DOCSLIB.ORG

Economic Analysis of the Mountain Fork River Trout Fishery in Southeastern Oklahoma Using Travel Cost Method

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Economic Analysis of the Mountain Fork River Trout Fishery in Southeastern Oklahoma Using Travel Cost Method ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE MOUNTAIN FORK RIVER TROUT FISHERY IN SOUTHEASTERN OKLAHOMA USING TRAVEL COST METHOD By. Se-Hyun Choi Bachelor of Science Korea University Seoul, Korea 1985 Master of Science Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 1989 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements tor the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May, 1993 OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVEBSITY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE MOUNTAIN FORK RIVER TROUT FISHERY IN SOUTHEASTERN OKLAHOMA USING TRAVEL COST METHOD Thesis Adviser /~f;.. ,4.r4 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Glory and praise the living God. I would like to express my gratitude to those who assisted me in this project. Special thanks to my advisor, Dr. Dean F. Schreiner, for the guidance and consideration given to me during this study. I am also appreciative to my committee members, Dr. Larry Sanders, Dr. Brian Adam and Dr. William Warde, for the efforts and suggestions that made my tenure at Oklahoma State University valuable. I extend my appreciation to other individuals who provided inputs to this project including Dr. David Leslie, Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research, Dr. Harold Namminga, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC), Mr. Jack Harper, ODWC, and Mr. Don Smith, ODWC, as well as others involved with the survey. I will not forget the spiritual guidance provided by Dr. Daniel Badger, whose love I respect. The analytical guidance provided by Dr. Wade Brorsen and Suhk-Hyun Kim, Brent Tweeten's computer assistance, proofreading assistance from David Marcouiller, and the typing skills of Gloria Cook are greatly appreciated. I dedicate this work to my mother, Soon-Ja Chun for her sacrifice and support for the whole of my life as well as study in the United States. Also, warmest thanks go to my wife, Hee-Seep Yoon. Her encouragement and support is the most valuable resource I have. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 Background...................................................................................... 3 Problem Statement......................................................................... 6 Objective of the Study.................................................................... 6 The Organization of the Study...................................................... 7 II. THEORY OF RECREATION DEMAND AND BENEFIT ANALYSIS.................................................................. 9 Measure of Welfare Change .......... ~.............................................. 9 Federal Guideline Procedures of Recreation Benefit Evaluation for National Economic Development................ 12 The Valuation of Non market Goods............................................ 17 Expenditure Function Approach ...................................... 18 Own Price Only TCM .............................................. 23 Quality Enhanced Own Price Only TCM............. 24 Classical Travel Cost Models............................... 25 Discrete Choice Travel Cost Models................... 28 Income Compensation Approach .............. :..................... 31 Comparison of Alternative Approachs............................ 34 Empirical Issues Related to Recreation Demand Analysis..... 35 Quantity Specification of Demand................................... 35 Zonal Travel Cost Method..................................... 37 Individual Travel Cost Method.............................. 39 Independent Variables...................................................... 40 Price (Travel Cost).................................................. 40 Cost of Time............................................................. 41 Substitute Sites....................................................... 44 Congestion............................................................... 46 Socioeconomic Variables..................................... 47 Functional Form .................................................................. 4 7 Ill. PROCEDURE OF THE STUDY................................................................ · 49 Sample Survey Design................................................................. 49 iv Chapter Page Selecting Nonmarket Valuation Approach................................ 54 - Criteria for Selecting Nonmarket Valuation Approach...................................................... 54 Type of TCM Model............................................................ 56 Specification of Quantity.................................................... 5 7 Empirical Recreation Demand and Benefit Models................. 57 Empirical Demand Models................................................ 58 Benefit Estimation............................................................... 64 Comparative Analysis........................................................ 67 Benefit-Cost Analysis......................................................... 68 IV. SAMPLE DATA OF THE MOUNTAIN FORK RIVER TROUT FISHERY AND PARTICIPATING ANGLERS..................... 70 Mountain Fork River Trout Fishery............................................... 