RULES AND REGULATIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD
[ 25 PA. CODE CH. 93 ]
Stream Redesignations (Clarks Creek, et al.)
[41 Pa.B. 4754]
[Saturday, September 3, 2011]The Environmental Quality Board (Board) amends §§ 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
This final-form rulemaking will become effective upon publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.
B. Contact Persons
For further information, contact Rodney A. Kime, Chief, Division of Water Quality Standards, Bureau of Water Standards and Facility Regulation, 11th 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, (800) 654-5984 (TDD-users) or (800) 654-5988 (voice users). This final-form rulemaking is available electronically through the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) web site at 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)(1) and 402 of The Clean Streams Law (35 P. S. §§ 691.5(b)(1) and 691.402), which authorize the Board to develop and adopt rules and regulations to implement 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 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.A. § 1313) sets forth requirements for water quality standards.
D. Background of the 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 (BMPs)) 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 §§ 93.3 and 93.4 (relating to protected water uses; and Statewide water uses). 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 § 93.9 (relating to designated water uses and water quality criteria).
The following streams were evaluated in response to four petitions, as well as requests from the Department's Southcentral Regional Office (SCRO) and the Fish and Boat Commission (FBC) and a corrective amendment by the Bureau of Water Standards and Facility Regulation (BWSFR):
Stream County Petitioner/Reguestor Pine Creek Schuylkill Friends of Pine Creek Cacoosing Creek Berks SCRO Unnamed Tributary (UNT) 00926 to Schuylkill River; locally Spring Mill Run Montgomery Steven S. Brown, Chairperson
Whitemarsh Township Environmental Advisory BoardClarks Creek Wayne Glen Abello UNT 07792 to Conestoga River Lancaster FBC Hammer Creek Lebanon and Lancaster Heidelberg Township Toms Run Clarion and Forest BWSFR
The amendments included in this final-form 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 at 40 Pa.B. 2122 (April 24, 2010) 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, Migratory Fishes (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 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 regulation retains the designated use of Pine Creek in § 93.9f.
Hammer Creek—Supportive Comments
The Board received comments that applauded 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 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 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. These 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 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 9,916 feet of stream bank fencing and the establishment of 9,916 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 §§ 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 EV. 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 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 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. The 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 BMPs 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 PredICT model groups BMPs into eight 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. Suburban or onsite septic system BMPs were not 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 onsite 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 (for example, 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 BMP implementation or land use conversions. This potential delay in the remediation of water quality in response to agricultural BMPs 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 BMPs 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 report 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 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 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 3 outside of the official comment period. The Department received a letter from the EPA on June 10, 2010. The EPA commended the Department on its continuing effort to evaluate and properly designate surface waters of this Commonwealth, especially protecting existing water quality and uses through its antidegradation program, but the 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 the EPA Region 3.
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.
F. Summary of Changes to the Proposed Rulemaking
Changes were not made to the redesignations recommended in the proposed rulemaking.
G. Benefits, Costs and Compliance
Benefits
Overall, the Commonwealth, its citizens and natural resources will benefit from these amendments because they provide the appropriate level of protection 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.
Compliance Costs
The streams recommended for redesignation are already protected at their existing use. Therefore, the designated use revision will not impose increased compliance costs on the regulated community.
Persons conducting or proposing activities or projects shall comply with the regulatory requirements regarding 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 BMPs 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 BMPs 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 BMPs may be offset by potential savings from and increased value of improved water quality through more cost-effective and efficient treatment over time.
Compliance Assistance Plan
The amendments have been developed as part of an established program that has been implemented by the Department since the early 1980s. The amendments are consistent with and based on existing Department regulations. The amendments extend additional protection to selected waterbodies that exhibit exceptional water quality and are consistent with antidegradation requirements established by The Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.A. §§ 1251—1387) and The Clean Streams Law (35 P. S. §§ 691.1—691.1001). 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.
Paperwork Requirements
The final-form rulemaking should not have direct paperwork impact on the Commonwealth, local governments and political subdivisions or the private sector. These amendments 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 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 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.
J. Regulatory Review
Under section 5(a) of the Regulatory Review Act, on April 14, 2010, the Department submitted a copy of the proposed rulemaking, published at 40 Pa.B. 2122, to IRRC and the Chairpersons of the Senate and House Environmental Resources and Energy Committees for review and comment.
Under section 5(c) of the Regulatory Review Act, IRRC and the House and Senate Committees were provided with copies of the comments received during the public comment period, as well as other documentation. The Department has considered all public comments in preparing this final-form rulemaking. Comments were not received on the proposed rulemaking from IRRC or the House and Senate Committees.
Under section 5.1(j.2) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5a(j.2)), on July 20, 2011, the final-form rulemaking was deemed approved by the House and Senate Committees. Under section 5.1(e) of the Regulatory Review Act, IRRC met on July 21, 2011, and approved the final-form rulemaking.
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 rulemaking does not enlarge the purpose of the proposed rulemaking published at 40 Pa.B. 2122.
(4) This final-form rulemaking is necessary and appropriate for administration and enforcement of the authorizing acts identified in Section C of this preamble.
(5) This final-form rulemaking 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, with ellipses referring to the existing text of the regulations.
