PROPOSED RULEMAKING

[25 PA. CODE CH. 93]

Stream Redesignations; French Creek, et al.

[27 Pa.B. 1449]

   The Environmental Quality Board (Board) proposes to amend §§ 93.9f, 93.9g, 93.9i, 93.9k, 93.9l, 93.9n--93.9r and 93.9z to read as set forth in Annex A.

   This order was adopted by the Board at its meeting of January 21, 1997.

A.  Effective Date

   These proposed amendments will be effective upon publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin as final rulemaking.

B.  Contact Persons

   For further information, contact Edward R. Brezina, Chief, Division of Water Quality Assessment and Standards, Bureau of Watershed Conservation, 10th Floor, Rachel Carson State Office Building, P. O. Box 8555, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8555 (717) 787-9637 or William J. Gerlach, 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 (800) 654-5984 (TDD users) or (800) 654-5988 (voice users). This proposal is available electronically through the Department of Environmental Protection's (Department's) Web site (http://www.dep.state.pa.us).

C.  Statutory Authority

   These proposed amendments are made under the authority of the following acts:  sections 5(b)(1) and 402 of The Clean Streams Law (35 P. S. §§ 691.5(b)(1) and 691.402) and section 1920-A of The Administrative Code of 1929 (71 P. S. § 510-20), which grant to the Board the authority to develop and adopt rules and regulations to implement the provisions of The Clean Streams Law.

D.  Background of the Amendment

   Pennsylvania's Water Quality Standards, which are set forth in part at Chapter 93 (relating to water quality standards) implement the provisions of sections 5 and 402 of The Clean Streams Law and section 303 of the Federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.A. § 1313). Water quality standards are in-stream water quality goals which are implemented by imposing specific regulatory requirements (such as treatment requirements and effluent limits) on individual sources of pollution.

   The Department considers candidates for Special Protection status or redesignation, or both, in its ongoing review of water quality standards. In general, Special Protection waters must be maintained at their existing quality, and wastewater treatment requirements must comply with § 95.1 (relating to general requirements). Candidates may be identified by the Department based on routine waterbody investigations. Requests for consideration may also be initiated by other agencies, such as the Fish and Boat Commission (Commission), and by the general public through a rulemaking petition to the Board.

   The Department evaluated the following streams in response to requests from Department and Commission staff, and from five petitioners submitting petitions to the Board:

   West Branch Brandywine Creek and Tributaries, Grimes Run, Milligan Run, South Branch Little Aughwick Creek, Sugar Valley Run, Indiantown Run and Muddy Run:  Department

   Stony Brook, Mill Creek, South Branch Cole Creek, Browns Run and Toms Run:  Commission

   French Creek:  Green Valleys Association

   Sutton Creek:  Keep Sutton Creek Clean Committee

   Cedar Run and Slate Run:  PA Environmental Defense Foundation

   Cove Creek:  Friends of Cove Creek

   Trout Run:  Greg McCarren and Jackie Greenfield

   The physical, chemical and biological characteristics and other information on these waterbodies were evaluated in order to determine the appropriateness of the current designations. Aquatic surveys of these streams were conducted by the Department's Bureau of Watershed Conservation and others. Based upon the data collected in these surveys and information gathered from Department records and other sources, the Board has made the designations described in Section E of this Preamble.

   Copies of the Department's aquatic survey evaluation reports are available from Edward Brezina whose address and telephone number are listed in Section B of this Preamble.

   In reviewing whether waterbodies are subject to the Special Protection Waters Program, and meet the definitions of ''High Quality Waters'' or ''Exceptional Value Waters'' in § 93.3 (relating to protected water uses), the Department is utilizing guidance titled ''Special Protection Waters Selection Criteria.'' This guidance appears in the Department's ''Special Protection Waters Implementation Handbook.''