71 Mountain Fork River Anglers........................................................ 71 Angler Trip Information········~························· .. ·················· 73 Geographic Data..................................................... 73 Fishing Time and Length of Trip.......................... 79 Frequency of Trips.................................................. 83 Angler Trip Expenditures....................................... 86 Alternative Recreational Activities....................... 87 Other Data................................................................ 91 Angler Characteristic Data................................................ 103 Estimated Total Angler Trips and Angler Expenditures........... 11 O Conclusions..................................................................................... 114 V. DEMAND AND BENEFIT ESTIMATION FOR ANGLERS OF THE MOUNTAIN FORK RIVER TROUT FISHERY.................... 117 Specification of the Basic Demand Estimation Model............. 117 Data................................................................................................... 124 Estimation of Demand and Benefits for MFR Trout Fishing Anglers...................................................... 126 Demand Estimation............................................................ 126 Benefit Estimation............................................................... 130 Benefit-Cost Analysis of the Mountain Fork River Trout Fishery.............................................................................. 140 VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.......................................................... 147 Summary.......................................................................................... 147 Conclusions..................................................................................... 150 Management and Policy Decisions................................. 152 Additional Research........................................................... 154 Limitations............................................................................ 155 V Chapter Page BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................................................................... 157 APPENDIX................................................................................................... 166 APPENDIX A - SURVEY INSTRUMENTS................................. 167 APPENDIX B - ESTIMATION OF AVERAGE HOURS OF FISHING AND TOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS WINTER, 1990 ........................................................................... 194 APPENDIX C- ESTIMATION OF CONSUMER SURPLUS (ANGLER BENEFITS) WINTER, 1990.............. 196 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 3.1. Geographic Distribution of Sampled Anglers by Postcard, Creel and Telephone Surveys, Mountain Fork River, 1989 - 1991 .................................................................... 51 3.2. The Response Rate of the Telephone Survey for the Mountain Fork River Anglers............................................... 55 4.1. Estimated Seasonal Angler Hours and Trout Harvest for the First Three Years of the Mountain Fork River Trout Fishery, 1989 - 1991.................................................... 72 4.2. Place of Residence for Samples of Anglers at the Mountain Fork River Trout Fishery, 1989 - 1991.......................... 7 4 . 4.3. One-Way Travel Distance to the Mountain Fork River Trout Fishery for Samples of Anglers, 1989 - 1991......................................................................... 80 4.4. Estimated Hours of Fishing Per Trip for Samples of Anglers at the Mountain Fork River Trout Fishery, 1989-1991......................................................................................... 81 4.5. Length of Trip for Samples of Anglers at the Mountain Fork River Trout Fishery, 1989 - 1991............................................ 82 4.6. Seasonal Number of Fishing Trips Per Angler to the Mountain Fork River Trout Fishery, 1989 - 1991.......................... 84 4.7. Total Number of Fishing Trips to Other Locations for Samples of Anglers to the Mountain Fork River, 1989 - 1991 ............................................................................. 85 4.8. Frequency of Fishing Trips per Year to the Mountain Fork River Prior to Establishment of the Trout Fishery on January 1, 1989. ...........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2021 Area Lodging Guide
    VISITMCCURTAINCOUNTY.COM Hwy 259 Ti mb il erwolf Tra Golf Cours Lu e Road ci River Bend an Road C Sorrel edar Creek il Carson ra oad T Creek Area R a k at ee f r k Moun C u odge L Lakeview L Broken Bow r tai n L e Gap Road F ns ork o b e e Rive s v iv t e Dr Reservoir m ail Deer Creek Trail te Coyot r C i r S r T Stevens e T a e t k a Gap Area L u kf Hochatown H T Overlook R 259A ve O Ste ns Gap Creek Beaver Lodge Nature Trails N Radio Tower Beacon 259A River Bend Power Area House Big Oak Hwy Nature Trails 259 Mou H nta in T Fo rk R R iver Beavers Bend O Gr 259A N a State Park v Reregulation Dam el R 4.3 Miles oad Public Presbyterian Use Area Falls Hwy ile Hwy 1 M 7 Steel iles 70 3 Junction 259 5 M d a Oak Hill o R Broken g i Bow a r 70 BUS C N 70 . Craig Road NW Texas Ave. C e n t r H a l T A v R e BUS . O Hwy N Broken 70 259 t t MLK Dr. Bow d e SE Washington St. e 10th St. a e e o r C r t e t 9th St. R n S S t e e y y r 8th St. m a v v a a a i i l r r w 70 w A D 7th St.
