DOCSLIB.ORG

Nevada 2008-10 Water Quality Integrated Report with EPA Overlisting

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nevada 2008-10 Water Quality Integrated Report with EPA Overlisting Nevada 2008-10 Water Quality Integrated Report With EPA Overlisting Prepared in accordance with the requirements of Sections 303(d)/305(b)/314 of the Clean Water Act May 2013 San Juan Creek in the Humboldt River Basin Prepared by: Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Quality Planning 901 South Stewart Street, Suite 4001 Carson City, NV 89701 Nevada 2008-10 Water Quality Integrated Report Table of Contents Section 1.0 - Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 Section 2.0 - Background ................................................................................................................ 2 2.1 Topography and Hydrogeography ....................................................................................... 2 2.2 Climate and Precipitation ..................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Surface Water ....................................................................................................................... 2 Section 3.0 - Water Quality Control Programs ............................................................................... 5 3.1 Water Quality Standards ...................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Nevada’s Water Pollution Control Program for Point Source Discharges. ......................... 6 3.3 Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program .............................................................. 7 3.4 Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund ............................................................................ 8 3.5 Total Maximum Daily Load Program .................................................................................. 9 Section 4.0 - Surface Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment ................................................. 9 4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 9 4.2 Data Sources ....................................................................................................................... 10 4.3 NDEP Monitoring Data ..................................................................................................... 12 4.4 Other Sources of Monitoring Data .................................................................................... 12 4.5 Assessment Methodology .................................................................................................. 13 Section 5.0 Assessment Results ................................................................................................... 22 5.1 Category Summary ............................................................................................................ 22 5.2 Beneficial Use Summary ................................................................................................... 25 5.3 Category 5 Waters (303(d) List) ........................................................................................ 27 5.4 Delisted Waters .................................................................................................................. 29 5.5 TMDLs ............................................................................................................................... 29 Section 6.0 - Public Participation .................................................................................................. 30 Section 7.0 - References ............................................................................................................... 31 Nevada 2008-10 Water Quality Integrated Report with EPA Overlisting Page i May 2013 List of Tables Table 1. Summary of Nevada Waterbodies ................................................................................... 4 Table 2. Sources of Data Used for the 2008-10 Integrated Report ............................................. 13 Table 3. Minimum Number of Exceedances to Categorize a Standard as Not Met .................... 16 Table 4. Summary of Waterbody Segments Evaluated in the 2008-10 Integrated Report ......... 22 Table 5. Summary of Assessment Results – Streams .................................................................. 24 Table 6. Summary of Assessment Results – Lakes and Reservoirs ............................................ 24 Table 7. Summary of Assessment Results – Wetlands ................................................................ 25 Table 8. Summary of Beneficial Use Status for Streams ............................................................. 26 Table 9. Summary of Beneficial Use Status for Lakes and Reservoirs ....................................... 26 Table 10. Summary of Beneficial Use Status for Wetlands ........................................................ 27 Table 11. Causes of Impairment (Category 5 - 303(d) List) ........................................................ 28 List of Figures Figure 1. Nevada Hydrographic Regions and Basins .................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Water Quality Sample Sites Used in the 2008-10 Integrated Report .......................... 11 Figure 3. Waters Assessed for the 2008-10 Integrated Report .................................................... 23 List of Attachments Attachment 1 – Waterbody Changes Between the 2006 and the 2008 – 2010 Integrated Reports. Attachment 2 –Assessment Sampling Stations Attachment 3(a & b) –2008-10 Waterbody Assessment Results Attachment 4 –Category 5 Waters (303(d) List) Attachment 5 –Delisted Waters Attachment 6 –Approved TMDL List Nevada 2008-10 Water Quality Integrated Report with EPA Overlisting Page ii May 2013 Abbreviations and Acronyms The following abbreviation and acronyms appear throughout this document and the Attachments: A Acres AA Annual Average ADB Assessment Database AGM Annual Geometric Mean AQL Aquatic Life BLM United States Bureau of Land Management BWQP Nevada Bureau of Water Quality Planning CFR Code of Federal Regulations CWA Clean Water Act DRI Desert Research Institute EAV Water of Extraordinary or Aesthetic Value EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency EWQ Enhancement of Water Quality F Fully Supporting °F Degrees Fahrenheit FC Fish Consumption FDA United States Food and Drug Administration FM Freshwater Marsh I Insufficient Information IND Industrial Supply IR Integrated Report IRR Irrigation MCL Maximum Contaminant Limit MDS Municipal or Domestic Supply MGD Million