DOCSLIB.ORG

Tier II Programmatic Biological Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tier II Programmatic Biological Assessment APPENDIX NN Tier II Programmatic Biological Assessment Template for use with projects involving the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Bridge Replacement and Maintenance Program on the Northern Riffleshell and Clubshell in the Ohio River Basin, Pennsylvania FHWA National BA PennDOT Programmatic Biological Opinion USFWS Project #2007-1722 Tier II Template WORD Version accessible at Tier II BA Project Name: Insert Starting Here --> Date: Insert Starting Here --> Management Unit: Insert Starting Here --> identify Management Unit as per Tier I Programmatic Biological Opinion (Review the USFWS Biological Opinion)(Review the PFBC Biological Opinion) Management Unit 1 (the average T&E mussel species population density is ≥ 0.5 per square meter – includes French Creek and free-flowing section of the Allegheny River) Management Unit 2 (the average T&E mussel species population density is estimated at <0.5 per square meter) Management Unit 3 (rivers and streams with insufficient survey data to determine population densities) Management Unit 4 (includes stream reaches of all tributaries located within a mile of other KNOWN T&E mussel population units [i.e. MU-1 and MU-2]. Stream reaches in MU-4 are considered to have low potential for T&E habitat but are tributaries to known habitat areas.) Primary Agency and Contact: Insert Starting Here --> Agency Contact Project Role E-mail Phone FHWA Lead Action Agency (complete if there is another Other Federal Federal Action Agency) Action Agency PennDOT District Designated Non- X-0 Federal Representative Firm Name Lead BA Preparer Firm Name BA Preparer PennDOT - EQAD Designated Non- Federal Representative PennDOT - Designated Non- HQAD Federal Representative 1 Executive Summary [instructions] Insert Starting Here --> The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in conjunction with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) Engineering District X-0 has prepared this Programmatic Tier II Biological Assessment in accordance with the PennDOT Programmatic Biological Opinion USFWS Project #2007- 1722. This document is streamlined and provides only project specific details and information not previously provided during the Tier I consultation. The Tier I consultation and Biological Opinion should be referred to for additional information as necessary. Add project location and brief description Complete the following including only those species applicable to the project: TABLE ES-1 Summary of Effect Determinations Check (X) Species Listing Status Effect Determination those present (No Effect or May Effect only) Pleurobema clava Endangered (federal May Affect (clubshell) and state) Epioblasma torulosa Endangered (federal May Affect rangiana and state) (northern riffleshell) Villosa fabalis Endangered (federal/ May Affect (rayed bean) and state) Plethobasus cyphyus Federal Endangered May Affect (sheepnose) and State Threatened Epioblasma triquetra Endangered (federal May Affect (snuffbox) and state) Quadrula cylindrica cylindrical State Endangered and May Affect (rabbitsfoot) Federally Proposed Threatened with designated critical habitat Simpsonaias ambigua State Endangered May Affect (salamander mussel) This document also serves to provide the similar information necessary for the PFBC to issue a special permit authorizing the take of the state listed mussel species as per 058 Pa Code § 75.4 2 Chapter 1 — Project Overview [instructions] 1.1. Federal Nexus [instructions] This Tier II Biological Assessment, prepared by the insert lead federal agency in conjunction with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) as its non-Federal representative (if FHWA is not the lead federal agency replace “non-Federal representative” with “applicant”), addresses the proposed action in compliance with Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires that, through consultation with the U.S. and Wildlife Service (USFWS), federal actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened, endangered, or proposed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The lead federal agency for the Section 7 consultation for insert project name is: (check one box below) FHWA – Provision of Federal Funding FEMA – Provision of Federal Funding for Emergency Declarations U. S. Army Corps of Engineers – Permit Issuance Other federal agencies with actions related to this project are checked below: (check all that apply) U. S. Army Corps of Engineers – Permit Issuance Other – (specify – other actions could include U.S. Coast Guard Permits, an action by the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation, or an action by the U. S Forest Service regarding a National Scenic River Designation) 3 1.2. Project Description [instructions] 1.2.1 Bridge Location / Identification: (insert