    [Show full text]
  • Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment December 2003
    Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment December 2003 Ouachita Ecoregional Assessment Team Arkansas Field Office 601 North University Ave. Little Rock, AR 72205 Oklahoma Field Office 2727 East 21st Street Tulsa, OK 74114 Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment ii 12/2003 Table of Contents Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment............................................................................................................................i Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................3 BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................................4 Ecoregional Boundary Delineation.............................................................................................................................................4 Geology..........................................................................................................................................................................................5 Soils................................................................................................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Environmental Flow Requirements for Freshwater Mussels of Greatest Conservation Need in the Mountain Fork, Kiamichi and Little Rivers, Oklahoma
    FINAL PERFORMANCE REPORT Federal Aid Grant No. F11AF00030 (T-59-R-1) Evaluation of Environmental Flow Requirements for Freshwater Mussels of Greatest Conservation Need in the Mountain Fork, Kiamichi and Little Rivers, Oklahoma Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation June 1, 2011 through May 30, 2014 FINAL PERFORMANCE REPORT Evaluation of Environmental Flow Requirements For Freshwater Mussels of Greatest Conservation Need In the Mountain Fork, Kiamichi and Little Rivers, Oklahoma Submitted to: Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation 1801 N. Lincoln Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK By Caryn C. Vaughn, PhD Kiza K. Gates, PhD Carla L. Atkinson, PhD Oklahoma Biological Survey 111 E. Chesapeake Street University of Oklahoma Norman, OK 73019 FINAL PERFORMANCE REPORT STATE: Oklahoma PROJECT NO: F11AF00030 (T-59-R-1) GRANT PROGRAM: State Wildlife Grant PROJECT TITLE: Evaluation of Environmental Flow Requirements for Freshwater Mussels of Greatest Conservation Need in the Mountain Fork, Kiamichi and Little Rivers, Oklahoma. GRANT PERIOD: June 1, 2011 through May 30, 2014. SUMMARY: The Kiamichi and Little Rivers in southeastern Oklahoma are home to a rich aquatic fauna, including four federally listed endangered species. Mussel populations in these rivers have suffered in recent years due to a lack of instream flows caused by drought and water management. Mussel populations are further threatened by proposed plans to sell water from these rivers to metropolitan areas. Thus, there is a critical need to understand the environmental flow requirements
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix G - Roadless Area/Wilderness Evaluations and Wild and Scenic Rivers
    Appendix G - Roadless Area/Wilderness Evaluations and Wild and Scenic Rivers In accordance with 36 CFR 219.17, a new inventory of roadless areas was completed for this plan revision, and areas of the Ouachita National Forest that met the criteria for inclusion in the roadless area inventory (Chapter 7 of Forest Service Handbook 1909.12) were further evaluated for recommendation as potential wilderness areas. The reinventory of roadless areas included previously recognized roadless areas considered during development of the 1986 Forest Plan and the 1990 Amended Forest Plan. These areas were: Beech Creek, Rich Mountain, Blue Mountain, Brush Heap, Bear Mountain, and Little Blakely. Also, two areas near Broken Bow Lake in Southeastern Oklahoma, Bee Mountain and Ashford Peak, were identified in the January 2002 FEIS for Acquired Lands in Southeastern Oklahoma. Possible additions to existing wilderness areas were also considered. The roadless inventory for the Ouachita National Forest was updated for this iteration of plan revision using Geographic Information System (GIS) technology. Evaluation of the Forest for areas meeting the criterion of one-half mile of improved [National Forest System] road or less per 1,000 acres yielded a significant number of candidate polygons and all polygons over 1,000 acres in size were considered to determine if there were any possibility of expanding the area to a suitable size to warrant consideration as possible wilderness. Polygons meeting the initial criteria were further analyzed using criteria found in FSH 1909.12 (Chapter 7.11) to produce the inventoried roadless areas described in this appendix. The planning team determined that, of the former RARE II areas, the only ones that meet the criteria for inclusion in the roadless area inventory are portions of Blue Mountain and Brush Heap.
