1 Draft 201 2 Pennsylvania Integrated Water Quality

Monitoring and Assessment Report

Clean Water Act

Section 305(b) Report and 303(d) List2 Contents

Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 3

Part A: Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 7

Part B: Background

Total Waters

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 8

Pollution Preventio n and Energy Efficiency Program

................................ ........................... 8

NPDES

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 9 Compliance and Enforcement

................................ ................................ ................................ 1 0 Mining

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 1 1

Oil and Gas

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 1 1 Stormwater Discharge Permits

................................ ................................ .............................. 1 2

Construct ion and Urban Runoff

................................ ................................ ............................ 1 2

Stormwater Permits Conservation Districts

................................ ................................ ........... 1 4

Comb ine d Sewer Overflows

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 1 4 Nonpoint Source Control Program

................................ ................................ ........................ 1 4 Highlights of Pennsylvania’s Current NPS Program

................................ ............................. 1 5 Total Maximum Daily Load Development (TMDL)

................................ ............................. 2 1

Part C: Surface Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Water Quality Standards Program

................................ ................................ ......................... 2 3 Plan for Achieving Comprehensive Assessments

................................ ................................ .. 2 5 Intensive Surveys

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 26 Ambient Fixed Station Monitoring

................................ ................................ ........................ 26 Lake Water Quality Assessments

................................ ................................ .......................... 28 Citizen’s Volunteer Monitoring

................................ ................................ ............................. 29 Existing and Readily Available Information

................................ ................................ ......... 29 Assessment and Methodology

................................ ................................ ............................... 3 1 Streams Use Support

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 3 2

Record of Changes to the 20 10 Integrated List 5 made in the 201 2 Integrated List

............. 37 Lakes Use Support

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 37 Excluding the Fishable and Swimmable Uses

................................ ................................ ....... 4 1 Lakes Trophic Status

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 4 1

Lake Restoration Efforts

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 4 2

Lake Control Methods

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 4 3 Wetlands Protection Program

................................ ................................ ................................ 48

T r end Analysis for Surface Waters

................................ ................................ ........................ 5 2

Part D: Groundwater

Groundwater Assessment

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 59 USGS Releases Groundwater Quality Data for Pennsylvania

................................ ............... 6 0

Sources of Groundwater Contamination

................................ ................................ ................ 6 1 Statewide Groundwater Protection Program

................................ ................................ ......... 6 3 Groundwater Protection Program

................................ ................................ .......................... 6 4

Wellhead Protection and Source Water Protection Program

................................ ................. 6 5 Source Water Assessment and Protection Program

................................ ............................... 6 53 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Pennsylvania has a population of 12, 702

, 3 79 and area of 45,333 square miles. There are six major river basins

- Delaware, Susquehanna, Genesee, Potomac, Ohio, and Lake Erie

- with an estimated 86,000 stream and river miles and 161,455 lake acres. Seventeen square miles of Delaware Estuary and 5 12 acres of tidal wetlands exist in the southeast corner. In the northwest corner are 63 miles of Lake Erie shoreline. Scattered throughout the state are 403,924 freshwater wetlands. These numbers illustrate the magnitude and complexity the Pennsylvania o f Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) faces in assessing, protecting, and managing its

water resources.

There are several goals of the 201 2 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (Integrated Report). Foremost is to report on t he condition of the waters in the Commonwealth. Other goals include describing the water pollution control and assessment/monitoring programs. Pollution control programs are discussed in detail in Part B, and Assessment and Monitoring in Part C. The repor t concludes with a discussion of groundwater in Part D.

Part A summarizes and discusses stream and lake assessments. The introduction describes the

five

- part list. These lists of individual waterbodies are separate from the narrative because of

their size and are available on DEP’s website.

In April 2007 DEP completed a ten year program to assess all wadeable streams. The census utilized a biological assessment of the aquatic life use. Since 2007, DEP has implemented ne aquatic life biological assessment methods based on the current best science. Other designated

uses and non

- wadeable waters continue to be assessed as resources and time permitted. As of this report 84, 571 miles of str eams and rivers are assessed for aquatic life use with 6 7 ,9 7 2 miles listed as attaining that water use. Of the impaired miles, 9, 801 require development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) to reduce pollutant inputs and 6, 490 have an approved TMDL.

An add itional 62 miles are under compliance agreements and expected to improve within a reasonable amount of time. The two largest problems are agriculture and abandoned mine drainage. The largest stressors are siltation and metals. However, other problems shou ld not be minimized because in local areas they may impact a relatively large percentage of waters. For example, urban runoff/stormsewers is a minor problem in rural areas but major in metropolitan regions.

There are 80

, 525 acres of lakes assessed for a quatic life use and 4 3

, 194 acres are attaining that use. Of the impaired acres, 5, 42 0 require a TMDL, 11, 366 have an approved TMDL, and 20,544 acres are impaired but do not require a TMDL because they are not affected by pollutants. The largest problem sou rce is agriculture and largest stressors are nutrients, suspended solids, and organic enrichment/low D.O. As discussed above, smaller problems should not be minimized because they still have regional importance.

To protect the health of those who consu me fish caught in the Commonwealth, DEP monitors fish flesh for possible contaminants. When concentrations of substances known to be harmful to humans reach action levels, fish consumption advisories are issued to inform people of the possible dangers and the actions they can take to protect themselves. Currently there are approximately 1, 318 miles of fish consumption advisories in need of TMDLs and 704 with4

approved TMDLs. Lake listings include 40, 405 acres requiring TMDLs and an additional 5, 664 with app roved TMDLs. There is a statewide fish consumption advisory of no more than one meal per week for all waters to protect against the ingestion of unconfirmed contaminants. The fish consumption listings in this report have triggered action levels more restr ictive than the one meal per week. It should be noted that DEP directs much of its fish tissue sampling to areas where there is a greater chance of problems. As a result, it is not surprising to see a higher number of stream miles and lake acres impaired for this use compared to the stream miles ( 3,323 ) and lake acres ( 28

, 765 ) attaining this use.

Aquatic life use was the original focus of the statewide surveys because with a rapid and efficient biological assessment of aquatic macroinvertebrates (insect s, snails, clams, etc.) it was possible to canvas the state over a ten year period. In addition, aquatic life use is a good measure because it is reliable as an indicator of long term pollution problems. Since completing the statewide census for aquatic l ife use, DEP is emphasizing developing assessment methodologies, programs, and partnerships to increase recreational and potable water supply use assessments.

Of the 2,422 stream miles assessed for recreational use, 1,205 were attaining. There are 1,20 9 impaired miles requiring a TMDL and 8 with an approved TMDL. Lake recreational use was

assessed for 81 ,9 59 acres with 7 6 ,8 36 attaining, and 5,1 23 impaired requiring a TMDL. The potable water supply use was assessed for 3,357 stream miles with 3,194 attaining, 151 impaired requiring a TMDL, and 12 with approved TMDLs. Lake potable water supply use was assessed

for 5 7

, 953 acres with 5 7 ,9 41 attaining, and 12 impaired requiring a TMDL.

Part B is the narrative describing the Commonwealth’s water pollut ion control programs. The section begins with a description of efforts to prevent pollution before it becomes a problem. On other fronts, DEP has programs to encourage reduction in pollution that also provide cost savings

to the t reatment facilities. Exam ples of these successes are provided.

As evident in the Part B narrative, the Commonwealth’s permitting and NPDES program is complex and deals with a large number of inspections and permits including regulating and permitting treatment facilities for 9, 168 industrial and sewage dischargers . Pennsylvania is a large producer of coal and natural gas and all mining and extraction activities require permits and inspection. It is DEP ’s responsibility to issue permits that assure stormwater from earthmoving

a nd construction activities is managed properly so as not to cause damage to streams or adversely affect their hydrology. County conservation districts work with DEP on stormwater protection. DEP also regulates combined sewer overflows (CSO) and manages an d protects

wetlands.

Part B also includes a discussion of non

- point source programs. Pennsylvania’s Non

- point Source (NPS) Program was developed in response to Section 319 of the federal Clean Water Act to address problems caused by pollution from non

- po int sources. Unlike point source pollution, which comes from pipes, the causes of non

- point source pollution can be difficult to define or quantify. Sometimes referred to as “polluted runoff,” non

- point source pollution is generally caused by stormwater runoff across the land or infiltration of pollutants into the groundwater.

Non

- point source problems require treating and controlling runoff from large areas. Treatment and control is accomplished through what are known as best management practices (BMP ). BMPs are often specifically adapted to a particular location and problem. Examples include improving farming practices, reclamation of abandoned mines, installation of sediment ponds,5

and planting riparian buffers. A major function of the non

- point sou rce program is to identify the need for and initiate funding of BMP projects. In addition, the non

- point source program

since 2007 has been identifying improving waters to potentially delist from Category 5 to Category 2, and as a result 89 stream miles w ere identified as being restored and moved from Category 5 to Category 2.

The non

- point program works with the TMDL program. A TMDL model outputs a load reduction of, for example, sediment. That sediment load reduction must be achieved to meet water quali ty goals and the reductions are achieved through the use of non

- point BMPs. The non

point program provides technical assistance, education, and funding necessary to put the BMPs in place. Education is an important facet of the non

- point program. It often t akes a consortium of interested and active people concerned about their watershed to achieve non

- point source controls. The purpose and goals of the TMDL program are outlined following the section on the

non

- point program.

Growing Greener II funds were e xhausted in 2009, however multiple funding sources that include Section 319, Growing Greener I, USDA Farm Bill funds and Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) fund are important to the success of non

- point source controls and programs as illustra ted in the Part B narrative. In 2010 and 2011 these programs funded numerous BMP and restoration projects.

The combined efforts of the NPDES and non

- point programs to identify and correct problems have resulted in many water quality improvements. In 200 7, DEP began an ongoing process of identifying areas where restoration efforts were underway and targeting them for monitoring. When monitoring indicates the waters are restored, Department biologists document the improvements and remove the problem from Category 5 of the List (impaired waters requiring a TMDL) and place it in Category 2 (waters attaining at least one use). Twenty

- four such sites were identified and sampled in 20 10 /20 11

.

Part C is the Surface Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment disc ussion. It begins with a discussion of the Water Quality Standards Program which includes water uses, water quality criteria, and Pennsylvania’s Antidegradation Program.

The next three sections discuss monitoring programs including intensive surveys, amb ient fixed station monitoring at Water Quality Network (WQN) sites, and lake monitoring.

Citizen Volunteer Monitoring Program (CVMP) is an important program with the goal of working with interested groups in projects that generate quality assured data related to DEP’s highest priorities. Ongoing projects include: bacteria sampling with the intent of assessing

streams for recreational use and monitoring the effects of restoration efforts with the intent of tracking the improving water quality of streams and lakes

.

EPA’s Integrated Listing guidance requires states to gather and use all existing and readily available data generated by sources outside DEP. This data must meet quality assurance and procedural guidelines outlined by DEP. Data solicitations were sent to over 500 outside sources in an effort to satisfy this requirement.

The Assessment and Listing Methodology is a collection of protocols used to conduct field surveys and evaluate information for assessments. These protocols are the basis for the streams6

a nd lakes information contained in the Integrated Report narrative and the five part list. These protocols were subjected to peer review. Before being adopted, the entire methodology was made available for public review during the summer of 2007 and spring 2009 . The methodology is lengthy and as a result is reported separately from this narrative and is available on DEP’s website along with the responses to public comm ent.

The next several sections present detailed tables summarizing stream and lake use su pport. These tables formed the basis for the discussions presented at the beginning of the Executive Summary.

The lakes section also contains discussions on restorat ion and control efforts. Some funding is available from DEP to restore and/or protect lake s. Control measures are codified in DEP's Rules and Regulations at Section 96.5

- Discharges to Lakes, Ponds, and Impoundments, which sets forth treatment requirements for point source discharges necessary to control eutrophication. Both efforts are impor tant in protecting and restoring the Commonwealth’s lakes. Section C

ends with an overview of wetlands that describes the types of wetlands found, DEP’s jurisdiction and responsibility to protect wetlands, and other wetland related activities.

Finally, Part D provides an overview of the groundwater program including assessment activities and wellhead and source water protection.7 PART A: INTRODUCTION

This report is the twenty

- first in a series of reports prepared in re sponse to Section 305(b) of the federal Clean Water Act that requires states to provide an assessment of water quality. These reports are prepared on a biennial basis.

DEP uses an integrated format for Clean Water Act Section 305(b) reporting and Section 303(d) listing.

The “201 2 Pennsylvania Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report” satisfies the requirements of both Sections 305(b) and 303(d). The narrative that follows contains summaries of various water quality management programs i ncluding water quality standards, point source control, and nonpoint source control. It also includes descriptions of programs to protect lakes, wetlands, and groundwater quality. A summary of the use support status of streams and lakes is also presented in the narrative report.

In addition to this 305(b) narrative, the water quality status of Pennsylvania’s waters is presented using a

five

- part characterization of use attainment status. The listing categories are:

Category 1 : Waters attaining all designated uses.

Category 2 : Waters where some, but not all, designated uses are met. Attainment status of the remaining designated uses is unknown because data are insufficient to categorize the water.

Category 3 : Waters for which there are insufficien t or no data and information to determine if designated uses are met.

Category 4 : Waters impaired for one or more designated uses but not needing a total maximum daily load (TMDL). These waters are placed in one of the following three subcategories:

Cate gory 4A : TMDL has been completed.

Category 4B : Expected to meet all designated uses within a reasonable timeframe.

Category 4C : Not impaired by a pollutant and not requiring a TMDL.

Category 5 : Waters impaired for one or more designated uses by any pol lutant. Category 5 includes waters shown to be impaired as the result of biological assessments used to evaluate aquatic life use. Category 5 constitutes the Section 303(d) list EPA will approve or disapprove under the Clean Water

Act.

Each waterbody must be assessed for four different uses as defined in DEP 's rules and regulations at 25 Pennsylvania Code Chapter 93 (Water Quality Standards) in Section 93.3 Protected Water Uses. The

four include : Aquatic Life, Water Supply, Fish Consumption, and Recre ation. Generally, Aquatic Life pertains to maintaining flora and fauna indigenous to aquatic habitats; Water Supply relates to the protection of ambient water quality for possible use as a potable water supply; Fish Consumption protects the public from con suming tainted fish; and Recreation relates to water contact and boating. Each use may have different water quality criteria for individual chemical constituents and each use requires a different type of stream or lake assessment.

DEP encourages use of t he Internet to view the Integrated Report documents electronically on its

website at http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/dep_home/5968 , search keyword “Water Quality List”. Full address is: http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/wa ter_quality_standards/10556/integrated_wat er_quality_report_

- _2010/682562

Because of the size of the five

- part list, it will only be available elec tronically.8 PART B: BACKGROUND

Part B1

. Total Waters

Table 1

Atlas of Surface Waters in Pennsylvania

The following information is presented to provide a perspective on Pennsylvania’s water

resources:

State Population 12, 702

, 379 †

State Surface Area (square miles) 45,333

Number of Water Basins (major basins) 6

Total Miles of Rivers and Streams 86,000*

Number of Lakes/Reservoirs/Ponds**

- Number of Significant, Publicly Owned Lakes (subset) 3,956

219

Acres of Lakes/Reservoirs/Ponds**

- Acres of Significant, Publicly Owned Lakes (subset) 161,445 ††

98,942

Square Miles of Estuaries/Harbors/Bays

- Delaware Estuary

- Presque Isle Bay 17

6

Miles of Great Lakes Shore 63 †††

Acres of Freshwater Wetlands 403,924

Acres of Tidal Wetlands 512

† 2010 US Census
†† Lakes and ponds greater than two acres
††† Lake Erie

- Fourteen miles comprise the Presque Isle Peninsula.

* DEP estimate based on 1:24,000 scale Natio nal Hydrography Data (NHD) GIS stream coverage. This 86,000 may change as the NHD is quality assured and corrected.

** “Total Water Estimates fo r United States Streams and Lakes”, EPA, August 1993

Part B2.1

. Pollution Prevention and Energy Efficiency Program

The DEP clearly recognizes the value of multi

- media pollution prevention, resource conservation and efficiency in providing environmental protection. Not only does preventing pollution create a healthier, more sustainable environment, it also saves money, contributing to a stronger economy. Programs throughout the DEP are built upon the premise that not generating waste is preferable to dealing with waste after it is generated.9

DEP’s pollution prevention programs help government and businesses move bey ond compliance

- based, end

- of

- pipe thinking to preventing pollution before it is created

- effectively reducing adverse environmental impacts. The Office of Pollution Prevention and Energy Assistance (OPPEA) manages and administers programs for helping sma ll businesses, industry, government, and schools to better manage their environmental impacts, reduce energy usage, and save money. Some major focus areas of OPPEA are economic development, indigenous energy, market barriers, distribut ed power, and green b uildings.

The Small Business Pollution Prevention Assistance Account (PPAA) loan program has funded a variety of pollution prevention/energy efficiency projects. Reported results for some of these projects are as follows:

Gautier Steel, Ltd. has reported saving 16,487 MWH (megawatt hours) of electricity, 67,287 MCF (thousand cubic feet) of natural gas and 200,668 MGALS (megagallons) of water. Combined, these savings have given the company $2,021,762 in the five years since implementing their proj ect.

The Small Business Advantage Grant Program (AGP) provides 50 percent reimbursement grants up to $7,500 to support eligible projects for eligible businesses. Each eligible business may only receive $7,500 per fiscal year (FY). The AGP provides reimbur sement grant funding to promote the pollution prevention and energy efficiency practices of small businesses. Businesses must save 25 percent plus $1,000 annually as a direct result of implementi ng the grant supported project.

