DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Addendum to the 2021 CBPO Grant Guidance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Addendum to the 2021 CBPO Grant Guidance Addendum to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program Office Grant and Cooperative Agreement Guidance: May 25, 2021 A. Introduction This addendum to the 2021 EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO) Grant and Cooperative Agreement Guidance (Grant Guidance), which was finalized in December 2020, provides guidance on implementation of the new Assistance Listing for the Chesapeake Bay Program non-competitive funding programs and an update to the citation for the consultant fee cap regulations in Attachment 13. Additionally, this addendum provides the allocation, grant vehicle(s), eligible uses and recipients, and other important information about the FY21 most effective basin funding. B. Notice of New CFDA Assistance Listing As part of a review of the Agency’s Assistance Listings (formerly called CFDA), EPA’s Office of Grants and Debarment (OGD) determined that the public would be better informed about the purpose and results of Federal financial assistance for the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) by establishing two assistance listings for CBP. CBP Assistance Listing 66.466 included (1) descriptions of both funding for technical assistance and similar activities that EPA awards competitively to a wide range of organizations and (2) descriptions of funding for implementation, regulatory and accountability, and monitoring activities that EPA awards without competition and only to signatory jurisdictions of the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. The statutory authority for these two types of funding arrangements is substantially different. However, when EPA reports on Assistance Listing 66.466, the data does not differentiate between competitive funding for discrete projects and non-competitive funding for ongoing programs carried out by the signatory jurisdictions. Establishing distinct Assistance Listings for each type of funding will produce more accurate data. As of the publication date to the Federal Register (March 2021), the Assistance Listing number for CBIG, CBRAP, and monitoring CWA Sec. 117e grants is now 66.964. EPA will only require citation to this Assistance Listing on new awards for these programs. This change will have no impact on the funding for current agreements; the Assistance Listing for current awards will remain 66.466, even if supplemental or incremental amendments are issued. Additionally, the program code (PC) for CBIG, CBRAP, and monitoring grants, which was previously CB for Chesapeake Bay, will change to C2 and will be reflected on new awards. The process of downloading the non-competitive grant application will essentially be the same. The two changes include (1) instead of selecting “EPA-CEP-01” in Step 2 below, you will select “EPA-CEP-02” and (2) instead of selecting “66.466” in Step 3 below, you will select “66.964”. To download the grant application package for a non-competitive award: 1. Go to: www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/download-application-package.html, 2. Type “EPA-CEP-02” into the “Funding Opportunity Number” field and click “Download Package,” 3. Download the package associated with Assistance Listing 66.964, 4. Complete the Grant Application Package. Attach the forms and information identified below, and 1 5. Submit your application. See www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/apply-for-grants.html for more information on this process. C. Updated Citation for Consultant Fee Cap Regulations Attachment 13 – Budget Detail Guidance – cites 2 CFR 1500.9 as the location for regulatory information related to consultant fee caps. Based on regulatory updates, the citation is now 2 CFR 1500.10. D. 2021 Most Effective Basin Funding Allocations In the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Appropriations Conference Report, an increase to the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) Budget was provided for “state-based implementation in the most effective basins.” This is an increase of $1.25 million over the FY 2020 appropriation of $6 million. EPA will use the same methodology and funding allocation that was used in FY 2020 for the original $6 million allocation, as described in Attachment 18 of the 2021 CBPO Grant Guidance. The funding rationale and methodology for the additional $1.25 million is described in this addendum. EPA and the Chesapeake Bay Partnership have renewed their commitment and focus on inclusion and equity with regard to historically underrepresented communities, including communities of color and communities of lower socioeconomic status. EPA is focusing this additional funding allocation on those areas that have been identified as being most effective for improving water quality while targeting