximum 250 mg/l. PwS *****

4 § 93.8a. Toxic subsianees.

* * * * *

(b) Water quality criteria for toxic substances shall be established as described under Chapter 16 (relating to water quality toxius management strategy—statement of policy). The Department will develop water quality criteria lhr toxic substances not listed in Chapter 93, Table 5 in accordance with § 93.Sd (relating to development of site-specific water quality criteria) and Chapter 16. lAppendix A, Table JA in Chapter 16 listsj The Department will maintain a pubhelv available online table of site—specifichuman health and aquatic life criteria that have been recently developed or adopted by the Department based on approved methodologies and the best seientitie information currently available. IThel For any analytical procedures or detection linuts that are not EPA approved, the approved analytical procedures and detection limits for these substances will also be listed in Chapter 16. Chapter 16, along with changes made to it. is hereby specifically incorporated by reference.

* * * * *

U) The requirements Ibr discharges to and antidegradation requirements for the Great Lakes System are as fbilows:

* * * * *

(3) Statewide antidegradation requirements in this chapter and Chapter 96 (relating to water quality standards implementation) jand in the Federal regulation in 40 CFR 131.32(a) (relating to Pennsylvania)I as applicable, apply to all surthee waters of the Great Lakes System.

§ 93.8c. Human health and aquatic life criteria for loxic substances. (a) Table 5 and IChapter 16, Appendix A. Table IA (relating to site—specificwater quality criteria for toxic substances) the table of site-specific criteria maintained by the Department list the aquatic life and human health criteria for toxic substances which the Department uses in development of effluent limitations in NPDES Permits and Ibr other purposes. The human health criteria, which include probable modes of exposure (such as, but not limited to ingestion from drinking water and fish consumption, inhalation and dennal absorption), are ftirther defined as to the specific effect (that is, cancer or thresliokl health efThets). For those aquatic life criteria which are Ihardness related and] a function of local water quality conditions and are specified as a formula, such as several of the heavy metals, the Iflepartment will use the specific hardness of the receiving stream after mixing with the waste discharge in calculating criteria on a case-by-case basisi harthwss—aml-pH values used FOR THE LOCAL WATER QUALITY CONDITION to derive the appropriate water quality criteria shall be determined by instream measurements or best estimates BASED ON REFERENCE WATERS THAT ARE representative of the median concentrations or conditions of the receiving skean WATER for the applicable time

5 period and design conditions. INSTREAM MEASUREMENTS FOR THE WATER QUALITY CONDITION WILL BE GATHERED USING DEPARTMENT I)ATA COLLECTION PROTOCOLS. The priority pollutants are a set of specific chemical pollutants regulated by EPA. The priority pollutant numbers (PP NO) used by the EPA to identify priority pollutants are included in Table 5 for reference purposes. The toxies without a PP NO are nonpriority pollutants or State—derivedcriteria.

(b) Some of these criteria may be superseded for the Delaware Estuary, Ohio River Basin, Lake Erie Basin, and Genesee River Basin under interstate and international compact agreements with the Delaware River Basin Commission, Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission and Inlernational Joint Commission, respectively. ITlie criteria in TableS do not apply to the Great Lakes System.j Water quality criteria for the Great Lakes System are contained in § 93.Xe (relating to special criteria for the Great Lakes System) and Table 6 (relating to Great Lakes Aquatic Life and Human Health Criteria). Criteria in Table 5 may apply to the Great Lakes System for those substances not listed in Table 6. Criteria may be developed for the Great Lakes System fiw substances other than those listed in 93.8ej Tables 5 and 6, under the methodologies in § 16.61 (relating to special provisions [hr the Great Lakes system).

6 TABLE 5

WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES

Fish and Aquatic Life Criteria Human Health PP (‘AS Criteria Continuous Criteria AfcLvnn inn Chemical Name LI itei in NO Number Concentrations (‘ugIL,) Concentration (ug/L) (ng/P 1M ANTIMONY 07440360 220 1100 5.6 ± K 2M ARSENIC 07440382 150 (As3+) 340 (As3±) 10 H

3M BERYLLIUM 07440417 N/A N/A N/A - 4M CADMIUM 07440439 * { I .101672-Øn[H]xO.041 838)}x *{11366720n[H1x0041838)}x N/A

Exp(0.7409x1n[H]-4.71 9) Exp(l .01 66x1n[H]-3.924) - (cx: @H=100. CCC=0.25) (ex. @H=100, CMC=2.0) *0.3lOxExp(0.SI9xln[H]+3.7256 SM CKROMWM III 16065831 *Q850xExp(0819x11[H]+O6348) N/A -

(ex: @H=100, CCC=74) (ex: @H=100, CMC=570)

SM CHROMIUM VI 18540299 [*10] *11 *16 N/A -

6M COPPER 07440508 *O96OxExp(08545xth[H] 1.702) *O96OxExp(09422x1n[H]l .700) N/A - (cx: @H=100, CCC=9.0) (cx: @H=100, CMC=13) * * 7M LEAD 07439921 { 1 .46203-(ln[HjxO.14571 2)}x {1 .46203-(ln[H]xO. 145712)}x N/A - Exp( I .273x1n[H]-4.705) Exp(1 .273x1n[H]-I .460) (cx: @H=100, CCC2.5) (ex: @H=100, CMC=65) SM MERCURY 07439976 *0.77 (Hg2 *1.4(Hg2±) 0.05 H 9M NICKEL 07440020 *o9c7xExp(s4sxln[H]o0584) *0.99SxExp(0.$46x1n[H]+2.255) {6l0- ± 1-I (ex. @H=100. CCC=52) (cx: @H100, CMC470) IOM SELENIUM 07782492 *45 N/A N/A IIM SILVER 07440224 N/A *O85OxExp(172x1n[H]6590) N/A (cx: @H100, CMC=3.2)

7 12M THALLIUM 07440280 13 65 0.21 ± H 13M ZINC *o9soxExp(o8473x1n[H1±0884) 0.978xExp(O.8473x1n[H]+0.884 07440666 N/A -

(ex: @H=100, CCC=120) (ex: @H=100, CMC=120) 14M CYANIDE. FREE 00057125 5.2 22 [140j 4 H IA 2-CHLOROPHENOL 00095578 110 560 [81j30 H 2A 2.4-DICHLORO[-IPHENOL 00120832 340 1700 177112 H 3A 2,4-DIMETHYLI-IPHENOL 00105679 130 660 [380]100 H 4.6-DINITRO-o-CRESOL 4A (2 METHYL-4.6- 00534521 16 80 [13]2 H DINITROPHENOL) 5A 2.4-DINITROJ-IPHENOL 00051285 130 660 [69]10 H E DINITROPHENOLS 25550587 N/A N/A 10 II 2-NITROPHENOL 6A 00088755 1600 8000 N/A - 7A 4-NITROPHENOL 00100027 470 2300 N/A - P- CHLORO-m-CRES OL $A (3 METHYL-4- 00059507 30 160 [N/A]500 [-]H CHLOROPHENOL) 9A PENTACHLOROj-]PHENOL 00087865 Exp(1.005x[pHj-5.134) Exp(1.005x{pH]-4.869) [0,27]gQ2 CRL pH 6.5 7.8 9.0 @pH= 6.5 7.8 9.0 Cnt 4.1 1550 Crit 5.3 1965 IOA PHENOL 00108952 N/A N/A [1040014000 H 13 2.4.5-TRICHLOROPHENOL 00095954 N/A N/A II I IA 2.4.6-TRICHLOROPHENOL 00088062 460 [1.4] CRL IV ACROLEIN 00107028 3.0 3.0 [6.0] 3O 3 H 2V ACRYLONITRILE 00107131 130 650 [0.05110.06 CRL 3V BENZENE 00071432 130 640 [1.2j0.58 CRL 5V BROMOFORM 00075252 370 1800 [4.3]7M CRL

8 6V CARBON TETRACHLORDE 00056235 560 2800 [0.23j0.4 CRL 7\1 CHLORO[-IBENZENE 00108907 240 1200 11301122 H CHLORODIBROI-] MO[- 8V 00124481 N/A N/A 10.4010.8 CRL 9V CHLOROETHANE 00075003 N/A N/A N/A by 2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER 00110758 3500 18000 N/A - liv CHLOROFORM 00067663 390 1900

12V DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE 00075274 N/A N/A [0.551.95 CRL

14V i.b-DICHLORO[-]ETHANE 00075343 N/A N/A N/A - iSv i2-DICHLORO[-IETHANE 00107062 3100 15000 [0.3812.9 CRL 16V 1,1-DICHLORO[-JETHYLENE 00075354 1500 7500 {33.0} H i7V i.2-DICHLORO[-]PROPANE 00078875 2200 11000 IN/A]222 ICRL 1,3 DICHLORO PROPYLENE 1,3- isv 005 V756 61 310 10 34]0 27 CRL DICHLOROPROPENE -. 19V ETHYLBENZENE 00100414 580 2900 j530j68 H 20v METHYLBROMIDE 00074839 110 550 [47j100 H

21V METHYL CHLORIDE 0074873 5500 28000 N/A - 22v METHYLENE CHLORIDE 00075092 2400 12000 [4.6j20 CRL 11 “7-TETRA[- 23V 00079345 210 1000 [0.17102 CRL ]CHLOROETHANE 24V TETRACHLORO[-IETHYLENE 00127184 140 700 [0.69110 CRL 25v TOLUENE 00108885 330 1700 f1300]57 H [1,2-trans-DICHLORO- 26V ETHYLENEJ 00156605 1400 6800 [1401100 H trans-1.2-DICHLOROETHYLENE

1,2 cis-DICHLORO[-IETHYLENE 00156592 N/A N/A f12J—H H

9 27V 1,1,1-TRICHLORO[-]ETHANE 00071556 610 3000 [N/A]10000 f-Ill 28V 1.1.2-TRICHLORO[-]ETHANE 00079005 680 3400 j0.59]j CRL 29V TRICHLORO[-]ETHYLENE 00079016 450 2300 [2.5]0.6 CRL 31V VINYL CHLORIDE 00075014 N/A N/A [0M25]ç CRL lB ACENAPHTHENE 00083329 17 83 [670]70 H

2B ACENAPHTHYLENE 00208968 N/A N/A N/A - 3B ANTHRACENE 00120127 N/A N/A [83001300 H [0.000086] 4B BENZIDThJE 00092875 59 300 CRL 0.0001 [0,00381 5B BENZO(a)-ANTHRACENE 00056553 0.1 0.5 CRL 0.001 [0.00381 6B BENZO(a)PYRENE 00050328 N/A N/A CRL 0.0001 3.4-BENZO-FLUORANTHENE [0.0038] 7B 00205992 N/A N/A CRL (BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE) 0.001

SB BENZO(ghi)-PERYLENE 00191242 N/A N/A N/A - [0.0038] 9B BENZO(k)-FLUORANTHENE 00207089 N/A N/A CRL

E BIS(CHLOROMETHYL)ETHER 00542881 N/A N/A 0.0002 CRL BIS(2-CHLORO[-] lOB 00111911 N/A N/A N/A - ETHOXY)METHANE

I1B BIS(2-CHLORO[-] ETHYL)ETHER 00111444 6000 30000 . 0.030 CRL [BIS(2-CHLORO- JSOPROPYL)ETHER] BIS(2- PB 00108601 N/A N/A [14001200 H - CHLORO-1-METHYLETHYL) ETHER

- BIS(2-ETHYL[-] LB 00117817 910 4500 . [1.2j032 CRL HEXYL)PHTHALATE

10 4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL - 14B 0010b 1 70 N/A -

15B BUTYLBENZYL PHTHALATE 00085687 35 140 1150]0A H lOB 2-CHLOROI-INAPHTHALENE 00091587 N/A N/A [1000j800 H ROE-I HENYL PHENYL 17B 07005723 N/A N/A N/A -

00,0381 1SB CHRYSENE 00218019 N/A N/A CRL [0M038] 19B DIBENZO(a.h)[-]ANTHL4CENE 00053703 N/A N/A CRL

1420 for diehloro- 820 H 20B 1.2-DICHLORO[-IBENZENE 00095501 160 benzene] 1000 [See 20B1 21B 1.3-DICHLORO[-]BENZENE 00541731 69 350 H

22B 1.4-DICHLORO[-]BENZENE 00106467 150 730 ISee 20B]300 H 23B 3,3-DICHLORO[-JBENZIDINE 00091941 N/A N/A l0.0211Q2. CRL 24B DIETHYL PHTHALATE 00084662 800 4000 117000j600 H 25B DIMETHYL PHTHALATE 00131113 500 2500 [270000]2000 H 26B DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE 00084742 21 110 [2000j20 H 0.05 for 27B 2,4-DINITRO[-JTOLUENE 00121142 320 1600 dinitro- CRL toluene 28B 2,6-DINITROj-]TOLUENE 00606202 200 990 See 27B CR1

29B DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE 00117840 N/A N/A N/A - 30B 1.2-DJPHENYLI-]HYDItkZINE 00122667 3 15 Ma#0.03 CRL 31B FLUORANTHENE 00206440 40 200 [130j20 H 32B FLUORENE 00086737 N/A N/A [1100j50 H

11 ______

[0.00028] 33B HEXACHLORO[-]BENZENE 001 18741 N/A N/A CRL 0.00008 348 HEXACHLORO[-]8UTADIENE 00087683 2 10 [0.44)0.01 CRL HEXACHLORO[-] 358 00077474 1 5 [40)44 H CYCLOPENTAD1ENE 368 HEXACHLORO[-]ETHANE 00067721 12 60 [1.4] CRL [0.0038] 378 INDENO(1,2,3-cd)PYRENE 00193395 N/A N/A CRL 0.001 388 ISOPHORONE 00078591 2100 10000 [35)34 H

398 NAPHTHALENE 00091203 43 140 N/A - 408 NITROBENZENE 00098953 810 4000 [17)10 H [0.00069) 418 N-NITROSO[- ]DIMETHYLAMINE 00062759 3400 17000 CRL 0.0007 ± 428 N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMIIqE 00621647 N/A N/A 0.005 ± CRL 438 N-NITROSO[- ]DIPHENYLAMINE 00086306 59 300 3.3 ± CRL E PENTACHLOROBENZENE 00608935 N/A 2±1 II

448 PHENANTHRENE 00085018 1 5 N/A - 458 PYRENE 00129000 N/A N/A 1830122 H 1.2.4.5- 00095943 N/A N/A 0.03 H TETR4CHLOROBENZENE 468 1,2.4-TRICHLORO[-]BENZENE 00120821 26 130 135]2±22 H [0.0000491 1P ALDRTN 00309002 0.1 3 CRL 0.0000008 alpha-[BHC) [0.0026] 2P HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE 00319846 N/A N/A CRL 0.0004 (HCH) beta-IBHC] L0,00911 3P HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE 00319857 N/A N/A CRL 0.008 (HCH)

- 12 gamrna-[BHCI 4P HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE 00058899 N/A 0.95 10M98]42 H (HCH) (LINDANE)

5P delta-Sf-IC 00319868 N/A N/A N/A - [0.00080] 0.0043 2.4 CRL 6P CHLORDANE 00057749 0.0003 CHLOROPHENOXY HERBICIDE 00094757 1-000-1400 K (2,4-D) NLA II CHEOROPHENOXY HERBICIDE 00093721 N/A K (2.4.5-TP) NLA 122 II [0.00022] 00050293 0.001 LI CRL 7P 4,4-DDT 0.00003 10.00022] 00072559 0.001 1.1 CRL SP 4,4-DDE 0.00002 10.000311 4.4-DDD 00072548 0.001 1.1 CRL 9P 0.0001 [0.000052] lop DIELDRFN 00060571 0.056 0.24 CRL 0.000001 [62 for lip alpha-ENDOSUL[-JFAN 0095998$ 0.056 0.22 endosulfanl H 22 12P beta-ENDOSULFAN 33213659 0.056 0.22 [See 11Pj20 H [N/A] 13P ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 0103107$ N/A N/A 22 14P ENDRIN 0007220$ 0.036 0.086 [0.059]0M3 H l5P ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 07421934 N/A N/A [0.29j-1 H [0.000079] 00076448 0.0038 0.52 CRL 16P HEPTACHLOR 0.000006 [0.000039] 01024573 0.0038 0.5 CRL 17P HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 0.00003

13 HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE 00608731 N/A N/A 0.007 CRL (HCID-TECHNICAL E METHOXYCHLOR 00072435 N/A N/A DM2 H 0.000064 for ISP PCB 0.014 N/A CRL PCBs± [0.000281 25P TOXAPHENE 08001352 0.0002 0.73 CRL 0.0007 PP 2,3,7,8-TCDD 01746016 N/A N/A 5.OE-9± CRL P ACETONE 00067641 86000 450000 f3500} 00 H D ACRYLAMIDE 00079061 N/A N/A 0.07 CRL

D ALUMINUM 07429905 N/A 750 N/A - D BARIUM 07440393 4100 21000 f2400}WOO H BENZENE METADISULFONIC 00098486 1600000 2600000 N/A - ACID

P BENZENE MONOSULFONIC ACID 00098113 1200000 2000000 N/A - P BENZYL CHLORIDE 00100447 N/A 0.2 CRL D BORON 07440428 1600 8100 f3100}600 H D 2-BUTOXY ETHANOL 00111762 N/A N/A 700 H

D COBALT 07440484 19 95 N/A -

p-CRESOL 00106445 160 800 N/A - D CYCLOHEXYLAMfNE 00108918 N/A N/A 1000 H

F DIAZINON 00333415 0.17 0.17 N/A - D FORMALDEHYDE 00050000 440 2200 +7001 4400 I-I

D 2-HEXANONE 00591786 4300 21000 N/A -

D LITHIUM 07439932 N/A N/A N/A - [METHYLETHYL] METHYL D 00078933 32000 230000 +21000+344 H — ETHYL KETONE

14 IMETHYLISO-BUTYL] METHYL D 00108101 5000 ‘6000 N/A - — ISOBUTYLKETONE - D METOLACHLOR 51218452 N/A N/A +691-400 H

D NONYLPHENOL 6.6 23 N/A -

B P-PHENOL SULFONIC ACID 00098679 1400000 3500000 N/A -

P lILL-PROPANOL 00071238 46000 230000 N/A -

D 2-PROPANOL 00067630 89000 440000 N/A - B RESORCINOL 01084603 7200 23000 f270O}0 H B STRONTIUM 07440246 N/A N/A 4000 H B 1.2.3-TRICHLOROPROPANE 00096184 N/A N/A +210+ H D 1.2.4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE 00095636 N/A N/A +72+ H D 1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE 00108678 N/A N/A +72+ H

B VANADIUM 07440622 100 510 N/A - D XYLENE 01330207 210 1100 +700001-WQfM H

15 Acronyms and Footnotes to Table 5

* Indicates dissolved metal criterion; others are total recoverable metals. Each listed dissolved criterion in Table 5 is equal to the corresponding total recoverable criterion before rounding (from the EPA National Ambient Water Quality Criteria Documents) multiplied by the conversion factor (from the Conversion Factors Table); a criterion that is expressed as a hardness ([-1)—basedequation is shown in Table 5 as the conversion flictor (listed) multiplied by the hardness criterion equation; an example criterion at hardness=1 OOmg/Lis included.

t Indicates criterion based on the exposure inputs of 2 liters per day of drinking water and consumption of 17.5 grams of fish per diiv, for protection of a 70 Kg person.

CAS— Chemical Abstract Service number

CRL—Caneer risk level at I x

D — DEP developed criteria

E — EPA developed criteria

Fl—Threshold effect human health criterion; incorporates additional uncertainty factor for some Group C carcinogens.

In [HI——NaturalLogarithm of the Hardness of stream as mg/I CaCO3

ug/L-—-Micrograms per liter

N/A—Criterion not developed

PP NO—Priority Pollutant Number

§93.8d. Development of site-specific water quality criteria.

* * * * *

(c) Scientific studies shall be performed in accordance with the procedures and guidance in the Water Quality Standards Handbook (EPA 1994), as amended and updated, including: “Guidance on the Determination and Use ofWater-ElYect Ratios for Metals’’ (February 1994); and the ‘‘Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health” (2000). OTHER GUIDANCE APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT, WHICH IS BASED ON EPA-APPROVED OR SCIENTIFICALLY DEFENSIBLE METHODOLOGIES, MAY BE USED. The Depastmentimy-reeui4iituseof-theRiofie-Ngand3IodeI fBhM--foethe development of new or updated site-specific criteria for copper in freshwater systems SHALL BE PERFORMED USING THE BIOTIC LIGAND MODEL (BLM). Othef-guidfinee approved by-the-flepar-tment5which-is-hased-on-oflweEPA-upproved-oescientilically-defensihle-metliodelogies3 nwhe4Ised

* * * * *

16 (t) If the Department determines that site—specificcriteria al-cappropriate in accordance with subsection (a), the Department will do the following:

* * * * *

(2) Maintain a publicly available Ilistsl online table of site-specific criteria.

* * * * *

§ 93.Se. Special criteria for the G,eat Lakes System.

* t * * * (b) Water qua/itT’criteria/or the Great Lakes System. Human health and aquatic IiIè criteria fin the Great Lakes System are contained in Table 6 (relating to Great Lakes aquatic life and human health criteria). For any pollutant not listed in the table, criteria in Table 5 win’ be used to protect existing and designated uses.. or criteria will he developed by the Department, as needed, ill accordance with this ehaptcr and § 16.61 (relating to special provisions for the Great Lakes System).

* * * * *

DESiGNATED WATER USES AND WATER QUALiTY CRITERIA

* * * * *

§ 93.9b. Drainage List B.

Delaware River Basin in Pennsylvania Lackaweaen River

Stream Zone County Water Uses Exceptions Protected to Specific Criteria * * * * *

3—West Branch Lackawaxen Main Stem, Prompton Wayne HQ-TSF, None River Reservoir to ME Confluence with Lackawaxen River and DYBERRY CREEK Vau-A-ukewCreek 4—Tributaries to West Branch Basins, Prompton Wayne I-IQ-CWE, None Lackawaxen River Reservoir to MF Confluence-with baeknwncn-RNer and Van Auken Creek

17 3-4 —-Van Auken Creek Basin Wayne HQ-TSF, None MF 2—L-aelEaaen-Rii’ec IMainstern, IWaynel Pike HQ TSF None confluence of West M1 Branch Lackawaxen River and Van Auken Creek to Dyberry Creeki Main—Stern 3-4—Tributaries to WEST Basins, eonflaene&e-f Wayne FIQ-CWF, None BRANCh LackawaxLn River Wes1—Bfaneh MF aekiw’.e n-Rj’’ep-and

Van Auken Creek to - CON FLUENCE WITI-I LACKA WAXEN RiVER AND Dyherry Creek 3 Dyheny Creek

* * * * * 3---Dyberry Creek Basin, Big Brook to Wayne FIQ-CWF, None Mouth MF +2—Lackawaxen River Main Stern-Dyber÷y -Wayne PIKE HQ-TSF, None{ Greth-h-Mimth NIF 3—Tributaries to Lackawaxen Basins, Dyhery Creek Wayne FIQ-CWF, None River to Wallenpaupaek MF Creek * * * * *

§ 93.9e. Drainage List C.

I)elaware River Basin in Pennsylvania Delaware River

Sircarn Zone County Water Uses Exceptions Protected to Specific Criteria * * * * * 2-—-Hornbeck.sCreek Basin Pike HQ-CWE, None MF 2—Spackrnans Creek Basin Pike HQ-CWF, None N’IF 2—-Toms Creek Basin Pike EV, MF None * * * * * 2——AlleghenyCreek Basin Northampton CWF, ME None

18 2—Mill Creek Basin Northampton CWF, ME None 2—Oughoughton Creek Basin Northampton CWF, MF None * * * * *

§ 93.9d. Drainage List D.

Delaware River Basin in Pennsylvania Lehigh River

Stream Zone County Water Uses Exceptions Protected to Specific Criteria I——DelawareRiver 2—Lehigh River Basin. Source to Luzeme- EV. MF None Tohyhanna Creek Monroe- Carbon 3—Tobyhanna Creek IMain Stcml Basin, Monroel- HQ-CWF, None Source to Cross Keys Carhoni MF Ru ii 4—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins Monroe- HQ-CWF, None I Tohyhanna Creek Carbon MF 4—Jim Smith Run Basin Monroe HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Pole Bridge Run Basin Monroe LIQ-CWF, None MF 4—Singer Run Basin Monroe HQ-CWF, None MF 4—East Rranch Dresser Run Basin Monroe HQ-CWF, None MF 4—-PolIys Run Basin Monroe HQ-CWF, None

4—Hummier Run Basin Monroe HQ-CWF, Nonel NIF 4—Cross Keys Run Basin Monroe EV, MF None 3—Tobyhanna Creek Basin. Cross Keys Monroe IIQ-CWF. None Run to Frame Cabin MF Run 4—Frame Cabin Run Basin Monroe EV, MF None 14—Kistlcr Run Basin Monroe HQ-CWF, None NIF 4—Wagner Run Basin Monroe HQ-CWF, None NIF 4—Upper Tunkhannock Creek Basin Monroe HQ-CWF, None NIF

19 4—Wolfs Spring Run Basin Mon roe HQ-CWF, None M F 4—Deep Run Basin Monroe HQ-CWF, None NIF 4—Davey Run Basin Monroe HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Red Run Basin Monroe HQ-CWF, None NW 4—Tunkhannock Creek Basin Monroe- HQ-CWF, None Carbon MF 4—Shingle Mill Run Basin Carbon HQ-CWF, None WIF 4—Twomile Run Basin Monroe HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Stony Run Basin Monroe HQ-CWF, Nonel NW 3—Tohvhanna Creek Basin, Frame Cabin Monroe- HQ-CWF, None Run to Mouth Carbon MF 2—Lehigh River Basin, Tohyhanna Carbon l-IQ—CWF, None Creek to Buck MF Mountain Creek 3—Buck Mountain Creek Main Stern Carbon FIQ-CWF, None MF 4—Unnamed Tributaries to Buck Basin Carbon l-IQ—CWF, None Mountain Creek MF 4—Indian Run Basin Carbon FIQ-CWF, None MF 4—Shafer Run Basin Carbon 1EV,MF None 2——LehighRiver Main Stem, Buck Carbon IIQ-CWF, None Mountain Creek to MF jPA 903 Bridge (at Jim Thorpe)) a point at 40° 52’ 35” N 750 44’ 9.3” W 3—Unnarned Tributaries to Lehigh Basins, Buck Carbon l-IQ-CWF, None River Mountain Creek to MF jPA 903 Bridgej the point at 40° 52’ 3.5” N; 75° 44’ 9.3” W 3—-Drakes Creek Basin Carbon l-IQ-CWF, None MF * * * * * 3—Robertson Run Basin Carbon l-IQ-CWF, None MF 2—Lehigh River Main Stern, IPA 903 Lehigh TSF, MF None Bridge) the point at 40° 52’ 3.5” N; 75°

20 44’ 9.3” W to Allentown Darn

3-—-UnnarnedTributaries to Lehigh Basins, IPA 903 Carbon-Lehigh CWF, MF None River Bridgel the point at 40° 52’ 3.5” N; 75° 44’ 9.3” W to Allentown Darn 3—SilkrnilI Run Basin Carbon CWF, MF None 3—Mauch Chunk Creek j3—Mauch Chunk! 5—White Basin, Source to SR Carbon EV, MF None Bear Creek 902 Bridge 13—Mauch Chunkj 5—White Basin, SR 902 Bridge Carbon CWF, MF None Bear Creek to Mouthl inlet of Mauch Chunk Lake 4—N)auch Chunk Lake Basin Carbon CWF. ME None 3—Munch Chunk Creek Basin, Mauch Chunk Carbon CWF, ME None Lake Dam to Mouth 3—IBeaverdami Beaver Run Basin Carbon CWF, MF None 3—Long Run Basin Carbon CWF, MF None

* * * * * 4—Jordan Creek Main Stern Lehigh TSF, ME None 5—lUnnamedi Tributaries to Basins, Source to Mill Lehigh HQ-CWF, None Jordan Creek Creek MF I5—Switzer Creek Basin Lehigh HQ-CWF, None MF 5—Lynn Creek Basin Lehigh IIQ-CWF, Nonel ME 5—Mill Creek Basin Lehigh CWF, MF None IS—liassen Creek Basin Lehigh NQ-CWF, Nonel MF 5—Tributaries to Jordan Creek Basins. Mill Creek to Lehigh Hp-C WE, None Mouth NW 3—Little Lehigh Creek Basin, Jordan Creek to Lehigh l-IQ-CWF. None Mouth MF

* * * * *

§ 93.9e. Drainage List E.

