RULES AND REGULATIONS
Title 25--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD
[25 PA. CODE CH. 93]
Stream Redesignations (French Creek, et al.-- Part A)
[28 Pa.B. 4510] The Environmental Quality Board (Board) by this order amends §§ 93.9f, 93.9g, 93.9k, 93.9l, 93.9n--93.9p and 93.9r to read as set forth in Annex A.
This order was adopted by the Board at its meeting of May 21, 1998.
A. Effective Date
These amendments are 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 final rulemaking is available electronically through the Department of Environmental Protection's (Department) Web site (http://www.dep.state.pa.us).
C. Statutory Authority
The final rulemaking is being 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. In addition, the Federal regulation at 40 CFR 131.32 sets forth certain requirements for portions of the Commonwealth's antidegradation program.
D. Background of the Amendment
The Commonwealth's water quality standards, which are set forth in part in Chapter 93 (relating to water quality standards), implement 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 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 (FBC), 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 FBC 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 were reviewed based on a request by Department staff; Stony Brook, Mill Creek, South Branch Cole Creek, Browns Run and Toms Run were reviewed based on a request by the FBC; and the remaining streams were reviewed due to requests from various petitioners: French Creek by Green Valleys Association; Sutton Creek by Keep Sutton Creek Clean Committee; Cedar Run and Slate Run by the Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation; Cove Creek by Friends of Cove Creek; and Trout Run by Greg McCarren and Jackie Greenfield.
The physical, chemical and biological characteristics and other information on these waterbodies were evaluated 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. In reviewing whether waterbodies are subject to the Special Protection Waters Program the Department utilizes applicable State and Federal regulatory criteria and definitions. Based upon the data collected in these surveys and information gathered from Department records and other sources, the Board has made the designations set forth in Annex A.
Copies of the Department's stream evaluation reports referred to in this Preamble are available from Edward R. Brezina whose address and telephone number are listed in Section B of this Preamble.
E. Summary of Comments and Responses on the Proposed Rulemaking
The Board approved the proposed rulemaking on January 21, 1997. The proposal was published at 27 Pa.B. 1449 (March 22, 1997), with provisions for a 45-day public comment period. Several persons requested that public hearings be scheduled during this public comment period to receive additional comments on the Browns Run and Trout Run proposals. While the regular public comment period concluded on May 6, 1997, as was scheduled, the public comment period was extended for Browns and Trout Runs to allow for the public hearings. The Browns Run public hearing was held on July 1, 1997, at the Warren County Courthouse in Warren, and the Trout Run public hearing was held on July 2, 1997, at the Friendship Fire Company in Hellam Township, York County. This extended public comment period for Browns and Trout Runs concluded on July 2, 1997.
In response to the public comments and testimony received from 317 witnesses or commentators on the Browns Run and Trout Run proposals, the Department has determined that additional stream sampling and evaluations are needed to determine the appropriate recommendations for final rulemaking. Therefore, IRRC's and the EPA Region 3 (Region 3) comments and other public comments on Browns Run and Trout Run will be considered during the development of a separate final rulemaking which will address the Browns Run and Trout Run final recommendations.
In addition, in response to the Board's decision at its May 21, 1998, meeting, the lower section of Cove Creek, from the T-433 Bridge downstream to the Mouth, was removed from the Part A package on the basis that further analysis of the lower basin is necessary due to the dominance of sensitive mayfly populations. The Department is proposing to retain the CWF designation for this stream segment. The Department plans to seek public comment on changing the interpretation of this metric to allow for a higher rapid bioassessment protocol (RBP) score when the dominant species is indicative of good water quality.
The Board also agreed to remove Grimes Run from the Part A package to further consider whether the stream was meeting its use as a HQ-CWF on the effective date of the Clean Water Act (November 28, 1975). The Department is proposing to reclassify Grimes Run to a CWF. The FBC has additional information which they believe indicates that these uses were being met, and plans to submit it to the Department.
Final recommendations will be considered by the Board as a Part B package following completion of the additional stream evaluations for Browns Run and Trout Run and following consideration of information to be obtained relevant to Grimes Run and the lower section of Cove Creek.
The Board received comments from 121 commentators during the public comment period on this Part A of the French Creek, et al proposed rulemaking. Three commentators, the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) and Region 3 provided general comments on the entire proposed rulemaking package. In addition to the general comments on the proposed rulemaking package, IRRC also provided specific comments on Cove Creek and Grimes Run as part of its initial submission of comments on the French Creek, et al rulemaking. Also, Region 3 commented specifically on the French Creek, West Branch Brandywine, Cove Creek, Sutton Creek, Mill Creek and Toms Run proposals.