underrepresented communities. The allocation for this funding will follow the same funding allocation used for the Chesapeake Bay Implementation Grants (CBIG). The CBIG allocation formula awards funds to the seven jurisdictional partners in the following manner: a 20% share goes to MD, PA, and VA, a 10% share goes to DC, DE, NY and WV. The following table shows the breakdown for this $1.25 million appropriation. Additional $1.25 million to be split for Original $6 million split based on most work in MEB with effective basins and targeted to Ag CBIG formula Total Award for FY21 Phase III WIP Ag Percent of Nitrogen Total Nitrogen Original Commitment Commitment MEB CBIG % MEB Overall % Total MEB Jurisdiction (million pounds) Proposed Allocation Split Allocation Awarded Allocation DC - 10% 125,000 1.72% 125,000 DE 2.2 6.08% 364,540 10% 125,000 6.75% 489,540 MD 4.2 11.60% 695,940 20% 250,000 13.05% 945,940 NY 0.5 1.38% 79,536 10% 125,000 2.82% 204,536 PA 22.3 61.60% 3,695,112 20% 250,000 54.42% 3,945,112 VA 6.7 18.51% 1,110,191 20% 250,000 18.76% 1,360,191 WV 0.3 0.83% 54,681 10% 125,000 2.48% 179,681 Totals 36.2 100.00% 6,000,000 100% 1,250,000 100% 7,250,000 The selection of MEBs for this funding allocation of $1.25 million will look at two factors: underrepresented communities and load effectiveness. Underrepresented communities will be identified based on demographic metrics from the American Community Survey which are available on the EPA Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool. Low income is defined as ratio of income to cost of living that is less than two. Data is presented as a census block group with a percentage of population that is low income >=50%. Communities of 2 color are defined as all other ethnicities other than Caucasian. Data is presented as a census block group with a percentage of people of color population >= 37%. 37% is chosen to mirror the national percentage of people of color. These definitions come from work completed by the CBP Diversity Workgroup where they provided “best professional judgement” in terms of interpreting two of the metrics (communities of color and low income) to help rank areas for composite conservation and restoration benefits. Load Effectiveness for this analysis was completed in the exact same manner as it was described on page 3 of Attachment 18 with one exception. These MEBs are the result of evaluating the effect of all nonpoint source loads of nitrogen instead of just loads of nitrogen from agriculture. Additionally, the scale used to determine these MEBs is the State-River basin segmentation that was described in the earlier analysis. Eligible Uses and Recipients This funding is intended for use by state and local entities. After a Bay watershed jurisdiction or other grantee is awarded most effective basins funding, they are expected to provide this funding directly to support implementation projects, or through contracts or subgrants to state and/or local entities, based on the state and local entities’ ability to reduce nutrient loading while minimizing the impacts from impervious surfaces. This money can be used to fund both proven and new innovative practices. Here are some examples or activities that could be addressed with this funding: Tree canopy to reduce urban heat island effects, all forms of green infrastructure, and urban agriculture. The most effective basins for focusing this funding are listed below. The census blocks that are part of those basin are the areas identified for this funding. Where work in these most effective basins may not be immediately feasible, a grant recipient should contact the CBPO Project Officer for guidance on other priority effective basins. Where a jurisdiction chooses to award these funds to state or local entities, Bay watershed jurisdictions must describe in their grant work plan the mechanisms they will use to distribute their share of this funding for implementation of projects in the underrepresented communities in these basins. Implementation activities in the most effective basins will be in support of the 2014 Chesapeake Watershed Agreement, including Bay watershed jurisdictions’ Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) Jurisdictions should give priority to funding those activities that will accelerate the pace for meeting WIP commitments while addressing co-benefits beyond just water quality improvements. In deciding which implementation activities to fund, jurisdictions should also consider the timeliness and cost-effectiveness of the activities in contributing to nitrogen reduction. Jurisdictions are expected to be able to track BMP implementation activities they fund with this money. They should submit these practice implementation data to CBPO through the National Environmental Information Exchange Network (NEIEN), in accordance with Attachment 6 of the grant guidance. Jurisdictions should use their existing CBRAP funding if they
