DOCSLIB.ORG

D:\Program Files\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\Acrobat\Plug Ins\Openall

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
D:\Program Files\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\Acrobat\Plug Ins\Openall Area Manager, Bureau of Reclamation 2 This programmatic biological opinion is based on information provided in the June 8, 2001, assessment for Reclamation’s, Corps’, and non-Federal activities and other relevant sources of information. A complete administrativerecord of thisconsultation is on file at the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office in Albuquerque. Consultation History Reclamation and the Corps, submitted a comprehensive assessment in October 1999 and supplements in April and July 2000. The Service confirmed initiation of formal consultation by letter on July 6, 2000. In a July 20, 2000, faxogram Reclamation requested that the Service not issue opinions on either the comprehensive or supplemental assessments. The Corps requested reinitiation of formal consultation on their water operations, separate from Reclamation’s actions on November 16, 2000. However, the Corps did not provide a new assessment at that time. The Service responded on December 19, 2000, asking the Corps to submit an assessment of their actions alone. Reclamation submitted a new biological assessment of discretionary actions related to water management on January 6, 2001. The Service issued a draft jeopardy/adverse modification biological opinion to Reclamation on February 9, 2001 (#2-22-01-F-137). On March 5, 2001, the State of New Mexico (State) submitted a settlement proposal for the Minnow v. McDonald litigation. On April 13, 2001, the Corps submitted a biological assessment regarding the effects of their water operations rules (#2-22-01-I-085). Since that time, Reclamation, the Corps, the State, and the Service have been negotiating a settlement agreement that would provide a conservation pool of credit water for the next three years. Because it appeared that the settlement agreement could obviate the need to issue a final biological opinion to the Reclamation and a draft biological opinion to the Corps, the Service halted work on those two opinions to focus our efforts on the proposed settlement agreement. The Corps submitted an environmental assessment with a biological assessment on April 11, 2001, for the storage of water in the conservation pool. On April 12, 2001, the Service concurred with the determination of effects for that action (#2-22-01-I-332). The June 8, 2001, assessment outlining the effects of the combined actions of Reclamation, the Corps, and non-Federal entities constitutes a new request for consultation (#2-22-01-F-431). BIOLOGICAL OPINION I. Description of Proposed Action The State and the United States of America, through the Corps and Reclamation, recently entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) providing for the storage of native Rio Grande flow in upstream reservoirs. Negotiations are currently underway between Federal parties and the State to develop a Conservation Water Agreement (CWA), which provides for the release of this water for the benefit of endangered species downstream. Federal and non-Federal actions included in this consultation are integral components of this broad water management strategy. Area Manager, Bureau of Reclamation 3 The MOU and proposed CWA address the storage of up to 100,000 acre-feet (af) of Conservation Water in Jemez Canyon and Abiquiu Reservoirs over the next three years and release of that water at a rate of up to 30,000 af/year to: 1) reduce the risk that conditions in the Middle Rio Grande for the next three years will jeopardize the continued existence of the silvery minnow and flycatcher, 2) promote the recovery of listed species, 3) contribute to and support the efforts of the Middle Rio Grande ESA Collaborative Program and others to develop and implement a regional plan to address endangered species issues, 4) address and protect the interests, needs, and rights of all stakeholders, including Indian Tribes and Pueblos, and 5) recognize the hydrologic realities that exist in the Middle Rio Grande Basin. The proposed CWA allows the United States to carry over for release in a future year of the CWA any portion of the 30,000 af water that was not released in a particular year. It provides the framework within which the Federal and non-Federal actions described in this assessment will be considered. Both this document and the CWA are controlled by and should be interpreted in compliance with Article XVI of the Rio Grande Compact of 1938 (Compact), which provides: “Nothing in this Compact shall be construed as affecting the obligations of the United States . to the Indian tribes, or as impairing the rights of the Indian tribes.” Both the MOU and the proposed CWA refer to the storage of native Rio Grande water “that, if not stored, would otherwise have flowed downstream to Elephant Butte Reservoir and contributed to New Mexico’s compact deliveries.” The State asserts that it executed the MOU (and will implement the CWA) pursuant to its compact management authority, including its ability to manage and control depletions that result from non-Indian water uses under State law. Since depletions resulting from current non-Indian water uses are related to the MOU and proposed CWA, this biological opinion analyzes the effects of these depletions on the listed species. Depletions that result from the exercise of Federal Indian water rights are not subject to State law restrictions or administered by the State. In addition, pursuant to Article XVI of the Compact, no Indian water rights may be impaired by the State’s compact management activities. Indian Pueblos and Tribes within the action area did not request to have the effects of their actions analyzed in this biological opinion. However, depletions related to existing Indian uses are included within the depletion figures compiled and provided by the State. Using the information provided for this consultation, the Service is unable to identify the depletions attributable to individual water users, Indian or non- Indian. Thus, this biological opinion analyzes the effects on the listed species from existing depletions that result from both Indian and non-Indian water uses within the action area, and extends incidental take coverage to those uses.1 1 The Service is aware that the Indian Pueblos and Tribes do not concede that the ESA applies to their actions. Area Manager, Bureau of Reclamation 4 The following section describes proposed actions to be covered in this programmatic biological opinion. The description includes both Federal and non-Federal actions. The intent is that coverage be extended to ordinary net depletions in the action area, as they have existed historically and as they will continue through December 31, 2003, so long as these actions do not affect threatened or endangered species or their habitat beyond what is considered in this opinion. Previous assessments filed by Reclamation and the Corps contained descriptions of Federal actions only. Non-Federal actions included within the framework of the Compact were assumed in those biological assessments as part of baseline conditions. The present assessment seeks consultation on future actions as described here without regard to whether they are Federal or non-Federal. Past actions, including depletions and diversions whether Federal or non-Federal, continue to be described as part of the environmental baseline. Also, the CWA, while not yet finalized, is included as a proposed action in this opinion at least in so far as it makes available additional native Rio Grande water for storage. Failure to complete the CWA will require a new consultation. As outlined below, flows in the Rio Grande are governed in large part by the requirements and the administration of the Compact, and also by the administration of non-Indian water rights through the New Mexico State Engineer. The Compact sets depletion limits, and administration by the State enforces those limits under State law, resulting in a reliable general description of native flows. Further, the Middle Rio Grande Basin is a Declared Ground Water Basin, which means that the New Mexico State Engineer has determined that ground water usage impacts surface flows of the Rio Grande and must be offset, creating further insurance that flow descriptions will be reliable, even if particular actions and actors maintaining those flows change. Thus, with respect to river flows, particular actions that do not affect net depletions of water need not be specifically described. Generally, the actions under consultation are those that cause depletions and diversions of water from the Rio Grande, although some specific actions under consultation are also identified and described, e.g., river maintenance. With respect to types of actions that might affect listed species or their habitat other than flows in the river, such actions are generally described for non-Federal entities, and programmatically described for Federal entities. Unless specifically stated, this consultation does not address activities which may affect habitat other than river flow as described here--building a road or clearing vegetation, for example. Indian water rights are in no way affected by any statement in this document. Reclamation, the Corps, and non-Federal entities propose to carry out the following actions from June 30, 2001 through December 31, 2003. 