# * #
(1) Agency:
Department of Environmental Protection
(2) Agency Number:
Identification Number: #7-438
APR 1 4 2010
IRJRC Number
r: rWJ
(3) Short Title:
Stream Redesignations, Clarks Creek, et al.
(4) PA Code Cite:
25 Pa. Code, Chapter 93
(5) Agency Contacts (List Telephone Number, Address, Fax Number and Email Address):
Primary Contact: Michele Tate; 717-783-8727; RCSOB, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, PA 17105;
mtate(a),state. ya.us
Secondary Contact: Kelly Heffher; 717-783-8727; RCSOB, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, PA
17105; AAc/%2r(%fafc.joa.^
(6) Primary Contact for Public Comments (List Telephone Number, Address, Fax Number and
Email Address) - Complete if different from #5:
Environmental Quality Board, P.O. Box 8477, Harrisburg, PA 17105
Express Mail: Environmental Quality Board, Rachel Carson State Office Building, 16th Floor, 400
Market Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101-2301
Email: RegComments@state.pa.us
(All Comments will appear on IRRC }S website)
(7) Type of Rulemaking (check applicable box):
0 Proposed Regulation
Q Final Regulation
Q Final Omitted Regulation
O Emergency Certification Regulation;
0 Certification by the Governor
1 | Certification by the Attorney General
(8) Briefly explain the regulation in clear and nontechnical language. (100 words or less)
This proposal modifies Chapter 93 to reflect the recommended redesignation of streams shown on the
attached list. The changes include streams being considered for redesignation as High Quality (HQ) or
Exceptional Value (EV) Waters. The changes provide the appropriate designated use for these streams
to protect existing uses. These changes may, upon implementation, result in more stringent treatment
requirements for new and/or expanded wastewater discharges to the streams in order to protect the
existing and designated water uses.
(9) Include a schedule for review of the regulation including:
A. The date by which the agency must receive public comments: Comments must be received 45
days after the public comment period opens.
B. The date or dates on which public meetings or hearings will be held: If sufficient interest is
generated, a public hearing will be scheduled at an appropriate time and location.
C. The expected date of promulgation of the proposed regulation as a final-form regulation: It is
anticipated that the final-form regulation will be promulgated in 2011. The publication date for the final
rulemaking in the Pennsylvania Bulletin will be the effective date for the regulation and compliance with
the final-form regulation will be required at that time.
D. The expected effective date of the final-form regulation: 2011 (see question #9C.)
E. The date by which compliance with the final-form regulation will be required: 2011 (see
Question #9C.)
F. The date by which required permits, licenses or other approvals must be obtained: Permits or
approvals that are issued or renewed after the effective date of the final-form regulation will comply with
the final-form regulation.
(10) Provide the schedule for continual review of the regulation.
This regulation will be reviewed in accordance with the sunset review schedule published by the
Department to determine whether the regulation effectively fulfills the goals for which it was intended.
(11) State the statutory authority for the regulation. Include specific statutory citation.
These proposed amendments are made under authority of the following acts:
The Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law, Act of June 22, 1937 (P.L. 1987, No. 394) as amended,
35 P.S.S 691.1 etseq.
Section 1920-A of The Administrative Code of 1929, as amended, 71 P.S. §510-20.
40 CFR §131.32
Section 303 of the Federal Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1313.
(12) Is the regulation mandated by any federal or state law or court order, or federal regulation?
Are there any relevant state or federal court decisions? If yes, cite the specific law, case or
regulation as well as, any deadlines for action.
Although this regulation is not specifically mandated by Federal or state law or regulations, Section 303
(c) of the federal Clean Water Act requires that states review their water quality standards and modify
them, as appropriate, at least once every three years. This regulation is undertaken as part of the
Department's ongoing review of Pennsylvania's water quality standards. There are no deadlines for
action associated with the regulation. Until this regulation is adopted, however, it will be difficult to
ensure that the Department is providing the appropriate designated uses of these streams.
(13) State why the regulation is needed. Explain the compelling public interest that justifies the
regulation. Describe who will benefit from the regulation. Quantify the benefits as completely as
possible and approximate the number of people who will benefit.
These regulations are needed to provide the appropriate designated use protection for the streams being
revised to mirror the existing use. These amendments will minimize the potential for unwarranted
additional treatment costs, or the risk of being under-protective, which could lead to jeopardizing the
uses and continued availability of these aquatic resources.
(14) If scientific data, studies, references are used to justify this regulation, please submit material
with the regulatory package. Please provide full citation and/or links to internet source.
Please see the attached reports (six); ffafer gzWzYy ^cWarak ^eWei^, &rg6fm /W&szgMafz'o??
.EWwafzofZf
# Pine Creek (Schuylkill Co)
» Cacoosing Creek (Berks Co)
* UNT Schuylkill River; Sprmg Mz// V?%,? (Montgomery Co)
• UNT Lackawanna River; Clarks Creek (Wayne Co)
• UNT Conestoga River (Lancaster Co)
* Hammer Creek (Lancaster & Lebanon Co's)
(15) Describe who and how many will be adversely affected by the regulation. How are they
affected?
The streams that are proposed for redesignation are already protected at their existing use, and therefore
the designated use changes will have no impact on existing wastewater discharges. Persons proposing
new or expanded activities or projects which result in discharges to these and/or other waters of the
Commonwealth are required to provide effluent treatment according to the water quality criteria and
designated and existing uses. This regulation will be implemented through the Department's permit and
approval actions.
(16) List the persons, groups or entities that will be required to comply with the regulation.
Approximate the number of people who will be required to comply.
See Question #15. Persons proposing new or expanded activities or projects which result in impacts to
these waters of the Commonwealth must comply with this regulation by providing the appropriate level
of wastewater treatment for discharges or best management practices in these waters.
mmmmmmmegm
(17) Provide a specific estimate of the costs and/or savings to the regulated community associated
with compliance, including any legal, accounting or consulting procedures which may be required.
Explain how the dollar estimates were derived.
The streams proposed for redesignation are already protected at their existing use, and therefore the
designated use revision will have no impact on existing waste discharges. This regulation may, upon
implementation, affect new and expanded activities associated with these streams. For example,
dischargers planning to add new, or expand existing, discharges to streams upgraded may experience
higher treatment costs. The increased costs may take the form of higher engineering, construction, or
operating costs for wastewater treatment facilities. It is not possible to precisely predict the actual
change in costs since these are site-specific and depend upon the size of the receiving stream and many
other factors.
(18) Provide a specific estimate of the costs and/or savings to local governments associated with
compliance, including any legal, accounting or consulting procedures which may be required.
Explain how the dollar estimates were derived.
See Question 17.
No costs will be imposed directly upon local government by this regulation. However, there may, upon
implementation, be additional indirect costs incurred by local governments that may take the form of
engineering and consulting fees needed to review and possibly revise existing Act 537 Sewage Facilities
Plans and local ordinances.
