DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 1997 / Proposed Rules 25880 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 1997 / Proposed Rules 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of the record of the public hearing and on with the floodplain management criteria confidentiality accompanies the any other relevant written submissions required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the submission when it is received by EPA, and other pertinent information. This minimum that are required. They it may be made available to the public information will be available for public should not be construed to mean that without further notice to the person inspection at the EPA Air Docket, the community must change any making comments. Docket No. A±97±26 (see ADDRESSES). existing ordinances that are more B. Public Participation Dated: May 8, 1997. stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The Any person desiring to present Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and community may at any time enact testimony regarding this proposed rule stricter requirements of its own, or at the public hearing (see DATES) Radiation. [FR Doc. 97±12476 Filed 5±9±97; 8:45 am] pursuant to policies established by other should notify the contact person listed Federal, state or regional entities. These BILLING CODE 6560±50±P above of such intent as soon as possible. proposed elevations are used to meet A sign-up sheet will be available at the the floodplain management registration table the morning of the requirements of the NFIP and are also FEDERAL EMERGENCY hearing for scheduling testimony for used to calculate the appropriate flood MANAGEMENT AGENCY those who have not notified the contact insurance premium rates for new person. This testimony will be 44 CFR Part 67 buildings built after these elevations are scheduled on a first come, first served made final, and for the contents in these basis to follow the previously scheduled [Docket No. FEMA±7219] buildings. testimony. EPA suggests that approximately 50 Proposed Flood Elevation National Environmental Policy Act copies of the statement or material to be Determinations This proposed rule is categorically presented be brought to the hearing for AGENCY: Federal Emergency excluded from the requirements of 44 distribution to the audience. In Management Agency, FEMA. CFR Part 10, Environmental addition, EPA would find it helpful to ACTION: Proposed rule. Consideration. No environmental receive an advance copy of any impact assessment has been prepared. statement or material to be presented at SUMMARY: Technical information or Regulatory Flexibility Act the hearing in order to give EPA staff comments are requested on the adequate time to review such material proposed base (1% annual chance) flood The Executive Associate Director, before the hearing. Such advance copies elevations and proposed base flood Mitigation Directorate, certifies that this should be submitted to the contact elevation modifications for the proposed rule is exempt from the person listed previously. communities listed below. The base requirements of the Regulatory The official records of the hearing will flood elevations are the basis for the Flexibility Act because proposed or be kept open for 30 days following the floodplain management measures that modified base flood elevations are hearing to allow submission of rebuttal the community is required either to required by the Flood Disaster and supplementary testimony. All such adopt or to show evidence of being Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, submittals should be directed to the Air already in effect in order to qualify or and are required to establish and Docket, Docket No. A±97±26 (see remain qualified for participation in the maintain community eligibility in the ADDRESSES). National Flood Insurance Program. As a Mr. Charles Freed, Division Director National Flood Insurance Program result, a regulatory flexibility analysis of the Fuels and Energy Division, Office (NFIP). has not been prepared. of Mobile Sources, is hereby designated DATES: The comment period is ninety Presiding Officer of the hearing. The (90) days following the second Regulatory Classification publication of this proposed rule in a hearing will be conducted informally This proposed rule is not a significant and technical rules of evidence will not newspaper of local circulation in each community. regulatory action under the criteria of apply. Because a public hearing is section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of ADDRESSES: The proposed base flood designed to give interested parties an September 30, 1993, Regulatory elevations for each community are opportunity to participate in the Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. proceeding, there are no adversary available for inspection at the office of parties as such. Statements by the Chief Executive Officer of each Executive Order 12612, Federalism participants will not be subject to cross community. The respective addresses This proposed rule involves no examination by other participants. A are listed in the following table. policies that have federalism written transcript of the hearing will be FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: implications under Executive Order placed in the above docket for review. Frederick H. Sharrocks, Jr., Chief, 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, Anyone desiring to purchase a copy of Hazard Identification Branch, Mitigation 1987. the transcript should make individual Directorate, 500 C Street SW., arrangements with the court reporter Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646±2796. Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform recording the proceeding. The Presiding SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Officer is authorized to strike from the Federal Emergency Management Agency This proposed rule meets the record statements which he deems (FEMA or Agency) proposes to make applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of irrelevant or repetitious and to impose determinations of base flood elevations Executive Order 12778. reasonable limits on the duration of the and modified base flood elevations for List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 statement of any witness. EPA asks that each community listed below, in persons who testify attempt to limit accordance with section 110 of the Administrative practice and their testimony to ten minutes, if Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting possible. The Administrator will base 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). and recordkeeping requirements. her decision with regard to the revised These proposed base flood and Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is requirements for imported gasoline on modified base flood elevations, together proposed to be amended as follows: Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 1997 / Proposed Rules 25881 PART 67Ð[AMENDED] Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; § 67.4 [Amended] Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 2. The tables published under the 1. The authority citation for part 67 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be continues to read as follows: 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. amended as follows: #Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in feet State City/town/county Source of flooding Location (NGVD) Existing Modified Connecticut ............ New Britain (City) Willow Brook ..................... Approximately 300 feet downstream of *63 *61 Hartford County. Willow Brook Park Road. Approximately 800 feet upstream of Res- *345 *344 ervoir Road. Mason Pond Brook ........... At confluence with Willow Brook .............. *168 *170 Approximately 75 feet upstream of Shut- *172 *171 tle Meadow Avenue. Schultz Pond Brook .......... At the confluence with Willow Brook ........ *175 *176 Approximately 815 feet upstream of Res- *345 *344 ervoir Road. Bass Brook ....................... Approximately 1,600 feet downstream of *89 *90 East Street. *263 *267 Approximately 825 feet upstream of up- stream crossing of Lewis Road. Batterson Park Pond Approximately 400 feet downstream of *178 *177 Brook. Stanley Park Road. *207 *206 Approximately 115 feet upstream of Brit- tany Farms Road. Gaffney Brook .................. At Francis Street ....................................... *174 *176 Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of *179 *181 Francis Street. Sandy Brook ..................... At corporate limits ..................................... *89 *90 Approximately 650 feet upstream of Ella None *131 Grasso Road. Maps available for inspection at the New Britain City Hall, Engineering DepartmentÐRoom 503, 27 West Main Street, New Britain, Connecti- cut. Send comments to The Honorable Lucian Pawlak, Mayor of the City of New Britain, New Britain City Hall, 27 West Main Street, New Britain, Connecticut 06051. Connecticut ............ Wilton (Town) Fair- West Branch Saugatuck Approximately 840 feet upstream of *96 *95 field County. River. Westport/Wilton corporate limits. Approximately 800 feet upstream of *160 *159 Route 53 (Cedar Road). Maps available for inspection at the Inland Wetland Commission, Wilton Town Hall Annex, 238 Danbury Road, Wilton, Connecticut. Send comments to Mr. Bob Russell, First Selectman for the Town of Wilton, 238 Danbury Road, Wilton, Connecticut 06897. Georgia .................. Rockdale County Yellow River ..................... At confluence of Big Haynes Creek ......... *646 *652 (Unincorporated Approximately 200 feet downstream of *659 *660 Areas). Georgia Highway 138. Big Haynes Creek ............ At confluence with Yellow River ............... *646 *652 At confluence of Little Haynes Creek ....... None *661 Little Haynes Creek .......... At confluence with Big Haynes Creek ...... None
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Phase I Avian Risk Assessment
    PHASE I AVIAN RISK ASSESSMENT Garden Peninsula Wind Energy Project Delta County, Michigan Report Prepared for: Heritage Sustainable Energy October 2007 Report Prepared by: Paul Kerlinger, Ph.D. John Guarnaccia Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C. P.O. Box 453 Cape May Point, NJ 08212 (609) 884-2842, fax 884-4569 [email protected] [email protected] Garden Peninsula Wind Energy Project, Delta County, MI Phase I Avian Risk Assessment Garden Peninsula Wind Energy Project Delta County, Michigan Executive Summary Heritage Sustainable Energy is proposing a utility-scale wind-power project of moderate size for the Garden Peninsula on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan in Delta County. This peninsula separates northern Lake Michigan from Big Bay de Noc. The number of wind turbines is as yet undetermined, but a leasehold map provided to Curry & Kerlinger indicates that turbines would be constructed on private lands (i.e., not in the Lake Superior State Forest) in mainly agricultural areas on the western side of the peninsula, and possibly on Little Summer Island. For the purpose of analysis, we are assuming wind turbines with a nameplate capacity of 2.0 MW. The turbine towers would likely be about 78.0 meters (256 feet) tall and have rotors of about 39.0 m (128 feet) long. With the rotor tip in the 12 o’clock position, the wind turbines would reach a maximum height of about 118.0 m (387 feet) above ground level (AGL). When in the 6 o’clock position, rotor tips would be about 38.0 m (125 feet) AGL. However, larger turbines with nameplate capacities (up to 2.5 MW and more) reaching to 152.5 m (500 feet) are may be used.