gallons per day N Not Supporting NAC Nevada Administrative Code NDBU No Designated Beneficial Use NDEP Nevada Division of Environmental Protection NDH Nevada Division of Health NDOW Nevada Department of Wildlife NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPS Nonpoint source NRS Nevada Revised Statute PWL Propagation of Wildlife RMHQ Requirement to Maintain Higher Quality RNC Recreation Not Involving Contact with Water RWC Recreation Involving Contact with Water TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TMWRF Truckee Meadows Water Reclamation Facility USGS United States Geological Survey X Not Assessed WLS Watering of Livestock WQS Water Quality Standard Nevada 2008-10 Water Quality Integrated Report with EPA Overlisting Page iii May 2013 Section 1.0 - Introduction In 1972, Congress passed Public Law 92-500, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). The goal of this act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) implements the CWA in Nevada, with oversight from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Every two years, Nevada is required by the CWA to conduct a comprehensive analysis of water quality data associated with Nevada's surface waters to determine whether state surface water quality standards are being met and designated uses are being supported. These reports are submitted to the EPA for approval. Once approved this information is used to guide water resource management decisions. Past waterbody assessments resulted in two products: the Section 303(d) List and the Section 305(b) report. Section 305(b) reporting often allowed for greater flexibility in regards to data age and quantity whereas, the Section 303(d) Lists only reported known beneficial use impairments based on high quality data of sufficient quantity to make confident assessments and decisions. Although the programs overlapped, interpretations and comparisons between the two assessments may have been misleading and not afforded water quality managers the ability to accurately describe the status of a single waterbody or the State’s overall water quality. For these reasons, EPA has encouraged states to adopt an integrated reporting process. The use of a single report creates consistency in the beneficial use assessments and determinations of whether a waterbody is “impaired” or “supported” for assigned beneficial uses. On March 1, 2009, EPA provided guidance for the 2010 waterbody assessments and reporting requirements for Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314 of the CWA. NDEP has developed the Nevada 2008-10 Water Quality Integrated Report for use by the public, other entities, and for NDEP water quality management planning purposes. Due to delays in the 2008 Integrated Report, the 2008 and 2010 reporting cycles were combined for this 2008-10 Integrated Report. Nevada 2008-10 Water Quality Integrated Report with EPA Overlisting
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2007 Lake Monitoring Report Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program SWIM Phase I Part 2-CO
    2007 Lake Monitoring Report Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program SWIM Phase I Part 2-CO Prepared by: David Buetow Final Report for FY2007-2008 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND The Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program (MCWQP) has an ongoing program to monitor the water quality in the three Catawba Lakes bordering the county: Lake Norman, Mountain Island Lake and Lake Wylie. Samples are also routinely collected at the two water bodies in the northern end of Mecklenburg County cut off from Lake Norman proper by I-77: Lake Cornelius and Lake Davidson. Data collected from all lake sites are used to screen for environmental problems using MCWQP Action and Watch levels for various pollutants and also to rate the overall water quality at sampling locations in the lakes using a water quality index. Additional objectives are to describe seasonal trends and address spatial variability in the data. This report presents the lake monitoring data for the calendar year 2007 ACTIVITIES AND METHODS Regular monthly lake sampling was conducted at seven locations in Lake Norman and one location each on Lake Cornelius and Lake Davidson (Appendix A), ten locations in Mountain Island Lake (Appendix B) and eight sampling locations in Lake Wylie (Appendix C). In May 2007, the sampling program was changed in Lake Wylie to add several new cove monitoring sites. This resulted in an increase in regular sampling sites in Lake Wylie from eight to thirteen (Appendix D). Lakes Norman, Wylie and Mountain Island were sampled monthly from May through September and every other month during the rest of the year, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Throwing Distance and Competitive Performance of Boccia Players
    J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 32: 574–577, 2020 The Journal of Physical Therapy Science Original Article Throwing distance and competitive performance of Boccia players Masataka Kataoka, PhD1)*, Kuniharu Okuda, PhD1), Akira Iwata, PhD1), Shuji Imura, MS1), Kosuke Yahagi, MS1), Yohei Matsuo2) 1) Graduate School of Comprehensive Rehabilitation, Osaka Prefecture University: 3-7-30 Habikino, Habikino-city, Osaka 583-8555, Japan 2) Fukushima Rehabilitation Center for Children, Japan Abstract. [Purpose] This study aimed to clarify the relationship between throwing distance and competitive performance in Boccia players in order to establish a training program based on this evidence. [Participants and Methods] In total, 40 athletes, who competed in the Japan Boccia Championships and are certified players of the Japan Boccia Association, participated in the study. Participants threw the Boccia ball as far as possible, and throw- ing distances were compared between certified players (Group I, n=8), those who participated in the final round (Group II, n=9), and those who lost in the preliminary round (Group III, n=23). [Results] The maximum throwing distances were 16.38 ± 5.17 m (Group I), 10.67 ± 2.66 m (Group II), and 8.34 ± 2.73 m (Group III). Group I threw the ball significantly farther than Groups II and III. [Conclusion] Boccia is a target sport and throwing farther distances requires more effort. In addition, being able to throw at a longer distance means that Boccia players can throw a stronger ball and use this for various tactics. The results of this study suggest that long-distance throwing training would be effective in improving the competitive performance of Boccia players.
