DOCSLIB.ORG

Highway-Railroad and Highway Bridge Capital Budget Act for 1982-1983, Amended October 10, 1984 (P.L.793, No.161), Is Amended to Read: Section 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Highway-Railroad and Highway Bridge Capital Budget Act for 1982-1983, Amended October 10, 1984 (P.L.793, No.161), Is Amended to Read: Section 2 SESSION OF 1986 Act 1986-100 597 No. 1986-100 AN ACT HB 385 Amending the act of December 8, 1982 (P.L.848, No.235), entitled “An act pro- viding 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,” deleting a bridge project in Allegheny County; adding bridge projects in various counties; and providing for reimbursement to municipali- ties. The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hereby enactsas follows: Section 1. Section 2 of the act of December 8, 1982 (P.L.848, No.235), known as the Highway-Railroad and Highway Bridge Capital Budget Act for 1982-1983, amended October 10, 1984 (P.L.793, No.161), is amended to read: Section 2. Total authorization for bridge projects. (a) The total authorization forthe costs of the projects itemized pursuant to section 3 and to be financed from current revenue or by the incurring of debt shall be [$1,075,378,950J $2,099,572,950. (b) The authorization for capital projects in the categoryof Highway Projects to be constructed by the Department of Transportation, its suc- cessors or assigns, and to be financed by the incurring of debt or from the HIghway-Railroa4 and Highway Bridge Improvement Restricted Account within the Motor License Fund, itemized in section 3 under the categoryofState bridges, is [$782,400,000] $1,391,500,000. (c) The authorization for non-State highway bridge projects to be constructed by local government municipalities and to be financed in part with grants not exceeding 80% of the non-Federal share of the costs made to the local government municipalities by the Department of Transportation from revenues deposited in the Highway Bridge Improvement Restricted Account within the Motor License Fund, itemized in section 3 under the category oflocal bridges, is [$292,978,950] $708,Ü72,950. Section 2. Section 3(2)(i)(QQ) of the act is repealed. Section 3. Section 3 of the act is amended by adding or amending projects to read: Section 3. Itemization of bridge projects. The individual capital projects in the category of highway projects to be constructed by the Department of Transportation, its successors or assigns, and to be financed from current revenue or by the incurring of debt are hereby itemized, together with their estimated financial costs, as follows: 598 Act 1986-100 LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA Base Total Project Project Land Design Project Cost Cost Cost Cost (1) Adams County (i) Local Bridges (V) Hamilton Twp., Mill Rd. Bridge over Pine Run, Bridge Rehabilita- tion 36,000 4,000 40,000 (E) Hamilton Twp., Home Rd. Bridge over Beaver Creek, Bridge Rehabilita- tion 36,000 4,000 40,000 (F) Carroll Valley Boro., Ranch Trail Bridge over Friends Creek, Bridge Replacement, Length 0.0 Mile 149,000 7,000 32,000 188,000 (G) Germany Twp., Feeser Rd. Bridge over Aioway Creek, Bridge Replacement, Length 0.0 Mile 32,000 32,000 (H) Germany Twp., Menges Mill Rd. Bridge over Piney Creek, Bridge Replace- ment, Length 0.0 Mile 32,000 32,000 (1) Littles- town Boro., St. Johns Rd. Bridge under Penn Central, Bridge Removal 23,000 5,000 6,000 34,000 SESSION OF 1986 Act 1986-100 599 (J) Littles- town Boro., Mill Rd. Bridge over Penn Central, Bridge Removal 23,000 5,000 6,000 34,000 (ii) State Bridges (B) L.R.43, U.S.30, Bridge over Marsh Creek, Franklin & Cumberland T~k)s.,Bridge Replacement, Length 0.0 Mile 69,000 2,000 11,000 82,000 (C) L.R.375, Pà.134, Taney- town Rd. Bridge over Rock Creek, Mt..Joy & Cumber- land Twps., Bridge Replace- ment, Length 0.0 Mile 127,000 4,000 19,000 150,000 (D) L.R.399, Pa.234, East Berlin Rd. Bridge over Conewago Creek, East Berlin Boro. & Read- ing Twp., Bridge Replace- ment 1,004,000 32,000 151,000 1,187,000 (E) L.R.620, Pa.394, Bridge