The following is a summary of comments submitted by IRRC, Region 3 and the public for the proposed stream redesignations for the Part A package. The House and Senate Standing Committees did not provide comments on the proposed rulemaking.
One commentator supported all of the proposed redesignations in the French Creek, et al proposed rulemaking. Region 3 asked for clarification as to which criteria were applied, and how the Federal promulgation was accommodated for the proposed stream redesignations. The EPA also indicated that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service was asked to provide input on the proposed changes. Two commentators and IRRC questioned Pennsylvania's authority to continue stream redesignations because of EPA's recent promulgation of Federal regulations for a portion of Pennsylvania's Special Protection Program and the appropriateness of these redesignations in light of the Commonwealth's proposal to amend its antidegradation program published at 27 Pa.B. 1459 (March 22, 1997). The two commentators expressed that the Department should not proceed with any stream redesignations, especially EV Waters redesignations, until a clear regulatory basis for these designations is established. IRRC suggested that if the proposed stream redesignations are consistent with the Federal provisions, it is appropriate for the Board to proceed to final-form regulations. Conversely, IRRC agreed that if the proposed stream redesignations are not consistent with the Federal promulgation, the Board should defer further action on these regulations until it has adopted its new antidegradation regulations and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has withdrawn its overriding promulgation.
The Department believes that the current stream redesignations are consistent with the Federal provisions and implementation of the Commonwealth's Special Protection Program.
One commentator, representing the Chester County Water Resources Authority (CCWRA), expressed full support for the proposed designations for increased protection of more than 19 streams and stream segments in Chester County. The commentator referenced the redesignations for French Creek, Birch Runs and the mainstem segments of the West Branch Brandywine Creek and several tributary basins.
The 113 supportive commentators for the French Creek proposed redesignations included many local municipal officials, agencies, community organizations and local State Legislators.
Region 3 asked for several points of clarification on the French Creek redesignations. They were confused over the intended designation for the Beaver Run subbasin due to an inadvertently omitted entry. The Beaver Run basin designation is HQ-TSF, MF. They also questioned how several sampling scores were derived and how the downstream limit of several of the various designations were determined.
Region 3 suggested that the Board reconsider Special Protection for ''Briar Run,'' an unnamed tributary in the West Branch Brandywine Creek basin. The Department explains that UNT #00130 (''Briar Run'') was not recommended for HQ protection because it did not achieve the minimum score of 83% of the reference station score.
Region 3 expressed concerns that the low scores for Sutton Creek were due primarily to some habitat parameters being rated suboptimal. They suggested that the increased protection afforded an HQ stream could benefit the habitat. The Department does not believe the suboptimal conditions on Sutton Creek would benefit from HQ protection. The habitat parameters which rated suboptimal for all Sutton Creek stations included velocity/depth regimes, channel alterations, channel flow status, vegetative disruptive pressure and riparian vegetation zone width.
These regulatory changes allow wastewater treatment requirements for dischargers to these streams to be consistent with the water uses to be protected. These regulatory amendments do not contain any standards or requirements which exceed requirements of the companion Federal regulations.
F. Summary of Changes to the Proposed Rulemaking
In response to testimony and comments received during the public hearings and comment period, the Department decided to conduct additional stream sampling and evaluations before returning with final recommendations for Browns Run and Trout Run as a separate Part B final rulemaking package.
In response to the Board's decision at its May 21, 1998, meeting, Grimes Run and the lower section of Cove Creek were removed from the Part A package and will be reconsidered in the Part B package.
An entry that was inadvertently omitted from the proposed rulemaking has been added to Annex A for Beaver Run in the French Creek basin. This clarifies that the Beaver Run basin designation is HQ-TSF, MF.
The Department also discovered during development of this final rulemaking that a ''Basin'' descriptor was inadvertently omitted from the proposed rulemaking Annex A for the first Mill Creek entry. Therefore, a ''Basin'' entry was inserted in the Zone column to replace the ''Main Stem'' descriptor that was being deleted during proposed rulemaking.
G. Benefits, Costs and Compliance
Executive Order 1996-1 requires a cost/benefit analysis of the amendments.
1. Benefits--Overall, the citizens of this Commonwealth will benefit from these recommended changes because they 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, 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 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 is consistent with antidegradation requirements established under 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 proposed amendments will be implemented through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program since the stream use designation is a major basis for determining allowable stream discharge effluent limitations. These permit conditions are established to assure that 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 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 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.
H. Pollution Prevention
The antidegradation program is a major pollution prevention tool because its objective is to prevent degradation by maintaining and protecting existing water quality. Although new and expanded wastewater discharges are not prohibited by the antidegradation program, nondischarge alternatives are encouraged and required, when appropriate. 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. In addition, these regulations are water quality standards subject to section 303(c)(1) of the Federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.A. § 1313(c)(1)).
