DOCSLIB.ORG

River Surveys Made by the United States Geological Survey and Other Agencies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
River Surveys Made by the United States Geological Survey and Other Agencies DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Hubert Work. Secretary U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY George Otto Smith, Director Water-Supply Paper 558 PRELIMINARY INDEX TO RIVER SURVEYS MADE BY THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND OTHER AGENCIES BY BENJAMIN E. JONES AND RANDOLPH O. HELLAND \& WASflBNGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1926 CONTENTS Pag* Introduction _______________________________ ______________ 1 Alabama _______________________________________________ . 4 Alaska _____________________________________ 5 Arizona ________________________________________ 5 Arkansas ____________ ___________________________________ 9 California _____________ _.._______________________________ 9 Colorado__._________________________________ 16 Connecticut _____:____________________________________ 20 Delaware ________________________________________ 20 District of Columbia_____________________________ 20? Florida_____________________________________ 20* Georgia .___ ____________________________ 2P Hawaii______________c._________.____.___ 2$ Idaho_-__-______________.____________ 23 Illinois_________________________________ 2& Indiana.______________________________ 30* Iowa ____________________________________ 30? Kansas_______________________________ 301 Kentucky ._____________________________ 30» Louisiana ________ ____________________________ ________ 31 Maine _____ ___________ ___________________ ____ 31 Maryland _________________________________ 35 Massachusetts _______________ _________.___________ 36 Michigan _________ _ __________ __ 37 Minnesota. ____________ ________________________ __ ______ 37 Mississippi ___________________________________ 40> Missouri ______________ _______________ __. ____ 41 Montana. _____ ,.__________ ____________________ 41 Nebraska.-__________ ______________ ________ __________ 4£ Nevada _____ ____ __________________________ __________ 43 New Hampshire.__________________ _______ _______ __ 44 New Jersey_______________________________________________ 44 New Mexico. __ _ __ _____________ ____ __ ____ 44 New York__________ ________ ____ ___ ______ __ 46 North Carolina_____________________ ___________ 51 North Dakota____ _.__________________________ 53 Ohio_________________________________________ 54 Oklahoma , 54 Oregon _________.___________ _________ _____ __ __ 54 Pennsylvania ___ _ ._ ___________ ____ 68- Rhode Island ___ ___ _______ _ 7L South Carolina-______________________________________ 71i in IV PRELIMINARY INDEX TO BIVEE SURVEYS Page. South Dakota_____________ __. ____ _____ _____ __ 71 Tennessee _____-_-_.__________.____________________ 71 Texas.______________________________.___ 72 Utah._______________________________l.____ 75 Vermont ___________________________________________ 82 Virginia___________________ __________ ____ 83 Washington _ _ __ ___ _______, _ _ __ _ ___ _ _ _ _ __ 84 West Virginia._____________________________^______________ 94 Wisconsin _ _________________________.___ _ _ 95 Wyoming ._ __________________________.___ 96 Surveys needed_______________________________.,___.___-___-____ 99 Index________________________._____________ 101 ILLUSTRATIONS Pas- PLATE 1. Map showing areas covered by topographic surveys made by the Geological Survey prior to July 1, 1925 2 2. Map of the United States showing drainage areas and index numbers__________ _ .___ In pocket. PRELIMINARY INDEX TO RIVER SURVEYS MADE BY THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND OTHER AGENCIES By BENJAMIN E. JONES and RANDOLPH O. HELLAND INTRODUCTION In the determination of the extent of the natural resources of the United States many surveys of our rivers and lakes have been made by Federal, State, semipublic, and private agencies. The results have not been uniform, and many of the maps are difficult to obtain. In general the types of surveys may be divided into two groups those which have been made primarily to determine features affect­ ing navigation, and those which have been made to determine the possibilities of developing storage and power. Surveys of the first type have been made principally under the direction of the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army. Ordinarily, such surveys are made on a large scale, and the maps show the depth of water, location and character of obstructions, rapids, and the general topography of the banks. Many of these surveys do not show the elevations of the water surface, from which a profile could be made, nor details of topography by means of contours. They are made primarily in the