(19) Provide a specific estimate of the costs and/or savings to state government associated with the
implementation of the regulation, including any legal, accounting, or consulting procedures which
may be required. Explain how the dollar estimates were derived.
See Questions 17 and 18.
This proposal is based on and will be implemented through existing Department programs, procedures,
and policies. There are no additional implementation costs associated with this regulation.
(20) In the table below, provide an estimate of the fiscal savings and costs associated with
implementation and compliance for the regulated community, local government, and state
government for the current year and five subsequent years.
SAVINGS:
Regulated Community
Local Government
State Government
Total Savings
COSTS:
Regulated Community
Local Government
State Government
Total Costs
REVENUE LOSSES:
Regulated Community
Local Government
State Government
Total Revenue Losses
Current FY
2009-2010
$
Measurable
"
Measurable
Measurable
"
FY+1
$
20042
$
$
FY+4
$
FY+5
2014-2015
$
(20a) Provide the past three year expenditure history for programs affected by the regulation.
Program
Environmental
Protection
Operations (160)
Environmental
Program
Management
(161)
FY-3
2006-2007
$89,847,000
$36,868,000
2007-2008
$98,574,000
$39,685,000
2008-2009
$98,544,000
$37,664,000
Current FY
2009-2010
$85,069,000
$32,694,000
(21) Explain how the benefits of the regulation outweigh any cost and adverse effects.
Although it is not possible to approximate the change in costs, the Department believes that the benefits
of providing the appropriate level of designated use protection and continued maintenance and
availability of the Commonwealth's aquatic resources outweigh the potential costs or adverse effects of
this proposal.
(22) Describe the communications with and input from the public and any advisory council/group
in the development and drafting of the regulation. List the specific persons and/or groups who
were involved.
Potentially affected municipalities were notified by letter of the stream evaluations and asked to provide
any readily available data. The affected municipalities were later notified of the availability of a draft
evaluation report, posted on DEP's web page, for public review and comment.
Technical data was received concerning Pine Creek (Schuylkill Co). In response to these notifications,
the Rush Township Environmental Council submitted a report prepared by Skelly and Loy and excerpts
from a second report prepared by Kimball and Associates, Inc. for the Schuylkill Conservation District.
The Skelly and Loy report contained information on instream habitat, water chemistry, and the benthic
macroinvertebrate community. Water chemistry data was collected in Fall 1998, Spring 1999, Spring
2000 and Fall 2000. Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected in the Spring of 1999 and 2000. An
assessment of the instream and riparian habitat was conducted in the Fall of 2001. The second report
contained data on two water chemistry parameters pH and CaCO]. These were listed as averages of four
samples collected over the period December 1998 through October 2000.
Technical data and comments were received concerning Hammer Creek (Lebanon & Lancaster Co's).
David Correll from the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center provided water chemistry data for
Hammer Creek. The Department received letters from the Hammer Creek Watershed Association,
Heidelberg and Warwick Townships, PennEnvironment, and the Pennsylvania Chapter of the Sierra
Club in opposition to the changing of designation.
The Hammer Creek report and original recommendations (June 2007) to remove the HQ designation
from the Hammer Creek basin and change the designated use of Speedwell Forge Lake to Warm Water
Fishes (WWF) were provided to the petitioner and posted on DEP's web page for public review and
comment. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) submitted a letter opposing the Department's
findings and a report (CBF 2008) summarizing conditions of the Hammer Creek watershed.
All data and comments received in response to these notifications were considered in the determination
of the Department's recommendations.
(23) Include a description of any alternative regulatory provisions which have been considered
and rejected and a statement that the least burdensome acceptable alternative has been selected.
There were no alternative regulatory schemes that could have been considered when applying the
appropriate designated use in 25 Pa.Code, Chapter 93, Water Quality Standards, to mirror the existing
uses of these aquatic resources.
(24) Are there any provisions that are more stringent than federal standards? If yes, identify the
specific provisions and the compelling Pennsylvania interest that demands stronger regulations.
No. The proposed regulations are not more stringent than the companion federal standards allow.
(25) How does this regulation compare with those of other states? How will this affect
Pennsylvania's ability to compete with other states?
Other states are also required to maintain water quality standards that include similar minimum
antidegradation requirements, and to provide additional protection for surface waters that are considered
ecologically significant and/or outstanding local resource waters.
These regulations should not put Pennsylvania at a competitive disadvantage with other states. These
amendments are intended to provide the appropriate level of designated use protection for the streams
(26) Will the regulation affect any other regulations of the promulgating agency or other state
agencies? If yes, explain and provide specific citations.
No other regulations or State Agencies are affected by this proposal.
(27) Submit a statement of legal, accounting or consulting procedures and additional reporting,
recordkeeping or other paperwork, including copies of forms or reports, which will be required
for implementation of the regulation and an explanation of measures which have been taken to
minimize these requirements.
No additional reporting, record keeping, or other paperwork will be required.
(28) Please list any special provisions which have been developed to meet the particular needs of
affected groups or persons including, but not limited to, minorities, elderly, small businesses, and
farmers.
There are no such provisions in this proposed regulation. However, any future dischargers to HQ waters
will be given an opportunity to: (1) justify discharges which will degrade the stream based on
social/economic considerations, and (2) demonstrate that application of advanced treatment technology
or alternate wastewater handling/disposal techniques will allow the discharge to occur without degrading
the stream.
Regulatory Analysis Form
Attachment to Question #8
Stream Redesignations
Clarks Creek, et al.
Stream**
Pine Creek Cacoosing
Little Cacoosing
U1MT 00926 to Schuylkill River (Spring Mill UNT 28600 to
Lackawanna River (Clarks UNT 07792 to
Conestoga
Hammer Creek
Hammer Creek
Hammer Creek
Walnut Run Hammer Creek
Hammer Creek UTNT 07671 to Hammer Creek Hammer Creek
County Schuylkill
Berks
Berks
Montgomery
Lancaster
Lebanon
Lebanon
Lancaster
Lancaster Lancaster
Lancaster
Lancaster
Lancaster
Reach**
Basin Basin (except Little
Cacoosing Creek)
Basin, source to second Rexmont Road crossing (downstream of the two former water supply
reservoirs) Basin, second Rexmont Road crossing to but not including UNT 07678 Basin, from and including
UNT 07678 downstream to Walnut Run
Basin, Walnut Run to inlet of Speedwell Forge Lake Basin. Inlet of Speedwell Forge Lake to UNT 07671
Basin Basin, UNT 07671 downstream to Speedwell
Forge Lake Dam
Lis, F
F
F
<
°
o
o
o
0
Current Designation*
CWF, MF
None
None
WWF, MF
CWF, MF
WWF, MF
HQ-CWF, MF
HQ-CWF, MF
HQ-CWF, MF
HQ-CWF, MF HQ-CWF, MF
HQ-CWF, MF
HQ-CWF, MF
HQ-CWF, MF
Requested Designation*
EV
-
HQ / EV
HQ-CWF
CWP
TSF
TSF
TSF
TSF
TSF
TSF
Recommended Designation*
CWF, MF (/?o c/z^Mge)
CWF, MF
WWF. MF
CWF. MF
EV .MP
CWF, MF
HQ-CWF, MF
(MO CMOMgg)
CWF, MF
HQ-CWF, MF
(MO CMOMgg)
HQ-CWF, MF
(MO CM(3/7gg)
WWF. MF HQ-CWF, MF
(MO CMf/Mgg)
WWF, MF
Corrective Amendment Toms Run Clarion / Basin (except Little
Hefren Run) CWF ... EV
WWF = Warm Water Fishes TSF= Trout Stocking CWF= Cold Water Fishes UNT = Unnamed Tributary
HQ = High Quality EV = Exceptional Value MF = Migratory Fishes
CDL-1
FACE SHEET
FOR FILING DOCUMENTS
WITH THE LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE
BUREAU
(Pursuant to Commonwealth Documents Law)
Copy below is hereby approved as to form and legality.