E.  Summary of Regulatory Revisions

   Following is a brief explanation of the recommendations for the proposed amendments, which are based on the Department's evaluations considering applicable regulatory definitions and the Department's Special Protection Waters Selection Criteria that are referenced in the explanations:

   French Creek--The French Creek basin from its source to the confluence with South Branch French Creek should be redesignated from HQ-CWF to EV Waters based on EV categories II.1 (Waters in designated State Forests or Park Natural Areas), I.5 (Waters in National Parks designated in management plans for EV protection), IV.2 (Outstanding Ecology), and IV.1 (Endangered or Threatened aquatic and semi-aquatic species). The French Creek basin, from and including the South Branch French Creek basin to and including the Beaver Run basin should be redesignated from HQ-TSF to EV Waters based on EV category IV.2 (Outstanding Ecology). The French Creek basin, from the confluence of Beaver Run to the junction of the West Vincent, East Vincent and East Pikeland Township borders, with the exclusion of the Birch Run subbasin, should retain the current HQ-TSF designation. The Birch Run subbasin, within this reach, should be redesignated from HQ-TSF to EV Waters based on EV category IV.2 (Outstanding Ecology). The lower French Creek basin, from the junction of these township borders to the mouth, should retain its current TSF designation. Migratory Fishes (MF) designations should be added to the current or proposed designated uses for the French Creek basin from the confluence of Beaver Run to the mouth, based on the presence of American eel.

   West Branch Brandywine Creek and Tributaries--The Department evaluated 3.1 miles of the main stem of West Branch Brandywine Creek (between river mile 20.6 and 23.7), including Birch Run and seven unnamed tributaries. The main stem, Birch Run, and UNT # 00215 are currently designated as TSF, MF, while the remaining unnamed tributaries are designated WWF, MF. The main stem of West Branch Brandywine Creek should retain the current TSF, MF designations. However, the upper basin of Birch Run, from the source to the new Hibernia Park Dam at river mile 0.3, should be redesignated as HQ-CWF. The MF designation should be deleted for this reach because of the newly constructed dam. The remainder of the Birch Run basin, downstream from this dam, should retain its current TSF, MF designations. The unnamed tributary to West Branch Brandywine Creek at river mile 21.2 (# 00215) should be redesignated from TSF, MF to HQ-CWF, MF. Unnamed tributaries # 00193, # 00130, # 00126, # 124, and # 00119 should be redesignated from WWF, MF to CWF, MF, while UNT # 00194 and # 00108 should be redesignated as EV Waters from their current WWF, MF designations.

   Sutton Creek--Water quality in the Sutton Creek basin appears to be better than applicable water quality criteria. However, the basin does not support attributes which meet the Department's Special Protection Waters Selection Criteria or meet applicable regulatory definitions. Therefore, based on the Department's evaluation and applicable criteria, the Sutton Creek basin is currently appropriately designated and should remain CWF.

   Stony Brook--The Stony Brook basin should be redesignated EV Waters, based on an overall benthic macroinvertebrate metric score which is 100% of the reference station's score, (EV Category IV-2 Outstanding Ecological attributes).

   Grimes Run--Grimes Run should be redesignated CWF because of water quality degradation which existed prior to its designation as a Conservation Area, and prior to that being translated into an HQ-CWF designation. Historical water chemistry data clearly show a trend of degradation and impairment which occurred before November 28, 1975. Federal regulations require that ''existing uses'' be protected and that the Department demonstrate that a currently designated use did not exist on or after November 28, 1975, in order to remove that use.

   Milligan Run--Although there are anecdotal references that Milligan Run had always been degraded by acid mine drainage, and that most of the mining activity within the basin had occurred during the 1950's and 1960's, the Department was unable to discover substantial file information on aquatic surveys or chemical sampling which had been conducted in the Milligan Run basin prior to November 28, 1975, and demonstrates impairment prior to that date. Therefore, the current HQ-CWF designation of Milligan Run should remain unchanged.

   Cedar Run and Slate Run--Cedar and Slate Runs are adjacent tributaries to Pine Creek in the West Branch Susquehanna River basin. Both basins are currently designated HQ-CWF, except for the upper portion of Cushman Branch from the source to Bear Run, which is a Wilderness Trout Stream and designated EV Waters. Both the Slate Run and Cedar Run designations should be changed to reflect that both entire basins be designated EV Waters. The Cedar Run basin designation is based on EV Category IV.2 (waters with outstanding ecological attributes). The Slate Run redesignation is also based on EV Category IV.2, and is also based on EV Categories II.1 (waters in Natural and Wild Areas) and IV.1 (presence of PA endangered and threatened aquatic species).