interest of navigation and are of less value for studies of storage or power possibilities. Surveys of the second type as made by the United States Geological Survey in recent years show eleva­ tions of water surface and, by means of contours, the detailed topography of the land adjacent to the stream bed. Information concerning the maps made by the Corps of Engineers is contained in the annual reports of the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, and in indexes to those reports. Information relative to surveys of the second type has not heretofore been assembled. The present compilation has been prepared primarily for the use of Government bureaus to afford information concerning the rivers on which surveys have been made and the character of the maps available. The list embraces not only all the rivers surveyed and maps published by the United States Geological Survey but also many maps made and published by other Government agencies and the several States, 1 '-2 PEEMMINABY INDEX *O BIVER SURVEYS It is realized that in a compilation of this character many maps will be overlooked, as the files of the Geological Survey, although extensive, are not complete. As this index will be republished from time to time, to bring it up to date, any information concerning errors or omissions will be welcomed. Some of the earlier, maps show only the plan and profile of the stream with very little -topography. The more recent surveys, especially those made by the United States Geological Survey, show topography, usually to a height of 200 feet or more above the water surface. The scale generally adopted by the Geological Survey for liver surveys is 1: 31,680, or half a mile to the inch. The contour interval ordinarily is 20, 25, or 50 feet on land and 5 feet on the water surface. The standard topographic maps of areas in the United States published by the Geological Survey afford much information of value in connection with studies of river development and are particularly useful in areas where more detailed river surveys have not been made. The areas covered by these maps made prior to July 1, 1925, and the scale employed for each area are shown on Plate 1. In preparing the standard topographic maps it is necessary to survey the rivers, and these surveys will hereafter be made on a scale suit­ able for preparing detailed maps of rivers whose power, irrigation, or navigation features justify such maps. Thus each year's work will augment the maps of rivers available, until, as planned, at the end of 20 years all the streams in the country will have been surveyed. In this compilation the surveys have been arranged by States and within the States by drainage basins. The tributary streams are indicated by letters; for example, a stream marked "(a)" is tributary to the last-named stream not marked with a letter, a stream marked "(&)" is tributary to the last-named stream marked "(a)," and so on. In the Great Basin tributaries of Great Salt Lake and other inde­ pendent drainage systems are indicated by "(a)." The .index number, made up of letters and figures, in parentheses, refers to the drainage-area subdivisions shown on Plate 2. The imm*- bers refer to the major areas that form the great drainage basins of the country as classified by the Geological Survey in its publications on stream flow and by the Weather Bureau in its meteorologic reports. These major areas are as follows: 1. North Atlantic basins. 2. South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico basins. 3. Ohio River basin. 4. St. Lawrence River basin. 5. Upper Mississippi River and Hudson Bay basins. 6. Missouri River basin. 7. Lower Mississippi River basin. U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 558 PLATE I 30' 129* 128' 127 126* I2S* 124 123* 122* 121 120" 119 118" 117* 116 US' 114* 113' 112* 111 110' 109* 108' IO7* IO6* IDS' IOV IO3* 102* 101* IOO* 99* 98* 97* 96* 95* 94-* 93* 92* 91* 90* 89* 88* 87* 86* 85* 8V 83* 82* 81* 80* 79* 78* 77* 76* 75* 74* 73" 72' 71* 7O* 69* 68* 67 EXPLANATION Surveyed in previous years 21* 120* 119* 118* 117* 116* 115' 114* 113° 112* 111' IIO° 109* IO8° 107' IO6° IO5' \OV IO3* 102° 101° IOO° 99° 98° 97' 96° 95° 94-* 93' 92° 91' 90' 89' 88° 87* 86* 85* 84-' 83* 82° 81' BO* 79* 78* 77* 76 AREAS COVERED BY TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYS MADE BY UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PRIOR TO JULY 1, 1925 AND TEERITOEY COVERED BY DIVISIONS OF TOPOGRAPHIC BRANCH Scale "lioooooo 000 200 30O ioo 6Oo Miles INTRODUCTION 3 8. Western Gulf of Mexico basins. 9. Colorado River basin. 10. Great Basin. 11. Pacific basins in California. " 12. North Pacific basins. Each major area is divided into intermediate areas conforming to its dominant drainage systems and designated 12A, 12B, etc., the number in the designation being that of the major area and the let­ ter referring to a specific intermediate area within it. The inter­ mediate areas are further divided into minor areas, each designated by the number of the major area, the letter of the intermediate area, and a final letter distinguishing it from adjacent minor areas, as 12FA, 12FB. Each drainage division is lettered in