County, Twp, Lat. Long, PNDI Receipt No., USFWS Project No. and reference a project location map – append location map and PNDI receipt) Management Unit: MU-1 MU-2 MU-3 MU=4 If Management Unit 1 or 2 is identified complete all sections of the Tier II Biological Assessment. If Management Unit 4 is identified above complete Sections 1.2.2, 4.2, 5.1, 6.3, 6.4, 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3. If Management Unit 3 is identified above check the appropriate box below and proceed as directed: A mussel survey was performed and the results indicated that threatened and endangered species are not present. SUBMIT THE MUSSEL SURVEY REPORT TO USFWS AND PFBC – NO NEED TO COMPLETE THE BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT. USFWS AND PFBC WILL RESPOND TO THE MUSSEL SURVEY REPORT SUBMISSION. A mussel survey was performed and the results indicate that threatened and endangered species population density is greater than 0.50 per square meter. (Avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures as indicated for Management Unit 1 are applicable to this project and have been applied for this Tier II BA) COMPLETE SECTIONS OF THE TIER II BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT AS INDICATED ABOVE FOR MU-1. A mussel survey was performed and the results indicate population densities of less than 0.50 per square meter, (Avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures as indicated for Management Unit 2 are applicable to this project and have been applied for this Tier II BA). COMPLETE SECTIONS OF THE TIER II BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT AS INDICATED ABOVE FOR MU-2. 4 1.2.2 Project Description Narrative: In conjunction with PennDOT Engineering District X-0, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) plans to replace the insert name Bridge, which carries SR XXXX, Section XXX over insert stream/river name in insert name Township, insert name County,Pennsylvania. This project is necessary and appropriate in the interest of public health and safety. (Note that this last sentence is a requirement for PFBC permit issuance and must be stated) Insert Starting Here --> Insert project description - (Review a Sample Project Description Narrative) 1.3. Project Area and Setting [instructions] COMPLETE FOR MU-1 & MU-2 PROJECTS Insert Starting Here --> Insert project area and setting description - (Review a Sample Project Area and Setting Narrative) 1.4. Consultation History [instructions] COMPLETE FOR MU-1& MU-2 PROJECTS Information regarding past consultations is provided in the Tier I Consultation - Programmatic Biological Opinion USFWS Project #2007-1722 and subsequent annual reports submitted as a condition of the Tier I consultation. The history of the Tier II consultation for insert project name is as follows: (Review a Sample Consultation History) Complete in the following format including all correspondence and actions to date) Date Action Date Action Date Action 5 Chapter 2 — Federally Proposed and Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitat [instructions] This information was provided during the Tier I Consultation - Programmatic Biological Opinion USFWS Project #2007-1722. (No additional text required – additional reference may be added upon receipt of a BO or Conference Report for species that are currently proposed for federal listing) Chapter 3 — Environmental Baseline [instructions] COMPLETE FOR MU-1& MU-2 PROJECTS Insert Starting Here --> Insert Environmental Baseline text - (Review Sample Environmental Baseline Narrative) Chapter 4 — Project Details [instructions] 4.1. Proposed Project Design COMPLETE FOR MU-1& MU-2 PROJECTS Insert Starting Here --> --> Insert Proposed Project Details - (Review Sample Project Details) 4.2. Construction [instructions] 4.2.1. Project Timeline and Sequencing Insert Starting Here --> insert Construction Sequencing – include timeframes for pre- construction mussel salvage, post-construction monitoring efforts and other similar key conservation measure implementation. 6 4.2.2. In-Water Work Insert Starting Here --> Insert Details - (Review a Sample Narrative for this Section) 4.2.3. Tier I Consultation Best Management Practices and Conservation Measures Incorporated Check all of the following Best Management Practices that apply in all Management Units – if any of the measures in each section are either not feasible or do not apply complete the “Remarks” Section that follows grouping of measures. Water Quality and Pollution Prevention Measures (all Management Units) 1. Fuel transfer and vehicle maintenance will occur within a containment site with adequate buffering (berms, vegetation, etc.) at least 150 feet away from receiving waters. 2. Staging areas for construction vehicles and equipment will be on appropriate work pads located at least 150 feet away from receiving waters. 3.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pennsylvania Code, Title 25, Chapter 93, Water Quality Standards