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pearly Mussels in NY State Susquehanna Watershed Paul H
    Pearly mussels in NY State Susquehanna Watershed Paul H. Lord, Willard N. Harman & Timothy N. Pokorny Introduction Preliminary Results Discussion Pearly mussels (unionids) New unionid SGCN identified • Mobile substrates appear exacerbated endangered native mollusks in Susquehanna River Watershed by surge stormwater inputs • Life cycle complex • Eastern Pearlshell (Margaritifera margaritifera) - made worse by impervious surfaces - includes fish parasitism -- in Otselic River headwaters • Unionids impacted - involves watershed quality parameters Historical SGCN found in many locations by ↓O2, siltation, endocrine disrupting chemicals • 4 Species of Greatest Conservation Need • Regularly downstream of extended riffle - from human watershed use (SGCN) historically found • Require minimally mobile substrates • River location consistency with old maps in NY State Susquehanna Watershed • No observed wastewater treatment plant impact associated with ↑ unionids - Brook Floater (Alasmidonta varicosa) -adult unionids more easily observed - Green Floater (Lasmigona subviridis) Table 1. NYSDEC freshwater pearly mussel “species of greatest conservation need” (SGCN) observed in the Upper Susquehanna from kayaks - Yellow Lamp Mussel (Lampsilis cariosa) Watershed while mapping and searching rivers in the summers of 2008 Elktoe -Elktoe (Alasmidonta marginata) and 2009. Brook Floater = Alasmidonta varicosa; elktoe = Alasmidonta • Prior sampling done where convenient marginata; green floater = Lasmigona subviridis; yellow lamp mussel = - normally at intersection
    [Show full text]
  • Susquhanna River Fishing Brochure
    Fishing the Susquehanna River The Susquehanna Trophy-sized muskellunge (stocked by Pennsylvania) and hybrid tiger muskellunge The Susquehanna River flows through (stocked by New York until 2007) are Chenango, Broome, and Tioga counties for commonly caught in the river between nearly 86 miles, through both rural and urban Binghamton and Waverly. Local hot spots environments. Anglers can find a variety of fish include the Chenango River mouth, Murphy’s throughout the river. Island, Grippen Park, Hiawatha Island, the The Susquehanna River once supported large Smallmouth bass and walleye are the two Owego Creek mouth, and Baileys Eddy (near numbers of migratory fish, like the American gamefish most often pursued by anglers in Barton) shad. These stocks have been severely impacted Fishing the the Susquehanna River, but the river also Many anglers find that the most enjoyable by human activities, especially dam building. Susquehanna River supports thriving populations of northern pike, and productive way to fish the Susquehanna is The Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Res- muskellunge, tiger muskellunge, channel catfish, by floating in a canoe or small boat. Using this rock bass, crappie, yellow perch, bullheads, and method, anglers drift cautiously towards their toration Cooperative (SRFARC) is an organiza- sunfish. preferred fishing spot, while casting ahead tion comprised of fishery agencies from three of the boat using the lures or bait mentioned basin states, the Susquehanna River Commission Tips and Hot Spots above. In many of the deep pool areas of the (SRBC), and the federal government working Susquehanna, trolling with deep running lures together to restore self-sustaining anadromous Fishing at the head or tail ends of pools is the is also effective.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Event of 3/4/1964 - 3/7/1964
    Flood Event of 3/4/1964 - 3/7/1964 Chemung Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Campbell 8.00 3/5/1964 8.45 13,200 Minor Chemung Cohocton River Steuben Steuben Chemung 16.00 3/6/1964 20.44 93,800 Moderate Chemung Chemung River Chemung Chemung Corning 29.00 3/5/1964 30.34 -9,999 Moderate Chemung Chemung River Steuben Steuben Elmira 12.00 3/6/1964 15.60 -9,999 Moderate Chemung Chemung River Chemung Chemung Lindley 17.00 3/5/1964 18.48 37,400 Minor Chemung Tioga River Steuben Steuben Delaware Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Walton 9.50 3/5/1964 13.66 15,800 Minor Delaware West Branch Delaware Delaware Delaware River James Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Lick Run 16.00 3/6/1964 16.07 25,900 Minor James James River Botetourt Botetourt Juniata Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Spruce Creek 8.00 3/5/1964 8.43 4,540 Minor Juniata Little Juniata River Huntingdon Huntingdon Created On: 8/16/2016 Page 1 of 4 Main Stem Susquehanna Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Towanda 16.00 3/6/1964 23.63 174,000 Moderate Upper Main Stem Susquehanna River Bradford Bradford Susquehanna Wilkes-Barre 22.00 3/7/1964 28.87 180,000 Moderate Upper Main Stem Susquehanna River Luzerne Luzerne Susquehanna North Branch Susquehanna Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category