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pierce Mills Hydroelectric Generating Station (FERC No. 2396 VT) Arnold Falls Hydroelectric Generating Station (FERC No
    20091208-5022 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/8/2009 1:26:23 AM Pierce Mills hydroelectric generating station (FERC No. 2396 VT) Arnold Falls hydroelectric generating station (FERC No. 2399 VT) Gage hydroelectric generating station (FERC No. 2397 VT) Passumpsic hydroelectric generating station (FERC No. 2400 VT) St. Johnsbury, Waterford and Barnet, Caledonia County, Vermont 2009 Annual CRMP Report November 30, 2009 This letter report is provided on behalf of the Central Vermont Public Service Corporation (CVPS) in fulfillment of its obligations regarding the Cultural Resource Management Plan (CRMP) for the Pierce Mills, Arnold Falls, Gage and Passumpsic hydroelectric generating stations, collectively referred to as the Project.1 Articles 408, 408, 410, and 408 of the licenses for the Pierce Mills, Arnolds Falls, Gage and Passumpsic generating stations2, respectively, require implementation of the provisions of the Programmatic Agreement (PA) executed on November 4, 1994.3 Under federal law, the FERC is required to consider the effects of hydroelectric projects that it licenses on historic properties. The PA requires the filing of an annual report on activities conducted under the CRMP on the anniversary date of issuance of the license. Monitoring Action to Protect Archaeological Historic Properties Section 3.2.3. of the CRMP describes that the Project will be monitored annually to limit or prevent bank erosion and protect historic properties in conjunction with other resources. Charity Baker, an archaeologist qualified under 36 CFR 61, and Beth Eliason, CVPS Environmental Engineer, conducted the annual monitoring of Project shorelines on October 10 and 29, 2009. The inspection was conducted via canoe to document existing conditions using a handheld Magellan GPS 320 unit, a Canon PowerShot A85 digital camera, and manual notes.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Plan Vol. 1, Part 4
    Vol. I, 2009 Edgecomb Comprehensive Plan 24 PART 4 NATURAL RESOURCES CRITICAL NATURAL RESOURCES MAINE’S GROWTH MANAGEMENT GOAL To protect the state's other critical natural resources, including without limitation, wetlands, wildlife and fisheries habitat, sand dunes, shorelands, scenic vistas, and unique natural areas. TOWN VISION To protect Edgecomb’s critical natural resources within and surrounding Edgecomb’s privately- owned undeveloped and unfragmented lands; Edgecomb’s only great pond, Lily Pond; the town- owned Charles and Constance Schmid Land Preserve as well as Edgecomb’s tidal frontage and its scenic vistas. CITIZENS’ VIEW (SURVEY RESPONSE) ● 58%, or 205 respondents, choose to live in Edgecomb because of its proximity to water, clear skies and starry nights. ● 54%, or 177 respondents, enjoy the respect for privacy in Edgecomb. Unfragmented Parcels ● 71%, or 253 respondents, defined rural as (Source: Beginning with Habitat) “the bulk of our land remaining undeveloped, with large tracts of backland, fields and forests.” ● 28%, or 94 respondents, objected to forestry operations “in their back yard.” ● 54%, or 191 respondents, felt that nature preserves are an acceptable trade-off for lost tax revenue. CONDITIONS AND TRENDS The topography of the upper part of the peninsula comprising the Town of Edgecomb is typical of Maine coastline peninsulas. A gently rolling landscape of rocky, clay soil, remaining from land which was heavily wooded before clearing and settlement of the 18th century, is laid over a granite skeleton. A mixture of second and third growth woodland is broken by the pattern of open fields surviving from 18th and 19th century farms when agriculture and fishing were the major sources of livelihood for inhabitants.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish River Scenic Byway