   Cove Creek--The upper basin of Cove Creek, from its source to the Juliet Lane bridge (T-433) at river mile 2.0, should be redesignated as EV Waters based on EV Categories IV.1 (endangered semi-aquatic species, backward sedge) and IV.2 (outstanding ecology). The remainder of the basin, downstream from T-433 to the mouth, should retain its current CWF designation.

   South Branch Little Aughwick Creek--Based on the presence of glade spurge, an endangered semi-aquatic species (EV Category IV.1) in the vicinity above Cowans Gap Lake, the South Branch Little Aughwick Creek basin, from its source to the inlet of Cowans Gap Lake, should be redesignated EV Waters. The remainder of the basin, including the lake, should retain the current HQ-CWF designation.

   Sugar Valley Run--The use designation for this basin was inadvertently omitted from § 93.9n (relating to drainage list N). The Department's stream evaluation found water quality was generally good with probably some limestone influence. Benthic macroinvertebrate taxonomic diversity was good, with good representation of mayfly, stonefly and caddisfly taxa. The only fish species observed was blacknose dace, but was abundant. This condition appears to result from low flow (0.7 cfs) and poor habitat quality, (highly channelized and small amounts of shade). The Sugar Valley Run basin should be designated as CWF.

   Indiantown Run--This tributary to Swatara Creek was also inadvertently omitted from § 93.9o (relating to drainage list O). Water chemistry results show that the water quality of the basin is better than water quality criteria, or in a natural state. Naturally reproducing brown trout were found in Indiantown Run upstream of Marquette Lake. The reach between Marquette Lake and Memorial Lake contained stocked trout and warm water species. Indiantown Run downstream from Memorial Lake contained warm water species. Therefore, Indiantown Run basin should be designated CWF from the source to the inlet of Marquette Lake. Marquette Lake and the Indiantown Run basin from Marquette Lake to Memorial Lake should be designated TSF. Memorial Lake and the Indiantown Run basin downstream to the mouth should be WWF.

   Trout Run--A tributary to Codorus Creek in Hellam Township, York County, Trout Run is currently designated WWF. However, the small tributary meets EV Category IV.2 with outstanding ecological attributes supporting wild brook trout and biological condition scores which are better than 92% of the reference station scores. The Trout Run basin should be redesignated from WWF to EV Waters.

   Mill Creek--The mainstem of Mill Creek is managed as a Class A Brown Trout fishery by the Commission. The Mill Creek basin from the source to the confluence with North Hollow is recommended to be redesignated HQ-CWF based on HQ Category 3 (Class A Trout Waters). The Trout Run subbasin within this reach is already designated HQ-CWF. The remainder of the Mill Creek basin, including North Hollow, should retain the current CWF designation.

   South Branch Cole Creek--The entire South Branch Cole Creek basin should be redesignated from its current CWF designation to EV Waters based on EV Category IV.2 (Outstanding Ecology) since all stations on South Branch Cole Creek had macroinvertebrate metrics scores which exceed 92% of the two representative metrics scores of the reference stations on Cathers Run.

   Browns Run--The Browns Run basin, with the exception of the basins of two unnamed tributaries in the Dutchman Run subbasin, should be redesignated EV Waters, based on EV Category IV.2 (Outstanding Ecology) by earning scores greater than 92% of the reference stations scores. The unnamed tributaries to Dutchman Run at river mile 0.17 (UNT # 56500) and at river mile 1.6 (UNT # 56501) should retain the current CWF designations since the four stations on these unnamed tributaries earned less than 83% of the reference station scores. These unnamed tributaries are also impacted by sewage, or fugitive oil, or lacked appropriate habitat or an adequate riparian zone.

   Toms Run--The Toms Run basin, with the exception of the Little Hefren Run subbasin, should be redesignated from CWF to EV Waters on the basis of EV Category IV.2 (Outstanding Ecology). The Little Hefren Run basin should retain its current CWF designation.

