Jndependeiit Replaiory fevfew Commiss m
(1) Agency: ^ MB Department of Environmental Protection 13 m (2) Agency Number: m Identification Number: 7-438 IRRC Number: 2834
(3) Short Title: Stream Redesignations, Ciarks Creek, et al.
(4) PA Code Cite: 25 Pa. Code, Chapter 93
(5) Agency Contacts (List Telephone Number, Address5 Fax Number and Email Address):
Primary Contact: Micheie Tate; 717-783-8727; RCSOB, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, PA 17105; mtate&Mate.pa us Secondary Contact: Patricia Allan, 717-783-8727; RCSOB, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, PA 17105; vmallanGSbjstate.pa. us
(6) Primary Contact for Public Comments (List Telephone Number, Address, Fax Number and Email Address) - Complete if different from #5:
Environmental Quality Board, P.O. Box 8477, Harrisburg, PA 17105 Express Mail: Environmental Quality Board, Rachel Carson State Office Building, 16th Floor, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101-2301 Email: [email protected]
(All Comments will appear on IRRC'S website) (7) Type of Rulemaking (check applicable box): D Proposed Regulation 0 Final Regulation • Final Omitted Regulation Q Emergency Certification Regulation; O Certification by the Governor Q Certification by the Attorney General (8) Briefly explain the regulation in clear and nontechnical language. (100 words or less)
This ralemaking modifies Chapter 93 to reflect the recommended redesignation of streams shown on the attached list. The changes include streams being recommended for redesignation as High Quality (HQ) or Exceptional Value (EV) Waters. The changes provide the appropriate designated use for these streams to protect existing uses. These changes may5 upon implementation, result in more stringent treatment requirements for new and/or expanded wastewater discharges to the streams in order to protect the existing and designated water uses, (see attachment)
(9) Include a schedule for review of the regulation including:
A. The date by which the agency must receive public comments: The 45 day public comment period opened with the publication of the proposed ralemaking in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on April 295 2010 (40 Pa.B, 2122) and closed on June 89 2010.
B. The date or dates on which public meetings or hearings will be held: If sufficient interest is generated, a public hearing will be scheduled at an appropriate time and location.
C. The expected date of promulgation of the proposed regulation as a final-form regulation: It is anticipated that the final-form regulation will be promulgated in the spring of 2011. The publication date for the final ralemaking in the Pennsylvania Bulletin will be the effective date for the regulation and compliance with the final-form regulation will be required at that time.
D. The expected effective date of the final-form regulation: Spring of 2011 (see question #9C.)
E. The date by which compliance with the final-form regulation will be required: Spring of 2011 (see Question #9C.)
F. The date by which required permits, licenses or other approvals must be obtained: Permits or approvals that are issued or renewed after the effective date of the final-form regulation will comply with the final-form regulation.
(10) Provide the schedule for continual review of the regulation.
This regulation will be reviewed in accordance with the sunset review schedule published by the Department to determine whether the regulation effectively fulfills the goals for which it was intended.
(11) State the statutory authority for the regulation. Include specific statutory citation.
These amendments are made under authority of the following acts: The Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law, Act of June 22, 1937 (P.L. 1987, No. 394) as amended, 35P.S.§ 691.1 etseq. Section 1920-A of The Administrative Code of 1929, as amended, 71 P.S. § 510-20. 40 CFR §131.12 Section 303 of the Federal Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1313.
(12) 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.
Although this regulation is not specifically mandated by Federal or state law or regulations, Section 303 (c) of the federal Clean Water Act requires that states review their water quality standards and modify them, as appropriate, at least once every three years. This regulation is undertaken as part of the Department's ongoing review of Pennsylvania's water quality standards. There are no deadlines for action associated with the regulation. Until this regulation is adopted, however, it will be difficult to ensure that the Department is providing the appropriate designated uses of these streams. Although there are no deadlines for action, this proposed regulation should be acted on promptly to ensure an appropriate level of protection to preserve the integrity of existing and designated uses of surface waters in this Commonwealth.
(13) 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.
These regulations are needed to provide the appropriate designated use protection for the streams being revised to mirror the existing use. These amendments will minimize the potential for unwarranted additional treatment costs, or the risk of being under-protective, which could lead to jeopardizing the uses and continued availability of these aquatic resources.
(14) If scientific data, studies, references are used to justify this regulation, please submit material with the regulatory package. Please provide full citation and/or links to internet source.
Please see the attached reports (six): Water Quality Standards Reviews, Stream Redesignation Evaluations • Pine Creek (Schuylkill Co) • Cacoosing Creek (Berks Co) • UNT Schuylkill River; Spring Mill Run (Montgomery Co) • UNT Lackawanna River; Clarks Creek (Wayne Co) • UNT Conestoga River (Lancaster Co) • Hammer Creek (Lancaster & Lebanon Co's)
(15) Describe who and how many will be adversely affected by the regulation. How are they affected? The streams that are recommended for redesignation are already protected at their existing use, and therefore the designated use changes will have no impact on existing wastewater discharges. Persons proposing new or expanded activities or projects which result in discharges to these and/or other waters of the Commonwealth are required to provide effluent treatment and best management practices according to the water quality criteria and designated and existing uses. This regulation will be implemented through the Department's permit and approval actions. (16) List the persons, groups or entities that will be required to comply with the regulation. Approximate the number of people who will be required to comply.
See Question #15. Persons proposing new or expanded activities or projects which result in impacts to these waters of the Commonwealth must comply with this regulation by providing the appropriate level of wastewater treatment for discharges or best management practices in these waters.
(17) 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 required. Explain how the dollar estimates were derived.
The streams recommended for redesignation are already protected at their existing use. and therefore the designated use revision will have no impact on existing waste discharges. This regulation may5 upon implementation, affect new and expanded activities associated with these streams. For example, dischargers planning to add new or expand existing discharges to streams upgraded may experience higher treatment costs. The increased costs may take the fonn of higher engineering, construction, or operating costs for wastewater treatment facilities. It is not possible to precisely predict the actual change in costs since these are site-specific and depend upon the size of the receiving stream and many other factors. (18) Provide a specific estimate of the costs and/or savings to local governments associated with compliance, including any legal, accounting or consulting procedures which may be required. Explain how the dollar estimates were derived.
See Question 17.
No costs will be imposed directly upon local government by this regulation. However, there may, upon implementation, be additional indirect costs incurred by local governments that may take the form of engineering and consulting fees needed to review and possibly revise existing Act 557 sewage Facilities Plans and local ordinances.
(19) Provide a specific estimate of the costs and/or savings to state 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. See Questions 17 and 18.
This rulemaking is based on and will be implemented through existing Department programs, procedures, and policies. There are no additional implementation costs to state government associated with this regulation.
(20) 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 FY+1 FY+2 FY+3 FY+4 FY+5 2010-2011 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-2016 SAVINGS: $ $ $ $ $ $ Regulated Community Not Measurable Local Government
u State Government u
Total Savings SC COSTS: Regulated Community Not Measurable Local Government a State Government a Total Costs a REVENUE LOSSES: Regulated Community Not Measurable Local Government a State Government a Total Revenue Losses u (20a) Provide the past three year expenditure history for programs affected by the regulation.
Program FY-3 FY-2 •- FY-1 Current FY 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 Environmental $98,574,000 $98,544,000 $84,218,000 $79,344,000 Protection Operations (160-10381) Environmental $39,685,000 $37,664,000 $31,100,000 $29,357,000 Program Management (161-10382)
(21) Explain how the benefits of the regulation outweigh any cost and adverse effects.
Although it is not possible to approximate the change in costs, the Department believes that the benefits of providing the appropriate level of designated use protection and continued maintenance and availability of the Commonwealth's aquatic resources outweigh the potential costs or adverse effects of this regulation. (22) Describe the communications with and input from the public and any advisory council/group in the development and drafting of the regulation. List the specific persons and/or groups who were involved.
See attached.
(23) Include 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 that could have been considered when applying the appropriate designated use in 25 Pa.Code, Chapter 93, Water Quality Standards, to mirror the existing uses of these aquatic resources.
(24) 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 recommended redesignations are not more stringent than the companion federal standards allow.
(25) How does this regulation compare with those of other states? How will this affect Pennsylvania's ability to compete with other states? Other states are also required to maintain water quality standards that include similar minimum antidegradation requirements, and to provide additional protection for surface waters that are considered ecologically significant and/or outstanding local resource waters.
These regulations should not put Pennsylvania at a competitive disadvantage with other states. These amendments are intended to provide the appropriate level of designated use protection for the streams listed.
(26) Will the regulation affect any other regulations of the promulgating agency or other state agencies? If yes, explain and provide specific citations.
No other regulations or State Agencies are affected by this rulemaking.
(27) 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.
No additional reporting, record keeping, or other paperwork will be required.
(28) Please list any special provisions which have been developed to meet the particular needs of affected groups or persons including, but not limited to, minorities, elderly, small businesses, and farmers.
There are no such provisions in this regulation.
Regulatory Analysis Form Attachment to Question 8
Stream Redesignations Clarks Creek, et al.
Current Requested Recommended Stream** County Reach** List Designation* Designation* Designation* CWF,MF Pine Creek Schuylkill Basin F CWF, MF EV (no change) Cacoosing Basin (except Little Berks F None CWF, MF Creek Cacoosing Creek) — Little Cacoosing Berks Basin F None ... WWF, MF Creek UNT 00926 to Schuylkill River Montgomery Basin F WWF, MF HQ/EV CWF, MF (Spring Mill Run) UNT 28600 to Lackawanna Wayne Basin J CWF, MF HQ-CWF EV,MF River (Clarks Creek) UNT 07792 to Conestoga Lancaster Basin O WWF, MF CWF CWF, MF River Basin, source to second Rexmont Road crossing HQ-CWF, MF Hammer Creek Lebanon (downstream of the two O HQ-CWF, MF TSF (no change) former water supply reservoirs) Basin, second Rexmont Hammer Creek Lebanon Road crossing to but not o HQ-CWF, MF TSF CWF, xMF including UNT 07678 Basin, from and including HQ-CWF, MF Hammer Creek Lancaster UNT 07678 downstream HQ-CWF, MF TSF o (no change) to Walnut Run Walnut Run Lancaster Basin o HQ-CWF, MF TSF EV, MF Basin, Walnut Run to inlet HQ-CWF, MF Hammer Creek Lancaster HQ-CWF, MF TSF of Speedwell Forge Lake o (no change) Basin, Inlet of Speedwell Hammer Creek Lancaster HQ-CWF, MF TSF WWF, MF Forge Lake to UNT 07671 o UNT 07671 to HQ-CWF, MF Lancaster Basin HQ-CWF, MF TSF Hammer Creek o (no change) Basin, UNT 07671 Hammer Creek Lancaster downstream to Speedwell o HQ-CWF, MF TSF WWF, MF Forge Lake Dam
Corrective Amendment
Clarion / Basin (except Little Toms Run R CWF — EV Forest Hefren Run)
* WWF = Warm Water Fishes HQ = High Quality TSF= Trout Stocking EV = Exceptional Value CWF= Cold Water Fishes MF = Migratory Fishes
** UNT = Unnamed Tributary
Page 9
Clarks Creek, et al. Stream Redesignation Package Final Rulemaking Regulatory Analysis Form: Attachment to Question 22
Potentially affected municipalities were notified by letter of the stream evaluations and asked to provide any readily available data. In addition, data was requested from the public through a notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin and newspaper notices. Following the completion of a stream evaluation, a report is prepared. The affected municipalities were notified of the availability of the draft evaluation report for their review and comment. The draft reports were posted on the Division of Water Quality Standards web page.
Technical data was received concerning Pine Creek (Schuylkill Co). In response to these notifications, the Rush Township Environmental Council submitted a report prepared by Skelly and Loy and excerpts from a second report prepared by Kimball and Associates, Inc. for the Schuylkill Conservation District. The Skelly and Loy report contained information on instream habitat, water chemistry, and the benthic macroinvertebrate community. Water chemistry data was collected in Fall 1998, Spring 1999, Spring 2000 and Fall 2000. Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected in the Spring of 1999 and 2000. An assessment of the instream and riparian habitat was conducted in the Fall of 2001. The second report contained data on two water chemistry parameters pH and CaCC>3. These were listed as averages of four samples collected over the period December 1998 through October 2000.
Technical data and comments were received concerning Hammer Creek (Lebanon & Lancaster Co's). David Correll from the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center provided water chemistry data for Hammer Creek. The Department received letters from the Hammer Creek Watershed Association, Heidelberg and Warwick Townships, PennEnvironment, and the Pennsylvania Chapter of the Sierra Club in opposition to the changing of designation.
The Hammer Creek report and original recommendations (June 2007) to remove the HQ designation from the Hammer Creek basin and change the designated use of Speedwell Forge Lake to Warm Water Fishes (WWF) were provided to the petitioner and posted on DEP's web page for public review and comment. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) submitted a letter opposing the Department's findings and a report (CBF 2008) summarizing conditions of the Hammer Creek watershed.
All data and comments received in response to these notifications were considered in the determination of the Department's recommendations which were included in the proposed rulemaking. The EQB approved the proposed rulemaking for the Clarks Creek, et al. package at its February 16, 2010 meeting. The proposed rulemaking was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on April 24, 2010 (40 Pa.B 2122) with provision for a 45-day public comment period that closed on June 8,2010.
Page 10 Clarks Creek Package; Regulatory Analysis Form; Attachment to Q22
Comments were received from ten commentators during the official comment period. One commentator was discouraged that Pine Creek did not qualify for special protection and submitted additional data for consideration. The other nine commentators were largely opposed to redesignating Hammer Creek from HQ-CWF, MF to CWF, MF for the portion of the basin extending from the second Rexmont Road crossing to but not including UNT 07678. These other nine commentators included concerned residents, conservancy and watershed organizations, the Lebanon and Lancaster County Conservation Districts, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF), and one Pennsylvania State Representative.
A list of the individual commentators along with a detailed summary of their comments and the Department's responses to their comments is included with the regulatory documents that comprise the Clarks Creek, et al. Stream Redesignatioris Final Rulemaking Package (see the Report to the Environmental Quality Board: Response to Comments)
Additional remarks were received from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 3 outside of the official comment period. The EPA commended DEP on its continuing effort to evaluate and properly designate surface waters of the Commonwealth, especially protecting existing water quality and uses through its antidegradation program, but EPA raised questions regarding the Hammer Creek stream report. The Department replied to the specific questions regarding the Hammer Creek stream report in a letter to EPA Region 3.
On April 14,2010, the Department submitted a copy of the proposed rulemaking published at 40 Pa.B. 2122 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 in accordance with Section 5(a) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P.S. § 745.5(a)). IRRC did not raise any comments, recommendations, or objections to any portion of the proposed rulemaking, and no changes were made from the proposed rulemaking to this final-form regulation; therefore under Section 5(g) of Regulatory Review Act, the final rulemaking will be deemed approved by IRRC.
Public meetings and/or hearings will be scheduled if needed to receive additional comments or suggestions on specific recommendations in this proposal.
Page 11 CDL-1
FACE SHEET FOR FILING DOCUMENTS WITH THE LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE RECEIVED BUREAU IRRG
(Pursuant to Commonwealth Documents Law) 2011 JUN t b P trOb DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE
Copy below is hereby approved as to form and legality. Copy below is hereby certified to be true and Copy below i&nereby approved as to form and legality Attorney General correct copy of a document issued, prescribed or Executive o^fdependent Agencies promulgated by:
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL By: PROTECTION (Deputy Attorney General) ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD DATE OF *|3IfUg2DH (AGENCY) (Deputy General Counsel) (Chief cuuiioui" ''^gP^g'1 Au-CTcy) DOCUMENT/FISCAL NOTE NO. 7-438 DATE OF APPROVAL "k§>5 Check if applicable. No Attorney General Approval DATE OF ADOPTION MaV 18]J2fl^1 ^--9 or objection within 30 days after submission.
1® Check if applicable Copy not approved. Objections attached. BY
TITLE MICHAEL KRANCER CHAIRMAN
EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHAIRMAN OR SECRETARY
NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD
Clarks Creek, et al Stream Redesignations
25 Pa. Code, Chapter 93
NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD 25 Pa. Code, Chapter 93 Stream Redesignations (Clarks Creek, et al.)
Order
The Environmental Quality Board (Board) by this order amends 25 Pa. Code §§93.9f, 93.9j, 93.9o? and 93.9r to read as set forth in Annex A.
This order was adopted by the Board at its meeting of May 18, 2011,
A. Effective Date
These amendments are effective upon publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin as final-form rulemaking.
B. Contact Persons
For further information, contact Rodney A. Kime, Chief, Division of Water Quality Standards, Bureau of Water Standards and Facility Regulation, 1 lth Floor, Rachel Carson State Office Building, P.O. Box 8467, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8467, 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 by calling 1-800-654-5984 (TDD-users) or 1-800-654-5988 (voice users). This proposal is available electronically through the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) web site (http://www.depweb.state.pa.us).
C. Statutory and Regulatory Authority
This final-form rulemaking is being made under the authority of Sections 5(b)(l) and 402 of The Clean Streams Law (35 P.S. §§ 691.5 (b)(l) and 691.402), which authorizes the Board to develop and adopt rules and regulations to implement the provisions of The Clean Streams Law, 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, Section 303 of the Federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1313) sets forth requirements for water quality standards.
D. Background of the Proposed Amendments
Water quality standards are in-stream water quality goals that are implemented by imposing specific regulatory requirements (such as treatment requirements, effluent limits and best management practices) on individual sources of pollution. The Department may identify candidates for redesignation during routine waterbody investigations. Requests for consideration may also be initiated by other agencies. Organizations, businesses, or individuals may submit a rulemaking petition to the Board.
The Department considers candidates for High Quality (HQ) or Exceptional Value (EV) Waters and all other designations in its ongoing review of water quality standards. In general, HQ and EV waters must be maintained at their existing quality and permitted activities shall ensure the protection of designated and existing uses.
Existing use protection is provided when the Department determines, based on its evaluation of the best available scientific information, that a surface water attains water uses identified in regulations at 25 Pa. Code sections 93.3 and 93.4. Examples of water uses protected include the following: Cold Water Fishes (CWF), Warm Water Fishes (WWF), HQ and EV. A final existing use determination is made on a surface water at the time the Department takes a permit or approval action on a request to conduct an activity that may impact surface water. If the determination demonstrates that the existing use is different than the designated use, the water body will immediately receive the best protection identified by either the attained uses or the designated uses. A stream will then be "redesignated" through the rulemaking process to match the existing uses with the designated uses. For example, if the designated use of a stream is listed as protecting WWF but the redesignation evaluation demonstrates that the water attains the use of CWF, the stream would immediately be protected for CWF, prior to a rulemaking. Once the Department determines the water uses attained by a surface water, the Department will recommend to the Board that the existing uses be made "designated" uses, through rulemaking, and be added to the list of uses identified in the regulation at 25 Pa. Code section 93.9.
The following streams were evaluated in response to four petitions, as well as requests from the Department's Southcentral Regional Office (SCRO) and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC), and a corrective amendment by the Bureau of Water Standards and Facility Regulation (BWSFR):
Pine Creek (Schuylkill Co) = Petition: (Friends of Pine Creek) Cacoosing Creek (Berks Co) - SCRO Unnamed Tributary 00926 to Schuylkill River; locally Spring Mill Run (Montgomery Co) - Petition: (Steven S. Brown, Chairman; Whitemarsh Township Environmental Advisory Board) Unnamed Tributary 28600 to Lackawanna River; locally Clarks Creek (Wayne Co) - Petition: (Glen Abello) Unnamed Tributary 07792 to Conestoga River (Lancaster Co) - PFBC Hammer Creek (Lebanon and Lancaster Co's) -Petition: (Heidelberg Township) Toms Run (Clarion and Forest Co's) - Correction (BWSFR)
The regulatory changes included in this rulemaking were developed as a result of aquatic studies conducted by the BWSFR. The physical, chemical, and biological characteristics and other information on these waterbodies were evaluated to determine the appropriateness of the current and requested designations using applicable regulatory criteria and definitions. In reviewing whether waterbodies qualify as HQ or EV waters, the Department considers the criteria in § 93.4b (relating to qualifying as High Quality or Exceptional Value Waters). Based upon the data and information collected on these waterbodies, the Board has made the designations in Annex A.
E. Summary of Comments and Responses on the Proposed Rulemaking
The Board approved the proposed rulemaking for the Clarks Creek, et al. package at its February 16, 2010 meeting. The proposed rulemaking was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on April 24, 2010 (40 Pa.B 2122) with provision for a 45-day public comment period that closed on June 8, 2010. Comments were received from ten commentators during the official comment period. One commentator was discouraged that Pine Creek did not qualify for special protection. The other nine commentators were largely opposed to redesignating Hammer Creek from HQ-CWF, MF to CWF, MF for the portion of the basin extending from the second Rexmont Road crossing to but not including UNT 07678. These commentators included concerned residents, conservancy and watershed organizations, the Lebanon and Lancaster County Conservation Districts, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF), and one Pennsylvania State Representative.
PINE CREEK COMMENTS
Friends of Pine Creek (petitioner) submitted comments expressing dissatisfaction that Pine Creek did not qualify for special protection. Along with their comments, they submitted additional water chemistry data in hopes that the Department would evaluate it and find the additional data to be sufficient to redesignate Pine Creek as a special protection water.
The Board is encouraged that it received public support for elevated protection of Pine Creek; however, the Department examined the newly submitted data and found it was insufficient to redesignate Pine Creek. The Board's final regulations retain the designated use of Pine Creek found in 25 Pa. Code §93.9f.
HAMMER CREEK: SUPPORTIVE COMMENTS
The Board received comments that applaud efforts to redesignate Walnut Run (a tributary to Hammer Creek in Lancaster County) to EV.
HAMMER CREEK: OPPOSING COMMENTS
Nine commentators were largely opposed to the redesignation of Hammer Creek from HQ-CWF, MF to CWF, MF for the portion of the basin extending from the second Rexmont Road crossing to but not including UNT 07678.
The Board disagrees with the commentators assessments. The Department conducted an extensive review of historical data, recent field surveys and land use reviews. The review has determined that the portion of the upper Hammer Creek basin from the second Rexmont Road crossing to but not including UNT 07678 does not now display and has not in the past displayed existing uses characteristic of special protection classification. Correctly defining the designated use based on the appropriate existing use will not have a negative impact on current water quality. The Department is required to periodically review and revise its water quality standards as necessary. This correction to Hammer Creek's designated use is such an action that strives for designation accuracy, while preserving the integrity of existing and designated use classifications in this Commonwealth.
Two of the Hammer Creek commentators expressed concern for the potential degradation of downstream waters if the upstream restrictions are loosened.
Providing the appropriate (albeit less restrictive) designated use for these reaches will not adversely affect conditions in downstream waters with a more restrictive designated use. Hammer Creek basin from and including UNT 07678 to the inlet of Speedwell Forge Lake will retain its special protection designation and its water quality will be protected under the antidegradation requirements.
Comments were received that identified ongoing collaborative efforts to restore and improve the Hammer Creek watershed. Such efforts include restoration by watershed associations, county conservation districts, residents, local communities, and other local organizations. The work has included offering technical assistance and cost-share opportunities to watershed landowners and farmers to implement best management practices reducing sediment and nutrients to the Hammer Creek. These efforts have been bolstered by support from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and a Growing Greener Grant which allowed the completion of 9916 feet of stream bank fencing and the establishment of 9916 feet of riparian buffer zone. Additional fencing and stream bank stabilization work was also completed. In addition, concern was raised that the proposed regulation did not comply with the Executive Order from President Barrack Obama to accelerate improvements in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
The Board recognizes that the Department continuously seeks to restore and improve water quality by working with watershed associations, local residents and farmers, communities and organizations and the Department is grateful for their hard work which is often conducted by volunteers and funded through donations and state funds. Defining the correct existing use will not diminish the value of these local efforts. The final regulations do not undermine the Executive Order from President Barrack Obama by accurately categorizing the surface water of Hammer Creek.
Comments were received regarding whether the Department had considered the approval requirements of the Act 537 Plan for Heidelberg Township in its determination of the recommendation for Hammer Creek.
The Board acknowledges that the Department did not consider the approval requirements of the Act 537 Plan for Heidelberg Township while determining its recommendation of the existing and designated use for the Hammer Creek basin. When evaluating the correct existing use, the BWSFR considers the factors in 25 Pa. Code §§ 93.4 and 93.4b. The type of sewage system needed in an area is not a factor in determining this recommendation.
Comments received suggest that with further restorative work, the stream would actually improve and could be classified as exceptional value. The Board concurs with the Department in that restorative work completed to date has led to some water quality improvements and that additional restorative work could result in further improvements. However, past and present land use conditions and the Department's data and modeling review, all indicate the improvements requisite for HQ existing uses, let alone EV, are not realistically achievable without long term changes in land use conditions. If land use changes occur in the watershed that positively affect the water quality, then the stream may be reevaluated in the future.
A commentator disputes the assertion that best management practices (BMPs) cannot remedy the Hammer Creek. The Board concurs with the Department's supportive attitude regarding the restorative efforts in the Hammer Creek watershed that incorporate BMPs. Such improvements involving BMPs in the Basin were acknowledged in the Hammer Creek report. However, the application of BMPs currently only affect a portion of the study area and on a larger scale, the watershed cannot achieve special protection unless permanent land use changes, such as forested buffers and conservation easements are widespread. The Department continues to promote and support best management practices and this redesignation does not indicate otherwise.
Comments suggested that the model employed by the Department to study the effects of BMPs on the Hammer Creek watershed was not appropriately calibrated and that reductions of groundwater inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus were not considered.
To limit error, steps were taken by the Department to match geology and land use as closely as possible. Also, the reference watersheds were in close proximity to each other and adjustments were made in some modeling parameters to account for BMPs and animals in each watershed.
The PredlCT model groups BMPs into 8 general types and does not model specific practices. BMP efficiencies can be adjusted to reflect what is in place or available; therefore there is no actual limitation on the mixture of BMPs. The Department used applicable BMP efficiencies and considered all practical BMPs in its modeling analyses. No suburban or on-site septic system BMPs were included in the analysis because neither one would have provided any significant reduction in loadings. Suburban and urban areas accounted for only 9% of the basin area so those reductions were negligible. The assumption for on-site septic was that it would be converted to a point source discharge and the treatment system would have employed tertiary treatment resulting in very small nutrient loadings to Hammer Creek.
The model did not account for a reduction in groundwater inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus over time. However, for nutrients to appreciably diminish, significant BMP additions and land use conversions (e.g. forested buffers and cessation of agricultural uses) would need to occur. Given the long-term nutrient saturation of the soils since Hammer Creek was agriculturally developed it would take many years before a nutrient decrease would be evident in response to such BMP implementation or land use conversions. This potential delay in the remediation of water quality in response to agricultural BMP's resulting from the reserves of leachable nitrogen in heavily manured soils was recognized and addressed by Koerkle and Gustafson-Minnich, 1997 in a report titled Surface-water Quality Changes After 5 Years of Nutrient Management in the Little Conestoga Creek Headwaters, Pennsylvania, 1989-91 (USGS: Water-Resources Investigations Report 97- 4048). Another confounding factor which could contribute to the lag time between the implementation of BMP's and noted improvements in water quality is the unknown travel times for ground-water. "The time required for the effects of reduced nutrient inputs to travel from the land surface to the ground water, then to be discharged as base flow, could have exceeded the 3.5 year post-BMP monitoring period" in a study by Koerkle, et al. in 1996 titled Evaluation of Agricultural Best-Management Practices in the Conestoga River Headwaters, Pennsylvania: Effects of Nutrient Management on Water Quality in the Little Conestoga Creek Headwaters, 1983-89 (USGS: Water Resources Investigations Report 95-4046).
Concerns were raised that improvements through in-stream habitat restoration and the application of forested riparian buffers were not considered. The Board appreciates the Department's recognition of the ability of improved forested buffers to improve physical in-stream habitat and provide shade from the tree canopy. The benefits from improving forested buffers are vitally supportive of macroinvertebrate and fish populations. These benefits can begin and become noticeable within the first 5 to 10 years of the implementation of the improvement. Over time the tree canopy will mature and provide more shade for the aquatic habitat. It will likely take at least 20 to 25 years for the benefits of newly planted forest buffers to improve the stream quality to a level commensurate with special protection qualifications. If stream improvements are demonstrated by such widespread land use conversions in the watershed, the stream may be eligible for special protection in the future.
HAMMER CREEK: ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Additional remarks were received from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 3 outside of the official comment period. The Department received the letter from the EPA on June 10, 2010. The EPA commended DEP on its continuing effort to evaluate and properly designate surface waters of the Commonwealth, especially protecting existing water quality and uses through its antidegradation program, but EPA raised some questions regarding the Hammer Creek stream report. The Department replied to the specific questions regarding the Hammer Creek stream report in a letter to EPA Region 3.
On April 14, 2010, the Department submitted a copy of the proposed rulemaking published at 40 Pa.B. 2122 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 in accordance with Section 5(a) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P.S. § 745.5(a)). IRRC did not raise any comments, recommendations, or objections to any portion of the proposed rulemaking, and no changes were made from the proposed rulemaking to this final-form regulation; therefore under Section 5(g) of Regulatory Review Act, the final rulemaking will be deemed approved by IRRC.