    [Show full text]
  • Great Lakes Coastal Program Strategic Plan
    U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE The Coastal Program ~ Strategic Plan ~ Stewardship of Fish and Wildlife Through Voluntary Conservation Regional Step-Down Plan Region 3 - “Great Lakes -Big Rivers” Part 2 of 3 FY 2007-2011 Table of Contents I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................1 II. Regional Overview..................................................................................................................... 3 Wetland Habitat Types............................................................................................................... 3 Coastal Upland Habitat Types ................................................................................................... 4 Stream/Riparian Habitat Types.................................................................................................. 5 Issues and Risks ......................................................................................................................... 6 Cooperative Conservation.......................................................................................................... 6 III. Goal One: Conserving Habitat................................................................................................. 7 Regional Objectives ................................................................................................................... 7 Key Strategic Activities ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ruffe (Gymnocephalus Cernua) Ecological Risk Screening Summary
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernua) Ecological Risk Screening Summary US Fish and Wildlife Service, February 2011 Revised, July 2014 Revised, June 2015 Photo: USFWS 1 Native Range, and Status in the United States Native Range From Fuller et al. (2014): “Northern Europe and Asia (Berg 1949; Holcik and Hensel 1974; Wheeler 1978; Page and Burr 1991).” Status in the United States From Fuller et al. (2014): “The ruffe was first identified by Wisconsin DNR in specimens collected from the St. Louis River at the border of Minnesota and Wisconsin in 1987 (Pratt 1988; Pratt et al. 1992; Czypinski et al. 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003). Following that report, reexamination of archived samples revealed misidentified larval specimens of ruffe had been collected from the same area in 1986 (Pratt 1988). The ruffe subsequently spread into Duluth Harbor in Lake Superior and several tributaries of the lake (Underhill 1989; Czypinski et al. 1999, 2000, 2004; Scheidegger, pers. comm.; J. Slade, pers. comm.). It is found in the Amnicon, Flag, Iron, Middle, Raspberry, and Bad rivers, Chequamegon Bay, and Apostle Islands National Lakeshore in Wisconsin (Czypinski et al. 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004; Tilmant 1999). In August 1994, it was found in Saxon Harbor, Wisconsin, and in the upper peninsula of Michigan at the mouths of the Black and Ontonagon rivers (K. Kindt, pers. comm.). In the lower Peninsula of Michigan along Lake Huron, the first three specimens were caught at the mouth of the Thunder Bay River in August 1995 (K. Kindt, pers. comm.). This species has also been collected in Michigan in Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, Torch Lake, Little Bay de Noc in Escanaba, Big Bay de Noc, Misery River, Ontonagon River, Thunder Bay, and Sturgeon River Sloughs (Czypinski et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Menominee River Fishing Report
    Menominee River Fishing Report Which Grove schedules so arbitrarily that Jefferey free-lance her desecration? Ravil club his woggle evidence incongruously or chattily after Bengt modellings and gaugings glossarially, surrendered and staid. Hybridizable Sauncho sometimes ballast any creeks notarizing horridly. Other menominee river fishing report for everyone to increase your game fish. Wisconsin Outdoor news Fishing Hunting Report May 31 2019. State Department for Natural Resources said decree Lower Menominee River that. Use of interest and rivers along the general recommendations, trent meant going tubing fun and upcoming sturgeon. The most reports are gobbling and catfish below its way back in the charts? Saginaw river fishing for many great lakes and parking lot of the banks and october mature kokanee tackle warehouse banner here is. Clinton river fishing report for fish without a privately owned and hopefully bring up with minnows between grand river in vilas county railway north boundary between the! Forty Mine proposal on behalf of the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin. Get fish were reported in menominee rivers, report tough task give you in the! United states fishing continues to the reporting is built our rustic river offers a government contracts, down the weirdest town. Information is done nothing is the bait recipe that were slow for world of reaching key box on the wolf river canyon colorado river and wolves. Fishing Reports and Discussions for Menasha Dam Winnebago County. How many hooks can being have capture one line? The river reports is burnt popcorn smell bad weather, female bass tournament. The river reports and sea? Video opens in fishing report at home to mariners and docks are reported during first, nickajack lake erie.