   Muddy Run--Despite the degraded conditions found in Muddy Run, the basin should remain designated HQ-CWF. The Department was unable to find evidence to show that these degraded conditions existed prior to November 28, 1975, which is required by Federal regulations to allow the removal of a designated use. Furthermore, since Muddy Run is a limestone influenced basin, it is difficult to discern between the adverse impacts that are related to agricultural activities within the basin and the benthos and water quality conditions inherent to limestone ecosystems.

   These changes allow wastewater treatment requirements for dischargers to these streams to be consistent with the water uses to be protected. These proposed regulatory amendments do not contain any standards or requirements which exceed requirements of the companion Federal regulations.

F.  Benefits, Costs, and Compliance

   Executive Order 1996-1 requires a cost/benefit analysis of the proposed amendments.

   1.  Benefits--Overall, the citizens of this Commonwealth will benefit from these recommended changes because they will reflect the appropriate designated use and maintain the most appropriate degree of protection for each stream in question.

   2.  Compliance Costs--Generally the changes should have no fiscal impact on, or create additional compliance costs for the Commonwealth, or its political subdivisions. Except as noted below, no costs will be imposed directly upon local government by this recommendation. However, indirect costs may result from revisions to Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plans due to consultant and other administrative fees. Political subdivisions which add a new sewage treatment plant or expand an existing plant in the basin may experience changes in cost as noted in the discussion of impacts on the private sector.

   Persons proposing activities or projects which result in discharges to streams must comply with the regulatory requirements relating to current stream designations. These persons could be adversely affected by the recommended changes that increase the level of protection provided to a stream, if they expand their discharge, or add a new discharge point, since they may need to provide a higher level of treatment for their new or expanded discharge. These increased costs take the form of higher engineering, construction or operating costs for wastewater treatment facilities. Treatment costs are site-specific and may 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. In addition, nonpoint source controls necessary to protect High Quality and Exceptional Value Waters may add to the cost of planning and development for new or expanded nonpoint source discharges. Economic impacts would primarily involve the potential for higher treatment costs for new or expanded discharges to streams which are upgraded, and potentially lower treatment costs for dischargers to streams which are downgraded.

   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 1980's. The proposal is consistent with and based on existing Department programs and current policies. Therefore, no policy changes are anticipated. The proposal extends additional protection to selected waterbodies that exhibit exceptional water quality and environmental features, and is consistent with antidegradation requirements established by the Federal Clean Water Act and The Clean Streams Law. Surface waters in this Commonwealth are afforded a minimum level of protection through compliance with the water quality standards which prevents pollution and protects existing water uses.

   The proposed amendments will be implemented through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program since the stream use designation is a major basis for determining the allowable stream discharge effluent limitations. These permit conditions are established to assure the water quality criteria are achieved and the designated 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 the proposed revised designated water uses.

   The Department has developed technical guidance to assist the potentially affected and regulated community in understanding the impacts and requirements of the Special Protection Stream Designation Process. The Special Protection Waters Implementation Handbook (1992) provides guidance on the regulatory designation process, protection of candidate streams, and most importantly, general considerations for proposed new or expanded discharges to Special Protection Waters. This handbook also contains appendices which present management practices and technologies relevant for point and nonpoint source discharges to Special Protection Waters. The Department has conducted various workshops, seminars and public meetings on the Special Protection Waters program. Public meetings have been held for specific stream redesignation concerns. Permitted point source discharges are regularly evaluated through discharger self-monitoring reports (DMR's) and Department inspections, to assure they are complying with permit conditions. The Handbook sets forth recommended Best Management Practices (BMP's) for nonpoint sources.

   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 programs and policies. There may be some indirect paperwork requirements for new or expanding dischargers to streams upgraded to Special Protection (HQ or EV). For example, NPDES general permits are not available for new or expanded discharges to Special Protection streams. Thus, an individual permit, and its associated additional paperwork, would be required. Additionally, paperwork associated with demonstrating social and economic justification (SEJ), and the nonfeasibility of nondischarge alternatives, may be required for new or expanded discharges to certain Special Protection waters.

G.  Sunset Review

   These regulations 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.

H.  Regulatory Review

   Under section 5(a) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5(a)), the Department submitted a copy of the proposed rulemaking on March 10, 1997, to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) and to the Chairpersons of the Senate and House Environmental Resources and Energy Committees. In addition to submitting the proposed amendments, the Department has provided IRRC and the Committees with a copy of a detailed regulatory analysis form prepared by the Department. A copy of this material is available to the public upon request.