F. Summary of Changes to the Proposed Rulemaking
No changes were made to the redesignations recommended in the proposed rulemaking.
G. Benefits, Costs and Compliance
1 • Benefits - Overall, the Commonwealth, its citizens and natural resources will benefit from these changes 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 provides economic value to present and future generations in the form of clean water for drinking, recreational opportunities, and aquatic life protection. It is important to realize these benefits to ensure opportunity and development continue in a manner that is environmentally, socially and economically sound. Maintenance of water quality ensures its future availability for all uses. 2. Compliance Costs - The streams recommended for redesignation are already protected at their existing use and therefore the designated use revision will not impose increased compliance costs on the regulated community.
Persons conducting or proposing activities or projects must comply with the regulatory requirements relating to designated and existing uses. 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 or best management practices to meet the designated and existing uses of the stream. For example, these increased costs may take the form of higher engineering, construction or operating cost for point source discharges. Treatment costs and best management practices are site-specific and depend upon the size of the discharge in relation to the size of the stream and many other factors. It is therefore not possible to precisely predict the actual change in costs. Economic impacts would primarily involve the potential for higher treatment costs for new or expanded discharges to streams that are redesignated. The initial costs resulting from the installation of technologically advanced wastewater treatment processes and best management practices may be offset by potential savings from and increased value of improved water quality through more cost-effective and efficient treatment over time.
3. Compliance Assistance Plan - The regulatory revisions have been developed as part of an established program that has been implemented by the Department since the early 1980s. The revisions are consistent with and based on existing Department regulations. The revisions extend additional protection to selected waterbodies that exhibit exceptional water quality and are consistent with antidegradation requirements established by the Federal Clean Water Act and Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law. 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 redesignations will be implemented through the Department's permit and approval actions. For example, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program bases effluent limitations on the use designation of the stream. These permit conditions are established to assure water quality criteria are achieved and designated and existing uses are protected. New and expanded dischargers with water quality based effluent limitations are required to provide effluent treatment according to the water quality criteria associated with existing uses and revised designated water uses.
4. Paperwork Requirements - The regulatory revisions should have no direct paperwork impact on the Commonwealth, local governments and political subdivisions, or the private sector. These regulatory revisions are based on existing Department regulations and simply mirror the existing use protection that is already in place for these streams. There may be some indirect paperwork requirements for new or expanding dischargers to streams upgraded to HQ or EV. For example, NPDES general permits are not currently available for new or expanded discharges to these streams. Thus an individual permit, and its associated paperwork, would be required. Additionally, paperwork associated with demonstrating social and economic justification (SEJ) may be required for new or expanded discharges to certain HQ Waters, and consideration of nondischarge alternatives is required for all new or expanded discharges to EV and HQ Waters.
H. Pollution Prevention
The water quality standards and antidegradation program are major pollution prevention tools because the objective is to prevent degradation by maintaining and protecting existing water quality and existing uses. Although the antidegradation program does not prohibit new or expanded wastewater discharges, nondischarge alternatives are encouraged, and required when environmentally sound and cost effective. Nondischarge alternatives, when implemented, remove impacts to surface water and reduce the overall level of pollution to the environment by remediation of the effluent through the soil.
I. Sunset Review
These amendments will be reviewed in accordance with the sunset review schedule published by the Department to determine whether the regulations effectively fulfill the goals for which they were intended.
J. Regulatory Review
Under Section 5(a) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P.S. § 745.5(a)), on April 14, 2010, the Department submitted a copy of the proposed rulemaking published at 40 Pa.B 2122 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, the Department provided IRRC and the Committees with copies of the comments received, as well as other documentation. The Department has considered all public comments in preparing this final-form regulation. No comments were received on the proposed rulemaking from IRRC.
Under Section 5.10-2) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P.S. § 745.5a(j.2)), this final-form regulation was deemed approved by the House and Senate Committees on . Under Section 5.1(e) of the Regulatory Review Act, IRRC met on and approved the final-form regulation.
K* Findings
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, 1 Pa. Code §§7.1 and 7.2.
(2) A public comment period was provided as required by law, and all comments were considered. (3) This final-form regulation does not enlarge the purpose of the proposal published at 40 Pa.B 2122 (April 24, 2010).
(4) This final-form regulation is necessary and appropriate for administration and enforcement of the authorizing acts identified in Section C of this Order.
(5) This final-form regulation does not contain standards or requirements that exceed requirements of the companion federal regulations.
L. Order
The Board, acting under the authorizing statutes, orders that:
(a) The regulations of the Department, 25 Pa. Code Chapter 93, are amended by amending §§93.9f, 93.9j, 93.9o, and 93.9r 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.
(c) The Chairperson shall submit this order and Annex A to IRRC and the Senate and House Environmental Resources and Energy Committees, as required by the Regulatory Review Act.
(d) The Chairperson shall certify this order and Annex A and deposit them with the Legislative Reference Bureau, as required by law.
(e) This order shall take effect immediately upon publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.
MICHAEL KRANCER, Chairman
REPORT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD RESPONSE TO COMMENTS PROPOSED STREAM REDESIGNATIONS
Clarks Creek, et al.
The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) approved the proposed rulemaking for the Clarks Creek, et al. package at its February 16, 2010 meeting. The proposed rulemaking was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on April 24, 2010 (40 Pa.B. 2122) with provision for a 45-day public comment period that closed on June 8, 2010. Comments were received from 10 commentators.
On April 14, 2010, the Department submitted a copy of the proposed rulemaking 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 in accordance with Section 5(a) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P.S. § 745.5(a)). IRRC did not raise any comments, recommendations, or objections to any portion of the proposed rulemaking, and no changes were made from the proposed rulemaking to this final-form regulation; therefore under Section 5(g) of Regulatory Review Act, the final rulemaking will be deemed approved by IRRC.
Pine Creek Comments
Comment: Friends of Pine Creek, Inc. expressed their dismay that Pine Creek did not gain candidacy for special protection. Along with their comment, they submitted additional water chemistry data prepared by Skelly & Loy Environmental Consultants and they expressed a desire that the Department evaluate this data in hopes that it may satisfy the criteria for classification as special protection.
Response: The Department is encouraged that we receive public support for elevated protection of the waters of the Commonwealth. The Department examined the data and it was determined to be insufficient to justify a redesignation of Pine Creek. The Department still recommends no change to the designated use of Pine Creek. (1)
Hammer Creek - Supportive Comment
Comment: We would applaud the Department and the EQB for redesignating Walnut Run (a tributary to Hammer Creek in Lancaster County) to Exceptional Value. (5)
Pagel of 11 Comment Response Document
Response: The Department appreciates this supportive comment on the proposed redesignations.
Comment: We largely support the Clarks Creek, et al Stream Redesignation Package. We appreciate and support the Department's efforts to move these proposals to completion. Many of these streams have been awaiting decisions regarding redesignation for lengthy periods of time. By moving these proposals through the redesignation process, the biological integrity of numerous streams in the Commonwealth will be preserved. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) appreciates the Department's willingness to discuss our inquiries on Hammer Creek. (10)
Response: The Department appreciates this supportive comment on the proposed redesignations.
Hammer Creek - Opposing Comments
Comment: We oppose the redesignation of Hammer Creek from HQ-CWF, MF to CWF? MF for the portion of the basin extending from the second Rexmont Road crossing to but not including UNT 07678. (2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10)
Response: The Department conducted an extensive review of historical data, recent field surveys and land use reviews. The review has determined that the portion of the upper Hammer Creek basin from the second Rexmont Road crossing to but not including UNT 07678 has not in the past displayed and does not currently display existing uses characteristic of special protection classification. Correctly defining the designated use based on the appropriate existing use will not have a negative impact on current water quality. The Department is required to periodically review and revise its water quality standards as necessary. This correction to Hammer Creek's designated use is such an action that strives for designation accuracy, while preserving the integrity of existing and designated use classifications in this Commonwealth.
Comment: We express concern for the potential degradation of downstream waters if the upstream restrictions are loosened. (2,5)
Response: Providing the appropriate (albeit less restrictive) designated use for these reaches will not adversely affect conditions in downstream waters with a more restrictive designated use. Hammer Creek basin from and including UNT 07678 to the inlet of Speedwell Forge Lake will retain its special protection designation and its water quality will be protected under the antidegradation requirements.
Page 2 of 11 Comment Response Document
Comment; Agricultural activity is a primary source of pollution and the commentator recommends partnering with farmers to reduce their impact, rather than changing the designated use. (2)
Through the collaborative efforts of watershed associations, county conservation districts, residents, local communities, and other local organizations much work has been accomplished to restore and improve water quality in the Hammer Creek basin. The work has included offering technical assistance and cost-share opportunities to watershed landowners and farmers to implement best management practices (BMPs) reducing sediment and nutrients to the Hammer Creek. These efforts have been bolstered by support from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and a Growing Greener Grant which allowed the completion of 9916 feet of stream bank fencing and the establishment of 9916 feet of riparian buffer zone. Additional fencing and stream bank stabilization work was also completed. (3,4,7)
The recommendation to remove the special protection from Hammer Creek does not comply with the Executive Order from President Barrack Obama to accelerate improvements in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. (3,4)
Moving forward to redesignate the Hammer Creek with a less restrictive use sends the wrong message to everyone engaged in improving the waters of the Hammer Creek. (3,4,7)
Response: The Department continuously seeks to restore and improve water quality by working with watershed associations, local residents and farmers, communities and organizations and is grateful for their hard work which is often conducted by volunteers and funded through donations and state funds. The Department is dependent on these locally organized efforts and commends their accomplishments in improving water quality. Defining the correct existing use will not diminish the value of these local efforts. The Department is not undermining the Executive Order from President Barrack Obama by accurately categorizing the surface water of Hammer Creek. Rather, the Department applauds President Obama5 s interest in improving the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and we are committed to the mutual goal of improving water quality through . collaboration and cooperation at all levels.
Comment: The commentator is most familiar with and expresses concern for a portion of Hammer Creek basin near Old Mill Road where a native brown trout hatchery is present. (6)
Response: The proposed CWF, MF designated use is appropriate for the protection of the maintenance or propagation, or both, of fish species including the
Page 3 of 11 Comment Response Document
family Salmonidae and additional flora and fauna which are indigenous to a cold water habitat.
Comment: Shaefferstown / Heidelberg Twp will connect its sewage system with the City of Lebanon Water Authority. The Department no longer needs to feel compelled to go forward with this redesignation in order to make it possible for Shaefferstown / Heidelberg Twp to discharge to Hammer Creek. (2,3)
Heidelberg Township has been dealing with failing septic systems for nearly 30 years and they would like to discharge to the upper Hammer Creek. We are concerned that the Department has redesignated a portion of the upper Hammer Creek so that Heidelberg Township can discharge. (5)
We understand the request to downgrade the stream was made by the Heidelberg Township Board of Supervisors in connection with Heidelberg Act 537 Plan. Discussions with the Township Solicitor confirm that the downgrade is no longer necessary for the Township to obtain Act 537 Plan approval and their current plan does not implicate the Hammer Creek. As a result, while Heidelberg Township has no further interest in pursuing a redesignation, the Department has determined to follow through with the same. (8)
We have been aware of the petition for the downgrade but hoped that this petition would be voided since the Township's need for sewers has been resolved by the planned connection to the Lebanon City plant. (9)
Response: The Department never considered the approval requirements of the Act 537 Plan for Heidelberg Township while determining its recommendation of the existing and designated use for the Hammer Creek basin. When evaluating the correct existing use, the BWSFR considers the factors in 25 Pa. Code § 93.4 and 93.4b. The type of sewage system needed in an area was not a factor in determining this recommendation.
Comment: The assumption by the Department that the section that will be redesignated to a less restrictive use can never achieve special protection is very disturbing and leads Lancaster County residents to wonder when DEP might redesignate our portion of the Hammer Creek. (5)
Response: While the Department did not state the upper Hammer Creek basin could "never achieve special protection" it did conclude that reaching the HQ designated use level of attainment does not appear to be possible without some conversion of agricultural lands to forest and wetlands, of which such land use reversions are highly unlikely. The redesignation recommendation is based upon good scientific data and accepted modeling
Page4of 11 Comment Response Document
practices. If, in the unlikely event, land use changes substantially and positively affect the watershed, it may be redesignated as a special protection watershed.
The Department's redesignation report addresses the Lancaster County portion of the Hammer Creek basin upstream of the Speedwell Forge Lake Dam and recommends retaining the HQ-CWF, MF designations for the basin from UNT 07678 to the inlet of Speedwell Forge Lake except Walnut Run. (Walnut Run is recommended for EV, MF.) Additionally, the Department recommends retaining the designated use of HQ-CWF, MF for UNT 07671.
Comment: We believe that redesignating the portion of Hammer Creek basin from the second Rexmont Road Crossing to, but not including, UNT 07678 from HQ-CWF, MF to CWF, MF will hinder the water quality. (8)
Response: Application of water quality standards will protect and maintain the existing uses and the level of water quality necessary to support those uses.
Comment: We do not believe the Department's findings with respect to the current water quality are accurate. We do not believe a downgrade is supported by relevant evidence. (8)
Response: The less restrictive use recommendation was based upon good scientific data and accepted modeling practices.
Comment: We believe the findings of the scientists employed by the CBF are proper and demonstrate that the stream classification is properly high quality. (8)
Response: Department biologists used best professional judgment in the evaluation of all of the data to develop their recommendation. A combination of variable flow and other seasonal conditions and natural benthic community dynamics may account for the variability seen between the Department's data and CBF's data.
Comment: We believe that with further restorative work, the stream would actually improve and could be classified as exceptional value. (8)
Response: The Department acknowledged that restorative work completed to date has led to some water quality improvements and that additional restorative work could result in further improvements. However, past and present land use conditions and the Department's data and modeling review, indicates the improvements requisite for HQ existing uses, let alone EV, are not realistically achievable without long term changes in land use conditions. If, in the future, scientific evidence demonstrates that the stream should be redesignated as EV, that change in regulation may be made.
Page 5 of 11 Comment Response Document
Comment: This redesignation would be severely detrimental to the Hammer Creek and the surrounding property. (8)
Response: The Department is required to periodically review Pennsylvania's water quality standards and revise and correct as necessary. The Hammer Creek recommendation to redesignate a portion of the basin with a less restrictive use is such a corrective action. Given that the current HQ designation was in error, this redesignation only serves to fit the watershed conditions that Hammer Creek has displayed prior to the time of this designation error and currently still does.
Comment: We dispute the assertion that best management practices (BMP's) cannot remedy the Hammer Creek. We have implemented the following BMP's on our 28+ acre farm to improve water quality: donation of an agricultural easement; placement of a 7-acre riparian strip; planting of 2400 trees/shrubs under the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program; and the establishment of conservation-minded farming practices. Stream testing has been conducted by high school biology classes along with CBF scientists on the stretch of the stream that flows through our property. The results show marked improvement since the stream bank restoration changes and riparian zones have been established on this portion of the Hammer Creek. Furthermore researchers indicate that additional stream bank restoration and improved riparian zones up/down stream of the Walmer property could easily provide the necessary improvements to upgrade to exceptional value. Why would the Department accept this downgrade and not continue to promote the best stewardship possible? (9)
Response: The Department applauds the restorative efforts conducted on the Walmer farm and appreciates the stream condition improvements that have occurred. Such improvements in the Basin were acknowledged in the Hammer Creek report. However, these changes only affect a portion of the study area and on a larger scale, the watershed likely cannot achieve special protection unless permanent land use changes, such as forested buffers and conservation easements are widespread. The Department continues to promote and support BMPs and this redesignation does not indicate otherwise.
Comment: The legal threshold for petitions to downgrade designated uses of streams states, in essence, that a petitioner must provide evidence in the manner of a structured scientific assessment that the stream can never be restored sufficiently to meet its designated use. 25 Pa. Code §§ 93.4(b); 93.4(c); see also 40 C.F.R. §§ 131.10(d), (g), Q). We do not believe the Department has met this legal threshold for downgrade. (10)
Page 6 of 11 Comment Response Document
Response: To the contrary, the Department has met the legal thresholds required by the above cited regulations for "less restrictive use" evaluations. This detailed analysis is provided in the Hammer Creek report and clearly demonstrates the proper assessment for removing the HQ designation for the upper Hammer Creek basin.
Comment: Hammer Creek currently meets the HQ biological macroinvertebrate criteria in its forested headwaters. In fact, recent surveys indicate dramatic improvement in all water quality parameters (biological, chemical, and physical/habitat) overtime-to the degree that the Creek will be able to achieve Exceptional Value (EV) status in at least one location. (10)
Response: The Department has noted in the report the improved water quality conditions in the lower reaches of Hammer Creek, however it was found to be very unlikely that this portion of the basin should reach the HQ designated use level of attainment without some conversion of agricultural lands to forest and wetlands, of which such land use reversions are highly unlikely. Regarding Walnut Run, the EV status was not the result of any restorative efforts such as those experienced in other portions of Hammer Creek. Rather, the original HQ designation of Walnut Run was a proper reflection of the use designation criteria in place at that time. The EV determination is based on newer designated use criteria and evaluation procedures.
Comment: We believe the model employed by the Department was not appropriately calibrated. Published literature has indicated the calibration approach used by the Department can lead to large errors in results. (10)
Response: To limit error, steps were taken to match geology and land use as closely as possible. Also, the reference watersheds were in close proximity to each other and adjustments were made in some modeling parameters to account for BMPs and animals in each watershed.
Comment: The Department's analysis only included three agricultural BMPs and one modified BMP for forested buffers. Such a limited suite severely limits the type and mixture of BMPs that are available to farmers in real-world conditions. (10)
Response: The PredlCT model groups BMPs into 8 general types and does not model specific practices. BMP efficiencies can be adjusted to reflect what is in place or available; therefore there is no actual limitation on the mixture of BMPs. DEP used applicable BMP efficiencies and considered all practical BMPs in its modeling analyses.
Comment: No suburban BMPs or on-site septic system BMPs appear to be included in the Department's analysis. (10)
Page 7 of 11 Comment Response Document
Response: No suburban or on-site septic system BMPs were included in the analysis because neither one would have provided any significant reduction in loadings.. Suburban and urban areas accounted for only 9% of the basin area so that those reductions were negligible. The assumption for on-site septic was that it would be converted to a point source discharge and the treatment system would have employed tertiary treatment resulting in very small nutrient loadings to Hammer Creek.
Comment: The model fails to account for reductions of groundwater inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus over time. These high nutrient inputs in groundwater are reasonably expected to be reduced as agricultural BMPs are implemented. (10)
Response: The Department agrees that the model did not account for a reduction in groundwater inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus over time. However, for nutrients to appreciably diminish, significant BMP additions and land use conversions (e.g. forested buffers and cessation of agricultural uses) would need to occur. Given the long-term nutrient saturation of the soils since Hammer Creek was agriculturally developed it would take many years before a nutrient decrease would be evident in response to such BMP implementation or land use conversions. This potential delay in the remediation of water quality in response to agricultural BMP's resulting from the reserves of leachable nitrogen in heavily manured soils was recognized and addressed by Koerkle and Gustafson-Minnich, 1997 in a report titled Surface-water Quality Changes After 5 Years of Nutrient Management in the Little Conestoga Creek Headwaters, Pennsylvania, 1989-91 (USGS: Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4048). Another confounding factor which could contribute to the lag time between the implementation of BMP's and noted improvements in water quality is the unknown travel times for ground-water. "The time required for the effects of reduced nutrient inputs to travel from the land surface to the ground water, then to be discharged as base flow, could have exceeded the 3.5 year post-BMP monitoring period" in a study by Koerkle, et al. in 1996 titled Evaluation of Agricultural Best-Management Practices in the Conestoga River Headwaters, Pennsylvania: Effects of Nutrient Management on Water Quality in the Little Conestoga Creek Headwaters\ 1983-89 (USGS: Water Resources Investigations Report 95-4046).
Comment: The Department did not account for improvements in in-stream habitat and stream shading that will result from restoration, primarily forested riparian buffers. Extensive research efforts have pointed to the importance of forested buffers in improving the physical in-stream habitat and shade from the tree canopy that is vitally supportive of macroinvertebrate and fish populations. (10)
Page 8 of 11 Comment Response Document
Response: The Department acknowledges the ability of improved forested buffers to improve the physical in-stream habitat and provide shade from the tree canopy. The benefits from improving forested buffers are vitally supportive of macroinvertebrate and fish populations. These benefits can begin and become noticeable within the first 5 to 10 years of the implementation of the improvement. Over time the tree canopy will mature and provide more shade for the aquatic habitat. It will likely take at least 20 to 25 years for the benefits of newly planted forest buffers to improve the stream quality to a level commensurate with special protection qualifications. If stream improvements are demonstrated by- such widespread land use conversions in the watershed, the stream may be eligible for special protection in the future.
Comment: 40% of the Hammer Creek's land use was classified as "other" and was not considered for any BMP implementation. (10)
Response: The 40% of land use classified as "other" was forest land and waterbodies where BMPs would not be implemented.
Comment: The Department's own analysis indicates Hammer Creek pollutant loads are within an acceptable level of error when compared to a reference watershed, indicating that BMP loads can be reduced to be very similar to a nearby special protection stream, although not necessarily exact. (10)
Response: The loadings that are referenced are based on very optimistic BMP implementation that is not supported by current conditions on the ground or by what has occurred in the previous 15 years.
Hammer Creek - Additional Comments
Comment: We would encourage the Department to also investigate other tributaries to Hammer Creek to determine if they are candidates for redesignation to a more restrictive designated use, most notably Kettle Run. (5)
Response: The Department did include Kettle Run in its evaluation as it did the EV qualifying Walnut Run. However, the data did not support changing its current HQ designation.
Page 9 of 11 Comment Response Document
Following is a list of corporations, organizations and interested individuals from whom the Environmental Quality Board has received comments regarding the above referenced regulation.
ID Name/Address Submitted Provided Requested one page Testimony Final Summary Rulemaking for following distribution EQB toEQB Action 1 Friends of Pine Creek, Inc. Victoria Sobolewski, President NO N/A NO 433 Pine Creek Drive Barnesville, PA 18241 2 Brooke Minnich 84 Speedwell Forge Road NO N/A NO Lititz,PA 17543 pt(a),worksiteplus.om 3 Lebanon County Conservation District Charles W. Wertz, Manager NO N/A NO 2120 Cornwall Road, Suite 5 Lebanon, PA 17042-9788 Charles. Wertz(a)pa. nacdnet.net 4 Honorable RoseMarie Swanger PA House of Representatives NO N/A NO PO Box 202102 Harrisburg, PA 17120-2102 rswanger(a)pahousegop. com 5 Lancaster County Conservation District Matthew W. Kofroth, Watershed Coordinator NO N/A NO 1383 Arcadia Road; Room 200 Lancaster, PA 17601 -3149 Matt. Kofroth(cb,pa. nacdnet. net 6 Watercress Mill Douglass C. Henry NO N/A NO 327 Old Mill Road Newmanstown, PA 17073 associate(cb,henrv-molded. com
Page 10 of 11 Comment Response Document
7 Quittaphilla Watershed Association David I. Lasky, Ph.D., President NO N/A NO 610 East Walnut Street Annville,PA 17003 dlasky610(a),comcast. net 8 Lebanon Valley Conservancy, Inc. Stephanie DiVittore, President NO N/A NO Rhoads & Sinon, LLP One South Market Square, 12th Floor POBox 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 SDiVittore(a),rhoads-sinon.com 9 Steven and Patricia Walmer 220 Distillery Road NO N/A NO Newmanstown, PA 17073 tmw(a),lmf.net 10 Chesapeake Bay Foundation Harry L. Campbell III, Senior Scientist YES N/A NO Old Waterworks Building 614 North Front Street, Suite G Harrisburg, PA 17101 Hcampbell(a),cbf.orz
Page 11 of 11
ANNEX A
TITLE 25. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PART I. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Subpart C. PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES ARTICLE II. WATER RESOURCES
CHAPTER 93. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
§93.9f. Drainage List F Delaware River Basin in Pennsylvania Schuylkill River
Water Exceptions Uses to Specific Stream Zone County Protected Criteria ***** 5—Plum Creek Basin, [Unnamed Tributary] Berks CWF, MF None UNT at RM 0.45 to Mouth 4—Cacoosinq Creek Basin, Source to Little Berks CWF, MF None Cacoosinq Creek 5—Little Cacoosinq Basin Berks WWF, MF None Creek 4—Cacoosinq Creek Little Cacoosinq Creek to Berks CWF, MF None Mouth 3—Tulpehocken Creek Basin, T 921 to Mouth Berks WWF, MF None ***** 3—Valley Creek Basin Montgomery- EV, MF None Chester 3—UNTs to Schuylkill Basins, Valley Creek to [Philadelphia] WWF, MF None River THead of Tidel UNT 00926 Montqomerv at RM 18.9 3—Trout Creek Basin Montgomery WWF, MF None ***** 3—Arrowmink Creek Basin Montgomery WWF, MF None 3—UNT 00926 at RM 18.9 Basin Montqomerv CWF, MF None (locally Sprinq Mill Run) 3—UNTs to Schuvlkill Basins, UNT 00926 Montqomerv WWF, MF None River downstream to Head of - Philadelphia Tide 3—Sawmill Run Basin Montaomerv WWF. MF None *****
-1- §93.9j. Drainage List J Susquehanna River Basin in Pennsylvania Lackawanna River Water Exceptions Uses to Specific Stream Zone County Protected Criteria ***** 2—Lackawanna River Main Stem, Confluence East Lackawanna HQ-CWF, None and West Branches to SR MF 0347 Bridge at Dickson City 3—[Unnamed Tributaries] Basins, Confluence of East Susquehanna- CWF, MF None UNTs to Lackawanna River and West Branches to [SR Wayne[- 0347 Bridge at Dickson Lackawanna] Citvl UNT 28600 at RM 35.54 3—Brace Brook Basin Susquehanna CWF, MF None 3—UNT 28600 at RM 35.54 Basin Wayne EV, MF None (locally Clarks Creek) 3—UNTs to Lackawanna Basins, UNT 28600 at RM Wayne - CWF, MF None River 35.54 downstream to SR Lackawanna 0347 Bridge at Dickson City 3—Wilson Creek Basin Lackawanna CWF. MF None
§93.9o. Drainage List O Susquehanna River Basin in Pennsylvania Susquehanna River Water Exceptions Uses to Specific Stream Zone County Protected Criteria * * * * * 2—Wilson Run Basin York WWF, MF None 2—Conestoga River [Main Steml Basin, Source Lancaster WWF, MF None to UNT 07792 at RM 43.05 3—UNT 07792 to Basin Lancaster CWF, MF None Conestoqa River at RM 43.05 2—Conestoqa River Main Stem, UNT 07792 at Lancaster WWF, MF None RM 43.05 downstream to Mouth 3—[Unnamed Tributaries] Basins, UNT 07792 to Berks- WWF, MF None UNTs to Conestoga Mouth Lancaster 3—Muddy Creek Main Stem, Source to Little Lancaster TSF, MF None Muddy Creek
-2- 4—Middle Creek Basin, Furnace Run to Lancaster WWF, MF None Mouth 4—Hammer Creek Basin, Source to [Speedwell [Lancaster] HQ-CWF, None Forge Lake Dam] second Lebanon MF Rexmont Road crossing (downstream of the two former water supply reservoirs)
4—Hammer Creek Basin, second Rexmont Lebanon CWF, MF None Road crossing to but not including UNT 07678 at RM 14.2 4—Hammer Creek Basin, from and including Lancaster HQ-CWF, None UNT 07678 downstream to MF Walnut Run 5—Walnut Run Basin Lancaster EV, MF None 4—Hammer Creek Basin, Walnut Run to inlet Lancaster HQ-CWF, None of Speedwell Forge Lake MF 4—Hammer Creek Basin, Inlet of Speedwell Lancaster WWF, MF None Forge Lake to UNT 07671 at RM 8.8 5—UNT 07671 Basin Lancaster HQ-CWF, None MF 4—Hammer Creek Basin, UNT 07671 Lancaster WWF, MF None downstream to Speedwell Forge Lake Dam 4—Hammer Creek Basin, Speedwell Forge Lancaster TSF, MF None Lake Dam to Mouth
§93.9r. Drainage List R Ohio River Basin in Pennsylvania Clarion River Water Exceptions Uses to Specific Stream Zone County Protected Criteria * * * * * 4—Henry Run Basin Forest CWF None 4-Toms Run Basin, Source to Little [Forest] [CWF]EV None Hefren Run Clarion 5—Little Hefren Run Basin Clarion CWF None 4--Toms Run Basin, Little Hefren Run to Forest IY None Mouth 4—Cather Run Basin Clarion HQ-CWF None
-3-
CACOOSING CREEK
BERKS COUNTY
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REVIEW STREAM DESIGNATION EVALUATION REPORT
Segment: Basin Stream Code: 01850 Drainage List F
WATER QUALITY MONITORING SECTION (GLW) DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS BUREAU OF WATER STANDARDS AND FACILITY REGULATION DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
JUNE 2007 INTRODUCTION
The Department determined that the Cacoosing Creek basin was not assigned a "designated use" during the compilation of Chapter 93. Cacoosing Creek is a tributary to Tulpehocken Creek in Berks County. The designated uses listed for the receiving stream segment of Tulpehocken Creek is Cold Water Fishes (CWF) and unnamed tributaries to Tulpehocken Creek in the same segment are designated as Warm Water Fishes (WWF). Reference to Cacoosing Creek was not included in the Chapter 93 listing for this Tulpehocken Creek segment An evaluation to determine the most appropriate aquatic life use designation for the Cacoosing Creek basin was conducted based on a request from the Department's Southcentral Regional Office (3CRO). This evaluation is based on stream survey work conducted on December 8, 2004. Additional information was obtained from previous Department and Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) surveys.