Delaware River Basin in Pennsylvania Bela n’uie River

21 Stream Zone County Water Uses Exceptions Protected to Specilic Criteria * * * .* * 2—Frya Run Basin Northainpion HQ—CWF, None MF 2 Cooks Creek Basin Bucks By, ME None 2—Rodges Run Basin Bucks TSF, ME None 2—Gallows Run Basin Bucks CWE, Mb’ None 2—Falls Creek Basin Bucks TSr, ME None 2—Swamp Creek Basin Bucks TSF, ME None 2—Tinicum Creek Basin Bucks 1EV,ME None 2—Sniithtown Creek Basin Bucks TSF, ME None 2—Tohickon Creek Basin, Source to Lake Bucks TSF, MB None Nockamixon Darn 2—Tohickon Creek Basin. Lake Bucks CWF. ME None Nockarnixon Dam to Deei Run 3-—Deep Run Basin Bucks WWF, MF None * * * * * I—Delaware Estuary Tidal Portions of Bucks WWF, MB See DRBC Basin, [lead of Tide to regulations Burlington-Bristol —Water Bridge Quality Zone 2 2—Unnamed Tributaries to Non-Tidal Portion of Bucks WWF, MB None Delaware Estuary Basins, i-lead of Tide to Burlington-Bristol Bridge 2—Biles Creek Non-Tidal Portion of Bucks VWF, MF None Basin 2-—Mardns Creek Non-Tidal Portion of Bucks WWF, ME None Basin 2—Levittown Lake Basin Bucks TSF, MF None * * * *

§ 93.91 Drainage List F.

Delaware River Basin in Pennsylvania Sd; uyThHlRiver

Stream Zone County Water Uses Exceptions Protected To Specific Criteria * * * * *

77 3—Tulpehocken Creek Main Stem, Blue Berks CWF, MF None Marsh Reservoir Darn to T 921 4—Unnarned Tributaries to Basins, Blue Marsh Berks WWF, MF None Tulpehocken Creek Reservoir Darn to T 921 Il 4—Plum Creek Basin, Source to Berks WWE, MF None Unnamed Tributary I at RM 0.451 UNT 01867 at 40° 22’ 30.2”N; 76° 0’ 45.2”W [6—Unnamed Tributary to Plum Basin Berks WWF, MF None Creek at RM 0.4515—UNT 01867 to Plum Creek

1514—Plum Creek Basin, UNT lat RM Berks CWF, ME None 0.451 01867 to Mouth 4—Caeoosing Creek Basin, Source to Little Berks CWF, ME None Caeoosing Creek * * * * * Basins, in Spring City 3—UNTs to Sehuylkili River Chester WWF, ME None and Phoenixvzlle 3—Manatawny Creek [Main Stem Berks CWF, MF None 4—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins Berks CWF, MF Nonel Manatawny Creek 4—Pine Creek Basin Berks EV, MF None 4—Bieber Creek Basin Berks EV, MF None 3—Manatawnv Creek Basin, Confluence of Berks CWF, MF None Pine Creek and Bieber Creek to Ovsterville Creek j4—Little Manalawny Creek Basin Berks CWF, ME Nonel 4—Oysterville Creek Basin, Source to T 634 Berks LV, ME None Bridge [(RM 2.6)Iat 40° 23’ 45.9” N; 75° 42’ 30.0” W 4—Oysterville Creek Basin, T 634 Bridge Berks HQ-CWF, None I(RM 2.6)1 to ME Confluence of UNT 01680 at 40° 22’ 44.6” N; 75° 43’ 48.0” W 5—UNT 01680 to Oysterville Basin Berks CWF, ME None Creek 4-Oysterville Creek Basin, UNT 01630 to Berks HQ-CWE, None Mouth ME 14—Furnace Run l3asin Berks CWF, MF Nonel 23 3—Manatawnv Creek Basin, Ovsterville Berks CWF. ME None Creek to Trout Run 4—Trout Run Basin Berks 1EV,MF None 3—Manatawnv Creek Basin, Trout Run to Berks CWF, ME None Ironstone Creek 4—Ironstone Creek Basin Berks TSP, MF None 3—Manatawny Creek Basin, Ironstone Berks CVE, ME None Creek to Mouth 3-—Sprogels Run Basin Montgomery WWF, MF None * * * 1: * 3—-Perkiomen Creek Basin, Source to SR Berks HQ-CWF, None lOlOBridgeat MF Hereford 3—Perkiornen Creek Main Stein, SR 1010 Montgomery TSP, MF None Bridge to Green Lane Reservoir Dam 4—IUNT5] Tributaries to Basins, SR 1010 Montgomery TSP, ME None Perkiornen Creek Bridge to ICreen Lane Reservoir Dam] Hosensack Creek 4—-I-losensack Creek Basin Montgomery CWF, MF None 4—Tributaries to Perkiomen Basins, Hosensaek Montoinerv TSF, ME None Creek Creek to West Branch Perkiomen Creek 4—West Branch Perkiornen Creek Basin, Source to SR Berks CWF, MF None 1022 Bridge j(RM 12.9)Iat 400 26’ 49.6” N; 75° 37’ 16.2”W 4—-West Branch Perkiornen Creek Basin, SR 1022 Bridge Berks 1EV,MF None to SR 2069 Bridge I(RM 8.0)Iat 40° 23’ 45.8” N; 75° 36’ 31.5”W 4-—West Branch Perkiomcn Creek Basin, SR 2069 Bridge Montgomery CWF, MF None to Mouth 4—Tributaries to Perkiomen Basins, West Branch Mont2omerv TSF, MF None Creek Perkiomen Creek to Unami Creek 3-—Pcrkiomen Creek Main Stem, Green Montgomery WWF, MF None Lane Reservoir Darn to Mouth 4—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins, Creen Lane Montgomery TSF, MF None I Perkiomen Creek Reservoir Dam to Mouth 4—Macoby Creek Basin Montgomery TSF, ME None 4—Deep Creek Basin Montgomery TSF, MF Nonel

24 4—-UifarniCreek Basin Montgomery I-IQ-TSF, None MF 4—Tributaries to Perkiomen Basins, Unami Creek Montgomery TSF, MF None Creek to Swamp Creek 4—-Swamp Creek Basin, Source to Dam Berks HQ-CWF, None in Beehtelsville I(FM ME 15.5)jat 40° 22’ 24.9” N; 75° 37’ 51.5” W 4——SwampCreek Basin, Dam in Berks CWF, MF None Bethtelsville to lRouteISR 100 Bridge 4—Swamp Creek Basin, IRouteISR 100 Montgomery TSF, ME None Bridge to Mouth 14—Mine Run Basin Montgomery TSF, ME None 4—East Branch Perkionien Basin Montgomery TSE, ME None Creek 4—Lodal Creek Basin Montgomery TSF, MF None 4—Schoolhouse Run Basin Montgomery TSF, ME None 4—Doe Run Basin Montgomery TSF, ME None 4—Skippack Creek Basin Montgomery TSF, MF None 4—Mine Run Basin Montgomery TSF, ME Nonej 4—Tributaries to Perkiomen Basins. Swamp Montgomery TSF, ME None Creek Creek to Mouth 3—Valley Creek Basin Montgomery EV, MF None — Chester * * * * *

§ 93.9g. Drainage List C.

Delaware River Basin in Pennsylvania Delaware Rirer

Stream Zone County Water Uses Exceptions Protected To Specific Criteria * * * * * Non-Tidal Portions of 2—Ridley Creek Basin, LR 23013 Delaware WWF, MF None Bridge to Mouth 2—Chester Creek Basin (locally known Chester ITSFIWW None as Goose Creek F, MF basin), Source to East Branch Chester Creek 3—East Branch Chester Creek Basini, Source to Chester TSF, MF None Westtown Run! [4—Westtown Run Basin Chester WWF, MF None 25 3—East Branch Chester Creek Basin, Westtown Run Chester TSF, MF None] to Mouth 2-—Chester Creek Basin, East Branch Delaware TSF, MF None Chester Creek to Rocky Run

‘It * * * * 2—-Chester Creek Nontidal Portions of Delaware WWF, ME None Basin, Dutton Mills Road Bridge to Mouth 2- -IStonyl Stonev Creek Non-Tidal Portions of’ Delaware WWE, MF None Basin 2—-Marcus I-lookCreek Non-Tidal Portions oF Delaware WWF, MF None Basin * * * * * 4—East Branch Brandywine Creek Main Stem, Sharnona Chester WWF, MF None Creek to Contluence with West Branch 5—IUnnarnedl Tributaries to Basins, Shamona Chester jWWF, None East Branch Brandywine Creek Creek to IConfluence MF]liQ with West Branch TSF, MF (except in East Brandywine and Uwchlan Townships)]UNT 00322 nt-40° 1’ 25”N-; 750 12’ 22.6” w

5—jUnnamedj Tributaries to Basins, jin East Chester IHQ—TSF, None East Branch Brandywine Creek Brandywine and MFJWWF, Uwchlan MF TownshipslUNT 00322 to Beaver Creek 5—Beaver Creek Basin Chester CWF, MF None 5—UNNAMED Tributaries to Basins, Beaver Creek Chester WWF, MF None East Branch Brandywine Creek to Confluence with Vest Branch 5—Valley Creek Basin, Source to Broad Chester CWF, ME None Run

* * ‘K ‘K * 3—Brandywine Creek IMain Stemj Basin, Chester- WWF, ME None Confluence of East Delaware and West Branches to IPA-DE State Borden Pocopson Creek 26 14—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins (all sections in Chester- WWF, MF None Brandywine Creek PA), Confluence of Delaware East and West Branches to PA-DE State Border 4—Plum Run Basin Chester WWF, MF None 4—Radley Run Basin Chester WWF, MF Nonel 4—Pocopson Creek Basin Chester TSP, MF None [4—Bennetis Run Basin Chester WWF, MF None 4—Brinton Run Basin Chester WWF, MF None 4—Ring Run Basin Chester WWF, MF None 4—Narvey Run Basin Chester WWF, MF Nonel 3—Brandvwine Creek Basin (all sections in Chester- WWF. MF None PA). Pocopson Creek Delaware to PA-DE State Border 3—Brandywine Creek (DE) 4—lUnnaniedi Tributaries to Basins (all sections in Delaware \‘/\\E MF None Brandywine Creek PA). PA-DE State Border to Mouth

§93.9j. Drainage List J.

Susquehanna River Basin in Pennsylvania Lackan’anna Rirer

Stream Zone County Water Uses Exceptions Protected To Specific Criteria * * * * * 3—Meadow Brook Basin Lackawanna CWF. ME None 3—Roaring Brook Basin, Source to Inlet Lackawanna FIQ-CWF. None of Elmhurst Reservoir MF 3—Roaring Brook Basin. Inlet of Lackawanna CM/F, ME None Elrnhurst Reservoir to Mouth 3—Stafford Meadow Brook Basin, Source to Lackawanna l-lQ-CWE. None Farthest Downstream MF Crossing of Scranton— Moosic Corporate Boundary * * * * *

§ 93.9k. Drainage List K. 27 Susquehanna River Basin in Pennsylvania Susqrielzanna River

Stream Zone County Water Uses Exceptions Protected To Specific Criteria * 1’ * * * 2—Warrior Creek Basin Luzerne CWF, MF None 2•-—-NanticokeCreek Basin Luzerne CWF, ME’ None 2—Newport Creek Basin Luzerne CWF, ME None 2- —1-larveyCreek Basin, Source to Pikes Luzerne HQ-CWF, None Creek ME 3- Pikes Creek Basin Luzerne HQ-CWF, None MF 2-- 1-larveyCreek Basin, Pikes Creek to Luzerne CWF, MF None Mouth * * * * *

§ 93.91. Drainage List L.

Susquehanna River Basin in Pennsylvania West Branch Susquehanna River

Stream Zone County Water Uses Exceptions Protected To Specific Criteria

I——SusquehannaRiver 2-—West Branch Susquehanna Main Stern Northumberlan WWF ME None River d 3 -- Unnamedj Tributaries to West Basins, Source to Cambria- CWF, ME None Branch Susquehanna River jMoshannon Creeki Indiana Cush Cushion Creek Clearfield 13—Leslie Run Basin Cambria CWF, ME None 3—Hoppel Run Basin Cambria CWF, ME None 3—Fox Run Basin Cambria CWF, ME None 3—Browns Run Basin Cambria CWF, ME None 3—Walnut Run Basin Cambria CWF, MF None 3—Porter Run Basin Cambria CWF, ME None 3—Moss Creek Basin Cambria CWF, ME None 3—Douglas Run Basin Cambria CWF, ME None 3—Emeigh Run Basin Cambria CWF, MF None 3—Peg Run Basin Cambria CWF, ME None}

28 3—Cush Cushion Creek Basin Indiana l-IQ-CWF, None MF 13—Kilns Run Basin Cleartield CWF, ME None 3—Kings Run Basin Cleartield CWF, MF None 3—Shyroek Run Basin Clearfield CWF, ME None 3—Boiling Spring Run Basin Clearlield CWF, ME None 3—Sawmill Run Basin Cleartield CWF, MF None 3—Rock Run Basin Clearlield CWF, MF None 3—Cush Creek Basin Clearlield CWF, MF None 3—Martin Run Basin Clearfield CWF, MF None 3—North Run Basin Cleartield CWF, ME None 3—Deer Run Basin Cleartield CWF, ME None 3—Bear Run Basin Clcarfield CWF, ME None 3—Whisky Run Basin Clearfield CWF, ME Nonel 3—Tributaries to Vcst Branch Basins, Cush Cleartield CWE, ME None Susguehanna River Cushion Creek to Chest Creek 3—Chest Creek Basin. Source to Cambria I-IQ-CWF. None Patton Water Supply MF 3—Chest Creek Basin, Patton Water Clearfield CWF. MF None Supply to Rogues Harbor Run 4—Rogues Harbor Run Basin Clearfield EV, MF None 3—Chest Creek Basin, Rogues Harbor Clearfield CWF. MF None Run to Pine Run 4—Pine Run Basin Clearfield EV, MF None 3—Chest Creek Basin, Pine Run to Cleartield CWF, ME None Mouth j3—Millcr Run Basin Cicartield CWF, ME None 3—Laurel Run Basin Clearfield CVF, ME None 3—Haslelt Run Basin Clearfield CWE, ME None 3—Curry Run Basin Clearfield CWE, ME None 3—McCracken Run Basin Clearfield CVF, ME None 3—Bell Run Basin Clearfield CWE, ME None 3—Riles Run Basin Clearfield CWF, MF None 3—Passmore Run Basin Clearfield CWF, ME None 3—Porter Run Basin Clearfield CWF, ME Nonel 3—Tributaries to West Branch Basins, Chest Creek Clearficid CWF. ME None Susguehanna River to Anderson Creek 3—Anderson Creek Basin, Source to Clearield HQ-CWF, None DuBois Dam MF 3—Anderson Creek Basin, DuBois Dam to Clearlield CWF, ME None Bear Run

29 4—-Bear Run Basin, Source to Pike Clearlielci l-IQ—CWF, None Twp. Municipal MF Authority Darn 4—Bear Run Basin, Pike Twp. Clearlield CWF, MF None Municipal Authority Darn to Mouth 3—Anderson Creek Basin, Bear Run to Clearlield CWF, MF None Mouth I3—I1oback Run Basin Clearfield CWF, ME None 3—Hartshorn Run Basin Cleartield CWF, ME Nonel 3—Tributaries to West Branch Basins. Anderson Clearfield CWE, ME None Susquehanna River Creek to Montgomery Creek 3-——MontgorneryCreek Basin, Source to Clearfield l-IQ-CWF, None Montgomery Darn MF 3——MontgomeryCreek Basin, Montgomery Clearlield CWF, MF None Darn to Mouth 3—Tributaries to West I3ranch Basins, Montgomery Clearfield CWF, ME None Susquchanna River Creek to Moose Creek 3—Moose Creek Basin, Source to Darn Cleartield HQ-CWF, None MF 3—Moose Creek Basin, Darn to Mouth Clearfield CWF, MF None j3—Wolf Run Basin Clearlield CWF, ME Nones 3—Tributaries to West Branch Basins, Moose Creek Clearfield CWF, ME None Susquehanna River to Cleartield Creek 3—-Clearlield Creek Main Stem Clearfield WWF, MF None 4—lUnnarnedi Tributaries to Basins, Source to Carnbdal- CWF, MP None Clearflehi Creek Sandy Run Clearfieldj j4—Bradley Run Basin Cambria CWE, ME None 4—Beaverdam Run Basin Cambria CWF, MF None 4—Swath Run Basin Cambria CWF, ME None 4—Utile Laurel Run Basin Cambria CWF, ME None 4—Indian Run Basin Cambria CWF, ME None 4—Laurel Run Basin Cambria CWF, ME None 4—Bruhaker Run Basin Cambria CWF, ME Nonel 4—Sandy Run Basin Carnbria IIQ-CWF, None MF 14—Powell Run Basin Cambria CWF, MF None 4—Fallentimber Run Basin Cambria CWF, ME None 4—Beaverdam Run Basin Cambria CWF, MF None 4—Turner Run Basin Clearfield CWF, ME None 4—Blain Run Basin Clearfield CWF, ME None 4—North Witmer Run Basin Clearfield CWF, ME None 4—DeWitt Run Basin Clearfield CWF, ME None

30 4—Pine Run Basin Clearfield CWF, MF None 4—Dotts Hollow Basin Clearfield CWF, MF None 4—Cotinan Run Basin Cleartield CWF, l1F None 4—Blue Run Basin Clearfield CWF, MF None 4—Buck Run (Porter Run) Basin Cleartield CWF, MF None 4—Maplepole Run Basin Clearfield CWF, MF None) 4—Tributaries to Clearlield Basins, Sandy Run to Cambria CWF, MF None Creek Muddy Run 4—Muddy Run Basin. Source to Little Cleartield CWF, MF None Muddy Run

5—Little Muddy Run Basin, Source to Cleartield HQ-CWP, None Janesville SpoMsrnan MF Darn 5—Little Muddy Run Basin. Janesville Clearfield CWF, MF None Sportsman Darn to Mouth 4—Muddy Run Basin, Little Muddy Cleartield CWF. MF None Run to Mouth 1—JapJing Run Basin Clearfield CWF, M F None 4—Pine Run Basin C learfield CWF, MF None 4—Lost Run Basin Clearfield CWF, M F None 4—Upper Morgan Run Basin Clearfield CWF, NIF None 4—Potts Run Basin Clearfield CWF, M F None 4—Dunlap Run Basin Clearfield CWF, M F None

4—Lytle Run Basin Clearfield CWF, MF None 4—Cherry Run Basin Clearfield CWF, MF None 4—Raccoon Run Basin Clearfield CWF, MF None 4—Sanhourn Run Basin Clearfield CWF, MF None 4—Camp Hope Run Basin Clearfield CWF, MF None 1—Morgan Run Basin Clearfield CWF, MF Nonej 1—Tributaries to Clearfield Basins, ‘1udth Run Clearfield CWF. NW None Creek to Little Clearlield Creek 4—Little Cleartield Creek Basin Clearfield HQ-CWF, None MF f4—Long Run Basin C learfield CWF, NIF None 4—Roaring Run Basin Cleartield CWF, MF None 3—Abcs Run Basin Cleartield CWF, MF Nonel 4—Tributaries to Clearfield Basins, Little Clearfield CWF, MF None Creek Cleartleld Creek to Mouth 3—Tributaries to West Branch Basins, Clearfleld Clearfield CWF. MF None Susguehanna River Creek to Lick Run

31 3—Lick Run Basin Clearheld l-IQ-CWF, None MF 13—Devils Run Basin Clearfield CWF, MF None 3—Bloody Run Basin Clearfield CWF, MF None! 3—Tributaries to West Branch Basins, Lick Run to Clearfiekl CWF, ME None Susquehanna River Trout Run 3—Trout Run Basin Clearfield HQ-CWF, None MF 13—Millstone Run Basin Clearlield CWF, MF None 3—Surveyor Run Basin Clearlield CWF, ME None 3—Bear Run Basin Clearfield CWF, ME None 3—Bald Hill Run Basin Clearfield CWF, MF None 3—Moravian Run Basin Clearileld CWE, ME None 3—Deer Creek Tlasin Cleartield CWF, ME None

3—Big Run Basin Clearfield CWF, MF None 3—Willholrn Run Basin Cleartield CWF, MF None 3—Sandy Creek Basin Clearfield CWF, ME None 3—Alder Run Basin Clearileld CWF, ME None

3—Rolling Stone Run Basin Clearfield CWF, ME None 3—Mowry Run Basin Clearfield CWE, ME None 3—Basin Run Basin Clearfield CWF, MF None 3—Rock Run Basin Cleartield CWF, ME None 3—Potter Run Basin Clearfield CWF, ME None 3—Rupley Run l3asin Cleartield CWE, ME Nonel 3—Tributaries to West Branch Basins, Trout Run to Cleartield CWF, MF None Susquehanna River Moshannon Creek 3—Moshannon Creek Basin, Source to Roup Clearfield- FIQ-CWF, None Run Centre MF 4—Roup Run Basin Centre CWF. ME None 3—Moshannon Creek Main Stern, Roup Run Clearfield- TSP, MF None to Mouth Centre 4—IUNTs] Tributaries to l3usins, Roup Run to Clearfield- CWF, MF None Moshannon Creek IMouthi Moutain Centre Branch 14—Roup Run Basin Centre CWF, ME None 4—Whiteside Run Basin Clearfield CWF, ME Nonel 4-—Mountain Branch Basin, Source to Trim Centre HQ-CWF, None Root Run MF 5—Trim Root Run Basin Centre HQ-CWP, None MF 4 —-MountainBranch Basin, Trim Root Run Centre CWF, MF None to Mouth !4—Bear Run Basin Centre CWF, MF None 32 ______

4—Beaver Run Basin Clearfield CWF, ME None 4—Big Run Basin Clearfield CWF, ME Nonel 4—Trihutaries to Moshannon Basins, Mountain Clearfield CWF, ME None Creek Branch to Trout Run Centre 4-—TroutRun Basin, Source to Centre HQ-CWF, None Montola Darn ME 4—Trout Run Basin. Montola Darn Centre CWE, ME None to Mouth 14—Shiniel Run Basin Cleartield CWF, MF None] 4—Tributaries to Moshannon Basins. Trout Run to Clearfield CWE. MF None Creek Laurel Run Centre 4—Laurel Run Basin, Source to Clearfield CWF. MF None Sirneling Run 5—Sirneling Run Basin Clearfield HQ-CWF. None ME 4—Laurel Run Basin. Sirneling Run Clearfield CWP. ME None to Mouth 4—Tributaries to Moshannon Basins, Laurel Run Clearfield CWF, ME None C reek to Cold Stream Centre

4—Cold Stream Basin, Source to US Centre HQ-C XVF, None 322 ME 4—Cold Stream Basin, US 322 to Centre CWF, ME None Mouth 14—Ernigh Run Basin Clearfield CWF, MF None 4—Onemile Run Basin Centre CWF, ME None 4—Hawk Run Basin Clearfield CWF, ME None 4—Wolf Run Basin Centre CWF, Ml? None 4—Sulphur Run Basin Clearfield CVF, MF Nonel 4—Tributaries to Moshannon Basins. Cold Stream Cl earfield CWE, ME None Creek to Black Bear Run Centre 4--Black Bear Run Basin Centre EV, ME None 4—Tributaries to Moshannon Basins, Black Bear Clearfield CWF, ME None Creelc Run to Sixmile Run Centre 4—Sixrnile Run Basin Centre HQ-CWF, None ME 14—Tark 11111Run Basin Centre CWF, MF None 4—Potter Run Basin Centre CWF, MF None 4—Laurel Run Basin Centre CWF. ME None 4—Browns Run Basin Clearfield CWE, ME None 4—Crassilat Run Basin Clearfield CWE, ME None 4—Weher Run Basil) Cleadield CVF, MF None 4—Crawford Run Basin Clearfield CW F, f’lF None] 4—Tributaries to Moshanuon Basins, Sixrnile Run Clearfield CWF. ME None Creek to Black Moshannon Centre Creek

33 4—Black Moshannon (‘reck IMain Stemi Basin, Centre HQ-CWF, None Source to Benner MF Run IS—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins Centre HQ-CWF, None Black Moshannon Creek ME 5—Shirks Run Basin Centre HQ-CWF, None MF 5—Sways Run Basin Centre HQ-CWF, None ME 5—North Run Basin Centre IIQ-CWF, Nonej ME 5- Benrier Run Basin, Source to Pine Centre By, ME None 1-lavenCamp 5—Benner Run Basin, Pine Haven Centre HQ-CWF, None Camp to Mouth MF IS—Hall Run Basin Centre flQ-CWF, None ME 5—Myers Run Basin Centre HQ-CWF, Nonel MF 4—Black Moshannon Creek Basin, Beuner Run to Centre HQ-CWF. None Rock Run ME

5—Rock Run Basin - Centre LV, ME None IS—Pine Run Basin Centre HQ-CWF, None MF 5—Hicklen Run Basin Centre HQ-CWF, Nonel ME l4—Sevenrnlle Run Basin Centre CWF, MF Nonel 4—Black Moshannon Creek Basin, Rock Run to Centre Hp-C WE. None Mouth MF 4—Tributaries to Moshannon Basins. Black Clearlield- CWF, ME None Creek Moshannon Creek to Centre Ames Run 4—Ames Run Basin Cleartield l-IQ-CWF, None ME 4—Tributaries to Moshannon Basins. Ames Run to Clearfleld- CWF, MF None Creek Mouth Centre 3—-lUnnamedi Tributaries to West Basins, Moshannon Clearfleld- HQ-CWF, None Branch Susquehanna River Creek to IRi1 121.361 Centrel- MF Mosquito Creek Clintoni 13—Recilick Run Basin Centre HQ-CWF, Nonel

- ME 3—Mosquito Creek jMain Stemi Basin, Elk-Clearlield HQ-CWF, None Source to Twelvernile ME Ru n 4—Unl!amed Tributaries to Basins Elk- HQ-CWF, None Mosquito Creek Cleartield ME 4—Pebble Run Basin Elk HQ-CWF, None ME 34 4—Beaver Run Basin Elk HQ-CWF, None MF 4—McNerny Run Basin Clearfield HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Meeker Run Basin Clearileld HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Panther Run Basin Clearfield HQ-CWF, Nonel MF 4—Twelvemile Run Basin Clearfield 1EV,MF None 14—Cifford Run Basin Clearfield HQ-CWF, None NIF 4—Susman Run Basin Clearfield IIQ-CWF, Nonej NiF 3—Mosquito Creek Basin. Twelvemile Clearfield HQ-CWF. None Run to (‘ole Run Ml? 1—Cole Run Basin Cleartield 1EV,MF None 14—Grimes Run Basin Clearfield IIQ-CWF, None MF 4—Dutch hollow Basin Cleadield HQ-CWF, None NIF 4—Curleys Run Basin Clearfield HQ-CWF, None! M F 13—Laurel Run Basin Centre i1Q-CVF, None M F 3—Saltlick Run Basin Clearfield IIQ-CWF, None M F 3—Upper Three Runs Basin Clearfield HQ-CWF, None NIF 3—Lower Three Runs Basin Clearfield flQ-CWF. None MF 3—Sterling Run Basin Centre HQ-CWF, Nonel NIF 3—Mosquito Creek Basin, Cole Run to Clearfield IIQ-CVF, None Mouth NW 3—Tributaries to West Branch Basins. Mosquito Clearfield- HO-CVF, None Susguehanna River Creek to Loop Run Centre- ME’ Clinton 3—Loop Run Basin Clinton CWF, MF None 13—Spruce Run Basin Centre liQ-CWF, None] MF 3—Tributaries to West Branch Basins, Loop Run to Centre- HQ-CWF, None Susquehanna River UNT 25562 at 41° 9’ Clinton MF 40.2”N; 78° 0’ 3.9”W 3—lUnnamed Tributary to Vest Basin Clinton CWF, MF None Branch Susquehanna River at RM 121.361 UNT 25562

35 3—lUnnamedi Tributaries to West Basins, IRM 121.36 to Centre- HQ-CWF, None Branch Susquclianna River Queens RunJ UNT Clinton MF 25562 to Little Bougher Run f3—Bougher Run Basin Centre HQ-CWF, Nonel M F 3-—Little Bougher Run Basin Clinton CM/F, MF None 13—Leaning Pine Run Basin Clinton IIQ-CWF, None i1 F 3—Moores Run Basin Centre HQ-CWF, None M F 3—Sugarcamp Run Basin C!inton HQ-CWF, None M F 3—Birch Island Run Basin Clinton 1IQ-CWF, None M F 3—Black Stump Run Basin Clinton IIQ-CWF, None ME 3—Grove Run Basin Clinton flQ-CWF, None ME 3—Fields Run Basin Centre HQ-CWF, Nonel MIt 3—Tributaries to West Branch Basins, Little Centre- HQ-CWF, None Susguehanna River Bougber Run to Yost Clinton ME Run 3—Yost Run Basin Centre EV, MF None 13—Morris Run Basin Clinton HQ-CWF, None ME 3—Pry Run Basin Clinton HQ-CWF, Nonej M F 3—Tributaries to West Branch Basins, Yost Run to Centre- HQ-CWF, None Susquehanna River Burns Run Clinton ME 3—Bums Run Basin Centre EV, MF None 13—Jews Run Basin Clinton UQ-CWF, Nonel ME 3—Tributaries to West Branch Basins. Burns Run to Centre- HQ-CWF. None Susquehanna River Sinnemahoning Clinton- ME Creek Cameron 3—Sinnemahoning Creek 4——BennettBranch (Main Stem, Source Cameron CM/F, MF None Sinnemahoning Creek to Mill Runi Basin, Source to South Branch Bennett Branch j5—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins Clearfield- CWF, ME None Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Elk- Cameron Creek 5—McCracken Run Basin Clearfield CWF, MF Nonel

