This space for use by IRRC H f7 .-I""* -*- i t. , ^ ^ (1) Agency Department of Environmental Protection 2m mm ?}mm (2) I.D. Number (Governor's Office Use) #7-366 IRRC Number: J?9BQ> (3) Short Title Stream Redesignations, Class A Wild Trout Waters (4) PA Code Cite (5) Agency Contacts & Telephone Numbers 25 PA Code, Chapter 93 Primary Contact: Sharon F. Trostle, 783-1303 Secondary Contact: Edward R. Brezina, 787-9637 (6) Type of Rulemaking (Check One) (7) Is a 120-Day Emergency Certification Attached? x Proposed Rulemaking X No Final Order Adopting Regulation Yes: By the Attorney General Final Order, Proposed Rulemaking Omitted Yes: By the Governor (8) Briefly explain the regulation in clear and nontechnical language This proposed rulemaking modifies Chapter 93 to reflect the recommended redesignation of a number of streams that are designated as Class A Wild Trout Waters by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC). Class A Waters qualify for designation as High Quality Waters (HQ) under §§ 93.4b(a)(2)(ii). The changes provide the appropriate designated use to these streams to protect existing uses. These changes may, 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. (9) State the statutory authority for the regulation and any relevant state or federal court decisions. These proposed amendments are made under the authority of the following acts: The Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law, Act of June 22, 1937 (P.L. 1987, No 394) as amended, 35 P.S/S 691.5 etseq. Section 1920-A of the Administrative Code of 1929, 71 P.S. § 510-20. 40 CFR §131.32 Page 1 of8 (10) Is the regulation mandated by any federal or state law or court order, or federal regulation? If yes, cite the specific law, case or regulation, and 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. However, until this regulation is adopted, it will be difficult to ensure that the Department is providing the appropriate designated uses of these streams. (11) Explain the compelling public interest that justifies the regulation. What is the problem it addresses? 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 risk of being under-protective, which could lead to jeopardizing the uses and continued availability of these aquatic resources. (12) State the public health, safety, environmental or general welfare risks associated with non- regulation. Retaining the current designations in the stream listings promotes water quality standards that may be under-protective of the existing uses of these aquatic resources. Being under-protective jeopardizes the continued availability of these aquatic resources. (13) Describe who will benefit from the regulation. (Quantify the benefits as completely as possible and approximate the number of people who will benefit) The citizens of the Commonwealth will benefit from these revisions to the designated uses, which will further promote continued availability of these aquatic resources. Maintenance of existing water quality in streams redesigjiated HQ will ensure the continued preservation of these sensitive ecosystems. Page 2 of8 (14) Describe who will be adversely affected by the regulation. (Quantify the adverse effect as completely as possible and approximate the number of people who will be adversely affected.) The streams that are proposed for redesignation are already protected at their existing use, and therefore the designated use changes will have no impact on treatment requirements. 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 according to the water quality criteria associated with the amendments to the stream uses. This regulation will be implemented through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) since the stream use designation is a major basis for determining allowable stream discharge effluent limitations. (15) 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 #14. Persons proposing new or expanded activities or projects which result in discharges to these waters of the Commonwealth must comply with this regulation by providing the appropriate level of wastewater treatment for the discharges to these waters. (16) Describe the communications with and inputs from the public in the development and drafting of the regulation. List the persons and/or groups who where involved, if applicable. There will be a public comment period of at least 45 days to receive comments, suggestions or objections to this proposal. Public meetings and/or hearings will be scheduled if needed to receive additional comments or suggestions on specific recommendations in this proposal. (17) Provide a specific estimate of the cost and/or savings to the regulated community associated with compliance, including any legal, accounting or consulting procedures which may be required. The streams proposed for redesignation are already protected at their existing use, and therefore the designated use revisions will have no impact on treatment requirements. This regulation may, upon implementation, affect new and expanded dischargers of wastewater to these streams. Dischargers planning to add new, or expand existing discharges to streams redesignated HQ may experience higher treatment costs. The increased costs may take the form 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. L Page 3 of8 (18) Provide a specific estimate of the cost and/or savings to local governments associated with compliance, including any legal, accounting or consulting procedures which may be required. See Question 17, No costs will be imposed directly upon local governments 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 537 Sewage Facilities Plans and local ordinances. (19) Provide a specific estimate of the cost and/or savings to state government associated with the implementation of the regulation, including any legal, accounting or consulting procedures which may be required. See Question 17 and 18. This proposal is based on, and will be implemented through, existing Department programs, procedures and policies. There are no additional implementation costs associated with this regulation. Page 4 of8 •6 (20) In the table below, provide an estimate of the fiscal savings and cost associated with implementation and compliance for the regulated community, local government, and iitate government for the current year and five subsequent years. Current FY FY+l FY+2 FY+3 FY+4 FY+5 Year Year Year Year Year Year SAVINGS: $ $ $ $ $ $ Regulated Community Not Measurable Local Government tf State Governments •i Total Savings if COSTS: Regulated Community Not Measurable Local Government it State Governments i» Total Cost if REVENUE LOSSES: Regulated Community Not Measurable Local Government it State Governments ft Total Revenue Losses ff (20a) Explain how the cost estimates listed above were derived. Not Applicable Page 5 of8 (20b) Provide the]last three year expenditure history for programs affected by the regulation. Program FY-3 FY-2 FY-1 Current FY Water Quality 16,704,886 16,605,573 18,741,606 15,995,084 Management (21) Using the cost-benefit information provided above, explain how the benefits of the regulation outweigh the adverse effects and cost 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 proposal. (22) Describe the non-regulatory alternatives considered and the cost associated with those alternatives. Provide the reasons for their dismissal. There were no non-regulatory alternatives available to consider in this case. (23) Describe alternative regulatory schemes considered and the cost associated with those schemes. Provide the reasons for their dismissal. There were no alternative regulatory schemes available to consider in order to apply the appropriate designated use in 25 Pa. Code, Chapter 93, Water Oualitv Standards to mirror the existing uses of these aquatic resources. Page 6 of8 (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 proposed amendments