1. Non-Federal Actions Middle Rio Grande water operations must be conducted in conformance with the Compact (including Article XVI of the Compact), which is administered by the Rio Grande Compact Commission. The Commission is comprised of a Commissioner from Colorado, New Mexico, Area Manager, Bureau of Reclamation 5 and Texas, as well as a Federal Commissioner who chairs Commission meetings. Any deviation from the terms of the Compact requires unanimous approval from the three State Commissioners. Under the Compact, Colorado is prohibited from accruing a debit, or under-delivery to the Colorado-New Mexico State Line, of more than 100,000 af; while New Mexico's accrued debit to Texas at Elephant Butte reservoir is limited to 200,000 af.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Download Press Release
    State/Federal Help Still Available for Oregon Wildfire Survivors Release Date: January 7, 2021 SALEM, Ore. – Resources are still available to assist the survivors of 2020’s devastating wildfires. The Oregon Office of Emergency Management and FEMA continue to work together on assistance with housing, property damage, flood insurance, free counseling, pro-bono legal aid and case management. State, Local and Community Resources Free Crisis Counseling is Available: The Safe+Strong Helpline is available for both children and adults who are struggling with stress, anxiety or other disaster-related depression-like symptoms. The website offers free and confidential resources to help wildfire survivors on the road to recovery. For help, call 800-923-4357 or visit https://www.safestrongoregon.org/wildfire. Debris Hotline: The Debris Management Task Force hotline remains open and available 24/7 for cleanup questions and information. Call 503-934-1700 or find additional information on the new debris cleanup website at: http://wildfire.oregon.gov/cleanup. Disaster Legal Assistance: Disaster Legal Services is taking questions from wildfire survivors. Go to: oregondisasterlegalservices.org, or call 800-452-7636 or 503-684-3763 , Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 211info: 211info is a nonprofit organization funded by state and municipal contracts, foundations, United Ways, donations and community partners in Oregon and Southwest Washington. 211info empowers Oregon and Southwest Washington communities by helping people identify, navigate and connect with the local resources they need. To speak with a community information specialist about resources in your area: call 211 or 866-698-6155; text your zip code to 898211; or email [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Adobe Trademark Database for General Distribution
    Adobe Trademark List for General Distribution As of May 17, 2021 Please refer to the Permissions and trademark guidelines on our company web site and to the publication Adobe Trademark Guidelines for third parties who license, use or refer to Adobe trademarks for specific information on proper trademark usage. Along with this database (and future updates), they are available from our company web site at: https://www.adobe.com/legal/permissions/trademarks.html Unless you are licensed by Adobe under a specific licensing program agreement or equivalent authorization, use of Adobe logos, such as the Adobe corporate logo or an Adobe product logo, is not allowed. You may qualify for use of certain logos under the programs offered through Partnering with Adobe. Please contact your Adobe representative for applicable guidelines, or learn more about logo usage on our website: https://www.adobe.com/legal/permissions.html Referring to Adobe products Use the full name of the product at its first and most prominent mention (for example, “Adobe Photoshop” in first reference, not “Photoshop”). See the “Preferred use” column below to see how each product should be referenced. Unless specifically noted, abbreviations and acronyms should not be used to refer to Adobe products or trademarks. Attribution statements Marking trademarks with ® or TM symbols is not required, but please include an attribution statement, which may appear in small, but still legible, print, when using any Adobe trademarks in any published materials—typically with other legal lines such as a copyright notice at the end of a document, on the copyright page of a book or manual, or on the legal information page of a website.