35 5—South Branch Bennett Branch Basin ClearHelcI l-IQ—CWF, None ME IS—Heath Run Basin Clearfield CWF, ME None 5—Bark Camp Run Basin Clearfield CWF, ME None 5—Mountain Run Basiu Clcarfield CWF, ME None 5—Maticy hollow Basin Clearlield CWF, ME Nonel 4—Bennett Branch Basin. South Branch Cleartield CWE, ME None Sinnemahoning Creek Bennett Branch to Wilson Run 5—Wilson Run Basin, Source to East Cicarlield CWF, ME None Branch Wilson Run 6—East Branch Wilson Run Basin Clearlield l-IQ-CWF, None ME 5—Wilson Run Basin, East Branch Clearfield CWF, ME None Wilson Run to Mouth 15—Moose Run Basin Clearfield CWF, ME None 5—Horning Run Basin Clearfield CWF, ME None 5—Lamb Hollow Basin Clearfield CWE, ME None 5—Horning Hollow Basin Clearfield CWF, ME None 5—Mill Run Basin Clearfield CWE, ME Nonel 4—Bennett Branch Basin, Wilson Run to Clearfield CWE, ME None Sinnemahoning Creek Mill Run 5—Mill Run Basin Clearfield CWE, MF None 4—Bennett Branch Main Stem, Mill Run Cameron WWF, MF None Sinnemahoning Creek to Confluence with Driftwood Branch (5—Tyler Run Basin Clearfield CWF, ME Noncj 5—Tributaries to Bennett Basins. Mill Run to Clearfleld- CWF, MF None Branch Sinnernahoning Creek Cherry Run Cameron—Elk 5—Cheny Run Basin, Source to Elk HQ-CWF, None Shawrnut Darn ME 5—Cherry Run Basin, Shawrnut Darn Elk CWF, MF None to Mouth 5—Tributaries to Bennett Basins, Cherry Run Elk CWE, ME None Branch Sinnemahoning Creek to Kersey Run 5—Kersey Run Basin, Source to Elk CWF, MF None Byrnes Run 6—Byrnes Run Basin Elk 1W, ME None 5—Kersey Run Basin, Byrnes Run to Elk CWF, ME None Mouth 5—Tributaries to Bennett Basins. Kersey Run Elk CWF, ME None Branch Sinnemahoning Creek to Laurel Run 5—Laurel Run Basin Elk HQ-CWF, None MF IS—Bakemans Run Basin Elk CWE, ME Nonel

37 5—Tributaries to Bennett Basins. Laurel Run Elk CWF, MF None Branch Sinnernahoning Creek to Mcdix Run 5—Medix Run Basin Elk 1-IQ-CWF, None MF 5—Tributaries to Bennett Basins, Mcdix Run to Elk CWF, MF None Branch Sinnemahoning Creek Trout Run 5—Trout Run Basin, Source to Elk CWF, ME None Spring Run 6 —Spring Run Basin, Source to UNT Elk CWF, ME None 24721 at 41° 20’ 25.O’1Th78° 29’ 52.9” w 7—UNT 24721 to Spring Run Basin Elk CWF, ME None

6-—Spring Run Basin, UNT 24721 to Elk HQ-CWF, None Stony Brook MF 7—Stony Brook Basin Elk CWF, ME None 6—Spring Run Basin, Stony Elk CWF, MF None IRuniBrook to Mouth 5—Trout Run Basin, Spring Run to Elk CWF, ME None Mouth IS—Jimmy Run Basin Elk CWF, MF None 5—Johnson Run Basin Elk CWF, MF None 5—Wainwright Run Basin Elk CWF, MF None 5—Charlies Run Basin Elk CWF, MF Nonej 5—Tributaries to Bennett Basins, Trout Run to Elk CWF. MF None Branch Sinnemahoning Creek Dents Run 5—Dents Run Basin Elk HQ-CWF, None MF 5—Tributaries to Bennett Basins, Dents Run to Elk CWF, MF None Branch Sinnernahoning Creek Hicks Run 5—Hicks Run 6—East Branch Flicks Run Basin Source to Elk FIQ-CWF, None Confluence with West MF Branch 6-—West Branch Hicks Run Basin, Source to Elk EV, ME None Confluence with East Branch 5——I-licksRun Basin, Coniluence of Cameron HQ-CWF, None East and West MF Branches to Mouth j5—Hicks Hollow Basin Cameron CWF, MF None 5—Beaverdam Run Basin Cameron CWF, MF None 5—Stone Quarry Hollow Basin Cameron CWF, ME Nonel 5—Tributaries to Bennett Basins, Hicks Run to Cameron CWF, ME None Branch Sinnemahoning Creek Miller Run

38 5—Miller Run Basin Cameron HQ—CWF, None ME 15—Water Plug Hollow Basin Cameron CWF, ME None] 5—Tributaries to Bennett Basins, Miller Run to Cameron CWF. ME None Branch Sinnemahoning Creek Mix Run 5—Mix Run Basin, Source to Elk EV, MF None English Draft Run 6—English Draft Run Basin Elk HQ-CWF, None MF 5—Mix Run Basin, English Draft Cameron HQ-CWF, None Run to Mouth MF [5—Little Dent Run Basin Cameron CWF, ME None 5—Nanny Run Basin Cameron CWE, ME None 5—Boyer Run Basin Cameron CWE, MF None) 5—Tributaries to Bennett Basins. Mix Run to Cameron CWF, ME None Branch Sinnemahoning Creek Confluence with Driftwood Branch 4—Driftwood Branch Basin, Source to Elk Cameron FIQ-CWF, None Sinnemahoning Creek Fork ME 5—Elk Fork Basin, Source to Cameron EV, ME None Nichols Run 6—Nichols Run Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, None ME 5—Elk Fork Basin, Nichols Run to Cameron KQ-CWF, None Mouth MF 4—Driftwood Branch Main Stem, Elk Fork Cameron TSF, MF None Sinnemahoning Creek to Confluence with Bennett Branch 5—lUnnamedi Tributaries to Basins, Elk Fork to Cameron HQ-CWF, None Driftwood Branch Sinncmahoning IConfluence with ME Creek Bennett Branchj Cooks Run IS—Big Run Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, None

5—Bobby Run Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, Nonej MF 5—Cooks Run Basin Cameron EV, MF None 15—Johns Run Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, None MF 5—Britton Run Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, None] MF 5—Tributaries to Driftwood Basins, Cooks Run to Cameron HQ-CWE, None Branch Sinnemahoning Creek Clear Creek MF 5—Clear Creek Basin, Source to Mud Cameron By, ME None Run 6—Mud Run Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, None ME

39 5—-(lear Creek Basin, Mud Run to Cameron HQ-CWF, None Mouth MF 5—•Ferguson hollow Basin Cameron IIQ-CWF, None MF 5—North Creek Basin Cameron 1IQ-CWF, None ME 5—Swesey [follow Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, None ME 5—Dodge Hollow Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, None MF 5—lddy Run Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, None ME 5—Wheaton 1-follow Basin Cameron 1IQ-CWF, None NIE 5—West Creek Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, Nonci M F 5—Tributaries to Driftwood Basins. Clear Creek Cameron HQ-CWF, None Branch Sinnemahoning Creek to Sinneniahoning Portage Creek 5—Sinnemahoning Portage Creek Basin, Source to Cameron EV, MF None Cowley Run 6—Cowley Run Basin Cameron EV, MF None 5—Siimemahoning Portage Creek Basin, Cowley Run to Cameron CWF, MF None Mouth j5—Batier Hollow Basin Cameron HQ-CWE, None MF 5—Canoe Run Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, None MF 5—Hunts Run Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, None MF 5—Stillhouse Run Basin Cameron IIQ-CWF, None WIF 5—Square Timber Run Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, Nonel NIF 5—Tributaries to Driftwood Basins, Cameron HQ-CWF. None Branch Sinnemahoning Creek Siniiemahoning MF Portage Creek to Sterling Run 5—-Sterling Run 6—Finley Run Basin, Source to Cameron l-IQ-CWF, None lUnnamed Tributary MF at R.M. 1.71 Urn’ 25003 at 41° 25’ 54.7” N; 78° 15’ 34.2” V 7—U NT 25003 Basin Cameron HQ-CWE, None ME

40 6-—Finley Run Basin, lUnnamed Cameron CWF, MU None Tributary at R.M. 1.71UNT 25003 to Confluence with Portable Run 6—-Portable Run Basin, Source to Cameron CWF. MU None Confluence with Finley Run 5—Sterling Run Basin, Confluence of Cameron CWF, MF None Portable Run and Finley Run to Tannery Hollow Run 6—Tannery Hollow Run Basin Cameron EV, MU None 5—Sterling Run Basin, Tannery Cameron CWF. MU None 1-lollowRun to Mouth IS—Mason Grove Run Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, None l1 F 5—Wash Mason Run Basin Cameron IIQ-CWF, None MF 5—John Mason Run Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, None N’IF 5—Big Run Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, None ME 5—Dry Run Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, None MF 5—Tanglefoot Run Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, None ME 5—Nelson Run Basin Cameron IIQ-CWF, None MF 5—Grindstone hollow Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, None MF 5—.Johnson Run Basin Cameron HQ-CWE, Nonel MF 5—Tributaries to Driftwood Basins. Sterling Run Cameron FIQ-CWE. None Branch Sinnemahoning Creek to Confluence with MF Bennett Branch 3—Sinnemahoning Creek Main Stem. Clinton WWF. MF None Confluence of Bennett and Driftwood Branches to Mouth 4—IUnnamedl Tributaries to Basins. Confluence of Cameroni- HQ-CWF, None Sinnernahoning Creek Bennett and Driftwood Clintonj MF Branches to IMouthi First Fork 14—Grove Run Basin Cameron IIQ-CWF, Nonej N’IF 4—-FirstFork Sinnernahoning Basin, Source to Big Cameron F[Q-CWF, None Creek Nelson Run MU

4! 5—Big Nelson Run Basin, Source to Right Potter FIQ-CWF, None Branch Big Nelson MF Run 6-- Right Branch Big Nelson Run Basin Potter EV, MF None

5——BigNelson Run Basin, Right Branch Potter HQ-CWF, None Big Nelson Run to MF Mouth 4—First Fork Sinncmahomng Main Cameron l-IQ—CWF, None I Stem, Big Creek Nelson Run to MF Stevenson Dam! Basin, Bi2 Nelson Run to East Fork Sinnernahoning Creek j5—Unnamcd Tributaries lo Basins, Big Nelson Potter- HQ-CWF, None First Fork Sinnemahoning Creek Run to Stevenson Cameron ME Dam 5—Fish Basket Hollow Basin Potter HQ-CWF, None MF 5—Little Nelson Run Basin Potter NQ-CWF, None] M F 5—East Fork Sinnemahoning Basin, Source Potter EV, MF None Creek to Illolliver Trail] liNT 24255 at 40° 38’ 35.5” N; 77° 51’ 9.5” W (known as Dolliver Trail) 6—UNT 24255 Basin Potter 1W, MF None 5—East Fork Sinnemahoning [Main Stem, Dolliver Potter [IQ-CWF, None Creek Trail to MF Mouthj l3ashi. liNT 24255 to Stony Lick Run 16—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins, Dolliver Trail Potter I-IQ-CWF, None East Fork Sinnemahoning Creek to Mouth ME

6—Shinglebolt llollow Basin Potter HQ-CWF, None M F 6—Horton Run Basin Potter HQ-CWF, Nonel ME 6—Stony Lick Run Basin Potter EN’,MF None [6—Wild Boy Run Basin Potter HQ-CWF, None ME 6—Jaekson Lick Run Basin Potter HQ—CWF, None ME

42 6—Graveyard Hollow Basin Potter HQ-CWF, None NiF 6—Stony Run Basin Potter IIQ-CWF, None NiF 6—Jamison Run Basin Potter IIQ-CWF, None I F 6—Little Joe Run Basin Potter HQ-CWF, None NiF 6-Camp Run Basin Potter HQ-CWF, None NiF 6—Gravel Lick Run Basin Potter IIQ-CWF, None NiF 6—Mud Lick Run Basin Potter HQ-CWF, None NiF 6—Williams Run Basin Potter IIQ-CWF, None NiF 6—Marvin Run Basin Potter HQ-CWF, Nonel NiF 5—East Fork Sinnemahoning Basin, Stony Lick Potter HQ-CWF, None Creek Run to Birch Run MF 6—Birch Run Basin Potter By, MF None 16—Long Hollow Basin Potter IIQ-CWF, None NiF 6—Jordan Hollow Basin Potter HQ-CWF, None NiF 6—Schoolhouse Run Basin Potter HQ-CWF, None NiF 6-Black Stump Hollow Basin Potter IIQ-CWF, None NiF 6—Upper Vag Hollow Basin Potter HQ-CWF, None ME’ 6—Hunter Hollow Basin Potter IIQ-CWF, None NiF 6—Avery Hollow Basin Potter IIQ-CWF, None MF 6—Bentley Hollow Basin Potter HQ-CWF, Nonel NiF jS—Elk Lick Run Basin Potter HQ-CWF, None MF 5—Schoolhouse Run Basin Potter HQ-CWF, None NiF 5—Dry Hollow Basin Potter 1IQ-CVF, None NiF 5—Pine Island Run Basin Potter HQ-CVF, Nonej NiF 5—East Fork Sinnemahoning Basin. Birch Run to Potter HQ-CWF, None Creek Mouth MF

43 4—First Fork Sinnemahonint Basin, East Fork Potter HQ-CWF, None Creek Sinnemahoning MF Creek to Bailey Run 5—Bailey Run Basin, Source to Little Potter EV, MF None Bailey Run 6— Little Bailey Run Basin Potter HQ-CWF, None MF 5—Bailey Run Basin, Little Bailey Potter HQ-CWF, None Run to Mouth MF j5—Barrett Slide Basin Potter IIQ-CWF, None MV 5—Mahon Run Basin Potter NQ-CWF, None NiF 5—Berge Run Basin Potter HQ-CWF, None NIF 5—Upper Logue hollow Basin Cameron FIQ-CWF, None NiF 5—Logue Run Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, None M F 5—Owl hollow Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, None NiF 5—Norcross Run Basin Canieron HQ-CWF, None MF 5—Rattlesnake Run Basin Cameron NQ-CWF, None

5—Muley Run Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, None NiF 5—Mill Run Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, Nonel MF 4—First Fork Sinnemahonin2 Basin. Bailey Run to Potter HQ-CWF. None Creek Lushhaufl Run ME 5——LushhaughRun Basin Cameron EV, MF None IS—Brooks Run Basin Cameron IIQ-CWF, None NIF 5—Little Bailey Run Basin Cameron flQ-CWF, None ME 5—Short Bend Run Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, Nonel NIF 4—First Fork Sinnemahoning llasin. Lushbaugh Potter HQ-CWF, None Creek Run to Stevenson MF Dam 4—First Fork Sinnemahoning Main Stem, Stevenson Cameron FIQ—TSF, None Creek Darn to Mouth MF

5— lUnnamedi Tributaries to Basins, Stevenson Cameron HQ-CWF, None First Fork Sinnemahoning Creek Dam to Mouth MF 15—Woodrock Run Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, None ME

44 5—Roaring Run Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, None MF 5—Bronson Run Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, Nqne iiF 5—Joes Run Basin Cameron IIQ-CWF, None NIF 5—Guys Hollow Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, None MF 5—Lick Island Run Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, None NJF 5—Pumpkin Hollow Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, None NIF 5—Arksill Run Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, None NW 5—Pepperhill Run Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, None NiF 5—Riddles Hollow Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, None NIF 5—Whiteoak Run Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, None NIF 5—Board Rock Hollow Basin Cameron 1IQ-CWF, None TV)F 5—Ellicott Run Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, Nonel NiF 14—Wykoff Run Basin Cameron IIQ-CWF, None NIF 4—Upper Jerry Run Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, None NIF 4—Lower Jerry Run Basin Cameron HQ-CWF, None NIF 4—Pfoutz Run Basin Clinton HQ-CWF, None M F 4—Montour Run Basin Clinton HQ-CWF, None NIF 4—Round Island Run Basin Clinton HQ-CWF, None NIF 4—Mill Run Basin Clinton HQ-CWF, None NIF 4—Commissioners Run Basin Clinton HQ-CWF, None NIF 1—Wistar Run Basin Clinton HQ-CWF, None NIF 4—Moccasin Run (Moccasin Basin Clinton HQ-CVF, None Falls Run) MF 4—Upper Stirnpson Run Basin Clinton IIQ-CWF, None] NIF 4—Tributaries to Sinnemahonin Basins, First Fork to Cameron- IIQ-CWF. None Creek Mouth Clinton MF

45 3—Cooks Run Basin, Source to Clinton 1EV,MF None Onion Run 4—Onion Run Basin Clinton 1EV,MF None 3—Cooks Run Basin, Onion Run to Clinton FIQ-CWF. None Crowley 1-lollowRun ME 4—Crowicy 1-lollowRun Basin Clinton CWE, ME None 3—Cooks Run Basin, Crowley Clinton CWE, ME None Hollow Run to Mouth j3—Milligan Run Basin Clinton IIQ-CWF, None MF 3—Smith Run Basin Clinton IIQ-C4VF, None MF 3—North Smith Run Basin Clinton HQ-CWF, None] MF 3—Tributaries to West Branch Basins. Cooks Run to Clinton HQ-CWF, None Susguehanna River Fish Dam Run MF 3-—FishDarn Run Basin Clinton 1EV,ME None 3—Tributaries to West Branch Basins, Fish Darn Clinton HQ-CWF, None Susguehanna River Run to Kettle Creek M F 3—Kettle Creek Basin, Source to Inlet Clinton EV. ME None of Kettle Creek Reservoir 3—Kettle Creek Basin, Source to Inlet Clinton 1EV.ME None of Kettle Creek Reservoir 3—-KettleCreek Basin, Inlet of Kettle Clinton HQ-TSF, None Creek Reservoir to ME Alvin Bush Dam 3—Kettle Creek Basin, Alvin Bush Clinton TSP, ME None Dam to Twornile Run 4—Twornile Run Basin, Source to Clinton l-IQ-CWF, None Middle Branch ME Twomile Run 5 —Middle Branch Twornile Run Basin Clinton TSF, ME None

3—Kettle Creek Basin, Twomile Run Clinton 1SF, ME None to Mouth 3—Dry Run Basin Clinton HQ-CWF. Nonej NIF 3—Tributaries to West Branch Basins, Kettle Creek Clinton IIQ-CWF, None Susguehanna River to Barney Run M F 3—Barney Run Basin Clinton 1EV,ME None 13—Shintown Run Basin Clinton HQ-CWF, None NIF 3—Flail Run Basin Clinton HQ-CWF, Nonej MF

-46 3—Tributaries to West Branch Basins, Barney Run Clinton HQ-CWF, None Susguehanna River to Drury Run Ml? 3—Drury Run Basin, Source to Clinton LV, MF None Sandy Run 4—Sandy Run Basin Clinton l-IQ-CWF, None MF 3—Drury Run Basin, Sandy Run to Clinton HQ-CWF, None Woodley Draft MF 4-Woodley Draft Basin Clinton CWF. MF None 3—Drury Run Basin, Woodlcy Draft Clinton CWF, MF None to Mouth 13—Brewery Run Basin Clinton HQ-CWF, None M F 3—Peters Run Basin Clinton HQ-CWF, Nonel M F 3—Tributaries to West Branch Basins, Drury Run to Clinton HO-CWF, None Susguehanna River Paddy Run MF 3—Paddy Run Basin Clinton LV, MF None 3—Tributaries to West Branch Basins. Paddy Run to Clinton HQ-CWF, None Susguehanna River UNT 23593 at 40° 18’ MF 5.0” N 770 43’ 36.8” W (known as Boggs hollow) 3—jBoggs Ilollowl UNT 23593 Basin Clinton LV, MF None

3—Tributaries to West Branch Basins, UNT 23593 to Clinton HO-CWF, None Susguehanna River Young Wornans MI? C reek 3—Young Womuns Creek Basin, Source to I_eli Clinton LV, MF None Branch Young Wornans Creek 3—Young Womuns Creek Basin, Left Brunch Clinton HQ-CWF. None Young Womans Creek MF to Mouth j3—Caldwcll Run Basin Clinton HQ-CWF, None M F 3—Dry Run Basin Clinton HQ-CWF, None M F 3—Hyner Run Basin Clinton HQ-CWF, None M F 3—Little McCluskey Run Basin Clinton HQ-CWF, None NIF 3—Big MeCloskey Run Basin Clinton HQ-CWF, None NIF 3—Huff Run Basin Clinton HQ-CWF, None M F 3—Schoolhouse Hollow Basin Clinton HQ-CWF, None ME’ 47 3—Goodman Hollow Basin Clinton HQ-CWF, None MF 3—Johnson Run Basin Clinton HQ-CWF, None ME 3—Ritchic Run Basin Clinton HQ-CWF, None MF 3—Green Run Basiii Clinton HQ-CWF, None ME 3—Rattlesnake Run Basin Clinton IIQ-CWF, None ME 3—Grugan Hollow Basin Clinton HQ-CWF, None MF 3—Mill Run Basin Clinton HQ-CWF, None ME 3—Baker Run Basin Clinton HQ-CWF, None NIF 3—McCloskey Run Basin Clinton HQ-CWF, None M F 3—Ferney Run Basin Clinton HQ-CVF, None NIF 3—East Ferney Run Basin Clinton HQ-CWF, None NIF 3—iJolland.Run Basin Clinton FIQ-CWF, None) WIF 3—Tributaries to Vest Branch Basins, Young Clinton l1Q-CVF, None Susquehanna River Woman’s Creek to MF Tangascootack Creek 3—-TangascootakI IMain Sterni Basin. Clinton CWF, ME Nonc Tangascootack Creek Source to North Fork Tangascootack Creek j4—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins Clinton CWF, ME None) Tangascoolak Creek 4—North Fork ITangascootak) Basin Clinton l-IQ-CWF, None Tangascootack Creek MF

14—Bird Run Basin Clinton CWF, ME Noncj 3—Tangascootack Creek Basin, North Fork Clinton CWF, ME None Tangascootack Creek to Mouth 3—Tributaries to West Branch Basins, Clinton HQ-CWF, None Susquehanna River Tangascootack Creek MF to Lick Run 3—Lick Run Basin, Source to Clinton EV, MF None Farthest Upstream Crossing of LR 13011 (SR 1001)

48 3-—Lick Run Basin, Farthest Clinton HQ-CWF, None Upstream Crossing of MF LR 1801 Ito Mouth 3—Tributaries to West Branch Basins, Lick Run to Clinton HQ-CWF, None Susguehanna River und-ixwIudin Queens ME Run 3—Queens Run Basin Clinton NQ-CWF, None MF 3—lUnnamedi Tributaries to West jQueens Run to Pine Clintoni- CWF, MF None l3rancb Susquehanna River Creeki Basins, Lycorningj Queens Run to Bald Eagle Creek 13—Sugar Run Basin Clinton CWF, ME None 3—Reeds Run Basin Clinton CWF, ME None( 3—Bald Eagle Creek Basin, Source to Centre C\VF. ME None Laurel Run (at Port Matilda) * * * * * 3—Bald Eagle Creek Main Stern. Laurel Centre TSF. MF None Run to Nittany Creek 4—[Unnarnedj Tributaries to Bald Basins. Laurel Run Ito Centre CWF, MF None Eagle Creek Nittany CreckIJ Port Matilda) to Laurel Run at 40° 51’ 47.8” N; 770 56’ 73” w 14—Mudliek Run Basin Centre CWF. MF Nonel 4—Laurel Run Basin Centre EV, ME None 14—Dicks Run Basin Centre CWF, INIF None 4—Dewitt Run Basin Centre CWF, MF Nonel 4—Tributaries to Bald Eagle Basins. Laurel Run Centre CWF. i\IF None Creek to Wallace Run 4-Wallace Run Basin, Source to Centre EV, ME None Unnamed Tributary at Gum Stumpj liNT 23105 at at 40° 58’ 44 ‘“ N; 77° 50’ 59.3” W 5—jUnnamed Tributary at Basin Centre EV, ME None Gum StumplUNT 23105 4-Wallace Run Basin, jUnnamed Centre EIQ-CWE, None Tributary at Gum MF Stump] UNT 23105 to Mouth j4—Moose Run Basin Centre CWF, NW Nonel 4—Tributaries to Bald Ea&e Basins. Wallace Run Centre CWF, MF None Creek to Spring Creek

49 4—Spring Creek Main Stern, Source to Centre l-IQ-CWF, None PA 550 Bridge MF * * * * * 5—-UNTs to Spring Creek Basins, PA 550 Bridge Centre CWF, MF None to Mouth 5—-Logan Branch Basin, Source to IUNT Centre jCWF, ME] None 23007 at RM 7.16] HQ-CWF, Confluence with MF Tributary at 400 49’ 56.6”N; 770 45’ 18.8” w 6 IUNT 23007 at RM 7.16 Basin Centre IHQ-CWF, None (locally McBrides Run)I Tributary MEl CWF, at 40° 49’ 56.6”N; 770 45’ 18.3” W ME

5——LoganBranch Basin, [UN’f 230071 Centre CWF, MF None Confluence with Tributary at 40° 49’ 56.6”N; 77° 45’ 18.8” WtoT37l Bridge 5—Logan Branch Main Stern, T-371 Centre 1-lQ-CWF, None Bridge to Mouth MF 6—lUnnarnedi Tributaries to Basins, T-371 Bridge Centre CWF, MF None Logan l3raneh to Mouth 5— BufThloRun Basin, Source to T 942 Centre IIQ-CWF, None Bridge at IRM 0.66 ME (near Coleyille)j 40° 54’ 35.4” N; 77° 47’ 37.3” W 5—Buffalo Run Basin, T 942 Bridge to Centre CWF, ME None Mouth [4—Antis Run Basin Centre CWF, ME None] 4—Tributaries to Bald Ea2le Basins. Spring Creek Centre CWF, MF None Creek to Nittany Creek 4—Nittany Creek Basin, Source to I-SO Centre CWF, ME None 4—Nittany Creek Basin, 1-80 to Mouth Centre HQ-CWF, None ME 3—Bald Eagle Creek Main Stern, Nittany Centre WWF, MF None Creek to Mouth 4- IUinamedI Tributaries to Bald Basins, Nittany Creek Centrel- CWF, ME None Eagle Creek to [Mouth] Lick Run Clintonj 14—Bullit Run Basin Centre CWF, ME None 4—Greens Run Basin Centre CWF, ME None] 4—Lick Run Basin Centre IIQ-CWE, None ME 14—Hunters Run Basin Centre CWF, MF None

50 4—Marsh Creek Basin Centre CWF, MF Nonej 4—Tributaries to Bald Eagle Basins, Lick Run to Centre CWF, ME None Creek Beech Creek 4—Beech Creek 5—South Fork Beech Creek Basin, Source to Centre CWF, MF None Stinktown Run 6—Stinktown Run Basin Centre HQ-CWF, None MF 5—South Fork Beech Creek Basin, Stinktown Run Centre CWF, MF None to Mouth 5—North Fork Beech Creek Basin, Source to Centre CWF, MF None Confluence with South Fork 4—Beech Creek IMaiia Stemi Basin, [Clinton- CWF, MF None Confluence of South ICentre and North IBranches to Mouthi Forks to Rock Run 15—UNT5 to Beech Creek Basins, Confluence of Clinton- CWF, MF Nonel South and North Centre Branches to Mouth 5—Rock Run Basin Centre By, MB None 15—Sandy Run Basin Centre CWF, MF None 5—Wolf Run Basin Centre CWF, ME Nonel 4-Beech Creek Basin. Rock Run to Centre CWF, MF None Panther Run 5—Panther Run Basin Centre By, MF None IS—Eddy Lick Run Basin Centre CWF, MF None 5—Logway Run Basin Centre CWF, ME None 5—Council Run Basin Centre CWF, MF Nonel 4—Beech Creek Basin. Panther Run Centre CWF, MF None to Two Rock Run 5—Two Rock Run Basin Centre By, MF None IS—Three Rock Run Basin Centre CWF, ME Nonel 4—Beech Creek Basin, Two Rock Centre CWF, MF None Run to Hayes Run 5—Hayes Run Basin Centre By, MF None 4—Beech Creek Basin, Hayes Run to Centre CWF. MF None Big Run 5—Big Run 6—Middle Branch Big Run Basin, Source to Clinton EV, MF None IThornapple Runi UNT 22666 at 41° 10’ 47.7” N 77° 45’ 58.0” W