    [Show full text]
  • Susquehanna Riyer Drainage Basin
    'M, General Hydrographic Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 109 Series -j Investigations, 13 .N, Water Power, 9 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CHARLES D. WALCOTT, DIRECTOR HYDROGRAPHY OF THE SUSQUEHANNA RIYER DRAINAGE BASIN BY JOHN C. HOYT AND ROBERT H. ANDERSON WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1 9 0 5 CONTENTS. Page. Letter of transmittaL_.__.______.____.__..__.___._______.._.__..__..__... 7 Introduction......---..-.-..-.--.-.-----............_-........--._.----.- 9 Acknowledgments -..___.______.._.___.________________.____.___--_----.. 9 Description of drainage area......--..--..--.....-_....-....-....-....--.- 10 General features- -----_.____._.__..__._.___._..__-____.__-__---------- 10 Susquehanna River below West Branch ___...______-_--__.------_.--. 19 Susquehanna River above West Branch .............................. 21 West Branch ....................................................... 23 Navigation .--..........._-..........-....................-...---..-....- 24 Measurements of flow..................-.....-..-.---......-.-..---...... 25 Susquehanna River at Binghamton, N. Y_-..---...-.-...----.....-..- 25 Ghenango River at Binghamton, N. Y................................ 34 Susquehanna River at Wilkesbarre, Pa......_............-...----_--. 43 Susquehanna River at Danville, Pa..........._..................._... 56 West Branch at Williamsport, Pa .._.................--...--....- _ - - 67 West Branch at Allenwood, Pa.....-........-...-.._.---.---.-..-.-.. 84 Juniata River at Newport, Pa...-----......--....-...-....--..-..---.-
    [Show full text]
  • The New York State Flood of July 1935
    Please do not destroy or throw away this publication. If you have no further use for it write to the Geological Survey at Washington and ask for a frank to return it UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Harold L. Ickes, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. C. Mendenhall, Director Water-Supply Paper 773 E THE NEW YORK STATE FLOOD OF JULY 1935 BY HOLLISTER JOHNSON Prepared in cooperation with the Water Power and Control Commission of the Conservation Department and the Department of Public Works, State of New York Contributions to the hydrology of the United States, 1936 (Pages 233-268) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1936 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. -------- Price 15 cents CONTENTS Page Introduction......................................................... 233 Acknowledgments...................................................... 234 Rainfall,............................................................ 235 Causes.......................................................... 235 General features................................................ 236 Rainfall records................................................ 237 Flood discharges..................................................... 246 General features................................................ 246 Field work...................................................... 249 Office preparation of field data................................ 250 Assumptions and computations.................................... 251 Flood-discharge records........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Feasibility Study on a Potential Susquehanna Connector Trail for the John Smith Historic Trail
    Feasibility Study on a Potential Susquehanna Connector Trail for the John Smith Historic Trail Prepared for The Friends of the John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail November 16, 2009 Coordinated by The Bucknell University Environmental Center’sNature and Human Communities Initiative The Susquehanna Colloquium for Nature and Human Communities The Susquehanna River Heartland Coalition for Environmental Studies In partnership with Bucknell University The Eastern Delaware Nations The Haudenosaunee Confederacy The Susquehanna Greenway Partnership Pennsylvania Environmental Council Funded by the Conservation Fund/R.K. Mellon Foundation 2 Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 3 Recommended Susquehanna River Connecting Trail................................................................. 5 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 6 Staff ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Criteria used for Study................................................................................................................. 6 2. Description of Study Area, Team Areas, and Smith Map Analysis ...................................... 8 a. Master Map of Sites and Trails from Smith Era in Study Area........................................... 8 b. Study
    [Show full text]
  • Warmwater Fishing Western New York Rivers