GENERAL WATERSHED DESCRIPTION
The Cacoosing Creek basin is located west of Reading in South Heidelberg, Lower Heidelberg, and Spring Townships; and the Boroughs of Sinking Spring and Wernersville in Berks County (Figure 1). Cacoosing Creek is a limestone creek that drainsapproximately 21.8 mi and flows for 8.4 miles in a northeasterly direction from its origin in South Heidelberg Township to its mouth at the village of Van Reed's Mill. The surrounding area is characterized by relatively flat topography with some gently rolling hills of low relief. The only named tributary to Cacoosing Creek is Little Cacoosing Creek, which flows for 4.7 miles and drains 7.8 mi2.
There are significant impacts to the Cacoosing Creek basin from agriculture, residential, industrial and urban land use. There are many newly constructed subdivisions around the Borough of Sinking Spring and the lower portions of the watershed. One significant historic impact to the basin was the EJ. Breneman Sinking Spring Quarry, which ceased quarrying and dewatering operations in November 1992.
WATER QUALITY AND USES
Surface Water
No long-term water quality data were available to allow a direct comparison to water quality criteria. One time grab samples and benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected from five stations in the Cacoosing Creek basin on November 15, 1995 (Table 1). Since the instantaneous nature of grab samples precludes comparison to applicable water quality criteria, chemical data were used to generally characterize water quality for this study. Biological data collected for this study were used to evaluate the long- term water quality conditions of Cacoosing Creek.
Water Quality. There are twelve permitted discharges (NPDES) in the Cacoosing Creek basin, including two sewage treatment facilities (Sinking Spring and Spring Township), six industrial facilities and four stormwater discharges. The six industrial facilities include BP Oil, Exxon Mobile Oil, Sun Pipeline, Sunoco Inc., Reading Terminals Corp, and Scranton Altoona Terminals Corp.
There are 40 permitted surface/ground water withdrawals in the Cacoosing Creek Basin. There are 12 permitted public water supply wells in the basin, including nine issued to the Citizens Utility Water Company and two to Will-O-Hiil Apartments, All of these public water supply permits cover ground water withdrawals. There are no voluntary local wellhead protection (WHP) programs associated with the permitted ground water withdrawals in the Cacoosing Creek basin.
A historic impact on the local ground water was the above noted Sinking Spring Quarry operation. During active quarrying operations, intruding groundwater was pumped to Cacoosing Creek. After operations ceased in 1992, dewatering stopped and the abandoned quarry filled with water until it reached equilibrium. The resulting lake has a mean elevation of 261.5 feet and, as noted by a 1993 survey report by DEP staff, has restored flow to groundwater springs that had been dry while the quarry was in operation, thus restoring cold groundwater to the stream.
One-time grab samples collected from Cacoosing Creek on November 15, 1995 indicate alkaline waters (pH 7.6 to 7.9) with ample buffering capacity (alkalinity 84.0 to 174.0 mg/l CaCO3, and hardness 118.0 to 204.0 mg/l) (Table 2). Ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, and phosphorus concentrations were elevated at stations located downstream of the Sinking Spring and Spring Township sewage treatment facilities (4CC and 5CC). Fecal coliform concentrations in the mainstem of Cacoosing Creek were fairly low, ranging from 40 to 180 colonies per 100 ml at stations 2CC and 4CC, respectively.
Aquatic Biota
Habitat Instream habitat conditions were evaluated at the five stations where fish were sampled (Table 3). The habitat evaluation consists of rating twelve habitat parameters to derive a station habitat score. Habitat conditions for Cacoosing Creek stations ranged from "marginal" (stations 3LCC and 4CC) to "sub-optimal" (stations 1CC, 2CC, and5CC).
Fish. Cacoosing Creek fish populations were sampled during various surveys conducted by DEP and PFBC staff. These electrofishing surveys documented wild brown trout reproduction at several sites (Table 4) as well as the presence of other cold- water species. A migratory species, American eel, was found at several locations (Table 5).
While the Cacoosing Creek fishery was very diverse and dominated by species commonly associated with cold-water habitats (trout, blacknose and longnose dace, white sucker, and mottled sculpin) the Little Cacoosing Creek fishery (3LCC) was dominated by the banded killifish, a warm water species (Table 4). In an effort to evaluate the impact of the Sinking Spring Quarry and the extent of the existing brown trout population, DEP staff conducted an additional electrofishing survey in Cacoosing Creek on December 8, 2004. For this survey, sampling was conducted at PFBC stations 0101, 0201 and between PFBC station 0302 and the Department's station 4CC. Fifty-meter reaches were sampled at station 0101 and the station between 0302 and 4CC. Approximately 100 meters was sampled at station 0201, both upstream and downstream of US Route 422. Previous PFBC and Department surveys indicated that trout were not found upstream from US Route 422 (Table 4). Wild brown trout adults were found at ail three sampling stations, including both upstream and downstream of US Route 422. In addition, wild juvenile brown trout were found at PFBC station 0101 (Table 4), near the headwaters. The occurrences of both wild adult and juvenile brown trout upstream of US Route 422 at stations 0101 and 0201 suggest that current instream conditions have allowed the pre-existing wild trout populations to expand into areas where they had previously been absent. In addition, Cacoosing Creek is capable of supporting other species commonly associated with cold water environs, including blacknose and long nose dace, white sucker, and mottled sculpin. Conversely, Little Cacoosing Creek supports a warm water fishery as indicated by the high abundance of banded killifish, and the low abundance of cold water species.
PUBLIC RESPONSE AND PARTICIPATION SUMMARY
The Cacoosing Creek report and original recommendations (June 2007) to designate the stream as Cold Water Fishes (CWF) and Warm Water Fishes (WWF) for the Little Cacoosing subbasin were made available for public review and comment on DEP's web page. Local municipalities, the Berks County Planning Commission, and the Berks Conservation District were notified of the web report availability by postal mail. No comments were received in response to this web posting.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Review of the available fish data indicates that the mainstem of Cacoosing Creek is capable of supporting a cold-water fishery, and that the Little Cacoosing Creek supports a warm water fishery. Based on applicable regulatory criteria for statewide water uses in 25 Pa Code § 93,4(a), the Department recommends the following: Cacoosing Creek basin (excluding the Little Cacoosing Creek subbasin) from its source to mouth be designated Cold Water Fishes (CWF) and the Little Cacoosing Creek basin from its source to mouth be designated Warm Water Fishes (WWF). Both Cacoosing Creek and Little Cacoosing Creek basins should also be designated Migratory Fishes (MF) as a result of the presence of American eel throughout the basin.
This recommendation adds approximately 4.7 stream miles of WWF and 8.4 miles of CWF waters and 13.1 miles of MF waters to Chapter 93. REFERENCES
Plafkin, JL MT Barbour, KD Porter, SK Gross, & RM Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for use in streams and rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/444/4-89-001.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, 1993. Aquatic Biological Investigation: Cacoosing Creek. File Information.
Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission. 2000. Cacoosing Creek's need for inclusion in DEP's Chapt 93. Fiie Information. FIGURE 1 CACOOSING CREEK BERKS COUNTY
l/\/ Streams '\/'Roads "~ Borough Township
N 1CC - Use Attainability Survey 0101 -PFBC Survey
2 Miles TABLE 1 STATION LOCATIONS CACOOSING CREEK BERKS COUNTY
STATION LOCATION
1CC Upstream of private drive crossing located 0.5 mile upstream of T381. South Heidelberg Township, Berks County Stream Code 01850 Lat: 40 18 35 Long: 76 02 48 RMI: 6.11
2CC Downstream of private drive crossing located 0.4 mile downstream of US Route 422 (behind the Dairy Queen in Sinking Spring). Borough of Sinking Spring, Berks County Stream Code 01850 Lat: 40 19 44 Long: 76 01 46 RMI: 4.26
3LCC Approximately 100 feet upstream of SR3025 crossing (Green Valley Road). Lower Heidelberg Township, Berks County Stream Code 01853 Lat: 40 20 01 Long: 76 02 25 RMI: 1.20
4CC Adjacent to soccer field in Spring Township Park; approximately 0.2 miles upstream of SR3023. Spring Township, Berks County Stream Code 01850 Lat: 40 20 50 Long: 76 00 36 RMI: 2,35
5CC Approximately 50 feet upstream of T495 crossing (Pendergast Road). Spri ng Township, Berks County Stream Code 01850 Lat: 40 21 35 Long: 75 59 44 RMI: 0.56
CC = Cacoosing Creek LCC = Little Cacoosing Creek TABLE 2 WATER CHEMISTRY1 CACOQSING CREEK BERKS COUNTY NOVEMBER 13,1995
mm ^^M^^^^Smmm^^^^^^^^^^S^ Temp (°C) 8.1 8.4 8.1 9.1 9.4 pH 7.9 7.7 7.9 7.6 7.7 Cond (uS/cm) 284 361 359 424 489
pH 7.9 7.9 8.0 7.8 7.7 Alkalinity 84.0 120.0 146.0 158.0 174.0 Hardness 118.0 167.0 184.0 204.0 189.0 T. Diss. Sol. 230.0 280.0 256.0 312.0 338.0 Susp. Sol. <2.0 4.0 32.0 64.0 20.0 NH3-N <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.03 0.14 NO2-N 0.006 0.006 0.012 0.022 0.060 NO3-N 2.77 3.47 4.87 4.47 4.96 Total P 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.16 0.22 Ca 37.2 50.4 50.6 59.5 63.3 Mg 10.5 14.7 19.4 16.4 17.6 Cl 19.0 20.0 9.0 20.0 30.0 SO4 25.0 33.0 27.0 32.0 32.0 As* <4.0 <4.0 <4.0 <4.0 <4.0 Cd* <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 hex Cr* <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 Cr* <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 <50.0 Cu* <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 Fe* 66.0 44.0 849.0 1610.0 434.0 Pb* <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Mn* 16.0 13.0 27.0 62.0 47.0 Ni* <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 <25.0 Zn* <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 <10.0 Al* <135.0 <135.0 627.0 1490.0 394.0 fecalColif/100ml 50 40 400 180 80 - Except for pH & conductance and indicted otherwise, all values are total concentrations in mg/l * - Total concentrations in ug/l 2 Refer to Figure 1 and Table 1 for station locations TABLE 3 HABITAT ASSESSMENT SUMMARY CACOOSING CREEK BERKS COUNTY NOVEMBER 13,1995
Biiiiil>iliiiiliiiii m msaamm litiniiii^a&fc^SWatrggggigS 1. instream cover 16 12 10 10 16 2. epifaunal substrate 16 15 15 10 16
3. embeddedness 15 15 16 14
4. veiocity/depth 15 13 11 16
5. channel alterations 15 15 16 12
6. sediment deposition 15 15 15 11 15
7. riffle frequency 16 16 13 6 16
8. channel flow status 16 16 13 13 17
9. bank condition 14 16 13 10 14 10. bank vegetative 16 16 15 16 17 protection 11. grazing/disruptive 10 14 10 11 pressures 12. riparian vegetation 10 10 11 zone width Total Score 174 173 138 124 175 Rating'* SUB SUB SUB MAR SUB
1 Refer to Figure 1 and Table 1 for station locations 2 SUB=Suboptimal; MAR=Marginal TABLE 4 FISHES CACOOSING CREEK BERKS COUNTY
5|!!fti!!!iS!H)i|Hiaiilll|il!i!IIii iiijiii 9mm Ji'^yOiii:?-: isfiii liilliiS IflSSffi wmm I£7§ iliii! American eel, mm Anguifia rostrata R R R X Brook Trout, 4 Salvetinus fontinalis R p p Brown trout, Salmo trutta* R _. p Brown trout, 4/ PI P/ 15 R/ 5 Salmo trutta 3 C P /- RIP PIP R/- R/- 1/- R/- p/- R PI- Rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss 1 R p R R Common Carp, Cyprinus carpio R R R X Goldfish, Carassius auratus X Cuttips minnow, Exoglossum maxillingua p X P C X p P X c X X R Golden shiner, Notemigonus crysoleucas X Qpmmon shiner, Notropis cornutus p R X P c X p P X p X R C Spottail shiner, N. hudsonius R R R p P P p P X R R P P Spotfin Shiner, CyprineHa spiloptera R Biuntnose minnow, Pimephales notatus p R X P R P Blacknose dace, Rhinlchthys atratulus A A X A A X p R A X A A P A X X C R C P Longnose dace, R. cataractae P A X P P X R A X A A C A X R R P Creek chub, Semotilus atromaculatus A X C C X c R C X P X P R P li!if;HOT mem iiiliiai!linih-!;iOiiS08:iPiii|Hlii- 'mm ill $$i IB ipsiiiiiiiIlii sail HSiii illiiffliil Si® IllilS White sucker, Catostomus commersoni A X A A X c A X A A A A X X c c A A A X Northern hog sucker, Hypentelium nigricans P Margined madtom, Notorus insignus R X Banded killifish, Fundulus diaphanus A A A C A X R R P R P X Rock bass, Ambloplites rupestris R P X R P X p p P P c X R R p Green Sunfish, Lepomis cyaneflus R Redbreast sunfish, L. auritus p Pumpkinseed, Lgibbosus P R R Bluegill, L. macmchirus C P R R Largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides P R R R P Tessellated darter, Ethostoma olmstedi P P C C P R c X P C P A X X p P R P X Greenside darter, £. blennioides R R R R Mottled sculpin. Coitus bairdi R p A P X R A A A A mm mm mm.mmifiJQSi mil WBfiBBiiS! 1 Refer to Figure 1 for station location 2 Letters refer to relative abundance: A = Abundant (>100); C = Common (26-100); P = Present (3-25); R = Rare (<3); X = species collected, numbers or relative abundance not recorded 3 92 = August 10, 1992; 94 = August 1994; 96 = April 27,1996; 97 = June 26 and 30,1997; 04 = December 8, 2004 4 Hatchery origin 5 Wild brown trout (adults/fingerlings) •%Q UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO LACKAWANNA RIVER (CLARKS CREEK) WAYNE COUNTY
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REVIEW STREAM REDESIGNATION EVALUATION REPORT
SEGMENT: BASIN STREAM CODE: 28600 DRAINAGE LIST: J
WATER QUALITY MONITORING SECTION (DSB) DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS BUREAU OF WATER STANDARDS AND FACILITY REGULATION DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION June 2007 INTRODUCTION
Clarks Creek is listed in Chapter 93 of the Pennsylvania Code as an unnamed tributary (UNT) to the Lackawanna River with a designated use of Cold Water Fishes (CWF). As a result of a petition submitted to the Environmental Quality Board by Mr. Glen Abello on May 29, 2001, this basin was evaluated for redesignation as High Quality-Cold Water Fishes (HQ-CWF). This report is based on a field survey conducted by the Department in April of 2002,
GENERAL WATERSHED DESCRIPTION
Clarks Creek (28600) is a tributary to the Lackawanna River in the Susquehanna River watershed (Figure 1). This basin covers an area of 3.37 square miles and contains 4.59 stream miles. It is located in Clinton Township, Wayne County. Land use in this basin is mostly forested slopes with some low-density residential land use along the paved roads and the borough of Browndale in the lower portion of the watershed. This basin ranges in elevation from 2240 feet in the northeast corner to 1420 feet at. the mouth. Clarks Creek is a freestone stream with a high to moderate gradient throughout its length.
WATER QUALITY AND USES
Surface Water: No long-term water quality data were available to allow a direct comparison to water quality criteria. A grab sample was collected at Station 3CC near the mouth of Clarks Creek during the April 2002 survey (Tables 1 & 2). This sample indicated that water quality was generally good. Since the instantaneous nature of grab samples precludes comparison to applicable water quality criteria, the indigenous aquatic community is a better indicator of long-term conditions and is used as a measure of ecological significance.
There are no surface water withdrawals for public water supply or NPDES permitted surface water discharges in the candidate basin.
Aquatic Biota: Habitat assessments and biological samplings were conducted at 4 stations (3 candidate and 1 reference) during the April 2002 survey. The physical habitat assessments revealed that conditions at Station ICC, 2CC, 3CC and Reference Station Rl scored in the Optimal range for benthic macroinvertebrates and fish (Table 3). Overall, habitat scores for the Clarks Creek stations ranged from 188 to 198.
Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected using the Department's Antidegradation protocol (adapted from Plafkin's 1989 and Barbour's 1999 Rapid Bioassessment Protocols manuals). Taxonomic diversity was high at all stations with individuals from several genera that are sensitive to water quality degradation occurring commonly at these stations (e.g. Epeorus, Leuctra, and Amphinemura).
The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission surveyed the candidate stream in August 1997. They found 7 fish species in the sampled reach located approximately 560 meters upstream from the mouth (Table 4). They found naturally reproducing brook and brown trout and based on a 23.8 kg/ha wild trout biomass recommended a Class B management classification for Clarks 1 Creek. The vast majority of these trout were native brook trout making this stream one of the few remaining native trout resources in the heavily urbanized Lackawanna Valley,
BIOLOGICAL USE QUALIFICATIONS
The biological use qualifying criteria applied*to Clarks Creek was the integrated benthic macroinvertebrate score test described at § 93.4b(a)(2)(i)(A) and § 93.4b(b)(l)(v). This score is calculated from the macroinvertebrate samples referenced above. Following the Department's Antidegradation protocol, a 200 +/- 20% count subsample was randomly selected from the total sample and enumerated (Table 6). Selected benthic macroinvertebrate community metrics were generated from these subsamples. Candidate station metrics were compared to Dimmick Meadow Brook (05244) a reference stream with a comparable drainage area (Table 7). This reference stream has a protected use designation of EV and is a tributary to Sawkill Creek (05241) located in Pike County. All sampling was conducted within a two-day period to minimize the effects of seasonal variation. This comparison was done using the following metrics which were selected as being indicative of community health: taxa richness; modified EPT index (total number of intolerant Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera taxa); modified Hilsenhoff Biotic Index; percent dominant taxon; and percent modified mayflies.
Based on these five metrics, Stations ICC, 2CC, and 3CC had a biological condition scores greater than 92% of the reference station score, which qualifies for an EV designation under the Department's regulatory criterion (§ 93.4b(b)(l)(v)).
PUBLIC RESPONSE AND PARTICIPATION SUMMARY
The Department provided public notice of this redesignation evaluation and requested any technical data from the general public through publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on April 27, 2002 (32 Pa.B 2162). A similar notice was also published in the Scranton Times on April 26, 2002. In addition, Clinton Township along with the Wayne County Planning Commission, were all notified of the evaluation in a letter dated March 12, 2002. No data on water chemistry, instream habitat, or the aquatic community were received in response to these notifications.
The Clarks Creek report and original recommendations (June 2007) to redesignate the stream as Exceptional Value (EV) were made available for public review and comment on DEP's web page. The local stakeholders, which included the petitioner, Clinton Township, the Wayne County Planning Commission, and the Wayne Conservation District, were notified of the web report availability by postal mail. No comments were received in response to this web posting.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on applicable regulatory definitions and requirements of § 93.4b, the Department recommends that the protected use designation of the UNT 28600 of the Lackawanna River (known locally as Clarks Creek) basin be changed from CWF to EV based on biological condition scores greater than 92% of the reference station score (§ 93.4b(b)(l)(v)). This recommendation affects 4.59 stream miles. REFERENCES
Plaflan, JL, MT Barbour, KD Porter, SK Gross, & RM Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams axld Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/444/4-89-001
Barbour, MT, J. Gerritsen, BT Snyder, and JB Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphvton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates. and Fish. Second Edition. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/841/B-99-002. FIGURE 1. STATION LOCATIONS CLARKS CREEK
Recommended Use A/EV /S/HQ-CWF
W
0.9 Miles TABLE 1 STATION LOCATIONS CLARKS CREEK WAYNE COUNTY
STATION LOCATION
ICC Clarks Creek (28600); approximately 50 meters upstream of the T538 crossing. Clinton Township, Wayne County. Lat: 4139 01 Long: 75 26 54 RM:
2CC Unnamed Tributary to Clarks Creek (28600); approximately 30 meters upstream of the T538 crossing. Clinton Township, Wayne County. Lat: 41 39 06 Long: 75 26 55 RM:
3CC Clarks Creek; approximately 650 meters upstream of the mouth. Clinton Township, Wayne County. Lat: 4138 54 Long: 75 27 22 RM: 0.81
Rl Dimmick Meadow Brook (05244) approximately 30 meters upstream of the,sT428 crossing. Milford Township, Pike County. Lat: 4120 51 Long: 74 5014 RM: 0.52 TABLE 2 WATER CHEMISTRY1 CLARKS CREEK WAYNE COUNTY APRIL 24, 2002
STATION 3CC Field Parameters Temp (°C) 7.8 Cond (umhos) 44 PH 6.7 Laboratory Parameters PH 6.4 Alkalinity 5 Acidity 1.4 Hardness 12 T Diss. Sol. 66 Susp.Sol. <2
NH3-N <0.02
NO2-N <0.01 NO3-N 0.17 Total P <0.01 Ca 3.3 Mg 0.89 Cl 2
SO4 <20 As* <4.0 As Diss <4.0 Cd* <0.2 Cd Diss <0.2 hex Cr* <10 Cr* <50 Cu* <4.0 Cu Diss <4.0 Fe* 29 Pb* <1.0 Pb Diss <1.0 Mn* 13 Ni* <4.0 Ni Diss <4.0 Zn* <5.0 Zn Diss <5.0 Al* 66 fecal conforms <20 1 - Except for pH & conductance and indicated otherwise, all values are total concentrations in mg/l * - Total concentrations in Lig/I TABLE 3 HABITAT ASSESSMENT SUMMARY CLARKS CREEK WAYNE COUNTY APRIL 24,2002
HABITAT STATIONS1 PARAMETER ICC 2CC 3CC Rl
1. instream cover 19 19 18 18 2. epifaunal substrate 18 18 19 17
3. embeddedness 18 18 16 18
4. velocity/depth 15 12 13 15
5. channel alterations 16 14 12 18
6. sediment deposition 18 19 18 19
7. riffle frequency 18 18 19 18
8. channel flow status 12 15 16 16
9. bank condition 14 16 17 17
10. bank vegetation 16 17 17 18 protection 11. grazing/disruptive 18 18 14 20 pressures 12. riparian vegetation 16 12 9 20 zone width
Total Score 198 196 188 214 Rating2 OPT OPT OPT OPT
1 Refer to Figure 1 and Table 1 for station locations. 2 OPT = Optimal TABLE 4 FISHES CLARKS CREEK WAYNE COUNTY
SPECIES STATION1 Brown trout, Salmo trutta X Brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis X Blacknose dace, Rhinichthys atratulus X Longnose dace, Rhinichthys cataractae X Creek chub, Semotilus atromaculatus X White sucker, Catostomus commersoni X Sunfish, Lepomis sp. X
1 - Data fromP A Fish and Boat Commission survey (8/14/97) TABLES SEMI QUANTITATIVE BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE DATA CLARKS CREEK APRIL 24, 2002
TAXA STATION 1CC 2CC 3CCI R1 Ephemeroptera (mayflies) Ameletidae; Ameletus 1 Baetidae; Acentrella 1 Baetis 2 Ephemerellidae; Ephemerella 1 5 " 63 Eurylophella 2 Heptageniidae; Cinygmula 2 Epeorus 56 53 47 17. Leucrocuta 1 3 1 4 Stenonema 13 19 22 2 Stenacron 6 2 4 Leptophlebiidae; Habrophlebiodes 3 Plecoptera (stoneflies) Chloroperlidae; Sweltsa 8 9 13 1 Leuctridae; Leuctra 18 18 12 5 Nemouridae; Amphinemura 22 13 11 14 Ostrocerca 1 Peltoperlidae; Tallaperla 1 PerKdae; Acroneuria 1 1 4 Perlodidae; Isoperla 1 7 Malirekus 1 Pteronarcyidae; Pteronarcys 3 Tricoptera (caddisflies) Glossosomatidae; Glossosoma 1 Goeridae; Goera 1 Hydropsychidae; Cheumatopsyche 1 Diplectrona 7 7 8 8 Hydropsyche 8 7 8 2 Lepjdostomatidae; Lepidostoma 2 2 1 Leptoceridae; Mystacides 1 Philopotamidae; Dolophilodes 1 4 Wormaldia 2 Polycentropidae; Po/ycentropus 1 2 Rhyacophilidae; Rhyacophila '1 6 4 4 Uenoidae; Neophylax 2 7 2 2 Diptera (true flies) Empididae; Chelifera 3 Simuliidae; Prosimulium 10 11 2 4 TipuNdae; Antocha 2 1 Dicranota 2 3 2 Hexatoma 9 8 9 1 Tipula 2 1 Ceratopogonldae; Probezzia 1 Chironomidae 18 22 37 32 Table 5 continued TAXA STATION 1CC 2CC 3CC R1 Megaloptera (dobson-, fishflies) Corydaiiciae; Nigronla 2 2 Odonata (dragon-, damselflies) Aeshnidae; Boyeria 1 Gomphidae; Lanthus 2 4 1 Coleoptera (aquatic beetles) Elmidae; Optioservus 1 1 Oulimnius 13 15 14 Promoresia 1 11 Stenefmis 1 Psephenidae; Ectopria 1 Psephenus 9 Non-Insect Taxa Cambaridae 1 2 Ollgochaeta 1 Total number In subsample 206 219 217 217
TABLE 6 RBP METRIC COMPARISON CLARKS CREEK, WAYNE COUNTY
METRIC STATIONS 1CC 2CC 3CC R1 1. TAXA RICHNESS 24 27 27 32 Cand/Ref (%) 75 84 84 Biol. Cond. Score 6 8 8 8
2. MOD. EPT INDEX 15 15 15 18 Cand/Ref (%) 83 83 83 . Biol. Cond. Score 8 8 8 8
3. MOD. HBI 2.11 2.16 2.42 2.32 Cand-Ref -0.21 -0.16 0.10 Biol. Cond. Score 8 8 8 8
4. % DOMINANT TAXA 27 24 22 29 Cand-Ref -2 -5 -7 Biol. Cond. Score 8 8 8 8
5. % MOD. MAYFLIES 37 35 36 42 Ref-Cand 5 7 6 Biol. Cond. Score 8 8 8 8
TOTAL BIOLOGICAL CONDITION SCORE 38 40 40 40 % COMPARABILITY 95 100 100
10
HAMMER CREEK
LEBANON AND LANCASTER COUNTIES
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REVIEW STREAM REDESIGNATION EVALUATION
Segment: Source to Speedwell Forge Lake Dam Stream Code: 07664 Drainage List O
WATER QUALITY MONITORING SECTION (TES) DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS BUREAU OF WATER STANDARDS AND FACILITY REGULATION DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
JUNE 2007 revised JUNE 2008 Revised JANUARY 2011 GENERAL WATERSHED DESCRIPTION
Hammer Creek is a tributary to Cocalico Creek in the Susquahanna River drainage and is located in Cornwall, South Lebanon, and Heidelberg Townships in Lebanon County and Penn and Elizabeth Townships in Lancaster County. The Hammer Creek basin upstream of the Speedwell Forge Lake Dam is characterized by both freestone and limestone/limestone-influenced streams that drain approximately 24.7mi2 and flows in a southerly direction. The surrounding area is characterized by relatively hilly topography, which is portrayed on the Lebanon, Richland, and Lititz 7.5-minute series USGS quadrangles.
The Hammer Creek basin upstream of the Speedwell Forge Lake Dam is currently designated High Quality - Cold Water Fishes (HQ-CWF) and was evaluated for a redesignation to Trout Stocking (TSF) in response to a petition submitted by Heidelberg Township to the Environmental Quality Board on March 31, 2003. The petitioner requested redesignation of the Hammer Creek basin from the headwaters to the Speedwell Forge Lake dam alleging that the current water quality, aquatic life, and habitat does not represent HQ-CWF existing use conditions and that the basin was improperly classified when it was designated as a Conservation Area in 1973. Water Quality Standards in effect at the time defined a Conservation Area as "Waters used within and suitable for the maintenance of an area now or in the future to be kept in a relatively primitive condition." Conservation Area use designations were re-labeled as HQ-CWF in the October 8, 1979 revisions to Chapter 93. The Department evaluated the basin of Hammer Creek from the source to the Speedwell Forge Lake dam.
Much of the watershed is dominated by forest and agriculture land uses with some low density residential land use throughout most of the study area. Land ownership is comprised of both private and public areas with most of the forested areas located within State Game Lands 156 while the agricultural area consists of both livestock and crop farming with numerous hay fields (Figure 1). The National Wetlands Inventory maps indicate the presence of forested/shrub wetlands and emergent wetlands.