    Fish River Scenic Byway State Route 11 Aroostook County Corridor Management Plan St. John Valley Region of Northern Maine Prepared by: Prepared by: December 2006 Northern Maine Development Commission 11 West Presque Isle Road, PO Box 779 ­ Caribou, Maine 04736 Phone: (207) 498­8736 Toll Free in Maine: (800) 427­8736 TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary ...............................................................................................................................................................3 Why This Byway?...................................................................................................................................................5 Importance of the Byway ...................................................................................................................................5 What’s it Like?...............................................................................................................................................6 Historic and Cultural Resources .....................................................................................................................9 Recreational Resources ............................................................................................................................... 10 A Vision for the Fish River Scenic Byway Corridor................................................................................................ 15 Goals, Objectives and Strategies.........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • MMI 53 River Street Dam.Pdf
    TOWN OF ACTON JUNE 7, 2019 | ACTON, MA PROPOSAL Studies Related to the Dam Located at 53 River Street June 7, 2019 Mr. John Mangiaratti, Town Manager Town of Acton Town Manager’s Office 472 Main Street Acton, MA 01720 RE: River Street Dam Removal and Fort Pond Brook Restoration Acton, Massachusetts MMI #4458-02 Dear Mr. Mangiaratti: The Milone & MacBroom team of structural engineers, bridge scour experts, geotechnical engineers, and hydraulic engineers are uniquely qualified to design the dam removal, and evaluate the potential upstream and downstream infrastructure impacts associated with the removal of the Dam at River Street to improve ecological functions of the Fort Pond Brook. When reviewing our proposal, we ask that you consider the following: Our team brings expertise and a proven track record of success in dam removal projects throughout New England. Milone & MacBroom professionals have backgrounds in hydrology and hydraulics, engineering design, fisheries expertise, and wetland biology. Our staff also includes invasive species experts, fisheries biologists, and permitting specialists. We also integrate the creative innovation of our extensive in-house team of landscape architects and frequently include passive recreational park features at our dam removal sites. We have the ability to integrate dam removal with the natural site opportunities through careful analysis and planning so that your project is technically sound, environmentally sensitive, and aesthetically pleasing. Our team of experts has performed many dam removal projects throughout New England and the Northeast. Milone and MacBroom are pioneers in the field, having completed our first dam removals in the 1990s. With over 40 constructed dam removal projects, we have completed more than any other design firm in the Northeast.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulatory Guide 1.59 Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants
    Revision 2 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION August 1077 C, REGULATORYGUIDE OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT REGULATORY GUIDE 1.59 DESIGN BASIS FLOODS FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS USNRC REGULATORY GUIDES Comments Ohould be sent to the Secretary of the Commission, US. Nuclear Regu latory Commision. Washington, D.C. 2055, Attention: Docketing and Service Regulatory Guides or* ihsed to describe and make available to the public methods Branch. acceptable to the NRC staff of Implementing specific parts of the Commission's regulations, to delineate techniques used by the staff in evaluating specific problems The gluides e issued in the following ten broad divisions: at postulated accidents. or to provide guidance to applicants. Regulatory Guides are not sub•titute& for regulations, and compliance with them ia not required. 1. Power Reactors 6. Products Methods and solutions different from those mt out in the guides will be accept 2. Research and Test Reactors 7. Transportation 3. Fuels end Materials Facilities S. Occupational Health able if they provide a basis for the findings requisite to the issuance or continuance 4. Environmental end Siting 9. Antitrust Review of a permit or license by the Commission. S. Materials nd Plant Protection 10. General Comments and suggestions for Improvements In these guides erai ncounrged at ll Requests for single copies of issued guides (which may be reproduced) or for place timnes. end guides will be revised, as appropriale. to accommnodate comments and ment on an automatic distribution list for single copies of future guides in specific to reflect new information or experience. This guide was revised as a result of divisions should be made in writing to the US.