DEP’s contractor, The Pennsy lvania Technical Assistance Program (PENNTAP) is working on projects through the Industrial Resource Centers, Manufacturing Extension Partnerships, DOE Industrial Assessment Centers, and the Ben Franklin Technology Partners utilizing DOE’s Save Energy Now and EPA’s Pollution Prevention Incentive for States funding. The projects are focused on economic development, improved energy efficiency, and waste reduction. As a means to encourage participation by businesses, PennTAP supported the commercialization of emerging technologies for 10 businesses during 2010

- 11. Support consisted of technical consulting, website evaluations, and general marketing support for the products of emerging energy technology companies. Technical assistance was also provided for ov er 600 businesses

in the form of on

- site, web

- based, telephone, and similar support activities

- like evaluating the potential benefits of solar power installations. Waste and energy use

- reduction assessments were performed at more than 76 businesses. The assessments included 45 walk

- throughs, 29 multi

targeted, and 2 comprehensive. Seven DOE industrial energy system workshops were conducted through Penn State's Continuing Education Program. Over 154 students and business representatives participated. Th e trainings addressed compressed air, pump, motor, and fan system best practices and were held at locations across Pennsylvania. PennTAP is also advancing the ISO50001 Energy Standards through 2 pilots in which 6 industrial partners will

achieve certifica tion under the standard

– 2 by mid

- 2012 and 4 more by mid

- 2013.

Part B2.2 (a)

. NPDES

Pennsylvania implements the EPA delegated point source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program through DEP’s six regional field office s and six district mining operations offices. While program development and evaluation occurs in10

DEP’s central office, the field offices and district mining offices conduct site

- specific permitting, monitoring, compliance, and enforcement activities. The central office also provides specialized assistance in the areas of policy, regulatory development, complex permitting, laboratory audits, safety training, treatment plant operations, enforcement, and data management.

The Toxics Management Strategy provi des for a consistent statewide approach for addressing EPA priority pollutants and other toxic substances in the NPDES permit program. The strategy, parts of which are codified in a Statement of Policy, Chapter 16, is a support document to DEP’s toxic reg ulation, Section 93.8a of the rules and regulations.

In state fiscal years 2010 and 2011 (July 1, 2009

– June 30, 2011), field office staff issued the following numbers and types of NPDES permits: 369 new, 1,091 renewals, and 250 amendments for municipal or private sewage treatment plants, industrial discharges, and storm water facilities. Staff also issued 134 new, 442 renewals, and 40 amendments for coverage under stormwater general permits.

Water Quality Management (WQM) permits authorize construction and operation of sewage collection and conveyance systems and sewage and industrial wastewater treatment facilities. The field offices issued 991 WQM permits and permit amendments for sewage and industrial waste treatment plants in state fiscal years 201 0 and 2011.

Permitting summaries for other programs follow later in the document.

Part B2.2 (b)

. Compliance and Enforcement

The DEP point source control program regulates approximately 9,168 sewage and industrial dischargers in Pennsylvania. Approximat ely 409 of these are considered major dischargers based on EPA criteria. DEP field offices maintain a staff of field inspectors, hydrogeologists, biologists, compliance specialists, supervisors, and managers to conduct activities including inspections of both NPDES and non

- NPDES wastewater treatment facilities, emergency response, investigation of pollution incidents and complaints, and routine stream monitoring.

Approximately 7,585 facilities inspections were conducted during state fiscal years 2010 and 2011. Generally, if environmental damage or willfulness is not involved in violations, an attempt is made to obtain voluntary compliance. In more serious situations, criminal, civil, or administrative actions may be used. DEP field offices completed 1,3 71 such actions in state fiscal years 2010 and 2011, resulting in approximately $6.4 million in penalties.

DEP’s Outreach Assistance Provider Program provided on

- site training for wastewater treatment plant operators through 2009. Due to budget cuts, thi s program was ended in 2009. Permanent funding for the program was included in the fee package for the implementation of the Drinking Water and Wastewater Systems Operator Certification Program. As a result, this program is now in the process of restorin g the wage payroll positions that were lost in 2009. The program should be able to provide this service again in the very near future. The priority for this program will be enhanced process control through on

- site training of certified operators, resulti ng in improved compliance with permit requirements.1 1

Tracking of data on effluent quality for major dischargers is accomplished through EPA’s Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). There has been an ongoing effort to enhance the compliance monit oring program by automating the input of effluent limits data and discharge monitoring data to ICIS. In 2007, DEP implemented an electronic Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) system to store monitoring data as well as a data system called the NPDES Managem ent System to store permit information. These systems have significantly reduced the number of data elements that were electronically unavailable.

In 2008, with the intention of acquiring information through data transfers from the States, EPA

released a “schema” (database requirements) for a subset of data elements. Approximately 20 fields were associated with DMRs. Pennsylvania is now transferring DMR data electronically to ICIS, thus reducing the manual data entry burden for DEP staff. DEP has deter mined the available fields in the Commonwealth’s data systems and has mapped an additional 80 permitting and facility elements and 10 inspection elements for automated uploads. During federal fiscal year 2011, DEP will extract data from State data systems to meet available EPA schema for uploads to ICIS. The data will include information on all 10,000 + facilities in Pennsylvania with NPDES permits and the approximately 2,000 permit actions taken by DEP annually. EPA plans to release additional schema in the years ahead. Until that time, DEP will continue manual entry for most of the remaining fields.

There are several checks and balances in place to ensure the quality of self

- monitoring data. Since 2006, DEP’s Bureau of Labs (BOL) has been responsible for oversight of all environmental labs. BOL provides a year

- end report to EPA with details and accreditation information. In addition, field inspectors review information and self

- monitoring data during surveillance activities and follow up as appropria te.

Part B2.2 (c)

. Mining

District mining operations offices, under the direction of DEP's Bureau of Mining Programs (BMP), issue NPDES discharge permits for active mining operations. During federal FY 10 and FY 11, the following new permits were issued : 128 coal surface, 1 coal underground, 1 coal refuse reprocessing, 1 coal refuse disposal, and 64 industrial mineral surface permits.

Part B2.2 (d)

. Oil and Gas

During the two year period from January 1, 2010 to October 1, 2011, the Bureau of Oil and Ga s Management (BOGM) and the Bureau of Point and Nonpoint Source Management issued six new NPDES discharge permits and four new NPDES permit for coalbed methane wastewater treatment facilities. There are a total of 16 active NPDES permits for coalbed metha ne treatment facilities and 18 active NPDES permits for brine treatment facilities in Pennsylvania. In addition, there are five stripper oil well discharges covered by the general permit, with two receiving Water Quality Management Part II permits and tw o pending a Water Quality Management Part II permit.

In response to the increasing need for treatment facilities to reduce the environmental impacts o f the exploitation of natural gas resources associated with the Marcellus Shale formation, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), on March 18, 2011, under12

Pennsylvania regulation 25 Pa Code §92a.61(g), sent letters to 25 Publicly Owned Treatment Works and Centralized Waste Treatment facilities that currently accept this wastewater calling for immediate twice monthly effluent monitoring for radionuclides and other parameters including TDS, pH, alkalinity, chloride, sulfate, bromide, gross alpha, radium 226 & 228, and

uranium.

April 19, 2011, from the direction of Governor, the DEP called on all Marcellus Shale natural gas drilling operators to cease by May 19 delivering wastewater from shale gas extraction to 15

facilities that then accepted it under an exemption from being covered by last year’s Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) regulations. Then in July 2011the DEP sent letters to approximately 88 drilling operators seeking their certification that the y are no longer using any of these “grandfathered” facilities for wastewater from deep gas production.

Part B2.2 (e)

. Stormwater Discharge Permits

The 1990 Phase 1 federal stormwater regulations require NPDES permits for discharges of stormwater from certain municipalities and sites as sociated with certain industrial activities. Initially, there were four Pennsylvania cities (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Allentown, and Erie) on EPA’s list of municipalities needing permits for stormwater discharges from their municipal

separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). Later, Pittsburgh and Erie were exempted from the stormwater permitting requirements because large areas of those cities were served by combined sewers and the discharges were covered by permits for the wastewater treatment plants. Phase 1 MS4 permits for stormwater discharges were issued to Philadelphia and Allentown.

The Phase II federal stormwater regulations were published by EPA on December 8, 1999. These regulations require all construction activities involving cumulative earth di sturbances greater than one acre to obtain permits. In addition areas within approximately 940 municipalities (including those that were initially exempted) were identified as urbanized and operators of municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) within those urbanized areas were required to apply for permits. The initial permits became effective on March 10, 2003. Including extensions, those initial permits will expire on March 15, 2013. Availability of Pennsylvania’s first MS4 permit renewal package was announced on September 17, 2011, and the deadline for submission of a renewal notice of intent (NOI) is September 14, 2012. Pennsylvania’s MS4 permitting program for municipalities consists of 138 individual permittees, 595 general permittees, and 20 7 waivers from the permitting requirement. MS4 permits also have been issued to 37 institutional permittees. Of those, 14 are operating under individual permits and 23 are operating under general permits.

Final policies were published on June 3, 2006 fo r compliance and enforcement of the MS4 permitting program (DEP document 363

- 4000

- 004).

Part B2.2 (f)

. Construction and Urban Runoff

This category includes two major subcategories: highway construction and new land development including residential, indu strial, commercial, institutional, and recreational construction. Uncontrolled runoff from these sites has the potential to cause significant soil erosion and localized sediment pollution in streams.13

Standards and criteria for minimizing erosion and prev enting sediment pollution are contained in Chapter 102 rules and regulations. These regulations apply to any earth disturbance activity, including land development and road, highway or bridge construction. Requirements for control

measures and facilities are written to utilize best management practices, primarily by establishing design and performance standards.

Pennsylvania’s program is administered by DEP and county conservation districts through a delegation of DEP authorities to the conservation distr icts. Joint responsibilities for program implementation include the processing and issuance of permits, complaint investigations, site inspection, compliance, and enforcement. BMPs are reviewed for design and performance effectiveness through permit plan reviews and periodic monitoring at the construction site. Both DEP and the county conservation districts facilitate implementation of BMPs by conducting numerous training seminars and workshops for individuals, municipalities, and other parties engaged i n undertaking earth disturbance activities.

DEP's comprehensive stormwater management policy uses existing authority to provide a framework for the integration of all Department stormwater management programs and promotes a comprehensive watershed approac h to stormwater management in the Commonwealth. Fundamentally, the policy emphasizes the reduction of stormwater runoff generated by development and other activities by encouraging minimization of impervious cover, use of low impact development designs, a nd use of innovative stormwater BMPs that provide infiltration, water quality treatment, and otherwise more effectively manage the volume and rate of stormwater discharges. These stormwater BMPs and planning practices will be advanced through increased em phasis on DEP’s Act 167 stormwater management planning program and implementation of the NPDES Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction Activity Permit programs and NPDES MS4 permits.

Because of increased need and emphasis on improving water qu ality and protecting water resources through improved stormwater runoff management, DEP developed the Pennsylvania Stormwater Management Best Management Practices (BMP) Manual to support the implementation of stormwater management requirements and water qu ality antidegradation requirements. The BMP Manual provides the design standards and planning concepts to guide local authorities, planners, land developers, contractors, and others involved with planning, designing, reviewing, approving, and constructing land development projects. The BMP Manual also advances the most recent innovations in stormwater management, focusing on preserving

on

- site and off

- site pre

- construction hydraulic conditions. Volume and rate management through ground water infiltration, porous surfaces, and other onsite management are emphasized. Water quality components such as oil separators, passive wetland treatment, and other advanced technologies are also being emphasized and integrated into the BMP Manual.

Existing Erosion and S ediment Control (E&S) regulations found at Title 25, Chapter 102 describe the requirements for controlling accelerated erosion and preventing sediment pollution from various earth disturbance activities. The purpose of Chapter 102 is to protect surface wat ers of the Commonwealth from sediment and stormwater pollution by requiring the use of best management practices (BMPs) that minimize accelerated erosion and sedimentation and manage post construction stormwater runoff, both during and after earth disturba nce activities. Revised regulations were implemented on November 19, 2010.14

Since 1972, earth disturbance activities related to agricultural plowing and tilling, as well as,

non

- agricultural earth disturbance activities have been regulated under this Chap ter by requiring persons to develop, implement, and maintain BMPs. New regulatory requirements also now address animal heavy use areas.

Amendments to the Chapter 102 regulations included new requirements for riparian buffers in special protection (HQ and EV) waters. Depending on the attainment status of the stream, a mandatory150

- foot riparian buffer or riparian forest buffer must be established, converted or protected. In addition, voluntary 100

- foot forested buffers can be established or converted.

P art B2.2 (g)

. Stormwater Permits Conservation Districts

DEP and county conservation districts jointly administer issuance of NPDES permits for stormwater discharges associated with construction activities. During calendar years 2009 and 2010, conservatio n districts received, reviewed and acknowledged 2,871 Notices of Intent (NOI) for coverage under the statewide general permit. DEP issued 607 individual NPDES permits authorizing stormwater discharges from construction activities. In addition, conservatio n districts conducted 30,177 compliance

- monitoring inspections at permitted and non

- permitted sites. Conservation districts also conducted 5,539 complaint investigations, in addition to routine compliance inspections.

Part B2.2 (h)

. Combined Sewer Overfl ows

Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) to waters of the Commonwealth are considered point sources subject to NPDES permitting, compliance, and enforcement requirements. EPA has been regulating CSOs through the 1989 and 1994 national CSO policies that requir e each NPDES delegated state to develop and implement a state CSO control policy. DEP revised its CSO policy in February 2010. Under the revised policy, DEP conducts or provides for appropriate

follow

- up actions, including compliance monitoring, complian ce actions, permit renewal, plan reviews, field inspections, water quality monitoring and enforcement as necessary to promote the development and implementation of Nine Minimum Controls (NMCs) and the Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) at each CSO facility. L TCP milestones are placed in NPDES permits with dates for completing them. DEP has continued to place a high priority on the permitting and inspection program to deal with requirements for implementation of NMCs and LTCP.

Part B2.3 (a)

. Non

- point Source Control Program

Pennsylvania’s Non

- point Source (NPS) Program was developed in response to Section 319 of the federal Clean Water Act to address problems caused by non

- point sources, such as the overland flow of stormwater or infiltration of pollutants i nto the groundwater. The three main

sources of non

- point runoff resulting in degraded water quality in Pennsylvania are agriculture, abandoned mine drainage, and urban runoff. Other sources include abandoned oil and gas wells, construction activities, la nd disposal, habitat modification, hydromodification, and silviculture (logging practices).15

The Clean Water Act requires each state to prepare a Management Plan for its non

- point source program. This Management Plan outlines the program components to be used to address non

point source problems including a variety of non

- regulatory, financial, and technical assistance programs needed to improve and maintain surface and groundwater quality. Pennsylvania last updated its NPS Management Plan in 2008.

Pennsy lvania has received more than $93 million from the federal Section 319 Grant Program (FY 1990

- 2011). This money has been used to institutionalize a non

- point source program, implement various innovative technologies to treat non

- point source pollution p roblems, develop an educational program, and complete a large number of watershed initiatives. Other funding

sources for non

- point source pollution management include: Pennsylvania's Chesapeake Bay Program, the Nutrient Management Act, the County Conserva tion District Assistance Funding Program, the Stormwater Management Act Fund, the Coastal Zone Resources Program, USDA's Environmental Quality Incentives and Conservation Reserve Enhancement Programs, and the Environmental Stewardship and Watershed Protect ion Grant, also known as Growing Greener.

Growing Greener has provided $2 98

. 6 million in watershed grants since 1999. Local partners have added another $600 million from their own resources. The tremendous value of the program became clear to legislator s, and Growing Greener funding was initially extended through 2012. This increased total funding to $547.7 million from the original $241.5 million allocated to DEP. The funding is being made possible through a $4.25

- per ton tipping fee on

solid waste dis posed in Pennsylvania's municipal waste landfills. In July 2005, Growing Greener II was passed, which removed the 2012 sunset date on the tipping fee and increased funding for projects through 2010.

Monitoring of both land treatment and water quality f or a five

- to ten

- year period is the best way

to document the effectiveness of non

- point source pollution control efforts. Pennsylvania has hosted 4 of the 24 EPA Section 319 National Monitoring Projects (NMP) across the country. Pennsylvania NMPs inclu de: the Swatara Creek NMP, monitoring the effect of passive treatment on abandoned mine drainage; the Stroud Water Research Center NMP, monitoring a riparian buffer project in an agricultural watershed; the Pequea and Mill Creek NMP, using a paired

watersh ed approach to monitor the effectiveness of agricultural best management practices (BMPs); and the Villanova Urban Stormwater BMP demonstration site, monitoring a suite of innovative stormwater management practices.

Four watersheds in Pennsylvania have b een awarded EPA Targeted Watershed Grants: the Dunkard Creek Watershed, Christina River Basin Initiative, Upper Susquehanna River Basin Restoration, and Schuylkill River Watershed Initiative. The Targeted Watershed Grant is an EPA program designed to enco urage successful community

- based approaches and management techniques to protect and restore the nation’s waters.

Part B2.3 (b)

. Highlights of Pennsylvania's Current NPS Program

Education and Outreach

One element of the Section 319 Grant Program involves projects fully or partially directed towards NPS education and outreach. Two initiatives funded through the Section 319 Grant16

Program that are directed entirely at education and outreach at the grassro ots level include the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters (LWV) and the Pennsylvania Association of Conservation Districts (PACD). Using funds from the Section 319 Grant Program, the LWV Water Resources Education Network (WREN) supported 11 grants of up t o $5,000 each in 2011 to enable groups of local citizens and officials to build community support for water resource protection. PACD’s NPS Pollution Prevention Educational Mini

- Grant program provided funding of up to $2,500 each for 32 projects. These p rojects included the development of audio

visual products, exhibits or models, production of special events, marketing tools, publications, actual stream reclamation projects, hands

- on water studies, and educational workshops.