    [Show full text]
  • World Para Nordic Skiing Homologation Guide Version 2017
    World Para Nordic Skiing Homologation Guide Version 2017 Homologation of courses for World Para Nordic Skiing (WPNS) (Para Cross Country Skiing and Para Biathlon for skiers with impairments) 1 General In general, the philosophy for FIS homologation, and the requirements and recommendations for stadium and course design applies to World Para Nordic Skiing as well. IBU requirements for stadium, range and course design are also applicable, particularly on IBU venues. See FIS Homologation manual for: - Philosophy of Homologation - Course Design Criteria - Design of courses - Stadium - Waxing cabins, Ski test area, warm up course - Practicing homologation skills However, since certain classes and categories have clear physical limitations, the courses must in general be made easier, with special attention to fast downhill sections, sharp curves, and steep or long up hills. The following sections will describe areas within homologation work that specifically should be considered when designing courses for Paralympic Nordic Skiing athletes. 2 Definitions 2.1 HD (height difference) is the difference in height between the lowest and highest points of a competition course. 2.2 MC (Maximum climb) is the climb with the highest partial height difference, in other terms, the biggest uphill. The uphill can be interrupted by a section of undulating terrain that does not exceed 200 m in length or a downhill that does not exceed 10 m PHD. 2.3 TC (Total climb) represents a total of all climbs on the course. World Para Nordic Skiing Homologation Guide ver 2017 1 3 Classification Paralympic Nordic Skiing athletes are classified according to the following table: Category Class Region Impairment Main sport equipment and degree of impairment Standing LW2 Impairments in one lower limb (ex.
    [Show full text]
  • Framework for In-Field Analyses of Performance and Sub-Technique Selection in Standing Para Cross-Country Skiers
    sensors Article Framework for In-Field Analyses of Performance and Sub-Technique Selection in Standing Para Cross-Country Skiers Camilla H. Carlsen 1,*, Julia Kathrin Baumgart 1, Jan Kocbach 1,2, Pål Haugnes 1 , Evy M. B. Paulussen 1,3 and Øyvind Sandbakk 1 1 Centre for Elite Sports Research, Department of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway; [email protected] (J.K.B.); [email protected] (J.K.); [email protected] (P.H.); [email protected] (E.M.B.P.); [email protected] (Ø.S.) 2 NORCE Norwegian Research Centre AS, 5008 Bergen, Norway 3 Faculty of Health, Medicine & Life Sciences, Maastricht University, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +47-452-40-788 Abstract: Our aims were to evaluate the feasibility of a framework based on micro-sensor technology for in-field analyses of performance and sub-technique selection in Para cross-country (XC) skiing by using it to compare these parameters between elite standing Para (two men; one woman) and able- bodied (AB) (three men; four women) XC skiers during a classical skiing race. The data from a global navigation satellite system and inertial measurement unit were integrated to compare time loss and selected sub-techniques as a function of speed. Compared to male/female AB skiers, male/female Para skiers displayed 19/14% slower average speed with the largest time loss (65 ± 36/35 ± 6 s/lap) Citation: Carlsen, C.H.; Kathrin found in uphill terrain.