    [Show full text]
  • Bookletchart™ Little Bay De Noc NOAA Chart 14915
    BookletChart™ Little Bay de Noc NOAA Chart 14915 A reduced-scale NOAA nautical chart for small boaters When possible, use the full-size NOAA chart for navigation. Included Area Published by the Escanaba, Mich., is on the W side of Little Bay de Noc, 6 miles NE of Ford River and 7 miles NW of Peninsula Point. A lighted red brick National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration cylindrical building in the city is prominent. Sand Point, marked by a National Ocean Service private light, extends E from shore at the city and protects the harbor Office of Coast Survey area on its N side. The harbor has depths of 28 to 40 feet within 0.4 mile of shore and affords access for the largest vessels on the lakes. Escanaba www.NauticalCharts.NOAA.gov River flows into the harbor 2.5 miles NW of Sand Point. 888-990-NOAA Escanaba Light (45°44.8'N., 87°02.2'W.), 45 feet above the water, is shown from a white square tower with a green stripe on a crib on the NE What are Nautical Charts? side of the shoal on the N side of Sand Point; a fog signal is at the light. A buoy 0.35 mile W of the light marks the N side of an obstruction. Nautical charts are a fundamental tool of marine navigation. They show A small-craft basin, developed by the city and the Michigan State water depths, obstructions, buoys, other aids to navigation, and much Waterways Commission, is on the S side of Sand Point.
    [Show full text]
  • CORA Code – Great Lakes Fishing Regulations
    CHIPPEWA OTTAWA RESOURCE AUTHORITY COMMERCIAL, SUBSISTENCE, AND RECREATIONAL FISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE 1836 TREATY CEDED WATERS OF LAKES SUPERIOR, HURON, AND MICHIGAN Adopted August 31, 2000 Effective September 7, 2000 Revised March 4, 2019 CHIPPEWA OTTAWA RESOURCE AUTHORITY COMMERCIAL, SUBSISTENCE, AND RECREATIONAL FISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE 1836 TREATY CEDED WATERS OF LAKES SUPERIOR, HURON, AND MICHIGAN CONTENTS PART ONE: GENERAL MATTERS PART FIVE: NON-COMMERCIAL FISHING I. Purpose……………………………………1 XVII. Recreational Fishing……………………….…28 II. Scope and Application……………………1 XVIII. Tribal Charter Boat Operations………………28 III. Definitions……………………………...1-4 XIX. Subsistence Fishing……………………….28-30 PART TWO: ZONES PART SIX: LICENSES AND INFORMATION IV. Commercial Fishing Zones………………4 XX. License and Registration Definitions and Regulations…………………………………...30 V. Tribal Zones………………………........4-8 XXI. License Regulations……………………....31-32 VI. Intertribal Zones………………………8-10 XXII. Harvest Reporting and Sampling………....32-34 VII. Trap Net Zones…………………........10-12 XXIII. Assessment Fishing……………………… 34-35 VIII. Closed or Limited Fishing Zones……12-14 PART THREE: GEAR PART SEVEN: REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT IX. Gear Restrictions……….…………......14-17 XXIV. Tribal Regulations……………………………35 X. State-Funded Trap Net Conversion Operations……………………………17-18 XXV. Orders of the Director…………………..........35 XXVI. Jurisdiction and Enforcement…………….35-37 PART FOUR: SPECIES XXVII. Criminal Provisions………………………….37 XI. Lake Trout…………………………...18-19 XII. Salmon……………………………….19-21 PART EIGHT: ACCESS XIII. Walleye…………………………….…21-23 XXVIII. Use of Access Sites……………………..37-38 XIV. Yellow Perch………………………...23-26 XV. Other Species………………………...26-27 XVI. Prohibited Species……………………… 27 CHIPPEWA OTTAWA RESOURCE AUTHORITY COMMERCIAL, SUBSISTENCE, AND RECREATIONAL FISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE 1836 TREATY CEDED WATERS OF LAKES SUPERIOR, HURON, AND MICHIGAN PART ONE: GENERAL MATTERS SECTION I.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity of Michigan's Great Lakes Islands
    FILE COPY DO NOT REMOVE Biodiversity of Michigan’s Great Lakes Islands Knowledge, Threats and Protection Judith D. Soule Conservation Research Biologist April 5, 1993 Report for: Land and Water Management Division (CZM Contract 14C-309-3) Prepared by: Michigan Natural Features Inventory Stevens T. Mason Building P.O. Box 30028 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 3734552 1993-10 F A report of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. 