    [Show full text]
  • Travel Guide Berlin
    The U2tour.de Travel Guide Berlin English Version Version Januar 2020 © U2tour.de The U2Tour.de – Travel Guide Berlin The U2Tour.de Travel Guide Berlin You're looking for traces of U2? Finally in Berlin and don't know where to go? Or are you travelling in Berlin and haven't found Kant Kino? This has now come to an end, because now there is the U2Tour.de- Travel Guide, which should help you with your search. At the moment there are 20 U2 sights in our database, which will be constantly extended and updated with your help. Original photos and pictures from different years tell the story of every single place. You will also receive the exact addresses, a spot on the map and directions. So it should be possible for every U2 fan to find these points with ease. Credits Texts: Dietmar Reicht, Björn Lampe, Florian Zerweck, Torsten Schlimbach, Carola Schmidt, Hans ' Hasn' Becker, Shane O'Connell, Anne Viefhues, Oliver Zimmer. Pictures und Updates: Dietmar Reicht, Shane O'Connell, Thomas Angermeier, Mathew Kiwala (Bodie Ghost Town), Irv Dierdorff (Joshua Tree), Brad Biringer (Joshua Tree), Björn Lampe, S. Hübner (RDS), D. Bach (Slane), Joe St. Leger (Slane), Jan Année , Sven Humburg, Laura Innocenti, Michael Sauter, bono '61, AirMJ, Christian Kurek, Alwin Beck, Günther R., Stefan Harms, acktung, Kraft Gerald, Silvia Kruse, Nicole Mayer, Kay Mootz, Carola Schmidt, Oliver Zimmer and of course Anton Corbijn and Paul Slattery. Maps from : Google Maps, Mapquest.com, Yahoo!, Loose Verlag, Bay City Guide, Down- townla.com, ViaMichelin.com, Dorling Kindersley, Pharus Plan Media, Falk Routenplaner Screencaps : Rattle & Hum (Paramount Pictures), The Unforgettable Fire / U2 Go Home DVD (Uni- versal/Island), Pride Video, October Cover, Best Of 1990-2000 Booklet, The Unforgettable Fire Cover, Beautiful Day Video, u.v.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Adam Clayton Powell, Iii
    Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) 2006 Quadrennial Regulatory Review – Review ) MB Docket No. 06-121 of the Commission’s Broadcast Ownership ) Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to ) Section 202 of the Telecommunications ) Act of 1996 ) ) 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review – Review ) MB Docket No. 02-277 of the Commission’s Broadcast Ownership ) Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to ) Section 202 of the Telecommunications ) Act of 1996 ) ) Cross-Ownership of Broadcast Stations ) MM Docket No. 01-235 and Newspapers ) ) Rules and Policies Concerning Multiple ) MM Docket No. 01-317 Ownership of Radio Broadcast Stations ) in Local Markets ) ) Definition of Radio Markets ) MM Docket No. 00-244 COMMENTS OF MEDIA GENERAL, INC. (Volume 2: Statement of Professor Adam Clayton Powell, III, Appendix 4A with Exhibits) . John R. Feore, Jr. Michael D. Hays M. Anne Swanson Daniel A. Kirkpatrick Dow Lohnes PLLC 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-6802 (202) 776-2534 Its Attorneys October 23, 2006 Appendix 4A STATEMENT OF ADAM CLAYTON POWELL, III I am the Director of the Integrated Media Systems Center, the National Science Foundation’s Engineering Research Center for multimedia research, at the University of Southern California’s Viterbi School of Engineering. I am also a Senior Fellow at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy and served until last year as a Visiting Professor of Journalism at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School of Communications. Previously, I served as general manager of WHUT-TV, Washington, D.C., and KMTP-TV, San Francisco, California, the nation’s first and second African American-owned public television stations, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit 3: Nfip Flood Studies and Maps
    UNIT 3: NFIP FLOOD STUDIES AND MAPS In this unit This unit describes the flood data, studies, and maps that the National Flood Insurance Program provides to communities to assist them in carrying out their floodplain management program. It reviews: i Flood study and map terminology, i How flood studies are prepared along riverine floodplains, i How flood studies are prepared on coastal floodplains, and i How the NFIP maps display the study data. Materials needed for this unit i Flood Insurance Study, Flood County, USA and Incorporated Areas i Flood Insurance Rate Map, Flood County, USA and Incorporated Areas Flood Studies and Maps 3-1 Contents A. NFIP Flood Studies ................................................................................................................. 