   If the Commission has objections to any portion of the proposed amendments, it will notify the Department within 30 days of the close of the public comment period. The notification shall specify the regulatory review criteria which have not been met by that portion. The Regulatory Review Act specifies detailed procedures for review by the Department, the Governor, and the General Assembly before final publication of the amendments.

I.  Public Comments

   Written Comments--Interested persons are invited to submit comments, suggestions or objections regarding the proposed amendments to the Environmental Quality Board, P. O. Box 8477, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8477 (express mail:  Rachel Carson State Office Building, 15th Floor, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101-2301). Comments submitted by facsimile will not be accepted. Comments, suggestions or objections must be received by the Board by May 6, 1997 (within 45 days of publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin). Interested persons may also submit a summary of their comments to the Board. The summary may not exceed one page in length and must also be received by May 6, 1997 (within 45 days following publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin). The one-page summary will be provided to each member of the Board in the agenda packet distributed prior to the meeting at which the final-form regulations will be considered.

   Electronic Comments--Comments may be submitted electronically to the Board at RegComments@A1.dep.state.pa.us. A subject heading of the proposal and return name and address must be included in each transmission. Comments submitted electronically must also be received by the Board by May 6, 1997.

JAMES M. SEIF,   
Chairperson

   (Editor's Note:  A proposal to amend §§ 93.9f, 93.9g, 93.9l, 93.9n, 93.9o, 93.9q and 93.9r remains outstanding at 26 Pa.B. 3637 (August 3, 1996).)

   Fiscal Note:  7-306. No fiscal impact; (8) recommends adoption.

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

				Exceptions
			Water Uses	To Specific
Stream	Zone	County	Protected	Criteria
*      *      *      *      *
3--French Creek	Basin, Source to [South Branch French Creek] Beaver Run	Chester	[HQ-CWF] EV	None
3--French Creek	Basin, [South Branch French Creek] Beaver Run to [the Junction of West Vincent, East Vincent and East Pikeland] Birch Run	Chester	HQ-TSF, MF	None
4--Birch Run	Basin	Chester	EV	None
3--French Creek	Basin, Birch Run to the Junction of West Vincent, East Vincent and East Pikeland Township Borders	Chester	HQ-TSF, MF	None
3--French Creek	Basin, Junction of West Vincent, East Vincent and East Pikeland Township Borders to Mouth	Chester	TSF, MF	None

   

*      *      *      *      *

§ 93.9g.  Drainage List G.

Delaware River Basin in Pennsylvania
Delaware River

				Exceptions
			Water Uses	To Specific
Stream	Zone	County	Protected	Criteria
*      *      *      *      *
4--West Branch Brandywine Creek	Main Stem, T 437 Bridge to Dam at Valley Station	Chester	TSF, MF	None
*      *      *      *      *
5--Birch Run	Basin, Source to Hibernia Park Dam	Chester	[TSF, MF] HQ-CWF	None
5-Birch Run	Basin, Hibernia Park Dam to Mouth	Chester	TSF, MF	None
5--Unnamed Tributary to West Branch Brandywine Creek at RM 21.2 (UNT # 00215)	Basin	Chester	HQ-CWF, MF	None
5--Rock Run	Basin	Chester	TSF, MF	None
4--West Branch Brandywine Creek	Main Stem, Dam at Valley Station to [Confluence with East Branch] Dennis Run	Chester	WWF, MF	None
5--Unnamed Tributaries to West Branch Brandywine Creek	Basins, Dam at Valley Station to [Confluence with East Branch] Dennis Run	Chester	WWF, MF	None
5--Sucker Run	Basin	Chester	WWF, MF	None
5--Dennis Run	Basin	Chester	WWF, MF	None
4--West Branch Brandywine Creek	Main Stem, Dennis Run to Buck Run	Chester	WWF, MF	None
5--Unnamed Tributaries to West Branch Brandywine Creek	Basins, Dennis Run to Buck Run, except Unnamed Tributary to West Branch Brandywine at RM 12.3 (UNT # 00193)	Chester	WWF, MF	None
5--Unnamed Tributary to West Branch Brandywine Creek at RM 12.3 (UNT # 00193)	Basin, Source to Unnamed Tributary to UNT # 00193 at RM 0.3 (UNT # 00194)	Chester	CWF, MF	None
6--Unnamed Tributary to UNT # 00193 at RM 0.3 (UNT # 00194)	Basin	Chester	EV, MF	None
5--Unnamed Tributary to West Branch Brandywine Creek at RM 12.3 (UNT # 00193)	Basin, Unnamed Tributary to UNT # 00193 at RM 0.3 (UNT # 00194) to Mouth	Chester	CWF, MF	None
5--Buck Run	Basin	Chester	TSF, MF	None
4--West Branch Brandywine Creek	Main Stem, Buck Run to Confluence with East Branch	Chester	WWF, MF	None
5--Unnamed Tributaries to West Branch Brandywine Creek	Basins, Buck Run to Confluence with East Branch, except Unnamed Tributaries to West Branch Brandywine at RM'S 10.0, 9.48, 9.14, 8.0 & 5.2 (UNT'S # 00130, 00126, 00124, 00119, 00108)	Chester	WWF, MF	None
5--Unnamed Tributaries to West Branch Brandywine Creek at RM'S 10.0, 9.48, 9.14 & 8.0 (UNT'S # 00130, 00126, 00124, 00119)	Basins	Chester	CWF, MF	None
5--Unnamed Tributary to West Branch Brandywine Creek at RM 5.2 (UNT # 00108)	Basin	Chester	EV, MF	None
5--Broad Run	Basin	Chester	EV, MF	None