Since 1999, the Growing Gree ner Program has funded nearly 200 education/outreach projects for a total of $12 million.

Building Capacity

DEP is working to establish a network of technical assistance providers to help watershed organizations effectively and efficiently achieve their watershed protection goals. These providers offer technical services to groups embarking on projects aimed at protecting and enhancing their local watersheds. Growing Greener currently supports seven technical providers.

Conservation district watershed s pecialists help local groups protect and improve their watersheds, provide expert advice to farmers and landowners for conservation practices, work with DEP regional staff, and help support local grant

- funded restoration projects. There are now 67 Growing Greener

- funded watershed specialists working in 66 of the state’s 67 counties.

Pennsylvania’s Watershed Approach

Pennsylvania is committed to a watershed approach for water resource management. Locally managed and monitored watershed improvement projects are essential to enhancing, maintaining, and reclaiming the Commonwealth’s water resources.

More and more people are working to improve and protect Pennsylvania’s watersheds by learning about their watersheds and sharing that information with their neigh bors, restoring water quality through hands

- on projects, and planning for the future through water resources

management.

DEP provides assistance to local groups planning to implement restoration measures in

watersheds where one or more TMDLs have been ide ntified. The goal is to help such groups develop implementation plans more expeditiously and in a manner that fully complies with EPA requirements for additional funding under the Section 319 Grant program.

Thirty

- three watersheds across the state contai ning water bodies with water quality impairments caused by non

- point source pollution have been targeted to have watershed

- based implementation plans developed with funding from the Section 319 Grant program. Three more plans are being prepared with other funds. The watershed

- based plans identify the type, number, and an estimated cost of best management practices needed to eliminate water quality impairments. This work, in turn, qualifies local sponsors to receive Section 319 Grant program

construction fu nds for restoration projects that implement the TMDLs.17

Abandoned Mine Reclamation

Eliminating drainage from abandoned mines and restoring rivers and streams to a healthy state represent significant challenges. The vast majority of impacts result from mine s and mining practices of the past, predating the 1977 federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA).

It's estimated that in Pennsylvania alone, the cost of addressing all of the environmental impacts of mining activities prior to the passage of SMCRA will exceed several billion dollars. Therefore, it's unlikely that public funds alone will ever be sufficient to tackle this monumental set of problems. Considering the scope of the challenge and the resources required to mount a

successful clea n

- up program, it is widely recognized that an active, cooperative partnership between involved citizens, academia, industry, and public agencies is essential to properly address acid mine drainage or abandon mine drainage (AMD).

Growing Greener has contributed significantly toward addressing AMD issues. The projected accomplishments of these grants include over 5,600 acres of abandoned mine reclamation and over 600 miles of stream improvements. In the past two years alone, Growin g Greener funds

have been used to treat over 1.2 MGD of AMD affected water by constructing 1 5 treatment
systems and reclaiming 500 feet of highwalls . Additionally, the Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation awarded reclamation contracts using Growing Greener , State Capital Budget and Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Program funds aimed at reclaiming 1,298 acres of abandoned mine lands (572 acres in 2009 and 726 acres in 2010) and installing 3 projects to reduce or treat Acid Mine Drainage (AMD). Two of these projec ts involve the construction of large active treatment plants, each of which can treat up to 10 MGD and together will improve more than 60

miles of stream.

The Western Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation (WPCAMR) was formed in 1982 by s ix western Pennsylvania conservation districts. Today 24 county conservation districts make up WPCAMR. In 1996, the Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation (EPCAMR) was formed covering 16 counties in the anthracite coal region and t he northern bituminous region. Today EPCAMR represents a coalition of watershed organizations, reclamation partners, co

- generation plants, the active anthracite mining industry, and regional

non

- profit organizations.

The goal of the coalitions is to prov ide leadership for building local watershed

- based support and partnerships with grassroots organizations whose primary focus is abandoned mine drainage

abatement and abandoned mine land reclamation.

An important event in the battle to address AMD occurred in December 2006 when the Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) Program was reauthorized in the final hours before Congress adjourned. The AML Reauthorization, which amends the 1977 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), extends the AML Program for at least 15 years and will triple the AML funding Pennsylvania receives from reclamation fees collected on every ton of coal produced. In the next 15 years Pennsylvania should receive at least $1.5 billion to clean up Priority 1 and 2 AML sites. States can also set aside up to 30% of this funding to address AMD problems not associated with Priority 1 and 2 sites. This extra funding will increase the number of AML problems that can be remediate

, however, it will not be enough money to address all of the prob lems in Pennsylvania.18

The State’s Section 319 Grant program has also made a significant contribution toward correcting abandoned mine drainage (AMD) problems using passive treatment systems. A total of 16 projects costing nearly $3.2 million to treat AMD t hrough passive treatment were funded through this program in 2010 and 2011.

Organizations supported by Section 319 grants, the Eastern and Western Pennsylvania Coalitions for Abandoned Mine Reclamation (EPCAMR and WPCAMR) and Stream Restoration, Inc., are cooperating in inventorying and mapping AMD and AML features across the State, including abandoned mine lands, deep mine pools and passive treatment systems.

Agriculture and Nutrient Management

Pennsylvania’s Section 319 Non

- point Source (NPS) Managemen t Program provides significant financial and technical assistance resources to help reduce agricultural sources of sediment and nutrients to surface waters. Section 319 grants have provided $1.7 million in funding for nine agricultural BMP implementation projects in 2010 and 2011.

Section 319 program agricultural projects are targeted to TMDL

- approved watersheds with an approved Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) or watersheds with 303(d) listed streams. Projects continue to be implemented in WIPs for a gricultural NPS

- impaired watersheds include Core Creek/Lake Luxembourg (Bucks County); Upper Kishacoquillas Creek (Mifflin); Conewago Creek (Dauphin); Mill Creek (Lancaster); Codorus Creek (York); Conowingo Creek (Lancaster); Mill Creek/ Stephen Foster Lak e (Bradford); Hungry Run (Mifflin); and Buffalo Creek (Union). The figure below illustrates these agricultural WIP locations.

The NPS Program website provides detailed information on WIPs and Pennsylvania’s NPS Program at http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=554272&mode=2

. Projects are being implemented in these watersheds to reduce impacts from nutrients, sedimentation/siltation, organi c enrichment/low dissolved oxygen, and other causes of agricultural impairment. Program funds are used to develop and implement nutrient19

management and farm conservation plans and best management practices (BMPs) identified in these plans. Partnerships w ith the USDA

- Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and county conservation districts assist with both plan and BMP implementation.

Nutrient Management Program Pennsylvania’s Nutrient Management Program, Act 38 of 2005, was revised as part of the ACRE program initiative unveiled in 2004. Act 38 addresses all farms requiring development of nutrient management plans. The Nutrient Management and CAFO programs coordinate efforts to ensure all farms are covered. The success of these programs is due t o the partnership between

the State Conservation Commission (SCC) , PA DEP, PA Department of Agriculture, county conservation districts, private sector planners, and farm operators. The SCC published major revisions to the NMP regulations in June 2006. Th ese revisions became effective October 1, 2006. Nutrient management planning revisions include the manure export requirements included in the CAFO program, along with additional phosphorus management, manure and soil testing, cover crop and residue minimu ms for ground cover, and riparian buffer requirements. These revisions were phased

- in on farms with existing NMPs over a three

- year period ending on October 1, 2009. They are being implemented immediately on new or expanding operations. A

total of 1044 C AFOs were required to have NMPs for 2010, and an additional 1,801 voluntary NMPs were developed.

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Program In October 2005, revisions to Pennsylvania’s Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) program regulation s became final. This allowed Pennsylvania’s program to be consistent with the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s CAFO rule. A major change under the revised program is the extension of CAFO permit coverage to a large portion of the state’s poultry operations. With the new requirements including dry poultry and newly covered operations, total accepted applications rose from 170 CAFOs in March of 2006 to 363 as of September 30, 2011. DEP has authority to implement the CAFO program and in 2008 compl eted the first update of its permits and forms. DEP is currently pursuing re

- approval for its NPDES General Permit. The CAFO and nutrient management website includes a CAFO application review guidance document and is limited to NMP supporting materials. DEP maintains an annual CAFO and CAO inspection goal in coordination with county conservation districts and assures all covered operations are following the program requirements.

Resources Enhancement and Protection Program The Resources Enhancement and Protection Program (REAP) was created through Act 55 of 2007. REAP allows farmers and businesses to earn tax credits in exchange for approved BMP implementation on agricultural operations that will enhance farm production and protect natural resources. Farmers receive tax credits of up to $150,000 per agricultural operation, covering 50% or 75% of the total cost of a BMP. Farmers also qualify for a 50% tax credit for no

- till equipment purchase. REAP funding in 2009

- 2010 pr ovided $5 million in tax credits that helped fund 205 BMPs, 120 equipment purchases and the development of 37 Nutrient Management/ Conservation /Manure Management Plans (Plans). REAP funds for 2010

- 2011 provided $4.5 million for 270 BMPs, 125 equipment pu rchases and the development of 39 Plans. For 2011

- 1012 REAP funding is at the $10 million level. The State Conservation Commission administers REAP and tax credits are granted through the PA Department of Revenue.20

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Pro gram Pennsylvania’s Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is funded through both the

USDA

- Farm Services Agency (FSA) and the PA DEP in both the Susquehanna River and Ohio River basins. Total enrollment in the 43 (20 lower plus 23 upper) Susquehanna River CREP counties has increased to 178,000 acres as of September 30, 2011. In the Ohio River CREP (16 counties), total enrollment increased to 28,800 acres by that date. Approximately $26 million was provided in 2010 for financial incentive s, practice installation and rental payments. A potential transfer of 24,000 Ohio River CREP acres to the Susquehanna River CREP is being considered. A CREP expansion into counties within the Delaware River basin is also being

evaluated.

Natural Resourc es Conservation Service Programs The Pennsylvania Office of the U .S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) receives substantial funding through the federal Farm Bill for implementing conservation programs statewide and t hrough the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative. The 2010 federal Farm Bill provided increased funding for PA NRCS agricultural conservation program implementation. Obligated funding for FFY2010 totaled over $38 million. Funding was allocated to several program areas, including the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) $3.975 million, Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) $12.866 million, Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative (CBWI) $9.776 million, Agricultural Management Assistance $0.855 million , Wetlands Reserve Program $4.100 million and Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program $0.822 million. A second allocation of $6.3 million in conservation funds was received by the PA NRCS in July 2011 and will help landowners install conservation practices tha t improve natural resources on farms, forestland, and wetland areas throughout Pennsylvania. The additional funds are CBWI $2.8 million, WHIP $750,000, AMA $500,000 and WRP $2.9 million. PA NRCS accomplishments are included on the PA NRCS website at www.pa.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ . CBWI priority watersheds and approved practices are

included on the website at www.pa.nrcs.usda.gov/

.

Environmental Stewardship and Watershed Protection Program The Environmental Stewardship and Watershed Protection Act of 1999 (Growing Greener I) and the Watershed Stewardship Act 45 of 2005 (Growing Greener II) have funded many agricultural

and soil and water con servation related projects. Millions of dollars have also been invested through statewide efforts to implement agricultural BMPs through CREP, Chesapeake Bay Foundation initiatives, the PA Association of Conservation District Technical Assistance grants,

and Conservation District Watershed Specialist staff. In 2010 and 2011, agricultural projects were funded in many counties throughout PA. A complete summary of projects and funding provided is available on the DEP Grants Center website at http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/growing_greener/13958

.

Stream Corridor Protection and Restoration

Natural stream channel design addresses the entire stream system. It is based on fluvial geomorphology ( FGM ) , which is the study of a stream’s interactions with the local climate, geology, topography, vegetation, and land use

- how a river carves its channel within its landscape. All successful natural stream channel de signs address sediment transport, habitat enhancement, and bank and channel stabilization. Natural stream channel design (NSCD) is21

relatively new to Pennsylvania. Our understanding of what works best to restore a channel’s natural stability is still evol ving, particularly across a state as diverse in geography and land use as Pennsylvania. The Guidelines for Natural Stream Channel Design for Pennsylvania Waterways were developed with funding through a Section 319 grant by the Keystone Stream Team, an inf

ormal group comprised of government and environmental resource agencies, university researchers, sportsmen, citizen

- based watershed groups, and private companies. These guidelines are aimed at watershed organizations and professionals involved in stream re storation design, construction, and permitting. The guidelines can be found at http://www.canaanvi.org/canaanvi_web/community.aspx

.

The Keystone Stream Team used a Section 319 grant to d evelop a web

- based database for reference reach information collected on NSCD projects. A Section 319 grant also enabled the U.S. Geological Survey to develop Regional Curves. More information on both projects is available on the Keystone Stream Team’s web site at: www.keystonestreamteam.org

. In addition, the 319 Grant Program has provided over $800,000 in the past two years to fund ten projects on selected streams using NSCD techniques.

Since 1999 Growing Greener has funded nearly 50 FGM implementation projects for a total of $6.2 million.

Documenting Restored Waterbodies

Significant funding has been provided over the past several years from non

- point source programs such as Growing Greener and Section 319 in support of stream and lake assessment, planning, and restoration activities. Hundreds of projects have been successfully completed. Those activities are beginning to show water quality improvements, but efforts to document them have generally been l ocalized and inconsistent.

During 2007, DEP launched a continuing effort to identify waterbodies across the state in which significant improvements to water quality have been observed. Stream names and locations are solicited from DEP watershed managers, conservation district watershed specialists, and citizen volunteer monitoring groups. DEP biologists then survey these water bodies to determine the extent of their recovery and their potential to be removed from the State’s impaired list. Analysis

of th e survey results is on

- going and changes to the Integrated Report are made as they become available. The Department has petitioned EPA to remove 38 stream segments from Category 5 of the Integrated Report, as the result of this process. These delisted str eam segments add up to a

total of 89 restored stream miles.

Many other waterbodies have shown improved water quality, but have not improved enough to be removed from the impaired lists. As more non

- point source funding is applied in these watersheds, it is anticipated that water quality will continue to improve and additional stream segments will be removed from impaired status.

Part B2.3(c)

. Total Maximum Daily Load Development (TMDL)

Section 303(d) waters are those waterbodies that do not or will not meet water quality standards even after the application of all required technology

- based treatment and other pollutant control requirements. DEP assesses Commonwealth waters and places those impaired w aters in22

Category 5 of the Integrated Report. Impaired waters require the development of a TMDL. A TMDL is the amount of pollutant loading that a waterbody can assimilate and still meet water quality standards. A TMDL is the sum of individual wasteload allocations (WLAs) for point sources, load allocations (LAs) for nonpoint sources, and a margin of safety. DEP uses mathematical models to develop the TMDLs.

TMDLs are planning tools that set water quality objectives for impaired waters. Meeting the

wat er quality objectives of the TMDL will result in the attainment of water quality standards. If, however, a waterbody is found to still be impaired after meeting the TMDL objective, the TMDL is reconsidered and new objectives set.

TMDLs are developed for the sources and causes of impairment that are identified in Category 5 of the Integrated Report. In the years 20 10 and 20 11 , DEP finaliz ed 1 4 TMDLs establishing allocations to the appropriate sources of pollutant loading. Individual WLAs are the amounts of the load allocated to point sources. WLAs are the basis for setting limits in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, which are the implementation procedures used to correct pollution problems attributed to point source dischar ges. The LA portion of the TMDL is the amount of the load that is allocated to categories of non

- point sources. The LAs are the basis of future watershed restoration plans, which are the first part of correcting non

- point source pollution problems.

The development of an implementation (or restoration) plan begins with a more detailed assessment of a watershed. The detailed assessment includes an analysis of the known water quality, identification of quantities and locations of pollution sources, and sel ection of priorities for corrective action. It concludes with a description of the management measures needed to restore and maintain water quality, and it provides for public input concerning water quality problems and the restoration measures needed. Th e result of these activities is a management plan that includes the goals and objectives for improving water quality, an estimate of the technical and financial resources needed to implement the plan, an education program, and monitoring to demonstrate the success of the plan. The document also includes a budget and a timetable for implementation that identifies interim milestones. DEP will encourage local groups, watershed associations, or county conservation districts to take the lead and/or play an

act ive role in completing detailed assessments and developing the implementation plan. Grant

monies from the CWA Section 319 Non

- point Source Program and the Commonwealth’s Growing Greener program can be used to complete these assessments. The final plan sh ould meet the objective set in the TMDL.23 Part C: Surface Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment

Part C1.1

. Water Quality Standards Program

Water Quality Standards (WQS) are the combination of water uses to be protected, the criteria (i.e. levels of sub stances) that need to be maintained or attained to support the uses, and an antidegradation policy. WQS are important elements of Pennsylvania's water quality management program because they set the general and specific goals for the quality of our

waters . WQS are instream water quality goals that are achieved by imposing specific regulatory standards, such as treatment requirements

, effluent limitations and best management practices.

Pennsylvania's WQS are found in DEP's rules and regulations at 25 Penn sylvania Code Chapter 93 (Water Quality Standards). General or narrative criteria applicable to all waters are designed to control those substances not identified by specific criteria but which may be harmful to protected water uses or to human, animal, pl ant or aquatic life if present in excessive amounts. Specific water quality criteria are contained in Chapter 93, including criteria for toxic substances identified as EPA priority pollutants, as well as other substances (available electronically at www.pacode.co m .).

Water quality standards implement the provisions of Pennsylvania's Clean Streams Law (35 P.S. Section 691.1 et seq.) and Section 303 of the federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.A. § 1313). The authority of the Environmental Quality Board to promulgate and amend water quality standards is found in Sections 5 and 402, of the Clean Streams Law and in Section 1920

- A of the Administrative Code of 1929 (71 P.S. Section 510

- 20).