Attorney General
(Deputy Attorney General)
APR 0 9 2018
DATE OF APPROVAL
1 # Check if applicable
Copy not approved. Objections attached.
APR 1 4 2010
INDEPENDENT REGULATORY REVIEW COMMISSION
Copy below is hereby certified to be true and correct copy of a document issued, prescribed or promulgated by:
DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE
Copy be\oyws hereby approved as to form and legality Executive gr IndependentAgencies^,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD
(AGENCY)
DOCUMENT/FISCAL NOTE NO. 7 - 4 3 8
DATE OF ADOPTION February 16, 2010
"5o&y\_ y W t y ^
TITLE JOHN HANGER CHAIRPERSON
EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHAIRMAN OR SECRETARY
AuWc cUlc
DATE OF APPROVAL (Deputy General Counsel).
T # Check if applicable. No Attorney General Approval or objection within 30 days after submission.
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD
Clarks Creek, et al Stream Redesignations 25 Pa. Code, Chapter 93
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD
25 Pa. Code, Chapter 93
Stream Redesignations (Clarks Creek, et al.)
Preamble
The Environmental Quality Board (Board) proposes to amend 25 Pa. Code §§93.9f, 93.9j, 93.9o
and 93.9r to read as set forth in Annex A.
This proposal was adopted by the Board at its meeting of February 16, 2010.
A. Effective Date
These amendments are effective upon publication in the fcMmy/vama JW/ffm as final-form
rulemaking.
B. Contact Persons
For further information, contact Richard H. Shertzer, Chief, Division of Water Quality Standards,
Bureau of Water Standards and Facility Regulation, 1 lth Floor, Rachel Carson State Office
Building, P.O. Box 8467, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8467, 717-787-9637 or
Michelle Moses, Assistant Counsel, Bureau of Regulatory Counsel, 9th Floor, Rachel Carson
State Office Building, P.O. Box 8464, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8464, 717-787-7060. Persons with
a disability may use the AT&T Relay Service by calling 1-800-654-5984 (TDD-users) or
1-800-654-5988 (voice users). This proposal is available electronically through the Department
of Environmental Protection (Department) Web site (http://www.depweb.state.pa.us).
C. Statutory and Regulatory Authority
This proposed rulemaking is being made under the authority of Sections 5(b)(l) and 402 of The
Clean Streams Law (35 P.S. §§ 691.5 (b)(l) and 691.402), which authorize the Board to develop
and adopt rules and regulations to implement the provisions of The Clean Streams Law, and Section
1920-A of The Administrative Code of 1929 (71 P.S. § 510-20), which grants to the Board the
power and duty to formulate, adopt, and promulgate rules and regulations for the proper
performance of the work of the Department. In addition, Section 303 of the Federal Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. §1313) sets forth requirements for water quality standards and the federal regulation
at 40 CFR § 131.32 (relating to Pennsylvania) sets forth certain requirements for portions of the
Commonwealth's antidegradation program.
D. Background of the Proposed Amendments
Water quality standards are in-stream water quality goals that are implemented by imposing
specific regulatory requirements (such as treatment requirements, effluent limits, and best
management practices (BMPs)) on individual sources of pollution.
Page 1 of 8
The Department may identify candidates for redesignation during routine waterbody
investigations. Requests for consideration may also be initiated by other agencies.
Organizations, businesses, or individuals may submit a rulemaking petition to the Board.
The Department considers candidates for High Quality (HQ) or Exceptional Value (EV) Waters
and all other designations in its ongoing review of water quality standards. In general, HQ and
EV waters must be maintained at their existing quality, and permitted activities shall ensure the
protection of designated and existing uses.
Existing use protection is provided when the Department determines, based on its evaluation of
the best available scientific information, that a surface water attains water uses identified in
regulations at 25 Pa. Code sections 93.3 and 93.4. Examples of water uses protected include the
following: Cold Water Fishes (CWF), Warm Water Fishes (WWF), HQ and EV. A final
existing use determination is made on a surface water at the time the Department takes a permit
or approval action on a request to conduct an activity that may impact surface water. If the
determination demonstrates that the existing use is different than the designated use, the water
body will immediately receive the best protection identified by either the attained uses or the
designated uses. A stream will then be "redesignated" through the rulemaking process to match
the existing uses with the designated uses. For example, if the designated use of a stream is
listed as protecting WWF but the redesignation evaluation demonstrates that the water attains the
use of CWF, the stream would immediately be protected for CWF, prior to a rulemaking. Once
the Department determines the water uses attained by a surface water, the Department will
recommend to the Board that the existing uses be made "designated" uses, through rulemaking,
and be added to the list of uses identified in the regulation at 25 Pa. Code section 93.9.
These streams were evaluated in response to four petitions, as well as requests from the
Department's Southcentral Regional Office (SCRO) and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
Commission (PFBC), and a corrective amendment by BWSFR as follows:
Pine Creek (Schuylkill Co) - Petition: (Friends of Pine Creek)
Cacoosing Creek (Berks Co) - SCRO
Unnamed Tributary 00926 to Schuylkill River; locally Spring Mill Run (Montgomery
Co) - Petition: (Steven S. Brown, Chairman; Whitemarsh Township Environmental
Advisory Board)
Unnamed Tributary 28600 to Laekawanna River; locally Clarks Creek (Wayne Co) -
Petition: (Glen Abello)
Unnamed Tributary 07792 to Conestoga River (Lancaster Co) - PFBC
Hammer Creek (Lebanon and Lancaster Co's) - Petition: (Heidelberg Township)
Toms Run (Clarion and Forest Co's) - Correction (BWSFR)
These regulatory changes were developed as a result of aquatic studies conducted by the BWSFR.