51 7 —jThornapple Runi UNf Basin Clinton CWF, MF None 22666 6—Middle Branch Big Run Basin, IThornapple Clinton CWF, MF None Run] UNT 22666 to Confluence with East Branch 6- --East Branch Big Run Basin, Source to jRM Clinton EV, ME None 4.5] apointat4l° 11’ 15.5 N; 77° 43’ 51.5” w 6 East Branch Big Run Basin, IRM •5I from Clinton CWE, MF None the point at 41° 11’ 15.5 N; 77° 43’ 51.5” W to Confluence wilh Middle Branch 5-- Big Run jMain Stemi Basin, Clinton CWF, ME None Confluence olMiddle and East Branches to IMouth] Vest Branch Big Run 16—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins, Confluence of Clinton CVF, MF NoneJ Big Run Middle and East Branches to Mouth 6—West Branch Big Run Basin Clinton EV, MF None 5—Big Run Basin. Vest Branch Clinton CWF, ME None Big Run to Mouth 4—Beech Creek Basin. Big Run to Clinton CWF, MF None Monument Run 5—-Monurncnt Run Basin Clinton l-lQ-CWE. None MF j5—Twin Run Basin Clinton CWF, MF None

5—Bitner Run - Basin Clinton CWF, ME None 5—Sugar Run Basin Clinton CWF, ME Nonel 4—Beech Creek Basin, Monument Clinton CWF, ME None Run to Mouth j4—Laurel Run Basin Clinton CWF, MF Nonej 4—Tributaries to Bald Eagle Basins, Beech Creek Clinton CWF. ME None Creek to Fishing Creek 4-Fishing Creek Basin, Source to Clinton HQ-CWF, None Cherry Run ME 5—Cherry Run Basin Clinton EV, ME None 4—Fishing Creek IMain Stem, Cherry Clinton HQ-CWF, None Run to Long Run] ME Basin, Cherry Run to Little Fishing Creek IS—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins, Cherry Run Clinton NQ-CWF, Nonel Fishing Creek to Long Run ME

52 5—Little Fishing Creek IMain StemJ Basin, Clinton HQ-CWF, None Source to Roaring MF Run Tributaries to Basins Centre- IIQ-CWF, Nonej I6—Unnamed Little Fishing Creek Clinton MF 6—Roaring Run Basin, Source to Camp Centre EV, MF None Krislund 6—Roaring Run Basin, Camp Krislund Centre HQ-CWF, None to Mouth MF IS—Cedar Run Basin Clinton HQ-CWF, Nonej M F 5—Little Fishing Creek Basin. Roaring Run Clinton HO-CWF. None to Mouth MF 4—Fishin1 Creek Basin. Little Fishing Clinton HQ-CWF. None Creek to Long Run ME

5—Long Run Basin Clinton HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Fishing Creek Basin, Long Run to Clinton CWF, MF None Mouth 4—Tributaries to Bald Eagle Basins. Fishing Clinton CWF, MF None Creek Creek to ITarveys Run * * * * *

4—TRIBUTARIES TO BALD BASINS, HARVEYS CLINTON CWF, ME NONE EAGLE CREEK RUN TO MOUTH 3—Tributaries to West Branch Basins, Bald Eagle Clinton CWF, ME None Susquehanna River Creek to McElhattan Creek 3—MeElhattan Creek Basin, Source to Clinton HQ-CWF, None Keller Reservoir MF Water Supply Intake 3—McElhattan Creek Basin. Keller Water Clinton CWE, ME None Supply Intake to IViouth 3—Tributaries to XVestBranch Basins. MeElbattan Clinton CWF. MF None Susguehanna River Creek to Chatham Run 3—Chatham Run Basin. Source to Clinton HQ-CWF. None Chatham Water Co. MF Intake 3—Chatharn Run Basin, Chatharn Water Clinton CWF, MF None Co. Intake to Mouth 3—Tributaries to West Branch Basins, Chatham Clinton CWF, NW None Susquehanna River Run to Henry Run 3——HenryRun Basin Clinton HQ-CWF, None MF 53 3—Tributaries to West Branch Basins, 1-lenry Run to Clinton CWF, MF None Susquehanna River Pine Creek 3—Pine Creek Basin, Source to South Potter HQ-CWF, None Branch Pine Creek MF 4—South Branch Pine (‘reek Basin Potter HQ-CWF, None MF 3—Pine Creek Main Stein. South Tioga EV, MF None Branch Pine Creek to Marsh Creek 4—jUnnarned) TribuLaries to Pine Basins, South Branch Potterj—Tioga l-IQ-CWF, None Creek Pine Creek to IMarsh MF Creek) Johnson Brook 4—Johnson Brook Basin, Source to Potter By, MF None Farthest I Downstream Crossing ofi State Game Lands No. 64 Border at 41° 45’ 8.2” N- 77° 37’ 597” W 4—Johnson Brook Basin, IFarthest Potter HQ-CWF. None Downstream MF Crossing ofl State Game Lands No. 64 Border at 41° 45’ 8.2” N: 77° 37’ 59.2” W to Mouth 14—Phoenix Run Basin Tioga HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Elk Run Basin Tioga HQ-CWF, None M F 4—Benaur Ilollow Basin Tioga IIQ-CWF, None) NIF 4—Tributaries to Pine Creek Basins. Johnson Potter-Tioga flQ-CWF. None Brook to Long Run MF 4- -Long Run Basin Tioga CWF, MF None 14—Lick Run Basin Tioga I1Q-CWF, None ME 4—Shin Hollow Basin Tioga EIQ-CWF, None ME 4—Painter Run Basin Tioga HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Steele Run Jlollow Basin Tioga HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Woodruff Hollow Basin Tioga HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Schanbacher Hollow Basin Tioga HQ-CWF, None ME

54 ______

4—Bee Tree hollow Basin Tioga FIQ-CWF, None MF 4—Herrington Hollow Basin Tioga HQ-CWF, Nonel MF 4—Tributaries to Pine Creek Basins, Long Run to Potter-Tioga HQ-CWF, None Marsh Creek MF 4——MarshCreek IMain Stem, Source Tioga WWF, MF None to Straight Run 5—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins, Source to Tioga CWF, MF Nonel Marsh Creek Straight Run 5—Charleston Creek Basin, Source to Tioga WWF, MF None Confluence with Morris Branch 5—Morris Branch Basin. Source to Tioga CWF. MF None Kelsev Creek 151±—Kelscy Creek Basin Tioga WWP. ME None IS—Horse Thief Run Basin Tioga CWF, MF Nonel 5—Morris Branch Basin, Kclsev Creek Tioga CWF. MF None to Confluence with Charleston Creek 4—Marsh Creek Main Stein. Tioga VVF, MF None Confluence of Charleston Creek and Morris Branch to Straight Run 5—Tributaries to Marsh Creek Basins. Confluence of Tioga CWF. MF None Charleston Creek and Morris Branch to Baldwin Run 5—Baldwin Run Basin Tioga HQ-CWF, None MF j5—Hihard Hollow Basin Tioga CWF, MF None 5—Fuller hollow Basin Tioga CWF, MF None 5—Wolf Run Basin fioga CWF, MF None 5—H else Run Basin Tioga CWF, MF None 5—Smith Run Basin T ioga CWF, MF None 5—Gee hollow Basin Tioga CWF, ME Nonel 5—Tributaries to Marsh Creek Basins. Baldwin Run Tioga CWF. MF None to Canada Run 5—Canada Run Basin Tioga HQ-CWE, None MF 15—Dantz Run Basin Tioga CWF, MF Nonel 5—Tributaries to Marsh Creek Basins, Canada Run Tioga CWF, MF None to Straight Run 5—Straight Run Basin Tioga HQ-CWF, None MF

55 4—Marsh (‘reck IMain Stem, Straight Tioga CWP, ME None Run to Mouthj Basin, Straiuht Run to Asaph Run IS—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins, Straight Run Tioga CWF, MF Nonej Marsh Creek to Mouth 5—-Asaph Run Basin Tioga HQ-CWF, None MF IS—Gray hollow Basin Tioga CWF, ME None 5—Kinney Hollow Basin Tioga CWF, MF Nonel 4—Marsh Creek Basin, Asaph Run to Tioga CWF, ME None Mouth 3—Pine Creek Main Stein, Marsh Lycoming- l-IQ-TSF. None Creek lo Mouth Clinton MF 4—lUnnamedi Tributaries to Pine Basins, Marsh Creek Tioga- lIQ-CWF, None Creek to IMouthi Pine Lycoming- MF Island Run Clinton {4—Strap Mill Ilohlow Basin Tioga l[Q-CWF, None NIF 4-Darling Run Basin Tioga HQ-CWF, None NiF 4—Owassee Slide Run Basin Tioga NQ-CWF, None M F 4—Pinafore Run Basin Tioga HQ-CWF, None ME 4—Bear Run Basin Tioga HQ-CWF, None ME 4-Little Fourmile Run Basin Tioga HQ-CWF, None ME 4—Fourmile Run Basin Tioga IIQ-CWF, None M F 4—Stowell Run Basin Tioga IIQ-CWF, None M F 4—Burdic Run Basin Tioga IIQ-CWF, None M F 4—Horse Run Basin Tioga HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Tumbling Run Basin Tioga HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Little Slate Run Basin Tioga HQ-CWF, None MF 4-Ice Break Run Basin Tioga HQ-CWF, None M F 4—Camphells Run Basin Tioga HQ-CWF, None M F 4—Straight Creek Basin Tioga HQ-CWF, None MF

56 4—Good Spring Hollow Basin ‘Fioga HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Rail Island Run Basin Tioga HQ-CW F, Nonel NIF 4—Pine Island Run Basin Tioga 1EV,MF None [4—Beniarnin Hollow Basin lioga IIQ-CWF, None MF 4—Dillon Hollow Basin Tioga HQ-CWF, None ME 4—Clay Mine Run Basin Tioga HQ-CWF, None ME 4—Water Tank Run Basin Ti oga HQ-CWF, None NIF 4—Bohen Run Basin Tioga HQ-CWF, None NIF 4—Stone Quarry Run Basin Tioga I1Q-CVF, None NIF 4—Jerry Run Basin Tioga IIQ-CWF, None] NiF 4—Tributaries to Pine Creek Basins. Pine Island Tioga HQ-CWF None Run to Babb creek NIF 4-Babb Creek Main Stern Tioga CWF, MF None * * * * * 4—Trout Run Basin Lycomi ng I-IQ-CWF, None MF 4—Tributaries to Pine Creek Basins. Babb Creek Tioga 11Q-CWF. None to Cedar Run Lycoming MF 4-Cedar Run Basin Lycorning 1EV,MF None [4—Jacobs Run Basin Lv coming IIQ-CW F, None ME 4—Gamble Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None M F 4-Elk Run Basin Lyco mm g IIQ-CWF, None ME 1—Hilborn Run Basin Lyco millg II Q-CWF, Nonej NIF 4—Tributaries to Pine Creek Basins, Cedar Run to Lycoming IIO-CWF, None Slate Run ME 4—Slate Run Basin Lycorning 1EV,MF None [4-Little Slate Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Naval Run Basin Lycoming IIQ-CWF, None ME 4—Callahan Run Basin Lyconiing HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Bonnell Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None NIF

57 4—Wolf Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None ME 4—Ross Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, Nonef MF 4—Tributaries to Pine Creek Basins, Slate Run to Lycorning HQ-CWF, None Mill Run MF 4—Mill Run Basin, Source to Bull Lycomipg EV, MP None Run 5—Bull Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Mill Run Basin, Bull Run to Lycoming HQ-CWF, None Mouth MF Lycoming IIQ-CWF, None I4—Trout Run Basin ME 4—Miller Run Basin Lycoming 1IQ-CWF, None .ME 4—Truman Run Basin Lycorning LIQ-CWE, None ME 4—Bluestone Run Basin Lyconfing HQ-CWE, None ME 4—Solomon Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Shanty Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None ME 4-McClure Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None MF 4-Callahan Run Basin Lyconiing HQ-CWF, None ME 4—Browns Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Dry Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None ME 4—Upper Pine Bottom Run Basin Lycorning HQ-CWF, None ME 4—Lower Pine Bottom Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None NIF 4—Bull Run Basin Lycorning HQ-CWE, Nonej ME 4—Tributaries to Pine Creek Basins, Mill Run to Lycoming HQ-CWF, None Little Pine Creek MF 4—Little Pine Creek 5—Texas Creek (Zimmerman Basin, Source to Lycoming HQ-CWF, None Creek) Confluence with MF Blockhouse Creek 5—Blockhouse Creek Basin, Source to Flicks Lycoming CWF, MF None Run 6—Flicks Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None MF

58 5—Blockhouse Creek Basin, Flicks Run to Lycorning CWF, ME None Confluence with Texas Creek 4—Little Pine Creek Main Stein, Lycorning CWF, MF None Confluence of Texas and Blockhouse Creeks to Little Pine Creek Darn 5—lUnnamed! Tributaries to Basin, Confluence of Lycorning HQ-CWF, None Little Pine Creek Texas and Blockhouse ME Creeks to ILittle Pine Creek Dami English Run 15—Bear Run Basin Lycorning HQ-CVF, None ME 5—Bonnell Run Basin Lcoming IIQ-CWF, None M F 5—Lick Run Basin Lycorning HQ-CWF, Nonej M F 5—English Run Basin Lvcorning CWF, ME None 15—Coal Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None MF 5—Rogers Run Basin Lyconüng HQ-CWF, Nonel M F 5—Tributaries to Little Pine Basins. English Run Lveorning HQ-CWF, None Creek to Otter Run ME 5—Otter Run Basin Lycorning CWF. ME None IS—Canons Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None ME 5—McKees Run Basin Lycorning HQ-CWF, None ME 5—Panther Run Basin Lycorning HQ-CVF, None M F 5—Naval Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None MF 5—Love Run Basin Lycorning HQ-CWF, Nonej ME 5—Tributaries to Little Pine Basins. Otter Run to Lycorning HQ-CWF. None Creek Little Pine Creek ME Dam 4-Little Pine Creek Main Stein, Little Pine Lyeorning TSF, ME None Creek Darn to Mouth 5—lUnnamedi Tributaries to Basins, Little Pine Lyeoining HQ-CWF, None Little Pine Creek Creek Darn to Mouth MF IS—English Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None ME 5—Boone Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None ME

59 5—Dam Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None NIF 4—Ramsey Run Basin Lycoming FIQ-CWF, None MF 4—Bonnell Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None Ml? 4—Tombs Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Gamble Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None Ml? 4—Furnace Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Sulphur Run Basin Clinton HQ-CWF, None NiF 4—Nichols Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, Nonel MF 3—-lUnnamedi ‘I’ributades lo Basins, Pine Creek to Lycoming WWF, MF None North Bank of West Branch Loyalsock Creek Susquehanna River except Larrvs Creek and Lycoming Creek 3—Larrys Creek Basin. Source to Iscoming HQ-CWF. None Second Fork Larrys MF Creek 4—Second Fork Earn’s Creek Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None MF 3—Larrvs Creek Basin, Second Fork Lvcoming WWF. MF None to First Fork 4—First Fork Earn’s Creek Basin Lvcoming HQ-CWF, None M F 3—Larrvs Creek Basin, First Fork to Lvcoming WWF, Ml? None NIou th 3—Lvcoming Creek Main Stem, Source to Lvcoming CWF. MF None Long Run 4—’fributaries to Lycoming Basins. Source to Red Tioga- IIQ-CWF. None Creek Run Lvcomin2 N! 4—Red Run Basin [scorning CWF, ME None 4—Tributaries to Lycoming Basins. Red Run to Lvcoming HQ-CWF, None Creek Long Run MF 4—Long Run Basin Lvcorning HQ-CWF, None MF 3—Lycoming Creek Basin, Long Run to Lvcoming WWF, MF None Mouth 3—lUnnamedi Tributaries to Basins, Pine Creek to Lycorning CWP, ME None South Bank of West Branch Loyalsock Creek Susquehanna River except Aughanhaugh Run, Antes Creek and Big Run

60 3—Aughanbaugh Run Basin Lycorning l-IQ-CWF, None ME * * * * * 3—Antes Creek Basin, Morgan Valley Lycoming CWF, ME None Run to Mouth [3—Stewards Run Basizi Lycoming WWF, MF None 3—Larrys Creek Basin, Source to Lycorning HQ-CWF, None Second Fork MF 4—Second Fork Larrys Creek Basin Lycorning HQ-CWF, None MF 3—Larrys Creek Basin, Second Fork Lycoming WWF, MF None to First Fork 4—First Fork Larrys Creek Basin Lycorning IIQ-CVF, None MF 3—Larrys Creek Basin, First Fork to Lycorning WWF. MF Nonel Mouth 3—Big Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None MF 3—Pine Run Basin Lycorning WWF, MF None 3—Quenshukeny Run Basin Lycoming VVF, MF None 3—Bender Run Basin [scorning CWF, MF None 3—Daugherty Run Basin Lycoming WWF, MF None 3—Mosquito Creek Basin Lycorning CWF, MF None 3—Lycorning Creek Main Stern. Source to Tioga- CWF, MF None Long Run Lycorning 4—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins, Source to Lycorning HQ-CWF, None Lycorning Creek Long Run MF 4—Cascade Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None J F 4—Sugar Works Run Basin Tioga HQ-CWF, None M F 4—Mill Creek Basin Tioga HQ-CWF, None M F 4—Roaring Branch Basin Tioga HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Abbott Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None II F 4—Red Run Basin Lycorning CWF, MF None 4—Rock Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Frozen Run Basin Lycorning HQ-CWF, None MF 4—ileylmun Run Basin Lycorning HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Pleasant Stream Basin Lycorning HQ-CWF, None MF

6] 4—Slacks Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Shoemakers Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Grays Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None MF 4—1-lagermans Run Basin Lycoming FIQ-CWF, None MF 4—Gleudenen Run Basin Lycoming liQ-CWF, None MF 4—Trout Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Wolf Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Daugherty Run Basin Lycorning HQ-CWF, None M F 4—Hoagland Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None M F 4—Long Run Basin Lycoming 1IQ-CWF,. None MF 3—Lyeoming Creek Basin, Long Run to Lycoming WWF, MF None Mouth 3—Grafius Run Basin Lycoming WWF, MF None 3—Hagermans Run Basin Lycoming CWF, MF None 3—Millers Run Basin Lycoming WWF, MF Nonel 3—Loyalsock Creek Basin, Source to Pole Lycorning CWF, MF None Bridge Run 4—-PoIeBridge Run Basin Sullivan HQ-CWF, None NW 3---Loyalsock Creek IMain Stem, Pole Sullivani- CWF, MF None Bridge Creek to Lyeoming Sullivan-Lyeoming Borden Basin, Pole Bridge Run to Shanerburg Run [4—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins, Pole Bridge Sullivan CWF, MF Nonel Loyalsoek Creek Creek to Little Loyalsock Creek 4—Shanerburg Run Basin, Source to [End Sullivan EV, MF None of Jeep Trail to Mouth (about 1.5 Miles from Mouth)I i point at 41° 25’ 57.5”N; 76° 32’ 12.9” ‘V 4-Shanerburg Run Basin, [End of Jeep Sullivan HQ-CWF, None Trailithe point at 41° MF

62 25’ 57.5”N; 76° 32’ 12.9” W to Mouth 3—Loyalsock Creek Basin, Shanerburg Sullivan CWF, MF None Run to Tamarack Run 4——TamarackRun Basin Sullivan HQ-CWF, None MF 3—Lovalsock Creek Basin, Tamarack Sullivan CWF, MF None Run to Bi2 Run 4—Big Run Basin Sullivan l-lQ-CWF, None MF 14—Double Run Basin Sullivan CWF, MF None 4—high Rock Run Basin Sullivan CWF, MF None 4—Little Loyalsoek Creek Basin Sullivan CWF, MF Nonel 3—Lovakock Creek Basin, Bhz Run to Sullivan CWF. MF None Little Lovalsock Creek 4—Little Lovalsock Creek Basin Sullivan CWF, NIF None 3—Loyalsock Creek Main Stern. Little Sullivan CWF. MF None Lovalsock Creek to Sullivan-Lvcoming County Border at 41° 24’ 7.8” N 76° 44’ 39.5” W 4—lUnnamedl Tributaries to Basins, Little Sullivan FIQ-CWF. None Loyalsoek Creek Loyalsock Creek to MF ISullivan-Lycoming County Borderj Ketchurn Run 14—Scar Run Basin Sullivan HQ-CVF, None! M F 4—Ketchurn Run Basin Sullivan EV. MF None 4—Cape Run Basin Sullivan HQ-CWF, None NIF 4—Barkshed Run Basin Sullivan llQ-CVF, None MF 4—Joes Run Basin Sullivan HQ-CWF, None NiF 4—Elk Creek Basin Sullivan HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Slab Run Basin Sullivan HQ-CWF, None MF 4-Mill Creek Basin Sullivan HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Huckle Run Basin Sullivan HQ-CWF, None NIF 4—Dry Run Basin Sullivan HQ-CWF, Nonej NIF 63 4—Tributaries to Loyalsock Basins, Ketchurn Sullivan IIQ—CWF, None Creek Rini to Ogdonia ME Creek 4—Ogdonia Creek Basin. Source to Kettle Sullivan IIQ-CWF, None Creek MF 5—-Kettle Creek Basin Sullivan 1EV,MF None 4- —Ogdonia Creek Basin. Kettle Creek to Sullivan HQ-CWF, None Mouth MF 4—Tributaries to Lovalsoek Basins, Ogdonia Sullivan HO-CWF, None Creek Creek to Sullivan- MF Lycorning County Border at 41° 24’ 7.8” N; 76° 44’ 39.5” w

3 - Loyalsock Creek Main Stem, Sullivan- Lycoming TSF, MF None Lycoming County Border to IMouthi fl 973 Bridge at 41° 19’ 30.8” N: 76° 54’ 42.6” W 4—IUiinamedl Tributaries to [Basini Basins, Lycoming HQ-CWF, None Loyalsock Creek Sullivan-Lycoming MF

County Border to IPA 973 Bridgel Plunkctts Creek 4—Plunketts Creek [Main Stenhl Basin. Lycoming HQ-CWF, None Source to Noon MF Bran cli IS—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins Sullivan- HQ-CWF, None Plunketts Creek Lyconiing MF 5—Reibsan Run Basin Lycorning HQ-CWF, None M F D—Mock Creek Basin Lycoming IIQ-CWF, Nonel M F 5—Noon Branch Basin, Source to Wolf Lveoming 1EV.MF None Run 6 --Wolf Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF. None MF 5 —Noon l3raneh Basin, Wolf Run to Lyeoming l-IQ—CWF, None Mouth ME 4—Piunketis Creek Basin, Noon Branch Lvcoming HQ-CWF, None to King Run MF 5—King Run Basin, Source to Engle Lycoming HQ-CWF, None Run MF 6—Engle Run Basin Lycoming 1EV,MF None 5—King Run Basin, Engle Run to Lycoming l-IQ-CWF, None Mouth MF

64 15—Dry Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, Nonel MF 14—Bear Creek Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Little Bear Creek Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Dry Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Butternut Grove Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None M F 4—Wallis Run Basin Lycorning HQ-CVF, Nonej M F 14—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins, PA 973 Lycorning TSF, lF None Loyalsoek Creek Bridge to Mouth 4—Mill Creek (West) Basin Lvcoming TSF, MF None 4—Mill Creek (East) Basin Lvcoming TSF, MF Nonef 4—Plunketts Creek Basin. King Run to Lvcoming HQ-CWF, None Mouth MF 4—Tributaries to Lovalsock Basins, Plunketts Lycoming HQ-CVF, None Creek Creek to PA 973 MF Bridge 3—Lovalsock Creek Basin, PA 973 Bridge Lycoming TSF, MF None to Mouth 3—lUnnamedi Tributaries to West Basins, Loyalsoek Lyeoming- WWF, MF None Branch Susquehanna River Creek to IMouthi Northumberlan Muncv Creek ci-Union 13—Tules Run Basin Lycoming WWF, MF None 3—Turkeys Run Basin Lyeoming WWF, MF None 3—Carpenters Run Basin Lycoming WWF, MF None! 3—Muney Creek Basin, Source to Sullivan EV, MF None second SR 2002 Bridge upstream of Sonesiown at !RM 26.4j 41° 21’ 24.5” N; 76° 31’ 349” W 3—Muncy Creek Main Stern. Second Sullivan CWF, ME None SR 2002 Bridge upstream of Sonestown lat RM 26.4! to US 220 Bridge at Muncy Valley at 41° 20’ 36.3” N: 76° 35’ 8.1” w 4—IUNTsI Tributaries to Muncy Basins, Second SR Sullivan HQ-CWF, None Creek 2002 Bridge upstream MF of Sonestown lat RM

65 26.41 to US 220 Bridge at Muncy Valley 14—Slip Run Basin Sullivan HQ-CWF, None NIF 4—Big Run Basin Sullivan HQ-CWF, Nonel ME 3—Muney Creek Main Stem, US 220 Lycorning TSE, ME None Bridge at Muncy Valley to Mouth 4—-lUnnaniedi Tributaries to Basins, US 220 Bridge Sullivan- HQ-CWF, None Muncy Creek at Muncy Valley to Lyeorning ME Laurel Run 14—Trout Run Basin Lycoming 1IQ-CWF, None NIF 4-Spring Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None ME 4—Rock Run Basin Lycoming HQ-CWF, None ME 4—Lick Run Basin Lycorning I1Q-CWE, None ME 4—Big Run Basin Lycorning HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Roaring Run Basin Lycorning flQ-CWF, Nonej M F 4—-Laurel Run Basin Lycorning l-lQ—CWF, None MF 4—lUnnamedl Tributaries to Basins, Laurel Run to Lycoming CWF, ME None Muncy Creek Mouth J4—Pine Run Basin Lycoming CWF, ME None 4—Gregs Run Basin Lyeoming CWF, ME None 4—Sugar Run Basin Lycorning CWF, MF None 4—Little Muncy Creek Basin Lyeoming CWF, ME None 4—Wolf Run Basin Lycoming CWF, ME None 3—Glade Run Basin Lyeoming WWF, ME None 3—Turkey Run Basin Lycorning WWF, ME Nonej 3—Tributaries to West Branch Basins, Muncv Creek Lycoming WWF. ME None Susguehanna River to Black Hole Creek 3—Black Hole Creek Basin Lycorning TSF, MF None j3—Black Run Basin Lycoming WWF, ME Nonel 3—Tributaries to West Branch Basins, Black Hole Lycorning- WWF. ME None Susguehanna River Creek to White Deer Northuniherl Hole Creek and-Union 3—White Deer Hole Creek Basin, Source to Union HQ-CWF. None Spring Creek ME 4—Spring Creek Basin Union TSF, ME None

66 3—White Deer Hole Creek Basin, Spring Creek to Union TSF, MF None Mouth j3—Delaware Run Basin Northumberl WWF, ME None and 3—Dry Run Basin Northumberl WWF, MF None and 3—Spring Run Basin Northumberl VVF, ME Nonej and 3—Tributaries to West Branch Basins. Whitc Deer Northumberl WWF, MF None Susguehanna River Hole Creek to White and-Union Deer Creek 3—White Deer Creek Basin Union l-IQ.CWF, None MF 13—Warrior Run Basin Northumberl WWF, MF None and 3—Muddy Run Basin Nonhumberl WWF, ME None and 3—Limestone Run Basin Northumberl WWF, ME Nonel and 3—Tributaries to West Branch Basins, White Deer Northumberl WWF, ME None Susguehanna River Creek to Buffalo and-Union Creek 3—BufThIo Creek Basin, Source to LR Union HQ-CWF, None 59042 (SR 3005) MF Bridge at 40° 55’ 24.0” N; 77° 7’ 41.9” w 3—ButThlo Creek jMain Stem, LR Union CWF, MF None 59042 to Rapid RunJ Basin. Bridge to North Branch Buffalo Creek j4—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins, LR 59042 Union CWF, iJF Nonej Buffalo Creek Bridge to Rapid Run 4—North Branch Buffalo Creek Basin, Source to Union EV, MF None Mifflinburg Water Supply Dam 4-North Branch Buffalo Creek Basin. Miffhinburg Union FIQ-CWF, None Water Supply Dam to ME Mouth 3—Buffalo Creek Basin, North Branch Union CWF. ME None Buffalo Creek to Rapid Run 4-Rapid Run Basin Union HQ-CWE, None ME 3—ButThlo Creek Main Stem, Rapid Run Union TSF, MF None to Mouth 67 4— Unnamedj Tributaries to Basins, Rapid Run lo Union CWF, MF None Buffalo Creek IMouthi Stony Run 4—Stony Run Basin Union HQ-CWF, None MF H—Beaver Run Basin Union CWF, MF Nonel 4—Tributaries to Buffalo Creek Basiiis, Stony Run to Union CWF, MF None Spruce Run 4-—Spruce Run Basin, Source to Union EV, MF None eastern boundary of Bald Ea&e State Forest at RM 5.09141°1’ 43.8” N; 770 9’ 5.4” W 4—Spruce Run Basin, Eastern Union l-IQ-CWF, None boundary of Bald MF Eagle State Forest jat RM 5•091to Mouth j4—Little Buffalo Creek Basin Union CWF, MF None 3—Limestone Run Basin Union WWF, MF None 3—Chillisquaque Creek Basin Northumberl WWF, MF None and 3—Turtle Creek Basin Union WWF, MF None 3—Winfield Creek Basin Union WWF, MF None) 4—Tributaries to Buffalo Creek Basins, Spruce Run Union CWF, MF None to Mouth 3—Tributaries to West Branch Basins, Buffalo Northumberl WWF. MF None Susguehanna River Creek to Mouth and-Union

§ 93.9m. Drainage List M.