over Rock Creek, Staban Twp., Bridge Replace- ment, Length 0.0 Mile 82,000 4,000 13,000 99,000 (F) L.R.0l001, Bridge over Marsh Run, Village of Hill- town, Frank- 600 Act 1986-100 LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA lin Twp., Bridge Replace- ment 384,000 12,000 58,000 454,000 (G) L.R.01002 (009), Bridge over Marsh Creek, Cumber- land & Freedom Twps., Bridge Replacement, Length 0.0 Mile 1,051,000 8,000 156,000 1,215,000 (H) L.R.01003, Bridge over Rock Creek Trib., Cumberland Twp., Bridge Replace- ment, Length 0.0 Mile 190,000 12,000 34,000 236,000 (I) L.R.01004, Bridge ovEr ~onewagóCreek Trib., Tyrone Twp., Bridge Replacement, Length 0.0 Mile 159,000 10,000 32,000 201,000 (I) L.R.01019, Railroad Bridge over Penn DOT Railroad, Butler Twp., Bridge Replacement, Length 0.0 Mile 119,000 119,000 (K) L.R.01053 (B02), Jacks Mtn. Rd. Bridge over Toms Creek, Hamiltonban Twp., Bridge Replace- ment 74,000 2,000 28,000 104,000 (L) L.R.01055 (B04), Bridge over Alloway Creek, West of Littlestown, Mt. Joy & SESSION OF 1986 Act 1986-100 601 Germany Twps., Bridge Replace- ment 58,000 58,000 (MI L.R.01060, Bridge over Conewago Creek, Mt. Pleas- ant Twp., Bridge Removal 50,000 10,000 25,000 85,000 (N) L.R.342A, Pa.94, Bridge over Conewago Creek, Hamilton & Reading Twps., Bridge Replace- ment, Length 0.0 Mile 183,000 3,000 28,000 214,000 (2) Allegheny County (i) Local Bridges (X) Clairton, Ravensburg Blvd., Bridge Rehabili- (tation 900,000 100,000 1,000,0001 tation 6,000,000 125,000 6,125,000 (FFFF) Munhall Boro., West Run Co-op Bridge, Bridge Removal and Replace- ment 150,000 15,000 165,000 (GGGG) Munhail Boro., Gates Dr. Bridge, Bridge Removal and Replace- ment 100,060 10,000 110,000 (HHHH) Munhall Boro., Eldercrest Dr. Bridge, Bridge Removal and Replace- ment 75,000 8,000 83,000 (1111) Munhall Born., Creek Rd. Bridge, 602 Act 1986-100 LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA Bridge Removal and Replace- ment 150,000 15,000 165,000 (Jill) West Homestead Born., Laurel Hill Dr. Bridge, Bridge Removal and Replace- ment 200,000 20,000 220,000 (KKKK) Wilkins Twp., Straley Bridge Removal and Replace- ment 150,000 15,000 165,000 (LLLL) Castle Shannon Born., Smith Rd. Bridge, Bridge Removal and Replace- ment 90,000 10,000 100,000 (MMMM) Castle Shannon Born., Grove Rd. Bridge, Bridge Removal and Replace- ment 157,500 17,500 175,000 (NNNN) Castle Shannon Born., Castle Shannon Blvd. Bridge, Bridge Removal and Replace- ment 225,000 25,000 250,000 (0000) Shaler Twp., Fall Run Bridge, Bridge Reconstruc- tion 285,000 28,000 313,000 (PPPP) Pittsburgh, Glenwood Bridge, MA08, Rehabilita- tion 2,900,000 290,000 3,190,000 (QQQQ) Pittsburgh., Armstrong SESSION OF 1986 Act 1986-100 603 Tunnels, AROJ, Rehabilita- tion 2,504,000 200,000 2,704,000 (RRRR) Pittsburgh, 6th St. Bridge, ALO2, Rehabilita- tion 2,300,000 230,000 2,530,000 (SSSS) Pittsburgh, 7th St. Bridge, AL03, Rehabilita- tion 2,300,000 230,000 2,530,000 (TTTT) Pittsburgh, 9th St. Bridge, ALO4, Rehabilita- tion 2,300,000 230,000 2,530,000 (UUUU) Jefferson Boro., South Park, Lick’s Run Bridge No.6, LCO6, Replace- ment 418,000 38,000 456,000 (VVVV) Baldwin Boro., Lick’s Run Bridge No.7, LCO7, Replace- ment 418,000 38,000 456,000 (WWWW) Bethel Park, Lick’s Run Bridge No.4, LCO4, Replace- ment 298,000 12,000 310,000 (XXXX) Mt. Lebanon, Painters Run Bridge No.4, PA 04, Rehabilita- tion 262,000 47,000 309,000 (YYYY) Pittsburgh, South 10th St. Bridge, Mall, Bridge Rehabilita- 604 Act 1986-100 LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA tion . 