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Ch. 93 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 25 CHAPTER 93. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 93.1. Definitions. 93.2. Scope. 93.3. Protected water uses. 93.4. Statewide water uses. ANTIDEGRADATION REQUIREMENTS 93.4a. Antidegradation. 93.4b. Qualifying as High Quality or Exceptional Value Waters. 93.4c. Implementation of antidegradation requirements. 93.4d. Processing of petitions, evaluations and assessments to change a designated use. 93.5. [Reserved]. WATER QUALITY CRITERIA 93.6. General water quality criteria. 93.7. Specific water quality criteria. 93.8. [Reserved]. 93.8a. Toxic substances. 93.8b. Metals criteria. 93.8c. Human health and aquatic life criteria for toxic substances. 93.8d. Development of site-specific water quality criteria. 93.8e. Special criteria for the Great Lakes System. DESIGNATED WATER USES AND WATER QUALITY CRITERIA 93.9. Designated water uses and water quality criteria. 93.9a. Drainage List A. 93.9b. Drainage List B. 93.9c. Drainage List C. 93.9d. Drainage List D. 93.9e. Drainage List E. 93.9f. Drainage List F. 93.9g. Drainage List G. 93.9h. Drainage List H. 93.9i. Drainage List I. 93.9j. Drainage List J. 93.9k. Drainage List K. 93.9l. Drainage List L.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Trout Waters (Natural Reproduction) - September 2021
    Pennsylvania Wild Trout Waters (Natural Reproduction) - September 2021 Length County of Mouth Water Trib To Wild Trout Limits Lower Limit Lat Lower Limit Lon (miles) Adams Birch Run Long Pine Run Reservoir Headwaters to Mouth 39.950279 -77.444443 3.82 Adams Hayes Run East Branch Antietam Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.815808 -77.458243 2.18 Adams Hosack Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.914780 -77.467522 2.90 Adams Knob Run Birch Run Headwaters to Mouth 39.950970 -77.444183 1.82 Adams Latimore Creek Bermudian Creek Headwaters to Mouth 40.003613 -77.061386 7.00 Adams Little Marsh Creek Marsh Creek Headwaters dnst to T-315 39.842220 -77.372780 3.80 Adams Long Pine Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Long Pine Run Reservoir 39.942501 -77.455559 2.13 Adams Marsh Creek Out of State Headwaters dnst to SR0030 39.853802 -77.288300 11.12 Adams McDowells Run Carbaugh Run Headwaters to Mouth 39.876610 -77.448990 1.03 Adams Opossum Creek Conewago Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.931667 -77.185555 12.10 Adams Stillhouse Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.915470 -77.467575 1.28 Adams Toms Creek Out of State Headwaters to Miney Branch 39.736532 -77.369041 8.95 Adams UNT to Little Marsh Creek (RM 4.86) Little Marsh Creek Headwaters to Orchard Road 39.876125 -77.384117 1.31 Allegheny Allegheny River Ohio River Headwater dnst to conf Reed Run 41.751389 -78.107498 21.80 Allegheny Kilbuck Run Ohio River Headwaters to UNT at RM 1.25 40.516388 -80.131668 5.17 Allegheny Little Sewickley Creek Ohio River Headwaters to Mouth 40.554253 -80.206802
    [Show full text]
  • Of Surface-Water Records to September 30, 1970 Part 3.-0Hio River Basin
    c Index of Surface-Water Records to September 30, 1970 Part 3.-0hio River Basin Index of Surface-Water Recordr to September 30, 1 970 Part 3.-0hio River Basin GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 653 Washington J ,71 United States Department of the Interior ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary Geological Survey W. A. Radlinski, Acting Director Free on application to the U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 20242 Index of Surface-Water Records to September 30, 1970 Part 3.-0hio River Basin INTRODUCTION This report lists the streamflow and reservoir stations in the Ohio River basin for which records have been or are to be published in reports of the Geological Survey for periods through September 30, 1970. lt supersedes Geo­ logical Survey Circular 573. It was updated by personnel of the Data Reports Unit, Water Resources Division, Geo­ logical Survey. Basic data on surface-water supply have been published in an annual series of water-supply papers consisting of several volumes, including one each for the States of Alaska and Hawaii. The area of the other 48 States is divided into 14 parts whose boundaries coincide with certain natural drainage lines. Prior to 1951, the records for the 48 States were published in 14 volumes, one for each of the parts. From 1951 to 1%0, the records for the 48 States were published annually in 18 volumes, there being 2 volumes each for Parts 1, 2, 3, and 6. Beginning in 1961, the annual series of water-supply papers on surface-water supply was changed to a 5-year series, and records for the period 1961-65 were published in 37 volumes, there being 2 or more volumes for each of 11 parts and one each for parts 10, 13, 14, 15 (Alaska), and 16 (Hawaii and other Pacific areas).