WATER QUALITY AND USES
Surface Water
A review of DEP files indicates there is one permitted on-lot septic discharge and 10 permitted groundwater withdrawals within the Hammer Creek study area.
Additional DEP file information, other historical information sources, and recent survey data reveals that water quality issues involving pollution incidents and agricultural impacts have existed throughout the upper watershed from as far back as the 1960s and continue to characterize this area to present day.
In 1964, Commonwealth correspondence concerning the construction of Speedwell Forge Lake noted that coliform counts from samples collected in Hammer Creek were higher than State standards for public bathing places and that the lake could experience algal problems due to the high level of nutrients entering from Hammer Creek (Lyon 1964). Correspondence received in July 1969 by the PA Department of Health expressed concerns about large amounts of floating matter coming from Hammer Creek headwaters (Eitner and Dunlap 1969). A pollution report filed in June 1969 indicated pollution events related to Pennco Distillery occurred within Hammer Creek (Hall and Kulikosky 1969).
Several stream investigations were conducted by DEP during the 1970s. In April 1972S an aquatic biological survey of an unnamed tributary revealed high nitrate and ammonia concentrations and benthic macroinvertebrate samples dominated by pollution-tolerant taxa (Table 1-3, Figure 2) (Nichols 1972). A June 1972 survey of an unnamed tributary (locally referred to as Snitzel Creek), conducted in response to a reported oil discharge from the Pennco Distillery, documented that aquatic macroinvertebrates were absent. Additional observations were noted that the underside of many rocks were coated black (Bronner 1972). In March 1973, an investigation was conducted following a complaint that an unnamed tributary (Snitzel Creek) near Pennco Distillery was black in color. No black discharge was observed, however, it was noted that cattle waste was draining into Hammer Creek from lagoons on a nearby farm (Templin 1973). Another March 1973 investigation was conducted on Hammer Creek and several tributaries. The Hammer Creek stations (Figure 2; Stations 1, 5, 7, and 9) were deemed in good condition whereas the tributaries showed a range of good-to-poor conditions. Stations were sampled on the unnamed Pennco Distillery tributary (Figure 2; Stations 2-4). Conditions upstream of the discharge were relatively good. However, anaerobic conditions and temperature violations were evident downstream of the discharge. Samples collected on another tributary revealed poor conditions and were suspected to be related to a landfill located on a nearby pig farm (Tables 1 - 3, Figure 2; Station 8) (Frey 1973). In April 1974, a survey was conducted on an unnamed tributary to Hammer Creek in response to a sewage treatment plant discharge application. Benthic macroinvertebrate collections revealed 11 taxa indicating fair-to-good water quality but noted that less-than optimal diversity was likely related to the agricultural nature of the watershed (Table 1, 4, and 5, Figure 3) (Hughey 1974). A December 1974 investigation conducted on Hammer Creek and several tributaries revealed water quality parameters and benthic macroinvertebrate community conditions ranged from good-to-fair with high nitrate levels (5.94 - 7.56mg/l) for all the sites on Hammer and Mill Creeks (Figure 3; Stations 1 - 7). Snitzel Creek was sampled in relation to the Pennco Distillery discharge revealing excellent conditions upstream of the discharge and bad conditions below (Table 1, 4, and 5, Figure 3; Stations 8-9) (Hughey 1975).
In addition to the water quality data discussed above, water quality samples have been collected at several locations on Hammer Creek and Speedwell Forge Lake by several different organizations from 1976-2004 (Table 6, Figure 4). Water quality data collected by the Department (8 locations) and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) (5 locations) are presented in Tables 7-8. The Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC) collected nutrient data on a weekly basis from October 1994 through May 1997 (Table 9, SERC 1999). F.X. Brown, Inc., as part of a Speedwell Forge Lake 319 watershed assessment study, collected water chemistry data from one location on Hammer Creek above Speedwell Forge Lake at both baseflow and stormflow conditions and on a second unnamed tributary to Speedwell Forge Lake at baseflow conditions (Table 10). Water quality data had also been collected from Speedwell Forge Lake by Ulanoski et al (1981), Ballaron et al (1996), and F.X. Brown Inc. (2003). Chemical samples were collected on three occasions from two locations within the lake in 1980 and 1995 (Tables 11-12). F.X. Brown, Inc. collected chemistry parameters on four occasions from two locations in 2000 (Table 13). Temperature/dissolved oxygen profiles were alsq/ecorded in 1980 and 2000 in conjunction with these chemical sampling events (Figures 5-7) and the Department collected profiles in 1997 (Figure 8). Water quality data collected from Speedwell Forge Lake indicates the lake has high nutrient concentrations. Temperature/dissolved oxygen profiles indicate that the lake stratifies during the summer separating into two distinct layers with dissolved oxygen levels in the hypolimnion often becoming anoxic (0.0mg/l).
The instantaneous nature of water chemistry grab samples does not allow for valid comparisons to water quality criteria. No long-term water chemistry data were available from either Hammer Creek or Speedwell Forge Lake to allow such water quality criteria comparisons. (Data from SERC was extensive but was collected at one location and was limited to several nutrient parameters in Table 9). However, historical water quality data and that collected during recent surveys suggests water chemistry in the upper basin has been generally fair, and that elevated levels of nutrients - particularly nitrates - may be a long-term chronic condition.
Historically, as documented above, Hammer Creek has suffered from non-point source impacts that originate in agricultural areas of the upper basin. Nitrate data has been collected from many varied locations in the upper basin over a long period of time. A review of these data from DEP surveys and other sources revealed that nitrate is routinely present in high concentrations. A compilation of 1972-2004 DEP sample results from the upper basin yields nitrate concentration ranges of 6.7-8.9 mg/l for main stem stations and 2.5-10.9 mg/l for tributary stations (Tables 2, 4, & 7). Another dataset collected at 4HC from October 1994 through May 1997 (SERC 1999) resulted in a nitrate range of 3.5-15.9 mg/l (8.33 mg/l mean) and an ammonia range of .017-3.197 mg/l (.149 mg/l mean). While the only chemistry data presented in this report are from 1972-2004, other file information indicates that water quality conditions typified by the nutrient data above were most likely present in the 1960s and before (Lyon 1964, Eitner and Dunlap 1969). These conditions are chronic and continue to exist.
Grab samples collected during several past surveys indicate the presence of distinct freestone and limestone/limestone-influenced stream reaches (Tables 2, 4, 7, & 8). Except for somewhat higher alkalinity values at some of the limestone/limestone- influenced stations, alkalinity data submitted during the comment period by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF; 2008) were comparable to data collected from previous surveys. The stations with the lowest alkalinity values were found in the higher gradient, freestone substrate streams while the higher alkalinity values were collected from the flatter, agricultural areas of the upper basin characterized by scattered limestone springs.
Aquatic Biota
Due to the instantaneous nature of water chemistry grab samples, the indigenous aquatic community is a better indicator of long-term water quality conditions and is used as a measure of both water quality and ecological significance. The Department collected habitat and benthic macroinvertebrate data at three sampling locations on May 7, 2003, one location on December 16, 2003, and four locations on April 6, 2004. In addition, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF 2008) collected habitat and benthic data during an October/November 2007 survey of Hammer Creek (provided in Appendix Tables).
Habitat. Instream habitat conditions were evaluated at each of the eight stations where benthic macroinvertebrates were sampled (Table 14). The habitat evaluation consists of rating twelve habitat parameters to derive a station habitat score. The habitat scores for Hammer Creek ranged from 134 to 208 - reflecting low-end suboptimal-to-optimal habitat conditions. Habitat scores provided by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation in their Hammer Creek survey report (CBF 2008) ranged from 112 to 222 reflecting marginal-to- optimal conditions (Appendix Tables). While station habitat scores from both studies were generally comparable, 4HC and 5HC scored noticeably higher in the CBF study.
Benthos. Benthic macroinvertebrate collection efforts were employed using the Department's RBP benthic sampling methodology which is a modification of EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs; Plafkin, et al 1989; Barbour et al. 1999). Benthic samples were collected from five stations on the main stem of Hammer Creek and three tributaries. Taxonomic diversity was fair-to-excellent ranging from 12 to 28 taxa (Table 15). Stations with the highest diversity (1, 2, 6, 7, 8) were located in forested areas of the basin while those with lower diversity were in agricultural areas.
Benthic data provided in the CBF report (2008) for the Hammer Creek basin (Appendix Tables), when compared to DEP data, indicated better metric scores for some stations while other scores were lower. None of the upper agricultural areas met HQ criteria. A combination of variable drought conditions, BMP implementation, other seasonal factors, and natural benthic community dynamics may account for the variability seen between DEP and CBF data.
The stations sampled by the Department in 2003 and 2004, while high in alkalinity, are best described as limestone=influenced sites. The substrates were not characterized by significant growths of aquatic vegetation associated with limestone'springs nor, with the exception of a modest occurrence at 3UNT, were crustaceans that commonly dominate the benthos of true limestone springs (amphipods and isopods) present in any noticeable abundance. Freestone metrics were used to evaluate these sites since the limestone protocol was developed from benthic data heavily dominated by amphipods or isopods and this was not the character of the benthos in Hammer Creek.
Fish. The Department collected fish assemblage data on two mainstream sections on Hammer Creek and one station on Kettle Run. The PFBC supplied data for fish collected at five locations (Table 16). Data show that Hammer Creek contains at least 19 species of fishes including cold water fish species such as trout and sculpins. A modest presence of wild trout was documented throughout much of the main stem of Hammer Creek by the PFBC and in Kettle Run by the Department. In 2005, the PFBC stocked the section of Hammer Creek from the furthest downstream bridge on T536 (Obie Road) to the dam at the pumping station off SR 322 with approximately 1600 catchable sized trout pre-season and similar numbers of catchable sized trout in-season. Anecdotal and other information made known to the Department indicates that trout inhabit various other tributaries of Hammer Creek; particularly in the lower Hammer Creek basin upstream of Speedwell Forge Lake.
TheJ^FBC also supplied fisheries data for Speedwell Forge Lake. The lake fishery contains at least 26 species and has resident populations of several warm water species such as largemouth bass, bluegill, pumpkinseed, green sunfish, black and white crappie, channel and white catfish, brown and yellow bullhead, gizzard shad, and common carp (Table 17). The PFBC manages Speedwell Forge Lake as a warm water fishery through natural reproduction of resident fish and supplemental stocking of channel catfish (Table 18). Cold water salmonids were only captured in the 1999 survey. These fish likely originated from Hammer Creek. Salmonids may use Speedwell Forge Lake during late fall, winter, and early spring, but it is unlikely that they are present in the lake during the summer as temperatures and DO levels often fall outside normal tolerance ranges for these cold water fish.
BIOLOGICAL USE QUALIFICATIONS The qualifying criterion applied to Hammer Creek was the DEP antidegradation integrated benthic macroinvertebrate score. Selected benthic macroinvertebrate community metrics were compared to one of two reference stations (Table 19). One reference station was located on Segloch Run. Segloch Run is currently designated Exceptional Value (EV) in Chapter 93 and was used to compare with Hammer Creek stations that were freestone with low alkalinities. Elk Creek, an EV limestone-influenced stream, was the second reference station and was used to evaluate Hammer Creek stations that were limestone-influenced as indicated by higher alkalinities. It must be noted that CBF alkalinity values cited for upper Hammer Creek (CBF 2008) are significantly higher than those collected from similar locations during the Department's previous surveys (Tables 2, 4, & 7). Alkalinity values for Elk Creek were not measured during the 2003 survey because historical data had established Elk Creek alkalinity values as comparable to those documented in Hammer Creek. The magnitude difference between the DEP and CBF alkalinity datasets for Hammer Creek and Elk Creek with respect to the resident benthic communities is relatively insignificant. Wide alkalinity concentration ranges may be a factor of variable hydrologic conditions, which are affected by seasonal precipitation events and related groundwater recharge/surface discharge and concentration/dilution dynamics. The alkalinity values measured during DEP surveys also displayed wide spatial/temporal variability (Tables 2, 4, & & 7). Time of year and seasonal drought/extended wet-weather conditions would influence alkalinity variability. Benthic sample data from historical and recent DEP and CBF surveys reflect community structure and taxonomic composition common to freestone streams despite periodic high alkaline concentrations. Further, the sampled Hammer Creek sites were noticeably depauperate in crustacean taxa that normally dominate higher alkaline, true limestone habitat.
The Hammer Creek/Reference Station comparisons were made using metrics that were selected as being indicative of aquatic community health: taxa richness; modified EPT index (total number of intolerant Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera taxa); modified Hilsenhoff Biotic Index; percent dominant taxon; and percent modified mayflies. Based on the application of these five metrics to the Department's data, the Walnut Run station had a biological condition score greater than 92% of the reference station on Segloch Run. This indicates that Walnut Run qualifies for an EV designation under the Department's regulatory criterion (25 Pa. Code §93.4b(b)(1)(v). None of the other DEP stations met the Antidegradation qualifying requirements listed in 25 Pa. Code §93.4b(b). CBF results were comparable to DEP's EV existing use determination for Walnut Run. Metrics analysis results of CBF data for 1HC met the 83% biological condition scoring criterion (25 Pa. Code §93.4b(a)(2)(i)(A)) - indicating that the existing use of this Hammer Creek headwater station matches its current HQ designated use.
PUBLIC RESPONSE AND PARTICIPATION SUMMARY The Department provided public notice of this aquatic life use evaluation and requested any technical data from the general public through publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on June 7, 2003 (33 Pa.B 2712). A similar notice was also published in the Lebanon Daily News on June 6, 2003. In addition, the Heidelberg, South Lebanon, and Elizabeth Townships were notified of the redesignation evaluation in a letter dated June 5, 2003. David Correll from the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center provided water chemistry data for Hammer Creek. The Department received letters from the Hammer Creek Watershed Association, Heidelberg and Warwick Townships, PennEnvironment, and the Pennsylvania Chapter of the Sierra Club in opposition to the changing of designation.
The Hammer Creek report and original recommendations (June 2007) to remove the HQ designation from the Hammer Creek basin and change the designated use of Speedwell Forge Lake to Warm Water Fishes (WWF) were provided to the petitioner and posted on DEP's web page for public review and comment. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) submitted a letter opposing the Department's findings and a report with additional data (CBF 2008) summarizing conditions of the Hammer Creek watershed.
DESIGNATED USE REVIEW The petitioners have requested that the designated use of the Hammer Creek basin upstream of the Speedwell Forge Lake Dam be changed from its current HQ-CWF designation to TSF, a less restrictive use. In order to redesignate a stream to a less restrictive use, DEP must conduct a stream redesignation evaluation that satisfies the demonstrations required by 25 Pa. Code §93.4(b) Less restrictive uses and §93.4(c) Redesignation of water.
Section §93.4(b) states that "less restrictive uses than those currently designated for particular waters listed in § § 93.9a—93.9z may be adopted when it is demonstrated that: • the designated use is more restrictive than the existing use, • the use cannot be attained by implementing effluent limits required under sections 301 (b) and 306 of the Federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.A. § § 1311(b) and 1316) [pertains to point source discharges] or implementing cost-effective and reasonable BMPs for nonpoint source control, • and one or more of the following conditions exist: (1) Naturally occurring pollutant concentrations (natural quality) prevent the attainment of the use. (2) Natural, ephemeral, intermittent or low flow conditions or water levels prevent the attainment of the use, unless these conditions may be ^ compensated for by the discharge of sufficient volume of effluent ^ discharges without violating State water conservation requirements to enable uses to be met. (3) Human caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment of the use and cannot be remedied or would cause more environmental damage to correct than to leave in place. (4) Dams, diversions or other types of hydrologic modifications preclude the attainment of the use, and it is not feasible to restore the water body to its original condition or to operate the modification in a way that would result in the attainment of the use. (5) Physical conditions related to the natural features of the water body, such as the lack of a proper substrate, cover, flow, depth, pools, riffles, and the like, unrelated to water quality, preclude attainment of aquatic life uses. (6) Controls more stringent than those required by sections 301 (b) and 306 of the Federal Clean Water Act would result in substantial and widespread economic and social impact."
Further, Section §93.4(c) states that "Waters considered for redesignation may not be redesignated to less restrictive uses than the existing uses."
In order to properly address the petition request for Hammer Creek, DEP has conducted the following stream redesignation evaluation to determine the appropriateness of the original designated use as required by §93.4(b): • A designated use / existing use comparison to determine if the designated use is more restrictive, • An evaluation of point sources and nonpoint sources to determine if effluent limits and BMPs will result in attainment of the designated use • A determination of whether any of the six conditions in the regulations is applicable.
Stream Redesignation Evaluation Summary
HQ-CWF Designated Use. As part of this redesignation evaluation, information known to DEP was reviewed to determine, to the best extent practical, whether the HQ-CWF designated use is supported by "existing use" conditions that may have been present at the time of the original designation. "Existing uses", as defined in 25 Pa. Code §93.1, are "Those uses actually attained in the water body on or after November 28, 1975, whether or not they are included in the water quality standards." Based on the water quality conditions presented and discussed above in the Water Quality and Uses - Surface Water section, the upper Hammer Creek basin was not in a "primitive" condition (a requirement of the Conservation Area definition on page 2) at the time of the original Conservation Area designation, and therefore, did not merit the Conservation Area/HQ- CWF conversion made in 1979. The land use conditions, localized stream habitat impacts, and pollution events, which characterized the upper basin area prior to the 1979 redesignation further indicates that HQ-CWF existing uses were not evident at that time.
Designated Use / Existing Use Comparison. Historic and recent data, including benthic data submitted by CBF (2008) for most of the upper basin, show that the HQ "designated use is more restrictive than the existing use" (CWF) - a demonstration required by §93.4(b). To qualify as HQ designated use waters, at least one of following qualifying criteria should be demonstrated: chemistry, biological assessment, or Class A wild trout stream designation.
Chemistry
While no long-term water chemistry data were available from Hammer Creek or Speedwell Forge Lake to allow for HQ-qualifying water quality criteria comparisons, a review of historical and recent water chemistry data collected in the upper basin indicates that if requisite long-term data were available, the chemistry qualifying criterion in §93.4b(a)(1)(i) would not likely be met. (See Tables 2, 4, 7 - 13 and Figures 6 & 7)
Biological Assessment
The benthic communities collected from concurrent sites from 1972 to 2007 are reasonably comparable in that upper Hammer Creek locations were depauperate in sensitive taxa abundance and richness (stoneflies, most mayflies, and some caddisflies) and dominated by more tolerant taxa (particularly Chironomidae) - both situations being counter-indicative of High-Quality existing use conditions.
Class A Wild Trout Designation
Wild trout have been documented in modest quantities in one unnamed tributary (PFBC 0102; Figure 4). While wild trout are also present at other upper basin locations, there is no indication of any significant trout biomass data to compel designation of any Hammer Creek stream reaches as Class A Wild Trout waters.
Point and Nonpoint Source Evaluation. There is only one small permitted point source and it is located in the lower Hammer Creek basin. Because of its location, more restrictive discharge limits would not provide any remedy in attaining HQ conditions in the upper basin. Numerous dam removal and stream bank fencing and stabilization projects (best management practices or BMPs) have been implemented to control nonpoint sources in the study area. While some areas of Hammer Creek have documented improvement, other areas in the upper basin remain impacted by non-point sources.
In order to evaluate the potential of the upper Hammer Creek basin to respond favorably to additional BMP projects and achieve HQ use attainment, sediment and nutrient loading estimates for the upper basin were generated using a reference watershed approach based on the Department's ArcView Generalized Watershed Loading Function (AVGWLF) model. The Reference Watershed Approach compares two watersheds: one attaining its uses (the reference) and one that is impacted based on biological assessments. Ideally, both watersheds should have similar land use/cover distributions. Other features, such as base geologic formation, are matched to the extent possible; however, most variations can be adjusted for in the model. The objective of the process in this case is to estimate the BMP implementations necessary to reduce the loading rate of pollutants in Hammer Creek to a level equivalent to the loading rate in the reference stream segment (Hay Creek). Implementing these estimated BMPs should reduce loads resulting in conditions favorable for the return of a healthy biological community in Hammer Creek.
Three factors were considered when selecting a suitable reference watershed: 1) The watershed should have been assessed by DEP and determined to be attaining water quality standards; 2) The watershed should be comparable to Hammer Creek in physical properties, such as land cover/land use, physiographic province, and geology/soils; and 3) The size of the reference watershed should be within 20-30 percent of the Hammer Creek watershed area. The search for a reference watershed that would satisfy the above characteristics for the Hammer Creek comparison was conducted by means of a desktop screening using several GIS coverages, including the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC), Landsat-derived land cover/use grid, the Pennsylvania streams database, and geologic rock types. Based on these three reference watershed selection factors, Hay Creek (Berks County) was selected as the reference watershed for comparison because of requisite similarities and EV, HQ-CWF, and CWF designated use attainment. Hay Creek is located south of Birdsboro, in Robeson and Union Townships and New Morgan Borough of Berks County.
The objective of this exercise was to estimate the potential for improvement in Hammer Creek through the implementation of BMPs designed to reduce pollutant-loading rates in the upper basin to rates demonstrated in the non-impaired reference basin, Hay Creek. The AVGWLF model was used to establish existing loading conditions for the Hammer Creek and Hay Creek reference watersheds.
Based on the reconnaissance of Hammer Creek conducted in October 2007, a very small percentage of stream miles in agricultural lands were fenced or had vegetative buffers on banks and riparian areas. In addition, many eroding banks were observed throughout the basin and there were few bank stabilization projects evident. This suggests the sediment loads to Hammer Creek will continue for some time at current, very high rates. It was also observed that the stream bed was buried under fine sediments in many areas and that riffle habitat was lacking.
A review of 2005 color aerial photography (PAMAP, DCNR 2006) for both the Hammer Creek and Hay Creek watersheds and an on-the-ground reconnaissance of Hammer Creek was conducted to determine the presence of agricultural BMPs for each watershed. In addition, Berks and Lebanon County Conservation Districts were contacted for information on agricultural practices and BMPs to get a better understanding of existing conditions that might influence the AVGWLF model. General observations of the individual watershed characteristics include:
10 Hammer Creek Watershed • Local geology co-dominated by carbonate limestone rock and interbedded sandstone. • Strip cropping and contour plowing on majority of croplands. • Limited riparian buffer zones in some areas, with residential/commercial and crop/pasture land extending right up to stream banks.
Hay Creek Watershed • Local geology dominated by interbedded sedimentary rock (shale and sandstone). • Forest buffers along streams • Predominately forested watershed
The AVGWLF model produced information on watershed size, land use, and sediment loading. The sediment loads represent an annual average over a 20-year period, from 1975 to 1995 for the Hammer and Hay Creek watersheds. This information was then used to calculate existing unit area loading rates for Hammer Creek and Hay Creek reference watersheds.
The results of the model run estimated the average annual existing loads in pounds per year for the Hammer and Hay Creek modeled areas. The parenthesized values are loads in pounds/acre/year:
Sediment Nitrogen Phosphorus 4,666,000 140,069 5,716.6 Hammer Creek (502.6) (15.09) (0.62) 1,927,000 37,240 2,248 Hay Creek (241.4) (4.66) (0.28)
These modeling results indicate the estimated existing sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus loading rates for Hammer Creek would need to be reduced by factors of 2.4, 3.8, and 2.5 to approximate Hay Creek reference conditions.
In order to evaluate potential reductions from implementation of BMPs, the Pollution Reduction Impact Comparison Tool (PredlCT) model was used to evaluate BMP scenarios at 75% and 100% of possible agriculture, stream bank fencing and stabilization BMPs for Hammer Creek. The results are presented below in comparison with the previously presented estimated average annual existing loads (pounds/year). Values in parentheses are loads in pounds/acre/year:
11 Sediment Nitrogen Phosphorus Hammer Creek: 4,666,000 140,069 5,716.6 existing loading (502.6) (15.09) (0.62) @ 75% BMP 3,888,251 127,012 4667 implementation (418.8) (13.6) (0.50) @100% BMP 2,716,418 121,013 3,795 implementation (292.6) (13.0) (0.41) Hay Creek: 1,927,000 37,240 2,248 reference target (241.4) (4.66) (0.28)
When predictive modeling considered BMP implementation levels reaching the maximum possible in Hammer Creek, improvement is indicated but loads still exceeded those of the reference (1.4, 3.2, and 1.7 times higher respectively).
A review of historical aerial photography was conducted in addition to the review of the 2005 PA MAP aerial color photography to examine landuse changes and use of agricultural BMPs over time. Aerial photography from April 29, 1940; July 7, 1970; and the period between 1992 and 1995 showed very little change in land use. Approximately 95% of agricultural lands in 1940 were still present in 2005. Use of BMPs was almost non-existent in 1940. However, in 1970 some farms were using contour plowing/strip cropping and by 1992, nearly every farm with steeper slopes was using contour plowing/strip cropping. Other BMPs in use included terracing and diversions and rotational grazing. In addition to the above BMPs, approximately 10 farms had manure storage facilities, which likely accounted for 80% or more of the farms with animals. Unlike crop lands, pasture lands in the basin had few BMPs and it was common for animals to have free access to streams in pastures. Streams in these areas were over- widened and had numerous point and sand bars, indicative of unstable bank and streambed conditions. On-the-ground reconnaissance of the basin revealed approximately 0.5 mile of stream bank fencing. Most stream miles in the upper basin lacked adequate buffers, and those few areas with adequate buffers were mainly found in the lower portion of the upper basin.
Based upon this review of historic aerial photos and available stream surveys, it is very likely that Hammer Creek had very high sediment, nitrogen and phosphorus loads in the mid to late 1970s. Aquatic habitat scores from various surveys conducted in 1997, 2003 and 2004 were consistently marginal for embeddedness, sediment deposition, channel alteration and riparian vegetation. Embeddedness and sediment deposition scores are very good indications of instream habitat conditions and the marginal scores indicate that habitat for macroinvertebrates and fish was either lacking or of poor quality.
Historical and more recent survey data from upper Hammer Creek indicate that resident aquatic macroinvertebrate communities were impacted by human caused conditions prior to 1970 and that condition persists to the present. The most recent upper basin stations sampled by DEP in 2003 and 2004 (1HC, 2HC, 3UNT, 4HC) reflect these
12 impacts. The three latter stations were characterized by low diversity and taxa richness, while 1HC (located on a completely forested headwater tributary) had a fairly diverse and rich aquatic community.
Modeling results presented above indicate that, while additional BMPs may result in water quality improvements, as the Department has acknowledged, it is very unlikely that Hammer Creek, even with the unlikely scenario of 100% BMP implementation would experience loading rates reduced to a level resulting in HQ designated use attainment. Reaching the HQ designated use level of attainment does not appear to be possible without conversion of agricultural lands to forest and wetlands.
Less Restrictive Use Conditions. The Less Restrictive Use conditions found at 25 Pa. Code §93.4(b) were reviewed in the context of the Hammer Creek redesignation request. Of the six listed, only §93.4(b)(3) is applicable to the upper hammer Creek basin: "Human caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment of the use and cannot be remedied or would cause more environmental damage to correct than to leave in place". Historical and recent data presented in this report clearly document the extent of human impacts on Hammer Creek.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on applicable regulations at 25 Pa. Code §93.4(b) and §93.4b, historical file data, comments to date provided to the Department, recent field surveys, and land use reviews the Department makes the following recommendations:
Upper Hammer Creek Basin
The Hammer Creek basin from its source to Rexmont Road (downstream of the two former water supply reservoirs) should retain its current HQ-CWF designated use. The remainder of the upper Hammer Creek basin downstream to the confluence of Unnamed Tributary 07678 (approximately 0.25 miles downstream of the junction of Obie Road and Michters Road) should be changed to CWF. Reasons for this recommendation are listed below:
1) The forested and relatively undisturbed nature of Hammer Creek upstream of the former water supply reservoirs justifies retention of the current HQ-CWF designation; 2) In 1973, Hammer Creek was originally designated as a Conservation Area, which by definition protected waters that were and are in a relatively primitive condition. Since much of Hammer Creek was not in a "relatively primitive condition" anytime between 1940 and the present, the Conservation Area designation was in error for much of the basin. Therefore, the 1979 designated use conversion of Hammer Creek basin from a Conservation Area to HQ-CWF from Rexmont Road downstream to Unnamed Tributary 07678 is also erroneous. Further, water quality evaluations conducted in the mid-1970s, other historical file information, recent field surveys, and land use reviews do not establish that an HQ existing use was ever realized for this portion of the basin;
13 3) The current HQ-CWF designated use of this upper basin cannot be attained by implementing effluent limits required under sections 301 (b) and 306 of the Federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.A. §§ 1331 (b) and 1316); 4) The current HQ-CWF use designation of the upper basin cannot be attained by implementing cost-effective and reasonable best management practices (BMPs) for nonpoint source control; and 5) The human caused conditions that prevent the attainment of the designated use cannot be remedied to the level needed for HQ-CWF use attainment. While BMPs installed to date have led to some water quality improvements and additional BMPs could result in further improvements, modeling indicates those improvements will not result in HQ-CWF use attainment.