Section 303(c) of the Federal Clean Water Act requires that “... the state shall from time to time (but at least once every three year period) hold public hearings for the purpose of reviewing applicable water quality standards and, as appropriate, modifyi ng and adopting standards...” The review and revisions to WQS are part of Pennsylvania's continued planning process and water quality management program. The development and review of WQS and the complementary water quality assessment program consider the fundamental policies that are set forth in state and federal law which includes the national goal to achieve “fishable/swimmable” waters.

Pennsylvania’s most recent triennial review (TR08) included amendments to Chapter 93 to incorporate updated and re vised criteria for toxic substances that were previously contained in Chapter 16 Water Quality Toxics Management Strategy

– Statement of Policy. Other amendments include clarifications of terms and definitions, drainage list corrections, a review of

wate rbody segments that do not meet the fishable or swimmable uses, and other corrections of typographic, format, and grammatical errors. In addition, DEP adopted revisions to Chapter 16 for updates to the human health criteria methodologies and updates or co rrections to the approved analytical methods. This triennial review of Pennsylvania’s WQS was submitted to the US EPA Region 3 Administrator on July 9, 2009 for review and approval following adoption as final rulemaking at the January 20, 2009 Environment al Quality Board (EQB) meeting, and publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on May 16, 2009 (39 Pa.B. 2523). These amendments are based on proposed rulemaking, with some modification, that were approved by the EQB at its October 16, 2007 meeting, which w ere published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on January 12, 2008 (38 Pa.B. 236, 248) with provision for a 45

- day public comment period, including public meetings and hearings that were held at the Department’s Southcentral Regional Office in24

Harrisburg, PA o n February 14, 2008. A correction was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on February 2, 2008 (38 Pa.B. 612) to correct the criteria for two chemicals found in the proposed Table 5, § 93.8c (relating to criteria for toxic substances). Based on a reque st received, the public comment period was extended an additional 30 days and closed on March 27, 2008, as published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on February 23, 2008 (38 Pa.B. 976).

EPA approval on the TR08 triennial review was received in a letter da ted April 15, 2010. The Department is in the preliminary stages of initiating the next triennial review of Pennsylvania’s WQS. The scope of the next triennial review is being developed, but at a minimum will include consideration of updates to aquatic li fe and human health criteria that have been issued by EPA, and that were not considered during previous triennials. Exclusion of the water contact (swimmable) use in a portion of the Delaware Estuary (RM 108.4 to RM 81.8), and from the

outer Erie Harbor/P resque Isle Bay harbor basin and central shipping channel will be evaluated to determine whether conditions still prevail that warrant these exclusions from Pennsylvania’s WQS. The Department is also reevaluating the existing dissolved oxygen criteria, as well as considering the development of new water quality criteria for pollutants not currently regulated, or where water uses may not be adequately protect ed through existing criteria. Rulemaking associated with the next triennial review is expected to b e initiated during winter 2012, for completion as final rulemaking during 2013. Development of the proposed rulemaking phase will be shared with other affected agencies, EPA and appropriate advisory committees. Once proposed, the triennial review will in clude provision for public participation, with a period (minimum of 45 days) to allow for public review and comments for consideration in the development of final rulemaking.

The Antidegradation Implementation Guidance, completed in 2003, is designed to apply DEP’s antidegradation regulation, partially approved by EPA in 2000 and finally approved in 2007. With the completion of the guidance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) moved to formally remove its promulgation of an antidegradation regulat ion for Pennsylvania. EPA has taken final action on a 2008 proposal to withdraw the Federal antidegradation policy for all waters of the United States within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by publishing notice in the Federal Register on May 28, 2010 (s ee 75 FR 29899). EPA has withdrawn the federal promulgation at 40 CFR 131.32 to allow Pennsylvania to implement its own antidegra dat ion policy. EPA determined that Pennsylvania has adequately demonstrated that its antidegradation policy protects all wate rs at a level consistent with the Federal requirements under the Clean Water Act. Therefore, the Federal promulgation became redundant. This final rule to remove the Federal promulgation for Pennsylvania was effective on June 28, 2010. The antidegradati on policy, which applies to all waters, mandates that existing uses are maintained and protected, and that the existing quality of High Quality and Exceptional Value waters are also maintained and protected.

In Pennsylvania, water uses that are protected statewide include Warm

- Water Fishes; Potable, Industrial, Livestock, Wildlife, and Irrigation Water Supply; and Boating, Fishing, Water Contact Sports, and Esthetics. Other uses, such as Cold

- Water Fishes, Trout Stocking, High Quality or Exceptional Value waters, navigation, and others, are protected as applicable on a waterbody by waterbody basis.

Portions of only two waterbodies in the Commonwealth have been shown to not fully support the federal “fishable/swimmable” goal. The water contact (swimmable) use is excluded from RM 108.4 to RM 81.8 in the Delaware Estuary because of significant impacts from combined sewer25

overflows, and from the outer Erie Harbor/Presque Isle Bay harbor basin and central shipping

channel due to the hazards to recreational use rs posed by commercial shipping traffic.

Part C1.2

. Plan for Achieving Comprehensive Assessments

In 1996, DEP developed a strategy for the statewide assessment of wadeable free

- flowing streams involving a basic field

- level biological screening assessment . After completing the first

ever statewide assessment of the state’s wadeable surface waters in April 2007, DEP replaced the original protocol with a new, more intensive assessment protocol for the second statewide assessment. DEP’s new plan for achievi ng comprehensive, statewide assessment of its surface waters is based on the implementation of the Instream Comprehensive Evaluation (ICE)

program.

The ICE program is designed to assess the water quality of previously assessed streams with a more rigorous methodology. It is based on a survey design that includes both probability based and targeted sampling within one major sub

- basin in each of six DEP regions. Initial fieldwork began in 2005 in the Delaware drainage and was expanded to include the first set of six regional

sub

- basins in the rest of the state in 2006 . A new set of six sub

- basins will be surveyed upon completion of the previous six basins and repeated on a rotating

- basin schedule thereafter. In the summer of 2011, 24 of 25 sub

- basins have been completed for the probability based sampling. This is a cooperative effort led by Office of Water Management, with assessments being conducted by Department field and central office staff.

The ICE program uses an intensive biological assessment pro tocol that is a modification of EPA’s Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) III method, which includes laboratory identification of benthic macroinvertebrates to genus level and an RBP habitat assessment. Each biological

assessment results in an Assessment S ummary for input to the 305(b) assessment database and GIS that identifies waters with obvious aquatic life use impairment and those with no obvious impairment. In addition to these stream assessment projects, a lake assessment element is also being implemented. Lake sampling efforts are described in the Lakes Water Quality Assessment

section.

In 2006, DEP began a potable water supply monitoring program targeti ng the source waters for community water supplies in the Commonwealth to assess attainment of the potable water supply use (PWS)

. The monitoring protocol consists of the collection of multiple grab samples upstream of the point of withdrawal during a 12

- 1 3 month period. Water chemistry analysis is completed for 9 parameters of concern for drinking water. Analysis of the 12

- 13 months of samples results in an Assessment Summary for input to the 305(b) assessment database and GIS

that identifies waters with obvious aquatic life use impairment and those with no obvious impairment. In 2011, approximately 95% of PWS surface water sources have been monitored

and assessed.

In addition to the Aquatic Life and Potable Water Supply use assessments, DEP employs a

B acteriological Sampling Protocol to assess surface waters for water contact recreational use during the swimming season. Citizen volunteers collect at least two sets of fecal coliform samples from streams throughout the state from May 1 st through Septembe r 30 th . Each set is comprised of a minimum of 5 samples collected within a 30 day period. The samples are analyzed within 6 hours of collection by a DEP accredited laboratory for an exact count of fecal26

coliform units to determine compliance with standard s. Each recreational assessment results in an Assessment Summary for input to the 305(b) assessment database and GIS that identifies waters with obvious recreational use impairment and those with no obvious impairment.

Part C1.3

. Intensive Surveys

Int ensive surveys have been a key element of DEP’s water quality assessment program since their inception in 1965. These chemical and biological stream and lake investigations are conducted to gather background or baseline data on specific streams or lakes t o determine the effects of point and/or non

- point source discharges on receiving water quality, provide data in support of administrative or enforcement actions, determine the source of spills of pollution materials and evaluate their effect on water qua lity, and assess the distribution and accumulation of trace metals and selected organics in fish tissue or sediments. These surveys can include any combination of chemical sampling of water, effluent, sediment, or fish tissue; flow measurement; qualitati ve, quantitative, or semi

- quantitative EPA RBP macroinvertebrate sampling; qualitative or quantitative (RBP) habitat assessment; or qualitative (and sometimes quantitative) fish sampling. While the current emphasis is on evaluation of waters previously as sessed as attaining designated uses (discussed in the previous section), other types of intensive surveys remain important to the Commonwealth’s water quality management program.

An important element of DEP’s water quality assessment program is the evalua tion of candidate waters for Special Protection designation as High Quality (HQ) or Exceptional Value (EV) Waters. These targeted, intensive surveys involve field studies of habitat and the aquatic community, observation of land use, and filed and other k nown information to determine if a basin or stream segment qualifies for Special Protection in the Antidegradation program. Streams receiving HQ or EV designation are protected to maintain their existing quality.

Part C1.4

. Ambient Fixed Station Monitorin g

The Pennsylvania Water Quality Network (WQN) is a statewide, fixed station water quality sampling program operated by Bureau of Point and Nonpoint Source Management . It is designed to assess both the quality of the Commonwealth’s surface waters and the effectiveness of the water quality management program by accomplishing four basic objectives:

1. Monitor current status and temporal water quality trends in major surface streams (routine stations) 2. Monitor current status and temporal water quality trends in selected reference waters (reference stations)

3. Monitor current status and temporal water quality trends in major tributaries entering the Chesapeake Bay

4. Monitor current status and temporal water quality trends in selected lakes

Major strea ms are considered to be interstate and intrastate waters with drainage areas of roughly 200 square miles or greater. These waters receive both point and non

- point source pollutants and are sampled at or near their mouths to measure overall quality before flows enter the next higher order stream. In this way, current water quality status and trends can be established and the27

effectiveness of water quality management programs can be assessed by watershed. In addition, reference stations are selected to rep resent: 1) “ambient” waters of natural quality minimally affected by human activities; and 2) “typical” waters with quality representative of that normally found in the region of the state being sampled.

The WQN consists of 112 routine stations of which n inety

- two are sampled bi

- monthly and twenty are sampled monthly for stream discharge measurements and physical/chemical analysis. All routine stations are sampled every other year for biological evaluation. Twenty

- six reference stations are generally sam pled monthly for stream discharge and physical/chemical analysis and annually for biological evaluation. Also, thirty Chesapeake Bay Nutrient and Sediment loading stations are sampled monthly for stream discharge and physical/chemical analysis and every

o ther year for biological evaluation. In addition, these Chesapeake Bay loading stations are targeted for sampling eight times per year during storm events.

Single mid

- channel or spatially composite, depth

- integrated samples are collected at each site dep ending on stream size. Stream discharge (flow volume) is measured or calculated each time a water sample is collected. United States Geological Survey (USGS) stream gauging facilities and/or extrapolation equations are utilized whenever possible. Where no USGS facilities/equations exist, stream discharge is measured by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and private facilities, or calculated according to methods outlined by USGS. At a minimum, macroinvertebrate samples are collected every other year at both ro utine and Chesapeake Bay load monitoring stations between August 1 and October 31 and annually at reference stations during fall (November 1

– December 30) or spring (March 1

– April 30) utilizing DEP benthic sampling methodology adapted from EPA Rapid Bio assessment Protocols.

Fish tissue is sampled periodically at the rate of about 100 WQN samples per year. Sampling locations are determined annually. Sampling is rotated through the network to provide periodic complete coverage and to maintain surveillan ce on problem waters. Fillets are sampled for appropriate pollutants in order to assess suitability for human consumption.

Lakes included in the WQN (except for Lake Erie and Presque Isle Bay that are part of the base network) are selected after consider ation of size, public access, intensity of use, and availability of existing data. Large lakes with heavy public use and/or historical data are favored for inclusion because changing trends in the water quality of these resources have the potential for

se rious impacts on water uses.

In the past, lakes have been scheduled for annual sampling in groups of 15 to 20. Lake groups are sampled once a year for five consecutive years before initiating a new group. The five

- year data blocks were then used to asse ss lake water quality trends. Fif teen lakes are currently being sampled in addition to Lake Erie and Presque Isle Bay. Lake levels for Lake Erie and Presque Isle Bay stations are measured at the U.S. Coast Guard station at the entrance to Erie Harbor.

L ake Erie and Presque Isle Bay samples are collected at mid

- depth. The other lake WQNs have two samples collected per site during mid

- summer stratification. These sites correspond to the deepest point in each lake, with one sample collected one meter belo w the surface and the second sample one meter above the lake bottom. A temperature/dissolved oxygen profile is recorded through the vertical water column and an aliquot from the shallow sample is filtered for chlorophyll

- a analysis.28

Qualitative plankton samples and chlorophyll a are collected annually from Lake Erie and Presque Isle Bay. Quantitative invertebrate or plankton sampling and qualitative or quantitative fish sampling is optional at other lakes and may be conducted at the discretion of the col lector.

Part C1.5

. Lake Water Quality Assessments (LWQA)

Basic water quality assessments for lakes are achieved mainly through two programs in Pennsylvania

– the Lake Water Quality Network sampling, and the TSI or Trophic State Index evaluations, describ ed below.

LWQN

– a statewide set of lakes is sampled once each summer for 5 years to track

trends. A new set of 15 lakes was selected for the 2011

- 2015 sampling round. LWQN sampling is funded mainly through the 106 grant

Lake TSI studies

– all six DEP Regions incorporate TSI lake surveys to determine if phosphorus controls are needed for point source discharges in the watershed or to determine current trophic status of a lake. Samples are collected three times in one year to cover the Spring, Summer and Fall seasonal variation; each date includes a minimum of two stations, sampled at surface and bottom locations. Approximately 15 to 20 lakes per year are normally sampled using this program. Funding for these studies is t hrough the 319 Program, and the State’s Clean Water Fund, and through the State’s Growing Greener Program.

Pennsylvania’s definition of a “significant lake” is a waterbody with public access and a hydraulic residence time of 14 days or more. Pennsylvan ia currently has 22 3 verified significant lakes totaling 126,867 acres. Another 15 6 public waterways are used as lakes but may not have

the 14

- day retention time. Lake assessments are done on “significant” lakes and other lakes by DEP and various partner s including USGS, SRBC, EPA, other state agencies (Department of

Conservation and Natural Resources, DCNR), citizen volunteers, County Conservation Districts, Morris Arboretum, and consultants. Currently 25 2 lakes have current use

- assessment data (within 10 y ea rs or less) from which the Integrated Report is developed. Lakes assessed through 2011 are included in this Report.

Lake data from the above efforts are reviewed to evaluate support of designated uses and compliance with water quality criteria. Updated DEP lake assessment methodologies have been publicly reviewed and are posted on DEP’s Water Quality webpage at http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/water_quality_standards/10556/2009_a ssessment_methodology/666876.

Lake impa irment screening to determine the TSI, identify water quality violations and determine impacts on recreational uses and aquatic life is ongoing statewide. TSI lake survey results, along with other water chemistry parameters, fish and aquatic macrophyte sur vey data , lake habitat surveys, and microbiological data (bacteria, algal and cyanotoxin data) are used to determine lake use attainment status. These studies also identify waterbodies in need of more in

- depth (Clean Lakes Phase I type) studies that wou ld evaluate existing water quality conditions in the lake and watershed, identify sources and magnitude of pollutants, and recommend lake and watershed management plans to restore or protect water quality. Phase II projects continue

documentation of water quality conditions and also implement lake and watershed BMPs as recommended in the Phase I management plan.29

Institutional BMPs, (environmental education efforts, such as workshops and outreach), are integral components of successful projects and can be a s important as structural BMPs. Continued water quality studies are recommended to monitor the success of control efforts. Also, TMDL lakes are targeted for monitoring on a continuing basis, post BMP installation, so that water quality improvements may be detected and reported. Several of the TMDL lakes are improving and have been subjects of “Success Stories” (DEP website: http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/nonpoint_source_management/10615/s uccess_stories/554277 and EPA’s “Success S tories” featured on their website: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/success319/

.

Lake acreages herein are standardized to the acres reported in the National Hydrography Data set (NHD) where possible. Some differences in reported acreages will remain until all data are extracted from only the NHD layer and errors in the NHD layer are c orrected. Until all the lake data can be entered and retrieved from the ICE computer application, lake numbers reported for

various statistics and tables will be variable.

Part C1.6

. Citizens’ Volunteer Monitoring

In July 2009, due to budget constrai nts, DEP began limiting its direct technical and financial support for volunteer monitors to specific projects that result in the generation of quality assured data related to DEP’s highest priorities. Projects related to DEP’s priorities include working with program staff and volunteers to monitor sections of streams to assess impacts from stream restoration projects, best management practices and abandoned mine land remediation projects, which are supported by 319 Non

- point Source Program or DEP monies. Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) activities are also being monitored to assess the effectiveness of these practices. As priorities change and needs arise, DEP will continue to work with volunteers in monitoring the effectiveness of project s.

Requests from volunteer monitors for services previously provided by DEP such as routine technical assistance and training on preparation and implementation of a locally driven monitoring plan are being directed to the Consortium for Scientific Assista nce to Watersheds or Nature Abounds. The Consortium, a group of service providers, is funded through a Growing Greener grant administered by DEP while Nature Abounds, a nonprofit organization, has a 319

Non

- point Source Management grant to support the Pen nsylvania Senior Environment Corps program and monitoring.