The physical, chemical, and biological characteristics and other information on these waterbodies
were evaluated to determine the appropriateness of the current and requested designations using
applicable regulatory criteria and definitions. In reviewing whether waterbodies qualify as HQ or
EV waters, the Department considers the criteria in § 93.4b (relating to qualifying as HQ or EV
Waters). Based upon the data and information collected on these waterbodies, the Department
Page 2 of8
recommends the Board adopt this proposed regulation as described in this preamble and as set forth
in Annex A.
Copies of the Department's stream evaluation reports for these waterbodies are available on the
Department's website or from the contacts whose addresses and telephone numbers are listed in
Section B.
The following is a brief explanation of the recommendations for each waterbody:
f me C/T2& - Pine Creek (stream code 02269) is a tributary to the Little Schuylkill River in the
Delaware River drainage basin. The Pine Creek basin is located in Delano, Rush, and Ryan
Townships in Schuylkill County. The Pine Creek basin is currently designated CWF, MF and
was evaluated for redesignation based on a petition submitted by the Friends of Pine Creek. Pine
Creek was evaluated for redesignation as EV waters. Candidate station metrics were compared
to Pine Creek (01701), which is an EV, MF stream in Berks County. The reference stream (Pine
Creek; 01701) is a tributary to Manatawny Creek. The candidate basin failed to meet the 83%
comparison standard and as a result does not qualify for either an EV or HQ-CWF use
designation under the Department's regulatory criteria (§93.4b(b)(l)(v) and §93.4b(a)(2)(i)(A)).
The Department recommends that Pine Creek basin retain its current CWF, MF designation.
C^coo^mg CrefA - Cacoosing Creek (stream code 01850) is a tributary to Tulpehocken Creek in
the Delaware River basin. The Cacoosing Creek basin is located west of Reading in South
Heidelberg, Lower Heidelberg, and Spring Townships; and the Boroughs of Sinking Spring and
Wemersville in Berks County. The only named tributary to Cacoosing Creek is Little Cacoosing
Creek and both were inadvertently omitted from Chapter 93. The fish populations of the
Cacoosing Creek basin were sampled during various surveys conducted by Department and
PFBC staff. While the Cacoosing Creek fishery was very diverse and dominated by species
commonly associated with cold-water habitats (trout, blacknose and longnose dace, white sucker
and mottled sculpin) the Little Cacoosing Creek fishery was dominated by the banded killifish, a
warm water species. The Department recommends that the Cacoosing Creek basin (excluding
the Little Cacoosing Creek subbasin) be designated CWF, MF and the Little Cacoosing Creek
basin be designated WWF, MF.
[7r???d/7W 7n Wary 00P26 fo 5c/z%y/W 7fzwr, (7oca//y &M0WM <%s 5prmg Mz/Z j?%r^ - Spring Mill
Run is a tributary to the Schuylkill River in the Delaware River watershed. The candidate basin
is a limestone influenced stream located in Whitemarsh Township, Montgomery County. Spring
Mill Run is currently designated WWF, MF and was evaluated for redesignation as a Special
Protection water-body in response to a petition from Mr. Steven S. Brown (Chairman of the
Whitemarsh Township Environmental Advisory Board). Elk Creek (Centre County) was
selected as a reference stream because it is a limestone influenced stream that is designated EV,
MF in Chapter 93. All stations on Spring Mill Run had biological condition scores less than 83%
of the reference station on Elk Creek. This indicates that Spring Mill Run does not qualify for
Special Protection designation under the Department's regulatory criterion (§ 93.4b(b)(l)(v)).
The Department recommends that the Spring Mill Run basin be redesignated to CWF, MF. This
recommendation is based on the cold water fish populations that are found in Spring Mill Run.
Page 3 o f 8
[7w%2#W 7 n W a r y 2^600 ro Zac^wa^^a Tfzver, (7oca//y ^OM;/7 ^ C/ar^ Oree^ - Clarks
Creek is a tributary to the Lackawanna River in Clinton Township, Wayne County and it is
included in the Susquehanna River watershed. Clarks Creek basin is currently designated CWF,
MF, and was evaluated for redesignation as HQ-CWF based on the petition submitted by Glen
Abello. Candidate stream metrics were compared to Dimmick Meadow Brook, which is an EV,
MF reference stream. This reference stream is a tributary to Sawkill Creek located in Pike
County and has comparable drainage area to Clarks Creek. The Department recommends that
the protected use designation of Clarks Creek be changed from CWF, MF to EV, MF based on
biological condition scores greater than 92% of the reference station score.
[//7?26/mg6/ 7H6%fwy 077P2 /o OoM&sfoga ^zver fLW7 OoM&sYoga J?zver) - UNT Conestoga River
is a limestone creek which flows through Earl and East Earl Townships in Lancaster County
before entering the Conestoga River which is included in the Susquehanna River drainage basin.
The Department conducted an evaluation of UNT Conestoga River in response to a request by
the PFBC. The current Chapter 93 designated use for UNT Conestoga River is WWF, MF. The
UNT Conestoga River supports a cold water fishery as indicated by the available physical,
benthic macroinvertebrate, and fish data. The Department recommends that the UNT Conestoga
River basin be redesignated CWF, MF.
TTammcr Cr^gA - Hammer Creek (stream code 07664) is a tributary to Cocalico Creek in the
Susquehanna River drainage basin and is located in Cornwall, South Lebanon, and Heidelberg
Townships in Lebanon County and Penn and Elizabeth Townships in Lancaster County.
Hammer Creek basin is characterized by both freestone and limestone/limestone-influenced
streams. The candidate section of Hammer Creek basin from its source to the Speedwell Forge
Lake Dam is currently designated HQ-CWF, MF and was evaluated for a redesignation to Trout
Stocking (TSF) in response to a petition submitted by Heidelberg Township.
Based on the Department's evaluation of the Hammer Creek basin, the following revisions and
redesignations are recommended:
The Department has determined the forested and relatively undisturbed nature of the headwaters
of the Hammer Creek basin upstream of the second Rexmont Road Crossing justifies retention of
the current HQ-CWF designation. Therefore, the Department recommends no change to the
designated use above the second Rexmont Road Crossing.
The remaining portion of the upper Hammer Creek basin from the second Rexmont Road
crossing downstream to, but not including UNT 07678, was originally and erroneously
designated HQ based on a misclassificaiton of the existing use as indicated by water quality
evaluations conducted in the mid-1970 's. A review of the historical data, recent field surveys,
and land use reviews does not establish that an HQ existing use was ever realized for that portion
of the basin. The current HQ-CWF designated use of this portion of the upper basin cannot be
attained by either implementing effluent limits required under the Federal Clean Water Act, or
implementing cost-effective and reasonable best management practices (BMPs) for nonpoint
source control. The human caused conditions that prevent the attainment of the designated use
cannot be remedied to the level needed for HQ-CWF use attainment. The Department
recommends that the Hammer Creek basin from the second Rexmont Road crossing downstream
to, but not including UNT 07678 be redesignated as CWF.