3-3 Flood Study Terminology...................................................................................................... 3-3 The base flood ................................................................................................................. 3-3 The 100-year flood .......................................................................................................... 3-4 Special flood hazard area and base flood elevation......................................................... 3-4 Identifying Floodprone Areas ................................................................................................ 3-5 Flood Insurance Study..................................................................................................... 3-7 Flood County,
    [Show full text]
  • Enclosure to Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 MSFHI Letter
    Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 & 3 Table 1. Current Design Basis Flood Hazards for Use in the MSA Mechanism Stillwater Waves/ Design Basis Reference Elevation Runup Hazard Elevation Local Intense Precipitation Not included Not included Not included Flood Hazard Reevaulation Report in DB in DB in DB (FHRR) Revision 2, Section 4.1.1 Streams and Rivers Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) 12.7 ft 1.0 ft 13.7 ft FHRR Revision 2, Section 2.3.1 and on the Hudson River NGVD29 NGVD29 Table 4.1-1 PMF with Low Tide on the 13.0 ft 1.0 ft 14.0 ft FHRR Revision 2, Section 2.3.1 and Hudson River NGVD29 NGVD29 Table 4.1-1 PMF with High Tide on the 12.4 ft 1.0 ft 13.4 ft FHRR Revision 2, Section 2.3.1 and Hudson River NGVD29 NGVD29 Table 4.1-1 Failure of Dams and Onsite Water Control/Storage Structures REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED Storm Surge Probable Maximum Hurricane 13.5 ft 1.0 ft 14.5 ft FHRR Revision 2, Section 2.3.1 and (PMH) with Spring High Tide on NGVD29 NGVD29 Table 4.1-1 the Hudson River Standard Project Hurricane and 13.0 ft 1.0 ft 14.0 ft FHRR Revision 2, Section 2.3.1 and Standard Project Flood on the NGVD29 NGVD29 Table 4.1-1 Hudson River REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED 1 Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 & 3 Table 1. Current Design Basis Flood Hazards for Use in the MSA Mechanism Stillwater Waves/ Design Basis Reference Elevation Runup Hazard Elevation Seiche Not included Not included Not included FHRR Revision 2, Section 4.1.5 in DB in DB in DB Tsunami Not included Not included Not included FHRR Revision 2, Section 4.1.6 in DB in DB in DB Ice-Induced Flooding Not included Not included Not included FHRR Revision 2, Section 4.1.7 in DB in DB in DB Channel Migrations/Diversions Not included Not included Not included FHRR Revision 2, Section 4.1.8 in DB in DB in DB Note 1: Reported values are rounded to the nearest one-tenth of a foot.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Requirements for Equitable Design and Implementation of Flood Buyout Programs in Rhode Island
    Legal Requirements for Equitable Design and Implementation of Flood Buyout Programs in Rhode Island June 2020 This study is a product of the Marine Affairs Institute at Roger Williams University School of Law and the Rhode Island Sea Grant Legal Program. Sarah Friedman, Rhode Island Sea Grant Law Fellow, authored this study with guidance from Read Porter, Senior Staff Attorney. All errors and omissions are the responsibility of the Marine Affairs Institute. This study is provided only for informational and educational purposes and is not legal advice. This study was prepared by the Marine Affairs Institute under an agreement with the Rhode Island Office of Housing and Community Development. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the state of Rhode Island. About the Marine Affairs Institute The Marine Affairs Institute serves as a comprehensive clearinghouse for marine law and policy whose mission is to: • Educate the next generation of marine law and policy professionals both within the classroom and in the community; • Serve as a legal and policy resource for the marine community by producing high quality research in partnership with stakeholders in Rhode Island, New England, the US, and around the world; and • Convene diverse experts to discuss cutting-edge issues in marine law and policy. As an academic and research institution, MAI does not litigate or advocate. Instead, it provides high- quality research and analysis to inform the legal and policy debate. MAI is a partnership of Roger Williams University School of Law, The University of Rhode Island (URI), and Rhode Island Sea Grant.