273,000 27,000 300,000 (ZZZZ) Penn Hills, Thompson Run East Branch Bridge No.12, TEI2, Replace- ment 200,000 31,000 231,000 (AS) Scott Twp., George’s Run Bridge No.1, GROJ, Replace- ment 170,000 48,000 218,000 (B5) Shaler Twp., Pine Creek South Branch Bridge No.6, PSO6, Replace- ment 191,000 19,000 210,000 (CS) West Mi/fin, Homevile Creek Bridge No.8, HVO8, Replace- ment 157,000 43,000 200,000 (D5) Miivale Boro., Girty ‘5 Run Bridge No.16, G116, Replace- ment 157,000 42,000 199,000 (ES) Pittsburgh, Becks Run Bridge No.3, BCO3, Replace- ment 150,000 42,000 192,000 (F5) Pittsburgh, Baldwin Boro., Becks Run Bridge No.6, BCO6, Replace- ment 150,000 42,000 192,000 (G5) North Fayette, Robinson Run South Branch Bridge No.3, RSO3, Replace- ment 169,000 17,000 186,000 SESSION OF 1986 Act 1986-100 605 (HS) Munhall, West Mi/fin Homeville Creek Bridge No.6, HVO6, Replace- ment 144,000 41,000 185,000 (iS) Ross Twp., Thompson Run Bridge No.2, TNO2, Replace- ment 131,000 44,000 175,000 (15) Ross Twp., Thompson Run Bridge No.3, TNO3, Replace- ment 131,000 44,000 175,000 (KS) Penn Hills, Thompson Run East Branch Bridge No.10, TEJO, Replace- ment 131,000 43,000 174,000 (L5) S/ia/er Twp., Wible Run Bridge No.4, WBO4, Bridge Replace- ment 240,000 48,000 288,000 (M5) Shaler Twp., Wible Run Bridge No.7, WBO7, Bridge Replace- ment 210,000 42,000 252,000 (Ni) South Park, Catfish Run Bridge No.16, CTJ6, Replace- ment 131,000 38,000 169,000 (OS) Indiana Twp., Little Deer Creek Bridge No.4, DLO4, Replace- ment 153,000 15,000 168,000 (P5) Hampton Twp., Gourdhead Run Bridge 606 Act 1986-100 LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA No.3, GHO3, Replace- ment 153,000 15,000 168,000 1Q51 West Deer Twp., Dáwson Run Bridge No.4, D804, Replace- ment 131,000 36,000 167,000 (R5) Kilbuck Twp., Lowrie’s Run Bridge No.7, L007, Replace- ment 118,000 42,000 160,000 (S5) Kilbuck Twp., Lowrie’s Run Bridge No.8, L008, Replace- ment 118,000 42,000 160,000 (T5) Duquesne, Montour Run Bridge No.8, MT08, Replace- ment 142,000 14,000 156,000 (US) Castle Shannon, Saw Mill Run Bridge No.7, SWO7, Rehabilita- tion 118,000 36,000 154,000 (V5) Plum Boro., Plum Creek Upper Branch Bridge No.4, PUO4, Replace- ment 112,000 36,000 148,000 (W5) Plum Born., Plum Creek Upper Branch Bridge No.5, PUOS Replace- mént 112,000 36,000 148,000 (XS) Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh-Homestead Hi-Level Bridge, MA12, Rehabilita- tion 125,000 13,000 138,000 (Y5) Ross, Shaler, SESSION OF 1986 Act 1986-100 607 Thompson Run Bridge No.8, TNO8, Replace- ment 104,000 26,000 130,000 (Z5) Upper St.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Leggets Creek Habitat Enhancement
    Cheryl Nolan 2017 COLDWATER Watershed Specialist Lackawanna County Conservation District HERITAGE PARTNERSHIP IMPLEMENTATION GRANT Leggetts Creek Habitat Enhancement and Streambank Stabilization Project Coldwater Heritage Partnership Grant Final Report January 9, 2018 Table of Contents I. Project summary ............................................................................................................................................ 2 II. Project Outcomes...................................................................................................................................... 3 A. Were all project objectives met? .......................................................................................................... 3 B. If not, which ones and why not? .......................................................................................................... 3 C. Is project considered complete? If not, what remains to be accomplished? .................................... 3 III. Project Sustainability................................................................................................................................. 6 A. Discuss the long term sustainability of the project as implemented. What are potential threats to sustainability? ................................................................................................................................................ 6 B. Monitoring, operation and maintenance plans. .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5
    NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5 DATABASE DESIGN DOCUMENTATION AND DATA DICTIONARY 1 June 2013 Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21403 Prepared By: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 By Jacqueline Johnson Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin To receive additional copies of the report please call or write: The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 301-984-1908 Funds to support the document The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.0; Database Design Documentation And Data Dictionary was supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency Grant CB- CBxxxxxxxxxx-x Disclaimer The opinion expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the U.S. Government, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the several states or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia or the District of Columbia. ii The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.5 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Changes by Tom Greene Fisheries Biologist Bureau of Fisheries
    2016 Adult Trout Stocking Program Changes by Tom Greene Fisheries Biologist Bureau of Fisheries In 2016, the Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission (PFBC) will stock approximately 3.2 million adult trout in the waters of the Commonwealth open to public angling. This figure is based on trout produced at PFBC hatcheries. As with past practice, the average size of the trout produced for stocking will be 11 inches long. Changes for the 2016 season include stocking extensions on waters as a result of classification upgrades, waters restored to the stocking program and the removal of waters from the stocking program. photos-Spring Gearhart Stocking extensions and waters on five stream sections managed under Catch and Release Fly-Fishing Only regulations. Fingerling trout restored to the stocking program were stocked during the fall on an annual basis in these Roaring Brook, Lackawanna County stream sections from 2012 through 2014. The survival of Adult trout stocking will be reinstated on the 2.0-mile fingerling trout was monitored annually through the 2015 section of stream extending from Elmhurst Reservoir field season to determine if a fishery could be supported downstream to 550 meters downstream of the confluence by stocking fingerling trout in these sections of stream. with Rock Bottom Creek. Stocking was cancelled in this Results from these evaluations revealed that fingerling section of stream in 2015 due to bridge replacement on trout survival was consistently poor on each of the stream the road that leads to this section of stream. sections. Therefore, fingerling trout stocking has been discontinued and the following stream sections will be Wolf Creek, Mercer County stocked with adult trout beginning in the spring of 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating Snowmelt Runoff Generation in a Discontinuous Permafrost
    Evaluating snowmelt runoff generation in a discontinuous Nordic Hydrology permafrost catchment using stable isotope, hydrochemical and hydrometric data* S.K. Carey1 and W.L. Quinton2 1Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6 Vol 35 No 4 pp 309–324 E-mail: [email protected] 2Department of Geography, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6 Received 1 November 2003; accepted in revised form 15 June 2004 Abstract Research on snowmelt runoff generation in discontinuous permafrost subarctic catchments has highlighted the role of: (i) permafrost in restricting deep percolation and sustaining near-surface water tables and (ii) the surface organic layer in rapidly conveying water to the stream. Conceptual models of runoff generation have largely been derived from hydrometric data, with isotope and hydrochemical data having only limited q application in delineating sources and pathways of water. In a small subarctic alpine catchment within the Wolf IWA Publishing 2004 Creek Research Basin, Yukon, Canada, snowmelt runoff generation processes were studied during 2002 using a mixed methods approach. Snowmelt timing varied between basin slopes, with south-facing exposures melting prior to permafrost-underlain north-facing slopes. The streamflow freshet period begain after 90% of snow had melted on the south-facing slope and coincided with the main melt period on the north-facing slope, indicating that contributing areas were largely defined by permafrost distribution. Stable isotope (d18O) and hydrochemical parameters (dissolved organic carbon, specific conductivity, pH) suggest that, at the beginning of the melt period, meltwater infiltrates soil pores and resides in temporary storage. As melt progresses and bare ground appears, thawing of soils and continued meltwater delivery to the slopes allows rapid drainage of this meltwater through surface organic layers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cacapon Settlement: 1749-1800 31