*      *      *      *      *

§ 93.9k.  Drainage List K.

Susquehanna River Basin in Pennsylvania
Susquehanna River

				Exceptions
			Water Uses	To Specific
Stream	Zone	County	Protected	Criteria
*      *      *      *      *
3--Stony Brook	Basin	Columbia	[CWF] EV	None
*      *      *      *      *

§ 93.91.  Drainage List L.

Susquehanna River Basin in Pennsylvania
West Branch Susquehanna River

				Exceptions
			Water Uses	To Specific
Stream	Zone	County	Protected	Criteria
*      *      *      *      *
4--Grimes Run	Basin	Clearfield	[HQ-] CWF	None
*      *      *      *      *
4--Cedar Run	Basin	Lycoming	[HQ-CWF] EV	None
*      *      *      *      *
4--Slate Run
5--Francis Branch Slate Run	Basin, Source to Confluence with Cushman Branch	Tioga	[HQ-CWF] EV	None
5--Cushman Branch Slate Run	Basin, Source to [Bear Run]	Tioga	EV	None
[6--Bear Run]	[Basin]	[Tioga]	[HQ-CWF]	[None]
[5--Cushman Branch] [Slate Run]	[Basin, Bear Run to] Confluence with Francis Branch	[Tioga]	[HQ-CWF]	[None]
4--Slate Run	Basin, Confluence of Francis and Cushman Branches to Mouth	Lycoming	[HQ-CWF]EV	None
*      *      *      *      *

§ 93.9n.  Drainage List N.

Susquehanna River Basin in Pennsylvania
Juniata River

				Exceptions
			Water Uses	To Specific
Stream	Zone	County	Protected	Criteria
*      *      *      *      *
4--Cove Creek	Basin, Source to [Unnamed Tributary at RM 3.93] T 433 bridge	Bedford	[CWF]EV	None
[5--Unnamed Tributary to Cove Creek at RM 3.93 (at Ott Town)]	[Basin]	[Bedford]	[HQ-CWF]	[None]
4--Cove Creek	Basin, [Unnamed Tributary at RM 3.93] T 433 bridge to Mouth	Bedford	CWF	None
*      *      *      *      *
5--South Branch Little Aughwick Creek	Basin, Source to [Confluence with North Branch] Inlet of Cowans Gap Lake	Fulton	[HQ-CWF]EV	None
5--South Branch Little Aughwick Creek	Basin, Inlet of Cowans Gap Lake to Confluence with North Branch	Fulton	HQ-CWF	None
*      *      *      *      *
3--West Licking Creek	Basin	Huntingdon	HQ-CWF	None
3--Sugar Valley Run	Basin	Mifflin	CWF	None
3--Beaverdam Run	Basin	Mifflin	HQ-CWF	None
*      *      *      *      *

§ 93.9o.  Drainage List O.