J. Regulatory Review
Under section 5(a) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5(a)), on March 10, 1997, the Department submitted a copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking to IRRC and to the Chairpersons of the Senate and House Environmental Resources and Energy Committees for review and comment. The notice was published at 27 Pa.B. 1449. In compliance with section 5(b.1) of the Regulatory Review Act, the Department also provided IRRC and Committees with copies of the comments received, as well as other documentation.
In preparing these final-form regulations, the Department has considered all comments received from IRRC and the public. The Standing Committees did not provide comments on the proposed rulemaking.
This final-form regulation was deemed approved by the House and the Senate Committees on July 20, 1998. IRRC met on July 30, 1998, and approved the amendments in accordance with section 5(c) of the Regulatory Review Act.
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) These regulations do not enlarge the purpose of the proposal published at 27 Pa.B. 1449.
(4) These regulations are necessary and appropriate for administration and enforcement of the authorizing acts identified in Section C of this Preamble.
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, 93.9g, 93.9k, 93.9l, 93.9n--93.9p and 93.9r to read as set forth in Annex A, with ellipses referring to the existing text of the regulations. (Editor's Note: A proposal to amend §§ 93.9l and 93.9p, amended in this document, remains outstanding at 28 Pa.B. 1635 (April 4, 1998).
(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 of the Board 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.
JAMES M. SEIF,
Chairperson(Editor's Note: For the text of the order of the Independent Regulatory Review Commission relating to this document, see 28 Pa.B. 4007 (August 15, 1998).)
Fiscal Note: 7-306A. 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 Beaver Run Chester EV None 4-Beaver Run Basin Chester HQ-TSF, MF None 3-French Creek Basin, Beaver Run to 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-Unnamed Tributaries to West Branch Brandywine Creek Basins, T 437 Bridge to Dam at Valley Station (except those in West Brandywine Township) Chester TSF, MF None 5-Unnamed Tributaries to West Branch Brandywine Creek Basins, in West Brandywine Township Chester HQ-TSF, MF None 5-Birch Run Basin, Source to Hibernia Park Dam Chester 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 Dennis Run Chester WWF, MF None 5-Unnamed Tributaries to West Branch Brandywine Creek Basins, Dam at Valley Station to 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 EV None * * * * * (Editor's Note: Final consideration of the appropriate designation of the Grimes Run basin will be part of a Part B final rulemaking action to be taken at a later date. A proposal which would have changed the designation from HQ-CWF to CWF was included in the proposed rulemaking at 27 Pa.B. 1449, 1455 (March 22, 1997).)
§ 93.9l. Drainage List L.
Susquehanna River Basin in Pennsylvania
West Branch Susquehanna River
Exceptions Water Uses To Specific Stream Zone County Protected Criteria * * * * * 4-Cedar Run Basin Lycoming EV None * * * * * 4-Slate Run 5-Francis Branch Slate Run Basin, Source to Confluence with Cushman Branch Tioga EV None 5-Cushman Branch Basin, Source to Slate Run Tioga EV None 4-Slate Run Basin, Confluence of Francis and Cushman Branches to Mouth Lycoming EV None * * * * * (Editor's Note: Final consideration of the appropriate designation for the lower reach of the Cove Creek basin, from the T-433 bridge to the mouth will be part of a Part B final rulemaking action to be taken at a later date. A proposal which would have retained CWF for the lower reach was included in the proposed rulemaking at 27 Pa.B. 1449, 1456 (March 22, 1997).)
§ 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 T 433 Bridge Bedford EV None 4-Cove Creek Basin, T433 Bridge to Mouth Bedford CWF None * * * * * 5-South Branch Little Aughwick Creek Basin, Source to Inlet of Cowans Gap Lake Fulton 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 * * * * * (Departmental Note: Final consideration of the appropriate designation of the Trout Run basin will be part of a Part B final rulemaking action to be taken at a later date. A proposal which would have changed the designation from WWF to EV was included in the proposed rulemaking at 27 Pa.B. 1449, 1457 (March 22, 1997).)
§ 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 * * * * * § 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 Basin, Source to North Hollow Potter HQ-CWF None 3-Mill Creek Basin, North Hollow to Mouth Potter CWF None 3-Dingman Run Main Stem 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 * * * * * (Departmental Note: Final consideration of the appropriate designation of the Browns Run basin in § 93.9q. will be part of a Part B final rulemaking action to be taken at a later date. A proposal to change the designation from CWF to EV was included in the proposed rulemaking at 27 Pa.B. 1449, 1458 (March 22, 1997).)
§ 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 Clarion 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. 98-1439. Filed for public inspection September 4, 1998, 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.
