2020 PENNSYLVANIA INTEGRATED WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT REPORT

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 PENNVEST (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 Conservation Districts, which implement many DEP program initiatives and 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 remediation. 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, aquatic macrophyte controls, lake and watershed liming, alum treatments, biomanipulation to benefit fisheries, lake drawdowns, septic management, wildlife control, and institutional BMPs including public education efforts and enacting protective municipal ordinances. Sewage treatment plant upgrades are also an important technique to improve lake water quality. Additionally, controlling invasive species is an important restoration theme, with increasing numbers of lakes impacted by Eurasian watermilfoil, water chestnut, and zebra/quagga mussels. Some limited Growing Greener and Sea Grant funds are available for control of these organisms. Table 1 provides information on current Phase I (assessments), Phase II (restoration/implementation), and Phase III (monitoring for efficacy, post-TMDL) lake work conducted in the Commonwealth. Expenditures on active lake projects or lake watershed projects in Pennsylvania currently amount to approximately $3.88 million for projects ongoing between 10/1/15-9/30/17.

Table 1. Active Lake Projects in Pennsylvania Public Lakes during the 10/1/15-9/30/17 reporting period. Does not include water quality assessments done by DEP. Growing Greener and 319 final reports available from DEP, Bureau of Conservation and Restoration.

303(d) Prioritization Strategy

In December 2013, EPA announced a new framework for implementing the CWA Section 303(d) Program —A Long-Term Vision for Assessment, Restoration, and Protection under the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Program. The new Vision encompasses all facets of Section 303(d) from the assessment and listing process through the development of a TMDL or alternative water quality analysis. It is important to note that while the Vision provides a new framework for implementing the CWA 303(d) program, it does not alter state and EPA responsibilities or authorities under the CWA 303(d) regulations.

The new 303(d) implementation framework focuses on several broad areas. The three receiving the most focus being:

1. Prioritization – Setting strategic priorities not only for TMDL/alternative restoration development, but also for assessments and monitoring if existing data are not up to date
2. Public engagement – increased emphasis on sharing not only information, but the process with stakeholders, and
3. TMDL or Restoration Alternative Development – A restoration alternative may include many of the same steps as a normal TMDL, but the alternative could provide more flexibility in the implementation phase. This public/stakeholder-friendly process will hopefully lead to more successful implementation in both the point and nonpoint source sectors.

DEP has chosen to take a step-wise approach to the Prioritization process. The first step in the process of narrowing the universe of impaired waters in which to work was to prioritize water bodies/watersheds with sediment-related impairments (e.g. siltation, Total Suspended Sediment). Siltation related impairments affect the most stream miles in the state and will allow DEP to address many pollutant sources (urban runoff, agriculture and mining) and work in all regions.

There over 8,000 miles of siltation-impaired streams in the Commonwealth, thus, another filter was necessary in the prioritization process. A ranking process performed by each of the six DEP Regional Offices (RO) was applied as that next filter. Watersheds containing concentrated siltation impairments were evaluated by each of the ROs to generate a list of their top candidates.

Regional prioritization considered any factors they see as important for their region; however, active stakeholders (both permittees and nonpoint sources) are key to implementation and represent a core component in the 303(d) Revisioning process. Therefore, it was determined that an active stakeholder community is needed to implement the restoration plan. Coordination from the outset between Central Office and regional Non-Point Source (NPS) grant (Federal 319 and state Growing Greener) groups is critical to ensure that the proper planning horizon is provided for future access to funds. Development of RO prioritization strategies considered input from the NPDES program, NPS program, TMDL program and regional biologists. The final list of priorities includes waters that met one or more of the following considerations:

• Watersheds for which there is an existing approved 319 Watershed Implementation Plan could also serve as priorities as the implementation plans can be adjusted to conform with restoration alternative requirements.
• Watersheds previously identified as Regional Targeted Watersheds
• Other candidates for a restoration alternative may be areas where urban runoff (MS4) related impairments are prevalent, but there is nothing in place to drive pollutant reductions.
• Additional priority watersheds may include those that were not in the universe of siltation related impairments sent to the RO, but have been prioritized previously for another purpose.

DEP’s tiered data acceptance strategies follow the same general tiered framework as described in Table 1 of the Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Cooperative’s Prioritization Report. Tier 1 data is generally defined as educational or environmental screening data that has known quality and a study plan but does not follow DEP or EPA quality assurance plans. These data will not be used for regulatory assessment purposes, but can be used by DEP to highlight areas of interest for future monitoring efforts. Tier 2 data have clearly defined quality assurance plans and procedures, but may not have followed approved DEP data collection protocols. These data may not be used for assessment purposes, but can be used for other purposes such as trend or performance analysis. Tier 3 data are assessment level data that have approved quality assurance plans, follow appropriate study designs, and follow DEP data collection protocols. Individuals seeking to provide DEP with tier 3 data must also be audited by DEP staff before submitting data.