Susquehanna River Basin in Pennsylvania Susquehannu River

Stream Zone County Water Uses Exceptions Protected To Specific Criteria * * * 1 * 4—Kern Run Basin Snyder CWF, MF None 4——IBowersoxRun) UNT 17323 Basin, Source to IFAS Snyder FIQ-CWF, None at 40° 46’ 30.7” N; 77° 4’ 8.9” W 6901 T300% MF (locally known as Bowersox Runi 4—UNT 17823 Basin, T30{)8 to Snyder CWF, MF None Motith

68 4-—jErb Runi UNT 17821 at 40° Basin, Source to IFAS Snyder HQ-CWF. None 46’ 38.9” N; 77° 3’ 29.1” W 6901T3008 ME (locally known as 13thRunI 4—UNT 17821 Basin. T3008 to Snyder CWF, MF• None Mouth 4—Susqueheeka Creek (Ereeburg Basin Snyder CWF, ME None Run) * * * * * 2—Gurdy Run Basin Dauphin WWF, ME None Basin, Source to lUnnamed Tributary at RM 9.861 UNT - 2—Amistrong Creek Dauphin CWb, MF None 16835 at 400 30’ 31.1” N 76° SO’ 43.2” W Basin. Source to SR Unnamed 1 ributary to , fHW —l 29 Armstrong Creek at Dauphin CWFI Hg- None 16835 CWF, ME 9.86IUNT 56.8” w 3—jUnnamed Tributary to Basin, SR 1003 Bridge Armstrong Creek at RM Dauphin CWE, ME None to out 9.86JUNT 16835

Basiii, IUnnamed Tributary at RM 2—Armstrong Creek 9.S6IUNT 16835 to Dauphin CWF, ME None LR 22028 (SR 400!) Bridge Basin, LR 22028 2—Arrnstronu Creek . Dauphin TSF, ME None Bridge to Mouth * : * * *

§ 93.9n. Drainage List N.

Susquchanna River Basin in Pennsylvania .Juniata River

Stream Zone County Water Uses Exceptions Protected To Specific Criteria * * * * * 3—Raystown Branch Juniata River Basin, Source to Somerset CWE, ME None Breastwork Run 4—Breastwork Run Basin Somerset HQ-CWF, None ME

69 3—-Raystown Branch Juniata River Basin, Breastwork Somerset- CWF, MF None Run to Somerset- l3edford Bedford County Border at 39° 58’ 49.3” N; 78° 45’ 41.9” W 3—Raystown Branch Juniata River Main Stem, Somerset- Bedford- TSF, MF None Bedford County Fluntingdon Border to Bedford I-luntingdon County Border at 40° 13’ 49.5” N; 78° 14’ 18.2” W 4—lUnnamedi Tributaries to Basins, Somerset- Bedford WWF, MF None Raystown Branch Bedford County Border to IBeclford Huntingdon County Borden Shobers Run j4—Spiccr Brook Basin Bedford WWF, MF None 4—Shawnee Branch Basin Bedford WWF, MF None 4—Buffalo Run Basin Bedford WWF, MF None 4—Cumbenland Valley Run Basin Bedford WWF, MF Nonej 4— Shobers Run Basin Bedford HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Tributaries to Raystown Basins, Shobers Run Bedford WWF, MF None Branch to Dunning Creek 4—Dunning Creek IMain Sterni Basin, Bedford WWF, MF None Source to Stone Creek j5—Unnarned Tributaries to Basins Bedford WWF, MF None Dunning Creek 5—Rocklick Creek Basin Bedford WWF, MF None 5—Bearfoot Run Basin Bedford WWF, MF None 5—Georges Creek Basin Bedford WWF, MF Nonel 5—Stone Creek Basin, Source to Bedford WWF, MF None Confluence with UNT

14908 at [RM 0.34 I 40° 8’ 55” N; 78° 33’ 59.5” W 6—jUnnamed Tributary (liNT) Basin Bedford CWF, MF None 14908 to Stone Creekj UNT 14908

5—Stone Creek Basin, UNT 14908 to Bedford CWF, MF None Mouth 4—Dunning Creek Basin, Stone Creek to Bedford WWF, MF None Bobs Creek

70 5——BobsCreek Basin, Source to Pavia Bedford I-IQ-CWF, None Run MF 6—Pavia Run Basin Bedford l-IQ-CWF, None MF 5—Bobs Creek Basin, Pavia Run to Bedford CWE, MF None Mouth IS—Adams Run Basin Bedford WWF, MF None 5—Oppenheimer Run Basin Bedford WVF, MF None 5—Brush Run Basin Bedford WWF, ME Nonel 4—Dunning Creek Basin. Bobs Creek to Bedford WWF. ME None Imlertown Run 5—Imlertown Run Basin Bedfbrd TSP, ME None 4—Dunning Creek Basin, imlertown Bedford WWF, i\IF None Run to Pleasant Valley Run 5—Pleasant Vafley Run Basin Bedford CWP, ME None 4—Dunning Creek Basin. Pleasant Bedford WWF, ME None Valley Run to Mouth

- 4—Tributaries to Ravstown Basins, Dunning Bedford WWF, ME None Branch Creek to Cove Creek 4—-Cove Creek Basin Bedford EV, ME None j4—Snakespring Valley Run Basin Bedford WWF, ME Nonej 4—Tributaries to Ravstown Basins. Cove Creek Bedford WWF, ME None Branch to Clear Creek 4--Clear Creek Basin Bedford TSF, ME None l4—Greys Run Basin Bedford WWF, MF Nonej 4—Tributaries to Ravstown Basins, Clear Creek Bedford WWF, ME None Branch to Brush Creek 4—Brush Creek Basin, Source to Fulton- HQ-CWE, None Eulton-Bedtbrd Bedft,rd MF County Bonier at 39° 57’ 6.3” N- 78° 14’ 20.3” W 4—Brush Creek Basin. Fulton-Bedtbrd Bedford WWF, ME None County Border to Mouth 14—Tub Mill Run Basin Bedford WWF, ME None 4—French Run Basin Bedford VWF, ME Nonel 4—Tributaries to Ravstown Basins. Brush Creek Bedford VWF, MF None Branch to Sherman Valley Branch 4-Shennan Valley Run Basin Bedfbrd CWP, MF None {4—Pipers Run Basin Bedford WWF, ME None 4—Sandy Run Basin Bedford WWF, ME Nonel

71 4—Tributaries to Raystown Basins, Sherman Bedford WWF,MF None Branch Valley Branch to Yellow Creek 4—Yellow Creek Basin Bedford HQ-CWF, None MF j4—Sixmile Run Basin Bedford WWE, MF Nonel 4—Tributaries to Raystown Basins. Yellow Creck Bedford W’WF, MF None Branch to Ravers Run 4—Ravers Run Basin Bedfbrd TSF, MF None 4—Shoup Run Basin Bedford WWF, NIF None! 4—Tributaries to Raystown Basins. Ravers Run Bedford WWF. MF None Branch to Bedford Huntingdon Counh’ Border at 40° 13’ 49.5” N; 7S° 14’ 18.2” V 3—-Raystown Branch Juniata River IMain Sterni Basin, Huntingdon WWF, MF None Bcdford—Huntingdon County Border to jMouthj Tatman Run 14—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins, Bedford Huntingdon WWF, ME None Raystown Branch Huntingdon County Border to Mouth 4—Shy Beaver Creek Basin iluntingdon WWF, MF Nonel 4— Tatrn an P.un Basin I-luntingdon HQ-CWF, None ME 14—Coffee Run Basin Huntingdon WWF, ME Nonel 3—Raystown Branch .Juniata Basin, Tatman Run Hunthigilon WWF, MF None River to Great Trough Creek 4—Great l’rough Creek Basin Huntingdon TSF, MP None j4—Jarnes Creek Basin Huntingilon WWF, ME None 4—I-lawns Run Basin Huntingdon WWF, ME None! 3—Ravstown Branch Juniata Basin, Great Trou2h iluntingdon WWF. ME None River Creek to Mouth 3—Unnamed Tributaries to Juniata Basins, Raystown Huntingdon- HQ-CWF. None River Branch to MitUin MF Kishacoquillas Creek * * * * *

§93.9o. Drainage List 0.

Susquehanna River Basin in Pennsylvania Susquelzcnznu River

72 Stream Zone County Water Uses Exceptions Protected To Specific Criteria * * * * * 2—Conodoguinet Creek Basin, Letterkenny Franklin CWF, MF None Reservoir Darn to Itout Run 3—Trout Run Basin, Source to Water Franklin EV, ME None Supply Dam 3—Trout Run Basin, Water Supply Franklin HQ-CWF, None Darn to Month MF 2—Conodoguinet Creek Basin, Trout Run to Franklin CWF, MF None PA 997 at Roxbury

3—Old Town Run Basin Cumberland l-LQ-CWF, None MF 2—Yellow Breeches Creek Main Stein, LR 21012 Cumberland- CWF, MF /Delere DOi to Mouth York-Dauphin Add 0031 Add D0=ilinirn urn 7.0 mg/L. June Ito Sept. 30 3—Unnamed Tributaries to Yellow Basins, LR 21012 to Cumberland- CWF, MF None Breeches Creek Mouth York * * * * * 3——IndiantownRun Basin, Inlet of Lebanon WWF, MF None Memorial Lake to Mouth 3—Quittapahilla Creek Basin Lebanon TSF, MF None 3—Bow Creek Basin Dauphin VWF. MF None 3—Manada Creek Basin, Source to I-SI Dauphin CWF. MF None at 40° 21’ 18.6” N 76° 42’ 20.1)” W 3—Manada Creek Basin, 1-81 to Mouth Dauphin WWF, MF None * * * * * 2—Wilson Run Basin York WWF, ME None 2—Boyds Run Basin York WWF. MF None 2—Conestoga River Basin, Source to UNT Lancaster WWF, ME None 07792 at IRM 43.051 40° 8’ 57.4” N; 76° 5’ 24.9” W 3—UNT 07792 to Conestoga River Basin Lancaster CWF, MF None at iRM 43.0Sf 40° 8’ 57.4” N 76° 5’ 24.9” W

73 2—-Conestoga River Main Stein, UNT Lancaster WWF, MF None 07792 at IRM 43.05 j40° 8’ 57.4” N; 76° 5’ 24.9” W downstream to Mouth 3-—UNTs to Conestoga River Basins. UNT 07792 to Berks- WWF, MF None Mouth Lancaster 13—Muddy Creek Main Stem, Source to Lancaster ‘[SF, ME None Little Muddy Creek 4—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins, Source to Berks- WWF, MF Nonel Muddy Creek Little Muddy Creek Lancaster 3—Muddy Creek Basin, Source to UNT Lancaster WWF, ME None at 40° 13’ 9.9” N; 76° 1’16.7” 4’! 4—UNT at 40° 13’ 9.9” N; 76°]’ Basin Lancaster ThE. ME None 16.7” W 3—Muddv Creek Main Stein, UNT at Lancaster TSF, MF None 40° 13’ 9.9” N; 76° 1’ 16.7” W to Little Muddy Creek 4—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins, UNT at 40° Lancastcr WWF, ME None Muddy Creek 13’ 9.9” N; 76° 1’ 16.7” W to Little Muddy Creek 4-—Rock Run Basin Lancaster l-IQ-TSF, None MF * * * * * 2 -Pequca Creek Main Stem, PA 897 to Lancaster WWF, MF None Mouth 3—-—UnnamedTributaries to Pequea Basins, PA 897 to Lancaster CWF, MF None Creek Eshleman Run 3——WhiteFlorse Run Basin Lancaster WWF, MF None 3—Umbles Run Basin Lancaster HQ-CWF, None MF 3 -Houston Run Basin Lancaster CWF, MF None 3—Eshleman Run Basin Lancaster CWF, MF None 13—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins, Eshleman Lancaster WWE, ME None Pequea Creek Run to RM 3.35 3—Unnamed Tributary to Basin Lancaster HQ-CWF, None Pequea Creek at RM 3.35 MF 3—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins, RM 3.35 to Lancaster WWE, ME None Pequea Creek RM 3.20 3—Unnamed Tributary to Basin Lancaster CWE, ME None Pcquea Creek at RM 3.20 3—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins, RM 3.20 to Lancaster WWE, MF Nonel Pcquea Creek Mouth

74 3—Watson Run Basin Lancaster WWF, ME None 3—Walnut Run Basin Lancaster WWF, ME None 3—Little Beaver Creek Basin Lancaster TSF, MF None 3—Big Beaver Creek Basin Lancaster TSF, ME None 3—Huber Run Basin Lancaster CWF, ME None 3—Goods Run Basin Lancaster TSF, ME None 3—Silver Mine Run Basin Lancaster TSF, ME None 3—Climbers Run Main Stem Lancaster CWF, MF None 4—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins Lancaster CWF, ME None Climbers Run 4—Trout Run Basin Lancaster l-IQ-CWF, None MF 3—Unnamed Trihutarks to Basins, Eshleman Lancaster VWF. I1F None Peguca Creek Run to UNT (17452 3—UNT (17452to Peguea Creek Basin Lancaster HQ-CWF, None at 39° 54’ 20.6” N; 76° 19’ 41.8” V MF

3—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins, UNT 07452 to Lancaster VWF. ME None Pcquea Creek UNT 07451 3—UNT 07451 to Peguca Creek Basth Lancaster CWF, MF None at 39° 54’ 124” N; 76° 19’ 43.0”W

3—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins. UNT 07451 to Lancaster VWF, ME None Pequea Creek Mouth 2—Otter Creek Main Stein, Source to York CWF, ME None Upstream Boundary of State Game Lands No. 83 (T 616) * * * * * 2—Oe[oraro Creek Main Stem, Lancaster- WWF);I. None Confluence of East Chester MF and West Branches to PA-MD State Border 3—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins, (all sections in Lancaster- TSFj;j, ME None Octoraro Creek PA) Confluence of Chester East and West Branches to {RM 13.6OIUNT 07001 at 39° 44’ 1.7” N; 76° 5’ 32.9” W 3—Tweed Creek Basin Chester TSEI;12ME None 3—MeCreary Run Basin Lancaster HQ-TSFI;j: None ME 3—Blackburn Run Basin Chester TSFI;I, ME None

75 3-—Black Run Basin, Source to Chester IEVI;12ME None

IUnnamed Tributary at RM 2.501 UNT 07006 at 39° 44’ 25.5” N; 76° 3’159”

4—lUnnamed Tributary to Basin Chester TSFj;I ME None Black Run at RM 2.501 UNT 07006

3-—Black Run Basin, lUnnamed Chester TSFI;I, ME None Tributary at RM 2.501 UNT 07006 to Mouth

3- Ilog Run Basin Chester TSFF;I, MF None 3— lUnnamed Tributary to Basin Chester EVI;L MF None Octoraro Creek at RM 13.601 UN1’ 0701)1to Octoraro Creek at 39° 44’ 1.7” N; 76° 5’379” W 3-—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins. IRM 13.60j Lancaster- TSPI;I, MF None Octoraro Creek UNT 07001 to PA- Chester MD State Border 3——ReynoldsRun Basin Lancaster MFIjIHQ-CWF, None ‘[SF. 41F 2—--OctoraroCreek (MD) 3—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins (all sections in Chester TSE{;11ME None Octoraro Creek PA). PA-MD State Border to Mouth 3—Stone Run Basin (all sections in Chester TSEI;j. ME None PA) 2—Deer Creek Basin (all sections in York CWE, ME None PA) * * * * * 2—Elk River (MD) 3—Big Elk (‘reek Basin (all sections in Chester HQ-TSEI;]1 None PA) ME 3—Little Elk Creek Main Stern, Source to Chester HQ-TSFI;I, None PA-MD State Border MF 1—Unnamed Tributaries to Little Basins (all sections in Chester IIQ-TSFI;I, None Elk Creek PA), Source to PA- ME MD State Border 4—Jordan Run Basin Chester EVI;12ME None 4—-BarrenBrook Basin Chester EVI;I MF None 3—Little Elk Creek (MD)

76 4—Unnamed Tributaries to Little Basins (all sections in Chester TSFI;Ia MF None Elk Creek PA), PA-MD State Border to Mouth * * * * *

§ 93âp. Drainage List P.

Ohio River Basin in Pennsylvania Alleqh en River

Stream Zone County Water Uses Exceptions Protected To Specific Criteria

1—Ohio River 2—AlIeheny River JMain Stern, Source MeKean CWF None to PA-NY State Borden Basin, Source to Woodcock Creek 13—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins (all sections in Potter- CWF Nonej Allegheny River PA), Source to PA- MeKean NY State Border 3—Woodcock Creek Basin Potter FIQ-CWF None j3—Cross Ilollow Basin Potter CWF None] 2—Allegheny River Basin, Woodcock Potter CWF None Creek to UNT 58543 at 41° 49’ 58.8” N; 770 53’ 51.9” W (locally known as Wambold Hollow) 3—lVamho1d Hollowj UNT Basin Potter HQ-C\VF None 58543 (Wainhold l-lollow 3—Pigeon Hollow Basin Potter CWF None 3—Toomhs Hollow Basin Potter CWF None 3—Kohler Hollow Basin Potter CWF None! 2—Alle2henv River Basin. UNT 58543 to Potter CWF None Dwight Creek 3—Dwitht Creek Basin Potter HQ-CWF None 13—Peet Brook Basin Potter CWF None 3—Lent hollow Basin Potter CWF None 3—Prosser Hollow Basin Potter CWF None 3—Baker Creek Basin Potter CWF Nonej 2—Allcglwnv River Basin. Dwight Creek Potter CWF None to Steer Run 3—Steer Run Basin Potter HQ-CWF None 77 13—Reese Hollow Basin Potter CWF Nonel 2—Allegheny River Basin, Steer Run to Potter CWF None Mill Creek 3—Mill Creek Basin, Source to North Potter l-IQ-CWF None H01low 3—Mill Creek Basin, North Flollow Potter CWF None to Mouth 2—Allegheny River Basin, Mill Creek to Potter CWF None Dingman Run 3—Dingrnan Run IMain Stem) Basin Potter HQ-CWF None 13—Earl Hollow Basin Potter CWF None 3—Pump Station Hollow Basin Potter CWF None 3—Elm Flat Basin Potter CWF None 3—Cleason Hollow Basin Potter CWF Nonej 2—Allegheny River Basin. Dingman Run Potter CWF None to Reed Run 3 Reed Run Basin Potter HQ-CWF None 13—Trout Brook Basin Potter CWF Nonel 2—Allegheny River Basin, Reed Run to Potter CWF None Laninger Creek 3-—Laninger Creek Basin Potter HQ-CWF None 2—Allegheny River Basin, Laninger Potter CWF None Creek to Fishing Creek 3—Fishing Creek IMain Stem] Basin, Potter CWF None Source to East Branch Fishing Creek 14—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins Potter CWF Nonel Fishing Creek 4—East Branch Fishing Creek Basin Potter HQ-CWF None 13—Card Creek Basin Potter CWF None 3—Sartwell Creek Basin McKean CWF None] 3—Fishing Creek Basin. East Branch Potter CWF None Fishing Creek to Mouth

2—Allegheny River Basin, Fishing Creek Potter- CWF None to Allegheny Portage Mekean Creek 3-—Allegheny PorLageCreek Main Stern, Source to Potter TSF None IBrown Hollow! UNT 58235 at 41° 42’ 18.6” N; 78° 11’ 43.6” V

78 4-—lUnnamedi Tributaries To Basins, Source to Potterl— CWP None Allegheny Portage Creek UNT 58235 (locally Mckean] known as Brown hollow) 14—Planing Mill Hollow Basin Potter CWF Nonel 4—) Brown Hollow) UNT 58235 Basin Potter HQ-CWF None

3—Allegheny Portage Creek Main Stern. IBrown McKean HQ-CWP None HOIIOWIUNF 58235 to Scaffold Lick Run j4—lndian Run Basin Mekean CWF None 4—Heath hollow Basin MeKean CWF Nonel 4—Tributaries To Allegheny Basins. UNT 58235 to Potter- CWF None Portage Creek Fair Run McKean 4—Pair Run Basin McKean HQ-CWF None J4—Rock Run Basin McKean CWF None 4—Scaffold Lick Run Basin Mckean CWF Nonel _4—Trihutaries To Allegheny Basins, Fair Run to Mekean CVF None Portage Creek Scaffold Lick Run 4—Scaffokl Lick Run Basin MeKean CWF None 3—Allegheny l’oitage Creek Main Stern, Scaflbld MeKean TSF None Lick Run to Mouth 14—Cady hollow Basin McKean CWF None 4-Hamilton Run Basin McKean CWF None 4—Trarnroad Hollow Basin Mckean CWF None 4—Combs Creek Basin McKcan CVF Nonel j3—Lillihridge Creek Basin McKean CWF None) 4—Tributaries l’o Allegheny Basins, Scaffold Lick Mckean CWF None Portage Creek Run to Mouth 2—Allegheny River Basin, Alle2henv Mckean CWF None Portage Creek to Skinner Creek 3—Skinner Creek Basin MeKean l-IQ-CWF None j3—Twornile Creek Basin MeKean CWF None 3—Annin Creek Basin Mckean CWF None 3—Rock Run Basin McKean CVF None 3—Open Brook Basin Mckean CWF None 3—Newell Creek Basin McKean CWF Nonel 2—Allegheny River Basin, Skinner Creek McKean CWF None to Potato Creek 3—Potato Creek 4-East Branch Potato Creek IBasinsi Basin, MeKean HQ-CWP None Source to Confluence with l-lavens Run

79 4—I lavens Run Basin, Source to MeKean CWF None Confluence with East Branch 3--—PotatoCreek Main Stern, MeKean TSF None Confluence of East Branch and 1-lavens Run to Cole Creek 4—lUnnamedi Tributaries to Basins, Coniluence of MeKean CWF None Potato Creek East Branch and l-lavcns Run to ICole Creeki NVestBranch Potato Creek j1—lndian Run Basin Mckean CWF None 4—Frog Camp Hollow Basin McKean CWF None 4—Kimball Hollow Basin Mckean CWF Nonel #--West Branch Potato Creek Basin McKean l-IQ-CWI None 14—Sackett Hollow Basin McKean CWF Nonel 4—Tributaries to Potato Creek Basins. West Branch Mekean CWF None Potato Creek to Brewer Run 4—Brewer Run Basin McKean HQ-CWF None 14—Evans Hollow Basin Mckean CWF Nonci 4—Tributaries to Potato Creek llasins, Brewer Run Mekean CWF None to Red Mill Brook 4—Red Mill Brook IMain Steml Basin. McKcan CWF None Source to UNT 57891 at 41° 42’ 42.7” N: 78° 28’ 31.6” NV (locally known as NVernwag Hollow) IS—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins MeKean CNVF Nonel Red Mill Brook 5—iwernwag Hollowl UNT Basin MeKean HQ-CWP None 57891 IS—Browns Mill Hollow Basin McKean C%VF None 5—Combs hollow Basin MeKean CWF Nonel 4—Red Mill Brook Basin, UNT 57891 to MeKean CWF None Mouth 4—Tributaries to Potato Creek Basins, Red Mill McKean CWF None Brook to Colegrove Brook 4—Colcgrove Brook Basin MeKean 1-IQ-CWF None 4—Tributaries to Potato Creek Basins, Colegrove McKean CWF None Brook to Rohhins Brook 4—Robbins Brook Basin McKean HQ-CWF None

80 ______

14—Walcott Brook Basin Mekean CWF Nonel 4—Tributaries to Potato Creek Basins, Robbins Me Kea n CWF None Brook to Bover Brook 4—Boyer Brook Basin McKean HQ-CWF None 4—Tributaries to Potato Creek Basins, Bover Brook MeKean CWF None to Daly Brook 4—Daly Brook Basin McKean l-IQ-CWF None 4—Tributaries to Potato Creek Basins, Daly Brook to MeKean CWF None Marvin Creek 4—Marvin Creek jMain Stemi Basiq, MeKean CWF None Source to UNT 57809 at 41° 41’ 431” N 78° 36’ 1.1)”W (locally known as Sherman Run) (5—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins Mekean CWF Nonel Marvin Creek 5—jSherman Runi UNT 57809 Basin MeKean HQ-CWF None

4—Marvin Creek Basin, UNT 57809 to Mckean CWF None UNT 57801 at 41° 42’ 23.1” N; 730 35! 47! W (locally known as Santeen Run) 5—ISanteen Runj UNT 57801 Basin PAeKean HQ-CWF None

15—Wildcat Hollow Basin MeKean CWF Nonel 4—Marvin Creek Basin, UNT 57801 to McKea n CWF None Warner Brook 5—Warncr l3rook Busin McKean FIQ-CWF None 4—Marvin Creek Basin. Warner Brook iIcKean CWF None to Stanton Brook 5—Stanton Brook Basin McKean E{Q-CWF None 15—Bloomstcr Ilollow Basin McKean CWF Nonel 4—Marvin Creek Basin. Stanton Brook MeKean CWF None to Blacksmith Run 5—Blacksmith Run Basin Ifromi, Source MeKean HQ-CWF None to Srnethport Water Intake 5—Blacksmith Run Basin jFromj, MeKean CWF None Srnethport Water Intake to Mouth 4—Marvin Creek Basin, Blacksmith MeKean CVF None Run to Mouth

81 4—Tributaries to Potato Creek Basins, Marvin McKean CWF None Creek to Cole Creek 4—Cole Creek IBasin, Source to MeKean CWF None) South Branch Cole Creek 5——SouthBranch Cole Creek Basin, Source to MeKean EV None Confluence with North Branch 5—North Branch Cole Creek Basin, Source to McKean CWF None Confluence with South Branch 4—Cole Creek Basin, )South Branch MeKean CWF None Cole CreekJ Confluence of North and South Branches to Mouth 3--Potato Creek Main Stern, Cole MeKean WWF None Creek to Mouth a—IUnnamcdl Tributaries to Basins, Cole Creek to MeKean CWF None Potato Creek Mouth 14—Pierce Brook Basin MeKean CWF None 3—Carpenter Creek Basin MeKean CWF None 3—Canfleld Creek Basin MeKean CWF None 3—Barden Brook Basin McKean CWF None 3—Knapp Creek Main Stem McKean CWF None 4—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins MeKean CWF None Knapp Creek 4—Tram hollow Run Basin MeKean CWF None 4—Kansas liranch Basin MeKean CWF None 4—South Branch Knapp Creek Basin McKean CWF None

3—Indian Creek (NY) 4—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins (all sections in %:lcKe.Ifl CWF None Indian Creek PA), Source to PA NY State Border 3—Indian Creek Main Stern, PA-NY MeKean CWF None State Border to Mouth 4—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins (all sections in McKean CWF None Indian Creek PA), PA-NY State Border to Mouth 4—North Branch Indian Creek Basin (aft sections in MeKean CWF None PA) 3—Mix Creek Basin (all sections in McKean CWF None PA) 3—McCrea Run Basin MeKean CWF None

82 3—Tunungwant Creek Main Stem, McKean WWF None Confluence of East and West Branches to PA-NY State Border 3—MeCrea Run Basin MeKean CWF None) 2—Allegheny River Basin (all sections in Mckean CWF None PA). Potato Creek to PA-NY State Border

2—Allegheny River (NY) 3-—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins (all sections in McKean CWF None Allegheny River PA), PA-NY State Border to Tunungwant Creek 3—Oswayo Creek Basin, Source to Potler CWF None (Briziec Hollow) Hemlock Hollow Run 4—[Briz.zee Hollowl hemlock Basin Potter HQ-CWE None Hollow Run (locally known as Brizzee Hollow 3—Oswayo Creek Basin, IBrizzee Potter HQ-CWF None Hollow) Hemlock Hollow Run to South Branch Oswayo Creek 4—South Branch Oswayo Creek Basin Potter 1EV None

3—Oswayo Creek Basin, South Brunch Potter l-IQ-CWF None Oswayo Creek to Clara Creek 4—Clara Creek Basin, Source to Potter CWF None Bradley Run 5—Bradley Run Basin Potter llO-CWF None 4—Clara Creek Basin. Bradley Run Potter CWF None to Mouth 3—Oswayo Creek IMain Stem, Clara Potter CWF None Creek to lloneoye Creek) Basin. Clara Creek to Elevenmile Creek j4—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins, Clara Creek Potter CWF None Oswayo Creek to Honeoye Creek 4—Clara Creek Main Stem Potter CWF None 5—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins l’otter CWF None Clara Creek 5—Bradley Run Basin Potter HQ-CWF None)