    [Show full text]
  • Area Attractions | Beavers Bend Lodging
    Activities in Beavers Bend Country Home of Broken Bow Lake and Beavers Bend State Park Beavers Bend Lodging's Office is located at the Gateway to Hochatown U.S.A. in our new store location of: "Janet's Treasure Chest" Just mintues to Broken Bow Lake, Beavers Bend State Park and the Ouachita National Forest. Here are a few ideas of the fun things & fun shopping to do in Hochatown. Fun Things to Do at Beavers Bend cabins in Broken Bow, McCurtain County Oklahoma! Beavers Bend Resort Park The scenic beauty of Beavers Bend Resort Park makes it one of Oklahoma's most popular resorts. Located north of Broken Bow, Oklahoma in the Hochatown community. Broken Bow Lake Two hundred feet above Beaver's Bend Resort Park is crystal-clear Broken Bow Lake, a favorite of scuba divers and bass fishermen. Broken Bow Lake is one of the most picturesque settings in Oklahoma. There are 180 miles of pine-studded shoreline, and 14,220 acres of lake. Surrounding the island-dotted lake are plenty of RV and tent sites. The lake stretches 22 miles back into the Ouachita mountain country where its unusual beauty and scenic appeal beckons all nature enthusiasts. The mountain terrain is densely forested and there are many species of birds native to the area for birdwatchers to enjoy. BEAVERS BEND RESORT PARK (HWY 259A) Broken Bow Dam Sunset on Broken Bow Lake – it just doesn’t get any better than this! The Dam was completed in 1970. Numerous park areas located around the lake give the visitor an unmatched opportunity for outdoor family fun and relaxation.
    [Show full text]
  • Black Fork Mountain Trail Ouachita National Forest Wilderness Equestrian Hiking
    Black Fork Mountain Trail Ouachita National Forest Wilderness Equestrian Hiking SOUTHERN REGION Trail Highlights: The trail offers beautiful panoramic Length: 6 miles one way. NATIONAL FORESTS views in every direction. A day hiker or an overnight Travel Time: 3 hours one way. The U.S. Department of backpacker may enjoy spectacular views of Queen Agriculture (USDA) prohibits Wilhelmina State Park, Rich Mountain Fire Tower and Directions: From Mena, AR go 4 miles discrimination in all its pro- the Ouachita Mountains in Arkansas and Oklahoma. on Hwy 71 north to Acorn. At Acorn, grams and activities on the take Hwy 270 west 6 miles to the basis of race, color, national The trail traverses historic sites dating from the late trailhead. origin, age, disability, and TRAIL BLACK FORK MOUNTAIN 1800s to 1940 where pioneers once settled. The trail where applicable, sex, mari- also features unusual geology and vegetation. Trail Information: Unsurfaced. White tal status, familial status, pa- rectangles mark the trail. The trail leads you into Black Fork Mountain Wilderness rental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic informa- – a place for solitude and primitive recreation. Water: Limited to fall, winter and spring. tion, political beliefs, reprisal, Please hike in small groups of less than 10 people. Difficulty Level: More difficult. or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived Page, OK has an old road that leads to the wilderness History: Part of the existing trail was a from any public assistance boundary. 1800s trail road that wound its way to program. (Not all prohibited the top of Black Fork Mountain.