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix K-1 – Endangered Species Habitat and Wildlife Technical Report
    I-69 Ohio River Crossing Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement APPENDIX K-1 Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species Habitat Assessment and Wildlife Technical Report Clarification Note for Central Alternative 1: Central Alternatives 1A and 1B as described in the DEIS are physically the same alternative. The only difference between them is that Central Alternative 1A would include tolls on both the new I-69 bridge and on the US 41 bridge. Central Alternative 1B would only include tolls on the new I-69 bridge. Any reference in this document to Central Alternative 1 applies to both Central Alternative 1A and Central Alternative 1B. Appendices October 15 , 2018 (1'$1*(5('7+5($7(1(' $1'5$5(63(&,(6+$%,7$7 $66(660(17 $1':,/'/,)( 7( CHNICAL 5(3257 I-69I-69 O OHIOHI O RRIVERIVER CCROSSINGROSS IN G PPROJECTROJ ECT Evansville, IN and Henderson, KY I N D O T Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species Habitat Assessment and Wildlife Technical Report I-69 Ohio River Crossing Project Evansville, IN and Henderson, KY Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services I-69 Ohio River Crossing Project ETR Species Habitat Assessment and Wildlife Technical Report TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1-1 West Alternative 1 ............................................................................................. 1-4 West Alternative 2 ............................................................................................. 1-6 Central Alternative 1 .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Epioblasma Torulosa Rangiana (Lea) Northern Riffleshell
    Epioblasma torulosa rangiana (Lea) Northern Riffleshell State Distribution Photo by Kevin Cummins, courtesy of the Illinois Natural History Survey Best Survey Period Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Status: Federal and state endangered able sexual dimorphism in riffleshells. Male shells have a sulcus, or ridge, running posterio-ventrally from just Global and State Rank: G2T2/S1 below the beak. Female shells have a low bulge along the posterio-ventral edge of the shell that accommodates Family: Unionidae (Pearly Mussels) the enlarged marsupium containing eggs. Total Range: The northern riffleshell was found Best Survey Time: April through June. historically in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and western Habitat: The northern riffleshell requires swiftly Ontario. It was widespread in the Ohio and Maumee moving, well-oxygenated water. Riffle and run areas River basins, and in tributaries of western Lake Erie. with fine to coarse gravel are the preferred habitats. Today, the northern riffleshell occurs in short reaches of the Green River in Kentucky; the Detroit and Black Biology: The northern riffleshell has been observed to Rivers in Michigan; Big Darby Creek in Ohio; and be gravid from late summer to the following spring, at French Creek, LeBoeuf Creek and the Allegheny River which time the glochidia are released (Ortmann 1912, in Pennsylvania (Stansberry et al. 1982). Clarke 1987). The females use the posterior portion of the outer gill as a brood pouch, or marsupium, that is State Distribution: The range of the northern riffleshell accomodated by the swelling of the female shell. in Michigan is restricted to the eastern border of the Under laboratory conditions, glochidia developed with state.