Comprehensive Assessment Plan

After completing the first-ever statewide aquatic life use assessment of Pennsylvania’s wadeable surface waters in 2007, DEP replaced the original method with a more intensive set of assessment methods for the second statewide aquatic life assessment. From 2006 through 2012, the survey design included both probability based and targeted sampling within one major sub-basin in each of six DEP regions. Beginning in 2013, the survey design was changed to be based solely on targeted sampling. This design allows DEP staff to focus efforts on areas where the previous design identified potential use impairments for further assessment. DEP staff in the six regional offices and central office each conduct aquatic life use assessments on a minimum of 75 sampling points in selected watersheds. Through this effort staff also identify priority monitoring areas for future years.

In 2006, DEP began a potable water supply monitoring, which targeted source waters for community water supplies in Pennsylvania to assess attainment of the potable water supply use. The monitoring protocol consists of the collection of multiple grab samples upstream of the point of withdrawal during the critical period when criteria violations are expected to occur. Water chemistry analysis is completed for 9 parameters of concern for drinking water. Analysis of collected samples identifies waters with obvious potable water use impairments and those with no obvious impairment. The first round of monitoring and assessment was completed in 2013, so DEP is currently focusing on reassessment of previously assessed waters.

DEP employs a bacteriological sampling to assess surface waters for water contact recreational use during the swimming season. The recreational use assessment is focused on water contact recreation as DEP believes it is the most critical use and it is important to reduce the risk of waterborne illness to individuals recreating in the surface waters of Pennsylvania. DEP staff and citizen volunteers collect samples to determine compliance with Pennsylvania’s water quality standards. DEP is currently on the first cycle of statewide water contact recreational use assessments, and is using a combination of targeted and probabilistic survey designs to make assessment determinations as efficiently as possible.

To assess other recreational uses, such as fishing, DEP implements the fish tissue consumption assessment method. This survey design targets surface waters that are frequented by anglers or surface waters used for subsistence consumption. In surface waters that do not contain commonly fishable organisms, it may not be possible to assess fish consumption. A Fish Consumption Advisory Policy Workgroup was established to oversee the program and make management decisions. This workgroup includes deputy secretaries from the three cabinet agencies and the executive director of the PFBC. The Governor’s Policy Office coordinates the activities of this group. The existing staff-level workgroup was renamed the Fish Consumption Advisory Technical Workgroup (FCATW) and includes representatives of all four agencies. The technical workgroup coordinates routine program activities, such as sampling site identification and provides recommendations for advisory issuance or lifting to the policy workgroup.

Pennsylvania’s narrative water quality criterion states: §93.6(a) Water may not contain substances attributable to point or nonpoint source discharges in concentration or amounts sufficient to be inimical or harmful to the water uses to be protected or to human, animal, plant or aquatic life. To assess this criterion DEP must detect a “substance” (pollutant or pollution) that is causing harm and is linked to point or non-point source discharges. The presence of compounds alone does not constitute a violation of this criterion as there must be some harm demonstrated to uses, such as aquatic life or human health. To assess this criterion DEP has conducted extensive studies on emerging contaminants in surface waters, such as endocrine disrupting compounds, personal care products, pharmaceuticals, and hormones.

As a part of the overall comprehensive assessment plan, DEP continues to refine and add more assessment methods for each of the protected uses. All assessment methods are subject to a public comment period that is completed before they are used to make assessment determinations in the Integrated Report.

1. DEP’s current aquatic life 100% assessment goal is all stream miles within Pennsylvania.
2. DEP’s current water supply 100% assessment goal is based on the number of public surface water supply withdraws.
3. DEP’s current recreation 100% assessment goal is all stream miles within Pennsylvania.
4. Pennsylvania has issued a statewide fish consumption advisory of one meal per week for recreationally caught fish. More strict advisories constitute impairment. DEP’s current fish consumption 100% assessment goal is streams miles that have high recreational fishing potential and where fishing for subsistence is likely.
5. Source and cause total miles may not match the total impaired mileage for each use, because each stream can have more than one source and cause of impairment.

1. The 100% assessment goal for all uses is the total acres of publicly owned lakes.
2. Source and cause total acres may not match the total acreage for publicly owned lakes, because each lake can have more than one source and cause of impairment.
3. Presque Isle Bay acres are included in status calculations, but the remainder of Lake Erie is not.