Page 4 of 8
Walnut Run enters Hammer Creek below the mouth of UNT 07678. The station on Walnut Run
had a biological condition score greater than 92% of the EV reference station on Segloch Run
(tributary to Furnace Run; Lancaster County). It is recommended that Walnut Run be
redesignated as EV, based on the biological condition scoring criteria at 25 Pa. Code
§93.4b(b)(l)(v).
While Department findings indicate that much of the upper Hammer Creek basin (above the
confluence with UNT 07678) does not now and never has displayed HQ existing uses, there are
some remaining portions of the lower Hammer Creek basin that exhibit better water quality
conditions. These reaches of the Hammer Creek basin are (1.) from and including UNT 07678
downstream to Walnut Run; (2.) from Walnut Run to the inlet of Speedwell Forge Lake; and (3.)
UNT 07671, which is a northern tributary to Speedwell Forge Lake The condition of the lower
basin is better than that of the upper portion of Hammer Creek and, even though portions of the
lower basin do not currently meet HQ biological condition scoring criteria, a lack of historical
information on the lower basin precludes removal of the HQ designation. The Department
recommends that the Hammer Creek basin from and including UNT 07678 downstream to the
inlet of Speedwell Forge Lake (except Walnut Run) and the basin of UNT 07671 should retain
the current HQ-CWF designation.
Speedwell Forge Lake, constructed in 1966, is characterized by the predominance of warm water
conditions and it has historically supported a warm water fish community since it was
constructed, and it has been managed by the PFBC as such. The Department recommends that
Speedwell Forge Lake be redesignated as WWF.
The Department recommends that the entire Hammer Creek basin should maintain its current
Migratory Fishes (MF) designated use.
Toms Run - In addition to these recommended revisions, the Department proposes a correction to
an error that occurred during the 2000 RBI WQS Triennial Review rulemaking. Toms Run is a
tributary to the Clarion River in Forest County. Toms Run basin (except Little Hefren Run) was
redesignated from CWF to EV as a result of the French Creek, et al. stream redesignations
package. The French Creek package was published as a proposed rulemaking in the
Pennsylvania Bulletin on March 22, 1997 (27 PaB 1449), and as a final rulemaking on
September 5, 1998 (28 PaB 4510). At the same time, the RBI WQS Triennial Review proposed
rulemaking was considered and approved by the EQB on June 16, 1998, and published on
August 29, 1998 (28 PaB 4431). The RBI WQS Triennial Review intended to eliminate the site
specific criteria for Threshold Odor Number (TON), which affected much of the Clarion River
basin (§93.9r), including Toms Run. Unfortunately, while drafting the RBI WQS Triennial final
rulemaking, the then recent final redesignation for Toms Run basin was not updated, thereby
incorrectly reverting the EV designation back to CWF when the RBI WQS Triennial was
published as final rulemaking on November 18, 2000 (30 PaB 6059). Therefore, the Department
recommends that Toms Run basin (except Little Hefren Run) be corrected to EV as approved in
the French Creek, et al rulemaking. Little Hefren Run basin will remain CWF.
Page 5 of 8
E. Benefits, Costs and Compliance
1. Benefits - Overall, the Commonwealth, its citizens and natural resources will benefit from
these recommended changes because they provide the appropriate level of protection in
order to preserve the integrity of existing and designated uses of surface waters in this
Commonwealth. Protecting water quality provides economic value to present and future
generations in the form of clean water for drinking, recreational opportunities, and aquatic
life protection. It is important to realize these benefits to ensure opportunity and
development continue in a manner that is environmentally, socially and economically sound.
Maintenance of water quality ensures its future availability for all uses.
2. Compliance Costs - The proposed amendments to Chapter 93 may impose additional
compliance costs on the regulated community. These regulatory changes are necessary to
improve total pollution control. The expenditures necessary to meet new compliance
requirements may exceed that which is required under existing regulations.
Persons conducting or proposing activities or projects must comply with the regulatory
requirements relating to designated and existing uses. Persons expanding a discharge or
adding a new discharge point to a stream could be adversely affected if they need to provide
a higher level of treatment to meet the designated and existing uses of the stream. These
increased costs may take the form of higher engineering, construction or operating cost for
wastewater treatment facilities. Treatment costs are site-specific and depend upon the size
of the discharge in relation to the size of the stream and many other factors. It is therefore
not possible to precisely predict the actual change in costs. Economic impacts would
primarily involve the potential for higher treatment costs for new or expanded discharges to
streams that are redesignated. The initial costs resulting from the installation of
technologically advanced wastewater treatment processes may be offset by potential savings
from and increased value of improved water quality through more cost-effective and
efficient treatment over time.
3. Compliance Assistance Plan - The regulatory revisions have been developed as part of
an established program that has been implemented by the Department since the early
1980s. The revisions are consistent with and based on existing Department regulations.
The revisions extend additional protection to selected waterbodies that exhibit
exceptional water quality and are consistent with antidegradation requirements
established by the Federal Clean Water Act and Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law. All
surface waters in this Commonwealth are afforded a minimum level of protection through
compliance with the water quality standards, which prevent pollution and protect existing
water uses.
The proposed amendments will be implemented through the Department's permit and
approval actions. For example, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permitting program bases effluent limitations on the use designation of the
stream. These permit conditions are established to assure water quality criteria are
achieved and designated and existing uses are protected. New and expanded dischargers
with water quality based effluent limitations are required to provide effluent treatment
Page 6 of 8
according to the water quality criteria associated with existing uses and revised
designated water uses.
4. Paperwork Requirements - The regulatory revisions should have no direct paperwork
impact on the Commonwealth, local governments and political subdivisions, or the
private sector. These regulatory revisions are based on existing Department regulations
and simply mirror the existing use protection that is already in place for these streams.
There may be some indirect paperwork requirements for new or expanding dischargers to
streams upgraded to HQ or EV. For example, NPDES general permits are not currently
available for new or expanded discharges to these streams. Thus an individual permit,
and its associated paperwork, would be required. Additionally, paperwork associated
with demonstrating social and economic justification (SEJ) may be required for new or
expanded discharges to certain HQ Waters, and consideration of nondischarge
alternatives is required for all new or expanded discharges to EV and HQ Waters.
F Pollution Prevention
The water quality standards and antidegradation program are major pollution prevention tools
because the objective is to prevent degradation by maintaining and protecting existing water
quality and existing uses. Although the antidegradation program does not prohibit new or
expanded wastewater discharges, nondischarge alternatives are encouraged, and required when
environmentally sound and cost effective. Nondischarge alternatives, when implemented,
remove impacts to surface water and reduce the overall level of pollution to the environment by
remediation of the effluent through the soil.
G Sunset Review
These proposed amendments will be reviewed in accordance with the sunset review schedule
published by the Department to determine whether the regulations effectively fulfill the goals for
which they were intended.