    [Show full text]
  • Outreach Plan
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 16, 2013 Contacts: Chris Davidson, [email protected], 501/513-4481 Tom Mackenzie, [email protected], 404/679-7291 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lists Neosho Mucket as Endangered and Rabbitsfoot as Threatened The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is listing the Neosho mucket as endangered and the Rabbitsfoot as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Both species are freshwater mussels found in river systems in the eastern half of the United States. The Neosho mucket has been eliminated from about 62 percent of its historic range with only nine of 16 historic populations remaining. Only one of these populations is known to be reproducing. The Neosho mucket is currently found in Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri. The Rabbitsfoot has disappeared from about 64 percent of its historic range. While 51 of the 140 historic populations remain, only 11 populations (22 percent of its existing populations or eight percent of the historic populations) are viable; 23 populations (45 percent of the existing populations) are at risk of elimination; and 17 populations (33 percent of the current populations) show limited reproduction with little evidence of sustainability. The Rabbitsfoot is currently found in Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. The Rabbitsfoot is no longer found in Georgia and West Virginia. Within the State of Oklahoma, the Neosho mucket presently occurs in the Illinois River upstream of Lake Tenkiller, and in the Spring River upstream of Grand Lake. It was more widespread historically, being known also from the Caney, Verdigris, and Neosho rivers.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Potential for Rainbow Trout Reproduction in Tributaries of the Mountain Fork River Below Broken Bow Dam, Southeastern Oklahoma
    United States Department of Agriculture Assessing the Potential for Rainbow Trout Reproduction in Tributaries of the Mountain Fork River below Broken Bow Dam, Southeastern Oklahoma James M. Long, Trevor A. Starks, Tyler Farling, and Robert Bastarache Forest Service Research & Development Southern Research Station e-Research Paper SRS–58 Authors: James M. Long is a Research Fishery Biologist and Assistant Unit Leader, U.S. Geological Survey, Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Stillwater, OK 74078; Trevor A. Starks is a graduate student, Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078; Tyler Farling is a graduate student, Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078; and Robert Bastarache is the District Biologist, Oklahoma Ranger District, Ouachita National Forest, Broken Bow, OK 74728. Cover photographs: pirate perch (top left), orangebelly darter (bottom left), Cooper Creek (center), rainbow trout (top right), and highland stoneroller (bottom right) of the lower Mountain Fork River system below Broken Bow Dam, southeastern Oklahoma. (photographs by Trevor Starks except the rainbow trout, taken by Tyler Farling) PRODUCT DISCLAIMER The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service. September 2016 Southern Research Station 200 W.T. Weaver Blvd. Asheville, NC 28804 www.srs.fs.usda.gov Long,
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 62/Thursday, April 1
    15718 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 1999 / Notices agency's estimate of burden including DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE of the eligibility and suitability of the the validity of the methodology and Glover and Mountain Fork Rivers for assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance Forest Service possible Congressional designation the quality, utility and clarity of the under the National Wild and Scenic Significant Amendment of the Land information to be collected; or (4) ways River System (NWSRS). and Resource Management Plan of the to minimize the burden of collection on Significant amendments to Forest Ouachita National Forest for Managing Plans follow the same procedures those who are to respond, including the Approximately 111,580 Acres of use of appropriate automated, required for the development and Acquired Lands in McCurtain County, approval of forest plans (36 CFR part electronic, mechanical, or other OK technological collection techniques or 219.10(f)), including completion of an other forms of informational technology. AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. EIS. The Forest Service determined that Comments regarding this information ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an the amendment discussed in this notice will be significant because (a) it will collection requirement should be environmental impact statement. establish goals, objectives, management directed to the Office of Information and SUMMARY: Pursuant to 16 U.S.C. areas, standards, and guidelines for a Regulatory Affairs, Office of 1604(f)(4), the Forest Service will block of approximately 111,580 acres of Management and Budget, Attention: prepare an environmental impact acquired lands newly added to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, statement (EIS) for the decision to National Forest System (the ``Broken Washington, DC 20503, and to Diane amend the Land and Resource Bow unit'') and (b) as a result of Sharp, Director, Production, Management Plan (Forest Plan) for the allocating these lands to management Emergencies, and Compliance Division, Ouachita National Forest.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution and Status of the Kiamichi Shiner, Nottropis Ortenburgeri Hubbs (Cyprinidae) Henry W
    Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 59 Article 20 2005 Distribution and Status of the Kiamichi Shiner, Nottropis ortenburgeri Hubbs (Cyprinidae) Henry W. Robison Southern Arkansas University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas Part of the Zoology Commons Recommended Citation Robison, Henry W. (2005) "Distribution and Status of the Kiamichi Shiner, Nottropis ortenburgeri Hubbs (Cyprinidae)," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 59 , Article 20. Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol59/iss1/20 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 59 [2005], Art. 20 Distribution and Status of the Kiamichi Shiner, Notropis ortenburgeri Hubbs (Cyprinidae) Henry W. Robison Department ofBiologicalSciences, Southern Arkansas University, Magnolia, AR 71754-9354 Correspondent: [email protected] Abstract The Kiamichi shiner, Notropis ortenburgeri, a diminuitive,silvery, upland stream fish in southwestern Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma was studied from 1999-2001 to determine its distribution, habitat, and conservation status in Arkansas and Oklahoma.