83 4 levenmile Creek Basin Potter l-IQ-CWF None 14—Canada Run Basin Potter CWF None 4—Wildcat Creek Basin Potter CWF None] 3—Oswayo Creek Basin, Elevenmile Potter CWF None Creek to Cow Run 4 —CowRun Basin Potter l-IQ-CWF None 3—Oswavo Creek Basin, Cow Run to Potter CWF None Honeove Creek 4--Floneoye Creek (NY) 5— lUnnamedi Tributaries to Basins (all sections in Potter CWF None

IIoneoye Creek PA), Source to PA-NY State Border at 410 591 58.2” N; 78° 1’ 53.1” w 4--—FloneoyeCreek IMain Stem, PA-NY Potter CWF None State Border to Mouthi Basin (all sections in PA), PA- NY State Border at 42° O’I.l” N; 78° 6’ 34.4” W to Butter Creek 5—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins (all sections in Potter CWF None] lloneoye Creek PA), PA-NY State Border to Mouth 5-—Butter Creek Basin Potter FIQ-CWF None IS—Plank Creek Basin Potter CWJ? None] 4—Fl oneoye Creek Basin (all sections in Potter CWF None PA), Butter Creek to Mouth 3—-Oswayo Creek Main Stern, Honeoye MeKean WWF None Creek to PA-NY State Border at 41° 59’ 57.7” N; 78° 18’ 9.2” w 4—lUnnamedi Tributaries to Basins (all sections in Potter- CWF None Oswayo Creek PA), Honeoye Creek McKean to [PA-NY State Border] Sanders Run 4—Janders Run Basin MeKean- HQ-CWF None Potter 14—Horse Run Basin (all sections in McKean CWF None] PA) 4—Tributaries to Oswavo Creek Basins (all sections in Potter- CWF None PA), Janders Run to McKean Bell Run

84 4—Bell Run jMain Stemi Basin, MeKean CWF None Source to Taylor Brook 15—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins McKean CWF None Bell Run 5—Shaytown Branch Basin Potter CWF None 5—Chapman Brook Basin Mckean CWF None] 5—Taylor Brook Basin McKean HQ-CWF None 14—Kings Run Basin McKean CWF None} 4—Bell Run Basin. Taylor Brook McKean CWF None to Mouth 4—Tributaries to Oswayo Creek Basins (all sections in Potter- CWF None PA). Bell Run to Mekean Mouth 3—Oswayo Creek (NY) —I Unnarncdl Tributaries to Basins (all sections in MeKean CWF None Oswayo Creek PA), PA-NY State Border at 41° 59’ 57.7” N; 78° 18’ 9.2” W to Mouth 3—Tunungwant Creek 4-East Branch Tunungwant Basin, Source to MeKean l-lQ-CWF None Creek Railroad Run 5—Railroad Run Basin McKean EV None 4-East Branch Tunungwanl Basin, Railroad Run to McKcan HQ-CWF None

Creek T-33 I Bridge at 41° 53’ 10.3” N; 78° 39’ 18.1” ‘N 4-East Branch Funungwant Main Stern. T-33 I MeKean HQ-CWF None Creek Bridge to SR 4002 Bridge at 41° 55’ 46.1” N: 78° 38’ 51.3” W

5—lUnnamedi Tributaries to Basins. T-33 1 Bridge McKean CWF None East Branch Tunungwant Creek to [SR 4002] Minard Run 5—Sheppard Run Basin Mckean CWF Nonel 5—Minard Run Basin MeKean EV None 5—Tributaries to East Branch Basins. Minard Run McKean CWF None Tunungwant Creek to SR 4002 4-East Branch Tuiiungwant Basin, SR 4002 to McKean CWF None Creek Conlluence with West Branch 4-West Branch Tunungwant Basin, Source to McKean HQ-CWF None Creek Manila Brook

85 5—Marilla Brook Basin, lAbovelSource McKean HQ_CWI? None ft Bradford Water Darn 5—Manila Smok (Main Stem, McKean CWF None Bradford Water Dam to Mouthi Basin, Bradford Water Dam to Gilbert Brook (6—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins, Bradford MeKean CWF Nonel Manila Brook Water Dam to Month 6—Gilbert Brook Basin MeKean HQ-CWF None 5——ManilaBrook Basin, Gilbert Brook MeKean CWF None to Mouth 4-—West Branch Tunungwant Basin, Mania Brook MeKean CWF None Creek to Confluence with East Branch 3—Tunungwant Creek Main Stem, McKean WWF None Confluence of East and West Branches to PA-NY State Border at 41° 59’ 59.1” N; 78° 37’ 21.7” Y 4-—lUnnamedi Tributaries to Basins (all sections in McKean CWF None Tunungwant Creek PA), Confluence of East and West Branches to (PA-NY State Border) Kendall Creek 4—--Kendall Creek Basin McKean WWF None 14—l3olivar Run Basin (all sections in MeKean CWF None PA) 4—Foster Brook Basin (all sections in McKean CWF None) PA) 4—Tributaries to Tununwaiit Basins (all sections in McKean CWF None Creek PA), Kendall Creek to PA-NY State Border 3—Tunungwant Creek (NY) 4—IUnnarnedl Tributaries to Basins (all sections in McKean CWF None Tunungwant Creek PA) PA-NY State Border to Mouth

§93.Qq. Drainage List Q.

Ohio River Basin in Pennsylvania Allegheny River

86 Stream Zone County Water Uses Exceptions Protected To Specific Criteria

1—Ohio River 2—Allegheny River (NY) 3—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins (all sections in McKean- CWF None Allegheny River PA). Tunungwant Warren Creek to PA-NY State Border at 41° 59’ 55.4” N; 78° 57’ 14.6” W 3—Quaker Run (NY) 4—lUnnarnedi Tributaries to Basins (all sections in McKean HQ-CWF None Quaker Run PA) [4—Willis Creek Basin (all sections in McKean HQ-CWF None PA) 4—Coon Run Basin (all sections in MeKean HQ-CWF None PA) 4—Yeager Brook Basin (all sections in McKean HQ-CWF Nonel PA) 3—Wolf Run Basin, (all sections in MeKean l-lQ-CWF None PA) 3—State Line Run Basin (all sections in Warren CWF None PA) 2—Allegheny River Main Stern, PA-NY Clarion WWF None State Border at 41° 59’ 55.4” N: 78° 57’ 14.6” V to Clarion Ri‘er 3—lUnnarned] Tributaries to Basins, PA-NY State Venango CWF None Allegheny River Border to IFrcncJi Warren Creek! Willow Creek 3—Willow Creek Basin (all sections in Warren HQ-CWF None PA) 13—Carr Brook Basin Warren CWF None 3—Hooks Brook Basin Warren CWF None 3—Williams Brook Basin Warren CWF None 3—Tracy Run Basin Warren CWF Nonel 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins, Willow Creek Warren CWF None River to Cornplanter Run 3—Complanter Run Basin Warren HQ-CWF None !3—Wliisky Run Basin Warren CWF None 3—Johnnycake Run Basin Warren CWF Nonci

87 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins, Cornplanter Varren CWF None River Run to lodge Run 3—Nudge Run Basin Warren l-IQ-CWF None 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins, lodge Run to Warren CWF None River Sugar Run 3-- Sugar Run Basin Warren HQ-CWP None 13—Billies Run Basin Warren CVF Nonel 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins, Sugar Run to Warren CWF None River Kinzua Creek 3——KinzuaCreek Basin, Source to MeKean CWF None Wintergreen Run 4—Wintei’grcen Run Basin McKcun CWF None 3—Kinzua Creek Main Stein, Warren CWF None Wintergreen Run to Mouth 4—-lUnnaniedl ‘Tributaries to Basins, Wintergrecn Mekeani— l-IQ-CWF None Kinzua Creek Run to IMouthi South Warrcnl Branch Kinzua Creek 14—Windfall Run Basin McKean IIQ-CWF None 4—Camp Run Basin Mchean HQ-CWF None 4—’Furnup Run Basin Mckean HQ-CWF None 4—Thundershower Run Basin McKean HQ-CWF None 4—Libby Run Basin Mckean HQ-CWF None 4—Whiting Run Basin Mekean HQ-CWF None 4—Markham Run Basin Mckean HQ-CWF None 4—Meade Run Basin Mekean HQ-CWF None 4—Little Meade Run Basin Mckean HQ-CWF None 4—Root Run Basin Mckean FlQ-CVF Nonel 4—South Branch Kinzua Creek IMain Stemi Basin. McKean HQ-CWF None Source to Hubert Run IS—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins McKean HQ-CWF None South Branch Kinzua Creek 5—Glad Run Basin Mckean IIQ-CWF None 5—Watermill Run Basin Mekean HQ-CWF Nonel 5—Hubert Run Basin MeKean CWF None 4—South Branch Kinzua Creek Basin, Hubert Run to Mekean HO-CWF None NIouth 14—Mud Lick Run Basin MeKean HQ-CWF Nonel 4—Tributaries to Kinzua Creek Basins. South Branch Mekean HO-CWF None Kinzua Creek to Chappel Fork 4——ChappelFork Main Stern MeKean CWF None

88 5—lUnnamedi Tributaries to Basins, Source to MeKean 1-IQ-C M/F None Chappel Fork Mouth IS—Buck Lick Run Basin Mckean HQ-CWF None 5—Crary Run Basin McKean HQ-CWF None 5—White Gravel Creek Basin Mckean HQ-CWF None 5—Bump Run Basin McKean HQ-CWF None 5—North Fork Basin NIcKean IIQ-CWF None 5—Coon Run Basin Mc Kean HQ-CWF None 5—Briggs Run I3asin Mckean HQ-CWF None 5—Hemlock Run Basin Mckean HQ-CWF None 4—Morrison Run Basin Mekean HQ-CWF None 4—Dutchman Run Basin Mekean lIQ-CWF None 4—Dewdrop Run Basin Warren HQ-CWF None 4—Campbell Run Basin Warren IIQ-CWF None 4—Wolf Run Basin Warren HQ-C NVF Nonel 4—Tributaries to Kinzua Creek Basins. Chappel Fork McKean lip-C NN’F None

to Mouth Warren — 3—Tributaries to Al1ehenv Basins, Kinzua Creek Warren CW F None River to Jackson Run 3—jackson Run Basin Warren HQ-C\VF None 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins. ,Jackson Run Warren CW F None River to Bent Run 3—Bent Run Basin Warren HQ-CWF None 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins. Bent Run to Warren CWF None River Hemlock Run 3—Hemlock Run Basin Warren HQ-CWF None 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins. Hemlock Run ‘Warren CWF None River to Browns Run 3—Browns Run Basin. Source to Warren EV None Dutchman Run * * * * * 3—Browns Run Basin, Morrison Run Warren CWE None to Mouth 3—Tributaries to Allegh ens’ Basins. Browns Run Warren CNVF None River to Glade Run 3—Glade Run Basin, Source to Warren CWF None Concrete Channel 3—Glade Run Basin, Concrete Warren WW F None Channel at 41° 49’ 43.1” N; 79° 7’ 11.7” Wto Mouthi, (a distance of approximately 1,501)

ft) I

89 13—Ott Run Basin Warren CWF Nonej 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins, Glade Run to Warren CWF None River Conewango Creek 3—-Conewango Creek (NY) 4——lUnnamediTributaries to Basins (all sections in WalTen CWF None Conewango Creek PA), Source to PA-NY State Border at 41° 59’ 58.6” N; 79° 8’ 43.0” ‘V 14—Stillwater Creek Basin (all sections in Warren CWF None PA) 4—Kiantone Creek Basin (all sections in Warren CWF Nonel PA) 3 unewango Creek Main Stem, PA-NY Warren WWF None State Border to Mouth 4 lUnnarnedi Tributaries to Basins (aH sections in Warren CWF None Cunewango Creek PA), PA-NY State Border to IMouthi North Branch Akeley Run 14—Wiltsie Run Basin Warren CWF None 4—Storehouse Run Basin (all sections in Warren CWF None PA) 4—Johnny Run Basin Warren CWF Nonej 4—North Branch Akdey Run [Main Stem] Basin, Warren CWF None Source to Vanarsdale Run 15—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins Warren CWF None} North Branch Akeley Run 5—Vanarsdale Run Basin Warren HQ-CWF None 4—North Branch Akeley Run Basin, Vanarsdale Warren CWF None Run to Mouth 4—Trihutaries to Conewango Basins. North Branch Warren CWF None Creek Akeley Run to Akelev Run 4—Akelcy Run IMain Stewl Basin, Warren CWF None Source to Mill Run IS—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins Warren CWF None Akeley Run 5—Reynolds Run Basin Warren CWF Nonej 5—Mill Run Basin Warren HQ-CWF None 15—Widdlefield Run Basin Warren CWF None 5—Wolcott Run Basin Warren CWF Nonef 14—Rhine Run Basin Warren CWF None 4—Dougherty Run Basin Warren CWF None 4—Hatch Run Basin Warren CWF None

90 4—Jackson Run Basin Warren CWF Nonej 13—Sill Run Basin Warren CWF Nonej 4—Akelev Run Basin, Mill Run to Warren CWF None Mouth 4—Tributaries to Conewango Basins, Akeley Run Warren CWF None Creek to Mouth 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins. Conewango Warren CWF None River Creek to Morse Run 3—Morse Run Basin Warren HQ-CWF None 13—Crunder Run Basin Warren CWF None 3—Scott Run Basin Warren CWF Nonej 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins. Morse Run to Warren CWF None River Brokenstraw Creek 3—Brokenstraw Creek (NY) 1--IUnnanicdl Tributaries to Basins (all sections in Erie-Warren CWF None I3rokenstraw Creek PA), Source to PA-NY State Border at 41° 59’ 55.7” N; 79° 37’ 19.0” Y 3—Brokenstraw Creek IMain Stern, PA-NY Warren CWF None State Border to Mouthi Basin, PA- NY State Border to Hare Creek Tributaries to Basins (all sections in Erie-Warren CWF None I4—Unnamed Brokenstraw Creek PA), PA-NV State Border to Mouth 4—Coffee Creek Basin (all sections in Warren CWF None PA) 4—Whites Run Basin Warren CWF Nonel 4—I-lureCreek Basin, Source to Warren CWP None Scotia Street Bridge I(Corry Borough)jat 41° 56’ 30.1” N 79° 38’ 37.3” V 4—Hare Creek Main Stein. Scotia Warren WWF None Street Bridge to Mouth 5—lUnnarnedi Tributaries to Basins, Scotia Street Warren-Erie CWF None Flare Creek Bridge to Mouth 14—Damon Run Basin Warren CWF Nonej 3—Brokenstraw Creek Basin. Flare Creek to Warren CWF None Sprint Creek 4—Spring Creek Basin Warren SQ-C WE None 14—Car Run Basin Warren CWF Nonel 3—Brokenstraw Creek Basin, Spring Creek Warren CWF None to Blue Eye Run

91 4—Blue Eye Run Basin, Source to SR Wan-en EV None 0027 Bridge at 4j0 49$ 7.9” N; 79° 25’ 44.1” 4V 4—-Blue Eye Run Basin, SR 0027 Bridge Warren CWF None to mouth 4—Little Brokenstraw Creek Basin (all sections in Warren CWF None I PA) 4—Andrews Run Basin Warren CWF None 4—Mead Run Basin Warren CWF None 4—Mathews Run Basin Warren CWF None 4—Indian Camp Run Basin Warren CVF None 4—MeKinney Run Basin Warren CWF None 4—Irvine Run Basin Warren CWF Nonej j3—Lenhart Run Basin Warren CWF None 3—Sulphur Run Basin Warren CWF None 3—Dunn Run Basin Warren CWF None 3—Chancy Run Basin Warren CWF Nonel 3—Brokenstraw Creek Basin (all sections in Warren CWF None

- PA). Blue Eye Run to l4 011th 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins, Brokenstraw Warren CWF None River Creek to Hedgehog Ru n 3—Hedgehog Run Basin Warren HQ-CWF None 13.—Clark Run Basin Warren CWF None 3—Dry Run Basin Warren CWF None 3—Thompson Run Basin Warren CWF Nonel 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins. Hedgehog Warren CWF None River Run to Slater Run 3—Slater Run Basin Warren l-IQ-CWF None {3—Little Run Basin Warren CWF None 3—Conklin Run Basin Warren CWF None 3—Station Run Basin Warren CWF None 3—Connelly Run Basin Warren CWF None 3—Alex Magee Run Basin Warren CWF None 3—Perry Magee Run Basin Warren CWF None 3—Waid Run Basin Warren CWF None 3—Snow Run Basin Warren CWF None 3—Bimber Run Basin Warren CWF None 3—Potter Run Basin Warren CWF None 3—MeCuire Run Basin Warren CWF Nonej 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins, Slater Run to Warren CWF None River Tidioute Creek

92 3—-Tidioute Creek Basin, Source to Ben Warren HQ-CWF None George Reservoir Darn 3—Tidioute Creek Basin, Ben George Warren CWF None Reservoir Darn to Mouth J3—Cordon Run Basin Warren CWF None 3—Myers Run Basin Warren CWF None 3—Grove Run Basin Warren CWF None 3—Dale Run Basin Warren CWF None 3—Dunn Run Hasin Warren - CWF None 3—Schwab Run Basin Forest CWF None 3—Jones Run Basin Forest CWF Nonej 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins. ‘I’idioute Warren- CWF None River Creek to East Forest ilickon’ Creek 3—East Hickory Creek Basin. Source to Warren EV None Forest Highway 119 at 410 38’ 309” N: 79° 2W 16.4” W 3—East Hickory Creek Basin, Forest Highway Forest HQ-CWF None 119 to Mouth 3—Siggens Run Basin Forest CWF None] 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins. East Hickory Forest CWF None River Creek to Little IIickorv Run 3—Little Hickory Run Basin Forest HQ-CWF None 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins, Little Forest CWF None River hickory Run to West hickory Creek 3—West Hickory Creek Basin, Source to Forest FIQ-CWF None Martin Run 4—Martin Run Basin Forest CWF None 3—West Hickory Creek Basin, Martin Run to Forest CWF None Mouth j3—Dawson Run Basin Forest CWF None 3—Sibbald Run Basin Forest CWF Nonel 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins, West Hickory Forest CWF None River Creek to ‘E’uhbs Run 3—Tubhs Run Basin Forest FIQ-CWF None 13—Jarnison Run Basin Forest CWF None 3—Hunter Run Basin Forest CWF Nonej 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins. Tubbs Run to Forest CVF None River ‘Fionesta Creek 3—Tionesta Creek

3—West Branch Tionesta Creek IMain Stern, Source Warren HQ-CWF None to Farnsworth

93 Branchj Basin, Source to Wildcat Run 14—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins, Source to Warren HQ-CWF None VesE Branch Tionesta Creek Farnsworth Branch 4—Tom Run Basin Warren HQ-CWF None 4—Jones Run Basin Warren HQ-CWF None 4—Shaw Run Basin Warren HQ-CWF Nonel 1—-Wildcat Run Basin Warren EV None 4—Adams Run Basin Warren HQ-CWF None 4—Elkhorn Run Basin Warren HQ-CWF None 3—Mead Run Basin Warren HQ-CWF Nonel 3—West Branch Tionesta Creek Basin, Wildcat Run Warren HQ-CWF None to Farnsworth Branch 4—-bnmsworth Branch Basin Warren I-IQ-CWF None 4—West Branch Tionesta Creek IMain Stem, IForesti CWF None Farnsworth Branch Warren to Confluence with South Branchi Basin, Farnsworth Branch to Arnot Run IS—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins, Farnsworth Warren CWF None Vest Branch Tionesta Creek Branch to Coniluence with South Branch 5—Pacard Run Basin Warren CWF Nonel 5-—Arnot Run Basin Warren 1EV None 4—West Branch Tionesta Creek Basin, Arnot Run to Warren CVF None Sixmile Run 5—Sixmile Run Basin Warren l-IQ-CWF None 4—West Branch Tionesta Creek Basin, Sixmilc Run to Warren CWF None Fourmilc Run 5—Fourni1e Run Basin Warren FIQ-CWF None IS—Dunham Run Basin Warren CW F None) 4—West Branch Tionesta Creek Basin, Fourrnilc Run Warren CWF None to Twornile Run 5—Twornile Run Basin Warren HQ-CWF None IS—Dodge Run Basin Warren CWF Nonel 4—West Branch Tionesta Creek Basin, Twomile Run Warren CWF None to South Branch Tionesta Creek

I 4— South Branch Tioncsta Creek IMain Stem, Source Warren IQ-CWF None to Confluence with West Branchi Basin, Source to Crane Run 94 [5—UNTs to South Branch Basins Elk-Forest- HQ-CWF None Tionesta Creek Warren S—Martin Run Basin Elk HQ-CWF None S—Wolf Run Basin Elk HQ-CWF None 5—Coon Run Basil) Elk HQ-CWF None 5—Chaffee Run Basin Elk HQ-CWF Nonej 5—Crane Run Basin Elk EV None j5—Iron Run Basin Forest HQ-CWF None 5—Fork Run Basin Forest HQ-CWF None 5—Bogus Run Basin Forest IIQ-CWF None 5—Rock Run Basin Forest HQ-CWF None 5—Tuttle Run Basin Forest HQ-CWF None 5—Cherry Run Basin Warren HQ-CWF None 5—Martin Run Basin Warren IIQ-CWF None 5—East Branch Tionesta Creek Basin Warren HQ-CWF None!

4—South Branch Tionesta Basin, Crane Run to Warren FJQ-CWF None Creek Mouth 3—Tionesta Creek IMain Stem IForesti CWF None Continence of West Warren and South Branches to Mouthi Basin, Confluence of West and South Branches to Messenger Run (4—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins, Continence of Warren- CWF None Tionesta Creek West and South Forest Branches to Mouth 4—Rock Run Basin Warren CWF None 4—Duck Eddy Run Basin Warren CWF None 4—Pelt Run Basin IVarren CWF None! 4—Messenger Run Basin Warren EV None !4—Mead Run Basin Warren CWF None 4—Thad Shanty Run Basin Forest CWF None! 3—Tionesta Creek Basin. Messenger Varren- CWF None Run to Bluejay Forest Creek 4—Bluejay Creek Basin Forest HQ-CWF None 14—Rocky Run Basin Forest CWF None 4—Bush Creek Basin Forest CWF None 4—Martin Run Basin Forest CWF None 4—Hastings Run Basin Forest CWF None 4—Reagan Run Basin Forest CWF Nonel 3—Tionesta Creek Basin, Bhieiay Creek Forest CWF None to Upper Sheriff Run 95 4—Upper Sheriff’ Run Basin Forest I-IQ—CWF None 3—Tionesta Creek Basin, Upper Sheriff Forest CWF None Run to Lower Sheriff Run 4- Lower Sheriff Run Basin Forest l-IQ-CWF None 3—Tioiicsta Creek Basin, Lower Sheriff Forest CWF None Run to Fools Creek 4—Fools Creek Basin Forest HQ-CWF None 14—Wildcat Run Basin Forest CWF Nonel 3—Tionesta Creek Basin. Fools Creek to Forest CWF None Minister Creek 4-Minister IRuni Creek Basin Forest l-IQ-CWF None 14—Porcupine Run Basin Forest CWF None] 3—Tionesta Creek Basin. Minister Forest CWF None Creek to Blood Run 4—Blood Run Basin Forest l-IQ-CWF None 3—’Fionesta Creek Basin, Blood Run to Forest CWF None Logan Run 4-Logan Run Basin Forest CWF None 14—Phelps Run Basin Forest CWF None 4—Kingsley Run Basin Forest CWF None] 3—Tionesta Creek Basin, Logan Run to Forest CWF None Bobhs Creek 4—Bohbs Creek Basin Forest HQ-CWF None 14—Little Minister Run Basin Forest CWF None] 3—Tionesta Creek Basin, Bobbs Creek Forest CWF None to Fork Run 4-Fork Run Basin Forest HQ-CWF None 3—Tionesta Creek Basin, Fork Run to Forest CWF None Salmon Creek 4—Salmon Creek IMain Stemi Basin, Forest HQ-CWF None Source to Fourmile Run 15—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins Forest HQ-CWF None Salmon Creek 5—Little Salmon Creek Basin Forest HQ-CWF None 5—Guiton Run Basin Forest HQ-CWF Nonel 5•—Founile Run Basin Forest EV None (5—Twomile Run Basin Forest HQ-CWF None 5—The Branch Basin Forest HQ-CWF None] [4—Church Run Basin Forest CWF None 4—Carpenter Run Basin Forest CWF None 4—Lamentation Run Basin Forest CWF None] 4—Salmon Creek Basin. Fourmile Run Forest IIQ-CWF None to Mouth

96 3—Tionesta Creek Basin. Salmon Creek Forest CWF None to Bear Creek 4—Bear Creek Basin Forest HQ-CWF None 3—Tionesta Creek Basin, Bear Creek to Forest CWF None Ross Run 4—Ross Run Basin Forest I-IQ-CWF None 4—4akes Run Basin Forest CWF None I 4—Jug Ilandle Run Basin Forest CWF Nonel 3—Tionesta Creek Basin, Ross Run to Forest CWF None Little Coon Creek 4—Little Coon Creek Basin Forest HQ-CWF None (4—Coon Creek Basin Forest CWF None 4—Piney Run Basin Forest CWF None 4—Sugar Run Basin Forest CWF None 4—Little Piney Run Basin Forest CWF None 4—Glasner Run Basin Forest CWF None 4—Johns Run Basin Forest CWF None 4—Peters Run Basin Forest CWF None) (3—Little Tionesta Creek Basin Forest CWF None 3—Bates Run Basin Forest CWF None 3—Indian Camp Creek Basin Forest CWF None 3—Holeman Run Basin Venango CWF None 3—Stewart Run Basin Venango CWF None 3—Fox Run Basin Venango CWF None 3—Johnston Run Basin Venango CWF None) 3—Tionesta Creek Basin. Little Coon Forest CWF None Creek to Mouth 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins, Tionesta Forest- CWF None River Creek to Hemlock Venango Creek 3—Hemlock Creek Basin Venango EV None 13—MeCrea Run Basin Venango CWF None 3—Culver Run Basin Venango CWF None 3—Muskrat Run Basin Venango CWF None 3—Pithole Creek Basin Venango CWF None 3—Panther Run Basin Venango CWF None 3—Lamb Run Basin Venango CWF None 3—Horse Creek Basin Venango CWF None 3—Carney Run Basin Venango CWF None 3—Sage Run Basin Venango CWF None) 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins. hemlock Venango CWF None River Creek to Oil Creek 3—Oil Creek (Main Stem, Source Venango CWF None to Cherrytree Run)

97 Basin, Source to Thompson Creek 4—Unnanwd Tributaries to Oil Basins, Source to Crawford- CWF None Creek Cherrytree Run Venango 4—West Slireve Run Basin Crawford CWF None 4—East Shreve Run Basin Crawford CWF None 4—Mosey Run Basin Crawford CWF None 4—Bloomlield Run Basin Crawford CWF None 4—East Branch Oil Creek Basin Crawford CWF None 4—Marsh Run Basin Crawford CWF Nonej 4—Thompson Creek Basin, Source to Crawford CWF None Shirley Run 5—Shirley Run l3asin Crawford l-IQ-CWF None 14—Church Run Basin Crawford CWF Nonel 4—Thompson Creek Basin, Shirley Run to Crawford CWF None Mouth 3—Oil Creek Basin, Thompson Crawford CWF None Creek to Pine Creek 4—Pine Creek Basin, Source to Crawford HQ-CWF None Caidwell Creek 5—Caidwell Creek Basin, Source to West Warren HQ-CWF None Branch Caidwell Creek 6—West Branch CaIdwell Creek Basin Warren EV None

5—Caldwell Creek Basin, West Branch Crawford EV None CaIdwell Creek to Mouth 4-Pine Creek Basin, Caidwell Creek Crawford CWF None to Mouth 4—Benninghof Run Basin Venango CWF Nonej 3—Oil Creek Basin, Pine Creek to Crawford CWF None Cherrytree Run 4—Chen-ytree Run Basin Venango CWF None 3—-OilCreek Main Stern, Cherrytree Venango WWF None Run to Mouth 4—lUnnamedi Tributaries to Oil Basins, Cherrytree Venango CWF None Creek Run to lMouthlCherry Run 4—Cherry Run Basin, Source to Venango HQ-CWF None Rouseville Corporate Boundary at 41° 28’ 37.5” N; 79° 40’ 47.9” W 4—Cherry Run Basin, Rouseville Venango CWF None Corporate Boundary to Mouth 98 j4—Cornplanter Run Basin Venango CWF None] j3—Holiday Run Basin Venango CWF None 3—Chancy Run Basin Venango CWF None 3—Brannon Run Basin Venango CWF None 3—Seneca Run Basin Venango CWF None 3—Twornile Run Basin Venango CWF Nonej 4—I’ributaries to Oil Creek Basins, Cherry Run Venango CWF None to Mouth 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins. Oil Creek to Venango CWF None River French Creek 3—French Creek (NY) 4—Unnamed Tributaries to French Basins (all sections in Erie WWF None Creek PA). Source to PA-NY State Border at 32° 1’ 1’ I” N; 79° 45’ 42.7” V 4—Cutting Brook Basin (all sections in Erie WWF None PA) 4—-FlerrickCreek Basin (all sections in Erie WWF None PA) 3—French Creek IMain Stem, PA-NY IVcnangoj WWF None State Border to Erie Mouthi Basin (all sections in PA), PA- NY State Border to Ilubble Run j4—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins (all sections in Erie- VWF Nonej French Creek PA), PA-NY State Crawford Border to Mouth Venango 4—Bubble Run Basin (including the Erie FIQ-W\VP None Wattsburg Pen), Source to the 1350 ft Contour Line I(Union (:ity 7 1/2 Quadrangle) jat 41° 58’ 10.2” N: 79° 45’ 58.7” W 4—Bubble Run Basin, 1350 ft. Erie WWF None Contour Line to Mouth 3—French Creek Basin, Hubble Run to Erie WWF None West Branch French C reek 4—West Branch French Creek (NY)