Comments received from CBF assert that the Department failed to adequately demonstrate an HQ existing use had not been attained in the upper Hammer Creek basin at any time on or after November 28, 1975, thus invalidating the Department's conclusion that the original HQ designation was a misclassification. A review of land uses, aerial photos (1940-2005), and BMP modeling efforts all indicate that the upper Hammer Creek basin was misclassified. Land use since 1940 has been relatively consistent with agricultural use at comparable levels to those occurring up to 2005. High concentration levels of nitrates in Hammer Creek surface waters (Tables 2, 4, & 7) are relatively constant with a slight increase from 1972-2003; suggesting that water quality has been continuously impacted since the "existing use" definition date of November 28, 1975. There is no evidence to suggest that HQ existing uses were ever attained during this period. Further, if current water quality conditions do not reflect HQ existing uses after BMPs have been in place for several years, it is unreasonable to conclude that such HQ uses would have been evident in an agriculturally active watershed at the time of the original HQ designation when BMPs were even less evident.
Lower Hammer Creek Basin
It is recommended that Walnut Run, a tributary to Hammer Creek be redesignated as EV, based on the biological condition scoring criteria at 25 Pa. Code §93.4b(b)(1)(v).
The remaining, lower portion of the Hammer Creek basin from Unnamed Tributary 07678 downstream to the Inlet of Speedwell Forge Lake, including its northern unnamed tributary, should retain the current HQ-CWF designation. While Department findings indicate that much of the upper Hammer Creek basin does not now and has never displayed HQ existing uses, many sections of the lower basin exhibit improving water quality conditions. The condition of the lower basin, being better than that of the upper portion of Hammer Creek, along with a lack of historical "existing use" information to the contrary on the lower basin, precludes removal of the HQ designation.
Speedwell Forge Lake
A review of available data indicates the existing use for Speedwell Forge Lake is and has always been WWF. The predominance of warm water conditions and warm water fishery found in Speedwell Forge Lake is the consequence of impounding flowing waters. Such conditions are normal and are expected whenever flowing waters are
14 impounded in areas with temperate climates. These warm water conditions are irretrievable since it is not feasible to remove the impoundment or operate other types of hydrologic modifications to restore the water body to its original condition in a way that would result in attainment of the current HQ designated use. Historical data indicate that Speedwell Forge Lake has supported a warm water fish community since it was constructed and has been managed by the PFBC as such.
It is the Department's conclusion that: 1) the designated use of Speedwell Forge Lake is more restrictive than its existing use; 2) similar to the discussion above in the Upper Hammer Creek Basin Recommendations, the Lake's immediate surrounding area was not in a "relatively primitive condition" at the time of its construction. Thus, the HQ-CWF designation for Speedwell Forge Lake is based on a Conservation Area misclassification; 3) the designated use of HQ-CWF cannot be attained by implementing effluent limits required under sections 301 (b) and 306 of the Federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.A. §§ 1331(b) and 1316); 4) its current use designation cannot be attained by implementing cost-effective and reasonable best management practices (BMPs) for nonpoint source control; and 5) the conditions existing in Speedwell Forge Lake are the result of limnological processes that occur naturally in impoundments and it is not feasible to restore this portion of Hammer Creek to its original condition by removing Speedwell Forge Lake or managing the lake in a way that would result in the attainment of its designated use.
These Hammer Creek and Speedwell Forge Lake recommendations are not consistent with the petitioner's request to redesignate the entire Hammer Creek basin as TSF. Redesignation of most of the upper Hammer Creek basin from HQ-CWF to CWF affects approximately 17.5 miles of streams; EV affects approximately 1.6 miles of stream on Walnut Run; and WWF affects approximately 1.5 miles of Hammer Creek represented by Speedwell Forge Lake, which approximates 106 surface acres. Approximately 13.8 stream miles are recommended to retain the current HQ-CWF designation. These recommendations are depicted in Figure 9.
15 REFERENCES
Bailaron, P. B., S. W. Bollinger, and D. L. Sitlinger. 1996. Lake Water Quality Assessment: Inventory of Lakes in the Susquehanna River Basin In Pennsylvania and Water Quality Characteristics of Eleven Publicly-Owned Lakes. Susquehanna River Basin Commission. Pub No. 177.
Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphvton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-6=99=002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water; Washington, D.C.
Bronner, P. E. 1972. Field Memorandum. Streams 2.14.3 a. Unnamed Tributary to Hammer Creek, Heidelberg Township, Lebanon County. DEP file information.
Chesapeake Bay Foundation. 2008. Collection and Taxonomic Identification and Enumeration of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates in the Hammer Creek Watershed (Lebanon and Lancaster Counties), PA and Appropriate Reference Locations October-November 2007. Bilger, M.D. (auth); EcoAnalysts. 49pp. Eitner, W. Jr., and R. C. Dunlap. 1969. Speedwell Forge Club Correspondence to Secretary of Health. DEP file information.
Frey, R. F. 1973. Aquatic Biology Investigation. Hammer Creek. Lebanon County. March 21, 22, 1973. DEP file information.
F.X. Brown, Inc. 2003. Speedwell Forge Lake 319 Watershed Assessment Study.
Hall, B. W. and F. A. Kulikosky. 1969. Water Pollution Report. DEP file information.
Hughey, R. E. 1974. Aquatic Biological Survey, Unnamed Tributary to Hammer Creek, Heidelberg Township, Lebanon County. May 2, 1974. DEP file information.
Hughey, R. 1975. Aquatic Biological Investigation. Hammer, Mill, and Snitzel Creeks, Heidelberg Township, Lebanon County. January 14, 1975. DEP file information.
Lyon, W. A. 1964. Commonwealth Correspondence. WDE-Proposed Recreational Dam, Hammer Creek, Elizabeth Township. Lancaster County. DEP file information.
Nichols, T. K. 1972. Aquatic Biological Investigation. Unnamed Tributary to Hammer Creek, Lancaster County, May 4, 1972, DEP file information.
PA Fish and Boat Commission. File information.
Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates
16 and Fish. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulation and Standards, Washington, D.C. EPA 440-4-89-001.
Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. 1999. Department of Environmental Protection file information.
Templin, N. D. 1973, Field Investigation. Industrial Waste Complaint, Heidelberg Township, Lebanon County, Kirk Folk Farm. March 8, 1973. DEP file information.
Ulanoski, J. L, R. H. Shertzer, J. L Barker, and R. L. Hartman. 1981. Trophic classification and characteristics of twenty-six publicly owned Pennsylvania Lakes. Bui. No. 61, Bureau of Water Management, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. 240 pp.
17 TABLE 1. HISTORIC STATION LOCATIONS Hammer Creek, Lebanon and Lancaster Counties
STATION LOCATION
Nichols 1972
UNT 1972 UNT to Hammer Creek.
Lat: 40.2325 Long: -76.3363 RMI: 0.1
Frev1973
1 1973 Hammer Creek, along T-534 in Heidelberg Township, Lebanon County. Lat: 40.2837 Long: -76.3249 RMI: 16.0 2 1973 UNT to UNT Hammer Creek 100 yards upstream T-325 crossing in Heidelberg Township, Lebanon County. Lat: 40.2767 Long: -76.3176 RMI: 0.4 3 1973 UNT to UNT Hammer Creek 100 yards downstream T-325 crossing in Heidelberg Township, Lebanon County. Lat: 40.2777 Long: -76.3208 RMI: 0.1
4 1973 UNT to Hammer Creek 100 yards downstream confluence with UNT. Lat: 40.2781 Long: -76.3227 RMI: 0.1
5 1973 Hammer Creek 30 yards downstream confluence with UNT. Lat: 40.2768 Long: -76.3238 RMI: 15.4
6 1973 UNT Hammer Creek 20 yards downstream T-536 bridge crossing in Heidelberg Township, Lebanon County. Lat: 40.2740 Long: -76.3278 RMI: 0.5
7 1973 Hammer Creek 200 feet downstream confluence with UNT. Lat: 40.2714 Long: -76.3222 RMI: 15.0
8 1973 UNT Hammer Creek. Lat: 40.26.94 Long: -76.3243 RMI: 0.1
9 1973 Hammer Creek along T-325 1000 feet downstream confluence of UNT Heidelberg Township, Lebanon County. Lat: 40.2668 Long: -76.3246 RMI: 13.9
18 Huqhev1974
UNT 1974 Unnamed tributary to Hammer Creek along T-327, 200 feet upstream from confluence with Hammer Creek Lat: 40.2863 Long: -76.3154 RMI: 0.7 TABLE 1.(cont.)
STATION LOCATION
Huqhev1975
1 1974 Hammer Creek. Lat: 40.2858 Long: -76.3292 RMI: 16.3 2 1974 Hammer Creek, 300 feet upstream confluence with Mill Creek. Lat: 40.2794 Long: -76.3233 RMI: 15.8
3 1974 Hammer Creek, 200 feet downstream confluence with Mill Creek. Lat: 40.2768 Long: -76.3238 RMI: 15.4
4 1974 Hammer Creek. Lat: 40.2699 Long: -76.3219 RMI: 14.9
5 1974 Mill Creek near T-327 bridge. Lat: 40.2882 Long: -76.3114 RMI: 1.1
6 1974 Mill Creek, 300 feet upstream confluence with Snitzel Creek. Lat: 40.2789 Long: -76.3214 RMI: 0.3
7 1974 Mill Creek, 300 feet downstream confluence with Snitzel Creek. Lat: 40.2781 Long: -76.3227 RMI: 0.1
8 1974 Snitzel Creek. Lat: 40.2767 Long: -76.3176 RMI: 0.4
9 1974 Snitzel Creek. Lat: 40.2777 Long: -76.3208 RMI: 0.1
19 TABLE 2. HAMMER CREEK - WATER CHEMISTRY PEP (Nichols 1972; Frey 1973) UNT Hammer STATION Creek 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Date 4/12/1972 3/21-22/1973 Field Parameters Temp (°C) - 22.5 10.5 - - - - Laboratory Parameters Turbidity (J.C.U.) 5 ------pH 7.2 8 7.9 7.3 7.9 8 7.2 7.7 6.8 8 Alkalinity (mg/l) 32 140 45 140 150 140 45 140 35 150 Hardness (mg/l) - 160 55 145 125 32 60 160 35 170 Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/l) 2.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.2 1.2 Nitrate (mg/l) 10.9 8 2.5 5.3 5.5 7.3 3.4 7.3 1.3 7.1 Nitrite (mg/l) 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.13 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.06 Phosphorus (mg/l) - 0.33 0.22 0.66 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.22 0.16 T. Susp. Solids (mg/l) 20 5 0 5 0 5 10 0 10 0 B.O.D. 2.1 0.4 0.6 3 1 1 1.8 3.8 2 6.2 Chloride (mg/l) 30 15 10 15 10 15 11 16 11 16 Iron (mg/l) - - 0.21 0.18 - - 0.88 0.14 - 0.26 Copper (mg/l) - - 0.03 0.02 ------Zinc (mg/l) - - 0 0.01 ------
20 TABLE 3. BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE DATA Hammer Creek, Lebanon and Lancaster Counties DEP (Nichols 1972; Frey 1973)
UNT Hammer Station # Creek 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Date 4/12/1972 3/21-22/1973 MAYFLIES Baetidae Ameletus A VA A R A R A Ephemerellidae Ephemerella A - A C C C 7 3 ' 73 . Heptagenlidae Stenonema C 7 3 STONEFLIES Perlidae Acroneuria - - R ------Perlodidae Isoperla R R CADDISFLIES Hydropsychldae Cheumatopsyche C C C R Hydropsyche C - C C C C C C Psychomyiidae Psychomyia
UenoJdae Neophylax C • 7 3 O . TRUE FLIES Chironomidae species 1, 1972 A species 2, 1972 A species 3, 1972 C species 1, 1973 C R C c A R C species 2, 1973 C A c c C C A SimulJidae Simulium A C R C Tabanidae Chrysops R R R Tipulidae Hexatoma R Tipula C R R R R R MISC. INSECT TAXA Belostomatidae Belostoma - - - - - Elmidae Stenelmis R - Dytiscidae Hydroporous R - Gomphidae Hagenius
Libellulidae Epicordulia 7 3 » -7 NON-INSECT TAXA Isopoda Asellus C R Gammarus A C R - Lymnaeidae Lymnaea R Physldae Physa A R R Sphaeriidae Sphaerium - Oligochaeta A R Tublficidae A • 7 3 « > O
Hirudinea 7 3 i • O Total Taxa 11 13 10 4 9 6 15 9 8 6 VA = Very Abundant A = Abundant C = Common R = Rare
21 TABLE 4. HAMMER CREEK - WATER CHEMISTRY DEP (Hughey 1974; 1975) UNT Hammer STATION Creek 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4/30 12/10 12/5 12/5 12/10 12/10 12/5 12/5 12/5 12/5 Date 1974 1974 1974 1974 1974 1974 1974 1974 1974 1974 Field Parameters Temp (°C) 16 6 10 11 6 3 8 13 1 23 PH 8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.9 8 7.7 7.6 7.4 7.6 Cond (umhos) 280 ------
Dlss. O2 (mg/l) 9.8 ------Laboratory Parameters PH 7.5 7.8 8.1 8.1 7.8 7.9 7.4 7.8 7.7 7.8 Alkalinity (mg/l) 140 88 160 160 48 144 158 160 74 174 Hardness (mg/l) 165 77 210 210 187 165 189 189 - - Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/l) 0.1 1.21 0.21 0.23 0.15 0.19 0.18 0.21 0.17 0.04 Nitrate (mg/l) 0.16 7.48 7.56 7.14 7 5.94 6.72 6.72 1.68 7.26 Nitrite (mg/l) 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.03 0.05 Phosphorus (mg/l) - 0.33 0.06 0.08 0.18 0.11 0.04 0.1 0.06 0.09 B.O.D. 2.6 1.2 0.5 0.5 4.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 6 Chloride (mg/l) 15 12 14 15 13 11 24 18 7 22 Total Solids 280 ------Total Dissolved Solids - 378 306 - 348 248 362 310 160 326
22 TABLE 5. BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE DATA Hammer Creek, Lebanon and Lancaster Counties PEP (Hughey 1974; 1975) UNT Hammer Station # Creek 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4/30/1974 12/5 & 10/1974 MAYFLIES Baetidae Baetis C R - R - EphemereHidae Ephemerella A R C R - Heptageniidae Stenonema C - R R
Tricorythidae Tricorythodes 73 « R STONEFLIES Capniidae Allocapnia . . . . C CADDISFLIES Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche R C R R R R R C - Hydropsyche C A A A A A A C R TRUE FLIES Athericidae Atherix R ChJronomldae R Chironomus R R Cryp tochironom us R R Dicrotendipes R R R C Glypyotoendipes R Microtendipes A R C C C C Stictochironom us R R R C C Diamesinae Diamesa C R A R R Pseudodiamesa C C R R C C Orthocladiinae Cricotopus C C C C C C C Limnophytes R R R R Orthocladius A R R R R Tanypodinae Conchapelopia R R C R Muscidae Limnophora R R Simuliidae SimuHum R C R R C Tabanidae R Tipulidae Antocha C C R R A R Hexatoma R Limnophila R Tipula R R R MISC. INSECT TAXA Elmidae R R Stenelmis R C Dytiscidae - R - ; : Psephenidae Psephenus C • ' 73
Sialidae Sialis 73 ' • 7} I NON-INSECT TAXA Isopoda Asellus C Gammarus R R Flanariidae Physidae Physa R R Oligochaeta C C R A ' O 73 • « 73 • O • 7 3 73 « 73 • < Hirudinea 73 • > O C Total Taxa 11 12 20 17 16 16 22 21 6 3 VA = Very Abundant A = Abundant C = Common R = Rare
23 TABLE 6. STATION LOCATIONS Hammer Creek and Segloch Run, Lebanon and Lancaster Counties Elk Creek, Centre County
STATION LOCATION
1HC Hammer Creek upstream of breached Lebanon Reservoir near T349 Lebanon Township, Lebanon County. Lat: 40.2731 Long:-76.3579 RMI: 19.1
2HC Hammer Creek at T536 bridge crossing in South Lebanon Township, Lebanon County, Lat: 40.2887 Long: -76.3458 RMJ: 17.5
PFBC 0101 Hammer Creek along T534 in Heidelberg Township, Lebanon County. Lat: 40.2860 Long: -76.2398 RMI: 16.5
3 UNT Unnamed tributary to Hammer Creek along T327 in Heidelberg PFBC 0102 Township, Lebanon County. Lat: 40.2822 Long: -76.3197 RMI: 0.4
4HC Hammer Creek at T536 bridge crossing in Heidelberg Township, SERC Lebanon County. Lat: 40.2707 Long: -76.3214 RMI: 14.9
PFBC 0201 Hammer Creek along T325 in Heidelberg Township, Lebanon County. Lat: 40.2703 Long: -76.3227 RMI: 14.4
5HC Hammer Creek along T560 in Elizabeth Township, Lancaster County. PFBC 0202 Lat: 40.2480 Long: -76.3327 RMI: 13.0
6WR Walnut Run along SR322 in Elizabeth Township, Lancaster County. Lat: 40.2470 Long:-76.3399 RMI: 0.4
7KR Kettle Run at SGL 156 boundary in Penn Township, Lancaster County. Lat: 40.2373 Long: -76.34.91 RMI: 0,9
8HC Hammer Creek along SR1037 in Elizabeth Township, Lancaster County PFBC 0301 Lat: 40.2283 Long: -76.3352 RMI: 11.4 319-1
319-2 Unnamed tributary to Speedwell Forge Lake in Elizabeth Township, Lancaster County. Lat: 40.2147 Long: -76.3158 RMI: 0.2
Ref1 Segloch Run at SGL 46 boundary along T596 in Clay Township, Lancaster County. Lat: 40.2467 Long:-76.2823 RMI: 1.7
Ref2 Elk Creek alona T863 in Miles Township, Centre County. Lat: 40.9209 Long: -77.4803 RMI: 4.7
24 TABLE 7. HAMMER CREEK - WATER CHEMISTRY DEP
STATION 1HC 2HC 3UNT 4HC 4.5HC 5HC 6WR 7KR 8HC Date 4/6/2004 4/6/2004 4/16/2003 4/6/2004 4/16/2003 5/7/2003 4/16/2003 4/16/2003 5/7/2003 5/7/2003 4/6/2004 5/7/2003 Field Parameters
Temp (°C) ii i t 17.54 13.69 15.46 12.43 pHI 8.35 - 7.9 7.61 7.4 Cond (umhos) 495 446 90 381
Diss. O2 (mg/l) 13.27 11.78 9.9 10.5 i II I Alkalinity (mg/l) 20 30 180 I II 10 Laboratory Parameters i pH 7.7 8 7.9 7.8 i Alkalinity (mg/l) 160.4 151.4 138 120.8 Nitrite (mg/l) - 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 - Nitrate (mg/l) 9.38 8.9 8.14 6.73 - T. Susp. Solids (mg/l) 6 22 4 10 Phosphorus (mg/l) <0.01 <0.01 0.012 0.026 i i Chloride (mg/l) 27.8 19.6 15.2 i
TABLE 8. HAMMER CREEK - WATER CHEMISTRY PFBC
STATION 0101 0101 0102 0201 0202 0202 0301 Date 9/8/1983 9/12/2003 10/30/2003 6/29/1976 6/30/1976 9/11/2003 9/11/2003 Field Parameters Temp (°C) 20.8 14 13.3 22 19.5 15.9 14 PH 8.2 7.8 7.6 7.4 7.4 8 7.5 Specific Conductance 399 415 461 320 260 421 370 Hardness 192 294 312 112 83 260 238 Alkalinity (mg/l) 158 196 194 96 80 182 165
Diss. O2 (mg/l) 9.3 ------
25 TABLE 9. HAMMER CREEK - WATER CHEMISTRY Smithsonian Environmental Research Center Station Location SERC, Figure 4 Date Phosphorus Orthophosphate Nitrate + Nitrite Ammonia Kjeldahl Nitrogen Organic Matter Units ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l g-4/l 10/4/1994 58 34 9415 v, 87 264 13 10/12/1994 70 30 9184 "" 95 354 51 10/18/1994 76 49 9665 220 400 36 10/25/1994 58 33 5269 334 297 18 11/1/1994 495 257 7962 301 1034 63 11/8/1994 81 40 9282 210 433 13 11/15/1994 345 166 8280 159 988 62 11/22/1994 107 61 7183 122 438 26 11/29/1994 269 191 7417 127 788 42 12/6/1994 205 109 9617 60 703 38 12/13/1994 64 33 8192 40 207 20 12/20/1994 52 17 8729 32 154 11 12/28/1994 200 77 9628 42 640 23 1/4/1995 86 41 8106 52 275 35 1/10/1995 76 25 8040 57 329 30 1/18/1995 130 61 9316 53 374 19 1/18/1995 111 62 9576 51 383 29 1/18/1995 70 66 8527 55 332 30 1/24/1995 143 63 8484 54 575 2 1/31/1995 111 62 9125 44 342 42 2/7/1995 84 22 8116 17 144 21 2/14/1995 105 33 8303 120 411 11 2/22/1995 453 255 5631 411 1527 69 2/28/1995 42 17 8485 44 162 17 3/7/1995 327 138 7649 152 971 69 3/14/1995 88 45 7955 39 304 13 3/21/1995 45 17 9006 19 174 23 3/28/1995 39 16 8847 34 188 26 4/4/1995 85 32 7799 106 603 26 4/11/1995 85 47 9475 72 434 25 4/18/1995 105 86 8639 125 397 32 4/25/1995 77 29 8516 84 333 41 5/2/1995 122 54 7481 128 515 38 5/9/1995 111 70 9021 148 366 31 5/16/1995 77 48 6984 107 413 17 5/23/1995 138 72 8342 142 504 91 5/31/1995 101 39 6436 130 516 18 5/31/1995 90 38 5949 130 508 28 5/31/1995 99 46 5845 127 440 35 6/6/1995 81 61 9969 152 341 40 6/13/1995 116 61 8732 150 263 34 6/20/1995 102 68 8384 147 364 28 6/27/1995 97 73 8078 97 412 38 7/5/1995 171 108 8102 126 657 40 7/11/1995 273 191 9335 190 1216 49 7/18/1995 164 114 8012 127 679 36 7/25/1995 558 240 6444 122 1324 78 8/1/1995 140 83 9102 151 568 51
26 TABLE 9. (cont.) Date Phosphorus Orthophosphate Nitrate + Nitrite Ammonia Kjeldahl Nitrogen Organic Matter Units ug/i ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l g-4/l 8/8/1995 77 51 8958 96 520 31 8/15/1995 119 81 11212 181 640 48 8/22/1995 104 62 10513 94 421 41 8/29/1995 122 68 9001 78 515 -49 8/29/1995 123 64 9071 78 422 56 8/29/1995 127 65 9141 75 632 55 9/9/1995 101 61 10517 89 426 29 9/12/1995 129 90 9498 152 671 49 9/19/1995 151 87 9098 113 504 12 9/26/1995 114 77 9409 112 453 16 10/3/1995 165 112 8633 103 618 35 10/11/1995 204 125 8284 133 651 53 10/11/1995 182 120 8449 132 665 33 10/11/1995 194 119 8251 131 704 42 10/17/1995 446 195 6328 190 1305 59 10/24/1995 250 149 8646 132 699 44 10/31/1995 355 242 8396 215 1002 76 11/7/1995 852 530 8053 524 2352 145 11/14/1995 2004 979 9935 515 4920 574 11/21/1995 44 38 15857 31 162 21 11/28/1995 57 35 9011 30 209 24 12/5/1995 1888 1123 7515 716 4796 483 12/12/1995 4064 1674 8731 438 9884 743 12/19/1995 20308 10840 5340 3197 52822 4622 12/28/1995 2313 1180 6829 612 6592 479 1/3/1995 86 46 9254 70 274 16 1/17/1995 92 58 8902 84 325 43 1/23/1995 686 346 8351 321 1631 108 1/30/1996 117 49 10172 41 357 20 2/6/1996 289 176 8748 191 846 51 2/13/1996 507 276 8303 317 1693 83 2/21/1996 117 91 7525 89 536 25 2/27/1996 82 39 9409 35 363 40 3/5/1996 220 137 9140 128 813 32 3/12/1996 141 56 8514 61 478 27 3/19/1996 519 262 7792 188 1436 86 3/26/1996 220 121 7548 137 611 32 4/2/1996 53 31 8072 36 189 20 4/9/1996 449 223 5677 158 1799 13 4/16/1996 61 32 7918 50 442 18 4/16/1996 53 31 7950 50 348 23 4/16/1996 56 31 7982 51 426 28 4/23/1996 84 42 7444 73 577 21 4/30/1996 130 67 7472 101 599 18 5/7/1996 234 127 6234 146 1043 47 5/14/1996 170 89 6614 84 655 36 5/20/1996 166 85 8766 110 850 43 5/28/1996 210 92 8291 83 542 29 6/3/1996 608 330 8578 157 1433 65 6/10/1996 3578 1628 4742 274 7802 385 6/17/1996 1395 742 5978 212 3565 191 6/24/1996 121 114 8927 60 723 20
27 TABLE 9. (cont.) Date Phosphorus Orthophosphate Nitrate + Nitrite Ammonia Kjeldahl Nitrogen Organic Matter Units ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l g-4/l 7/1/1996 75 60 9730 62 424 37 7/8/1996 379 230 7168 243 1561 73 7/15/1996 869 424 5991 *- 195 3153 225 7/22/1996 95 58 8038 81 391 38 7/29/1996 91 65 7841 79 399 25 8/5/1996 114 62 9764 99 426 28 8/12/1996 82 54 8255 86 510 37 8/19/1996 88 65 9138 67 347 28 8/23/1996 666 555 9936 224 1343 84 9/3/1996 174 79 9165 180 733 105 9/9/1996 68 52 7703 76 406 18 9/16/1996 152 93 9081 101 564 10 9/23/1996 120 82 9400 103 418 26 9/30/1996 68 48 10213 67 263 29 10/7/1996 221 190 8727 182 1014 41 10/15/1996 1450 664 3558 236 3338 13 10/21/1996 141 91 8519 57 396 18 10/28/1996 84 5 9433 46 287 17 11/4/1996 1167 701 4045 338 2962 99 11/12/1996 221 51 8600 120 475 26 11/18/1996 424 391 6998 151 1106 66 11/25/1996 840 633 5548 328 2532 99 12/2/1996 326 196 8060 115 837 87 12/9/1996 584 287 6441 149 635 63 12/16/1996 129 81 7939 66 - 26 12/30/1996 68 40 9282 37 - 23 1/6/1997 111 41 9639 40 - 22 1/13/1997 123 37 9918 50 - 7 1/21/1997 98 42 10171 46 - 19 1/27/1997 56 33 9537 83 - 21 2/3/1997 108 51 8751 38 - 28 2/10/1997 103 61 7878 86 - 22 2/10/1997 110 66 7844 90 25 2/10/1997 92 75 7878 91 - - 2/18/1997 29 10 8695 35 - 24 2/24/1997 52 22 8882 29 - 59 3/3/1997 71 51 8818 75 - 60 3/10/1997 329 183 7827 188 - 62 3/17/1997 52 25 8745 55 - 66 3/27/1997 79 41 7653 69 - 46" 3/31/1997 61 51 8859 42 - 7 4/7/1997 33 21 9694 35 - 46 4/14/1997 71 4 8819 38 - 19 4/21/1997 25 25 8893 48 - 18 4/28/1997 47 28 7076 50 - 29 5/5/1997 39 19 7233 77 - 26 5/12/1997 60 24 9390 70 - 15 5/19/1997 220 122 7446 192 - 68 5/25/1997 156 82 8069 172 - 50
28 TABLE 10. WATER CHEMISTRY Hammer Creek (391-1) and Unnamed Tributary to Speedwell Forge Lake (319-2) F.X.. Brown, Inc.