    [Show full text]
  • Ensuring That Structures Built on Fill in Or Near Special Flood Hazard Areas Are Reasonably Safe from Flooding in Accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program
    Technical Bulletin 10-01 Ensuring That Structures Built on Fill In or Near Special Flood Hazard Areas Are Reasonably Safe From Flooding in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FIA-TB-10 MITIGATION DIRECTORATE (5/01) Key Word/Subject Index This index allows the user to locate key words and subjects in this Technical Bulletin. The Technical Bulletin User’s Guide (printed separately) provides references to key words and subjects throughout the Technical Bulletins. For definitions of selected terms, refer to the Glossary at the end of this bulletin. Key Word/Subject Index Page Basement construction, engineered option 19 Basement construction, simplified approach 15 Basement foundation in fill, not recommended 9 Basement foundation in fill, vulnerability to subsurface flooding 1, 9 Basement foundation, in fill placed above BFE 10 Basement foundation, with lowest floor at or above BFE 10 Basement foundation, with lowest opening above BFE 11 Basement foundation, with lowest opening at BFE 12 Community permitting, administrative options for 5 Crawlspace foundation 7 Fill, placed to remove land from the SFHA 1 Fill, areas where prohibited 3 Fill, proper placement of 5 Foundation flood risk, summary table 13 Freeboard, recommendations 6 Insurance coverage for basement flooding, restrictions 9 Professional certification 4 Professional certification, sample form 4 “Reasonably safe from flooding,” defined 2 “Reasonably safe from flooding,” NFIP regulations concerning 2 Slab-on-grade foundation 8 Stem wall foundation 7 Sump pump, requirements for simplified basement construction 15 Any comments on the Technical Bulletins should be directed to: Federal Emergency Management Agency Mitigation Directorate Program Policy and Assessment Branch 500 C Street, SW.
    [Show full text]
  • Books of the New Testament Song Original
    Books Of The New Testament Song Original Enoch often vernacularising tarnal when mumbling Claude mope distastefully and fatigate her stompers. sometimesFaultless and automates darksome his Matteo quintiles alien but her and nativism docks sounderstudies wheresoever! or outcry distantly. Bimolecular Jean-Paul That the songs of. But their original song of certain date must be treated more practical alternative would be afraid of god and one? Identify the core elements of the edition of the Bible you are using as you outline for customer source. The english to entertain you the greatest, both at this category headings were dozens of. We fully respect if children want but refuse cookies but never avoid asking you again eat again kindly allow us to store a cookie bar that. Instead, gold, tell token what nutrient can do to mayor to Heaven. From original song springs as books of songs better is available as coming from? Paul on songs at odds with it makes sense that they are in afghanistan, and will not original hebrew bible that still was. This book as well as scripture because of songs to! After which among all! Christian interpreters have been equally ingenious. When eve originate in some of basic question of christian conduct in carpool lines not a testament books. Job himself when cooled, new testament often people, they did they do jews and thought to news for original? Old testament books lists these songs? The others in the throne room straight down telling the Lamb, daughter of Songs, and this has led him much inventory and differences of trust about interpretation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Daily Egyptian, July 06, 1993
    Southern Illinois University Carbondale OpenSIUC July 1993 Daily Egyptian 1993 7-6-1993 The aiD ly Egyptian, July 06, 1993 Daily Egyptian Staff Follow this and additional works at: https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/de_July1993 Volume 78, Issue 170 Recommended Citation , . "The aiD ly Egyptian, July 06, 1993." (Jul 1993). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Daily Egyptian 1993 at OpenSIUC. It has been accepted for inclusion in July 1993 by an authorized administrator of OpenSIUC. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Daily Egyptian Southern :lIino is University at Carbondale Tuesday. July 6.1993. Vol. 78, No. 170. 12 Page, < Officials study bar renewal process By Shawnna Donovan Commission has renewed all 57 In the past. the Carbondale UqUOl" coUege 10wn," Yow said. small compared 10 lhe lotal amounl City Writer liquor license applicalions despile Advisory Board has ",viewed liquor In April. Ihe Liquor Advisory of underage palronage the bars the 231 underage drinking licenses based on Iheir salely and Board reviewed the amount of encountered over the entire year. Carbondalf chy officials He violalions of eighl local bars. t.eaJth inspection =ords. underage drinking violations al an Maggie Hanagan. a commission considering a new liquor iicen~ American Tap. Clx>:ke%s. FranIdes. John Yow, a Liquor Control earIiu meeting 10 dobate the city's bar member. said she would support renewal procedure whicil will Gatsb}'S. Hangar 9, Sidetracks, Stix Cp.mmission member, said the erury age which they will recommrnI looking at .;ach applicanl c1O'"..ely. examine bars with underage and ' ·!'ird< had 231 vi<>lalions vlolalions are p!ediclable.