    [Show full text]
  • World Para Nordic Skiing WC Points Winter Season 2019/20
    World Para Nordic Skiing World Cup Overall Rankings Winter Season 2019/20 World Para Nordic Skiing WC Points Winter Season 2019/20 World Cup Overall Rankings Cross Country created by IPC Sport Data Management System Period Start: 2019-07-01 | Period End: 2020-06-30 Women's VI Rank SDMS ID Name NPC Class WC Points Tie Break 1 43739 Khlyzova, Vera RUS B2 600 2 43732 Panferova, Anna RUS B2 560 3 13436 Sakhanenka, Sviatlana BLR B2 515 4 29128 Edlinger, Carina AUT B1 405 5 13605 Lysova, Mikhalina RUS B2 285 6 23918 Galitsyna, Marina RUS B1 258 7 43733 Umrilova, Vlada RUS B3 190 8 13657 Shyshkova, Oksana UKR B2 180 9 35723 Walter, Leonie Maria GER B2 165 10 19064 Klug, Clara GER B1 126 11 43734 Tereshchenkova, Margarita RUS B3 117 12 23987 Smirnova, Iuliia RUS B2 102 13 13525 Hoesch, Vivian GER B1 82 14 35103 Recktenwald, Johanna GER B2 76 15 43740 Razumnaia, Ekaterina RUS B2 66 16 40995 Kapustei, Andriana UKR B2 56 17 44280 Tkachenko, Nataliia UKR B2 52 18 13619 Remizova, Elena RUS B3 48 19 23919 Moshkovskaia, Ekaterina RUS B2 24 20 43742 Berezhnaia, Kseniia RUS B2 20 Women's Standing Rank SDMS ID Name NPC Class WC Points Tie Break 1 31597 Nilsen, Vilde NOR LW4 780 2 23402 Rumyantseva, Ekaterina RUS LW5/7 385 3 19080 Liashenko, Liudmyla UKR LW8 380 4 13643 Batenkova-Bauman, Yuliia UKR LW6 350 5 13648 Kononova, Oleksandra UKR LW8 325 6 29233 Mikheeva, Iuliia RUS LW8 264 7 30463 Faron, Iweta POL LW8 239 8 35400 Wilkie, Natalie CAN LW8 238 9 31663 Konashuk, Bohdana UKR LW8 188 10 20534 Ostroborodko, Anna RUS LW8 177 11 20641 Hudak, Brittany CAN
    [Show full text]
  • Classification Made Easy Class 1
    Classification Made Easy Class 1 (CP1) The most severely disabled athletes belong to this classification. These athletes are dependent on a power wheelchair or assistance for mobility. They have severe limitation in both the arms and the legs and have very poor trunk control. Sports Available: • Race Runner (RR1) – using the Race Runner frame to run, track events include 100m, 200m and 400m. • Boccia o Boccia Class 1 (BC1) – players who fit into this category can throw the ball onto the court or a CP2 Lower who chooses to push the ball with the foot. Each BC1 athlete has a sport assistant on court with them. o Boccia Class 3 (BC3) – players who fit into this category cannot throw the ball onto the court and have no sustained grasp or release action. They will use a “chute” or “ramp” with the help from their sport assistant to propel the ball. They may use head or arm pointers to hold and release the ball. Players with a impairment of a non cerebral origin, severely affecting all four limbs, are included in this class. Class 2 (CP2) These athletes have poor strength or control all limbs but are able to propel a wheelchair. Some Class 2 athletes can walk but can never run functionally. The class 2 athletes can throw a ball but demonstrates poor grasp and release. Sports Available: • Race Runner (RR2) - using the Race Runner frame to run, track events include 100m, 200m and 400m. • Boccia o Boccia Class 2 (BC2) – players can throw the ball into the court consistently and do not need on court assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Classification Information Sheet Para-Cross Country Skiing
    Classification Information Sheet Para-Cross Country Skiing This information is intended to be a generic guide to classification for Para-Cross Country Skiing. The classification of athletes in this sport is performed by authorised classifiers according to the World Para Nordic Skiing classification rules. What is the classification process? Trained classifiers assess an athlete using the World Para Nordic Skiing classification rules to determine the following: 1. Does the athlete have an eligible impairment type? An athlete must have a permanent eligible impairment type and provide medical documentation detailing their diagnosis and health condition. 2. Does the athlete meet the minimum impairment criteria for the sport? Specific criteria applied to each sport to determine if a person’s impairment results in sufficient limitation in their sport. This is called the minimum impairment criteria. 3. What is the appropriate class to allocate the athlete for competition? Classes are detailed in the classification rules for the sport and a classifier determines the class an athlete will compete in. Which Paralympic impairment groups compete in Para-Cross Country Skiing? Athletes are required to have a permanent, eligible impairment and will be required to provide medical diagnostic information about their diagnosis and impairment. Eligible Impairment Type Examples of health conditions Vision Reduced or no vision in both eyes caused by damage to the eye structure, optical Impairment nerves/optic pathways, or visual cortex of the brain. Includes