99 5 -—IUnnanedITributaries to Basins (all sections in Erie WWF None West Branch French Creek PA), Source to PA-NY Stale Border at 42° 7’ 578” N 79° 45’ 43.1” V 4- —WestBranch French Creek IMain Stemj Basin Eric WWF None (all sections in PA), PA-NY State Border to Mouth IS—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins (all sections in Erie \VWF None West Branch French Creek PA), PA-NY State Border to Mouth 5—-l)arrow Brook Basin (all sections iii Erie WWF None PA) 5—Townicy Run Basin Erie WWF None 5—Alder Brook Basin Eric WWF None 5—Bailey Brook Basin Eric WWF Nonej 3—French Creek Basin, West Branch Erie WWF None French Creek to Lake Pleasant Outlet 4—-Lake Pleasant Outlet Basin Erie FIQ-CWF None 3—French Creek Basin. Lake Pleasant Erie WWF None Outlet to Alder Run 4—-AIder Run Basin Erie CWF None 3—French Creek Basin, Alder Run to Erie WWF None South Branch French Creek 4—-South Branch French Creek Basin, Source to Eric CWF None Beaver Run 5-—Beaver Run Basin Eric EV None 1—South Branch French Creek Basin, Beaver Run to Erie CWF None Mouth j4—Wheeler Creek Basin Erie VVWF Nonel 3—French Creek Basin. South Branch Erie None French Creek to Le Bocuf Creek 4 --Le Boeuf Creek Basin, Source to Trout Erie TSF None Run 5—Trout Run Basin Erie HQ-CWF None 4—LeBoeuf Creek Basin, Trout Run to Erie TSF None Mouth 3—French Creek Basin, Le Boeuf Eric- WWF None Creek to Campbell Crawford Run 4--Campbell Run Basin Crawford TSF None 3—French Creek Basin, Campbell Run Crawford WWF None to Kelly Run

I(JO 4--Kelly Run Basin Crawford HQ-CWE None 3—-French Creek Basin, Kelly Run to Crawford WWF None Muddy Creek 4—Muddy Creek Basin, Source to East Crawford I-IQ-CWF None Branch Muddy Creek 5—East Branch Muddy Creek Basin Crawford HQ-CWF None 4—Muddy Creek Main Stein. East Crawford FIQ-TSF None Branch Muddy Creek to Mackey Run 5—lUnnarnedi Tributaries to Basins, East Branch Crawford l-IQ-CWF None Muddy Creek Muddy Creek to Mackey Run Run Basin Crawford IIQ-CWF None] I 5—Federal 5—Mackey Run Basin Crawford HQ-CWF None 4—Muddy Creek Basin. Mackey Run to Crawford 11Q-TSF None Mouth 14—Mohawk Run Basin Crawford WWF None! 3—French Creek Basin. Muddy Creek Crawford VWF None to Cojineauttee Creek 4—Conneauttee Creek Basins, Source to Erie WWE None Outlet of Edinboro Lake 1—Conneauttee Creek Main Stern, Outlet of Erie-Crawford TSF None Edinboro Lake to Erie Crawlbrcl County Border at 41° 50’ 58.9” N; 80° 5’ 50.2” ‘V 5—lUnnamed] Tributaries to Basins. Outlet of Erie \VWF None Conneauttec Creek Edinhoro Lake to Erie- Crawford County Border 15—Darrows Creek Basin Crawford WWF None] 4—Conneauttee Creek IMain Stern, Erie- Crawford WWF None Crawford County Border to Mouth! Basin, Erie-Crawford County Border to Little Conneauttee Creek IS—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins, Erie- Crawford WWF None Conneauttee Creek Crawford County Border to Mouth 5—Torry Run Basin Crawford WWF Nonej 5—Little Conneauttee Creek Basin Crawford CWF None

101 4—Conneauttee Creek Basin, Little Crawford WWF None Conneauttee Creek to Mouth 14—Boles Run Basin Crawford WVF None 4—Cravel Run Basin Crawford WWF None 4—Wolf Run Basin Crawford WWF None! 3—French Creek Basin, Conneauttee Crawford VVF None Creek to Woodcock Creek 4 —WoodcockCreek Basin, Source to Crawlbrd HQ-CWF None Woodcock Creek Reservoir Dam 4 Woodcock Creek Basin, Woodcock Crawford CWF None Reservoir Darn to Mouth 4—Cussewago Creek Basin Crawford WWF None 4—Van l-lorne Creek Basin Crawford WWF None! 3—French Creek Basin. Voodcock Crawford WVF None Creek to Conneaut Outlet 4—Coimcaut Outlet Basin, Source to Crawford HQ-WWF None Conneaut Lake Darn 4--Conneaut Outlet Basin, Conneaut Lake Craw[brd WWF None Darn to Mouth 3—French Creek Basin. Conneaut Crawford WWF None Outlet to Little Sugar Creek 4—Little Sugar Creek Basin Crawford CWF None !4—Foulk Run Basin Mercer WWF None 4—Powderrnill Run Basin Mercer WWF None 4—North Deer Creek Basin Mercer VWF Nonel 3—French Creek Basin. Little Sugar Crawford- VWF None Creek to McCune Mercer Run Venango 4—MeCunc Run Basin Venango CWF None 3—French Creek Basin, MeCune Run Venango WWF None to Mill Creek 4—Mill Creek Basin Venango CWF None 3—French Creek Basin, Mill Creek to Venango WWF None Sugar Creek 4—Sugar Creek Basin, Source to East Crawford CWF None Branch Sugar Creek !(RM 17.0)] at 41° 36’ 13.8” N; 79° 51’ 7.7” ‘V 5—East Branch Sugar Creek Basin, Source to SR Crawtbrd CWF None 0428 Bridge at 41° 38’ 102 28.9” N; 79° 49’ 20.0” W 5—East Branch Sugar Creek Basin, SR 0428 Bridge Crawford HQ-CWF None to Mouth 4—Sugar Creek Basin, East Branch Venango CWF None Suuar Creek lo Mouth 14—Patchel Run Basin Venango WWF None) 3—French Creek Basin. Sugar Creek Venango WWF None to Mouth 3—lUnnaniedi Tributaries to Basins, French Creek Venango WWF None Allegheny River to jRM 106.70) Lower Twomile Run 3—Lower Twornile Run Basin Venango CWF None 13—Siefer Run Basin Venango WWF None 3—Ajax Run Basin Venango VWF Nonel 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins. Lower Venango VWF None River Twornile Run to East Sandy Creek 3—East Sandy Creek Basin Venango CWF None 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins, East Sandy Venango WWF None River Creek to Snyder Run 3—Snyder Run Basin Venango CWF None 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins, Snyder Run Venango WWF None River to Sandy Creek 3—Sandy Creek Main Stern Venango WWF None * * * * * 4—Ditzciiherger Run Basin Venango WWF None 13—Clark Run Basin Venango WWF None] 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins, Sandy Creek Venango WWF None River to Pine Hill Run 3—Pine Hill Run Basin \1enanuo CWF None 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins. Pine Hill Run Venango WWF None River to Dennison Run 3—Dennison Run Basin Venango EV None 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins, Dennison Venango WWF None River Run to Senihgrass Creek 3—Scrubgrass Creek Basin Venango CWF None 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins. Scrubgrass Venango WWF None River Creek to UNT 51240 at 41° 15’ 41.8” N, 79° 49’ 53.7” W 3—lUnnamed Tributary to Basin Venango CWF None Allegheny River at RM 106.70) UNT 51240

103 13—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins, RM 106.70 to Venango WWF Nonel Allegheny River Clarion River Clarion 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins, UNT 51240 to Venango WWF None River Roberts Run 3—Roberts Run Basin ‘Veiiango CWF None 13—Falling Spring Run Basin Venango WWF Nonej 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins, Roberts Run Venango WWF None River to Whitherup Run 3——WhitherLipRun Basin Venango CWF None 13—Perry Run Basin Venango WW F None 3—Whann Run Basin Venango WWF Nonej 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins, Whitherup Venango WWF None River Run to Little Scrubgrass Creelc 3—Little Scrubgrass Creek Basin Venango CWF None 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins, Little Venango WWF None River Scruhgrass Creek to Shull Run 3—Shull Run Basin Venango CWF None 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins, Shull Run to Venan go WWF None River Mill Creek 3—Mill Creek Basin Venango CWF None 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins, Mill Creek to Ven ango WWF None River Richey Run 3—Richey Run Basin Clarion— CWF None Venango

I3—Lowrey Run Basin Butler WW F None 3—Fowler Run Basin Armstrong WWF Nonel 3—Tributaries to Allegheny Basins, Richey Run Venango WW F None River to Clarion River Clarion

§93.9r. Drainage List R.

Ohio River Basin in Pennsylvania Clarion River

Stream Zone County Water Uses Exceptions Protected To Specific Criteria

I—-Ohio River 2——AlleghenyRiver 3—Clarion River

104 4—East Branch Clarion River Basin, Source to Elk HQ-CWF None Confluence with West Branch 4-West Branch Clarion River IMain Stern, Source Elk CWF None to Confluence with East Branchj Basin, Source to Wolf Run

I5—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins, Source to McKean-Elk CWF None West Branch Clarion River Confluence with East Branch 5—Windfall Run Basin McKean CWF None 5—Sicily Run Basin MeKean CWF None 5—Buck Run Basin Mekean CWF None 5—Rocky Run Basin Elk CWF None 5—Nearing Run Basin Elk CVF None 5—Wilson Run Basin Elk CWF None 5—Oil Creek Basin Elk CVVF Nonel 5—Wolf Run Basin Elk HQ-CWF None IS—Meffert Creek Basin Elk CWF Nonel 4-West Branch Clarion River Basin, Wolf Run to Elk CWF None Silver Creek 5—Silver Creek Basin Elk HQ-CWF None 4-West Branch Clarion River Basin, Silver Creek Elk CVF None to Confluence with East Branch 3—Clarion River IMain Stern, IClarioni Ei CWF None Confluence of East and Vest Branches to inlet of Piney Lake at RM 37.4j Basin. Confluence of East and Vest Branches to Riley Run 14—Urniarned Tributaries to Basins, Confluence of Elk-Forest- CWF None Clarion River East and Vest Jefferson- Branches to Inlet of Clarion Piney Lake at RM 37.4 4—Johnson Run Basin Elk CWF None 4—Powers Run Basin Elk CWF Nonel 4—Riley Run Basin Elk WWF None 3—Clarion River Basin, Riley Run to Elk CWF None Little Mill Creek 4-Little Mill Creek Basin Elk HQ-CWF None j4—Mason Creek Basin Elk CWF None 4—Elk Creek Basin Elk CWF None

105 4—Island Run Basin Elk CWF None) 3—Clarion River Basin, Little Mill Elk CWF None Creek to Big Mill Creek 4—Big Mill Creek Basin Elk HQ-CWF None 14—Connerville Run Basin Elk CWF None 4—Dog hollow Run Basin Elk CWF None 4—Cillis Run Basin Elk CWF None) 3—Clarion River Basin, Big Mill Creek Elk CWF None to Little Tobv Creek 4—Little Toby Creek IMain Stemi Basin, Elk CWF None Source to Sawmill Run IS—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins Elk-Jefferson CWF None Little Tohy Creek 5—Limestone Run Basin Elk CWF None 5—Kyler Run Basin Elk CWF None 5—McCauley Run Basin Elk CWF None) 5—Sawmill Run Main Stem Elk CWF None 6—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins Elk CWF None Sawmill Run 6—Lost Run! UNT 50397 at Basin, Source to Fox Elk HQ-CWF None 41° 17’ 39.8” N; 78° 38’ 6.3” V Township Municipal (locally known as Lost Run) Authority Dam 6— ILost Run) UNT 50397 Basin, Fox Township Elk CWF None Municipal Authority Darn to Mouth )5—Brandy Camp Creek Basin Elk CWF None 5—Johnson Run Basin Elk CWF None 5-Bear Run Basin Elk CWF None 5-Oyster Run Basin Elk CVF None 5—Mead Run Basin Elk CWF None) 4—Little Tohy Creek Basin, Sawmill Run Elk CWF None to Boggy Run 5—Boggy Run Basin Elk KQ-CWF None 4—Little Tohy Creek Basin, Boggv Run to Elk CWF None Whetstone Branch 5—Whetstone Branch Basin, Source to Elk HQ-CWF None Brockway Municipal

Authority No. I Dam 5—-Whetstone Branch Basin, Broekway Elk CWF None Municipal Authority

No. 1 Dam to Mouth I5—Walburn Run Basin Jefferson CWF Nonel

106 4—Little Toby Creek Basin, Whetstone Jefferson CWF None Branch to Rattlesnake Creek 5—-Rattlesnake Creek Basin, Source to Jefferson HQ-CWF None Brockway Municipal Authority Darn 5—-Rattlesnake Creek Basin, Brockway Jefferson CWF None Municipal Authonty Darn to Mouth 15—Baghdad Run Basin Jefferson CWF None 5—Jenkins Run Basin Jefferson CWF None 5—Little Vineyard Run Basin Jefferson CWF None] 4—Little Toby Creek Basin, Rattlesnake Jefferson CWF None Creek to Vineyard Run 5—Vineyard Run Basin Elk HQ-CWF None 15—Coward Run Basin Elk CWF None 5—Laurel Run Basin Elk CWF None 5—Bearmouth Run Basin Elk CWF Nonel 4—Little Tohy Creek Basin. Vineyard Run Jefferson CVF None to Mouth 3—Clarion River Basin, Little Tobv Elk CWF None Creek to Bear Creek 4—Bear Creek Basin Elk HQ-CWF None 14—Mahood Run Basin Elk CWF None 4-Beech Bottom Run Basin Elk CWF None 4—Lake City Run Basin Elk CWF Nonel 14—Cole Run Main Stern Elk CWF None 5—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins Elk CWF Nonel Cole Run 3-Clarion River Basin. Bear Creek to Elk CWF None Crow Run

IS] 4—Crow Run Basin. Source to Cole Elk HQ-CWF None Run j4—lrwin Run Basin Elk CWF Nonel 5—Cole Run Basin Elk CWF None 4—Crow Run Basin, Cole Run to Elk HQ-CWF None Mouth

3—Clarion River Basin, Crow Run to Elk CWF None Spring Creek 4-Spring Creek Basin Elk HQ-CWF None 3—Clarion River Basin, Spring Creek Elk CWF None to Maxwell Run 4-Maxwell Run Basin Elk HQ-CWF None j4—Elliott Run Basin Elk CWF None 107 4—I)augherty Run Basin Jefferson CWF None 4—Raught Run Basin Elk CWF None 4—Painter Run Basin Elk CWF None 4—Church Run Basin Elk CWF Nonej 3—Clarion River Basin, Maxwell Run Elk-Jefferson CWF None to Callen Run 4—Callen Run Basin Jefferson l-lQ-CWF None j4—Cline Run Basin Elk CWF Nonej 3—Clarion River Basin, Callen Run to Elk-Jefferson CWF None Wvncoop Run 4—Wyncoop Run Basin Elk HQ-CWF None j4—Leeper Run Basin Elk CWF None 4-Pine Run Basin Elk CWF Nonej 3—Clarion River Basin. Wvncoop Run Elk-Jefferson CWF None to Mill Stone Creek 4—-Mill Stone Creek Basin Elk l-IQ-CWF None {4—Shippen Run Basin Forest Nonel 3—Clarion River Basin. Mill Stone Elk-Jefferson- CWF None Creek to Clear Creek Forest 4-Clear Creek Basin Jefferson HQ-CWF None j4—’Fadler Run Basi;i Jefferson CWF Nonej 3—Clarion River Basin. Clear Creek to Jefferson- CWF None Cherry Run Forest 4—Cherry Run Basin Forest HQ-CWF None 3—Clarion River Basin. Cherry Run to Jefferson- CWF None Maple Creek Forest 4—Maple Creek Basin Forest HQ-CWF None 3—Clarion River Basin, Maple Creek Jefferson- CVF None to Coleman Run Forest 4—Coleman Run Basin Forest HQ-CWF None 3—Clarion River Basin. Coleman Run Jefferson- CWF None to Troutman Run Forest 4—Troutrnan Run Basin Forest i-IQ-CWF None 14-Henry Run Basin Forest CWF None! 3—Clarion River Basin, Troutman Jefferson- CWF None Run to Toms Run Forest 4—Torns Run Basin, Source to Little Clarion EV None HeFrcn Run 5—Little Hefren Run Basin Clarion CWF None 4—Toms Run Basin, Little Hefren Forest EV None Run to Mouth 3—Clarion River Basin, Toms Run to Jefferson- CWF None Cathers Run Clarion 4—ICatheriCathers Run Basin Clarion HQ-CWF None

108 3—Clarion River Basin, Cathers Run Clarion CWF None to Maxwell Run 4—Maxwell Run Basin Clarion HQ-CWF None 3—Clarion River Basin, Maxwell Run Clarion CWF None to Blyson Run 4—Blyson Run Basin Clarion EV None _3—Clarion River Basin, Blvson Run to Clarion CWF None Inlet of Piney Lake at 41° 14’ 11.6” N, 79° 19’ 21.3” W 3—Clarion River Main Stern, Inlet of Clarion WWF None Piney Lake at IRM at 41° 14’ 11.6” N. 79° 19’ 21.3” Y to Mouth 4—lUnnamedi Tributaries to Basins, Inlet of Piney Clarion CWF None Clarion River Lake at (RM 37.4 to Mouthi at 41° 14? 11.6” N. 79° 19’ 21.3” W to l1ill Creek 4—Mill Creek IMain Stem, Source Clarion HQ-CWF None to Little Mill Creekj Basin. Source to McCanna Run 5—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins, Source to Clarion- HQ-CWF None Mill Creek Little Mill Creek Jefferson 4—Mill Creek 5—Parks Run Basin Jefferson LIQ-CWF None 5—Martin Run Basin Jefferson HQ-CWF None 5—Rankin Run Basin Jefferson lIQ-CWF None 5—Updike Run Basin Jefferson HQ-CWF None] 5—McCanna Run (Pendleton Basin Clarion 1EV None Run) 4—Mill Creek Basin. McCanna Clarion HQ-CWF None Run to Little Mill Creek 5—Little Mill Creek Basin Clarion CWF None 4-Mill Creek Main Stem, Little Mill Clarion CWF None Creek to Mouth 5—Unnamed Tributaries to Mill Basins, Little Mill Clarion HQ-CWF None Creek Creek to Mouth 5—Douglass Run Basin Clarion CWF None 5—Woods Run Basin Clarion HQ-CWF None 5—Stroup Run Basin Clarion HQ-CWF None 5—Trap Run Basin Clarion HQ-CWF None 5—Whites Run Basin Clarion CWF None

109 14—Reeds Run Basin Clarion CWF None 4—Toby Creek Basin Clarion CWF None 4—Trout Run Basin Clarion CWF None 4—Courtleys Run Basin Clarion CWF None 4—Piney Creek Basin Clarion CWF None 4—Deer Creek Basin Clarion CWF Nonel 4—Tributaries to Clarion River Basins, Mill Creek to Clarion CWF None Canoe Creek 4——CanoeCreek Basin Clarion HQ-CWF None 4—Tributaries to Clarion River Basins, Canoe Creek Clarion CWF None to Beaver Creek 4——BeaverCreek Basin Clarion HQ-CWF None (4—Licking Creek Basin Clarion CWF Noncj 4—Tributaries to Clarion River Basins, Beaver Creek Clarion CWF None to Turkey Creek 4- -Turkey Creek Basin Clarion HQ—CWF None 4—Tributaries to Clarion River Basins, Turkey Clarion CWF None Creek to Mouth

§ 93.9s. Drainage List S.

Ohio River Basin in Pennsylvania Allegheny River

Stream Zone County Water Uses Exceptions Protected To Specific Criteria * * * * *

3 - Mahoning Creek Main Stem, Jefferson WWF None Confluence of East Branch Mahoning Creek and Stump Creek to Mouth 4—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins, Confluence to Jeftèrson- CWF None Mahoning Creek East Branch Mahoning Indiana Creek and Stump Annstrong Creek to Mouth 4—Big Run Basin Jeflerson CWF None 4——RockRun Basin Jefferson CWF None 4—Graffius Run Basin Jefferson CWF None 4—Jackson Run Basin Jefferson CWF None 4—-Canoe Creek Basin Jefferson CWF None

110 * * * : * 4—Catheart Run Basin Armstrong CWF None 4—Hamilton Run Basin Armstrong CWF None 4—Cave Run Basin Armstrong CWF None 4—Scrubgrass Creek Basin Armstrong CWF None 3—Wiskey Creek Basin Armstrong WWF None 3—Pine Creek Basin Armstrong HQ-CWF None 3—Hays Run Basin Armstrong WWF None 3—Limestone Run Basin Armstrong WWF None 3—Cowanshannoek Creek Basin. Source to Armstrong WWF None Huskins Run 4—Huskins Run Basin Armstrong \VWF None 3—Cowanshannock Creek Main Stern, 1-luskins Armstrong TSF None Run to Mouth 1—lUnnamedi Tributaries to Basins, Fluskins Run Armstrong WWF None Cowanshannock Creek to Mouth 3—Garretts Run Basin Armstrong WV/F None

4’ * * * *

§ 93.9t. Drainage List 1’.

Ohio River Basin in Pennsylvania Kiskiminetas River

Stream Zone County Water Uses Exceptions Protected To Specific Criteria * -t * * * 6—Quernahoning (‘reek Main Stem Somerset CWF None 7—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins Somerset CWF None Quernahoning Creek 7—Hoffman Run Basin Somerset CWF None 7—North Branch Quemahoning Main Stern Somerset CWF None Creek * * * * * 7—Spruce Run Basin Somerset CWF None 6—Kaufman Run Basin Somerset CWF None 6—Paint Creek Main Stern, Source to Cambria- CWF None Little Paint Creek Somerset

6—-Spring Run Basin Cambria CWF None 16—Trout Run Basin Cambria CWF Nonel 6—Kane Run Basin Cambria CWF None 111 6—North Branch Little Basin Cambria CWF None Conemaugh River * * * * * 6—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins, Farthest Westrnoreland CWF None McGee Run Upstream Crossing of Derry Borough Border to Mouth 6—Hiflside Run Basin Westmorelan CWF None d 6—Trout Run Basin, Source to inlet Westmoreland EV None of Blairsville Reservoir : * * * *

§ 93.9v. Drainage List V.

Ohio River Basin in Pennsylvania Monongahela River

Stream Zone County Water Uses Exceptions Protected To Specific Criteria * * * * * 5—Tub Mill Run Basin Somerset CWF None 5—Piney Creek jMain Stemi Basin Somerset CWF None (all Sections in PA) j6—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins (all Sections in Somerset CWF None Piney Creek PA) 6—Little Piney Creek Basin Somerset CWF Nonel 5—Miller Run Basin Somerset CWF None 5— Flaugherty Creek Basin Somerset CWF None * * * * * 7—Unnamed Tributaries to East Basins, PA 281 at 40° Somerset TSF None Branch Coxes Creek 0’ 43.8” N; 79° 4’ 27.5” W to Confluence with West Branch 7—Parsons Run Basin Somerset TSF None 7—Kimberly Run Basin Somerset CWF None : * * * * 6—Laurel Run Basin Somerset WWF None 6—Rice Run Basin Somerset WWF None 6—Wilson Creek Basin Somerset WWF None * * 4: * * 6—Isers Run Basin Somerset EV None

112 5—Lost Run Basin Somerset WWF None 5—MeClintock Run Basin Somerset CWF None * * * * *

§93.9w. Drainage List W.

Ohio River Basin in Pennsylvania 0/110 Ri;’er

Stream Zone County Water Uses Exceptions Protected To Specific Criteria * * * * * 3—Shenango River Main Stem, Shenango Mercer TSP None Reservoir Dam to Point 1.0 River Mile Downstream 4—Unnamed Ti-ihutaries to Basins, Shenango Mercer CWF None Shenango River Reservoir Darn to Point 1.0 River Mile Downstream 3—Shenango River Main Stem (all Lawrence WWF None sections in PA), 1.0 River Mile Downstream of Shenango Reservoir Darn to Confluence with Mahoning River 4—Unnamed Tributaries to Basins (all sections in Mercer— WWF None Shanangoj Shenango River PA), 1.0 River Mile Lawrence Downstream of Shenango Reservoir Darn to Confluence with Mahoning River 4—McCullough Run Basin (all sections in Mercer WWF None PA) 4—Thornton Run Basin Mereer WWF None * * * *

§93.9x. Drainage List X.

Lake Erie

Stream Zone County Water Uses Exceptions Protected To Specific Criteria

113 I—-Lake Eric All sections of lake in Erie CWF Delete PA except Outer Erie Fej,DOi Harbor and Presque and Bacil Isle Bay and DOt See GLWQA jAdd E. coil per 40 CFR 131.41 (Except (f)) and See 28 Pa. Code § 18.2%(h)( 2) and (3)j I— Lake Edo (Outer Erie Harbor Portion of lake Erie WWF Delete pH and Presquc Isle Bay) bordered by Presque Add pH Isle on west, longitude between 7 $00 01 50 on east, and 9 and latitude 42° 10 jAdd E. coil IS” on north, except per 40 CER harbor area and central 131.41 channel dredged and (Except (1)) maintained by United and See 28 States Anriy Corps of Pa. Code Engineers § 18.2%(h)( 2) and (3)]

The following criterion is specific to Lake Erie (Outer Erie Harbor and Presgue Isle Bay) waters in the Harbor area and central channel dredged and maintained by United States Army Corps of Engineers, based on special studies. Parameter Spin/wI . . Critical Criteria Uce* Bacteria Bac2 (Coliforms/100 mfl—Maximum of 5,000/1 00 ml as a PWS monthly average value, no more than this number in more than 20% of the samples collected during a month, nor more than 20000/100 ml in more than 5% of the samples.

1——LakeErie (Outer Eric Harbor l-Iarhorarea and Erie WWF, Delete p1-I and Presque Isle Bay) central channel Delete WC and Baci dredged and Add pH maintained by United between 7 States Army Corps of and 9, Bae2 Engineers 2- Unnamed Tributaries to Lake Basins (all sections in Erie CWF, ME None Eric PA), PA-OH State Border to Presque Isle * * * * *

114 § 93.9z. Drainage List Z.

Potomac Rivcr Basin in Pennsylvania Potoni tic River

Stream Zone County Water Uses Exceptions Protected To Specific Criteria

* * :f * * 3—Little Wills Creek Busin Somerset HQ-CWF, None MF 3—Thompson Run Basin Somerset IIQ-CWF, None M F 3—Gladdens Run Basin Sorncrset HQ-C\VF, None MF * * * * *

115

1* # #### #### ### # # # 1* 1* # *# # ##### # 44 44 44 #4444444444 #44 44 #44 44 44 4444 44 #444 4 4 #44 #44 #44 #4 #44* *4444

Job : 3274 Date: 12/30/2019 Time: 12:33:47 PM

$b pennsyLvania DEPARTMENTOF ENVIRONMENTAL r4 PROTECTION

December 30, 2019

The 1-lonorablc Steven J. Santarsicro Minority Chair, Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee 184 Main Capitol Building Senate PU Box 203010 Harrisburg, PA 17120-3010

Re: Final Rulemaking: Federal 0111ccof Surface Mining Reclamation and Enfbrceinent (OSM) Program Consistency Rule (#7-532) Final Rulemaking: Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards (#7-534)

Dear Senator Santarsicro:

Pursuant to Section 5(a) of the Regulatory Review Act, please find enclosed two final-form rulemakings for review by the Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee (Committee). The Environmental Quality Board (Board) adopted these rulemakings at its November 19, 2019, meeting.

The Federal Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) Program Consistency Rule (#7-532) linal-thrin rulemaking addresses inconsistencies between the Commonwealth’s surface mining regulatory program and the Federal Office olSurhice Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) regulations, so that the Commonwealth may maintain primary regulatory authority over coal mining activities in Pennsylvania. This final—form rulemaking also includes updates for general program maintenance, which will provide clarity lor the Commonwealth’s mining operators and improve the implementation of these requirements.

This rulemaking is authorized under the Surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Act, the Clean Streams Law, the Coal Refuse Disposal Control Act, the Bituminous Mine Subsidence and Land Conservation Act and the Administrative Code of 1929.