    [Show full text]
  • H.Doc. 108-224 Black Americans in Congress 1870-2007
    Keeping the Faith: AFRICAN AMERICANS RETURN TO CONGRESS, 1929–1970 With his election to the U.S. House of Representatives from a Chicago district in 1928, Oscar De Priest of Illinois became the first African American to serve in Congress since George White of North Carolina left office in 1901 and the first elected from a northern state. But while De Priest’s victory symbolized renewed hope for African Americans struggling to regain a foothold in national politics, it was only the beginning of an arduous journey. The election of just a dozen more African Americans to Congress over the next 30 years was stark evidence of modern America’s pervasive segregation practices. The new generation of black lawmakers embarked on a long, methodical institutional apprenticeship on Capitol Hill. Until the mid- 1940s, only one black Representative served at any given time; no more than two served simultaneously until 1955. Arriving in Washington, black Members confronted a segregated institution in a segregated capital city. Institutional racism, at turns sharply overt and cleverly subtle, provided a pivotal point for these African-American Members— influencing their agendas, legislative styles, and standing within Congress. Pioneers such as Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., of New York, Charles C. Diggs, Jr., of Michigan, and Augustus (Gus) Hawkins of Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., of New York, a charismatic and determined civil rights proponent in the U.S. House, served as a symbol of black political activism for millions of African Americans. Image courtesy of Library of Congress California participated in the civil rights debates in Congress and helped shape fundamental laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
    [Show full text]
  • U2 Studies Bibliography Selected Books, Essays, and Articles For
    U2 Studies Bibliography Selected books, essays, and articles for studying U2 Maintained by Dr. Scott Calhoun, [email protected] Updated: March 13, 2017 *** Alan, Carter. Outside is America: U2 in the U.S. Boston: Faber and Faber, 1992. —. U2: The Road to Pop. Boston: Faber and Faber, 1997 (1992). Assayas, Michka. Bono: In Conversation. London: Riverhead, 2005. Beard, Steve. "The Gospel of Heaven and Hell." Spiritual Journey: How Faith Has Influenced Twelve Music Icons. Lake Mary, FL: Relevant Books, 2003. 237-238, 264. Beeaff, Dianne Ebertt. A Grand Madness: Ten Years on the Road With U2. Tucson, AZ: Hawkmoon Publishing, 2000. Bono. On The Move. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2006. Bordowitz, Hank, ed. The U2 Reader. Milwaukee: Hal Leonard Corporation, 2003. Bowler, Dave and Dray, Bryan. U2: A Conspiracy of Hope. London: Pan Books, 1994 (1993). Brocklebank, Patrick, Sinéad Molony. Where The Streets Have 2 Names. U2 and the Dublin Music Scene 1978-1981. Dublin: Liberties Press, 2013. Brandt, Winston. U2. New York: Ballantine Books, 1986. Brothers, Robyn. “Time to Heal, ‘Desire’ Time. The Cyber-prophesy of U2’s ‘Zoo World Order.’” In Reading Rock and Roll: Authenticity, Appropriation, Aesthetics, edited by Kevin J. H. Dettmar and William Richey, 237-267. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999. Calhoun, Scott. “Bono’s Prophetic Vox. The Message Author Says U2’s Message is Refreshing, Faithful and Honest.” @U2. February 9, 2006. ---, ed. Exploring U2: Is This Rock ’N’ Roll? Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2011. ---. “The Legend of Bono Vox. Lessons Learned in the Church of U2.” Books & Culture November/December 2004. 10-14.
    [Show full text]