    [Show full text]
  • World Para Alpine Skiing EC Points Winter Season
    World Para Alpine Skiing Europa Cup Overall Rankings Winter Season 2016/17 World Para Alpine Skiing EC Points Winter Season 2016/17 Europa Cup Overall Rankings created by IPC Sport Data Management System Period Start: 2016-07-01 | Period End: 2017-06-30 Women's VI Rank SDMS ID Name NPC Class EC Points Tie Break 1 24063 Goluza, Eva CRO B2 625 2 24071 Sana, Eleonor BEL B3 560 3 23842 Ristau, Noemi Ewa GER B2 430 4 12946 Perrine, Melissa AUS B2 400 5 20310 Dessart, Marie-Morgane BEL B3 270 6 13418 Umstead, Danelle USA B2 215 7 13140 Gallagher, Kelly GBR B3 100 8= 14237 Mannella, Staci USA B3 80 8= 16125 Yang, Jae Rim KOR B2 80 Women's Standing Rank SDMS ID Name NPC Class EC Points Tie Break 1 13086 Pueyo Marimon, Ursula ESP LW2 829 2 17261 Schmidt, Bigna SUI LW5/7-3 660 3 29162 Rieder, Anna-Maria GER LW9-1 600 4 13206 Corradini, Melania ITA LW6/8-1 440 5 13261 Jochemsen, Anna NED LW2 360 6 13162 Rothfuss, Andrea GER LW6/8-2 300 7 31624 Hondo, Ammi JPN LW6/8-2 260 8 17095 Chatel-Laley, Marie FRA LW9-2 215 9 22219 Perez de Juan, Barbara ESP LW4 210 10 20240 Turgeon, Frederique CAN LW2 141 11 26952 Pemble, Mel CAN LW9-2 125 12 22832 Jepsen, Mollie CAN LW6/8-2 80 13 13034 Schwartz, Melanie USA LW2 77 14 31418 Joechl, Eva-Maria AUT LW6/8-1 60 15 13351 Smarzova, Petra SVK LW6/8-2 40 Women's Sitting Rank SDMS ID Name NPC Class EC Points Tie Break 1 18077 Hagspiel, Ruth GER LW10-1 595 2 28882 Tuertscher, Heike AUT LW12-1 490 3 21797 van Bergen, Barbara NED LW11 460 4 12977 Loesch, Claudia AUT LW11 380 5 13163 Schaffelhuber, Anna GER LW10-2 260 6
    [Show full text]
  • IPC Alpine Skiing Classification Rules and Regulations
    IPC Alpine Skiing Classification Rules and Regulations 05 December 2012 International Paralympic Committee Adenauerallee 212-214 Tel.+49 228 2097-200 www.paralympic.org 53113 Bonn, Germany Fax+49 228 2097-209 [email protected] Content 1 INTRODUCTION TO CLASSIFICATION ..................................................................................................... 4 1.1 GOVERNANCE ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 STRUCTURE OF CLASSIFICATION REGULATIONS .................................................................................................................. 4 1.3 PURPOSE OF CLASSIFICATION REGULATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 IPC CLASSIFICATION CODE ........................................................................................................................................... 5 1.5 DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 2 CLASSIFIERS .......................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 CLASSIFICATION PERSONNEL ......................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 CLASSIFIERS – LEVELS
    [Show full text]
  • (VA) Veteran Monthly Assistance Allowance for Disabled Veterans
    Revised May 23, 2019 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veteran Monthly Assistance Allowance for Disabled Veterans Training in Paralympic and Olympic Sports Program (VMAA) In partnership with the United States Olympic Committee and other Olympic and Paralympic entities within the United States, VA supports eligible service and non-service-connected military Veterans in their efforts to represent the USA at the Paralympic Games, Olympic Games and other international sport competitions. The VA Office of National Veterans Sports Programs & Special Events provides a monthly assistance allowance for disabled Veterans training in Paralympic sports, as well as certain disabled Veterans selected for or competing with the national Olympic Team, as authorized by 38 U.S.C. 322(d) and Section 703 of the Veterans’ Benefits Improvement Act of 2008. Through the program, VA will pay a monthly allowance to a Veteran with either a service-connected or non-service-connected disability if the Veteran meets the minimum military standards or higher (i.e. Emerging Athlete or National Team) in his or her respective Paralympic sport at a recognized competition. In addition to making the VMAA standard, an athlete must also be nationally or internationally classified by his or her respective Paralympic sport federation as eligible for Paralympic competition. VA will also pay a monthly allowance to a Veteran with a service-connected disability rated 30 percent or greater by VA who is selected for a national Olympic Team for any month in which the Veteran is competing in any event sanctioned by the National Governing Bodies of the Olympic Sport in the United State, in accordance with P.L.