STATION 319-1 7/10 10/2 2/9 5/10 1/25 3/3 3/21 3/28 5/14 Date"" 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 Laboratory Parameters Baseflow Stormflow Total Phosphorus 0.037 0.037 0.064 0.046 0.17 0.2 0.44 0.26 1.3 Nitrite/nitrate nitrogen 7.4 6.43 6.08 1.42 4.05 4.08 3.5 3.55 3 Total Kjeldahi Nitrogen <.1 <.1 <1 <.1 0.77 1.4 2.1 4.55 2.7 Total suspended solids <.1 <.1 32 8.8 50 72 150 270 310 pH 8.4 8.2 8.5 8.3 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.6 7.6
STATION 319-2 7/10 10/2 2/9 5/10 Date 2000 2000 2001 2001 Laboratory Parameters Baseflow Total Phosphorus ^0.063 0.065 0.21 0.062 Nitrite/nitrate nitrogen 6.43 4.65 6.08 1.17 Total Kjeldahi Nitrogen <.1 0.37 <1 <.1 Total suspended solids <.1 1.6 28 3.6 PH . 7.7 7.7 8.6 7.7
TABLE 11. SPEEDWELL FORGE LAKE -WATER CHEMISTRY Ulanoski and Shertzer 1981 Location Dam Mid-lake April 17, 1980 June 25, 1980 August 5, 1980 April 17, 1980 June 25, 1980 August 5, 1980 Parameter Units 1 meters 8 meters 1 meters 6 meters 1 meters 6 meters 1 meter 1 meter 1 meter Field Parameters pH 7.5 _ 8.4 6.9 8.6 6.7 7.7 8.2 8.8 Conductance umhos/cm 290 - 279 280 255 385 295 297 248
Diss. O2 mg/l 9 7.2 9.5 0.3 14.2 0.5 10.1 10.3 16.2 Temp. °C 13=5 12.5 23.8 15.8 28 19 10.5 23.2 27.4 Secchi meters - - 2.65 - 0.6 - - 1.36 0.57 Laboratory Parameters Color Pt/c - - 5 5 <5 10 - <5 15 Chlorophyll a pg/i 12.317 - - 57.127 - - - 69.274 Carbon, organic-total mg/l 3 - 1 - - - 3 3 - Alkalinity mg/l - - 112 110 74 134 - 112 74 Hardness-total mg/l 20 <20 116 118 83 135 <20 125 84 Diss. Solids mg/l 170 170 238 216 190 270 192 238 190
NH3-N mg/l 0.07 0.08 0.05 0.26 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.01 0.09 NO2-N mg/l 0.018 0.024 0.01 0.054 0.064 0.02 0.016 0.064 0.066 NO3-N mg/l 3.28 3.28 3 1.08 2.36 1.22 3.72 >2.0 2.13 N-organic mg/l 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.8 - 0.04 0.4 0.29 - N-Kjeldahl mg/l 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.9 1.4 - 0.5 0.3 1.75 P-tota! mg/l 0.12 0.37 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.04 0.06 Ortho-P-total mg/l 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.002 0.002 0.02 <0.01 0.004 Ortho-P-diss. mg/l 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.002 0.002 0.01 <0.01 0.004 Ca-diss. mg/l 34.3 33.7 34.4 35.4 17.9 39.3 33.8 36.9 19.2 Mg-diss. mg/l 23.4 33.7 9.4 8.5 10.3 9.9 33.8 9.6 10.4 Cl-diss. mg/l 12 12 12 12 13 13 12 13 14
SO4-diss. mg/l 30 30 15 15 29 26 25 15 25 Fe-diss. pg/i 70 50 40 30 50 40 60 30 50 Mn-diss. ug/i 90 130 10 710 10 1130 60 40 10 Si-diss. mg/l <20 <20 <20 <20 8.69 11.24 <20 <20 8.18 Na-diss. mg/l 1.78 1.98 4.86 4.62 4.98 4.74 1.82 4.68 4.98 K-diss, mg/l 3.19- 5.17 2.08 2.24 2.58 3.08 5.06 2.1 2.7 Floride-diss. mg/l <0.10 <0.11 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <10 <0.10 <0.10
29 TABLE 12. SPEEDWELL FORGE LAKE - WATER CHEMISTRY SRBC (Ballaron et al. 1996)
Location Dam Mid-lake April 19,1995 June 21, 1995 September 7, 1995 April 19, 1995 June 21, 1995 September 7, 1995 Parameter Units 1 meters 5 meters 1 meters 5 meters 1 meters 5 meters 1 meter 1 meter 1 meter Field Parameters PH 8.8 8.1 8.7 7.55 7.85 7.15 8.25 7.98 8.55 Conductance umhos/cm 307 329 284 380 336 379 326 309 333
Diss. O2 mg/l 10.4 9.4 10.01 1.2 8.68 1.19 12.65 11.31 11.55 Temp. °C 12.5 9.5 24.8 17.1 23.9 22.5 12.9 25.3 23.8 Seechi meters 1 - 0.7 - 1.09 - 1 1.95 0.48 Laboratory Parameters Color Pt/c 25 25 20 40 15 10 20 15 12.5 Chlorophyll a M9/» 0.0481 - 0.0993 - 0.0449 - - - - Carbon, organic-total mg/l 3.9 3.7 5.9 5.3 4 3.9 2.8 5.2 4.8 Alkalinity mg/l 100 110 88 152 114 138 108 96 110 Hardness-total mg/l 141 151 149 78 141 160 151 109 139 Diss. Solids mg/l 254 544 192 244 218 232 274 248 435
NH3-N mg/l 0.03 0.11 0.02 1.55 0.16 0.68 0.03 0.03 0.215
NO2-N mg/l 0.032 0.036 0.054 0.044 0.042 0.024 0.03 0.068 0.068 N.O3-N mg/l 1.69 4.71 2.68 0.16 3.17 2.71 4.85 3.23 3.87 N-organic mg/l 5.45 5.63 3.87 2.38 4.05 4.05 6.69 4.93 4.81 P-total mg/l 0.08 0.1 0.16 0.13 0.09 0.11 0.07 0.17 0.14 Ortho-P-total mg/l 0.005 0.015 0.035 0.021 0.022 0.031 0.009 0.03 0.051 Ortho-P-diss. mg/l <.002 <.002 0.013 0.014 0.01 0.005 <.002 <.002 0.039 Ca-diss. mg/l 38.2 40.8 30.3 49.5 34.4 41.4 39.7 34.1 3.31 Mg-diss. mg/l 13 12.9 12.5 12.9 12.9 13.4 12.6 13.5 13.45
SO4-diss. mg/l 20.8 20.9 19.5 14.5 21.1 20.9 20.8 18.6 21.65 Fe-diss. M9/I 23 24 <10 960 74 89 32 <10 69 Mn-diss, MQ/I <1O 23 <10 1790 37 514 15 <10 30.5 Si-diss. mg/l 4.1516 5.3928 7.49 11.3634 7.6184 8.8382 7.04 9.39 7.97 Na-diss. mg/l 6.39 6.18 6.95 7.23 6.5 6.61 6.33 7.36 6.65 K-diss. mg/l 2.52 2.49 2.68 3.94 3.03 3.02 3.17 2.7 2.94 Floride-diss. mg/l <.2 <.2 <.2 <2 <2 <2 <0.2 <.2 <2
30 Table 13. SPEEDWELL FORGE LAKE - CHEMISTRY F.X.. Brown, Inc.
Station 1 Surface Bottom Parameter Date 6/13/2000 7/10/2000 8/31/2000 10/2/2000 6/13/2000 7/10/2000 8/31/2000 10/2/2000 Total Phosphorus 0.09 0.071 0.022 0.062 0.078 0.052 0.268 0.08 Dissolved ReactivePhosphorus 0.014 0.016 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.007 0.016 -0.012 Nitrite/Nitrate Nitrogen 3.95 5.31 3.18 2.96 4.16 2.92 0.22 3.78 Ammonia Nitrogen <1 0.5 <1 <1 0.66 0.76 2.45 0.14 Total Kjedahi Nitrogen 0.65 1.33 1 1.4 1.22 1.58 3.37 0.59 Organic Nitrogen 0.55 0.83 0.9 1.3 0.56 0.82 0.92 0.45 Total Suspended Solids 9 9.5 11.2 11.7 5.8 18 60 17.1 PH 8.4 8.9 8.1 8.5 7.5 7.5 0.75 7.8 Secchi Disk 1 0.8 0.8 0.9 - - - Chlorophyll a 26.7 31.4 29.1 63.2 - - - - Pheophytin a 5.4 3.1 7.7 <.1 - - - -
Station 2 Surface Parameter Date 6/13/2000 7/10/2000 8/31/2000 10/2/2000 Total Phosphorus 0.096 0.104 0.17 0.139 Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus 0.025 0.018 0.023 0.019 N itrite/N itrate N itrogen 4.3 6.08 4 3.39 Ammonia Nitrogen <.1 <.1 <1 <1 Total Kjedahi Nitrogen 0.72 0.76 1.61 2.08 Organic Nitrogen 0.62 0.66 1.51 1.98 Total Suspended Solids 11 13 11.3 17.5 PH 8.3 8.8 8.1 8.6 Secchi Disk 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 Chlorophyll a 41.1 28.8 118 78.7 Pheophytin a 10.8 6.8 <.1 1.5
31 TABLE 14. HABITAT ASSESSMENT SUMMARY Hammer Creek and Segloch Run, Lebanon and Lancaster Counties Elk Creek, Centre County
Candidate Stations Reference Stations HABITAT scoring R1 R1 R2 R2 PARAMETER range 1HC 2HC 3UNT 4HC 5HC 6WR 7KR 8HC . 12/16/2003 4/6/2004 5/8/2003 4/21/2004 1. instream cover 0-20 16 7 15 1.6 6 17 16 18 16 16 18 16 2. epifaunal substrate 0-20 16 16 17 6 7 18 18 14 18 18 18 18 3. embeddedness 0-20 17 10 15 5 6 14 16 8 12 16 14 16 4. velocity/depth 0-20 10 8 16 16 14 12 10 16 13 16 15 16 5. channel alterations 0-20 19 6 15 16 16 18 19 16 18 15 18 19 6. sediment deposition 0-20 16 9 15 6 7 14 16 10 14 16 16 18 7. riffle frequency 0-20 17 12 16 10 8 19 18 13 17 18 18 17 8. channel flow status 0-20 18 16 19 15 16 19 19 16 17 19 18 18 9. bank condition 0-20 18 13 15 10 12 19 19 13 18 18 18 18 10. bank vegetation 0-20 19 15 16 8 13 18 19 16 17 18 18 18 protection
11. grazing/disruptive 0-20 19 17 10 10 15 18 19 15 18 18 15 18 pressures 12. riparian vegetation 0-20 19 5 10 8 15 18 19 15 14 16 18 19 zone width Total Score 0-240 204 134 179 126 135 204 208 170 192 204 204 211 Suboptimal/ Rating Optimal Suboptimal Suboptimal Marginal Suboptimal Optimal Optimal Suboptimal Optimal Optimal Optimal Optimal
32 TABLE 15. SEMI-QUANTITATIVE BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE DATA Hammer Creek and Segloch Run, Lebanon and Lancaster Counties Elk Creek, Centre County
Candidate Reference Candidate Reference Candidate Reference Candidate Reference Station # 1HC 2HC 7KR R1 6WR R1 3UNT R2 4HC 5HC 8HC R2 4/6/2004 4/6/2004 4/6/2004 4/6/2004 12/16/2003 12/16/2003 4/6/2004 4/21/2004 5/7/2003 5/7/2003 5/7/2003 5/8/2003 MAYFLIES Baetidae Acerpenna - 8 - - - 1 ------Baetis 41 32 - 13 4 1 12 22 - - 8 Centroptilum - 1 ------Ephemeridae Ephemera ------1 - - -
Ephemerellidae - - - • - 1 - - •- - - • - -
Drunella - 1 - - - - - 5 - - - 19 Ephemerella 30 1 4 127 37 61 - 114 - 11 42 87
Euryl ophella - - - - •- 1 - •- - - - - Serrate! la - - - - - 15 - 1 - - 1 Heptageniidae - - - - 1 ------Cinygmula - - - 10 ------Epeorus 2 - - 6 27 4 - 2 - - - 1 Stenacron ------2 1 Stenonema - 1 - - - 2 ------Isonychidae Isonychia ------1 - Leptophlebiidae 1 - - - - 1 ------Paraleptophlebia ------6 - - - 5 STONEFLIES CapniiJdae Allocapnia - - - - 11 5 - •- - - - - Chloroperlidae - - 1 3 ------Alloperla - - - - 1 ------Leuctrldae Leuctra 6 - 22 - - 1 - - - - - 1 Nemouridae Amphinemura 67 2 69 5 - - - 3 - - - Prostoia - - - - 14 ------Peltoperllidae Tallaperla 10 ------Perlidae Acroneuria - - - 1 4 2 - - - - 2 - Eccoptura - - 1 ------Perlesta ------1 - Perlodidae Isoperla 1 - - 4 2 7 - 1 - - 2 1 Pteronarcyidae Pteronarcys 2 - - - 4 ------Taeniopterygidae Taeniopteryx - - - - 1 6 ------
33 TABLE 15. (cont.) Station # 1HC 2HC 7KR R1 6WR R1 3UNT R2 4HC 5HC 8HC R2 CADDISFLIES Brachycentridae Micrasema ------2 - - - 3 Glossosomatidae Glossosoma - - - - 2 ------Hydroptilidae Palaeagapetus - - 2 ------Goeridae Goera ------1 - _ .Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche - 18 - - - - - 5 4 2 11 - Diplectrona - - 23 - 2 4 ------Hydropsyche - 19 2 1 2 - 8 16 4 9 5 3 Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma - - 2 ------Limnephilidae Pycnopsyche 1 - - - 1 ------Odontoceridae Psilotreta ------1 - - - 3 Philopotamidae Chimarra ------7 - Dolophilodes - - - - 4 1 ------Wormaldia - - - - - 1 ------Polycentropodidae Polycentropus - 1 ------Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 5 - 5 5 3 - - 1 - - 1 5 Uenoidae Neophylax 3 - - 4 1 6 ------TRUE FLIES Ceratopogonidae - - 4 2 - - - - 4 - - - Bezzia 1 2 ------Chironomidae 3 109 71 26 19 41 79 8 178 34 60 50 Empididae Ch el if era 3 - 3 4 - - 6 - - - - - Hemerodromia - 6 - - - - 8 - - 12 1 - Psychodidae - - 1 ------Simuliidae Cnephia - 3 ------Prosimulium 4 7 - 14 3 2 - - . - - - 11 Sim u Hum 1 - - 2 - - 1 1. 2 - 1 3 Stratiomyidae - 1 ------Tabanidae Chrysops ------2 - - Tjpulidae Antocha - 3 1 - 1 - 6 - 6 - 8 1 Dicranota 1 - 1 1 a. 2 ------Hexatoma - - 2 1 1 - - - 1 3 - 1 Limnophila ------1 - - Pedicia - - - 1 ------Pseudolimnophila - - - 1 ------Tipula - - - - - 1 - - - 1 2 -
34 TABLE 15. (cont.) Station # 1HC 2HC 7KR R1 6WR R1 3UNT R2 4HC 5HC 6HC R2 MISC. INSECT TAXA Corydalidae Nigronia 1 Elmidae Dubiraphia 4 Macronychus 1 Optioservus 23 5 8 7 3 3 2 3 3 58 14 1 Oulimnius 3 1 5 13 34 2 Promoresia 9 1 5 6 8 Stenelmis 3 5 3 48 35 Psephenidae Psephenus 1 8 Cordulegasterldae Cordulegaster 1 Gomphidae 2 Lanthus 2 1 Ophiogomphus 1 1 1 NON-INSECT TAXA Cambaridae Cambarus 1 1 Isopoda Caecidotea 1 Crangonyx 1 Gammarus 1 47 1 4 3 Turbellaria 1 Sphaeriidae 2 1 7 Nematoda _ 1 1 Oligochaeta 3 2 2 1 Hydracarina 2 Total Taxa 21 22 24 25 11 27 12 19 14 16 14 21
35 TABLE 16. FISH - Species Occurrence1 Hammer Creek, Lebanon and Lancaster Counties DEP and PFBC Station Hammer Kettle Hammer Creek PFBC Run Creek 1HC 2HC 0101 PFBC 0101 PFBC 0102 PFBC 0201 PFBC 0202 PFBC 0202 7KR PFBC 0301 4/6/2004 4/6/2004 9/8/1983 9/12/2003 9/12/2003 6/29/1976 6/30/1976 9/11/2003 4/6/2004 9/11/2003 2 Salvelinus fontinalis brook trout (wild) - - - 0/3 3/0 - - 11/3 A 7/4 2 Salmo trutta brown trout (wild) - - - - - .- . - 0/1 0/2 S. trutta brown trout (stocked)2 - - » 0/7 - 0/3 0/1 0/2 0/11 Oncorhynchus my kiss rainbow trout: (stocked)2 - - - 0/4 - 1/0 0/3 - - Cottus cognatus slimy sculpin - - - A C - - - - -
Dorosoma cepedianum gizzard shad - - - P Cyprinus carpio common carp ------P Rhinichythys atratulus blacknose dace - C X A P X X A - A R. cataractae longnose dace - - X C R X X C - C Margariscus margarita pearl dace - - - P P - - - - - Semotilus atromaculatus creek chub - R X P P X X P - R Exoglossum maxillingua cutlips minnow ------P - P Pimephales notatus bluntnose minnow - - X - - - X - - - Hypentelium nigricans northern hogsucker - - - - - • - - R - P Catastomus commersoni white sucker - C X C C X X C - A Ameiurus natalis yellow bullhead ------R Lepomis macrochirus bluegill - - - R P X - - P L cyanellus green sunfish - - - - R X X P - R L gibbosus pumpkinseed - - - R R X - P - P Etheostoma olmstedi tessellated darter - c X P P X X C - P TOTAL TAXA 0 4 6 12 11 10 9 12 1 16
1 - Occurrence: R - rare (<3), P - present (3-9), C - common (10-24), A - abundant (25-100), X - present 2 - PFBC trout information :xx/yy = # of sublegal/legal sized (<175mm/?175mm)
iV
36 TABLE 17. FISH - Species Occurrence Speedwell Forge Lake, Lancaster County PFBC Various sampling gears from 1988-1999
Scientific name Common name 1988 1995 1996 1997 1999 Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard shad X X X X X Esox lucius Northern pike X - - - - E. lucius x masquinongy Tiger muskellunge X - - - - Cyprinus carpio Common carp X X - - X Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden shiner X X - - X CyprineHa analostana Satinfin shiner - - = X - Cyprinella spiloptera Spotfin shiner - - X - - Notropis hudsonius Spottai! shiner X - X X - Pimephales notatus Bluntnose minnow X - X X - Catostomus commersoni White sucker X - X X X Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish X - - - X Ameiurus catus White catfish X - - - X Ameiurus natalis Yellow bullhead X X - - X Ameiurus nebulosus Brown bullhead X X X - X Salvelinus fontinalis Brook trout (hatchery) - - - - X Salmo trutta Brown trout (hatchery) - - - - X Oncorhynchus mykiss Rainbow trout (hatchery) - - - - X Pomoxis nigromacuiatus Black crappie X X - - X Pomoxis annularis White crappie X X X X Micropterus doiomieu Smallmouth bass - - X X - Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass X X X X X Lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish X X X - X Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed X X X X X Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill X X X X X Sander vitreus Walleye X X - - - Etheostoma olmstedi Tesselated darter - - - X - Total Species: 19 12 12 10 17
37 TABLE 18. FISH STOCKING HISTORY - SPEEDWELL FORGE LAKE WARMWATER/COOLWATER SPECIES PFBC 2004 Channel Catfish Fingerling 4,200 1979 Tiger Muskellunge Fingerling 550 2003 Channel Catfish Fingerling 4,200 1979 Walleye Adult 400 2002 Channel Catfish Fingerling 1,739 1978 Walleye Adult 300 2001 Channel Catfish Fingerling 3,150 1978 Tiger Muskellunge FingerJing 500 2000 Channel Catfish Fingerling 1,050 1977 Walleye Adult 300 1999 Channel Catfish Fingerling 2,100 1975 Tiger Muskellunge Fingerling 700 1998 Channel Catfish Fingerling 2,100 1973 Walleye Adult 200 1996 Channel Catfish Fingerling 1,050 1971 Walleye Adult 200 1995 Channel Catfish Fingerling 2,100 1969 Largemouth Bass Fingerling 74 1995 Spotfin Shiner Adult 5,500 1969 Largemouth Bass Adult 53 1994 Walleye Fingerling 3,150 1969 Northern Pike Fingerling 1,159 1993 Walleye Fingerling 3,150 1968 Largemouth Bass Fingerling 1,000 1993 Channel Catfish Fingerling 1,050 1968 Walleye Fry 265,000 1992 Walleye Fingerling 3,150 1967 Largemouth Bass Fingerling 1,000 1991 Walleye Fingerling 3,150 1967 Largemouth Bass Fry 52,000 1990 Walleye Fingerling 2,150 1967 Black Crappie Fingerling 8,000 1990 Channel Catfish Fingerling 1,600 1967 Channel Catfish Fingerling 2,000 1989 Walleye Fingerling 2,100 1967 Walleye Fry 265,000 1989 Channel Catfish Fingerling 5,300 1967 Northern Pike Fry 10,600 1988 Walleye Fingerling 2,100 1966 Largemouth Bass Fingerling 10,600 1988 Channel Catfish Fingerling 5,300 1966 Black Crappie Fingerling 8,000 1987 Walleye Fingerling 3,200 1966 Channel Catfish Fingerling 5,000 1987 Tiger Muskellunge Fingerling 550 1987 White Catfish Fingerling 5,300 1987 Channel Catfish Fingerling 5,300 1986 Tiger Muskellunge Fingerling 200 1986 Gizzard Shad Adult 220 1985 Walleye Fingerling 2,650 1985 White Catfish Fingerling 2,100 1984 Walleye Fingerling 2,100 1984 Tiger Muskellunge Fingerling 200 1984 White Catfish Fingerling 5,300 1984 Channel Catfish Fingerling 5,300 1983 Channel Catfish Fingerling 5,300 1982 Walleye Fingerling 2,100 1982 Tiger Muskellunge Fingerling • 200 1982 Alewife Adult 5,000 1981 Walleye Fingerling 1,050 1981 Channel Catfish Fingerling 5,300 1980 Tiger Muskellunge Fingerling 500 1980 Channel Catfish Fingerling 2,100
38 TABLE 19. RBP METRIC COMPARISON Hammer and Segloch Creeks, Lebanon and Lancaster Counties Elk Creek, Centre County
METRIC CANDIDATE REFERENCE CANDIDATE REFERENCE CANDIDATE REFERENCE CANDIDATE REFERENCE Hammer Hammer Unt Hammer Hammer , Hammer Hammer Creek Creek Kettle Run Segloch Run Walnut Run Segloch Run Creek Elk Creek Creek Creek Creek Elk Creek 4/6/2004 4/6/2004 4/6/2004 4/6/2004 12/16/2003 12/16/2003 4/6/2004 4/21/2004 5/7/2003 5/7/2003 5/7/2003 5/8/2003 Station # 1HC 2HC 7KR R1 6WR R1 3UNI R2 4HC 5HC 8HC R2 1.TAXA RICHNESS 21 22 25 25 . 28 27 12 19 14 16 20 21 Candidate/Reference (%) 84.0% 88.0% 100.0% 103.7% 63.2% 66.7% 76.2% 95.2% Biological Condition Score 8 8 8 8 2 3 6 8
2. MODIFIED EPT INDEX 11 5 10 9 17 15 0 10 1 2 8 11 Candidate/Reference (%) 122.2% 55.6% 111.1% 113.3% 0.0% 9.1% 18.2% 72.7% Biological Condition Score 8 2 8 8 0 0 0 6
3. MODIFIED HBI 3.21 5.63 3.43 2.31 2.22 3.04 5.32 2.41 5.81 4.79 4.21 2.64 Candidate - Reference 0.9 3.32 1.12 -0.82 2.91 3.17 2.15 1.57 Biological Condition Score 5 0 3 8 0 0 0 0
4.% DOMINANT TAXA 31.9 47.6 30.9 50 22.4 29 44.6 57 83.2 29.7 29.1 40.3 Candidate - Reference -18.1 -2.4 -19.1 -6.6 -12.4 42.9 -10.6 -11.2 Biological Condition Score 8 8 8 8 8 0 8 8
5. % MODIFIED MAYFLIES 15.7 1.75 2.17 56.3 40 40 0 64 0.5 5.6 21.8 52.8 Reference - Candidate 40.6 54.55 54.13 0 64 52.3 47.2 31 Biological Condition Score 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 3
TOTAL BIOLOGICAL 29 18 27 — 40 — 10 3 14 25 — CONDITION SCORE % COMPARABILITY 73% 45% 68% — 100% — 25% 8% 35% 63% TO REFERENCE
39 Figure 1. Hammer Creek V\fotershed Figure 2. Historical Hammer Creek Sampling Locations, 1972 -1973
N
Speedwell Forge Lake
0.5 I Miles
41 Figure 3. Historical Hammer Creek Sampling Locations, 1974
M
Speedwell Forge Lake
•Miles
42 Figure 4. Hammer Creek Sampling Locations 1976-2004
Speedwell N Forge Lake
i Miles +
43 FIGURE 5. SPEEDWELL FORGE LAKE - WATER CHEMISTRY1 Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profiles Ulanoski and Shertzer 1981
Temperature (C) April 17,1980 DO (mg/1) 10 11 12 13 14 15 0123456789 0 - 1 2 -
V
g-5 DO 6 CWFDO 7 TSFDO TSF&WWF - WWFDO Temp
June 25, 1980 Temperature (C) DO(mg/l} 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 0 12 3
DO Temp HQ-CWF DO CWF Temp TSFDO TSF Temp '— WWFTemp WWFDO
August 5, 1980 Temperature (C) DO (mg/I) 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 0 12 3 4 5 6 7 0 1,- u 2 - 4 Temp o - -DO CWF Temp -HQ-CWF DO - - -I- - -TSF Temp 5 - \ — WWF Temp -TSF&WWF DO I 6 J Vertical lines depict parameter criteria. Depth measurements prevent the labeling of a thermocline. 44 FIGURE 6. SPEEDWELL FORGE LAKE -WATER CHEMISTRY Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profiles Dam Location - F.X.. Brown, Inc. Vertical lines depict parameter criteria. Temperature (C) June 13,2000 DO (mg/1) 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 r DO Q Temernp HQ-CWF DO r— CWF Temp TSFDO L -TSFTemp WWF DO +- WWF Temp I Thermocline Thermocline July 10,2000 Temperature (C) DO (mg/1) 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 6 8 10 12 14 16 Temp DO CWF Temp HQ-CWF DO - * - -TSFTemp TSFDO H— WWF Temp WWF DO | Thermocline Thermocline I 6J V August 31, 2000 Temperature (C) DO (mg/1) 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 0123456789 10 11 0 -h- 1 - 2 -) 3 -I ID. a« 4 A Temp 5 -i CWF Temp TSF & WWF Temp TSF&WWF 6 DO 45 FIGURE 6. (cont.) ? WATER CHEMISTRY - Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profiles October 2,2000 Temperature (C) DO (mg/1) 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ot 1 i ¥2i CD : 4 - — Temp — CWFTemp 5 TSF & WWF ;- - -TSF&WWF DO 6 Temp 46 FIGURE 7. SPEEDWELL FORGE LAKE - WATER CHEMISTRY Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profiles Uplake Location - FX Brown Vertical lines depict parameter criteria. Temperature (C) June 13, 2000 DO (mg/I) 0 123456789 10 11 12 0 0.5 "S 1 -ai.5 - Q : DO Temp HQ-CWF DO CWF Temp 2 H . TSF Temp TSF DO I WWF DO U WWF Temp I Thermocline I Thermocline 2.5 J 2.5 - July 10,2000 Temperature (C) DO (mg/1) 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Temp DO CWF Temp HQ-CWF DO TSF Temp TSF DO j— WWF Temp WWF DO Thermocline 2.5 J Thermocline 2.5 Temperature (C) August 31, 2000 ^ ^ 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 i L- 0.5 -I 0.5 -j 5- i- £ (mete r 1.5 - a 1-5 Temp Dept h HQ-CWF CWF Temp 2 - 2 -I DO TSF & WWF TSF& WWF DO 2.5 Temp 2.5 < 47 FIGURE 7. (cont.) WATER CHEMISTRY - Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profiles October 2, 2000 Temperature (C) DO (mg/1) 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Temp CWF Temp • - -TSF&WWF TSF & WWF 2.5 J Temp 2.5 - DO FIGURE 8. SPEEDWELL FORGE LAKE - WATER CHEMISTRY Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profiles - Dam DEP August 29, 1997 Temperature (C) DO (mg/l) 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112 13 14 15 16 Temp HQ-CWF T$mp DO TSF & WWF Temp 6 <> HQ-CWF DO Thermocline TSF&WWF DO 7 - Thermocline 48 Figure 9, Hammer Creek Watershed Legend Streams Recommended & Designated Uses HQ-CWF (No Change) EV (Recommended) CWF (Recommended) mi Sp&edwef! Forge Lake WWF (Recommended} Sp#edw«ll Fotsg^e Lake 49 APPENDIX TABLES 50 Table 3. Habitat Scores iFor Hammer Creek Study Site; Parameters 1HC 2HC 0101 3UNT 4HC 0201 4AHC 5HC 6WR 7KR Ref-1 Ref-2 Instream Cover (fish) 18 12 19 15 16 16 16 13 18 18 17 18 19 Epifaunal Substrate 15 J2 18 18 17 17 18 18 15 15 LI8 15 19 Embeddedness 17 8 15 15 10 16 8 8 14 15 16 15 18 Velocity/Depth Regimes 10 8 10 15 15 14 17 10 15 10 18 15 18 Channel Alteration 20 13 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 . 20 20 20 Sediment Deposition 15 5 10 15 8 14 11 12 13 15 14 12 19 Frequency of Riffles 18 16 16 18 17 14 16 17 18 19 18 18 19 Channel Flow Status 16 13 17 18 18 17 16 17 14 15 15 15 16 Condition of Banks 15 5 15 13 12 13 12 12 10 15 12 13 18 Bank Vegetative 18 10 18 18 18 16 17 16 13 18 16 15 18 Protection Grazing or Other 19 5 14 18 12 18 18 17 18 19 17 18 19 Disruptive Pressure Riparian Vegetative 19 5 3 5 7 17 15 17 16 20 15 18 19 Zone Width Total Score 200 112 175 188 170 192 174 177 184 t99 196 192 222 Rating Opt. Mar. Sub. Sub. Sub. Opt Sub. Sub. Sub. Opt Ogt Opt Opt Table 4.Macroscopic Bottom Substrate Characterization for Hammer Creek Study Sites(Percent) Substrate 1HC 2HC 0101 3UNT 4HC 0201 4AHC 5HC 6WR 7KR 8HC Ref-1 Ref-2 Type Bedrock 0 0 0 0" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Boulder 30 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 10 20 20 40 10 Cobble 20 30 40 50 50 70 40 50 50 25 45 35 55 Gravel 25 20 30 25 15 10 20 20 20 25 10 10 25 Sand 25 20 5 10 25 10 25 20 15 25 15 10 3 Silt 0 20 15 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 Clay 0 5 5 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 TABLE 8. RBP FREESTONE METRIC COMPARISON Hammer Creek, Kettle Run, Walnut Run and Segloch Run, Lebanon and Lancaster Counties METRIC CANDIDATE REFERENCE Hammer Hammer Walnut Rim Creek Creek Kettle Run 10/30/2007 Segloch. Rim 10/31/2007 10/31/2007 10/30/2007 10/29/2007 2HC 7KR 6WR Rl Station # me XLTAXA RICHNESS 31 20 32 30 33 Candidate/Reference (%) 94.0% 60.6% 97.0% 91.0% Biological Condition Score 8 1 8 . 8 2. MODIFIED EPT INDEX 18 6 14 11 18 Candidate/Reference (%) 100.0% 33.3% 77.8% 61.1% Biological Condition Score 8 0 7 3 3. MODIFIED HBI 3.08 4.51 4.73 3.00 3.01 Candidate-Reference 0.07 L50 1.72 -0.01 Biological Condition Score 8 0 0 8 4. % DOMINANT TAXA 20.9 30.3 35.5 17.1 15.2 Candidate-Reference 5.7 15.1 20.3 1.9 Biological Condition Score 8 5 2 8 5. % MODIFIED MAYFLIES 9.6 16.7 6.4 33.3 36.1 Reference-Candidate 26.5 19.4 29.7 2.8 Biological Condition Score 4 6 3 8 TOTAL BIOLOGICAL 36 12 20 35 CONDITION SCORE % COMPARABILITY 90% 30.0% 50% 87.5% —• TO REFERENCE CURRENT DEP DESIGNATION Non-HQ or Non- HQ or Non-HQ or EV EV EV EV EV STUDY DESIGNATION HQ Non-HQ or Non-HQ or EV HQ EV EV 52 TABLE 9. KB? LIMESTONE METRIC COMPARISON Hammer and EJk Creeks, Lebanon, Lancaster and Centre Counties •) i METRIC CANDIDATE REFERENCE Hammer Hammer Hammer Hammer Hammer Hammer Hammer Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Elk Creek 10/31/2007 11/1/2007 " 11/1/2007 10/31/2007 10/30/2007 10/30/2007 10/30/2007 11/2/2007 . Staticm# PFBC0101 3UNT 4HC PFBC0201 4AHC 5HC 8HC R2. i ^LTAXA RICHNESS 15 14 17 15 12 15 21 19 j. Candidate/Reference {%) 79,0% 73.7% 89.5% 79,0% 63.2 79,0% 110,5% • Biological Condition Score 7 ' 5 8 7 2 7 8 r • 2. MODIFIED EPT INDEX 2 2 1 3 4 5 7 9 Candidate/Reference (%) 22.2% 22.2% 11J% 333% 44.4% 55.6% 77.8% Biological Condition Score 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 3. MODIFIED HBI 467 5.15 5.51 3.60 2.33 2,67 2.91 4.16 Candidate-Reference 0.51 0.99 1.35 -0.56 -U3 -1.49 4.25 Biological Condition Score 8 4 0 8 8 8 4.% DOMINANT TAXA 18,0 35.8 35.2 34.7 66.8 57,0 45.6 39,9 Candidate-Reference -21.9 -4.1 -4,7 -5,2 26.9 17.1 5.7 Biological Condition Score 8 8 8 8 0 4 8 5.'% MODIFIED MAYFLIES 17.0 6.6 • 0,4 35.1 672 57.8 46.4 29.6 Reference-Candidate 12.6 23.0 29.2 -5.5 -37,6 -28.2 -16.8 biological Condition Score 7 5 3 8 8 8 : TOTAL BIOLOGICAL 30 22 19 31 18 29 39 — CONDITION SCORE % COMPARABILITY 75.0% 55% 47.5% 77.5% 45.0% 72.5% . 97.5% — TO REFERENCE CURRENT DEP DESIGNATION HQ-CWF Non-HQ or Non-HQ or HQ-CWF HQ-CWF Non-HQ or Non-HQ or EV EV EV EV EV STUDY DESIGNATION Non-HQorEV Non-HQ or Non-HQ or Non-HQ or Non-HQ or Non-HQ or EV EV EV EV EV EV EV 53 K 3? i 9 £ 19 ? I t t £3 3 *^ S >^5 K s t>» *^ r*i « g ^ o3 .Co 8£ fe S « a. i i g3 S IS §5 ^: & ^ ^ J^ I S k> i5 .s s i gs S © §5 ^ § S2 © 54 appendix 2, Hammer Creek Study Taxa List iBF Hammer Cre^k Bfoassessment 2007 Data .are NOT adjusted for subsampiing* UNT Segloch Hammer Walnut Hammer Hammer Hammer Hammer Stream Kettle Run Hammer Hammer Hammer' Hammer Elk Creek Run Creek Run Creek ' Creek Creek Creek Creek Creak- Creak Creek UNT3; PFBC PFBC 4HC; Site 8HC 7KR 8WR 5HC 4AHC 1HC 2HC PFBC Ref-2 0101 0201 SERC 0102 Date 10-2B-2007 10-30-2007 10-30-2007 " 10-30-2007 10-30*2007 10^30-2007 10-31-2007 10-31-2007 10-31-2007 10-31-2007 11-01-2007 11-01-2007 11-02-2007 Percent 7.14 3.67 8.67 10J2 2.61 3.57 &.63 14.29 2.17 7,14 3.57 7.14 2.04 Subsampled Devics D-frame D-frame D-frame D'frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frama D-frame D-frame D-frame D*frarrte D-frame Habitat Rlfrta Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle EcoAnalysts B132.1-1 5132.1-2 5132,1-3 5132.1-4 5132.1-5 6132.1-$ 5132.1-7 5132.1-8 5132.1-9 5132.1-10 5132.1-11 5132.1-12 5132.1-13 Sample ID EpJiemaroptera Ameletus sp. 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Baetidae 0 2 0 3 0 0 10 0 0 0 1 0 2 Baetis sp. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b Epeorus sp. 16 0 2 29 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 Ephemorelta sp. 42 115 4 9 127 163 5 6 35 7e 14 0 43 Eurylophella spr 1 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jsonychia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lsucrocuta sp. 2 1 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maccaffertium sp. 6 0 4 3 1 0 5 32 0 0 0 0 2 Paraieptophlebfa 16 0 sp, 0 29 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 18 IT) RhiUirogena sp. 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sarratella sp. 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 Stenacron sp. D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Tricorythodes sp. 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 Odonata &r°™9omphus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gomphidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanthus sp. 