The Federal SurIhee Mining Control and Reclamation Act of (977 (Federal SMCRA) authorized OSM under the US. Department of the Interior to administer programs for controlling surfitce coal mining operations across the United States. A state can assume primacy over the regulation of its coal mining regulatory programs if’a state’s regulations are consistent with (i.e., no less protective than) the Federal requirements. Pennsylvania achieved primacy over its surface coal mining program in 1982.

Over the past several years, OSM has identified provisions within the Commonwealth’s regulatory program that are inconsistent with the Federal requirements. Therefore, the Commonwealth must revise its regulations so that they are no less stringent than Federal requirements. Failure to address these inconsistencies Puts the Commonwealth at risk of losing program primacy to the Federal

Policy Office Rachel Carson Stale Office Building Box PA wvtw.dep.pa.gov I P.O. 2063( Harrisburg, 17105-20631 717783.8727

4* #44*4* #444 #44 4* 4* 4* 4* 4* 4* 4* #4 4 4 4 4* 4* #4444 4 4 4 4 #44444 #4 4 #4 4 4 #4 4 #44 4* 4 4 #44 #44 #4 #444 #4444

Jnb 3276 I)ate: 12/30/2019 Time: 12:34:01 PM

The Honorable Steven J. Santarsiero -2- December 30, 2019 government. The loss ofprogram primacy would threaten the Federal Title V grant, which funds about filly percent of the coal mining program and totaled about $25,413,733 in FY 16-17.

To maintain jurisdiction over the regulation of coal surface milling activities, this final—form rulemaking addresses inconsistencies in definitions and program processes between the Commonwealth’s coal mining regulations and the Federal requirements. Specifically, the following dehmtions are amended: the term used to describe the seeding period that an operator is liable for site revegetation. what qualities as a “haul road” related to anthracite mining operations, the definition oC”surfaee mining activities”, and the language used to define what local government entities should receive a notice for mining permit applications. The final-form rulemaking also amends the Io]Iowing processes: the process by which certain collateral bonds are valued, the effluent limitations for bituminous underground mines, the upper limit for temporary cessation ofoperations at bituminous surface mines, the calculation threshold for assessing a civil penalty, and the means of notifying local governments of permit applications.

Also included are additional revisions to reflect general program maintenance, such as correcting typographical errors and updating organization names, statutory citations. remining requirements and the use of reference data for the sizing oFstormwater control facilities.

The regulated community for this rulemaking is comprised of about 400 businesses, most of which are small businesses. The regulations will apply consistently among all operations for small and large businesses alike. Since the amendments are primarily administrative, the impact on small businesses will be negligible. One amendment relating to stormwater control facility size requirements is likely to save time and monetary resources for all businesses, because tile result of adopting the updated requirements will be more appropriately—sized (smaller) stonnwater control facilities. As these regulatory amendments are primarily administrative, no additional costs are anticipated.

The proposed rulemaking was adopted by the Board at its •lay 16, 2018, meeting and was published in the Penn.cvh’ania Bulletin on October 27, 2018, (48 Pa.B. 6844) with provision for a 30-day public comment period that closed on November 26, 2018. Comments were received from three public eommenters and the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC).

The Pennsylvania Anthracite Council was concerned that the term “public roads” as used in the revised definition of “Haul roads” in Section 88.1 was too broad. Language was included in the preamble to further explain what a “haul road” is to address this concern.

Related to the notification for local governments ofa milling permit application, the Pennsylvania State Association ofTownship Supervisors (PSATS) and IRRC noted that Section 86.31 requires notification by registered mail to the municipality where the mining is proposed and that the Federal rules do not change this requirement. In addition, IRRC noted that the “municipality” is separately defined in Section 86.1 as: “A county, city, borough, town, township, school district, institution or an authority created by any one or more of the foregoing,” and echoed these concerns. The final-forni rulemaking reverts to tile original language listing cities, boroughs, incorporated towns and townships, and adds that the Department of Environmental Protection

The Honorable Steven J. Santarsiero -3 - December 30, 2019

(Department) will provide written notice, which is consistent with Federal requirement at 30 CFR 773.6(a)(3).

Other comments were related to the use of the NOAA online tool. All comments were addressed in the final—tbrmrulemaking.

The Department collaborated with the Mining and Reclamation Advisory Board (MRAB), which includes representation from anthracite surface mine operators, the Pennsylvania Coal Alliance, the Pennsylvania Anthracite Council, the County Conservation Districts, the Citizens Advisory Council, the Pennsylvania I-louseof Representatives, and the Pennsylvania Senate to develop the proposed rulemaking. This included discussion at several MRAB Regulation, Legislation and Technical (RLT) committee meetings. At its April 25, 2019, meeting, the Department reviewed and discussed the final-form rulemaking with the MRAB. The MRAB voted to concur with the Department’s recommendation that the linal-fomi rulemaking move fonvard in the regulatory process.

The Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards (#7-534) final-form rulemaking amends 25 Pa. Code Chapter 93. Section 303(c)(l) of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA, 33 U.S.C.A. § 1313) requires that states periodically, but at least once every three years, review and revise as necessary, their water quality standards. This rulemaking constitutes Pennsylvania’s current triennial review of its water quality standards.

Pennsylvania’s water quality standards are designed to implement the requirements of Sections 5 and 402 of The Clean Streams Law (CSL) and CWA Section 303. The water quality standards consist of the designated uses of the surface waters of this Commonwealth, along with the specific numerical and narrative criteria necessary to achieve and maintain those uses and an antidegradation policy. Thus, water quality standards are instream water quality goals that are implemented by imposing specific regulatory requirements, such as treatment requirements and effluent limitations, on individual sources of pollution.

The final-Ibmi rulemaking includes amendments to 25 Pa. Code Chapter 93 in order to, among other things: add a definition for 7-day average in §93.1; update the water quality criteria in § 93.7 Table 3 for ammonia and bacteria and in § 93.$c Table 5 lhr many human health criteria using the latest scientific information and policies developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the CWA, Section 304(a); clarif’ in § 93.8c(a) how values are determined for local water quality conditions (hardness, pH, etc.) lbr use in formula-based criteria calculations as is used ibr some heavy metals criteria; clarify in § 93.Sd(c) that the Biotie Ligand Model (BLM) will be required for the development of new or updated water quality criteria for copper in freshwater systems; and add reference in § 93.Sd(f)(2) that identifies a new on—linetable is available for a list of site-specific criteria that have been developed and are being used by the Department in permitting and other pollution control measures.

In addition, corrections are made to the water quality standards to use designations and stream entries found in Drainage Lists at §*93.Qa-93.9z, which are not being addressed by separate stream redesignation rulemakings, including consolidating and reformatting of several Drainage Lists to address the continual changes and updates occurring to the United States Geological

The Honorable Steven J. Santarsiero -4- December 30, 2019

Survey (USGS) National Flydrography Dataset (NHD) flowline. The NHD fiowline forms the basis of the Department’s Designated and Existing Use Geographic Information System (015) layers. The corrections do not change the current stream use designations. Exceptions for fIshable/swimmable watery: The Department routinely reevaluates, as part of its triennial review of water quality standards, the two water bodies where the fishable or swimmable uses specified in Section 101(a)(2) of the CWA required uses are not being met: (1) the Harbor Basin and entrance channel to Outer Erie Flarhor! Presque Isle Bay ( 93.9x), and (2) several zones within a portion of the Delaware Estuary ( 93.9e and g). Because the same conditions and hazards exist today, for the excluded portion of Lake Erie, no change is made to the designated use for Outer Erie 1-larbor/PresqueIsle Bay, and the water contact sports (WC) use remains excluded from the designated uses in §93.9x.

The WC use remains excluded from the designated uses for portions of the Delaware Estuary, for river miles 108.4 to 81.8 because of continuing significant impacts from combined sewer overflows (CSOs), and hazards associated with commercial shipping and navigation. However, the Board received comments indicating there are multiple instances where commenters have participated in and documented water contact on this stretch of the Delaware River and Estuary. In response to these comments, the Department will initiate an effort with Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) to reevaluate the applicable standards, and an updated recommendation regarding the WC use will be considered in the next triennial review of water quality standards, following outcome of this collaboration.

In addition, limited uses for Zones 3 and 4 ofthc Delaware Estuary were also incorporated into Drainage Lists B and G ( 93.9e and g), which do not meet the Section 101(a)(2) fishable uses. These are described as Warm Water Fishes (WWF) (Maintenance Only) and Migratory Fishes (MF) (Passage Only) [hr tidal portions of the basin, from river mile 108.4 to the Pennsylvania Delaware state border. The current designated uses within these Zones do not include propagation and thus refer to DRBC’s standards which were developed to protect fish maintenance and passage only. Recent data and observations, however, suggest recovery is occurring in propagation for some species in portions of these Zones. Therefore, DRBC initiated an evaluation of available data for resident and anadromous fishes collected since 2000, in an attempt to quantify spawning and early life stages and the extent of successful reproduction for estuarine species. The Department continues to work in cooperation with DRBC, and EPA to prepare a resolution describing DRBC’s next steps for improving the recovery taking place in the lower river and estuary. It should be recognized that the demonstrated recovery in the propagation use for these Zones has occurred under the long—termimplementation of the current criteria.

The Department provided specific rationale and other documentation that support the recommended amendments, revisions, and additions for this final—formrulemaking.

This final-form rulemaking includes revisions to water quality criteria and corrections or clarifications to designated uses. Facilities with point source discharges of treated wastewater to waters of the Commonwealth may be affected since all discharges are assigned effluent limits consistent with achieving water quality standards, including all applicable water quality criteria

The Honorable Steven J. Santarsiew -5 - December 30, 2019 and designated uses. The rule will be implemented through the Department’s permit anti approval actions.

The regulatory revisions have been developed as part of an established program that has been implemented by the Department since the early I980s. The revisions are consistent with and based on existing regulations. The revisions extend appropriate protections to all waterbodies of this Commonwealth and are consistent with antidegradation requirements established by the CWA (33 U.S.C.A §l25l—l387) and the CSL. All surface waters in this Commonwealth are afforded a minimum level of protection through compliance with the water quality standards, which prevent pollution and protect existing water uses.

The proposed rulemaking was adopted by the Board at its April 18, 2017, meeting, and was published in the Pcnns’hwna the//c/in on October21, 2017, (47 Pa.B. 6609) with provision for a 70-day public comment period that was scheduled to end December 29, 2017. The Board held public hearings on December 6, 8. and 14. 2W 7, at the Department’s Regional Offices in Wilkes- Bane (Northeast Region - NERO). Harrisburg (Southcentral Region - SCRO). and Pittsburgh (Southwest Region - S\VRO). respectively. The Board received comments requesting the public comment period be extended. and that an additional public hearing be held in the southeast area of the Commonwealth. This request was granted. The additional public hearing was held on January 30. 2018, at the Department’s Southeast Regional Office (SERO) inNorristown. Pennsylvania. The extended public comment period ended on February 16, 2018.

The Board received comments from 776 commenters and testimony from seven witnesses at the public heai-ings.The Board also received comments from IRRC. All comments were addressed in preparing this linal—forinrulemaking.

The final-ibnn rulemaking was discussed with the Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) at its November 29, 2018. and April 18. 2019, meetings. WRAC voted on May 23, 2019. to concur the Department’s recommendation to present the final—lbrmrulemaking to the Board. An update for this flnal-Ibnn rulemaking was also provided to Agricultural Advisory Board on April 25, 2019.

The Department will provide assistance as necessary to facilitate your Committee’s review of the enclosed rulemakings under Section 5.10.1) and 0.2) oftlie Regulatory Review Act. IRRC’s public ineeling to consider the enclosed rulemaking is tentatively scheduled for Friday, January 31, 2020.

Please contact me by e-maiLat ledingerpa.gov or by telephone at 717.783.8727 if you have any questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

Laura Edinger Regulatory Coordinatpr

The 1-lonorableSteven J. Santarsiero - 6 - December 30, 2019

Enclosures cc: The Honorable Andrew B. Dinniman The Honorable Dayiin Leach The 1-lonorableAnthony I-I.Williams

•

r 4 The This The regulatory- OSM Over Clean mining protective of requirements. meeting. requirements. coal rulemaking rulemakings Commonwealth Land primary Reclamation Commonwealth’s Dear 333 Consistency Re: Pursuant Independent Executive David Decenther for En [lanlshurg. its the PROTECTION

DEPARTMENT pennsylvania ironmental Market Federal Federal Program mining Final Final rulemaking Mr. the Rachel coal Conservation under Streams Sumner Commonwealth’s program regulatory past to Sumner: Rulemaking: Rulemaking: mining than) Director program 30. Carson Section also PA the Street, operations Surface Regulatory Office lbr Rule and Consistency several Failure 2019 Law, Qual OF U.S. the revww must includes in 17120 is State Enforcement regulatory surface (#7—532) ENVIRONMENTAL authorized authority 1982. 14th Act that Federal of 5(a) it> the Mining Department Office years. to revise Surface ‘triennial across Federal Board 1w and are Coal address Floor of Review mining updates mining Rule Building the the final—form inconsistent OSM the requirements. its Control programs over Rethse (Board) the under Independent (OS Regulatory Mining (#7-532) Office regulations Administrative these I Commission Review operators of P.O. regulatory for has United coal NI) the the and Disposal Box general identi of inconsistencies rulemaking adopted regul mining Wa Reclaiiiat Interior Surface with 20631 Surface of Reclamation States Pennsylvania Review states and so Water Regulatory atio;m, lied Policy program program the Harrisburg. that activities Control these Code improve to provisions A Mining Mining Office Federal ion regulations Quality addresses administer they so state Act, rulemukings and of and that puts PA maintenance, Act Act, Review are please 1929. achieved can in the Reclamation Conservation requirements. 171D52063 Enforcement Standards the the of the Pennsylvania. no within the implemenlation assume ineonsstencics are pmgramns 1977 Federal Comnm;onweal less Commonwealth find Bituminous Commission consistent primacy at the stringent 1717.783.87271 (Federal enclosed (7_534) pnmacy which its and Of Commonwealth’s and November Therefore, (OSM) for lice This Enihrcement over Reclamation will controlling Mine than with SMCRA) ih of between of two (IRRC). over ma linal—lbrm these at v.’wtdep.pa.gov Program provide Surtlice its (i.e.. Federal linal—fon risk Subsidence the surface the 1 maintain 9. the regulation of no authorized 2019. (OSM) 1’he surfhce clarit) N Act, losing less Ii coal fling the and

“municipality”

and

township,

language revised

‘[he

86.31

The

foregoing.” 30—day

preamble published

Pennsylvania

additional size The

stonnwater on

result small

which

Also

and

typographical assessing rulemaking

Ibm operations. rulemaking

local To

temporary

nrc is

Commonwealth’s about

following

program

Mr.

Federal

liable

small

maintain

valued,

that

the

Pennsylvania

proposed

regulated

requirements

David

three

included

government

requires

and

525,4

are

public

definition

use

the

Title

tbr

adopting

businesses

listing

primacy

school

ill

large

small

costs definitions

the

cessation

public

Sumner.

civil

the

and

control

the

Federal

site

also

addresses

further

tile

3,733

State

Llnsdictinn V

rulemaking

notiiication comment

errors

community

notification

relerence

are

e definition

businesses

echoed

grant,

are

cities,

revegetation,

husinesses.

Pciin.svlvunhi

penalty, amends

district,

separately

fluent

commenters

the

entities to

Anthracite

additional

coal

Association

explain lheil

rules

will

Executive

“I

the

and

ikclv

are

updat

tic

inconsistencies

which

boroughs,

hail

mining

operations

these

limitations

ities.

penod

data

Federal

over

the

upclati

and

amended:

institution

(10

should

was

16-I

for

Fir

by to

alike,

macis’’

what

negligible.

defined

ed.

“surface

not

The

following

revisions

save funds

concerns. Council

lbr

the

what

registered

local

this

the

requirements

J3ullctbi

and

adopted

regulations

Director

that

of’l’ownship

change

government.

these

the

Since

incorporated

regulations means

receive

regulation

rulemaking

time

organivation

“haul

the

for quali

governments

about

closed

the

sizing

bituminous

Section

mining

was

iii

regtil

bituminous

Independent

Section

processes:

the

Tile and

term

One

this

mail

lies

clehnittons

road’’

reflect

fifty

authority

October

[he

concerned

and

notice

amendments

notifying

monetary

atory

will

final—Ibmi

requirement.

amendment

used

Supervisors

88.

will

activities’’,

>ovenlber

The

stormwater

Board

towns

percent

86.1

the

coal

names,

the

general

comprised

I be

surthee

‘‘haul

amflelldments

apply

for

the

was

loss

unucrground

27,

Federal

created

Regulatory

municipality

address

as: and

surihce

describe

local

mining

and

mining that

process

resources

201

too

rulemaking

road’’

statutory

its

“A

consistently

program

are program

and

mines,

relating

26,

townships,

the

approprtately—si

(PSATS)

program

control

the

May

governments

In broad.

county.

requirements.

mining

primarily

this

(48

permit

the

coal

addition. pennit

term

the

about

any

are

Review

16.

for

the

mines,

concern.

citations,

language

which

Pa.

where

seeding

maintenance,

Language processes

facilities.

mining

primarily

“public

primacy

one

Comments

city,

reverts

and

all

activities.,

stormwater calculation

applications.

applicatmon.

among

400

and

administrative,

businesses,

1RRC

6844)

the anthracite

Commission

IRRC

certain

the

borough.

businesses,

adds

Specifically,

period

illecting

program

used

to rem

roads” permit

upper

mining

would

between

was

all

administrative,

December

the noted

(smaller)

with

this

noted

that

were

operations

collateral

such

threshold

control

included

that

onginal the

limit

The

town.

as applications.

mining

define

the and

hnal—fonIl

because threaten

provision

the

and

that

reeei

requirements

that

used

the

most

(IRRC’).

proposed

the

tinal—fonn

was

the

lbr

totaled

correcting

30,

facility

the

operator

Section

what

bonds

impact

lbr

Fir

tile

2019

the

for a

stream on—line

entries criteria

used

93.7 other

criteria determined The

Lists effluent and 25

using The ‘I’eehnical

In Ligand antidegradation specific triennial

consist

Protection The

implemented proposed

necessary, Council, the

and includes

Pennsylvania’s

Mr. Department’s

consistent

in Other

Department

1313) addition,

the

Pa.

Pennsylvania 402

discussed

Triennial

P David

Department

Table

things:

the

nal—

requires

final— comments

(‘ode

redesiunauon

found

table

for

Model calculations

address

the

limitations,

numerical

review

representation

the

latest

rulemaking.

form

the

(

Agency with

their

copper

Sumner.

Department for

corrections lbrm

he Chapter

Pennsylvania

add

for

LT)

designated recommendation

the

(BLM)

that

Review

local

available

Environmental

rulemaking

scientific

water

Clean

Federal

the

policy.

Drainage

water

ammonia

imposing

collaborated

rulemaking.

a were

committee Anthracite

nnal—iorm

and

definition

its

(EPA)

states

continual

Executive

water

nilemakings,

fteshwater

93.

quality

water

Streams

quality

This

will

narrative

individual

Thus,

are

from

requirement

for

Section

used

uses

periodically.

Lists

under

W’ater

and

specific

pennitting

quality

[louse

made

formation

included

quality a

meetings. Council.

rLtlelllaklng

anthracite

standards

for

changes

water

standards.

required

with

list

for

bacteria

Protection

Director

Law

utles

that

systems;

the

criteria

the

7—day

303(c)(l

Quality

some of

sources

conditions

including

regulatory the

standards.

(CS

the quality

the

CWA.

amendments

surthec

site—specific

use

Representatives,

discussion

93.9a—93.9z,

and

the

and

Mining but

for 30

and

average

arc

water heavy

surthee

tinal—lbrm

L) necessary

of This

with

and

(Department)

County

)

other

policies

its

of CFR

the Standards

updates

and

designed

Section

standards

iii

waters

consolidating

pollution.

April

least

(hardness,

add

rulemaking

quality

requirements.

the

development

the

metals

and

NOAA

(‘WA

mine 773.6(a)(3).

pollution

93.Sc

criteria

Federal

Conservation

reference

wheh

developed

* several

once

rulemaking

oceuning

25,

Reclamation

304(a):

93.

RAB.

operators,

achieve

standards

criteria;

Section

are

and

Table

(#7—534)

this

2019.

online

Pa.

implement

every’ will

- p1-I.

;

are

that

instreain

control

constitutes

Clean

update

the

MRAB

Commonwealth,

and

Code

clarify

l’he

such

provide

not 5

etc.)

meeting,

have

and

tool.

303.

Pennsylvania

three

clarify

new for

move

ref

final—form

the

:\IRA

Districts,

the

being

Advisory

Water

93.Sd(l)

the

Chapter

the

measures.

many

maintain

for

use Regulation,

been The

water

the

All

United rmatting

years,

Pennsylvania

United

treatment

written

water

lorward

Pennsylvania’s

use

updated

designations

requirements the

addressed

comments

93.Sc(a)

Act water

voted

developed

human

(2)

qttality in

the

93.Sd(e) 93

review

Department

rulemaking Board

States

quality

((WA,

Ihose

States

Senate

lormula—based along

that

ofseveral

December

notice,

Citi/ens

quality in

requirements

water Legislation

order

health

how

the

goals

identifies concur

(MRAB),

uses

Geological

and Coal

were

Environmental

that criteria

and

which

regulatory

separate

quality

\ahues

current

standards

to.

develop

revise

Advisory

and

criteria

that

amends

USCA.

reviewed

Drainage Sections

Alliance,

the

addressed

the

30,

are

stream

with

among

and

in an

are

Biotie

being

2019

which

are

and

new

the

5 §

Mr. David Sumner. Executive Director -4- December 30, 2019

Survey’(USGS) National Hydrography Dataset (NI-ID) ilowline. The NI-ID flowline forms the basis of the Department’s Designated and Existing Use Geographic lnihnnation System (GIS) layers. The corrections do not change the current stream use designations. Exeenflatis (a;’ fIshabk/su’im,nabk’ na/ct’s: The Department routinely reevaluates, as part of its triennial review of water quality standards, the two water bodies where the fishable or swimmable uses specified in Section 101(a)(2) of the CWA required uses are not being met: (I) the Harbor Basin and entrance channel to Outer Eric Harbor! Presque Isle Bay (* 93.9x). and (2) several zones within a portion of the Delaware Estuary ( 93.9e and g). BeeaLisethe same conditions and hazards exist today, for the excluded portion of Lake Erie, no change is made to the designated use fix Outer Eric l-larbor/Presque Isle Bay, and the water

contact sports (WC) use remains excluded from the designated uses in § 93.9x.

The WC use remains excluded from the designated uses lix portions of the Delaware Estuary, [hr river miles 108.4 to 81.8 because of continuing significant impacts from combined sewer overflows (CSOs), and hazards associated with commercial shipping and navigation. However, the Board received comments indicating there are m il tipie instances where commcnters have participated in and documented water contact on this stretch of the Delaware RIvcr and Estuary.

in response to these comments, the Department wil I liii tiate an eflbrt with Delaware River Basin

Commission (DRBC’)to reevaluate the applicable standards, and an updated recommendation regarding tile WC use will be considered in the next triennial review of water quality standards, ol lowing outcome of this collaboration.

In addition, limited uses [hr Zones 3 and 4 of the Delaware Estuary were also incorporated into Drainage Lists F and G ( 93,9e and g), which do mlot meet the Section 10 I(a)(2) lishable uses. Ubese are described as Warm Water Fishes (\V\VF) (Manltenance Only’) and Migratory Fishes (M F) (i’assage Dilly) br tidal portions of the basin, from river mile 108.4 to Ihe Pennsylvania— Delaware state border. The current designated uses within tllese Zoiles do not include propagation and thus refer to DRBC’s standards which were developed to protect fish maintenance and passage only. Recent data and observations, however, suggest recovery is occurring in propagation for some species in portiomlsof these Zones. Therefhre, DRBC initiated an evaluation of available data for resident and anadromous fishes collected since 2000, in an attempt to quantify spawning and early life stages and tIle extent of success ful reproduction for estuarine species. The Department continues to work in cooperation with DRBC, and EPA to prepare a resolution describing DRBC’s next steps [‘orinlproving the recovery takimlgplace in the lower river and estuary it should be recognized that tile demonstrated recovery in tile propagation use mr tllese Zones has occurred under the long’—term implenlentatioml of tile current criteria.

Tile Department provided speci lie rationale and other documentation that support the recommended amendments, revisions, and additions for this final—fbnnrulenlaking.

This final—formrulemaking includes revisions to water quality criteria and corrections or clarifications to designated uses. Facilities with point source discharges of treated wastewater to waters of the Commonwealth may be affected since all discharges are assigned effluent limits consistent with aellieving water quality standards, including all applicable water quality criteria

Regulatory

The

Laura Sincerely,

questions 1

Please The

rulemaking

Enclosures 20]

(WRAC)

Board

Board.

public southeast public

the

published

in was The

which based

70—day aflbrded

Norristown. Pittsburgh CWA The

\Vilkes—Barre

this

approval

implemented and

Mr.

preparing

public

designated

Commonwealth

Department held

final—form Board

proposed

regulatory David

Edinger

(33

hearings.

contact prevent

hearings

public

concur

existing

actions.

April

area

comment

U.S.C.A

mininutm

(Southwest

update

received

Sumner,

Coordinator

under

its

January

need

ibis Pennsylvania.

the

(Nord

rulemaking

comment

pollution

November

rulemaking

revisions

25,

uses.

the

The

Pennsylvania

will

the

Iinal—tbrm

the

additional

regulations.

Section

for

December

2019.

§l25l—l3S7)

Department’s

comments

Executive

period

Department

east

30, and

Board Commonwealth.

The

level

provide

e—mail

this

Region

period

aiid

201

are

have

Region

nile

final—Ibrin

29.

5.1(e) was

The

was

also

rulemaking.

protect

consistent

protection

assistance

2018,

will

extended, The been

—

Bulletin

Formation.

adopted

ledingcrc2upa.gov

Director

from

that

extended

discussed

SWRO).

recejved

of since

—

the

recommendation

NERO).

and

and revisions

the

was

developed

and

existing

776

rulemaking

Department’s

implemented

Ibis

the

Regulatory

14.

with

through

scheduled

April

and

coniinenters

public

respectively.

comments

with

October

early

the

CSL.

necessary

20t7.

reqLlest

Harrisburg

antidegradation

extend

water

that

Board

IX,

thc

comment

compliance All

was

980s.

part

2019,

Water

Review

21,

uses.

was

Southeast

through

the

appropriate

additional

surface from

—

also

end

and

present

telephone

The

2017

(Southcentral

The

its

Department’s

granted. hicil

—

meetings.

Resources

December

IRRC.

pro’icled

testimony

period

April

Act.

Board

established

revisions

Ike

waters

itate

(47

requirements

with

Regional

the

public

Department’s

protections

The

Pa.B.

18,

All

ended

IRRC’s

the

received

WRAC

nal—tbrm

717.783.8727

2017

Advisory

29,

from

comments

additional

Region

are

water

Regional

hearing

this

Agricultural

6609)

Office

program

2017.

consistent

review

meeting.

seven

Commonwealth

established

voted

lebruary

comments

quality

December

rulemaking with

—

permit

all

Committee

(SERO)

SCRO),

The

Offices

public

were

witnesses

that

held

waterbodies

provision

Advisory

and

Board

standards.

the

you

with

May

has

and

addressed

requesting

hearing

in and

30,

was

enclosed in

have

201

the

been

and

the

23,

held

2019

are

the

lix

the

any

of a

______

0120-FM-P0001 1 612015 COMMONWEALTHOF PENNSYLVANIA 9!b pennsylvania DEPARTMENTOF ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION • DEPAflMENTOFENV3RONMENTAL POLICYOFFICE f PRUTECflON TRANSMITTAL SHEET FOR REGULATIONS SUBJECT TO THE REGULATORY REVIEW ACT

ID. NUMBER: 7-53L( - SUBJECT:Tf4(flflWti -ta o- c,

Q Proposed Regulation Final Regulation E Final Regulation with Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Omitted r 120-day Emergency Certification of the Attorney General TI

O 120-day Emergency Certification of the Governor o Delivery of Tolled Regulation a. Q With Revisions b. fl Without Revisions

FILING OF REGULATION DATE SIGNATURE - DESIGNATION

Majority Cha, HOUSE 2 & & ENERGY

—

Minority Chair, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON l€2-3D-p 4JJ...-U f1-LL---— ENVIRONMENTAL ROUIjCES & ENERGY rtAJ&H”U VL1tLU. j / Majority Chair, SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVlRONMENTL RESOURCES & ENERGY / ‘ / U ‘21t javJ

— Minority Chair, SENATE COMMITTEE ON l—3o-i ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES & ENERGY

Li INDEPENDENT REGULATORY REVIEW COMMISSION jEklvc(Stt,M air ATTORNEY GENERAL (for Final Omitted only)

LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE BUREAU (for Proposed only)