    [Show full text]
  • The Vermont Management Plan for Brook, Brown and Rainbow Trout Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department January 2018
    The Vermont Management Plan for Brook, Brown and Rainbow Trout Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department January 2018 Prepared by: Rich Kirn, Fisheries Program Manager Reviewed by: Brian Chipman, Will Eldridge, Jud Kratzer, Bret Ladago, Chet MacKenzie, Adam Miller, Pete McHugh, Lee Simard, Monty Walker, Lael Will ACKNOWLEDGMENT: This project was made possible by fishing license sales and matching Dingell- Johnson/Wallop-Breaux funds available through the Federal Sportfish Restoration Act. Table of Contents I. Introduction ......................................................................................... 1 II. Life History and Ecology ................................................................... 2 III. Management History ......................................................................... 7 IV. Status of Existing Fisheries ............................................................. 13 V. Management of Trout Habitat .......................................................... 17 VI. Management of Wild Trout............................................................. 34 VII. Management of Cultured Trout ..................................................... 37 VIII. Management of Angler Harvest ................................................... 66 IX. Trout Management Plan Goals, Objectives and Strategies .............. 82 X. Summary of Laws and Regulations .................................................. 87 XI. Literature Cited ............................................................................... 92 I. Introduction
    [Show full text]
  • Vtrans TS4 NOI, Question D.1 List of First Waters to Which Designated MS4 Areas Discharge, Impairment Status, and Pollutants for Impaired Waters November 17, 2017
    Notice of Intent (NOI) For Stormwater Discharges from the State Transportation Separate Storm Sewer System (TS4) General Permit 3-9007 Submission of this Notice of Intent (NOI) constitutes notice that the entity in Section A intends to be authorized to discharge pollutants to waters of the State under Vermont’s State Transportation Separate Storm Sewer System (TS4) permit. Submission of the NOI also constitutes notice that the party identified in Section A of this form has read, understands and meets the eligibility conditions; agrees to comply with all applicable terms and conditions; and understands that continued authorization under the TS4 General Permit is contingent on maintaining eligibility for coverage. In order to be granted coverage, all information required on this form must be completed and a complete Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) Plan must be submitted. A. Permittee Information 1a. Mailing Address: 1b. Town: 1c. State: 1d. Zip: 2 . Phone: 3. Email: B. Primary contact responsible for overall coordination of SWMP, if different than PEO 1. Name: 2a. Mailing Address: 2b. Town: 2c. State: 2d. Zip: 3. Phone: 4. Email: 5. Additional Contact Name: 6 . Additional Contact Email: C. Partnering organization responsible for Minimum Control Measure (MCM) implementation (if applicable) 1. If you are participating in the Chittenden County Reginal Planning Commission Memorandum Of Understanding to implement MCM1 & MCM2, check here: If you are relying on another entity to implement a MCM, please complete the following: 2. Organization: 3. Contact Name: 4. Minimum Control Measure being implemented: 5a. Mailing Address 5b. Town: 5c. State: 5d. Zip: 6. Phone: 7. Email: 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Catalogue for Eastern Fall Yearlings