    Warmwater Fishing Western New York Rivers New York State is full of good waters to catch a variety of warmwater fish species. Here is just a sampling of some of the rivers and streams located in western New York. d Size cabin rentalscabin Waterbody Miles County bass largemouth smallmouth bass pike northern musky musky/tiger pickerel walleye yellow perch bullhea crappie sunfish bass rock white perch trout/salmon ice fishing bait/tackle nearby boat rampspublic boat ramps private boatcartop access rentalsboat marinas campsites Allegheny River 35 Cattaraugus * * * * * * * * * * * * Canandaigua Outlet 35 Wayne/ * * * * Ontario Canisteo River 40 Steuben * * * * * Cassadaga Creek 15 Chautauqua * * * * * * * Cattaraugus Creek 2 Chautauqua/E * * * * * * * * * * * * * rie Chemung River 40 Chemung/ * * * * * * * * * * * Steuben Chenango River 70 Broome/ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Chenango Chittenango Creek 10 Madison/ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Onondaga Cohocton River 20 Steuben * * * * Conewango Creek 11 Chautauqua * * * * * * * * Genegantslet Creek 5 Chenango * * * * * * * * * * * Genesee River 110 multiple * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Little Salmon River 5 Oswego * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Niagara River 37 Erie/ Niagara * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Olean Creek 6 Cattaraugus * * * * * * * * * Oneida River 20 Oswego * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Oswego River 20 Oswego * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Otselic River 5 Broome * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Salmon River 4 Oswego * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix – Priority Brook Trout Subwatersheds Within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
    Appendix – Priority Brook Trout Subwatersheds within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Appendix Table I. Subwatersheds within the Chesapeake Bay watershed that have a priority score ≥ 0.79. HUC 12 Priority HUC 12 Code HUC 12 Name Score Classification 020501060202 Millstone Creek-Schrader Creek 0.86 Intact 020501061302 Upper Bowman Creek 0.87 Intact 020501070401 Little Nescopeck Creek-Nescopeck Creek 0.83 Intact 020501070501 Headwaters Huntington Creek 0.97 Intact 020501070502 Kitchen Creek 0.92 Intact 020501070701 East Branch Fishing Creek 0.86 Intact 020501070702 West Branch Fishing Creek 0.98 Intact 020502010504 Cold Stream 0.89 Intact 020502010505 Sixmile Run 0.94 Reduced 020502010602 Gifford Run-Mosquito Creek 0.88 Reduced 020502010702 Trout Run 0.88 Intact 020502010704 Deer Creek 0.87 Reduced 020502010710 Sterling Run 0.91 Reduced 020502010711 Birch Island Run 1.24 Intact 020502010712 Lower Three Runs-West Branch Susquehanna River 0.99 Intact 020502020102 Sinnemahoning Portage Creek-Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.03 Intact 020502020203 North Creek 1.06 Reduced 020502020204 West Creek 1.19 Intact 020502020205 Hunts Run 0.99 Intact 020502020206 Sterling Run 1.15 Reduced 020502020301 Upper Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.07 Intact 020502020302 Kersey Run 0.84 Intact 020502020303 Laurel Run 0.93 Reduced 020502020306 Spring Run 1.13 Intact 020502020310 Hicks Run 0.94 Reduced 020502020311 Mix Run 1.19 Intact 020502020312 Lower Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.13 Intact 020502020403 Upper First Fork Sinnemahoning Creek 0.96
    [Show full text]
  • Susquehanna River Management Plan
    SUSQUEHANNA RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN A management plan focusing on the large river habitats of the West Branch Susquehanna and Susquehanna rivers of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Bureau of Fisheries Division of Fisheries Management 1601 Elmerton Avenue P.O. Box 67000 Harrisburg, PA 17106-7000 Table of Contents Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... .ii List of Appendix A Tables ...........................................................................................................iii List of Figures .............................................................................................................................v Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... viii Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................ix 1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................1 2.0 River Basin Features .......................................................................................................5 3.0 River Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 22 4.0 Special Jurisdictions .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Event of 6/21/1972 - 6/27/1972