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ptecoptera Acroneuria sp. 3 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Allocapnfa sp. 29 0 1 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cspniidae 0 1 • 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 -Q 1 Isoperla sp. 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 Leuctridae 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nemourldae ' 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perlldae 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perlodidae 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 Pte.ronarcys sp. 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 o Sweltsa sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taertiopteryx sp. 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tafiaperla sp. 0 0 0 r 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 Goleoptera Agabus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Dubiraphla&p. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 1 0 Ectopria sp. 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Optloservus sp. 0 22 19 0 21 21 46 9 • 24 31 7 42 6 Oulimnius &p. 41 0 11 3B 0 0 3 6 1 0 0 0 0 fromoresia sp. 3 2 3 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 Piseph&nus sp. 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 H Appendix 2, Continued IBF Hammer Creek Bioassessrnent 2007 Qpta are NOT adjusted for subsampling* UNT Segloch Hammer Hammer Hammer Hummer Hammer Hammer Hammer Hammer Walnut Hammer Elk Creek Stream Creek Kettle Run Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Run Run Creek UNT3; PFBC PFBC 4HC; Site ReM 8HC 8WR 5HC 4AHC 1HC 2HC PFBC 7KR 0101 0201 SERC Ref-2 0102 Date 10-29-2007 10-30-2007 10-30-2007 10-30-2007 10-30-2007 10-30*2007 10.31*2007 10-31-2007 10*31-2007 1Q-31-20Q7 11-01-2007 11-01-2007 11-02-2007 Percent 7.14 2.81 3.57 14.29 7.14 3.57 7.14 2.04 Subsampled 3,57 e.67 10.72 $.63 2.17 Device D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame Habitat Riffle Riffle Rime Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle RtffJe Riffle Riffle Riffle EcoAnalysts 5132.1-1 5132.1-2 6132.1-3 5132.1-4 6132.1-5 B132.1-B 5132.1-7 5132^1-» 5132.1-9 6132.1-10 6132.1-11 5132.1-12 5132,1-13 Sample ID Stenelmis sp. 1 1 Q 0 4 4 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 phimn0^" CWronomidae 34 19 72 20 g 8 36 26 37 15 76 81 89 Dfptera Anfocha sp. 0 6 0 0 2 0 1 18 6 10 10 3 0 Bezzia/Palpomyla 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Q 0 0 0 0 sp. Ceratopogonidae 0 0 24 6 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 1 0 Chellfera sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 4 1 0 Chrysops sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dicranota sp. 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Empidldae 1 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IT) Hemerodromia sp. 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 3 2 2 0 Hexatpma sp. 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Llrnnophila sp. 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Llrnnophora sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 1 0 0 Ormosja sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pericoma/Telmato 0 O 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 scopus sp. Simutfum sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 35 1 11 2 0 Tipula sp. 1 2 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 Tlpulldas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Trlchoptera Cheumatopsyche 0 17 1 0 12 15 0 71 7 22 4 31 1 Cfiimarra sp. 0 34 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Dfplectrona sp. 5 0 14 0 Q 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dolophllodes sp. 3 0 4 13 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 Glossosoma sp. 0 3 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Hydrqpsyche sp. 12 18 0 3 34 21 1 44 0 42 46 14 8 Hydroptlla sp. 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 o ' 0 0 0 0 Uepidostoma sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Llmnephilidae 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Micrasema sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Molannasp. 0 0 . 1 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 ' 0 0 Neophylaxsp. 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Paiaeagapetus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 a 0 Polycentropus sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 .0 D 0 0 0 0 Psilotreta sp. • 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 t '0 0 0 0 0 Rhyacophila sp. (3 1 0 11 0 0 24 i 0 0 0 0 0 Appendix 2, Continued EF Hammar Creek Bloasspssment 2007 Data are NOT adjusted for subsampling* UNT Segloch Hammer Walnut Hammer Hammer Hammer Hammer Hammer Hammer : Hammer , Stream Kettle Run Hammer Elk Creek Run Creek Run Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek UNT3; PFBC PFBC 4HC; 6WR 5HC 4AKC 1HC 2HC PFBC ReM Sit© ReM 8HC 7KR 0101 0201 SSRC 0102 Date 10-20-2007 10-30-2007 10-30-2007 10*30*2007 10-30-2007 10-30-200T 10-31-2007 10-31-2007 10-31-2007 10-31-2007 114M4Q07 11-01-2007 11-02-2007 Percent 3.57 8.67 2.B1 3.57 6.63 14,29 2.17 7.14 3>*7 7.U 2.04 Subsarflpfed 7.14" 10.72 Device D-frame D-frame D-frame D'frame D-frame D-frarne D-frame D*frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame Habitat Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle me Riffle \ EcoAnafysts 5132.1-1 5132.1-2 5132.1-3 5132.14 5132.1-6 5132.1-6 5132,1-7 6132J-8 51311-9 MS2.M0 6132,1-11 5132.M2 5132.M3 ; Sample ID in Bivaivia PfeWium sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 jsphaerlidae 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sphaeriumsp. 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Annelida kranchiobdellfda 0 0 2 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pfigochaeta 2 1 2 1 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 Acarl Acari 9 2 10 2 2 4 2 2 37 8 2$ 38 11 1 Crustacea Aselildae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 pambamssp. 0 0 3 0 • 1 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 bammarus sp, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 10 1 19 Other jtematoda 0 0 0 1 . 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 Organisms Turbollarla 0 0 0 0 1" 0 0 0 16 4 0' 0 1 J TOTAL 277 252 203 222 223 244 220 234 225 212 230 223 PINE CREEK SCHUYLKILL COUNTY WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REVIEW STREAM REDESIGNATION EVALUATION SEGMENT: BASIN DRAINAGE LIST: F STREAM CODE: 02269 WATER QUALITY MONITORING SECTION (DSB) DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS BUREAU OF WATER STANDARDS AND FACILITY REGULATION DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION June 2007 GENERAL WATERSHED DESCRIPTION Pine Creek flows through Schuylkill County and is a tributary to the Little Schuylkill River in the Delaware River watershed (Figure 1). This basin covers an area of 7.96 square miles and contains 11.4 stream miles. It is located in Delano, Rush, and Ryan Townships, Schuylkill County. The Pine Creek basin currently has the protected water use designation of Cold Water * Fishes (CWF). As a result of a petition submitted to the Environmental Quality Board October 5, 2001 by the Friends of Pine Creek, this basin was evaluated for redesignation as Exceptional Value Waters (EV). This report is based on a field survey conducted in January of 2002. See Figure 1 and Table 1 for station locations. Land use in this basin is a mixture of residential, agriculture, and forest. Hosensock Creek a major tributary of Pine Creek has two small impoundments on it. The boroughs of Park Crest and East Mahanoy are located in this basin. State Route 54 is located in or near the flood plain of the lower third of Pine Creek. WATER QUALITY AND USES Surface Water: No long-term water quality data were available to allow a direct comparison to water quality criteria. A grab sample was collected at Station 4PC near the mouth of Pine Creek during the January 2002 survey (Table 2). This sample indicated that water quality was generally good and comparable to the water chemistry data submitted by the petitioner. Since the instantaneous nature of grab samples precludes comparison to applicable water quality criteria, the indigenous aquatic community is a better indicator of long-term conditions and is used as a measure of ecological significance. There are no surface water withdrawals for public water supply or NPDES permitted surface water discharges in the candidate basin. Aquatic Biota: Habitat assessments and biological samplings were conducted at 5 locations (4 candidate and 1 reference) during the January 2002 survey. The physical habitat assessments revealed that conditions at Stations 1PC, 4PC and Reference Station Rl scored in the Optimal range for benthic macroinvertebrates and fish (Table 3). Stations 2HC and 3PC scored in the Suboptimal range. Habitat scores for the Pine Creek stations ranged from 165 to 191. Lower scoring parameters included lack of an adequate riparian zone, channel alterations, and riffle frequency. Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected using the Department's Antidegradation protocol (adapted from Plafkin's 1989 and Barbour's ,1999 Rapid Bioassessment Protocols manuals). Taxonomic diversity was poor at Stations 1PC and 2HC. The upstream station is a headwater situation with a very small drainage area that can limit natural macroinvertebrate community diversity. The two downstream stations had better taxonomic diversity but were still dominated by taxa that are tolerant of organic pollution. BIOLOGICAL USE QUALIFICATIONS The biological use qualifying criteria applied to Pine Creek was the integrated benthic macroinvertebrate score test described at § 93.4b(a)(2)(i)(A) and § 93.4b(b)(l)(v). This score is calculated from the macroinvertebrate samples referenced above. Following the Department's Antidegradation protocol, a 200-count subsample was randomly selected from the total sample and enumerated (Table 4). Selected benthic macroinvertebrate community metrics were generated from these subsamples. Candidate station metrics were compared to Pine Creek (01701) a reference stream with a comparable drainage area (Table 5). This reference stream has a protected use designation of EV and is a tributary to Manatawny Creek located in Berks County. All sampling was conducted on the same day to minimize the effects of seasonal variation. This comparison was done using the following metrics which were selected as being indicative of community health: taxa richness; modified EPT index (total number of intolerant Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera taxa); modified Hilsenhoff Biotic Index; percent dominant taxon; and percent modified mayflies. Based on these five metrics, none of the stations in the Pine Creek basin had biological condition scores greater than 83% of the reference station score and as a result do not qualify for either an EV or HQ-CWF use designation under the Department's regulatory criteria (§ 93.4b(b)(l)(v) and §93.4b(a)(2)(i)(A)). PUBLIC RESPONSE AND PARTICIPATION SUMMARY The Department provided public notice of this redesignation evaluation and requested any technical data from the general public through publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on April 27, 2002 (32 Pa.B 2162). A similar notice was also published in the Pottsville Republican on April 26, 2002. In addition, Delano, Rush, and Ryan Townships along with the Schuylkill County Planning and Zoning Commission and the Northeastern Schuylkill Joint Municipal Authority, were all notified of the evaluation in a letter dated March 12, 2002. In response to these notifications, the Rush Township Environmental Council submitted a report prepared by Skelly and Loy and excerpts from a second report prepared by Kimball and Associates, Inc. for the Schuylkill Conservation District. The Skelly and Loy report contained information on instream habitat, water chemistry, and the benthic macroinvertebrate community. Water chemistry data was collected in Fall 1998, Spring 1999, Spring 2000 and Fall 2000. Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected in the Spring of 1999 and 2000. An assessment of the instream and riparian habitat was conducted in the Fall of 2001. The second report contained data on two water chemistry parameters pH and CaCO3. These were listed as averages of four samples collected over the period December 1998 through October 2000. The Pine Creek report and the original recommendation (June 2007) for no change to the Cold Water Fishes (CWF) designated use were made available to stakeholders and the public for public review and comment on DEP's web page. Local municipalities, the Schuylkill County Planning & Zoning; Commission, and the Schuylkill Conservation District were notified of the web report avaailability by postal mail. No comments were received in response to this web posting. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on applicable regulatory definitions and requirements of § 93.4b, the Department recommends no change to the use designation of the Pine Creek basin. REFERENCES Plafkin, JL, MT Barbour, KD Porter, SK Gross, & RM Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/444/4-89-001 Barbour, MT, J. Gerritsen, BT Snyder, and JB Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphvton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and Fish. Second Edition. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/841/B-99-002. TABLE 1 STATION LOCATIONS PENE CREEK SCHUYLKILL COUNTIY STATION LOCATION 1PC Unnamed Tributary to Pine Creek (02275); approximately 160 meters upstream of the mouth. Rush Township, Schuylkill County. Lat: 40 49 23 Long: 76 02 52 RM: 0.15 2HC Hosensock Creek (02273); approximately 20 meters downstream of the SR054 crossing. Ryan Township, Schuylkill County. Lat: 40 48 52 Long: 76 02 42 RM: 0.12 3PC Pine Creek; approximately 30 meters downstream of the SR054 bridge. Rush Township, Schuylkill County. Lat: 40 48 56 Long: 76 0145 RM: 1.80 4PC Pine Creek; approximately 230 meters upstream of the mouth Rush Township, Schuylkill County. Lat: 40 49 18 Long: 76 00 21 RM: 0.12 Rl Pine Creek (01701) approximately 30 meters upstream of the T848 bridge. Pike Township, Berks County Lat: 40 24 45 Long: 75 44 01 RM: 0.52 TABLE 2 WATER CHEMISTRY1 PINE CREEK SCHUYLKILL COUNTY JANUARY 29, 2002 STATION 4PC Field Parameters Temp (°C) 4.7 PH 6.7 Laboratory Parameters PH 6.1 Alkalinity 30 Acidity 10.4 Hardness 41 T Diss. Sol. <2 Susp.Sol. 16 NH3-N <0.02 NO2-N 0.12 NO3-N 1.70 Total P 0.04 Ca 12 Mg 2.64 Cl 30 SO4 <20 As* <4.0 As Diss <4.0 Cd* <0.2 Cd Diss <0.2 hex Cr* <10 Cr* <50. Cu* <4.0 Cu Diss <4.0 Fe* 90 Pb* <1.0 Pb Diss <1.0 Mn* 20 Ni* <4.0 Ni Diss <4.0 Zn* 8.1 Zn Diss 7.7 Al* 36 fecal coliforms 60 1 - Except for pH & conductance and indicated otherwise, all values are total concentrations in mg/l * - Total concentrations in jig/I TABLE 3 HABITAT ASSESSMENT SUMMARY PINE CREEK SCHUYLKILL COUNTY JANUARY 29,2002 HABITAT STATIONS1 PARAMETER 1PC 2HC 3PC 4PC Rl 1. instream cover 17 14 15 18 17 2. epifaunal substrate 16 13 17 18 18 3. embeddedness 17 13 14 17 16 4. velocity/depth 12 12 15 14 15 5. channel alterations 17 10 16 12 16 6. sediment deposition 18 13 17 17 17 7. riffle frequency 15 12 13 18 17 ""Y"'\.. 8. channel flow status 14 16 14 15 12 9. bank condition 16 17 16 16 12 10. bank vegetation 17 18 17 17 14 protection 11. grazing/disruptive 18 16 18 17 17 . pressures 12. riparian vegetation 14 11 13 12 15 zone width Total Score 191 165 185 191 186 Rating2 OPT SUB SUB OPT OPT 1 Refer to Figure 1 and Table 1 for station locations. 2 OPT = Optimal; SUB = Suboptimal TABLE 4 SEMI QUANTITATIVE BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE DATA PINE CREEK JANUARY 29, 2002 TAXA STATION 1PC 2PC 3PC 4PC R1 Ephemeroptera (mayflies) > Baetidae; Baetis 1 1 4 Ephemerellidae; Ephemerella 3 3 4 28 Eurylophella 2 1 1 Serratella 33 7 2 Heptageniidae; Epeorus 4 57 Rhithrogena 1 Stenohema 6 4 1 7 Isonychidae; Isonychia 1 Leptophlebiidae; Paraleptophlebia 1 7 Plecoptera (stoneflies) Capniidae; Allocapnia 4 1 Chloroperlidae; Sweltsa 1 Nemouridae; Amphinemura 1 Prostoia 23 Perlidae; Acroneuria 4 12 3 Pargnetina 3 2 Taenlopterygidae; Taeniopteryx 2 2 Strophopteryx 2 16 Tricoptera (caddisflies) Glossosomatidae; Glossosoma 2 Hydropsychldae; Cheumatopsyche 3 10 3 6 10 Diplectrona 3 2 Hydropsyche 14 17 29 12 Lepidostomatidae; Lepidostoma 1 Limnephilidae; Pycnopsyche 1 Philopotamldae; Chimarra 24 18 1 Dolophilodes 2 6 Polycentropjdae; Polycentropus 3 1 Rhyacophllidae; Rhyacophila 10 1 8 Uenoidae; Neophylax 3 1 1 1 Diptera (true flies) Athericidae; Atherix 1 Empididae; Clinocera 1 Simuliidae; Prosimulium 87 9 15 8 4 Simulium 56 1 Tipulidae; Antocha 1 Dicranota 3 Hexatoma 1 Tipula 1 Ceratopogonidae; Probezzia 2 Chironomidae 87 99 87 69 14 TABLE 4 CONTINUED TAXA STATION 1PC 2PC 3PC 4PC R1 Megaloptera (dobson-, fishflies) Corydalidae; Nigronia 1 1 4 Odonata (dragon-, damselflies) GomphJdae; Lanthus 4 Stylogomphus 1 Coleoptera (aquatic beetles) Eimidae; Optioservus 1 1 1 Oufimnius 4 2 1 Psephenidae; Psephenus 2 11 3 Non-Insect Taxa Cambaridae 1 Asselidae; Caecidotea 2 Ollgochaeta 1 4 1 Ancylidae; Ferrissia 1 Number of individuals 216 207 208 189 221 TABLE 5 RBP METRIC COMPARISON PINE CREEK, SCHUYLKILL COUNTY METRIC STATIONS 1PC 2HC 3PC 4PC R1 1. TAXA RICHNESS 17 15 20 23. 29 Cand/Ref (%) 59 52 69 79 XXX Biol. Cond. Score 0 0 5 7 8 2. MOD. EPT INDEX 9 4 10 11 17 Cand/Ref (%) 53 24 59 65 XXX Biol. Cond. Score 1 0 3 4 8 3. MOD. HBI 3.72 5.57 4.41 4.37 2.05 Cand-Ref 1.67 3.52 2.36 2.32 XXX Biol. Cond. Score 0 0 0 0 8 4. % DOMINANT TAXA 40 48 42 36 26 Cand-Ref 14 22 16 10 XXX Biol. Cond. Score 6 1 4 8 8 5. % MOD. MAYFLIES 4 3 20 6 47 Ref-Cand 43 44 27 41 XXX Biol. Cond. Score 0 0 4 0 8 TOTAL BIOLOGICAL CONDITION SCORE 7 1 16 19 40 % COMPARABILITY TO REFERENCE 18 3 40 48 u^2£ r- UJ §5 ii O UJ Q. UNNAMED TRIBUTARY SCHUYLKILL RIVER (SPRING MILL RUN) MONTGOMERY COUNTY WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REVIEW STREAM REDESIGNATION REPORT Segment: Basin Stream Code: 00926 Drainage List F WATER QUALITY MONITORING SECTION (APF) DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS BUREAU OF WATER STANDARDS AND FACILITY REGULATION DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION JUNE 2007 INTRODUCTION The Unnamed Tributary (UNT) Schuylkill River (locally known as Spring Mill Run) is currently designated Warm Water Fishes (WWF) and was evaluated for a redesignation based on a petition submitted to the Environmental Quality Board on April 18, 2003 by Steven S. Brown, Chairman of the Whitemarsh Township Environmental Advisory Board. The petitioner requested the WWF designation of the stream reach from Cedar Grove Road crossing downstream to the mouth be changed to "at least CWF" or the preferred High Quality-Cold Water Fishes (HQ-CWF) or Exceptional Value Waters (EV) designation on the basis of the stream's resident aquatic life. The Department evaluated the entire basin during field surveys conducted on October 22, 2003 and April 12 and 16, 2004 (Table 1f Figure 1). Spring Mill Run had been surveyed previously by DEP Regional staff in February 1997, June 2002, and August 2003. GENERAL WATERSHED DISCRETION Spring Mill Run is a tributary to the Schuylkill River. The basin is located in Whitemarsh Township, Montgomery County. Spring Mill Run is a limestone-influenced creek that drains 2.5mi2 and flows in a southerly direction. The surrounding area is characterized by relatively hilly topography, which is portrayed on the Norristown 7.5-minute series USGS quadrangle map. Land use in the watershed is dominated by urban (consisting of both high and low density, residential areas), commercial, industrial uses, and a golf course. Most of the stream's riparian zone is forested. The watershed is within the Piedmont Upland and Carbonaceous ecoregion. The National Wetlands Inventory maps indicate forested/shrub, riverine, and freshwater emergent wetlands may be present. WATER QUALITY AND USES Surface Water No long-term water quality data were available to allow a direct comparison to water quality criteria. The Department collected field water chemistry data at station 2-SM (Table 2) on October 22, 2003 and April 12, 2004. Since the instantaneous nature of grab samples precludes comparison to applicable water quality criteria, the indigenous aquatic community is a better indicator of long-term conditions and is used as a measure of the ecological significance. There are no National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permitted discharges within the Spring Mill Run basin. There are two ground water withdrawals and one ground water recharge discharge (all related to the same golf course), within the study area. Aquatic Biota Department staff collected habitat and benthic macroinvertebrate data at one sampling location on October 22, 2003 and two locations on April 14-16, 2004. Habitat. Instream habitat conditions were evaluated at the same reach where benthic macroinvertebrates were sampled (Table 3). The habitat evaluation consists of rating twelve habitat parameters to derive a station habitat score. The habitat scores for Spring Mill Run equaled 163 to 188; reflecting sub-optimal to optional habitat conditions. Benthos. Benthic macroinvertebrate collection efforts employed the Department's PA= DEP RBP benthic sampling methodology, which is a modification of EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs; Plafkin, et al 1989; Barbour et al. 1999). The results of the benthic macroinvertebrate sampling efforts are presented in Table 4. Taxonomic diversity was limited (ranging from 3 to 6 total taxa per station) and was dominated by the genus Gammarus, a common inhabitant of limestone-influenced spring-fed streams. The majority of the organisms present are classified as pollution tolerant. Fish. The Department collected fish samples from station 2-SM on August 15, 2003, and June 17, 2004. This data is presented along with that collected from 1-SM and 1A- SM on February 18, 1997 and June 28, 2002 in Table 5. A total of 13 different species have been captured during these surveys. All samples were dominated by slimy sculpins, a cold water species often found in cool spring-fed streams, Brown trout were also captured on 2 occasions. One of the brown trout appeared to be from hatchery origin (eroded dorsal fin and partially regenerating pectoral fins) while the other trout appears to be stream-bred (eroded fin characteristics of hatchery-reared trout were not observed and parr marks were present). Several warmwater species were also collected on these sampling dates. These species are likely transients from the Schuylkill River. BIOLOGICAL USE QUALIFICATIONS The biological use qualifying criteria applied to Spring Mill Run was the integrated benthic macroinvertebrate score test described at § 93.4b(a)(2)(i)(A) and § 93.4b(b)(1)(v) following the Department's Antidegradation protocol. This Antidegradation protocol requires that selected benthic macroinvertebrate community metric scores from a candidate stream be compared to those from an Exceptional Value (EV) reference station (Table 4). The reference station was located on Elk Creek (Centre County), Elk Creek was selected as a reference stream because it is a limestone-influenced stream that is designated EV in Chapter 93. All sampling for comparison was done over a two- week period to minimize the effects of seasonal variation. This comparison was done using metrics that were selected as being indicative of aquatic community health; taxa richness; modified EPT index (total number of intolerant Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera taxa); modified Hilsenhoff Biotic Index; percent dominant taxon; and percent modified mayflies. Based on these five metrics, all stations on Spring Mill Run had biological condition scores less than 83% of the reference station on Elk Creek. This indicates that Spring Mill Run does not qualify for Special Protection designation under the Department's regulatory criterion (§ 93.4b(b)(1)(v)). No other Antidegradation qualifying requirements listed in §93.4b apply to Spring Mill Run. PUBLIC RESPONSE AND PARTICIPATION SUMMARY The Department provided public notice of this aquatic life use evaluation and requested any technical data from the general public through publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on August 23, 2003 (33 Pa.B 4230). A similar notice was also published in the Norristown Times Herald on August 22, 2003. In addition, the Montgomery County Planning Commission, Borough of Conshohocken, and Whitemarsh Township were notified of the redesignation evaluation in a letter dated August 22, 2003. There was no additional information provided in response to the public notice. The Spring Mill Run report and original recommendations (June 2007) to redesignate the stream as Cold Water Fishes (CWF) were made available for public review and comment on DEP's web page. The local stakeholders, which included the petitioner, White Marsh Township, the Montgomery County Planning Commission, and the Montgomery Conservation District, were notified of the web report availability by postal mail. No comments were received in response to this web posting. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on applicable regulatory definitions and requirements of §93.4(b) the Department recommends that the Spring Mill Run basin from its source to mouth be redesignated to Cold Water Fishes (CWF). This recommendation is based on the cold water fish populations that are found in Spring Mill Run. This recommendation is consistent with the petitioner's request for an "at least CWF" classification but short of their preferred HQ-CWF or EV request. The redesignation to CWF affects approximately 2.4 miles of streams. REFERENCES Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water; Washington, D.C. Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulation and Standards, Washington, D.C. EPA 440-4-89-001. TABLE 1 STATION LOCATIONS SPRING MILL RUN, MONTGOMERY COUNTY STATION LOCATION 1-SM Spring Mill Run approximately 300 m upstream SR 3059 Bridge. Lat: 40.0782 Long: -75.2833 RMI: 0.4 1A-SM Spring Mill Run approximately 100 m upstream of SR 3059 Bridge. Lat: 40.0773 Long: -75.2827 RMI: "o.3 2-SM Spring Mill Run along approximately 200 m upstream of confluence with Schuylkill River Lat: 40.0744 Long: -75.2848 RMI: 0.1 Refi Elk Creek along T863 in Miles Township, Centre County. Lat: 40.9209 Long: -77.4803 RMI: 4.7 TABLE 2. WATER CHEMISTRY SPRING MILL CREEK, MONTGOMERY COUNTY ELK CREEK, CENTRE COUNTY Field Parameters Station 2-SM Ref1 Date .10/22/2003 4/12/2004 4/21/2004 Temp (°C) 11.78 11.86 10.96 pH 7.06 7.64 6.73 Cond (umhos) 476 498 238 Dissolved O2 (mg/l) 8.87 9.96 10.66 Alkalinity (mg/l CaCO3) 180 200 100 TABLE 3. HABITAT ASSESSMENT SUMMARY SPRING MILL CREEK, MONTGOMERY COUNTY ELK CREEK, CENTRE COUNTY Reference Candidate Stations Station HABITAT scoring 1-SM 2-SM Reft PARAMETER range 4/16/2004 10/22/2003 4/12/2004 4/21/2004 1. instream cover 0-20 16 13 14 16 2. epifaunal substrate 0-20 14 14 15 18 3.embeddedness 0-20 15 12 14 16 4. velocity/depth 0-20 14 14 14 16 5. channel alterations 0-20 16 11 11 19 6. sediment deposition 0-20 13 10 10 18 . 