    Hip No. Consigned by Becky Merkel, Agent 1 Justing Soldier Northern Dancer Danzig . { Pas de Nom Lost Soldier . Secretariat { Lady Winborne . { Priceless Gem Justing Soldier . Jester Dark bay/br. colt; Tri Jet . { Haze April 6, 2002 {I Demand . Intentionally (1989) { Bank Officer . { Intelligible By LOST SOLDIER (1990), 3rd Royal Lodge S. [G2]; $288,600 in NA, La. Downs H. [G3], etc.; 5 wins in UAE. Sire of 3 crops, including 2-year-olds of 2003, 5 black type winners, 53 winners, $3,249,518 in NA/US, $206,874 in Canada, including Lush Soldier ($438,416, Natalma S. [G3], etc.), Lost At Sea [G3] (to 4, 2003, $278,626). 1st dam I DEMAND, by Tri Jet. Winner at 4, $27,057. Dam of 6 foals of racing age, including a 2-year-old of 2003, five to race, 2 winners-- Fort Smith (c. by Valid Wager). Winner at 2 and 3, 2003, $53,460. Pompeo F. (c. by Goldwater). 5 wins to 3 in Panama as Goldwater’s Demand. 2nd dam BANK OFFICER, by Intentionally. 3 wins at 3 and 5, $11,507. Dam of 5 foals, 4 to race, all winners, including-- I’M A BANKER (c. by Truxton King). 9 wins, 2 to 5, $464,856, Long- fellow H. [G2], Kelso H. [G3] twice, 2nd Bernard Baruch H. [G2], Ball- antine’s Scotch Classic S. [G3], Laurel Turf Cup H. [G3], 3rd Daryl’s Joy S. [L] (SAR, $10,224), 4th Red Smith H. [G2]. Sire. I’m Important. 3 wins at 3 and 6, $37,523. Producer.
    [Show full text]
  • Demise of the Dams: the Construction, Destruction, and Legacy of Late Cenozoic Volcanism in the Western Grand Canyon
    CHAPTER 7: DEMISE OF THE DAMS: THE CONSTRUCTION, DESTRUCTION, AND LEGACY OF LATE CENOZOIC VOLCANISM IN THE WESTERN GRAND CANYON "We have no difficulty as we float along, and I am able to observe the wonderful phenomena connected with this flood of lava. The canyon was doubtless filled to a height of 1,200 to 1,500 feet, perhaps by more than one flood. This would dam the water back, and in cutting through this great lava bed, a new channel has been formed, sometimes on one side, sometimes on the other . What a conflict of water and fire there must have been here! Just imagine a river of molten rock running down a river of melted snow. What a seething and boiling of waters, what clouds of steam rolled into the heavens!" John Wesley Powell, August 25, 1869 ALISHA N. CLARK INTRODUCTION Volcanic episodes have occurred periodically throughout the history of the Grand Canyon (e.g. Garber, this volume; Bennett, this volume). During certain phases of the tectonic evolution of the Grand Canyon, uplift of the Colorado Plateau lead to an extensional tectonic environment that thinned the Earth’s crust facilitating transport of magmatic material to the Earth’s surface, often along fault zones that acted as conduits for the basaltic magma generated in the mantle below (see Bennett, this volume for discussion of regional tectonics). There are three volcanic fields on the western Grand Canyon: the Grand Wash, Shivwits Plateau, and UinKaret Plateau, from west to east, respectively. The youngest of these, the UinKaret Plateau, was active during the Pleistocene (Crow et al., 2008; Dalrymple and Hamblin, 1998; Hamblin, 1994).