    THE CACAPON SETTLEMENT: 1749-1800 31 THE CACAPON SETTLEMENT: 1749-1800 31 5 THE CACAPON SETTLEMENT: 1749-1800 The existence of a settlement of Brethren families in the Cacapon River Valley of eastern Hampshire County in present day West Virginia has been unknown and uninvestigated until the present time. That a congregation of Brethren existed there in colonial times cannot now be denied, for sufficient evidence has been accumulated to reveal its presence at least by the 1760s and perhaps earlier. Because at this early date, Brethren churches and ministers did not keep records, details of this church cannot be recovered. At most, contemporary researchers can attempt to identify the families which have the highest probability of being of Brethren affiliation. Even this is difficult due to lack of time and resources. The research program for many of these families is incomplete, and this chapter is offered tentatively as a basis for additional research. Some attempted identifications will likely be incorrect. As work went forward on the Brethren settlements in the western and southern parts of old Hampshire County, it became clear that many families in the South Branch, Beaver Run and Pine churches had relatives who had lived in the Cacapon River Valley. Numerous families had moved from that valley to the western part of the county, and intermarriages were also evident. Land records revealed a large number of family names which were common on the South Branch, Patterson Creek, Beaver Run and Mill Creek areas. In many instances, the names appeared first on the Cacapon and later in the western part of the county.
    [Show full text]
  • Provincial Freshet and Flood Status
    Dashboard # Provincial Lead Contact: Media Relations contact: Provincial Freshet and Flood Status Manager, River Forecast Centre & Flood Safety Provincial Information Coordination Officer Date: June 24th, 2021, 4:00 pm Freshet 12 - George Roman Tyler Hooper 2021 Water Management Branch, Public Affairs Officer Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource [email protected] Operations and Rural Development (FLNRORD) 250-213-8172 [email protected] 250-896-2725 Provincial Summary Several streams and rivers are flowing higher this week than seasonal due the unprecedented historic heat resulting in a number of Flood Warnings, Flood Watches and High Streamflow Advisories. In general, stream flows will begin to recede over the next week. The Fraser River is expected to rise into the weekend; however, flows are forecast to remain below their earlier 2021 peaks. Provincial staff, local government staff, First Nations, and other parties continue to monitor the situation and support the implementation of flood emergency preparedness, response, and recovery. The public is advised to stay clear of all fast-flowing rivers and streams and potentially unstable riverbanks during spring high streamflow periods. Weather (Current and Forecast) Temperatures have reduced from the historic heat we recently experienced. As the ridge that resulted in the high temperatures moves east there is increased risk of instability leading to thunder and lightening. Limited precipitation is expected over the next several days. Flood Warnings and Advisories River Conditions and Outlook Flood Warning The historic heat event has led to historic snow melt. Many streams responded to the extreme heat and high elevation snow and glacial • Upper Fraser River melt.