    [Show full text]
  • Delisting Targets for Fish/Wildlife Habitat & Population Beneficial Use Impairments for the Clinton River Area
    DELISTING TARGETS FOR FISH/WILDLIFE HABITAT & POPULATION BENEFICIAL USE IMPAIRMENTS FOR THE CLINTON RIVER AREA OF CONCERN Submitted to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality May 8, 2009 Submitted by: 2200 Commonwealth Blvd, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48105 Ph: 734-769-3004 Fax: 734-769-3164 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to acknowledge the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) for funding the final phase of this project. At GLNPO, thanks are due to Mr. Tony Kizlauskas (Contract Manager), Ms. Vicki Thomas, and Mr. Mark Elster (both Senior Advisors) for facilitating various administrative components of this project. The first phase of this project was conceived amongst Clinton River Public Advisor Council’s Chairman Mark Richardson, Clinton River Watershed Council’s (CRWC) past Executive Director Jessica Pitelka Opfer, Environmental Consulting & Technology Inc. (ECT) Senior Program Manager Roy Schrameck, and ECT’s Vice President Sanjiv Sinha. Having preceded the development of state-wide targets in Michigan and parallel to efforts in only couple other Areas of Concerns (AOCs), that project was a precursor to many similar efforts across the Great Lakes basin. Many experts contributed their time, efforts, and talent toward the preparation of this report. The Project Team acknowledges the contributions of each of the following members of the Clinton River AOC Delisting Targets Technical Committee, and thanks them for their efforts: Dr. David Allan, University of Michigan Mrs. Laura Evans, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mrs. Donna Folland, Oakland Land Conservancy Mr. James Francis, Michigan Dept of Natural Resources Dr. Carl Freeman, Wayne State University Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • Pennsylvania Wild Trout Waters (Natural Reproduction) - November 2018
    Pennsylvania Wild Trout Waters (Natural Reproduction) - November 2018 Length County of Mouth Water Trib To Wild Trout Limits Lower Limit Lat Lower Limit Lon (miles) Adams Birch Run Long Pine Run Reservoir Headwaters dnst to mouth 39.950279 -77.444443 3.82 Adams Hosack Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters dnst to mouth 39.914780 -77.467522 2.90 Adams Latimore Creek Bermudian Creek Headwaters dnst to mouth 40.003613 -77.061386 7.00 Adams Little Marsh Creek Marsh Creek Headwaters dnst to T-315 39.842220 -77.372780 3.80 Adams Marsh Creek Out of State Headwaters dnst to SR0030 39.853802 -77.288300 11.12 Adams Opossum Creek Conewago Creek Headwaters dnst to mouth 39.931667 -77.185555 12.10 Adams Stillhouse Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters dnst to mouth 39.915470 -77.467575 1.28 Allegheny Allegheny River Ohio River Headwater dnst to conf Reed Run 41.751389 -78.107498 21.80 Allegheny Kilbuck Run Ohio River Headwaters to UNT at RM 1.25 40.516388 -80.131668 5.17 Allegheny Little Sewickley Creek Ohio River Headwaters dnst to mouth 40.554253 -80.206802 7.91 Armstrong Birch Run Allegheny River Headwaters dnst to mouth 41.033300 -79.619414 1.10 Armstrong Bullock Run North Fork Pine Creek Headwaters dnst to mouth 40.879723 -79.441391 1.81 Armstrong Cornplanter Run Buffalo Creek Headwaters dnst to mouth 40.754444 -79.671944 1.76 Armstrong Cove Run Sugar Creek Headwaters dnst to mouth 40.987652 -79.634421 2.59 Armstrong Crooked Creek Allegheny River Headwaters to conf Pine Rn 40.722221 -79.102501 8.18 Armstrong Foundry Run Mahoning Creek Lake Headwaters
    [Show full text]
  • Recovery Strategy for Northern Riffleshell (Epioblasma Torulosa