H. Regulatory Review
Under Section 5(a) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P.S. § 745.5(a)), on April 14, 2010, the
Department submitted a copy of the proposed rulemaking to the Independent Regulatory Review
Commission (IRRC) and to the Chairpersons of the Senate and House Environmental Resources
and Energy Committees for review and comment. In addition to submitting the proposed
amendments, IRRC and the Committees have been provided a detailed regulatory analysis form
prepared by the Department. A copy of this material is available to the public upon request.
Under Section 5(g) of the Regulatory Review Act, IRRC may convey any comments,
recommendations or objections to the proposed regulations within 30 days of the close of the public
comment period. The comments, recommendations or objections shall specify the regulatory review
criteria that have not been met. The Regulatory Review Act specifies detailed procedures for review
by the Department, the General Assembly and the Governor prior to final-form publication of the
regulations.
Page 7 of8
I. Public Comments
Written Comments - Interested persons are invited to submit comments, suggestions, or objections
regarding the proposed amendments to the Environmental Quality Board, P.O. Box 8477,
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8477 (express mail: Rachel Carson State Office Building, 16th Floor, 400
Market Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101-2301). Comments submitted by facsimile will not be
accepted. Comments must be received by the Board by June 8, 2010. Interested persons may also
submit a summary of their comments to the Board. The summary may not exceed one page in
length and must also be received by the Board by June 8, 2010. The one page summary will be
provided to each member of the Board in the agenda packet distributed prior to the meeting at which
the proposed amendments will be considered. If sufficient interest is generated as a result of this
publication, a public hearing will be scheduled at an appropriate location to receive additional
comments.
E/cofnWc CommerzAs' - Comments may be submitted electronically to the Board at
RegComments(%state.pa.us. A subject heading of the proposal and return name and address must
be included in each transmission. Comments submitted electronically must also be received by the
Board by June 8, 2010.
John Hanger
Chairperson
Environmental Quality Board
Page 8 of 8
§93.9f. Drainage List F
ANNEX A
TITLE 25. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
PART I. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Subpart C. PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
ARTICLE II. WATER RESOURCES CHAPTER 93. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Delaware River Basin in Pennsylvania Schuvlkill River
Stream
5—Plum Creek 4—Cacoosing Creek
5—Little Cacoosinq 4—Cacoosinq Creek 3—Tuipehocken Creek 3—Valley Creek 3—[Unnamed Tributaries] UNTs to Schuylkill River
3—Trout Creek 3—Arrowmink Creek 3—UNT 00926 at RM 18.9 (locally Sprinq Mill Run)
3—UNTs to Schuvlkill
3—Sawmill Run
Zone
Basin, [Unnamed Tributary]
UNTatRM 0.45 to Mouth Basin, Source to Little Cacoosinq Creek
Little Cacoosinq Creek to Mouth
Basin, T921 to IVIouth
Basins, Valley Creek to [Head of Tide] UNT 00926 at RM 18.9
Basin
Basins, UNT 00926 downstream to Head of Basin
County Berks
Berks Montgomery- Chester Chester- Montgomery
Montgomery Montgomery Montqomery Montqomerv - Philadelphia Montgomery
Protected CWF, MF CWF, MF WWF, MF CWF, MF WWF, MF
WWF, MF
WWF, MF WWF, MF CWF, MF WWF, MF
WWF, MF
Exceptions to Specific Criteria None
None
None
None
None
- 1 -
§93.9j. Drainage List J
Stream
2—Lackawanna River
3—[Unnamed Tributaries]
UNTs to Lackawanna River
3—-Brace Brook
3—UNT 28600 at RM 35.54 (locally Clarks Creek)
3—UNTs to Lackawanna
3—Wilson Creek
Susquehanna River Basin in Pennsylvania Lackawanna River
Main Stem, Confluence East and West Branches to SR 0347 Bridge at Dickson City Basins, Confluence of East and West Branches to [SR 0347 Bridge at Dickson City] UNT 28600 at RM
Basins, UNT 28600 at RM 35.54 downstream to SR 0347 Bridge at Dickson City
County Lackawanna
Susquehanna- Wayne[- Lackawanna]
Susquehanna Wayne Wavne - Lackawanna
Protected HQ-CWF,
CWF, MF
CWF, MF
CWF, MF
Exceptions to Specific Criteria None
None
Lackawanna CWF, MF None
§93.9o. Drainage List O
Stream
Susquehanna River Basin in Pennsylvania Susquehanna River
Zone County
Water Exceptions Uses to Specific Protected Criteria 2—Wilson Run
2—Conestoga River 3—UNT 07792 to Conestoqa River at RM
2—Conestoqa River
3—[Unnamed Tributaries]
UNTs to Conestoga 3—Muddy Creek
[Main Stem] Basin, Source to UNT 07792 at RM 43.05 Basin
Main Stem, UNT 07792 at RM 43.05 downstream to Mouth
Basins, UNT 07792 to Mouth
Main Stem, Source to Little Muddy Creek
Lancaster Lancaster
Lancaster
Berks- Lancaster Lancaster
WWF, MF WWF, MF CWF, MF
WWF, MF
WWF, MF TSF, MF
None None
None
None None
- 2 -
4—Middle Creek 4—Hammer Creek
4—Hammer Creek
4—Hammer Creek
5—Walnut Run 4—Hammer Creek
4—Hammer Creek
5—UNT 07671 4—Hammer Creek
4—Hammer Creek
Basin, Furnace Run to Mouth
Basin, Source to [Speedwell Forqe Lake Baml second Rexmont Road crossing (downstream of the two former water supply reservoirs)
Basin, second Rexmont Road crossing to but not including UNT 07678 at RM 14.2
Basin, from and including UNT 07678 downstream to Walnut Run
Basin
Basin, Walnut Run to inlet of Speedwell Forge Lake Basin, Inlet of Speedwell Forge Lake to UNT 07671 at RM 8.8
Basin
Basin, UNT 07671
downstream to Speedwell Forge Lake Dam
Basin, Speedwell Forge Lake Dam to Mouth
Lancaster [Lancaster]
Lebanon
Lebanon
Lancaster
Lancaster Lancaster Lancaster
Lancaster Lancaster
Lancaster
WWF, MF HQ-CWF,
CWF, MF
HQ-CWF,
EV,MF HQ-CWF, WWF, MF
HQ-CWF, WWF, MF
TSF.MF
None
None
None
None None
None
§93.9r. Drainage List R
Ohio River Basin in Pennsylvania Clarion River
Stream
4—Henry Run 4-Toms Run
5—Little Hefren Run 4-Toms Run
4—Gather Run
Zone
Basin, Source to Little Hefren Run
Basin, Little Hefren Run to Mouth
County
[Forest]
Clarion Clarion Forest Clarion
Protected
[CWF]EV
EV HQ-CWF
Exceptions to Specific Criteria
2Z
None None
- 3 -
CACOOSING CREEK
BERKS COUNTY
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REVIEW STREAM DESIGNATION EVALUATION REPORT
Segment: Basin Stream Code: 01850
Drainage List F
WATER QUALITY MONITORING SECTION (GLW) DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
BUREAU OF WATER STANDARDS AND FACILITY REGULATION DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
JUNE 2007
INTRODUCTION
The Department determined that the Cacoosing Creek basin was not assigned a
"designated use" during the compilation of Chapter 93. Cacoosing Creek is a tributary to Tulpehocken Creek in Berks County. The designated uses listed for the receiving stream segment of Tulpehocken Creek is Cold Water Fishes (CWF) and unnamed tributaries to Tulpehocken Creek in the same segment are designated as Warm Water Fishes (WWF). Reference to Cacoosing Creek was not included in the Chapter 93 listing for this Tulpehocken Creek segment. An evaluation to determine the most appropriate aquatic life use designation for the Cacoosing Creek basin was conducted based on a request from the Department's Southcentral Regional Office (SCRO). This evaluation is based on stream survey work conducted on December 8, 2004. Additional information was obtained from previous Department and Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) surveys.