Part C1.7

. Existing and Readily Available Information

In an effort to utilize all existing and readily available data, DEP contacted about 500 potential outside data sources (federal, state, and local governments; universities; advisory groups; citizen monitoring groups; watershed associations; public interest groups; and sportsmen’s groups) to request information regarding water quality. Each group on the mailing list received materials

that bri efly explained the reasons why DEP was soliciting information from them. Minimum quality assurance standards for the data were made available on DEP’s website. Those groups with data and/or information regarding water quality limited segments were reques ted to fill out30

a data submission form and return it, along with any pertinent supporting documentation, to

DEP.

For any given listing cycle, DEP determines the accuracy and validity of existing and readily available data and information provided by outside groups based on a set of minimum quality assurance requirements. These requirements include the specific location of the reported impairment, identification of the particular water quality standards violation(s), data to

substantiate the conclusio n of impairment, identification of the source(s) and cause(s) of impairment, and the presence of a quality assurance/quality control plan. Acceptable data from these sources are then included in the assessment database to prepare the use support summary in this narrative report and the five

- part list of waterbody

- specific use support decisions. More detail on this process is provided in the assessment and listing methodology document associated

with the five

- part list.

Data from four separate outside data sources were submitted to DEP for consideration in the 2012 Integrated Report. The Chester Water Authority submitted coliform and nitrate plus nitrite data for the Octoraro Reservoir and nitrate plus nitrite data for the East and West Branches of

Octoraro Creek. The East and West Branches of Octoraro Creek were placed on List 5 of the Integrated Report in 2006, with a cause of nutrients. The data submitted this year confirms the continued impairment of the Potable Water Supply use

.

The Chester Ridley Cr um (CRC) Volunteer Monitoring program submitted water chemistry data for Goose Creek, East and West Branches of Chester Creek, Ridley Creek, Chester Creek, and Little Crum Creek. For each station, those parameters that DEP has a water quality criterion fo r were analyzed. The majority of parameters did not exceed DEP criteria. Many of the stations did have temperature exceedances , however, DEP temperature criteria is to be applied to waters receiving thermal discharges , which were absent from the surveyed sections of Ridley Creek

. In addition, Ridley Creek was assessed by DEP biologists in 2011 and found to be impaired for its aquatic life use.

The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) in conjunction with four other organizations submitted pH and dissolved oxygen (D.O.) data for the Susquehanna River. Real

time data was collected every 30 minutes starting in May 2008 and ending in the fall of 2009 for

two sites and in fall 2010 for the third site. Although the data showed some exceedance of DO and pH criteria at times, they were not sufficient to warrant an impaired listing for the identified

river reach.

DEP works with Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) and the state Department of Health (DOH) to obtain Escheric hia coli results for beach monitoring at state park and private beaches, respectively. Information obtained from the agencies is utilized to target sampling efforts by DEP for fecal coliforms the following bathing season. Beaches monitored by DEP for feca l coliforms are then assessed for recreational use attainment. No beaches monitored by DCNR in 2010 and 2011 were targeted by DEP to be included in the 2012 Integrated Report.

The Citizen Volunteer Monitoring Program and the Division of Water Quality Sta ndards solicited volunteers across the state for bacteria sampling. Volunteers from Senior Environmental Corps (SEC), Watershed Associations, County Conservation Districts and Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) staff were trained by DEP in adherence t o sampling31

protocol and quality/assurance plans to ensure data collected would be usable for recreational use assessments. Twenty

- four SECs and Watershed Associations, ten County Conservation Districts, and Department personnel participated in the collect ion of fecal coliform samples at 126 sites on eighty

- five streams. DRBC sampled an additional thirteen sites on seven streams. Data submitted from the various groups resulted in thirty

- five stream attainments and forty

- five stream impairments for recreat ion.

Part C2.1: Assessment and Methodology

Because of its length, the 2009 Assessment Methodology is not included with this report but rather is posted separately on DEP’s website. It is available electronically at www.dep.state.pa.us . Use the following keywords: Water, Water Quality, and, finally, 2009 Assessment Methodology.

The Methodology describes the collection and analytical methods used to evaluate stream assessment information. The resulting assessments comprise the stream miles, lake acreages, and attained/impaired status reported in the 201 2 Integrated Report.

The 2009 Assessment Methodology contains the following protocols:

Watershed Assessments Instream Comprehensive Evaluations (ICE)

Macroinvertebrate Stream Protocols

Limestone Streams

Multi

- Habitat (Pool/Glide Streams)

Riffle/Run Freestone Streams

Lake Protocols

Lake Assessment Aquatic Macrophyte Coverage Procedures for Lake Assessments

Lake Fisheries Evaluation of Phosphorous Discharges to Lakes, Ponds, and Impoundments Plankton Sampling Chlorophyll A Sampling

Chemistry and Bacteria Chemistry Evaluations Fish Tissue Sampling Bacterial Sampling

Natural Sources

Natural Pollutant Sources

Outside Agency Outside Agency Data

Appe ndices Appendix A

– Source and Cause Definitions32

Appendix B

– Taxa Tolerance Values

Part C3.1

. Stream Use Support

Table 2 is a summary of the four use support categories used in listing. Miles “supporting” are the number of miles not impaired for an assessed water use; “impaired” are not supporting the assessed use and requiring a TMDL; “approved TMDL” refers to impa ired segments for which an approved TMDL is in place to address the problem(s), and “compliance” lists steam miles impaired but expected to improve in a reasonable amount of time because formal agreements are in place obligating responsible parties to take corrective action. “Pollution” is a special category of impairment listing problems that cannot be addressed through a TMDL because they are not caused by pollutant loading. “Assessed” represents the total miles surveyed for that use.

Table 3 summariz es the sources of impairment problems and Table 4 the causes. Note that totaling the sources or causes will not equal the miles summarized in Table 2 because a given waterbody may have multiple sources and/or causes. The tables are statewide summaries. T able 4 has been modified since the 2010 Integrated Report to clarify the causes of Salinity/TDS/Chlorides. Salinity and Chlorides were removed from the grouping as none of the previous and current impairments were attributed to these 2 causes, as all wer e impaired solely by TDS. The individual source/cause pairs for each waterbody are found on Categories 5, 4b, and 4c. The lists are large and, as a result, are provided separately in electronic format.

Table 2

Statewide Assessment Summary

A statewide su mmary of use support status for four water uses in assessed streams

Aquatic Life

Use Fish

Consumption Use Recreational

Use Potable Water

Supply Use

Streams (miles)

Assessed 84, 571 5 ,3 45 2

, 422 3,357

Supporting 6 7,972 3,323 1,205 3,194

Impaired 9, 801 1, 318 1,209 1 51

*Approved TMDL 6,490 704 8 1 2

Compliance 62

--- --- ---

**Pollution 2,709

--- --- ---

* TMDL miles reported here are only those overlapping impaired segments. A TMDL allocation may include an entire watershed, including streams listed as attained.

** 1, 755 miles have both pollution and pollutant problems33 Table 3

Statewide Assessment Summary Sources of Impairment: Streams Totals Include List 4a, 4b, 4c, and 5 (Mile totals will not equal Table 2 because a waterbody can have multiple impairments)

Designated Use (Miles)

Source Aquatic Life Fish Consumption Recreation Water Supply Total

Agriculture 5, 6 03 65 37 5, 7 05

Abandoned Mine Drainage 5, 51 7 79 5, 59 6

Source Unknown 50 2 181 9 112 0 41 3,48 2

Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers 2, 410 41 2, 451

Road Runoff 904 904

Small Residential Runoff 7 4 8 74 8

Habitat Modification 629 629

Atmospheric Deposition 4 83 483

Removal of Vegetation 418 418

Municipal Point Source 380 7 1 38 8

Channelization 338 338

Bank Modifications 322 322

Other 304 10 31 4

Land Development 232 232

Industrial Point Source 11 3 29 67 208

On site Wastewater 199 6 20 5

Erosion from Derelict Land 192 192

Subsurface Mining 11 4 67 18 1

Construction 162 162

Upstream Impoundment 16 0 16 0

Natural Sources 15 2 15 2

Hydromodification 147 147

Combined Sewer Overflow 1 9 12 12 1

Flow Regulation/Modification 119 119

Surface Mining 117 117

Petroleum Activities 60 6034 Designated Use (Miles)

Source Aquatic Life Fish Consumption Recreation Water Supply Total

Golf Courses 55 55

Silv i culture 19 19

Highway, Road, Bridge Const. 16 16

Package Plants 15 15

Land Disposal 1 3 13

Draining or Filling 10 10

Recreation and Tourism 3 3

Logging Roads 2 2

Dredging 1 135 Table 4

Statewide Assessment Summary Cause of Impairment: Streams Totals Include List 4a, 4b, 4c, and 5 (Mile totals will not equal Table 2 because a waterbody can have multiple impairments) Use Designation (Miles)

Cause Aquatic

Life Fish

Consumption Recreation Water Supply Total

Siltation 8, 712 2 8, 714

Metals 5,0 31 12 5,0 43

pH 2, 847 2, 847

Nutrients 2,6 15 34 2, 6 49

Water/Flow Variability 1,5 59 1,5 59

Organic Enrichment/Low D.O. 1,3 09 1,3 09

Pathogens 1

, 22 7 39 1,26 6

Cause Unknown 1,137 3 1, 14 0

Mercury 1,076 1,076

Other Habitat Alterations 997 997

PCB 968 968

Flow Alterations 708 708

Suspended Solids 5 38 5 38

Turbidity 227 227

Excessive Algal Growth 128 128

Other Inorganics 51 71 122

TDS* 98

. 8 106

Thermal Modifications 85 85

Chlordane 84 84

Unknown Toxicity 68 68

Dioxins 46 46

Oil and Grease 40 40

Osmotic Pressure 3 4 3 4

Exotic Species 31 31

Pesticides 23 23

Nonpriority Organics 23 2336 Use Designation (Miles)

Cause Aquatic

Life Fish

Consumption Recreation Water Supply Total

Priority Organics 21 21

DO/BOD temp 2 0 2 0

Unionized Ammonia 18 18

Chlorine 9 9

Filling and Draining 6 6

Trash 1 1

* Was Salinity/TDS/Chlorides in previous Integrated Reports. Revision reflects actual cause of impairments.

Monitoring information indicates that 6 7

, 972 miles support designated aquatic life use. A total of 9, 801 miles are reported as impaired and still requiring a TMDL and 6, 490 miles are impaired but already have an approved TMDL. There are 2, 709 miles with pollution problems not requiring a TMDL and 6 2 miles are impaired but expected to improve in a reasonable time pending agreed upon corrective action.

The three largest kno wn sources of reported impairment for aquatic life are abandoned mine drainage, agriculture, and urban runoff/storm sewers. The leading causes are siltation, metals, pH, nutrients, water/flow variability, and organic/enrichment. While direct source/cause linkages cannot be made at the level of detail presented in Tables 3 and 4, causes other than water/flow variability are known to be associated with the three leading sources of abandoned mine drainage, agriculture, and urban runoff/storm sewers. Agricul tural impairments are generally caused by nutrients and siltation associated with surface runoff, groundwater input and unrestricted access of livestock to streams. Low pH, elevated concentrations of metals, and

siltation are the result of abandoned mine drainage runoff from mine lands and refuse piles. Increased levels of nutrients and siltation, along with flow variability, are associated with urban runoff. The sources associated with water/flow variability are varied, including hydromodification, road runoff, urban runoff/storm sewers, and several others. Any source that

alters runoff or stream flow can a ffect water/flow variability. Water/flow variability is considered pollution not requiring a TMDL but the problem still requires remediation.

There ar e 3,323 assessed miles supporting the fish consumption use and 1, 318 miles impaired and still requiring a TMDL. There are approved TMDLs for 7 04 miles. The 3,323 miles supporting this use is a conservative estimate. As a rule, when fish tissue samples are clean the results are only extrapolated to represent two miles on small streams and ten on larger waterbodies. To protect the public, larger extrapolations are made when the fish tissue samples

are tainted.

The major source of contamination resulting in fish consumption advisories is listed as unknown because it is difficult to trace the sources. The contamination can be in the soil, groundwater, stream sediment, or point sources. The contaminants do not readily break down and can linger

for decades. I n addition, fish can move considerable distances. Only with careful study can the source of contamination be determined with certainty. The contaminants documented are PCB, mercury, chlordane, and dioxin in decreasing order. Atmospheric deposition is the m ost likely source of the mercury. There is a statewide advisory limiting consumption of recreationally37

caught fish to one meal per week. If fish tissue mercury concentrations are greater than the one meal per week level (higher concentrations), they are p laced on Category 5 of waters. Conversely, if subsequent samples indicate the concentrations are now less than the one meal per week level they are removed from Category 5.

Recreational use is assessed primarily by measuring bacteria levels. High bacteri a densities indicate conditions that might cause sickness from contact with or ingestion of the water. Many of the waters targeted for sampling were suspected of having bacteria problems so the 1,209 miles of impaired miles versus the 1,205 miles attaining is not unexpected. There are 8 miles with an approved pathogen TMDL. The major source of pathogens is listed as source unknown followed by agriculture. If there are several potential sources of bacteria in the watershed the

assessor lists the source as un known until better information becomes available.

Potable water supply use was supported in 3,194 miles of streams assessed, not supported in 1 51

, and 1 2 had approved TMDLs. This potable water supply use is measured before the water is

treated for consum ption. The primary assessment measures are nitrate and nitrite levels and bacteria but additional parameters, both organic and inorganic, are considered.

Part C3.2

. Record of changes to the 20 10 Integrated List 5 made in the 201 2 Integrated List

The Integrated List is part of a biennial report. The previous list included data gathered through

20 09 . In the two year period leading up to this report, a number of waterbodies listed as impaired

on the 20 10 Integrated Report were resurveyed. Impaired waters may be resurveyed for a number of reasons including the need for additional data to support TMDL development, or changes in land use, or point source discharge characteristics. Waters are revaluated on a rotating basis as per the ICE sampling protocol ou tlined in the 2009 Assessment Methodology. Areas where watershed improvement projects are in place are also targeted to document improvements that may results.

Appendix E tracks changes in the status of waters impaired in 20 10 but attaining uses in 201 2

. Each of these delistings is the result of a detailed chemical or biological survey and subsequent data evaluation. Appendix F tracks changes in the pollutant causes. Entries for waters that were reported as impaired in 20 10 but

, subsequent surveys found them to be impaired but by different pollutants, are edited to better reflect the problems. The comments associated with each record describe the changes. Lastly, Appendix G describes records with errors. Some are mapping

errors discovered because the GIS coverage has undergone several revisions over the past 1 4 years and occasionally some legacy mapping errors are uncovered. Other errors relate to an impairment being incorrectly mapped to a pollutant source. Comments in these records describe

the error.

Part C3.3

. Lakes Use Support

Table 5 is a summary of the four use support categories for lakes. Acres “supporting” is the number of acres not impaired for the assessed use. “Impaired” acres (List 5) do not support the assessed use and still require a T MDL. “Approved TMDL” includes impaired lake waters where a TMDL has been completed and approved by EPA. ”Impaired (List 4c)” is a special category of use impairment where a problem is documented but it will not be addressed through a TMDL.

Pollution is a special category of impairment where there is a problem but it will not be38

addressed through a TMDL because it does not involve pollutant loadings. “Assessed” refers to the total acres surveyed for that use.

Table 6 summarizes the sources of impairmen t problems and Table 7 the causes. Note that totaling the sources or causes will not equal the acres summarized in Table 5. This is because a waterbody may have multiple sources and causes. The individual source/cause pairs for each waterbody are found on List 5, 4b, and 4c. The lists are large and as a result are presented only in electronic format separate from this narrative.

Table 5

Statewide Lake Assessment Summary A statewide summary of use support status for four water uses in assessed lakes

Aquatic

Life Use Fish

Consumption

Use Recreational

Use Potable Water

Supply Use

Lakes (acres)

Assessed 80,525 74, 835 81 ,9 59 5 8

, 01 3

Supporting (List s 1 & 2) 43

, 194 2 8

, 765 7 6 ,8 36 5 7 ,9 41

Impaired (List 5) 5, 420 40, 4 05 5,1 23 12

Impaired (List 4c) 20,544

--- --- ---
Approved TMDL List

4a 11, 366 * 5, 664

--- ---

* Lake Jean pH TMDL (248 acres) now attaining, so no longer included in TMDL total.

* Dutch Fork Lake (87 acres) has a completed TMDL but has been breached so is no longer impaired ; however PFBC is reconstructing the impoundment

.