7. riffle frequency 0-20 17 15 17 17 8. channel flow status 0-20 18 19 19 18 9. bank condition 0-20 14 14 15 18 10. bank vegetation protection 0-20 17 15 16 18 11. grazing/disruptive pressures 0-20 12 15 11 18 ,« riparian vegetation zone 0-20 19 11 10 width 19 Total Score 0 - 240 185 163 166 211 Rating Optimal/ Suboptimal Suboptimal Optimal Suboptimal TABLE 4. BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE DATA SPRING MILL, MONTGOMERY COUNTY ELK CREEK, CENTRE COUNTY Candidate Stations Reference Station 1-SM 2-SM Ref1 4/16/2004 10/22/2003 4/12/2004 4/21/2004 MAYFLIES Baetidae Baetis 4 3 - 22 Ephemerellidae Drunella - - - 5 Ephemerella - - - 114 Serratella - - 1 Heptageniidae Epeorus - - - 2 Leptophlebjidae Paraleptophlebia - - • 6 STONEFLIES Nemourldae Amphinemura - - - 3 Perlodidae Isoperla - - - 1 CADDISFLIES Brachycentridae Micrasema - - - IP O Hydropsychldae Cheumatopsyche - - - 5 Hydropsyche - - - 16 Odontoceridae Psilotreta - - - 1 Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila - - - 1 TRUE FLIES Chironomidae 1 4 7 8 Simuliidae Simulium - - - 1 Tipulidae Antocha - - 2 '- Tipula - 1 - MISC. INSECT TAXA . Elmidae Optioservus - - - 3 Promoresta - - - 6 NON-INSECT TAXA _ PJanariidae - 1 - - Oligochaeta - 1 - - Gammaridae Gammarus 269 180 208 1 Hydracarina - - - 2 Total Taxa 3 6 3 19 7 TABLE 5. FISH1 SPRING MILL CREEK, MONTGOMERY COUNTY Station 1-SM 1A-SM 2-SM Fish Species 2/18/1997 2/18/1997 2/18/1997| 6/28/200218/15/2003|6/17/2004 Saimo trutta, brown trout . R2 R3 Cottus cognatus, slimy sculpin P VA VA A A VA Semotilus atromaculatus, creek chub P - R - - - Cyprinella analostana, satinfin shiner C C - - - - Luxilus cornutus, common shiner P R P r - - Pimphales notatus, bluntnose minnow R - - - m Catastomus commersoni, white sucker - R R - R Lepomis x, sunfish hybrid - R R P P c Lepomis cyanellus, green sunfish R R - R - p Lepomis gibbosus, pumpkinseed - - - R - - Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill - R P - - A Micropterus doiomieui, smallmouth bass - - - - R • Micropterus saimoides, largemouth bass - - - - - R TOTAL TAXA 6 7 6 5 5 6 1 - Occurrence: R - rare (<3), P - present (3-9), C - common (10-24), A - abundant (25-100), VA - very abundant (>100) 2 - Trout appeared to be of hatchery origin and one other trout was seen but not captured. 3 - Trout appeared to be stream-bred TABLE 6. RBP METRIC COMPARISON SPRING MILL CREEK, MONTGOMERY ELK CREEK, CENTRE COUNTY CANDIDATE STATIONS REFERENCE STATION Station # 1-SM 2-SM Ref1 METRIC 4/16/2004 4/12/2004 4/21/2004 1.TAXA RICHNESS 3 3 19 Candidate/Reference (%) 15.8% 15.8% Biological Condition Score 0 0 2. MODIFIED EPT INDEX 0 0 10 Candidate/Reference (%) 0.0% 0.0% Biological Condition Score 0 0 3. MODIFIED HBI 4.04 4.06 2.41 Candidate - Reference 1.63 1.65 Biological Condition Score 0 0 4. % DOMINANT TAXA 98.2 95.9 57 Candidate - Reference 41.20 38.9 Biological Condition Score 0 0 5. % MODIFIED MAYFLIES 0 0 64 Reference - Candidate 64.00 64.00 Biological Condition Score 0 0 TOTAL BIOLOGICAL 0 0 —• CONDITION SCORE % COMPARABILITY 0% 0% — TO REFERENCE UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO CONESTOGA RIVER LANCASTER COUNTY WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REVIEW STREAM REDESIGNATION EVALUATION REPORT Segment: Basin Stream Code: 07792 Drainage List O WATER QUALITY MONITORING SECTION (GLW) DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS BUREAU OF WATER STANDARDS AND FACILITY REGULATION DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION JUNE 2007 INTRODUCTION The Department conducted an evaluation of an unnamed tributary (Stream Code 07792) to Conestoga River (UNT Conestoga River) in response to a request by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC), The current Chapter 93 designated use for the UNT Conestoga River is Warm Water Fishes (WWF). The PFBC requested that this stream be redesignated as Cold Water Fishes (CWF) based on survey data from August 21, 1996. This designated use evaluation is based on stream survey work conducted by DEP staff on April 30 and October 2, 2003. GENERAL WATERSHED DESCRIPTION The UNT Conestoga River, located northwest of Blue Ball, Pennsylvania, is a tributary to Conestoga River in the Susquehanna River drainage (Figure 1). The basin is a limestone creek located in Earl and East Earl Townships in Lancaster County and drains approximately 2.7 mi2 and flows for 3.2 miles in a northwesterly direction from its origin in East Earl Township to its mouth at the village of Martindale. The surrounding area is characterized by relatively flat topography with some gently rolling hills of low relief. There are significant impacts to the UNT Conestoga River basin from human activities. Land uses include agricultural activities and some residential development. WATER QUALITY AND USES Surface Water No long-term water quality data were available to allow a direct comparison to water quality criteria. Since the instantaneous nature of grab samples precludes comparison to applicable water quality criteria, no chemical data were collected during this study, except for field pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and conductivity. Instead, biological data have been collected to evaluate the long-term water quality conditions of the UNT Conestoga River. Water Quality. There are no permitted discharges (NPDES) or surface water withdrawals in the UNT Conestoga River basin. Potential for non-point source pollution is extremely high as the basin land use is dominated by agricultural activities that include row crops and cattle pasture with little or no stream buffering or fencing. Instream temperature (53.1 °F) and dissolved oxygen (11.0 mg/l) measured on April 30, 2003 were indicative of cold water conditions (Table 2). In addition, instream temperature (59.2 °F) measured on August 21, 1996 by PFBC staff was also indicative of cold water conditions (Table 2) and was less than the maximum CWF temperature criteria found in § 93.7 (Table 3). Aquatic Biota The indigenous aquatic community is an excellent indicator of long-term conditions and is used as a measure of both water quality and ecological significance. Department staff collected habitat, benthic macroinvertebrate, and fish data at station 1UNT on April 30 and October 2, 2003 (Figure 1, Table 1). Habitat. The results of an instream habitat assessment conducted at station 1UNT is presented in Table 3. The habitat evaluation consists of rating twelve habitat parameters to derive a station habitat score. The habitat score total for the UNT Conestoga River was 100 - generally considered to reflect marginal habitat conditions. Benthos. Benthic macroinvertebrate collection efforts employed the Department's PaDEP-RBP benthic sampling methodology, which is a modification of EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs; Plafkin, et al 1989 and Barbour, et al 1999). Since the purpose of the benthic collection was to characterize the water quality and determine the stream's basic aquatic life use, there was no comparison between UNT Conestoga River's benthic sample and a reference station. The UNT Conestoga River supports a simple benthic macroinvertebrate population dominated by a number of pollution-tolerant genera. The macroinvertebrate sample revealed a relatively low taxa richness (total # of taxa) value of 10 (Table 4). The benthic sample was dominated by the tolerant taxonomic group Chironomidae. Based on subsample results, this group comprised about 55% of the benthos. This benthic community condition reflects impacts from the previously described land uses observed upstream. A June 2006 Statewide Surface Water Assessment Program screening determined that this stream was impaired and therefore was listed on Pennsylvania's 2002 Clean Water Act 303(d) list of impaired waters. The impairment source and cause was listed for agriculture and nutrients, respectively. Fish. The UNT Conestoga River fish populations were also sampled at station 1 UNT on October 2, 2003-. Six species of fish were captured in 30 minutes of sampling a 100m section of UNT Conestoga River (Table 5). Most species collected are commonly found in warm water habitats and classified as pollution tolerant taxa. Additional fish data were available from a survey conducted on August 21, 1996 by the PFBC. The PFBC survey documented the presence of 5 fish species (Table 5), including one brook trout and sculpins, which are species associated with cold water conditions. PUBLIC RESPONSE AND PARTICIPATION SUMMARY The Department provided public notice of this stream designation evaluation and requested any technical data from the general public through publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on April 27, 2002 (32 Pa.B 2162). Similar notices were also published in the Intelligencer Journal and Lancaster New Era newspapers (Lancaster, PA) on April 26, 2002. In addition, Earl and East Earl Townships and County of Lancaster Planning Commission were notified of the redesignation evaluation in a letter dated April 26,.2002. No data on water chemistry, instream habitat, or the aquatic community were received in response to these notices. The UNT Conestoga River report and original recommendations (June 2007) to redesignate the stream as Cold Water Fishes (CWF) were posted on DEP's web page for public review and comment Local municipalities, the Lancaster County Planning Commission, and the Lancaster Conservation District were notified of the web report availability by postal mail. No comments were received in response to this web posting. RECOMMENDATIONS As indicated by the available physical, benthic macroinvertebrate and fish data, the aquatic habitat found in the UNT Conestoga River supports a cold-water fishery. Based on these findings and applicable regulatory criteria for statewide water uses in 25 Pa Code § 93.4(a), the Department recommends that the UNT Conestoga River basin, from the source to the mouth, be redesignated Cold Water Fishes (CWF). This recommendation adds approximately 3.2 stream miles of CWF waters to Chapter 93. REFERENCES Plafkin, JL, MT Barbour, KD Porter, SK Gross, & RM Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for use in streams and rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/444/4-89-001. Barbour, Michael T., Jeroen Gerritsen, Blaine D. Snyder, James B Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols For Us in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Marcroinvertebrates, and Fish. Second Edition. United States Environment Protection Agency. EPA 841 -B-99-002 Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission. 1997. UNT Conestoga Creek (607J) Fisheries Management August 21, 1996 Survey. File Information. Figure 1 Station Locations UNT Conestoga River Lancaster County f\f Roads Streams WWF Township N 2 Miles TABLE 1 STATION LOCATIONS UNT CONESTOGA RIVER LANCASTER COUNTY STATION LOCATION 0101 Downstream of private drive crossing located approximately 1 upstream of mouth. Earl Township, Lancaster County Stream Code 07792 Lat: 40° 08s 11" Long: 76° 05' 06" RMI: 0.96 1UNT Upstream of private drive crossing located 1.2 miles upstream of mouth. Earl Township, Lancaster County Stream Code 07792 Lat: 40° 08' 01>J Long: 76° 04' 59" RMI: 1.18 Headwater Upstream of US 322 approximately 0.34 miles. Spring East Earl Township, Lancaster County Stream Code 07792 Lat: 40° 07' 30" Long: 76° 04' 36" RMI: 1.96 UNT = UNT Conestoga River TABLE 2 FIELD WATER CHEMISTRY UNT CONESTOGA RIVER LANCASTER COUNTY APRIL 30, 2003 STATIONS1 PARAMETER 1UNT 01012 Temperature (°C) 11.7 15.1 pH (Field) 6.79 7.6 DO (mg/l) 11.0 Not Available Conductivity (qS/cm) 783 590 Refer to Figure 1 and Table 1 for station locations 2PFBC survey data August 21, 1996 TABLE 3 HABITAT ASSESSMENT SUMMARY UNT CONESTOGA RIVER LANCASTER COUNTY APRIL 30, 2003T STATION1 1. instream cover 8 2. epifaunal substrate 2 3. embeddedness 1 4. velocity/depth 11 5. channel alterations 13 6. sediment deposition 2 7. riffle frequency 8 8. channel flow status 20 9. bank condition 11 10. bank vegetative protection 11 11. grazing/disruptive pressures 11 12. riparian vegetation zone width 12 Total Score 100 Rating2 MAR Refer to Figure 1 and Table 1 for station location. 2 MAR=Marginal TABLE 4 SEMI-QUANTITATIVE BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE DATA UNT CONESTOGA RIVER, LANCASTER COUNTY APRIL 30, 2003 Baetidae; Baetis Hydropsychiclae; Cheumatopsyche 19 Chironomidae; 131 Empididae; Hemerodromia Simuliidae; Simulium 10 Elmidae; Dubiraphia 26 Macronychus Optioservus 23 Stenelmis Refer to Figure 1 and Table 1 for station location. TABLE 5 FISHES UNT CONESTOGA RIVER LANCASTER COUNTY OCTOBER 2, 2003 * Sculpin, Coitus sp. Spotfin shiner, Cyprinellaspilaptera Blacknose dace, Rhinichthys atraiulus Creek chub, Semotilus atromaculatus White sucker, Catostomus commersoni Brook Trout, Salvelinus fontinalis Bluegiil, Lepomis marochirus Green sunfish, Lepomis cyanellus Largemouth bass? Micropterus salmoides* Refer to Figure land Table 1 for station location. 2X = Present but abundance not recorded 3 Letters refer to relative abundances: A = Abundant (>100); C = Common (26-100); P = Present £3-25); R = Rare (<3) 4PFBC survey data August 21,1996 5Young of the year Pennsylvania DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION POLICY OFFICE June 16,2011 *Ms. Fiona E. Wilmarth Acting Executive Director Independent Regulatory Review Commission 14th Floor 333 Market Street Harrisburg, PA 17120 Re: Final-Form Rulemaking - Clarks Creek, et al Stream Redesignations (#7-438) Final-Form Rulemaking - Fishing Creek, et al Stream Redesignations (#7-461) Final-Form Rulemaking - Nonattainment New Source Review (#7-450) Final-Form Rulemaking - Unsuitable for Surface Mining (Muddy Run) (#7-456) Dear Ms. Wilmarth: Pursuant to Section 5.1 (a) of the Regulatory Review Act, please find enclosed copies of four final-form rulemakings for review and comment by the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (Commission). The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) approved these final- form rulemakings at its May 18, 2011, meeting. The Clarks Creek, et al Stream Redesignations final rulemaking was initiated by the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) as a part of its on-going review of water quality standards. Studies in support of the recommendations contained in the rulemaking were conducted in response to four rulemaking petitions, as well as requests from the Department's Southcentral Regional Office (SCRO) and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC). The rulemaking also includes a corrective amendment initiated by the Department's Bureau of Water Standards and Facility Regulation (BWSFR). The rulemaking package includes as follows: Pine Creek (Schuylkill County) - Petition: Friends of Pine Creek Cacoosing Creek (Berks County) - Request: SCRO UNT 00926 to Schuylkill River; locally Spring Mill Run (Montgomery County) - Petition: Steven S. Brown, (Chairman; Whitemarsh Twp Environmental Advisory Board) UNT 28600 to Lackawanna River; locally Clarks Creek (Wayne County) - Petition: Glen Abello UNT 07792 to Conestoga River (Lancaster County) - Request: PFBC Hammer Creek (Lebanon and Lancaster Counties) - Petition: Heidelberg Township Toms Run (Clarion and Forest Counties) - Correction: BWSFR The regulatory changes included in this rulemaking, which impact 43.89 stream miles, were developed as a result of aquatic studies conducted by the Department's Bureau of Water Standards and Facility Regulation. The physical, chemical, and biological characteristics and other information on these waterbodies were evaluated to determine the appropriateness of the Rachel Carson State Office Building | P.O. Box 2063 | Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063 717.783.8727 Printed on Recycied Paper ^^ www.depweb.state.pa.us Ms. Fiona E.Wilmarth, Acting Executive Director - 2 - June 16, 2011 current and requested designations using applicable regulatory criteria and definitions. In reviewing whether waterbodies qualify as High Quality (HQ) or Exceptional Value (EV) waters, the Department considered the criteria in § 93.4b (relating to qualifying as HQ or EV Waters). Based on these data and appropriate regulatory criteria, the Department is proposing revisions to 25 Pa. Code, Sections 93.9f, 93.9j, 93.9o and 93.9r, as included in the final rulemaking. The rulemaking was adopted as proposed by the EQB on February 16, 2010, and advertised for a 45-day public comment period in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on April 24, 2010 (40 Pa.B. 2122). During the comment period, 10 commentators provided comments to the EQB, a majority of which largely opposed the redesignation of a portion of Hammer Creek from HQ-Cold Water Fishes (CWF), Migratory Fishes (MF) to CWF, MF. The Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) also reviewed the proposed rulemaking, but did not raise any comments, recommendations or objections to the proposed rulemaking and noted that the rulemaking would be deemed approved if the regulation is not amended and is retained in its proposed form. Although comments were addressed by the Department in the Comment and Response Document, no changes were made to the final rulemaking from its proposed version. The Fishing Creek, et al Stream Redesignations final rulemaking package was initiated by the Department in response to petitions submitted to the EQB as follows: Buck Hill Creek (Monroe County) - Buck Hill Conservation Foundation; Upper Lehigh River (Lackawanna, Monroe, Wayne and Luzerne Counties) - North Pocono Citizens Alert Regarding the Environment (CARE); Little Lehigh Creek (Lehigh and Berks Counties) - Mid-Atlantic Environmental Law Center; Gallows Run (Bucks County) - Gallows Run Watershed Association; French Creek and Beaver Run (Chester County) - Green Valleys Association; Tannery Hollow Run (Cameron County) - Cameron County Conservation District; Fishing Creek (Lancaster County) - Patrick McClure; and Deer Creek and Little Falls (York County) - Shrewsbury Township. If finalized as proposed, this final rulemaking will redesignate 251.35 stream miles in this Commonwealth to EV status. The regulatory amendments included in the rulemaking were developed in response to aquatic studies conducted by the Department's Bureau of Water Standards and Facility Regulation. The physical, chemical, and biological characteristics and other information on these waterbodies were evaluated to determine the appropriateness of the current and requested designations using applicable regulatory criteria and definitions. In reviewing whether waterbodies qualify as HQ or EV waters, the Department considered the criteria in § 93.4b (relating to qualifying as HQ or EV Waters). Based on supporting data and appropriate regulatory criteria, the Department is proposing revisions to 25 Pa. Code, Sections 93.9c, 93.9d, 93.9f, 93.91 and 93.9o as set forth in the final rulemaking. The proposed rulemaking was adopted by the EQB at its July 13, 2010, meeting. The proposed rulemaking was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on September 18, 2010, (40 Pa.B. 5337), where a 45-day public comment period was advertised. During the official comment period, 163 commentators submitted comments to the EQB on the rulemaking, including 162 commentators who provided their strong support of the redesignation of a portion of the French Creek basin to EV status. In addition, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 3 submitted comments in which it commended the Department on its continuing efforts to upgrade streams Ms. Fiona E.Wilmarth, Acting Executive Director - 3 - June 16, 2011 into its highest level of the Special Protection Waters Program. IRRC also reviewed the proposed rulemaking but did not raise any comments, recommendations or objections to the proposed rulemaking and noted that the rulemaking would be deemed approved if the regulation is not amended and is retained in its proposed form. Although comments were addressed by the Department in the Comment and Response Document, no changes were made to the final rulemaking from its proposed version. The Nonattainment New Source Review for PM2.5 final rulemaking includes amendments to existing nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) requirements at 25 Pa Code Chapters 121 and 127 in order to incorporate recently promulgated Federal requirements for PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors. The amendments would limit the emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors, including SO2 and NOx precursor emissions, from new major air contamination sources or major air contamination sources being modified in areas of the Commonwealth that are designated as nonattainment for the PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). There are approximately 887 major facilities in Pennsylvania that may be subject to the existing NSR rules if major modifications to those facilities are proposed. This final rulemaking is reasonably required to attain and maintain the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The final- form regulation, if published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin as final rulemaking, will be submitted to the EPA as a revision to the Commonwealth's State Implementation Plan (SIP). The EQB approved the proposed rulemaking at its November 17, 2009, meeting. The rulemaking was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on February 6, 2010, at 40 Pa B. 703, for a 60-day public comment period. Three public hearings on the proposal were held in Pittsburgh, Norristown and Harrisburg. The EQB received comments from 8 commentators, a majority of which provided comments relating to the inclusion of fugitive emissions of certain pollutants, including PM2.5, from all sources when determining whether a facility is defined as a "major facility" under § 121.1 and the treatment of projected actual emissions related to a project. Although these provisions are more stringent than Federal regulations, they are existing provisions previously promulgated by the EQB, which the EQB determined are reasonably necessary to achieve or maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS; therefore, no changes were made to the final rulemaking based on the specific comments. At final rulemaking, interpollutant trading ratios for PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors were removed from the rulemaking. EPA is reconsidering its interpollutant trading approach, which the Department had incorporated in the proposed rulemaking, and will not approve the SO2 and NOX interpollutant trading ratios as a SIP revision. The amended provision in the final rulemaking allows the Department, based on a technical assessment, to establish interpollutant trading ratios for offsetting PM2.5 emissions or PM2.5 precursor emissions in a specific nonattainment area or geographic area in the state. The Department must provide a public comment period for at least 30 days prior to submitting the ratios to the EPA for approval as a SIP revision. The Department consulted with the Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee (AQTAC) in the development of this rulemaking, as well as the Department's Citizens Advisory Council (CAC). On September 15, 2010, and October 18, 2010, AQTAC and the CAC, respectively, concurred with the Department's recommendation to move the final-form rulemaking forward to the EQB. Ms. Fiona E.Wilmarth, Acting Executive Director - 4 - June 16, 2011 The Unsuitable for Surface Mining (Muddy Run) final rulemaking was initiated in response to a rulemaking petition submitted to the Department by the Read Township Municipal Authority (RTMA) under 25 Pa Code, Chapter 86. The petitioner requested that approximately 3,200 acres of the Muddy Run watershed be designated as "unsuitable for mining". RTMA's purpose for pursuing the petition was the protection of public water supply wells from potential, adverse mining-related impacts. Pursuant to receipt of the complete petition, the Department initiated a technical study of the petition area, including water sampling and site reconnaissance and notified potentially interested parties about the petition and the Department's technical study of the area. Interested parties were invited to provide comments to the Department, as well as provide testimony at a public hearing. As a result of the technical study of the petition, the Department determined that there is a presence of high sulfur zones, with little or no alkaline strata, in the petition area and that there is a very significant potential for the production of acid mine water from surface mining of coal in the petition area. The technical study also confirmed that there is a potential for mining-related pollution of the RTMA wells and that surface mining activities significantly degraded groundwater resources within the technical study area, including numerous domestic and private water supplies. In response to the rulemaking petition and as a result of technical studies, the final rulemaking amends 25 Pa Code Chapter 86.130 to add subsection (b)(18), which designates the Lower Kittanning, Clarion, Brookville and Mercer coals within the upper portions of the Muddy Run watershed, Reade Township, Cambria County, as unsuitable for surface mining operations. The designation will protect the RTMa's water supply wells by restricting mining on acid mine drainage producing coal seams situated in close proximity to the water supply's source aquifers. The EQB approved the proposed rulemaking on March 16, 2010, with a recommended 30-day public comment period. The proposed rulemaking was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on May 8, 2010, at 40 Pa.B. 2425. During the 30-day public comment period, the EQB received one comment from the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors (PSATS). In their comments, PSATS stated their support of the rulemaking and noted that without the rulemaking, there most likely would be a detrimental effect to those municipalities within the watershed that rely on groundwater for human consumption. IRRC issued no objections, comments or recommendations on the rulemaking and noted that the rulemaking would be deemed approved if the regulation is not amended and is retained in its proposed form. No changes are proposed to the final rulemaking. The Department will provide assistance as necessary to facilitate the Commission's review of the enclosed final-form rulemakings under Section 5.1(e) of the Regulatory Review Act. Ms. Fiona E.Wilmarth, Acting Executive Director - 5 - June 16, 2011 Please contact me at the number above if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Michele L. Tate Regulatory Coordinator Enclosures 0120-FM-PY0011 8/2006 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICE OF POLICY TRANSMITTAL SHEET FOR REGULATIONS SUBJECT TO THE REGULATORY REVIEW ACT I.D. NUMBER: 7- 4ST SUBJECT: dtcu^s acex~ii tt* aJ> S-TX*JCV*\ Qjtt^t^iqac^icyis AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TYPE OF REGULATION • Proposed Regulation 0 Final Regulation • Final Regulation with Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Omitted • 120-day Emergency Certification of the Attorney General • 120-day Emergency Certification of the Governor Delivery of Tolled Regulation "0 g a. • With Revisions b. Without Revisions o o- FILING OF REGULATION DATE SIGNATURE DESIGNATION Majority Chair, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON u ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES & ENERGY fiqp. i4uJrc.hiASDrn Minority Chair, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ~y>. y\c?CLT-tn— ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES & ENERGY Majority Chair, SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES & ENERGY Minority Chair, SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES & ENERGY INDEPENDENT REGULATORY REVIEW COMMISSION ATTORNEY GENERAL (for Final Omitted only) LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE BUREAU (for Proposed only)