GENERAL WATERSHED DESCRIPTION
The Cacoosing Creek basin is located west of Reading in South Heidelberg, Lower Heidelberg, and Spring Townships; and the Boroughs of Sinking Spring and Wemersville in Berks County (Figure 1). Cacoosing Creek is a limestone creek that drains approximately 21.8 mi and flows for 8.4 miles in a northeasterly direction from its origin in South Heidelberg Township to its mouth at the village of Van Reed's Mill. The surrounding area is characterized by relatively flat topography with some gently rolling hills of low relief. The only named tributary to Cacoosing Creek is Little Cacoosing Creek, which flows for 4.7 miles and drains 7.8 mi2.
There are significant impacts to the Cacoosing Creek basin from agriculture, residential, industrial and urban land use. There are many newly constructed subdivisions around the Borough of Sinking Spring and the lower portions of the watershed. One significant historic impact to the basin was the E.J. Breneman Sinking Spring Quarry, which ceased quarrying and dewatering operations in November 1992.
WATER QUALITY AND USES Surface Water
No long-term water quality data were available to allow a direct comparison to water quality criteria. One time grab samples and benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected from five stations in the Cacoosing Creek basin on November 15, 1995 (Table 1). Since the instantaneous nature of grab samples precludes comparison to applicable water quality criteria, chemical data were used to generally characterize water quality for this study. Biological data collected for this study were used to evaluate the long- term water quality conditions of Cacoosing Creek.
Water Quality. There are twelve permitted discharges (NPDES) in the Cacoosing Creek basin, including two sewage treatment facilities (Sinking Spring and Spring
Township), six industrial facilities and four stormwater discharges. The six industrial facilities include BP Oil, Exxon Mobile Oil, Sun Pipeline, Sunoco Inc., Reading Terminals Corp, and Scranton Altoona Terminals Corp.
There are 40 permitted surface/ground water withdrawals in the Cacoosing Creek Basin, There are 12 permitted public water supply wells in the basin, including nine issued to the Citizens Utility Water Company and two to Will-O-Hill Apartments. All of these public water supply permits cover ground water withdrawals. There are no voluntary local wellhead protection (WHP) programs associated with the permitted ground water withdrawals in the Cacoosing Creek basin.
A historic impact on the local ground water was the above noted Sinking Spring Quarry operation. During active quarrying operations, intruding groundwater was pumped to Cacoosing Creek. After operations ceased in 1992, dewatering stopped and the abandoned quarry filled with water until it reached equilibrium. The resulting lake has a mean elevation of 261.5 feet and, as noted by a 1993 survey report by DEP staff, has restored flow to groundwater springs that had been dry while the quarry was in operation, thus restoring cold groundwater to the stream.
One-time grab samples collected from Cacoosing Creek on November 15, 1995 indicate alkaline waters (pH 7.6 to 7.9) with ample buffering capacity (alkalinity 84.0 to 174.0 mg/l CaCO3j and hardness 118.0 to 204.0 mg/l) (Table 2). Ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, and phosphorus concentrations were elevated at stations located downstream of the Sinking Spring and Spring Township sewage treatment facilities (4CC and 5CC).
Fecal coliform concentrations in the mainstem of Cacoosing Creek were fairly low, ranging from 40 to 180 colonies per 100 ml at stations 2CC and 4CC, respectively.
Aquatic Biota
Habitat Instream habitat conditions were evaluated at the five stations where fish were sampled (Table 3). The habitat evaluation consists of rating twelve habitat parameters to derive a station habitat score. Habitat conditions for Cacoosing Creek stations ranged from "marginal" (stations 3LCC and 4CC) to "sub-optimal" (stations 1CC, 2CC, and 5CC).
Fish. Cacoosing Creek fish populations were sampled during various surveys conducted by DEP and PFBC staff. These electrofishing surveys documented wild brown trout reproduction at several sites (Table 4) as well as the presence of other cold- water species. A migratory species, American eel, was found at several locations (Table 5).
While the Cacoosing Creek fishery was very diverse and dominated by species commonly associated with cold-water habitats (trout, blacknose and longnose dace, white sucker, and mottled sculpin) the Little Cacoosing Creek fishery (3LCC) was dominated by the banded killifish, a warm water species (Table 4).
In an effort to evaluate the impact of the Sinking Spring Quarry and the extent of the existing brown trout population, DEP staff conducted an additional electrofishing survey in Cacoosing Creek on December 8, 2004. For this survey, sampling was conducted at PFBC stations 0101, 0201 and between PFBC station 0302 and the Department's station 4CC. Fifty-meter reaches were sampled at station 0101 and the station between 0302 and 4CC. Approximately 100 meters was sampled at station 0201, both upstream and downstream of US Route 422. Previous PFBC and Department surveys indicated that trout were not found upstream from US Route 422 (Table 4). Wild brown trout adults were found at all three sampling stations, including both upstream and downstream of US Route 422. In addition, wild juvenile brown trout were found at PFBC station 0101 (Table 4), near the headwaters. The occurrences of both wild adult and juvenile brown trout upstream of US Route 422 at stations 0101 and 0201 suggest that current instream conditions have allowed the pre-existing wild trout populations to expand into areas where they had previously been absent In addition, Cacoosing Creek is capable of supporting other species commonly associated with cold water environs, including blacknose and long nose dace, white sucker, and mottled sculpin.
Conversely, Little Cacoosing Creek supports a warm water fishery as indicated by the high abundance of banded killifish, and the low abundance of cold water species.