* Presque Isle Bay acres are included in the fish consumption and recreation use totals. The remainder of Lake Erie is not included in the pathogen and recreation acre totals. Pennsylvania has 6 3 miles of La ke Erie shoreline, 14 of which comprise Presque Isle.39 Table 6

Statewide Assessment Summary Sources of Impairment: Lakes Totals Include List 4a, 4b, 4c, and 5 (Acre totals will not equal Table 5 because a waterbody can have multiple impairments)

Use Designation (Acres)

Source Aquatic

Life Fish

Consumption Recreation Water Supply Total

Atmospheric Deposition 219 3 2

, 174 3 2

, 3 9 3

Source Unknown 2,921 13, 896 3,718 20, 535

Other 20,019 20,019

Agriculture 13,006 1,307 14,31 3

Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers 3,628 82 3,710

On site Wastewater 3,223 87 3,310

Municipal Point Source 2,439 2,439

Natural Sources 1,222 1,222

Habitat Modification 486 68 554

Small Residential Runoff 531 531

Removal of Vegetation 445 445

Abandoned Mine Drainage 365 12 377

Golf Courses 210 210

Bank Modification 192 192

Road Runoff 185 5 190

Recreation and Tourism 185 185

Package Plants 160 160

Hydromodification 121 121

Construction 76 76

Land Development 5 5 1040 Table 7

Statewide Assessment Summary Causes of Impairment: Lakes Totals Include List 4a, 4b, 4c, and 5 (Acre totals will not equal Table 5 because a waterbody can have multiple impairments)

Use Designation (Acres)

Cause Aquatic Life Fish Consumption Recreation Water Supply Total

Mercury (Lakes) 39,580 39,580

pH 15,852 15,852

Nutrients 13,95 4 137 13,73 1

Suspended Solids 10,9 76 57 11,033

Organic Enrichment/Low

D.O. 8,603 8,603

Pathogens 4,897 4,897

PCB 3, 921 3, 921

DO/BOD 1,280 1,280

Excessive Algal Growth 471 31 502

Turbidity 445 445

Metals 365 12 377

Exotic Species 226 77 303

Siltation 255 46 301

Noxious Aquatic Plants 291 5 296

Other Habitat Alterations 31 31

Unionized Ammonia 25 25

A total of 80

, 525 acres of Commonwealth lakes have been assessed for aquatic life use and of

these acres

, 4 3

, 194 acres support that use. There are 5, 4 20 assessed lake acres that are impaired and still require a TMDL. Approved TMDLs are in place for 11, 366 acres. Pollu tion problems that do not require TMDLs impair 20,54 4 acres. The major sources of aquatic life use impairment in lakes are “other”, and agriculture. “Other” is the source used for lakes on List 4c which are impaired but not requiring a TMDL. These lakes show short term fluctuations in DO or pH but support a healthy fish community. The primary stressors are nutrients, suspended solids, organic enrichment/low DO, and pH. Low DO and high pH problems are associated with

summer lake stratification.41

Fish co nsumption assessments covered 74, 835 lake acres (excluding Lake Erie but not Presque Isle Bay). Of these, 2 8

, 765 acres are assessed as supporting this use, 40

, 4 0 5 acres are reported as requiring a TMDL, and 5, 664 acres have approved TMDLs. The reason for the large proportion of impaired acres is the implementation of Pennsylvania’s risk

- based mercury fish consumption advisory methodology in 2001. Nearly all of the lake advisories are due to mercury with atmospheric deposition listed as the source.

In a ddition, fish consumption advisories are in place for a number of species in the Pennsylvania portion of Lake Erie. These advisories are due to PCB and mercury. There are 63 miles of Lake Erie shoreline in Pennsylvania fourteen of which comprise the Pres que Isle Peninsula.

A total of 81 ,9 59 lake acres have been assessed for recreation use support and 5,1 23 of those acres require TMDLs. Pathogens and nutrients from agriculture and on site wastewater are responsible for the impairments.

All but 12 acres of 5 8

, 01 3 acres assessed for potable water supply use were found to be attaining

that use.

Part C3.4

. Excluding the Fishable and Swimmable Uses

DEP routinely re

- evaluates, as part of its triennial review of water quality standards, the t wo water bodies where the fishable or swimmable uses specified in Section 101(a) (2) of the federal Clean Water Act are not being met: (1) the Harbor Basin and entrance channel to Outer Erie Harbor/ Presque Isle Bay and (2) several zones in the Delaware Es tuary.

The swimmable use designation was deleted from the Harbor Basin and entrance channel demarcated by U.S. Coast Guard buoys and channel markers on Outer Erie Harbor/ Presque Isle Bay because boat and commercial shipping traffic pose a serious safety hazard in this area. This decision was based on a Use Attainability study completed in 1985. Because the same conditions and hazards exist today, no change to the designated use for Outer Erie Harbor/ Presque Isle Bay is proposed.

DEP cooperated with th e Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC), EPA and other DRBC signatory states on a comprehensive Use Attainability study in the lower Delaware River and Delaware Estuary. This study resulted in appropriate restrictions relating to the swimmable use,

which DRBC included in water use classifications and water quality criteria for portions of the tidal Delaware River in May 1991. These changes were incorporated into Sections 93.9e and 93.9g (Drainage Lists E and G) of Pennsylvania’s Water Quality Standards i n 1994. The primary water contact use remains excluded from the designated uses for river miles 108.4 to 81.8 because of continuing significant impacts from combined sewer overflows and other hazards, such as commercial shipping traffic.

Part C3.5

. Lakes Trophic Status

Lake trophic status, based on Carlson's Trophic State Index (TSI), is used as a tool to monitor lake status in Pennsylvania. Lakes with a TSI of less than 40 are oligotrophic (nutrient poor); 40

- 50 is mesotrophic; 50

- 65 is eutrophic (nutri ent rich); and greater than 65 TSI is considered42

hypereutrophic. TSIs for Pennsylvania lakes are based on seasonal mean values of phosphorus, secchi depth and chlorophyll a. See Methods documents cited above). Trophic category is based on the Total Phosph orus (TP) TSI. Table 8 summarizes lake trophic status. Sums do not include Lake Erie, but do include Presque Isle Bay for pertinent data.

Table 8

Lake Trophic Status: Summary of Lakes Assessed

Number of Lakes Acreage of Lakes

Total Assessed (all types) 495 Assessed for TSI (2001 to current) 252 77,071.8*
Oligotrophic 16 3,258.0

Mesotrophic 102 32,787.4 Eutrophic 96 20,608.1 Hypereutrophic 13 18,702.0 Unassigned (data not assembled or current WQNs) 25 1,716.3

* Excel summary table calculation, not NHD coverage.

Part C3.6

. Lake Restoration Efforts

The Commonwealth's lake protection and restoration program is mainly supported by EPA's Nonpoint Source Program (Section 319 of the Clean Water Act) and the state's Environmental Stewardship Program, through Growing Greener grants. Other funding sources include EPA Section 104(b)3 grants, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) PL566 program, and other programs such as the Chesapeake Bay Program and PENNVES T (Clean Water State Revolving Funds). DCNR also funds in

- lake restoration practices for State Park lakes. Various partners are engaged in lake and lake watershed restorations, and are not limited to the lake

owners. Watershed partners include county Co nservation Districts which implement many DEP program initiatives and also serve as grant and project managers. Program goals to restore and/or protect lake water quality are based on studies that identify impairments, pollution sources and

the course of r emediation. Public use and benefit of the lake, and watershed priority based on impairment are important criteria in prioritizing lakes to be funded.

Restoration techniques implemented through Phase II or restoration grants include various

watershed and in

- lake best management practices (BMPs) such as agricultural BMPs, riparian corridor protection and restoration (buffers and in

- stream structures), lake shoreline protection, dredging, stormwater management and control techniques, point source controls, a quatic macrophyte controls, lake and watershed liming, alum treatments, biomanipulation to benefit fisheries, lake drawdowns, septic management, wildlife control, and institutional BMPs such as public education efforts and enacting protective municipal ord inances. Sewage treatment plant upgrades are also an important control technique to improve lake water quality. Invasive species are also an important restoration theme, with increasing numbers of lakes impacted by Eurasian watermilfoil, water chestnut, and zebra/quaaga mussels . Some limited Growing Greener and Sea Grant funds are available for control of these organisms.43

Table 9 provides information on current Phase I (assessments) and Phase II (restoration/implementation) lake work being conducted i n the Commonwealth. Expenditures on active lake projects or lake watershed projects in Pennsylvania currently amounts to approximately $ 4

. 3 million for projects current through 2 0 11 . Table 10 summarizes known techniques used in lake restoration projects in Pennsylvania’s public lakes.

Part C3.7

. Lake Control Methods

Pennsylvania's lake management regulation is codified in DEP's Rules and Regulations at

Section 96.5

- Discharges to Lakes, Ponds and Impoundments, which sets forth treatment requirements fo r point source discharges necessary to control eutrophication. It is a technology

based approach that results in increasingly stringent effluent requirements based on an assessment of the water quality benefits of such controls. The need for and extent of point source controls for a specific lake are determined by field studies conducted during spring overturn, summer stratification and fall overturn. Appropriate nutrient limitations and monitoring requirements are included in NPDES permits based on the trophic conditions found during these studies. In most cases, follow

- up monitoring is conducted to evaluate the adequacy

of the effluent limitations.

Nonpoint source pollution can also impact lake water quality. Phase I diagnostic studies on Pennsylvania lakes have identified nonpoint source impacts from acid deposition, agricultural runoff, streambank erosion, malfunctioning septic systems, construction, stormwater runoff, and pathogens. Mitigation of these sources is highlighted in the previous section. Acidity problems, resulting mostly from acid deposition, but also in a few cases mining runoff, may be mitigated with lime treatments, although funding for these types of projects is very limited. Lakes with naturally low pH (swamps and bogs) are not considered for treatment, but may be listed on part 4C of the Integrated List. Liming is the current method to mitigate low pH in lakes, and is used in PA on both public and private lakes. Some lakes (reservoirs) have been identified as im paired by metals from mine drainage, or more commonly by mercury (mainly via fish tissue) and none have been identified as impacted by “high acidity,” based on high concentrations of dissolved

metals. Restoration efforts and BMPs in the watershed are the best way to reduce mining effects in waterbodies (i.e. treating the source of the problem). In

- lake mitigation could be explored by using alum treatments to bind metals into the lake sediments. Some “toxics” can be removed by dredging but again, funding f or dredging is limited. Most efforts have focused on source control (mining BMPs or AMD BMPs) and natural recovery rather than in

- lake mitigation.44

Table 9. Active Lake Projects in Pennsylvania Public Lakes as of 2011. Does not include water quality as sessments done by DEP. Growing Greener and 319 final reports available from DEP, Bureau of Conservation and Restoration.

Lake or Study

Name County Study Type Study

Period Federal

Funds Fund

Source State Funds 319 Funds Match Sponsor /Project

Antiedam Lake Berks Phase II 2010

- 2012 GG $145,000 $21,750 Berks Co Commissioners;

stream BMPs

Bald Eagle Lake Centre Phase III 2007

- 2012 GG $150,000 $39,200 Centre CCD; stream BMPs (partial applied to this watershed)

Blue Marsh Lake Berks Phase II 2010

- 2012 GG $51,593 $74,322 Berks CCD

Conneaut Lake Crawford Phase I 2008

- 2010

GG $35,000 $25,000 Crawford CCD;

Stormwater Plan

Conneaut Lake Crawford Phase II 2011

- 2012 GG $2,997 Conneaut School

District/ EE

Conneaut Lake Crawford Phase II 2010

- 2012 GG $43,050 $6,458 Crawford CCD/ ag BMPs (partial in lake watershed)

C

- SAW

- Various

Small Lake Projects multi Phase I 2010

- 2012 GG $300,000 $161,114 C

- SAW

- Consortium

of Scientif Assistance

to Watersheds

Frances Slocum

Lake Luzerne Phase I 2007

- 2011 $48,900 319 Luzerne CCD; WIP

Frances Slocum

Lake Luzerne Phase I 2009

- 2010 $48,900 319 $48,900 Luzerne CCD,

Watershed Implementation Plan

Foster Joseph Sayres Centre Phase II 2010

- 2012 GG $37,778 $61,004 Clearwater Conservancy;

watershed BMPs45 Lake or Study

Name County Study Type Study

Period Federal

Funds Fund

Source State Funds 319 Funds Match Sponsor /Project

Glendale Lake Cambria Phase II 2008

- 2011 GG $43,500 $13,106 Cambria CCD

Greenlick

Reservoir Fayette Phase II 2010

- 2012 GG $10,000 $1,500 Jacobs Creek Watershed Assn;

shoreline stabilization

Harveys Lake Luzerne Phase II

and III 2009

- 2012 $262,534 319 $262,534 $48,315 Harveys Lake Borough;

Harveys Lake Luzerne Phase II

and III 2010

- 2012 $565,700 319 $565,700 $100,000 stormwater BMPs and monitoring

Lake Carey Woming Phase II 2008

- 2012 GG $308,939 $67,490 Lake Carey Welfare Association;

stormwater BMPs

Lake Erie Erie Phase II 2009

- 2012 $247,825 319 $247,825 $37,000 Erie CCD; stream, Ag,

and EE BMPs

Lake Erie Erie Phase I 2007

- 2012 GG $20,000 $117,984 Erie CCD; develop a plan for Trout Run

Lake Erie Erie Phase II 2008

- 2012 $150,000 319 $150,000 $32,800 Erie CCD; Trout Run

BMPs

Lake Erie Erie Phase II 2008

- 2012 GG $35,000 $65,000 Erie CCD; septic system BMPs

Lake Erie Erie Phase II 2008

- 2012 GG $200,000 $120,926 Erie CCD; Cascade

Creek stream BMPs

Lake Erie Erie Phase II 2008

- 2012 GG $13,785 $91,900 Erie PSU; stream projects & monitoring

Bear Run

Lake Galena Bucks Phase II 2011

- 2012 (part of

PALMS below) GG,

PALMS Bucks CCD/ lakeshore

restoration46 Lake or Study

Name County Study Type Study

Period Federal

Funds Fund

Source State Funds 319 Funds Match Sponsor /Project

Lake Jean Luzerne,

Sullivan Phase II 1995

-

yearly DCNR $1,500 Bureau of State Parks/ liming

Lake Pleasant Erie Phase II 2011

- 2012 (part of

PALMS below) GG,

PALMS Western PA Conservancy; invasive

control

Lakes Redman

and Williams York Phase II 2008

- 2011 GG $100,000 $65,110 York Watershed Alliance ; stream

stabalization

Lake Wallenpaupack Pike,

Wayne Phase II 2008

- 2010 GG $40,530 $10,133 Lake Wallenpaupack

Watershed Management District;

farm BMPs

Lake Wilhelm Mercer Phase II 2011

- 2012 (part of

PALMS below) GG,

PALMS DCNR

Laurel Hill Lake

and Kooser Lake Somerset Phase I 2008

- 2012 GG $30,900 $14,958 Somerset CCD;

watershed assessment

Laurel Hill Lake

and Kooser Lake Somerset Phase I 2008

- 2012 GG $ 240,240 $108,097 Somerset CCD; flow and sediment analysis

Magnolia Lake Bucks Phase II 2009

- 2012 GG $44,341 $8,770 Bucks CCD; lakeshore

stabilization

North Fork Dam Potter Phase II 2009

- 2012 GG $23,306 $33,634 Potter Co.

Commissioners

Ontelaunee Lake Berks Phase II 2009

- 2012 GG $90,435 $25,300 Berks CCD; ag BMPs

PA Lake Management Socety (PALMS) multi Phase I

and II 2009

- 2012 GG $250,000 $37,500 various lake projects

statewide47 Lake or Study

Name County Study Type Study

Period Federal

Funds Fund

Source State Funds 319 Funds Match Sponsor /Project

She nango Res. (watershed) Mercer Phase II 2008

- 2012 GG $18,709 $8,000 Shenango River Watchers; bank

stabilization

Somerset Lake Chester Phase I 2010

- 2012 GG $39,835 $7,675 New Garden Twp.

Stephen Foster

Lake Bradford Phase II 2007

- 2011 $194,468 319 $194,468 Bradford

CCD/Watershed and

In

- lake BMPs

Stephen Foster

Lake Bradford Phase III 2010

- 2012 $6,000 319 $6,000 Efficacy monitoring

Stephen Foster

Lake Bradford Phase II 2010

- 2012 $161,938 319 $161,938 $28,390 Mill Creek streambank

restoration

Stephen Foster

Lake Bradford Phase II 2011

- 2012 $1,000 319 $1,000 Education Mini

- grant

Tioga Lake Tioga Phase II 2009

- 2012 GG $175,000 $104,000 Tioga CCD; ag BMPs

Tioga Lake Tioga Phase II 2008

- 2012 GG $227,107 $34,066 Tioga CCD; Dirt &

Gravel Roads

Total Funds $1,687,265 $2,678,545 $1,638,365 $1,570,502

Total Federal and

State Funds $4,365,810

319 = Nonpoint Source Program

DCNR = PA Dept. Conservation & Natural Resources

GG = Growing Greener Program, PA Environmental Stewardship Funds

CCD = County Conservation District

Phase 1 = lake & watershed assessment/monitoring & management plan

Phase II = restoration BMPs, including Educational

Phase III = monitoring for efficacy, post

- TMDL48 Table 10

Lake Rehabilitation Techniques Used in Public Lakes

Technique Number of Lakes Where Technique

Used Acres of Lakes Where

Technique Used

In

- Lake Treatment

Aeration 4 120 Aquatic herbicide treatment 40 422 Aquatic macrophyte harvesting 4 60

Lake drawdowns 22 7,285 Liming 1 100

Watershed Treatments Sediment traps/detention basins 7 8,203

Shoreline erosion controls/bank stabilization 12 14,051 Conservation tillage 4 7,633 Animal waste management practices installed 7 9,787 Riprap installed 4 7,334 Road or skid trail management 4 14,654 Stream restoration (natural channel design) 3 1665

Created wetlands 5 1794

Other Lake Protection/Restoration Controls Local lake management program in place 22 15,207
Public information/education program/activities 55 63,019 Local ordinances/regulations to protect lake 3 6,600

Point source controls 16 13,888

Part C4

. Wetlands Protection Program

Pennsylvania has 403,924 acres of wetlands and 412,905 acres of deep

- water habitats such as ponds and lakes. About 1.4 percent of the Commonwealth's land surface is represented by wetlands, with 97 percent classified as palustrine. Approximately 76 percent of the palustrine

wetlands are further classified as forested and scrub/ shrub wetlands. Lacustrine wetlands, mainly composed of the shallow zone (less than 6.6 feet deep) of Lake Erie, represent about two percent of the total, while riverine wetlands make up the remaining one percent. Pennsylvania

has 512 acres of tidal wetl ands in the Delaware Estuary.