    PROPOSED Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series Recovery Strategy for Northern Riffleshell, Snuffbox, Round Pigtoe, Mudpuppy Mussel and Rayed Bean in Canada August 2006 About the Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series What is the Species at Risk Act (SARA)? SARA is the Act developed by the federal government as a key contribution to the common national effort to protect and conserve species at risk in Canada. SARA came into force in 2003 and one of its purposes is “to provide for the recovery of wildlife species that are extirpated, endangered or threatened as a result of human activity.” What is recovery? In the context of species at risk conservation, recovery is the process by which the decline of an endangered, threatened or extirpated species is arrested or reversed, and threats are removed or reduced to improve the likelihood of the species’ persistence in the wild. A species will be considered recovered when its long-term persistence in the wild has been secured. What is a recovery strategy? A recovery strategy is a planning document that identifies what needs to be done to arrest or reverse the decline of a species. It sets goals and objectives and identifies the main areas of activities to be undertaken. Detailed planning is done at the action plan stage. Recovery strategy development is a commitment of all provinces and territories and of three federal agencies — Environment Canada, Parks Canada Agency and Fisheries and Oceans Canada — under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk. Sections 37–46 of SARA (http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/the_act/default_e.cfm) spell out both the required content and the process for developing recovery strategies published in this series.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Riffleshell and Clubshell Reintroduction Project – Summary of Activities for 2017
    Northern Riffleshell and Clubshell Reintroduction Project – Summary of Activities for 2017 Jeremy S. Tiemann Alison P. Stodola Kirk W. Stodola Illinois Natural History Survey Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 1816 South Oak Street Champaign, IL 61820 Prepared for The Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Natural Resources Damage Assessment, Restoration, and Implementation Project Number: IDNR-NRDA1504 Project duration: 1 January 2017 – 15 December 2017 Illinois Natural History Survey Technical Report 2017(36) 15 December 2017 Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign Mark R. Ryan, Executive Director Illinois Natural History Survey Leellen Solter, Interim Director 1816 South Oak Street Champaign, IL 61820 217-333-6830 Executive Summary In 2017, staff from the Illinois Natural History Survey continued to monitor translocated populations of two federally-endangered freshwater mussel species in the Vermilion River basin (Wabash River drainage). Through 2017, a total of 3,699 Northern Riffleshell (Epioblasma rangiana) and 4,166 Clubshell (Pleurobema clava) have been translocated to the Middle Fork and Salt Fork Vermilion rivers in the Vermilion River basin, Champaign and Vermilion counties, Illinois, and these translocated animals have been monitored since being moved to Illinois. This end-of-the-year report summarizes the activities for the 2017 calendar year, and includes two reprints and a galley of a third paper summarizing data from this project. This relocation project is being funded, in part, by a natural resource damage assessment settlement (Hegeler Zinc—Lyondell Basell Companies) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and to the State of Illinois, and by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • HIGHWAY-RAILROAD and HIGHWAY BRIDGE CAPITAL BUDGET SUPPLEMENTAL ACT for 1999-2000 Act of Nov
    HIGHWAY-RAILROAD AND HIGHWAY BRIDGE CAPITAL BUDGET SUPPLEMENTAL ACT FOR 1999-2000 Act of Nov. 24, 1999, P.L. 550, No. 53 Cl. 86 A SUPPLEMENT To the act of December 8, 1982 (P.L.848, No.235), entitled "An act providing for the adoption of capital projects related to the repair, rehabilitation or replacement of highway bridges to be financed from current revenue or by the incurring of debt and capital projects related to highway and safety improvement projects to be financed from current revenue of the Motor License Fund," itemizing additional local and State bridge projects. The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hereby enacts as follows: Section 1. Short title. This act shall be known and may be cited as the Highway-Railroad and Highway Bridge Capital Budget Supplemental Act for 1999-2000. Section 2. Definitions. The following words and phrases when used in this act shall have the meanings given to them in this section unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: "Account." The Highway Bridge Improvement Restricted Account within the Motor License Fund. "Capital project." A capital project as defined in section 302 of the act of February 9, 1999 (P.L.1, No.1), known as the Capital Facilities Debt Enabling Act, and shall include a county or municipal bridge rehabilitation, replacement or improvement project as set forth in this act. "Department." The Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth. "Secretary." The Secretary of Transportation of the Commonwealth. Section 3. Total authorization for bridge projects. (a) Total projects.--The total authorization for the costs of the projects itemized pursuant to this act and to be financed from current revenue or by the incurring of debt shall be $3,720,280,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Entire Bulletin