    [Show full text]
  • TWFF Business Update TWFF Business Update 1 Submitted by Each Officer
    twff.net December 2009 1 “Our mission is to create opportunities and encourage, educate, and mentor women’s responsible participation in the recreational sport of fly fishing. We support the policies/goals of the Federation of Fly Fishers, are open to women, men, and children from beginner to experienced through programs sponsored by women from the Texas Women Fly Fishers.” CONTENTS TWFF Business Update TWFF Business Update 1 Submitted by each officer. Welcome New Members 1 TREASURER’S REPORT: From the President 2 As of 12/02/09 the 2009 TWFF budget vs. actual is: Income Memberships 3 Budget - $4450.00 TWFF & FFF Actual - $7136.00 Slate of Candidates 4 Expenses Budget - $4650.00 Trip Report: 6 Actual - $2936.38 Saltwater Outing Next Outing: 8 FIRST VICE PRESIDENT’S REPORT: Guadalupe River We’re wrapping up another great year in fund raising for TWFF and CFR. As a club, we have reached some new goals that will carry our club into the future. Future Outing: 10 We have raised: Beavers Bend $3,353.50 TWFF Conclave 2010 16 $2,096.50 CFR North Texas Outdoor 17 $5,450.00 total - Way to go TWFF supporters!!!!! Expo Report SECOND VICE PRESIDENT’S REPORT: WELCOME NEW MEMBERS Website Infringement 18 Carol and Hyman White Photo Releases 18 Evelyn Cura - Arlington Zina Harris - Ft Worth Location, Location, 19 Correction from last newsletter: Location New members: Darla Jean and Larry Neill - San Angelo should have read Outings Update 20 Darla Jean Neill and Larry Lee Taylor - San Angelo Upcoming Events 21 We apologize for the error.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 195/Tuesday, October 9, 2001
    51322 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations Code for reading third column: § 73.202 [Amended] Background Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Buchanan (1980), Cummings and Susp.—Suspension. Allotments under New York, is Mayer (1992), Oesch (1995), and Watters Dated: September 28, 2001. amended by adding Granby, Channel (1995) provide descriptions of the Robert F. Shea, 288A, and removing Channel 288A from scaleshell mussel. The shell grows to Acting Administrator, Federal Insurance and Oswego. approximately three to ten centimeters Mitigation Administration. Federal Communications Commission. (one to four inches) in length. The shells [FR Doc. 01–25242 Filed 10–5–01; 8:45 am] John A. Karousos, are elongate, very thin, and compressed. The anterior (front) end is rounded. In BILLING CODE 6718–05–P Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau. males, the posterior (rear) end is bluntly pointed. In females, the periostracum [FR Doc. 01–25116 Filed 10–5–01; 8:45 am] (the outside layer or covering of the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS BILLING CODE 6712–01–P COMMISSION shell) forms a wavy, fluted extension of the posterior end of the shell. The dorsal 47 CFR Part 73 (top) margin is straight and the ventral DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (bottom) margin is gently rounded. [DA 01–2205; MM Docket No. 00–169; RM– Beaks (the raised or domed part of the 9953] Fish and Wildlife Service dorsal margin of the shell) are small and Radio Broadcasting Services; Oswego low, and nearly even with the hinge and Granby, NY 50 CFR Part 17 line.
    [Show full text]