Wetlands are most abundant in the glaciated portions of northeastern and northwestern Pennsylvania. Crawford, Mercer, Erie, Monroe, Pike, Wayne and Luzerne counties contain 40 percent of the Commonwealth's wetlands. Pike an d Monroe counties have the highest percentages of land covered by wetlands with 6.7 percent and 6.4 percent, respectively.49

DEP's authority for the prot ection of wetlands is primarily established by the Dam Safety and

Encroachments Act of 1978 and The Clea n Streams Law . The Environmental Quality Board adopted Chapter 105, Dam Safety and Waterway Management rules and regulations effective September 27, 1980. Amended regulations became effective October 12, 1991. Since March 1, 1995, DEP has been given aut hority to attach federal Section 404 authorization along with state permit approvals for most projects through the Pennsylvania State Programmatic General Permit (PASPGP

- 4). This provides “one

- stop shopping” for approximately 80

- 90 percent of the state

an d federal permit applications received. PASPGP

- 4 will expire on June 30, 2016. This

reissuance of the PASPGP

- 4 included the Mineral Resource program area for the first time as eligible to include the federal Section 404 authorization along with the state permit approvals.

Thirty (30) of Pennsylvania's 66 county conservation districts have Chapter 105 Delegation Agreements with DEP to register Bureau of Waterways Engineering and Wetlands General

Permits within their counties. The basic duties of each dis trict are to provide information and written materials to the general public on the Dam Safety and Encroachments Act and Chapter 105 regulations, register general permits, and perform on

- site investigations as the first step to gain voluntary compliance. In addition to county delegations, program implementation for general and individual permit processing and issuance is also delegated to the several DEP program areas including the Mineral Resources, Abandon Mine Lands, Conservation and Restoration, Oil an d Gas and Flood Protection programs. The Office of Water Management coordinates this program.

An Environmental Review Committee, consisting of representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC), Pennsylvania Fis h and Boat Commission (PFBC), EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and DEP, meets monthly to review selected applications submitted to DEP. A similar committee has been

established that meets semi

- annually to review ongoing enforcement actions. T hrough these committees, lead agencies are designated for taking action or providing field support to resolve violations or to provide data for permit reviews. This coordination economically utilizes limited staff of both state and federal agencies.

DEP, in cooperation with the Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center completed a pilot wetland condition assessment in an area of south central Pennsylvania in 2006. The pilot was to test a wetland condition assessment methodology that could be expanded to the entire Commonwealth. The results from the Level 2 rapid condition assessments have not been statistically analyzed and cannot be reported with any confidence intervals nor can the results be projected to the entire

assessment area.

Wetlands were se parated into four different landcover domains. The land cover domains were driven by the percent natural cover (forest and water) and effectively disturbed cover (all types of development and barren/mine areas) present within a one kilometer buffer around the sampling location. The sample frame population distribution was fairly well distributed based on

landcover domains.50 Table 1 Wetland Distribution in Land Cover Domains

Land Cover Category Definition Number of

Wetlands Wetland

Acreage

Entire

Watershed All wetland points 14,824 36,661.35

Natural Cover > = 65% Natural Cover

and < 10% EDC 2,828 6,475.89

Non

- Forest

Cover A < 65% and >35% Natural

Cover and < 10% EDC 3,372 8,461.78

Non

- Forest

Cover B < = 35% Natural Cover

and < 10% EDC 6,605 16,690.34

Effectively

Disturbed Cover > = 10% EDC 2,019 5,033.33

The resulting scoring for the 204 sites sampled is depicted in Table1 below. A majority of the wetland areas sampled were in a Medium to Low condition category (65% of wetland sample

are as) which corresponds somewhat with the landcover domain distribution. The Level 2 rapid assessment methodology scoring placed a great deal of weight on the Level 1 score, which is based upon the percent natural cover located in the one kilometer buffer a round the sampling area. This resulted in the surrounding landcover being the dominant driver in the Level 2 scoring

Table 2 Level 2 Condition Categories

Condition Category Number of

Wetlands Total Acreage Percent of

Resource

Highest 13 127.74 6.10%

High 59 556.19 26.70%

Medium 41 468.89 22.50%

Low 91 930.07 44.70%

Totals 204 2082.88 100.00%

The stressor cate gory occurrences observed during the Level 2 sampling efforts are depicted in Table 3. The Vegetation Alteration, Hydrologic Modification and Sedimentation/ Erosion stressor categories were observed most frequently. The most common stressor category

obse rved was vegetation alteration. Eighty

- eight percent or 180 of the 204 sites sampled reported invasive species present.51 Table 3. St ressor Occurrence Stressor Category No of Stressors

Ob served

Acidification 2 Contaminant Toxicity 9 Dissolved Oxygen 2 Eutrophication 4 Hydrologic Modification 58

Sedimentation/Erosion 56

Thermal Alteration 1 Turbidity 2 Vegetation Alteration 150

Total 284

Table 4 shows the breakdown of sites with invasive species and the percent total coverage.

Table 4 . Percent occurrence and total cover of invasive species

DEP is the process of completing the study of wetland compensation efforts conducted by permittees from 2000

- 2004, PA Department of Transportation wetland mitigation banks and the sites constructed under the in lieu fee program PA Wetland replacement Project. This project examined the compliance with regulatory requirements and the effectiveness of compensatory mitigation efforts. Part of the findings from this project also result ed in proposed changes to the implementation of compensatory mitigation efforts. These program changes are due to occur in 2012. Chief among the changes are a standard approach for evaluating resource conditions of all aquatic resource types and a functi on based compensatory requirement approach. These program changes signify a major shift in how compensatory requirements are determined and how they are evaluated.

In 2011, DEP developed a new wetland program plan that addresses program development over the next 10 years. One item that was previously drafted in 2009, a wetland monitoring strategy, will be finalized in 2012. When completed and publicly participated, the wetland strategy will be folded into the PA DEP’s overall comprehensive water quality monitoring strategy. Another effort will focus on developing a strategy for establishing a headwater reference population. Ultimately, the reference data will be used to build functional models to inform and refine the regulatory program efforts for pro tection and compensation.

No Sites % Total Cover of

Invasives % of Sites with

Invasives

80 0

- <5% 39.20%

55 5

- 20% 26.70%

40 20

- 50% 19.60%

29 >50% 14.20%

204 100%52

Part C5

. Trend Analysis for Surface Waters

Introduction

Periodically, the Department

– assisted greatly by the United States Geological Survey

– analyzes long

- term trends of chemical water quality using data collected at fixed

- site monitoring stations throughout the Commonwealth. Trend analyses were run for two different time frames: from October 1, 1991 to September 30, 2010 and from October 1, 2000 to September 2010.

Trend analysis is a statistical technique used to d etermine if values of a random variable generally increase or decrease over some time period. Lack of a trend is good evidence that none exists, however there is some possibility that more sample collection will reveal a less obvious

trend . Conversely, w e can be quite confident that changes in water quality are occurring where

trends are detected.

Methods

The present analyses utilized a parametric trend test developed and performed by United States Geologic Survey staff. This approach adjusts observed variation in water quality parameters for variation in flow because most water quality parameters exhibit substantial co

- variation with

stream flow.

Trend tests were run for 18 water quality parameters (Table 1) at a set of 14 water quality network (WQN) monitoring stations in areas of the state underlain by Marcellus shale geological formations (Figure 1). Most samples in the datasets were collected on a monthly or a bi

- monthly basis at each station. Trend tests were not run for datasets that had: (1) more than half of the

data recorded as non

- detects; (2) a lot of missing data; or (3) validation issues. Total nitrogen, dissolved inorganic phosphorous, total calcium, and total magnesium data were not available

until 2001 or 2002. Nitrite data were al so considered, but most nitrite concentrations were reported as below detection limits.

Table 1 . Constituents analyzed and abbreviaitons.

Constituent Abbreviation

Total Aluminum Al Total Copper Cu

Total Iron Fe

Total Lead Pb

Total Zinc Zn

Total Alkalinity ALK

Total Hardness Hard

Total Calcium Ca Total Magnesium Mg

Total Sulfate SO4

Total Dissolved Solids TDS

Total Ammonia NH4

Nitrate NO3 Total Nitrogen TN Dissolved Inorganic Phosphorus DIP Total Phosphorus TP Total Suspended Solids TSS53

Figure 1 . Locations of the 14 fixed

- site, long

- term water quality network (WQN) monitroing stations used in the 2012 trend analysis. Major waterways (faded blue), major basins (faded black), and county boundaries (faded white) are als o shown.54

Results

Trends for the suite of transition metals (Cu, Zn, Fe) and poor metals (Al, Pb) indicated decreasing concentrations for datasets where the trends were statistically significant (Table 2, Table 3). Trends for Al were run at six stations in both time frames, and at another four stations in the 1991 to 2010 period. Trend tests were run for Cu at one station (Dunkard Creek). Trend tests for Fe were run at 12 stations in both time frames, and at the other two stations in one time frame or the other. Trend tests for Pb were run at one station (Beaver River) for both time frames, and in the 1991 to 2010 time frame at another three stations. Trend tests for Zn were run at three stations in both time frames, and at another three stations in the 2000 to 2010 time frame. The low number of trends run for Cu and Pb indicate a high proportion of samples reported as below detection limits. Statistically significant trends were more commonly seen for the transition metals and poor metals in the 1991 to 2010 datasets compared to the 2000 to 2010 datasets, especially for Al, Pb, and Zn. The three datasets that showed statistically significant transition metal and poor metal trends for the 2000 to 2010 period (Al in Kettle Creek, and Cu and Fe in Dunkard Creek) also showed statistically significant trends from the 1991 to 2010 period. Most of the statistically significant transition metal and poor metal trends indicated decreases between 30% and 66% over the time periods tested, with trends for Pb

– while relatively rare

– being more dramatic, ranging from 85% to 94%.

Trends for ALK, Hard, and the two alkali earth metals tested (Ca, Mg) were variable (Table 2, Table 3). Trends for ALK and Hard were run in both time periods at all 14 stations. Trends for Ca and Mg were run at three stations in both time frames, and at the 11 other stations in the 2000 to 2010 time frame. Statistically significant trends were more commonly observed for ALK and Hard in the 1991 to 2010 time frame, and all indicated increasing trends in these two constituents. Statistically significant trends for ALK and Hard were less commonly observed in the 2000 to 2010 dataset. Five stations showed statistically significant increasing trends in ALK

from 2000 to 20 10 with one station (Clarion River) showing a decreasing ALK trend during this time frame. One station (Dunkard Creek) showed a statistically significant increasing Hard trend in the 2000 to 2010 time frame, with three stations showing a statistically sig nificant decreasing Hard trend during this period. Kettle Creek showed a statistically significant trend for Ca or Mg

in the 1991 to 2010 time frame

– this trend was decreasing for Mg. In the 2000 to 2010 time frame, one station (Dunkard Creek) showed in creasing trends for both Ca and Mg, while one other station (Beaver Falls) showed decreasing trends for both Ca and Mg. Another station (Connoquenessing Creek) showed a statistically significant decreasing trend for Ca in the 2000 to 2010 time frame, and three other stations showed statistically significant decreasing trends for Mg in the 2000 to 2010 time frame. Most statistically significant ALK and Hard trends indicated increases or decreases between 10% and 50% over the time periods tested, with decre asing trends ranging between 9% and 27%. The Youghiogheny River and Dunkard Creek ALK trends were more pronounced, and the Dunkard Creek Hard trend was large relative to other Hard trends. The statistically significant Ca and Mg decreasing trends were fa irly moderate with decreases between 7% and 30%, while the statistically significant Dunkard Creek Ca and Mg increasing trends indicated increases of 174% and 363%, respectively.

Trends for SO4 and TDS were mostly decreasing, but variable across stations (Table 2, Table 3). Trends for SO4 were run at all but one station in both time frames, with SO4 trends at the Oil

Creek station run in the 2000 to 2010 window. Trends for TDS were run at seven stations in both time frames, with trends run at another six stations in the 2000 to 2010 window. There was one station (Sinnemahoning Creek) where TDS trends were not run for either time frame.55

Statistically significant increasing trends for both SO4 and TDS were observed at one station (Dunkard Creek) in both t ime frames. At another station (Clarion River), statistically significant increasing trends were observed for both SO4 and TDS in the 2000 to 2010 time frame with a statistically significant increasing trend in SO4 also observed in the 1991 to 2000 time f rame. Statistically significant decreasing trends for SO4 were observed at 11 stations in the 1991 to 2010 time frame and at eight stations in the 2000 to 2010 time frame. In the 1991 to 2010 time frame, no station showed a statistically significant decr easing TDS trend, but five stations did in the 2000 to 2010 time frame. The statistically significant decreasing SO4 and TDS trends mostly ranged between decreases of 12% to 35% with a few exceptions of more dramatic decreasing SO4 trends. The increasing SO4 and TDS trends at the Dunkard creek station were much more pronounced.

Trends for tested nitrogen species (NO3, NH4, TN) were mostly decreasing, but variable across stations (Table 2, Table 3). Trends for NO3 were run at all 14 stations in both time frames.

Trends for NH4 were run at five stations in both time frames. Trends for TN were run at all 14 stations in the 2000 to 2010 time frame. Two stations (Dunkard Creek, Clarion River) showed statistically significant increasing trends in NO3 in bot h time frames. Both of these stations also showed statistically significant increasing trends in TN in the 2000 to 2010 time frame, with the Dunkard Creek station also showing statistically significant increasing trends in NH4 in both

time frames. All ot her statistically significant trends for nitrogen species indicated decreasing trends. Eight stations showed statistically significant decreasing NO3 trends in the 1991 to 2010 window, while five stations showed statistically significant decreasing NO3 tr ends in the 2000 to 2010 window. Two stations showed statistically significant decreasing NH4 trends in the 1991 to 2010 window, with one station showing a statistically significant decreasing NH4 trend in the

2000 to 2010 window. Four stations showed st atistically significant decreasing TN trends in the 2000 to 2010 window. The statistically significant decreasing nitrogen species trends mostly range between decreases of 22% and 60% with a few exceptions of more dramatic decreasing

trends. The increasi ng nitrogen species trends at the Dunkard Creek and Clarion River stations were larger than decreasing trends, especially in the 2000 to 2010 window.

Trends for tested phosphorus species (DIP, TP) indicated decreasing trends, except at the

Dunkard Creek s tation (Table 2, Table 3). Trends for DIP were run at 11 stations in the 2000 to 2010 period, with no DIP trend tests run in the 1991 to 2000 window. Trends for TP were run at 11 stations in both time frames, with TP trends run in the 1991 to 2010 window at two stations, and in the 2000 to 2010 window at one station. For DIP, the statistically significant trends indicated decreasing trends at five stations in the 2000 to 2010 window. For TP, 10 stations had statistically significant decreasing trends in the 1991 to 2010 window. The one statistically significant trend for TP in the 2000 to 2010 window was an increasing trend at the Dunkard Creek station. The statistically significant decreasing phosphorus species trends tended to be larger than decreasi ng trends for other constituents with most decreasing phosphorus species trends ranging between 50% and 82%. The increasing TP trend at Dunkard Creek in the 2000 to 2010 was estimated to be increasing at 264%.

Trends for TSS were run at all but one station (Kettle Creek) in both time frames (Table 2, Table 3). The two statistically significant TSS trends were increasing trends at the Clarion River station in the 2000 to 2010 period (247%) and at the Oil Creek station in the 1991 to 2010 per iod (138%). Surprisingly, the 2000 to 2010 TSS trend at the Oil Creek station was associated with a decreasing TP trend.56 Table 2 . Approximate percent change in flow

- adjusted trends over the tested time periods. Highlighted values indicate statistically significant trends (p

values < 0.05) with yellow indicating increasing trends and orange indicating decreasing trends.

--- indicates datasets without enough data to run the trend test, where residuals were not normal, or with > 50% non

- detects.