    Flood Event of 6/21/1972 - 6/27/1972 Appomattox Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Farmville 16.00 6/22/1972 29.70 33,100 Major Appomattox Appomattox River Cumberland Prince Edward Matoaca 10.00 6/27/1972 14.60 22,800 Moderate Appomattox Appomattox River Chesterfield Chesterfield Mattoax 21.00 6/25/1972 34.08 31,100 Major Appomattox Appomattox River Amelia Amelia Brandywine Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Chadds Ford 9.00 6/22/1972 16.56 23,800 Major Christina Brandywine Creek Delaware Delaware Wilmington 11.00 6/23/1972 15.49 29,000 Major Christina Brandywine Creek New Castle New Castle Chemung Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Campbell 8.00 6/21/1972 10.86 27,400 Moderate Chemung Cohocton River Steuben Steuben Campbell 8.00 6/23/1972 11.16 32,000 Major Chemung Cohocton River Steuben Steuben Chemung 16.00 6/23/1972 31.62 189,000 Major Chemung Chemung River Chemung Chemung Corning 29.00 6/23/1972 40.71 228,000 Major Chemung Chemung River Steuben Steuben Elmira 12.00 6/23/1972 25.20 235,000 Major Chemung Chemung River Chemung Chemung Lawrenceville 13.00 6/23/1972 17.26 40,500 Major Chemung Cowanesque River Tioga Tioga Created On: 8/16/2016 Page 1 of 10 Lindley 17.00 6/23/1972 26.27 128,000 Major Chemung Tioga River Steuben Steuben Mansfield 12.00 6/22/1972 17.98 24,200 Major Chemung Tioga River Tioga Tioga West Cameron 17.00 6/23/1972 23.48 43,000 Major Chemung
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey, Water Resources Division Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
    AN INVENTORY OF SUSPENDED SEDIMENT STATIONS AND TYPE OF DATA ANALYSIS FOR PENNSYLVANIA STREAMS United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey, Water Resources Division Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Open-File Report 1972 AN INVENTORY OF SUSPENDED SEDIMENT STATIONS AND TYPE OF DATA ANALYSIS FOR PENNSYLVANIA STREAMS 1947-70 By Arthur N. Ott and Allen B. Commings United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey, Water Resources Division Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Open-File Report 1972 CONTENTS Page Introduction5 1 Published sediment data 5 4 Measurement and analysis of suspended sediment samples 5 4 Definition of terms 5 4 Station name and location 5 4 Station number 5 4 Drainage area 5 4 Period of record 5 5 Sampling frequency 5 5 Sediment transport curve 5 5 Sediment concentration frequency 5 5 Sediment trend analysis 5 5 Particle size 5 5 Alphabetical list of sediment stations with type of sediment data available 5 8 List of sediment stations in downstream order 5 19 References 5 24 ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Map showing location of suspended sediment stations in Pennsylvania, 1947-70, exclusive of the lower Delaware River basin 5 2 2.Map showing location of suspended sediment stations in the lower Delaware River basin, Pennsylvania, 1947-705 3 3.Sediment transport curve with selected data showing relation of sediment discharge to water discharge, Juniata River at Newport, 1951-705 6 4.Double mass accumulation of annual suspended sediment discharge versus water discharge, Juniata River at Newport, 1951-705 7 II AN INVENTORY OF SUSPENDED SEDIMENT STATIONS AND TYPE OF DATA ANALYSIS FOR PENNSYLVANIA STREAMS, 1947-70 Arthur N.
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Fishing Regulation Guide
    NEW YORK STATE FRESHWATER FISHING REGULATIONS GUIDE Regulations in efect April 1, 2021 Department of Environmental Conservation New York State has about 300 Complaints are forwarded to an ECO Environmental Conservation Ofcers for investigation. The more detailed (ECOs) and Investigators (ECIs) who work information you provide, the more likely throughout the state, including New the violator will be apprehended. Try to York City. ECOs spend most of their time remember the “who, what, where, when, patrolling within their assigned county. and how" of the event. The assistance of the public is essential • Keep a distance from the violator. Do to the efective enforcement of state not approach or attempt to confront environmental laws and regulations. If you suspects. They may be dangerous, observe someone violating Environmental destroy evidence, or simply evade Conservation Law or see the results of ofcers if forewarned. a violation, REPORT IT! Poachers and • Who did it? Provide names, ages, sex, polluters are thieves, stealing from you, height, weight, clothing or vehicle our fellow anglers, and future generations. descriptions, and other details. Those who pollute our air or water, destroy • What occurred? What exactly do you our environment, or ignore fsh and wildlife think is the nature of the violation? laws are criminals. Examples — taking over limit of fsh, Contact an Environmental snagging, illegal netting, fshing out of season, trespassing. Conservation Police Ofcer • When did it occur? Provide dates and (ECO) times. Is it still in progress, ongoing, or For general questions, call 1-877-457-5680. something yet to happen? Examples— You will speak with a dispatcher who will happening right now, happens every Fri assist you or connect you to an ECO.
    [Show full text]