(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 under 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 L. KRANCER,
Chairperson(Editor's Note: For the text of the order of the Independent Regulatory Review Commission relating to this document, see 41 Pa.B. 4265 (August 6, 2011).)
Fiscal Note: Fiscal Note 7-438 remains valid for the final adoption of the subject regulations.
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
DESIGNATED WATER USES AND WATER QUALITY CRITERIA § 93.9f. Drainage List F.
Delaware River Basin in Pennsylvania
Schuylkill River
Stream Zone County Water Uses Protected Exceptions to Specific Criteria * * * * * 5—Plum Creek Basin, UNT at RM 0.45 to Mouth Berks CWF, MF None 4—Cacoosing Creek Basin, Source to Little Cacoosing Creek Berks CWF, MF None 5—Little Cacoosing Creek Basin Berks WWF, MF None 4—Cacoosing Creek Little Cacoosing Creek to Mouth Berks CWF, MF None 3—Tulpehocken Creek Basin, T 921 to Mouth Berks WWF, MF None * * * * *
3—Valley Creek Basin Montgomery—
ChesterEV, MF None 3—UNTs to Schuylkill River Basins, Valley Creek to UNT 00926 at RM 18.9 Montgomery WWF, MF None 3—Trout Creek Basin Montgomery WWF, MF None * * * * * 3—Arrowmink Creek Basin Montgomery WWF, MF None 3—UNT 00926 at RM 18.9 (locally Spring Mill Run) Basin Montgomery CWF, MF None 3—UNTs to Schuylkill River Basins, UNT 00926 downstream to Head of Tide Montgomery—
PhiladelphiaWWF, MF None 3—Sawmill Run Basin Montgomery WWF, MF None * * * * *
§ 93.9j. Drainage List J.
Susquehanna River Basin in Pennsylvania
Lackawanna River
Stream Zone County Water Uses Protected Exceptions to Specific Criteria * * * * * 2—Lackawanna River Main Stem, Confluence East and West Branches to SR 0347 Bridge at Dickson City Lackawanna HQ-CWF, MF None 3—UNTs to Lackawanna River Basins, Confluence of East and West Branches to Clarks Creek Susquehanna—
WayneCWF, MF None 3—Brace Brook Basin Susquehanna CWF, MF None 3—UNT 28600 at RM 35.54 (locally Clarks Creek) Basin Wayne EV, MF None 3—UNTs to Lackawanna River Basins, Clarks Creek to SR 0347 Bridge at Dickson City Wayne—Lackawanna CWF, MF None 3—Wilson Creek Basin Lackawanna CWF, MF None * * * * *
§ 93.9o. Drainage List O.
Susquehanna River Basin in Pennsylvania
Susquehanna River
Stream Zone County Water Uses Protected Exceptions to Specific Criteria * * * * * 2—Wilson Run Basin York WWF, MF None 2—Conestoga River Basin, Source to UNT 07792 at RM 43.05 Lancaster WWF, MF None 3—UNT 07792 to Conestoga River at RM 43.05 Basin Lancaster CWF, MF None 2—Conestoga River Main Stem, UNT 07792 at RM 43.05 downstream to Mouth Lancaster WWF, MF None 3—UNTs to Conestoga Rivers Basins, UNT 07792 to Mouth Berks—Lancaster WWF, MF None 3—Muddy Creek Main Stem, Source to Little Muddy Creek Lancaster TSF, MF None * * * * *
4—Middle Creek Basin, Furnace Run to Mouth Lancaster WWF, MF None 4—Hammer Creek Basin, Source to second Rexmont Road crossing (downstream of the two former water supply reservoirs) Lebanon HQ-CWF, MF None 4—Hammer Creek Basin, second Rexmont Road crossing to but not including UNT 07678 at RM 14.2 Lebanon CWF, MF None 4—Hammer Creek Basin, from and including UNT 07678 downstream to Walnut Run Lancaster HQ-CWF, MF None 5—Walnut Run Basin Lancaster EV, MF None 4—Hammer Creek Basin, Walnut Run to inlet of Speedwell Forge Lake Lancaster HQ-CWF, MF None 4—Hammer Creek Basin, Inlet of Speedwell Forge Lake to UNT 07671 at RM 8.8 Lancaster WWF, MF None 5—UNT 07671 Basin Lancaster HQ-CWF, MF None 4—Hammer Creek Basin, UNT 07671 downstream to Speedwell Forge Lake Dam Lancaster WWF, MF None 4—Hammer Creek Basin, Speedwell Forge Lake Dam to Mouth Lancaster TSF, MF None * * * * *
§ 93.9r. Drainage List R.
Ohio River Basin in Pennsylvania
Clarion River
Stream Zone County Water Uses Protected Exceptions to Specific Criteria * * * * *
4—Henry Run Basin Forest CWF None 4—Toms Run Basin, Source to Little Hefren Run Clarion EV None 5—Little Hefren Run Basin Clarion CWF None 4—Toms Run Basin, Little Hefren Run to Mouth Forest EV None 4—Cather Run Basin Clarion HQ-CWF None * * * * *
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 11-1501. Filed for public inspection September 2, 2011, 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.