WQN Stream Name Start

Year Al Cu Fe Pb Zn ALK Hard Ca Mg SO4 TDS NO3 NH4 TN DIP TP TSS

WQN

185 Delaware River

at Callicoon, NY 1991

- 41

--- --- --- --- 22 30 5 5

- 35

--- - 17

--- --- --- - 63 145

2000 28

--- 44

--- --- 3 0 1

- 1

- 19 27 5

--- 33

--- - 7 156
WQN

317 Tunkhannock Creek

at Tunkhannock, PA 1991

--- --- - 30

--- --- 15 25

--- --- - 61

--- - 39

--- --- --- - 54 103

2000

--- --- --- --- --- 5

- 1

- 1

- 7

- 8 1

- 45

--- - 33

- 22

- 28 144
WQN

402 West Branch

Susquehanna

River at Williamsport, PA 1991

- 52

--- - 22

--- - 66 46

- 2

--- --- - 20

- 3

- 28

- 56

--- --- - 82

- 21

2000

--- --- - 4

--- - 50 47

- 9

- 7

- 13

- 21

- 16

- 23

- 4

- 39

- 22

- 1 1
WQN

418 Sinnemahoning Creek at Sinnemahoning, PA 1991

--- --- - 3

--- --- 29 2

--- --- - 22

--- - 57

--- --- --- - 71 136

2000

--- --- - 16

--- --- 3

- 9

- 6

- 12

- 13

--- - 25

--- - 1

--- --- 120
WQN

434 Kettle Creek

near Westport, PA 1991

- 37

--- - 1

--- --- 6 11

- 5

- 11

- 23

--- - 46

--- --- --- - 64

--- 2000

- 47

--- - 19

--- --- - 6

- 6

- 5

- 7

- 12 4 2

--- - 28

- 12

--- --- WQN

706 Youghiogheny River

at Suterville, PA 1991

- 62

--- - 38

--- --- 53 23

--- --- - 18 16

- 22

- 28

--- --- --- - 15

2000

--- --- - 33

--- - 61 25

- 1

- 1 0

- 4

- 12

- 29 44

- 26

- 26 20 18
WQN

714 Dunkard Creek

at Shannopin, PA 1991

- 34

- 49

- 41

--- - 46 59 88

--- --- 171 134 152 285

--- --- - 19 66

2000

- 33

- 61

- 43

--- - 25 15 189 174 363 652 443 244 1258 226

- 57 264 97
WQN

805 Allegheny River

at West Hickory, PA 1991

- 57

--- - 19

--- --- 12 19

--- --- - 63

--- - 35

--- --- --- - 34 20

2000

--- --- - 10

--- --- 8

- 2 1

- 10

- 21 7

- 32

--- - 3

- 54

- 3

- 42
WQN

820 Redbank Creek

at St. Charles, PA 1991

- 58

--- - 27

- 92

--- 40 4

- 12 17

- 12 11

- 14

--- --- --- - 64

- 2

2000

--- --- 4

--- --- 18

- 3

- 2

- 6

- 5

- 8

- 18

--- - 15

--- 46 146
WQN

822 Clarion River

at Cooksburg, PA 1991

--- --- - 13

--- --- 10 35

--- --- 67

--- 39

--- --- --- - 52 20

2000

--- --- - 12

--- 0

- 17

- 2 2

- 9 32 24 258

--- 222

- 34

- 6 247
WQN

868 Oil Creek

at Rouserville, PA 1991

--- --- 4

--- --- 26 28

--- --- --- --- - 17

--- --- --- - 47 138

2000

--- --- - 22

--- --- 16

- 3

- 2

- 4

- 15

- 19

- 32

--- - 31

- 9 15 41
WQN

905 Beaver River

at Beaver Falls, PA 1991

- 38

--- 24

- 85

- 63 12 10

--- --- - 33

- 1

- 47

- 6

--- --- - 19 48

2000

- 20

--- - 1

- 39

- 49 3

- 11

- 14

- 13

- 22

- 23

- 38

- 53

- 24

- 55

- 9 56
WQN

907 Connoquenessing Creek

near Zelienople, PA 1991

- 37

--- - 9

- 94

--- 22

- 10

--- --- - 28

- 15

- 93

- 69

--- --- - 31

- 11

2000 4

--- 34

--- - 10 11

- 27

- 30

- 10

- 18

- 36

- 78

- 21

- 27

- 3 50 160
WQN

922 Slippery Rock Creek

at Wurtemburg, PA 1991

- 49

--- 23

- 84

--- 19 3

--- --- - 23

- 5

- 10

--- --- --- - 5

- 5

2000

- 15

--- 7

--- --- 18

- 3

- 2

- 4

- 12

- 17

- 14

--- - 14

- 59 8

- 375 7

Table 3 . Summary of the number of stations with executed trend tests and statistically significant trends by time period.

Constituent Start

Year # of stations

with executed

trend tests # of stations with

statistically significant trend tests increasing decreasing

Al 1991 10 0 9

2000 6 0 1

Cu 1991 1 0 1

2000 1 0 1

Fe 1991 13 0 3

2000 13 0 1

Pb 1991 4 0 4

2000 1 0 0

Zn 1991 3 0 3

2000 6 0 0

ALK 1991 14 13 0

2000 14 5 1

Hard 1991 14 9 0

2000 14 1 3

Ca 1991 3 0 0

2000 14 1 2

Mg 1991 3 0 1

2000 14 1 4

SO4 1991 13 2 11

2000 14 2 8

TDS 1991 7 2 0

2000 13 2 5

NO3 1991 14 2 8

2000 14 2 5

NH4 1991 5 1 2

2000 5 1 1

TN 1991 0 0 0

2000 14 2 4

DIP 1991 0 0 0

2000 11 0 5

TP 1991 13 0 10

2000 12 1 0

TSS 1991 13 1 0

2000 13 1 0

Discussion

The decreasing trends in transition metals, poor metals, SO4, TDS, nitrogen species, and phosphorus species, combined with increasing trends in ALK and Hard suggest improving chemical water quality conditions based on the sampling conducted in the tested t ime periods at all the stations analyzed except the Dunkard Creek station and Clarion River station. Increasing58

trends in ALK can often be considered water quality improvements because increased ALK means increased acid neutralizing capacity, but elevatio n of alkalinity much beyond natural levels can have detrimental consequences to water quality, so assessment of the ALK trends depends on the specific context of conditions at each station.

Trends for many constituents exhibited particularly dramatic incr easing trends at the Dunkard Creek station. Increasing trends at this station were well over 100% for Hard, Ca, Mg, SO4, TDS, NO3, NH4, TN, and TP in one or both time frames. The Dunkard Creek station and the Clarion River station were the only two stati ons to show increasing SO4 , NO3, and TN trends. These two stations, along with the Youghiogheny River station in the 1991 to 2010 time frame

– were also the only stations to show increasing TDS trends, with the increasing TDS trends at

Dunkard Creek bein g particularly dramatic. The Dunkard Creek station was also the only station to show increasing Ca, Mg, NH4, and TP trends.59 Par t D Groundwater

Part D1

. Groundwater Assessment

Ambient/Fixed Station Ground Water Quality Monitoring Network (GWMN):

Resources available to operate the Ambient Fixed Ground Water Monitoring Program continue to be limited. Ground water quality monitoring has been active from 2009 to 2011 in three GWMN basins: Kirkwood Basin (196), Pottstown Basin (58), and Telford Basin ( 61) (Figure D

1). A total maximum daily load is under development for the Upper Octoraro Creek (Kirkwood Basin). The Ground water quality monitoring data for the Kirkwood Basin has been made

available for this effort.

Figure D

- 1

Statewide Monitoring Networks:

To address the need fo r increased groundwater quality monitoring coverage of the state to meet program goals, DEP has worked with the USGS to design a statewide, watershed

- based groundwater quality network using the stratified approach applied i n the USGS National Water Quality Assessment project for the lower Susquehanna River. There have been 13 major aquifer categories identified for the network based on dominant rock type or geolithologies. The distribution of these geolithic units (except for the glacial outwash) are shown on Figure D

- 2.60 Figure D

- 2

To develop the groundwater network, 30 groundwater monitoring points are needed within each geolithic unit. This network can be reconfigured to be analyzed based upon various delineated

water shed.

Part D2

. USGS Groundwater Quality Data Compilation for Pennsylvania

Under a joint funding agreement with the Bureau of Safe Drinking Water , the U.S. Geological Survey has updated a digital Data Series report that provides a compilation of electroni cally available groundwater quality data for a 28

- year period based on water samples from wells throughout Pennsylvania (Figure D

- 3). Twelve data sources from local, state, and federal agencies were used in the updated compilation, which covers 11 differe nt analyte groups. The data are presented both in terms of 35 former water planning watersheds used by DEP as well as the 13 major geolithologic units representing the major aquifers in the state. Over 24,000 wells were included in the project and the number of analyses ranged from several thousand for nutrients and other inorganic compounds to two dozen for antibiotics. The number of wells sampled varies considerably across the state with most being concentrated near major urban

centers. Minimal data exists for about a fourth of the state. When compared to maximum contaminant levels (MCL), the analyte group with the highest MCL exceedance was microorganisms (50% of 4,674 samples), followed by volatile organic compounds (24% of 4,528 samples). The lo west MCL exceedances were for insecticides (<1% of 1,424 samples) and wastewater compounds (<1% of 328 samples). With limited monitoring of ambient groundwater in only a handful of basins in the Ambient/Fixed Station Monitoring Networks, this compilation will help fill in data gaps and shed light on how to establish a more complete statewide groundwater monitoring network. This data co mpilation in addition to capturing compliance ground water quality data will help address ground water data needs in the a rea of unconventional hydrocarbon development in the state. The report (Low, D.J., Chichester, D.C.61

and Zarr, L.F. 2008. Selected gro undwater quality data in Pennsylvania

– 1979

- 2006: USGS Data Series 314, 22 p.) is available on

- line at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/314/

Figure D

- 3

Part D3

. Sources of Groundwater Contamination

Each DEP regional office defined its highest priority sources of groundwater contamination.

These concerns are consistent from the 2008 report and are shown below in Table D

- 1. The priorities include industrial facilities, underground storage tanks, hazardous waste sites, abandoned landfills, aboveground storage tanks, manure/fertilizer applications, chemical facilities, and septic systems . The contaminants associated with these sources are also shown. Multiple regional studies have indicated 30% to 90% of private water wells have total coliform contamination. In addition, one study showed up to 30% E. coli contamination. The USGS study

R elation Between Selected Well Construction Characteristics And Occurrence Of Bacteria In Private Household Supply Wells, South

- Central And Southeastern Pennsylvania, WRIR 01

- 4206, stated that either or both well construction and aquifer contamination could be responsible for the results but problems were more likely to occur where the well was poorly constructed.62 Table D

- 1

. Major Sources of Groundwater Contamination

Contaminant Source Highest

- Priority Sources (√) Factors Considered in

Selecting Contaminant Sources (1) Contaminants

(2) Agricultural Activities

Animal feedlots

Chemical facilities √ ADCEFG ABCDE
Drainage wells Manure/fertilizer applications √ ABCDEFGH DEIK On site pesticide

mixing/loading
Pesticide applications Storage/Treatment

Activities

Land application of biosolids Lawn maintenance/pest

treatment Material stockpiles Storage tanks (above ground) √ ABCDEFG ABC
Storage tanks (underground) √ ABCDEFGH ABCDEGIJK Surface impoundments

Waste piles or tailings Disposal Activities

Abandoned landfills √ AB C D E ADGJ

Land f ills (c urrent) Septic syste m s √ ABCDEFGH EIK Underground injections

wells Resource Extraction Abandoned/existing oil/gas

wells Abandoned/poorly built water
wells Coal m i ning/acid m i ne drainage
Quarries (n o ncoal)/borrow pits

Other

A t m ospheric deposition

Industrial facilities √ AB C D EFG AB C G

Hazardous waste

generators Hazardous waste sites √ ABCDEFG ABCDEGHIJK

Natural groundwater

conditions (3)

Petroleu m

/ fuel pipelines

Sewer lines Salt storage and road deicing Spill s /trans p ort a tion of m a t er i a l s Urban runoff63 (1) Factors in Selecting a Contaminant Source (2) Contaminants

A. Human health and/or environmental risk (toxicity) A. Volatile organic chemicals

B. Size of the population at risk B. Petroleum compounds

C. Location of the source relative to drinking water sources C. MTBE/TBA

D. Number and/or size of contaminant sources D. Pesticides

E. Hydrogeologic sensitivity E. Nitrates

F. State findings, other findings F. Salinity/brine

G. Documented from mandatory reporting G Metals

H. Geographic distribution/occurrence H. Radionuclides

I. Other criteria (please describe) I. Microbiological

J. Sulfates, manganese and/or iron

K. Total dissolved solids

L. Other contaminant (please describe)

(3) This could include natural occurring contaminants such as radium, radon, sulfate, iron, manganese, salt, etc.

Part D4

. Statewide Groundwater Protection Programs

A summary of state groundwater protection programs is presented in Table D

- 2. Important groundwater protection programs are summarized following the table. Pennsylvania does not have statewide, private water well construction standards.

Table D

- 2

. Summary of State Groundwater Protection Programs

Programs or Activities Implementation

Status Responsible State Agency

Active SARA Title I II Program Fully established BLRWM Ambient groundwater monitoring system Continuing efforts BSDW Aquifer vulnerability assessment (pesticides) Continuing efforts PDA Aquifer mapping Continuing efforts BTGS
Aquifer characterization Continuing efforts BTGS
Comprehensive data management system Under development BSDW *

EPA

- endorsed Core Comprehensive State Groundwater Protection Program (CSGWPP) Partially established BSDW *

Groundwater discharge permits Continuing efforts RWM
Groundwater Best Management Practices Continuing efforts BSDW * Groundwater legislation (remediation) Fully established BLRWM
Groundwater classification (remediation) Continuing efforts BLRWM Groundwater quality standards (remediation) Fully established BLRWM

Interagency coordination for groundwater protection

initiatives Continuing efforts BSDW *64

Programs or Activities Implementation

Status Responsible State Agency

Non

- point source controls Continuing efforts BPNP *
Pesticide State Management Plan Continuing efforts PDA

Pollution Prevention Plan Continuing efforts OPPCA

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Primacy Fully established BLRWM

Source Water Assessment Program (EPA approved 2000) Fully established BSDW

State Superfund Fully established BLRWM State RCRA Program incorporating more stringent requirements than RCRA primacy Not applicable

State septic system regulations Fully established BPNP Underground storage tank installation requirements Fully established BLRWM
Underground storage tank remediation fund Fully established BLRWM
Underground storage tank permit program Fully established BLRWM Underground injection control program Not applicable; EPA direct implementation Vulnerability assessment for drinking water/wellhead protection Partially established BSDW *

Well abandonment guidelines Fully established BTGS* Wellhead Protection Program (EPA approved 1999) Continuing effort BSDW

Well installation regulations (Public Water Supplies) Fully established BSDW

Others:

Monitoring well installation guidance Fully established BSDW *

Nutrient management program Continuing efforts BCR Private well installation guidance Continuing efforts BSDW Voluntary site remediation program Fully established BLRWM

BLRWM DEP Bureau of Environmental Cleanup and Brownfields

BTGS Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey, De partment of Conservation and

Natural Resources

B CR DEP Bureau of Conservation and Restoration

BPNP M DEP Bureau of Point and Nonpoint Source Management

BSDW DEP Bureau of Safe Drinking Water

OPPCA DEP Office of Pollution Prevention and E nergy Assistance

PDA Bureau of Plant I ndustry, Department of Agriculture

RWM DEP Regional Water Management Program * Indicates lead agency

Part D5

. Groundwater Protection Program

DEP’s Principles for Groundwater Pollution Prevention and Remediation (DEP ID: 383

- 0800

- 001), is available on DEP's website at http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/serve r.pt/community/dep_home/596865

and has been in place since 1996. This document sets forth the principles for a consistent statewide program for prevention of groundwater pollution and remediation of contaminated groundwater. The ultimate goal for groundwate r protection, as set forth in the Principles, is prevention of groundwater contamination whenever possible.

Part D6

. Wellhead Protection and Source Water Protec tion Program

Pennsylvania’s Wellhead Protection Program (WHP) is the cornerstone of the Source Water Assessment and Protection (SWAP) Program for groundwater resources serving public water systems. Pennsylvania’s Wellhead Protection Program (WHP) was developed in 1989 and subsequently approved by EPA in 1999. The Pennsylvania safe drinking water regulations direct public water suppliers to find and utilize the best sources available and take measures necessary to protect those sources. These regulations define wellhead protection, set permitting requirements for groundwater resources, and set for th requirements for state approval of local WHP programs.

More than 600 municipalities or water suppliers are developing or implementing local WHP programs and/or watershed protection programs. DEP provides direct technical assistance, and

supports partne rships to assist communities and water systems to protect community drinking water sources from contamination. These efforts and previous grants support the voluntary development of local Source Water Protection (SWP) programs that meet DEP's minimum

req uirements. Since 2007, direct technical assistance has been provided to community water systems and municipalities through the Source Water Protection Technical Assistance Program. Over 90 Community Water Systems (CWS) are participating in the program at this time. In addition to protecting public health and infrastructure investment by avoiding costly contamination, local SWP efforts complement watershed protection and management through

sound land

- use planning and pollution prevention activities. Sourc e water protection is an integral part of a sustainable infrastructure for public water supply.

Part D7

. Source Water Assessment and Protection (SWAP) Program

The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization requires that states develop a Source Water

As sessment and Protection (SWAP) Program. The SWAP program assesses the drinking water sources that serve public water systems for their susceptibility to pollution. This information is used as a basis for building voluntary, community

- based barriers to drin king water contamination. States are required to assess all sources (both groundwater and surface water) serving public water systems. In Pennsylvania, this represents about 14,000 permanent drinking water sources. EPA approved Pennsylvania’s SWAP progr am in March 2000. Pennsylvania has completed the source water assessments for 98% of systems in the state. Under the plan, Pennsylvania will continue to conduct assessments for new sources and update completed

assessments as needed.

For the assessments t hat have been completed, the SWAP program has delineated the boundaries of the areas providing source waters for all public water systems and has identified (to the extent practicable) the origins of regulated and certain unregulated contaminants in the de lineated area to determine the susceptibility of the water sources to such contaminants.66

The SWAP program provides prioritized information on the potential sources of contamination

that will be the basis for coordination of restoration efforts and devel opment of local source water protection programs. These efforts will lead to improvements in raw water quality and may also result in reduced treatment costs for the public water system. The following table provides a summary of the results of the source water assessments for the most common and the most threatening potential sources of contamination to sources of public drinking water conducted under the EPA Program. More detail on how the source water assessments

were conducted can be found in the Sourc e Water Assessment and Protection Program guidance.

Table D

- 3

. Most Prevalent and Threatening Sources of Contamination

Source water assessments support emergency response, improved land use planning and municipal decisions. They also prioritize and help coordinate actions by federal and state agencies to better protect public health and safety. Spill detection and emergency response networks for public water systems in Pennsylva nia have been established on the Allegheny, Monongahela, Susquehanna, Sc huylkill, and Delaware Rivers. They include a variety of on

- line detectors to alert operators to imminent changes in raw water quality at surface water intakes. Long

- term trends in ra w water conditions based on data provided by these monitors may be the

b asis for restoration and protection efforts or changes in water treatment schedules. The core of these programs is the Internet based communication network that shares raw water data, incident information, and response efforts in real

- time.