    [Show full text]
  • Marcellus Cover.Indd
    The Science beneath the Surface A Very Short Guide to the Marcellus Shale Don Duggan-Haas, Robert M. Ross, and Warren D. Allmon The Science beneath the Surface: A Very Short Guide to the Marcellus Shale by Don Duggan-Haas, Robert M. Ross, and Warren D. Allmon with contributions by Kelly E. Cronin, Trisha A. Smrecak, and Sara Auer Perry Paleontological Research Institution 2013 ISBN 978-0-87710-502-2 Paleontological Research Institution Special Publication No. 43 © 2013 Paleontological Research Institution 1259 Trumansburg Road Ithaca, New York 14850 U.S.A. http://www.museumoftheearth.org Design and layout by Paula M. Mikkelsen. Th is book is printed on paper certifi ed by the Forest Stewardship Council, https://us.fsc.org/. Cite this book as: Duggan-Haas, D., R. M. Ross, and W. D. Allmon, with K. E. Cronin, T. A. Smrecak, and S. Auer Perry. 2013. Th e Science Beneath the Surface: A Very Short Guide to the Marcellus Shale. Paleontological Research Institution (Special Publication 43), Ithaca, New York, 252 pp. On the cover: Outcrop of the Marcellus Shale at its “type locality” (the fi rst place that it was described in scientifi c literature, and for which it is named) in Marcellus, New York. Photo by Ben Aronson, courtesy of Linda Ivany. Table of Contents Preface and Acknowledgments . iii Introduction . .1 Chapter 1. Geology of the Marcellus Shale . 5 Chapter 2. Why the Geology Matters . 19 Chapter 3. Th e Technology of Shale Gas Extraction . 33 Chapter 4. Water and Marcellus Shale Development . 63 Chapter 5. Beyond Water: Other Environmental Impacts of Marcellus Gas Development .
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Susquehanna-Tunkhannock Watershed Text
    MAP 33. Pennsylvania Fishing and Boating Access Strategy Upper Susquehanna-Tunkhannock Watershed Text Mitchell Creek ! " ! Wappasening Creek ! Bentley Creek ! ! kj ! 219 !! ! 70 ! ! ! ! !! !! ! Hallstead!! ! Lanesboro! ! Oakland!!" ! 140! 35 Wolcott Creek Seeley Creek " SALT SPRINGS S.P. 123 239 Starrucca kj N ! 175 !! ! B Beaver Creek ! ! r ! ! S ! Thompson Gaylord Cr. ! Mill Creek u Rome ! s ! ! q 11 u ¤£ e " h n kj n Sylvania a !! MOUNT ! R !! PISGAH S.P.!kj . kj Burlington !! 289 Tunkhannock Cr. 236 ! S Wysox Cr. !! Troy ug !! ! ar !" !! Creek "! !! ! " ! Towanda ! Butler Cr. ! !" ! 6 kj" ! ¤£ " Wyalusing Creek ! Meshoppen Creek ! kj !! Monroe " Riley Cr. Hop ! Bottom Alba !"!" !" Wyalusing ! Tioga River ! Towanda Creek !" ! Martins Cr. !! Canton Sugar Run " ! 250 ! "! &É ! Tuscarora Cr. Schrader Cr. 36 Meshoppen Nicholson 36 172 81 ! 12 ! ! ¨¦§ New Lake! " !! kj Carey ! LACKAWANNA S.P. !! Lick Creek Albany 142 ! 220 Tunkhannock Cr. ! Carbondale ¤£ !" !! kj!Lackawanna ! &É Factoryville Lake Dalton Mayfield" ! Tunkhannock 307 " ! ! ! &É Jermyn Kings Creek Dushore !!" ARCHBALD POTHOLE S.P.300 Rock Run ! " ! Elk Creek 11 ! Lick Creek N ! £ " B !! ¤ Archbald 66 r ! Blakely " Forksville S Dickson City " u ! !!" kj s !!kj ! q ! Jessup ! ! ! WORLDS END S.P. Loyalsock Creek Leonard Creek u ! Olyphant ! e ! h ! a n Throop Salt Run n ! ! Mehoopany Creek a Dry Run R Dunmore " Wallis Run . ! ^ 134 57 Scranton^ ! Erie Taylor 84 Bear Creek ! § ! ¨¦ " ! ! !! ! !" kj!!! !! RICKETTS ! Old Forge ! kj Duryea 380 ! GLEN S.P. Bowman Creek Harveys! ! Lake
    [Show full text]
  • Jjjn'iwi'li Jmliipii Ill ^ANGLER