Susquehanna River Basin in Pennsylvania
Susquehanna River

				Exceptions
			Water Uses	To Specific
Stream	Zone	County	Protected	Criteria
*      *      *      *      *
3--Little Swatara Creek	Basin, Berks-Lebanon County Border to Mouth	Lebanon	WWF	None
3--Indiantown Run	Basin, Source to Inlet of Marquette Lake	Lebanon	CWF	None
3--Indiantown Run	Basin, Inlet of Marquette Lake to Inlet of Memorial Lake	Lebanon	TSF	None
3--Indiantown Run	Basin, Inlet of Memorial Lake to Mouth	Lebanon	WWF	None
3--Quittapahilla Creek	Basin	Lebanon	TSF	None
*      *      *      *      *
3--Trout Run	Basin	York	[WWF]EV	None
*      *      *      *      *

§ 93.9p.  Drainage List P.

Ohio River Basin in Pennsylvania
Allegheny River

				Exceptions
			Water Uses	To Specific
Stream	Zone	County	Protected	Criteria
*      *      *      *      *
3--Mill Creek	[Main Stem] Source to North Hollow	Potter	HQ-CWF	None
[4--Unnamed Tributaries to Mill Creek]	[Basins]	[Potter]	[CWF]	[None]
[4--Nelson Run]	[Basin]	[Potter]	[CWF]	[None]
[4--Bates Hollow]	[Basin]	[Potter]	[CWF]	[None]
[4--Trout Run]	[Basin]	[Potter]	[HQ-CWF]	[None]
[4--Lyman Creek]	[Basin]	[Potter]	[CWF]	[None]
4--North Hollow	Basin	Potter	CWF	None
3--Mill Creek	Basin, North Hollow to Mouth	Potter	CWF	None
[4--South Hollow]	[Basin]	[Potter]	[CWF]	[None]
3--Dingman Run	Basin	Potter	HQ-CWF	None
*      *      *      *      *
4--Cole Creek	Basin, Source to South Branch Cole Creek	McKean	CWF	None
5--South Branch Cole Creek	Basin	McKean	EV	None
4--Cole Creek	Basin, South Branch Cole Creek to Mouth	McKean	CWF	None
*      *      *      *      *

§ 93.9q.  Drainage List Q.

Ohio River Basin in Pennsylvania
Allegheny River

				Exceptions
			Water Uses	To Specific
Stream	Zone	County	Protected	Criteria
*      *      *      *      *
3--Browns Run	Basin, Source to Dutchman Run	Warren	[CWF]EV	None
4--Dutchman Run	Basin, Source to Unnamed Tributary at RM 1.6 (UNT # 56501)	Warren	EV	None
5--Unnamed Tributary at RM 1.6 (UNT # 56501)	Basin	Warren	CWF	None
4--Dutchman Run	Basin, Unnamed Tributary at RM 1.6 (UNT # 56501) to Unnamed Tributary at RM 0.17 (UNT # 56500)	Warren	EV	None
5--Unnamed Tributary at RM 0.17 UNT # 56500)	Basin	Warren	CWF	None
4--Dutchman Run	Basin, Unnamed Tributary at RM 0.17 (UNT # 56500) to Mouth	Warren	EV	None
3--Browns Run	Basin, Dutchman Run to Mouth	Warren	EV	None
*      *      *      *      *

§ 93.9r.  Drainage List R.

Ohio River Basin in Pennsylvania
Clarion River

				Exceptions
			Water Uses	To Specific
Stream	Zone	County	Protected	Criteria
*      *      *      *      *
4--Toms Run	Basin, Source to Little Hefren Run	[Forest] Clarion	[CWF]EV	Add TON
5--Little Hefren Run	Basin	Clarion	CWF	Add TON
4--Toms Run	Basin, Little Hefren Run to Mouth	Forest	EV	Add TON

*      *      *      *      *

[Pa.B. Doc. No. 97-442. Filed for public inspection March 21, 1997, 9:00 a.m.]

---

No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.

This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.

---