    [Show full text]
  • World Para Alpine Skiing Rules and Regulations
    World Para Alpine Skiing Rules and Regulations 2018/2019 August 2018 World Para Alpine Skiing Rules and Regulations For Alpine Skiing: Downhill, Super-G, Super Combined, Giant Slalom, Slalom, & Team Events 2018-2019 Season – valid until 1 October 2019 World Para Alpine Skiing Rules and Regulations: Competition Season 2018-2019 1 Contents Section 1: Regulations 300 Joint Regulations for World Para Alpine Skiing (WPAS) 301 WPAS Competitions 302 World Cup (Level 0) and Europa Cup, NORAM (Level 1) Point System, Rankings and Trophies 303 World Para Alpine Skiing Calendar 304 World Para Alpine Skiing Race Licence (WPAS Licence) 305 Race Licence Pre-requisites 306 Competitor’s Obligations and Rights 307 Sponsorships and Advertising 308 Display of Competition Equipment 309 Organisation of Competition 310 Invitation/Programme 311 Competition Administration and Fee Regulations (Athletes and Organising Committees) 312 Competition Entries 313 Team Captains’ Meetings 314 Draw 315 Start List / Publication of Results 316 Competitor Medical Examinations and Compliance with the IPC Anti-Doping Code 317 Medical Services Required from Event Organisers 318 Competition Equipment 319 Equipment Controls 320 Gambling and Competitions 321 Sanctions 322 Procedural Guidelines 323 Protests 324 Place of Submission World Para Alpine Skiing Rules and Regulations: Competition Season 2018-2019 2 325 Deadlines for Submission 326 Form of Protests 327 Protest Fees 328 Authorisation 329 Settlement of Protests by the Jury 330 Appeals Section 2: Rules Common to All Alpine Skiing
    [Show full text]
  • Cryo-EM Structures of Respiratory Bc1-Cbb3 Type CIII2CIV Super-Complex and Electronic Communication Between the Complexes
    Cryo-EM Structures of Respiratory bc1-cbb3 type CIII2CIV Super-complex and Electronic Communication Between the Complexes Stefan Steimle1, Trevor VanEeuwen2, Yavuz Ozturk1, #, Hee Jong Kim2, Merav Braitbard3, Nur Selamoglu1, Benjamin A. Garcia4, Dina Schneidman-Duhovny3, Kenji Murakami4,* and Fevzi Daldal1,* 1Department of Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104; 2Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics Graduate Group, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104; #Institute of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Faculty of Medicine, Albert Ludwigs University of Freiburg, 79104 Freiburg, Germany; 3School of Computer Science and Engineering, Institute of Life Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 9190401, Israel and 4Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104 Running title: Bacterial respiratory cytochrome bc1-cbb3 supercomplex Key words: cytochrome bc1 or Complex III; Cytochrome cbb3 oxidase or Complex IV; respiratory super-complex; electron carrier cytochrome c; membrane-anchored cytochrome cy; soluble cytochrome c2; Rhodobacter capsulatus; respiratory electron transport chain *Corresponding authors: Fevzi Daldal: [email protected] Phone: +1 215 898-4394 Kenji Murakami: [email protected] Phone: +1 215 573-1125 1 Methods Bacterial strains and growth conditions Bacterial strains and plasmids used are listed in Table S1. LB medium supplemented as appropriate with ampicillin, gentamicin, kanamycin or tetracycline at 100, 12, 50 or 12.5 μg/mL, respectively, was used for growing E. coli strains at 37 °C (Darrouzet and Daldal, 2002). R. capsulatus strains were grown chemoheterotrophically under semi-aerobic/dark conditions at 35 °C on enriched (MPYE) medium, supplemented as needed with gentamicin, kanamycin, spectinomycin, or tetracycline at 3, 10, 10 or 2.5 μg/mL, respectively (Davidson et al., 1992).
    [Show full text]