    JJJn'IWi'li jMlIipii ill ^ANGLER/ Ran a Looks A Bulltrog SEPTEMBER 1936 7 OFFICIAL STATE September, 1936 PUBLICATION ^ANGLER Vol.5 No. 9 C'^IP-^ '" . : - ==«rs> PUBLISHED MONTHLY COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA by the BOARD OF FISH COMMISSIONERS PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF FISH COMMISSIONERS HI Five cents a copy — 50 cents a year OLIVER M. DEIBLER Commissioner of Fisheries C. R. BULLER 1 1 f Chief Fish Culturist, Bellefonte ALEX P. SWEIGART, Editor 111 South Office Bldg., Harrisburg, Pa. MEMBERS OF BOARD OLIVER M. DEIBLER, Chairman Greensburg iii MILTON L. PEEK Devon NOTE CHARLES A. FRENCH Subscriptions to the PENNSYLVANIA ANGLER Elwood City should be addressed to the Editor. Submit fee either HARRY E. WEBER by check or money order payable to the Common­ Philipsburg wealth of Pennsylvania. Stamps not acceptable. SAMUEL J. TRUSCOTT Individuals sending cash do so at their own risk. Dalton DAN R. SCHNABEL 111 Johnstown EDGAR W. NICHOLSON PENNSYLVANIA ANGLER welcomes contribu­ Philadelphia tions and photos of catches from its readers. Pro­ KENNETH A. REID per credit will be given to contributors. Connellsville All contributors returned if accompanied by first H. R. STACKHOUSE class postage. Secretary to Board =*KT> IMPORTANT—The Editor should be notified immediately of change in subscriber's address Please give both old and new addresses Permission to reprint will be granted provided proper credit notice is given Vol. 5 No. 9 SEPTEMBER, 1936 *ANGLER7 WHAT IS BEING DONE ABOUT STREAM POLLUTION By GROVER C. LADNER Deputy Attorney General and President, Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen PORTSMEN need not be told that stream pollution is a long uphill fight.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Areas Inventory of Bradford County, Pennsylvania 2005
    A NATURAL AREAS INVENTORY OF BRADFORD COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2005 Submitted to: Bradford County Office of Community Planning and Grants Bradford County Planning Commission North Towanda Annex No. 1 RR1 Box 179A Towanda, PA 18848 Prepared by: Pennsylvania Science Office The Nature Conservancy 208 Airport Drive Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 This project was funded in part by a state grant from the DCNR Wild Resource Conservation Program. Additional support was provided by the Department of Community & Economic Development and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through State Wildlife Grants program grant T-2, administered through the Pennsylvania Game Commission and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. ii Site Index by Township SOUTH CREEK # 1 # LITCHFIELD RIDGEBURY 4 WINDHAM # 3 # 7 8 # WELLS ATHENS # 6 WARREN # # 2 # 5 9 10 # # 15 13 11 # 17 SHESHEQUIN # COLUMBIA # # 16 ROME OR WELL SMITHFI ELD ULSTER # SPRINGFIELD 12 # PIKE 19 18 14 # 29 # # 20 WYSOX 30 WEST NORTH # # 21 27 STANDING BURLINGTON BURLINGTON TOWANDA # # 22 TROY STONE # 25 28 STEVENS # ARMENIA HERRICK # 24 # # TOWANDA 34 26 # 31 # GRANVI LLE 48 # # ASYLUM 33 FRANKLIN 35 # 32 55 # # 56 MONROE WYALUSING 23 57 53 TUSCARORA 61 59 58 # LEROY # 37 # # # # 43 36 71 66 # # # # # # # # # 44 67 54 49 # # 52 # # # # 60 62 CANTON OVERTON 39 69 # # # 42 TERRY # # # # 68 41 40 72 63 # ALBANY 47 # # # 45 # 50 46 WILMOT 70 65 # 64 # 51 Site Index by USGS Quadrangle # 1 # 4 GILLETT # 3 # LITCHFIELD 8 # MILLERTON 7 BENTLEY CREEK # 6 # FRIENDSVILLE # 2 SAYRE # WINDHAM 5 LITTLE MEADOWS 9
    [Show full text]
  • Download Proposed Regulation