PUBLIC RESPONSE AND PARTICIPATION SUMMARY
The Cacoosing Creek report and original recommendations (June 2007) to designate the stream as Cold Water Fishes (CWF) and Warm Water Fishes (WWF) for the Little Cacoosing subbasin were made available for public review and comment on DEP's web page. Local municipalities, the Berks County Planning Commission, and the Berks Conservation District were notified of the web report availability by postal mail. No comments were received in response to this web posting.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Review of the available fish data indicates that the mainstem of Cacoosing Creek is capable of supporting a cold-water fishery, and that the Little Cacoosing Creek supports a warm water fishery. Based on applicable regulatory criteria for statewide water uses in 25 Pa Code § 93.4(a), the Department recommends the following: Cacoosing Creek basin (excluding the Little Cacoosing Creek subbasin) from its source to mouth be designated Cold Water Fishes (CWF) and the Little Cacoosing Creek basin from its source to mouth be designated Warm Water Fishes (WWF). Both Cacoosing Creek and Little Cacoosing Creek basins should also be designated Migratory Fishes (MF) as a result of the presence of American eel throughout the basin.
This recommendation adds approximately 4.7 stream miles of WWF and 8.4 miles of CWF waters and 13.1 miles of MF waters to Chapter 93.
REFERENCES
Plafkin, JL, MT Barbour, KD Porter, SK Gross., & RM Hughes, 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for use in streams and rivers: Benthic
Macroinvertebrates and Fish. United States Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA/444/4-89-001.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, 1993. Aquatic Biological Investigation: Cacoosing Creek. File Information.
Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission. 2000. Cacoosing Creek's need for inclusion in DEP's Chapt 93. File Information.
FIGURE 1
CACOOSING CREEK
BERKS COUNTY
N
/ A / Streams / V Roads
Borough Township
1CC - Use Attainability Survey 0101 -PFBC Survey
TABLE 1
STATION LOCATIONS
CACOOSING CREEK
BERKS COUNTY
STATION LOCATION
1CC Upstream of private drive crossing located 0.5 mile upstream of T381.
South Heidelberg Township, Berks County Stream Code 01850
Lat:40 18 35 Long: 76 02 48 RMI: 6.11
2CC Downstream of private drive crossing located 0.4 mile downstream of US Route 422 (behind the Dairy Queen in Sinking Spring).
Borough of Sinking Spring, Berks County Stream Code 01850
Lat: 40 19 44 Long: 76 01 46 RMI: 4.26
3LCC Approximately 100 feet upstream of SR3025 crossing (Green Valley Road).
Lower Heidelberg Township, Berks County Stream Code 01853
Lat: 40 20 01 Long: 76 02 25 RMI: 1.20
4CC Adjacent to soccer field in Spring Township Park; approximately 0.2 miles upstream of SR3023.
Spring Township, Berks County Stream Code 01850
Lat: 40 20 50 Long: 76 00 36 RMI: 2.35
5CC Approximately 50 feet upstream of T495 crossing (Pendergast Road).
Spring Township, Berks County Stream Code 01850
Lat: 40 21 35 Long: 75 59 44 RMI: 0.56 CC = Cacoosing Creek
LCC = Little Cacoosing Creek
TABLE 2
WATER CHEMISTRY
1CACOOSING CREEK
BERKS COUNTY
NOVEMBER 13,1995
* ^
lliill iiiii
Temp (°C) PH
Cond^yS/cm)^
8.1 .7.9
8.4 7.7
8.1 7.9
9.1 7.6
9.4 7.7
PH Alkalinity Hardness T. Diss. Sol.
Susp. Sol.
NH3-N NO2-N NO3-N Total P Ca Mg Cl SO4
As*
Cd*
Cr*
Cu*
Fe*
Mn*
Ni*
Zn*
Al*
fecal Colif/100 ml
7.9 118.0
<2.0
2.77 0.03 10.5 25.0
<0.2
<1.0
<25.0
<135.0 50
7.9 120.0 167.0 4.0 0.006
3.47 0.03 14.7 33.0
<10.0
44.0
<1.0 13.0
<25.0
<10.0
<135.0 40
8.0 146.0 184.0 256.0 32.0 0.012
0.09 50.6 19.4 9.0
849.0
<1.0 27.0
<25.0
<10.0 627.0
7.8 158.0 204.0 312.0 64.0 0.022
0.16 59.5
<10.0 1610.0
62.0
<25.0
7.7 174.0 189.0 20.0 0.060
4.96 63.3 17.6 30.0 32.0
<10.0 434.0
<1.0 47.0
<25.0
<10.0 394.0 80
1 - Except for pH & conductance and indicted otherwise, all values are total concentrations in mg/l
* - Total concentrations in pg/l
2 Refer to Figure 1 and Table 1 for station locations
TABLE 3
HABITAT ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
CACOOSING CREEK
BERKS COUNTY
NOVEMBER 13, 1995
siiWiiiiRlIllili
1. instream cover 2. epifaunal substrate 3. embeddedness 4. velocity/depth 5. channel alterations 6. sediment deposition 7. riffle frequency 8. channel flow status 9. bank condition 10. bank vegetative
protection
11. grazing/disruptive pressures
12. riparian vegetation zone width
Total Score Rating"
16 16 15 15 15 15 16 16 14 16 10 10 174 SUB
ft|S||ii|ii|
:
;iii2eeiii
12 15 15 13 15 15 16 16 16 16 14 10 173 SUB
liiisiiiii
10 15 16 9 9 15 13 13 13 15 5 5
SUB
mama
10
10 6 11 16 11 6 13 10 16 105
MAR
iiiiscifii
16 16 14 16 12 15 16 17 14 17 11 11 175 SUB
1 Refer to Figure 1 and Table 1 for station locations
2 SUB=Suboptimal; MAR=Marginal
TABLE 4
FISHES
CACOOSING CREEK
BERKS COUNTY
IllilBltliii
American eel, Anguiflarostrata Brook Trout,
Salveiinus fontinalis*
Brown trout, Salmo trutta*
Brown trout, Salmo trutta5
Rainbow trout,
Oncorhynchus mykiss Common Carp,
Cyprinus carpio Goldfish,
Carassius auratus Cutlips minnow,
Exoglossum maxUlingua Golden shiner,
Notemlgonus crysoteucas Common shiner,
Notropis cornutus Spottail shiner, N. hudsonius Spotfin Shiner, Cyprinella spiloptera Bluntnose minnow, Pimephalos notatus Blacknose dace, Rhinichthys atratuius Longnose dace, R. cataractae Creek chub,
SemotHus atromaculatus
urn
P
P
P
A
P
A
Mmmmm
R
R
R
A
A 43
x
x
x
x
x
R
C
R
P
p R
A
p
c
m
R R p
c
c
R
A
p
c
1
/-
5x
x
x
x
x
x
pi
p
p R
p
R
c
p
R
R
vm,mz&mm
R
R/P
R
p
p p
A
A
c
PIP
x
x
x
x
X
wamoms
p
A
A c
p p
A
A
Rl-
P
c
R/-
p
A
A
P R
x
x
x
x
x
x X
1/-
x
x
R
R
p
c
R p
R
R R/-
p
R R R
p
PI- p R
R
R
c
p p p
R
R
c
p
p p
P
x
P/-
R