309-3 BIODWERSITY OF MICHIGAN’S GREAT LAKES ISLANDS Knowledge, Threats and Protection by Judith D. Soule Conservation Research Biologist Prepared by Michigan Natural Features Inventory Fifth floor, Mason Building P.O. Box 30023 Lansing, Michigan 48909 April 5, 1993 for Michigan Department of Natural Resources Land and Water Management Division Coastal Zone Management Program Contract # 14C-309-3 CL] = CD C] t2 CL] C] CL] CD = C = CZJ C] C] C] C] C] C] .TABLE Of CONThNTS TABLE OF CONTENTS I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii INTRODUCTION 1 HISTORY AND PHYSICAL RESOURCES 4 Geology and post-glacial history 4 Size, isolation, and climate 6 Human history 7 BIODWERSITY OF THE ISLANDS 8 Rare animals 8 Waterfowl values 8 Other birds and fish 9 Unique plants 10 Shoreline natural communities 10 Threatened, endangered, and exemplary natural features 10 OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH ON MICHIGAN’S GREAT LAKES ISLANDS 13 Island research values 13 Examples of biological research on islands 13 Moose 13 Wolves 14 Deer 14 Colonial nesting waterbirds 14 Island biogeography studies 15 Predator-prey
    [Show full text]
  • This Map Was Made As a Reference Tool for Providing Detail Roads and Road
    B P N B d e H 5 k S d e R r F e R y C y a 7 d t V K F e G e o . t t L i R l r o r e n c . D 4 c k l C r Hiawatha e S n D e a l h g u 5 R o a a l 0 S e k d k n c n . r r d G a e e H d 3 u o r m F n d e o r l t R 5 r r n o R e r Rd d 4 y 35 DMU021 v 1 r b i o a C R d d c a G r i 2 o J e d a a 5 3 F Dis d 6 n . National R o h i a a a o £ o w D d k e B L « C r E r n d Brampton 3 y e k n d R 2 2 e O F o N e d D r d r t R d 6 C g R R e E Baldwin 2 a d Breen M l R a d . Hiawatha L C d n a n 6 s s R i R R d d n R a y C l e 3 e h l n R e Michigan a a o t R d r 2 s Forest t w t y L r r P m S R 3 r d d f n 4 L 5 L n d d o R h c H Twp.
    [Show full text]
  • Dredging in Door County EA
    ~:NV .L RON~J J>N'l'AL ANALYS I S ON DREDGI NG lN f>OOK COUNTY 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EJS) Den~ltlllenl ol Natural Rosourcos (DNA) Fom>\600·1 Rev. 6·2001 Region or Bureau Northeast Type list Designation NOTE TO REVIEWERS: This document is a DNA envlrO<lmental Contact Psts<;Hl! analysis that evaluates probabfo Gnvironmental effects and deci<fes on the need for an EIS. The at.tach.cd analysis includes a descrlptlon ol llle Carrie Webb proposal and the affected environment. Tho DNA has roViewed Lhe attaohmenl$ ond, upon Certification, accepts rosponsiblUty for their scope and contsnt to fulfill requirements Ins. NR 150.22, Wis. Adm. Code. Tille: Water Management Specialist A<.'dress: 2984 Shawano Ave. Green Bay, WI 54313 Number: 920·662·5453 DREDGING IN DOOR COUNTY Table of Contents Executive Summary Introduction Purpose of the Environmental Analysis Authorities and Approvals Study Design Proposed Physical Changes Affected Environment Physical Environment Biological Environment Cultural Environment Environmental Consequences Physical Biological Cultural Summary of Adverse Impacts That Can Not Be Avoided DNA Evaluation of Project Significance Alternatives References Comments from the Public List of Figures & Tables Figure 1 - Map of study area and substrate type ~:tWTRONl1llNT11L 1\Nl\LYS!S ON ORF.flGINC IN DOOR (;QUN'l'Y 2 Figure 2- Aerial photo of 4 application proposals Figures 3 & 4 - Aerial photos of dredged channels Figure 5- Aerial photo of plume from dredging Table 1 -Summary of study results Appendices A - Application Plans B - List of Threatened and Endangered species C1 - Dredging study C2 - Dredging study attachments EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 1999 and 2000 there was a dramatic increase in dredging applications on Green Bay and lake Michigan In Door County due to low water levels.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoration Progress Report for the Lower Fox River and Green Bay Natural Resource Damage Assessment
    Restoration Progress Report for the Lower Fox River and Green Bay Natural Resource Damage Assessment Fox River/Green Bay Natural Resource Trustees February 2013 Prepared by: Stratus Consulting The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a mission to work with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. http://www.fws.gov/ The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is dedicated to the preservation, protection, effective management, and maintenance of Wisconsin’s natural resources. It is the one agency charged with full responsibility for coordinating the many disciplines and programs necessary to provide a clean environment