    [Show full text]
  • Notice to Flood Insurance Study Users
    LINCOLN COUNTY, MAINE (ALL JURISDICTIONS) Lincoln County COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER Alna, Town of 230083 Monhegan Plantation 230511 Bar Island 230916 Newcastle, Town of 230218 Boothbay, Town of 230212 Nobleboro, Town of 230219 Boothbay Harbor, Town of 230213 Polins Ledges Island 230929 Bremen, Town of 230214 Ross Island 230922 Bristol, Town of 230215 Somerville, Town of 230512 Damariscotta, Town of 230216 South Bristol, Town of 230220 Dresden, Town of 230084 Southport, Town of 230221 Edgecomb, Town of 230217 Thief Island 230920 Haddock Island 230918 Thrumcap Island 230928 Hibberts Gore, Township of 230712 Waldoboro, Town of 230086 Hungry Island 230917 Webber Dry Ledge Island 230930 Indian Island 230919 Western Egg Rock Island 230926 Jefferson, Town of 230085 Westport, Town of 230222 Jones Garden Island 230925 Whitefield, Town of 230087 Killick Stone Island 230927 Wiscasset, Town of 230223 Louds Island 230915 Wreck Island 230924 Marsh Island 230921 Wreck Island Ledge 230923 PRELIMINARY DATE: February 7, 2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 23015CV001A NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the Community Map Repository. Please contact the Community Map Repository for any additional data. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republish part or all of this FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of this FIS report by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report.
    [Show full text]
  • Skagit Wild & Scenic River System Sign Plan and Graphics Guideline
    Skagit Wild & Scenic River System Sign Plan and Graphics Guideline for Mt. Baker/ Snoqualmie National Forest Skagit Wild & Scenic River System Sign Plan and Graphics Guideline for Mt. Baker/Snoqualmie National Forest by Joe Guarisco and Louanne Atherley Heritage Design USDA Forest Service January 2002 This project was funded by Seattle City Light as part of The Settlement Agreement on Recreation for the Skagit Hydroelectric Project #553 Cascade River SKAGIT WILD & SCENIC RIVER SYSTEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................... 9 I. FAMILY OF SIGNS .......................................................................................................................... 13 a. WAYSIDE EXHIBITS ................................................................................................................... 15 ORIENTATION .......................................................................................................................... 17 INTERPRETIVE ........................................................................................................................ 19 b. ROADWAY SIGNS ...................................................................................................................... 21 W&SR IDENTIFIER .................................................................................................................. 23 WELCOME W&SR ....................................................................................................................25
    [Show full text]
  • The Nationwide Rivers Inventory APPENDIX National System Components, Study Rivers and Physiographic Maps
    The Nationwide Rivers Inventory APPENDIX National System Components, Study Rivers and Physiographic Maps The National Park Service United States Department of the Interior Washington, DC 20240 January 1982 III. Existing Components of the National System 1981 National Wild and Scenic Rivers System Components State Alaska 1 _ ** River Name County(s)* Segment Reach Agency Contact Description (mile1s) (s) Designation State Congressional Section(s) Length Date of District(s) Managing Physiographic Agency Alagnak River including AK I&W The Alagnak from 67 12/2/80 NPS National Park Service Nonvianuk Kukaklek Lake to West 540 West 5th Avenue boundary of T13S, R43W Anchorage, AK 99501 and the entire Nonvianuk River. Alntna River AK B.R. The main stem within the 83 12/2/80 NPS National Park Service Gates of the Arctic 540 West 5th Avenue National Park and Preserve. Anchorage, AK 99501 Andreafsky River and AK I614- Segment from its source, 262 12/2/80 FWS Fish and Wildlife Service East Fork including all headwaters 1011 E. Tudor and the East Fork, within Anchorage, AK 99503 the boundary of the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. AK All of the river 69 12/2/80 NPS National Park Service Aniakchak River P.M. including its major 540 West 5th Avenue including: Hidden Creek tributaries, Hidden Creek, Anchorage, AK 99501 Mystery Creek, Albert Mystery Creek, Albert Johnson Creek, North Fork Johnson Creek, and North Aniakchak River Fork Aniakchak River, within the Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve. *Alaska is organized by boroughs. If a river is in or partially in a borough, it is noted.
    [Show full text]