    This space for use by IRRC H f7 .-I""* -*- i t. , ^ ^ (1) Agency Department of Environmental Protection 2m mm ?}mm (2) I.D. Number (Governor's Office Use) #7-366 IRRC Number: J?9BQ> (3) Short Title Stream Redesignations, Class A Wild Trout Waters (4) PA Code Cite (5) Agency Contacts & Telephone Numbers 25 PA Code, Chapter 93 Primary Contact: Sharon F. Trostle, 783-1303 Secondary Contact: Edward R. Brezina, 787-9637 (6) Type of Rulemaking (Check One) (7) Is a 120-Day Emergency Certification Attached? x Proposed Rulemaking X No Final Order Adopting Regulation Yes: By the Attorney General Final Order, Proposed Rulemaking Omitted Yes: By the Governor (8) Briefly explain the regulation in clear and nontechnical language This proposed rulemaking modifies Chapter 93 to reflect the recommended redesignation of a number of streams that are designated as Class A Wild Trout Waters by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC). Class A Waters qualify for designation as High Quality Waters (HQ) under §§ 93.4b(a)(2)(ii). The changes provide the appropriate designated use to these streams to protect existing uses. These changes may, upon implementation, result in more stringent treatment requirements for new and/or expanded wastewater discharges to the streams in order to protect the existing and designated water uses. (9) State the statutory authority for the regulation and any relevant state or federal court decisions. These proposed amendments are made under the authority of the following acts: The Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law, Act of June 22, 1937 (P.L. 1987, No 394) as amended, 35 P.S/S 691.5 etseq.
    [Show full text]
  • Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy
    Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy Introduction Brook Trout symbolize healthy waters because they rely on clean, cold stream habitat and are sensitive to rising stream temperatures, thereby serving as an aquatic version of a “canary in a coal mine”. Brook Trout are also highly prized by recreational anglers and have been designated as the state fish in many eastern states. They are an essential part of the headwater stream ecosystem, an important part of the upper watershed’s natural heritage and a valuable recreational resource. Land trusts in West Virginia, New York and Virginia have found that the possibility of restoring Brook Trout to local streams can act as a motivator for private landowners to take conservation actions, whether it is installing a fence that will exclude livestock from a waterway or putting their land under a conservation easement. The decline of Brook Trout serves as a warning about the health of local waterways and the lands draining to them. More than a century of declining Brook Trout populations has led to lost economic revenue and recreational fishing opportunities in the Bay’s headwaters. Chesapeake Bay Management Strategy: Brook Trout March 16, 2015 - DRAFT I. Goal, Outcome and Baseline This management strategy identifies approaches for achieving the following goal and outcome: Vital Habitats Goal: Restore, enhance and protect a network of land and water habitats to support fish and wildlife, and to afford other public benefits, including water quality, recreational uses and scenic value across the watershed. Brook Trout Outcome: Restore and sustain naturally reproducing Brook Trout populations in Chesapeake Bay headwater streams, with an eight percent increase in occupied habitat by 2025.
    [Show full text]