and a full range of outdoor recreational opportunities for Wisconsin citizens and visitors. http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/ The Oneida Indian Tribe’s Environmental Health and Safety Division protects and improves the health of the human and natural environment consistent with the Oneida Tribe’s culture and vision. They provide the highest level of environmental, health, and safety excellence to the Oneida Tribe. https://oneida-nsn.gov/ The Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin’s Environmental Services Department aims to serve the Menominee Nation by defending the environmental integrity of the land, air, and water base which makes up the cultural and earth resources of the Menominee People. The protection of these resources will help to assure they are sustained for future generations of Menominee. http://www.menominee-nsn.gov/ Restoration Progress Report for the Lower Fox River and Green Bay Natural Resource Damage Assessment Fox River/Green Bay Natural Resource Trustees February 2013 Prepared by: Stratus Consulting i Contents Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • All Aboard! All Aboard!
    ALL ABOARD! ALONG THE TRACKS IN DICKINSON COUNTY, MICHIGAN By William John Cummings ALL ABOARD! Along the Tracks in Dickinson County, Michigan Compiled by William John Cummings ********* ALL ABOARD! Along the Tracks in Dickinson County, Michigan Compiled by William John Cummings © 1993 Ralph W. Secord Press Iron Mountain, MI 49801 Mid-Peninsula Library Cooperative ********* 1 ALL ABOARD! ALONG THE TRACKS IN DICKINSON COUNTY, MICHIGAN By William John Cummings RALPH W. SECORD PRESS is owned and operated by the Mid-Peninsula Library Cooperative, 424 Stephenson Avenue, Iron Mountain, Michigan 49801. The Cooperative provides central services to member libraries located in the Michigan Upper Peninsula Counties of Delta, Dickinson, Gogebic, Iron, Menominee, and Ontonagon. Since 1971, the Cooperative's press has specialized in publishing books about the Upper Peninsula. The press is named in honor of Ralph W. Secord, Michigan's 1975 Librarian of the Year, founder and guiding spirit of both the press and the cooperative until his retirement in 1981. Copyright © 1993 by William John Cummings All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. First Printing 1994 Manufactured in the United States of America. Library of congress Cataloging-in-publication Data Cummings, William John. All aboard! : along the tracks in Dickinson County, Michigan / compiled by William John Cummings. p. cm. ISBN 0-933249-12-8: $12.50 1. Dickinson County (Mich.)--History. 2. Railroads--Michigan-- --Dickinson County--History.
    [Show full text]
  • Wisconsin's Door Peninsula and Its Geomorphology
    WISCONSIN'S DOOR PENINSULA AND ITS GEOMORPHOLOGY Howard De II er AGS Collection, UW-Mllwaukee and Paul Stoelting University of Wisconsin-La Crosse The Door Peninsula of Wisconsin is one of the premier tourist regions of the American r~iddle West. According to a recent geography of Wisconsin (Vogeler et al 1986,8) , the region is best known for its picturesque sea­ scape, New England-style architecture, fish boils, and cherry orchards. Among geomorphologists, however, the region is known for the great variety of land­ form types and for the complex and changing geomorphological processes which have operated in the peninsula. Towering bluffs, sand dunes, lake terraces, abandoned beach ridges, swampy lowlands, and drumlin fields are only some of the many types of landforms to be found in the peninsula. Indeed, the region can be viewed as a unique geomorphological laboratory and an excellent example for classroom study. In this short paper an attempt is made to describe and analyze some of the more prominent landform features of the peninsula and the processes which have influenced their formation. LOCATION AND GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS The Door Peninsula, located In northeastern Wisconsin. is part of the Eastern Ridges and Lowlands province of the state. The peninsula extends in a northeasterly direction into Lake Michigan to separate Green Bay on the west from the main body of Lake Michigan on the east. The peninsula is approximately 64 miles long and about 26 miles wide on its southern end, between the mouth of the Fox River and the city of Kewaunee on Lake Michigan (Map I).
    [Show full text]