    Volume 49 Number 6 Saturday, February 9, 2019 • Harrisburg, PA Pages 587—696 Agencies in this issue The Governor The General Assembly The Courts Department of Banking and Securities Department of Environmental Protection Department of Health Department of Human Services Department of State Environmental Quality Board Game Commission Insurance Department Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission State Board of Pharmacy Detailed list of contents appears inside. Latest Pennsylvania Code Reporter (Master Transmittal Sheet): Pennsylvania Bulletin Pennsylvania No. 531, February 2019 TYPE OR PRINT LEGIBLY Attn: 800 Church Rd. W. 17055-3198 PA Mechanicsburg, FRY COMMUNICATIONS, INC. COMMUNICATIONS, FRY CUT ON DOTTED LINES AND ENCLOSE IN AN ENVELOPE CHANGE NOTICE/NEW SUBSCRIPTION If information on mailing label is incorrect, please email changes to [email protected] or mail to: mail or [email protected] to changes email please incorrect, is label mailing on information If (City) (State) (Zip Code) label) mailing on name above number digit (6 NUMBER CUSTOMER NAME INDIVIDUAL OF NAME—TITLE OFFICE ADDRESS (Number and Street) (City) (State) (Zip The Pennsylvania Bulletin is published weekly by Fry PENNSYLVANIA BULLETIN Communications, Inc. for the Commonwealth of Pennsylva- nia, Legislative Reference Bureau, 641 Main Capitol Build- (ISSN 0162-2137) ing, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120, under the policy supervision and direction of the Joint Committee on Docu- ments under 4 Pa.C.S. Part II (relating to publication and effectiveness of Commonwealth documents). The subscrip- tion rate is $87.00 per year, postpaid to points in the United States. Individual copies are $2.50. Checks for subscriptions and individual copies should be made payable to ‘‘Fry Communications, Inc.’’ Periodicals postage paid at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Proposed Regulation
    huts g4.i I 4 i r INDEPENDENTREGULA TORY RegulaLory na.ysis rOrm REVIEWCOMMISSION (Completed by Promulgating Agency) RECEIVED (All Camments submitted on this regulation will appear on IRRCs websfte) IRRC (1) Agency Environmental Protection ZOfl OCT —b 2 2: 29 (2) Agency Number: IRRC Number: Identification Number: 7-534 i (3) PA Code Cite: 25 Pa. Code, Chapter 93 (4) Short Title: Water Quality Standards — Triennial Review (5) Agency Contacts (List Telephone Number and Email Address): Primary Contact: Laura Edinger; 717.783.8727; ledingerpa.gov Secondary Contact: Jessica Shirley; 717.783.8727; jesshirleypa.gov (6) Typc of Rulemaking (check applicable box): Proposed Regulation D Emergency Certification Regulation; D Final Regulation D Certification by the Governor D Final Omitted Regulation D Certification by the Attorney General (7) Briefly explain the regulation in clear and nontechnical language. (100 words or less) Section 303(c)(l) of The Clean Water Act requires that states periodically, but at least once every 3 years, review and revise as necessary, their water quality standards. Further, states are required to protect existing uses of their waters. This regulation is undertaken as part of the Department’s ongoing review of Pennsylvania’s water quality standards. The proposed regulation will update and revise Table 3, at Section 93.7 by updating the aquatic life criterion for ammonia, and the Bacteria criteria for changes to the recreational use (Baci) criterion and moving the Bac2 criterion to Drainage List X; deleting reference to Appendix A, Table IA in Section 93.8a(b) since Table 1A is being deleted in Chapter 16; removing reference to the Federal regulation in 40 CFR 131.32(a) in Section 93.8a(j)(3) since this federal promulgation had been withdrawn by U.S.
    [Show full text]