DOCSLIB.ORG

Archaeological Results the People of the Beautiful River at Jemseg

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The People of the Beautiful River at Jemseg Volume 2: Archaeological Results Archaeological 2: Volume The People of the Beautiful River at Jemseg Volume 2: Archaeological Results edited by Susan Blair New Brunswick Manuscripts in Archaeology 36E Archaeological Services Services d'archéologie Heritage Branch Direction du patrimoine Culture and Sport Secretariat Secrétariat à la Culture et au Sport Wolastoqiyik Ajemseg The People of the Beautiful River at Jemseg edited by Susan Blair Volume 2 Archaeological Results Jemseg Crossing Archaeology Project The final version of this report was compiled with financial support from the Grand Lake Meadows Project Management Committee. Archaeological Services Services d’archéologie Heritage Branch Direction du patrimoine Culture and Sport Secretariat Secrétariat à la Culture et au Sport This series is designed to facilitate the distribution of manuscripts relating to New Brunswick archaeology. They will be published in small quantities and will generally be available by special request only. © Susan Blair and the Province of New Brunswick New Brunswick Manuscripts in Archaeology 36E, 2004. Edited by: Susan Blair Published by: Archaeological Services, Heritage Branch Culture and Sport Secretariat P.O. Box 6000 Fredericton, N.B. E3B 5H1 Canada ISBN 1-55396-320-2 Printed in Canada CNB 2483 Publication of this document was made possible through the generosity of the New Brunswick Department of Transportation and Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat. Wolastoqiyik Ajemseg Mawlukhotapun - Working Together Acknowledgements The Jemseg Crossing Archaeology Project was only made possible by the philosophy of “working together”. In business settings, this approach is often called the “team” approach. However, the concept of a “team” is a simplification of how it actually worked at Jemseg. “Teams” are usually formal concrete working groups, usually formed to compete against other teams. Our “working together” was less formal. We were united by our desires to salvage an important site as respectfully and carefully as we could. In a basic way, the project only moved forward through the hard work and contributions of hundreds of individuals. We thank you all for your effort, courage, time, patience, and care. These contributions were often multifaceted, and many gave freely of their expertise and hidden talents in ways not initially envisaged when they came to the site. Many project members, such as John Keenan and Bazil Nash, worked tirelessly to provide information about the project to their communities, and yet were also fundamental in the group approach to solving the archaeological field work problem of working through the winter. The fieldwork was enabled by a core of archaeological supervisors, including Colin Varley, Chris Blair, Katherine Patton, Sam Gallagher, Bazil Nash, Pamela Dickinson, John Keenan, Darcy Dignam, Vincent Bourgeois, Joel Calabrese, Jason Jeandron, Michael Saunders, Shianne MacDonald, Phillip Atwin, Paul McEachan, Mike Nicholas, and field crew, including Viktoria Kramer, Frank Lewey, Jennifer Butler, Barbara Oldford, Clifton Sacobie, Elvis Sacobie, Mike Smith, Nathan Atwin, Donald Paul, Joe Brooks, the late Gerry Pickles, Philippe McKay, Alexandra Francis-Steward, Ian Steward, Wesley Atwin, Terry i The Jemseg Crossing Archaeology Project, Vol. 2 Smith, Carol Smith, Fred Masters, Doug Solomon, Ryan Francis, Frank Atwin, Dale Nash. The “Week-enders” filled in for us on Saturdays and Sundays, and included Patricia Looman, Daniel MacKenzie, Larry Orechia, Starr Perley, Chkwabun Nicholas Sappier, Wade Perley, Lisa Maher, David Wilson, Chris Nason, Melanie Doerig, Sonja Harding, Brad Lamey, Cory Lavender, Randy MacBeth, Amanda White, Shelly Perley, Forest Boudreau, Alphonsus Bourgeois, Jeff Dobson, Jeremy Farris, Brent Francis, Ryan Francis, Jamie Gullison, Hazel Haneveld, Mark Hiscock, Wendy Hogan, Ben Hood, Greg Houston, Gary Jonah, Janice Keenan, Sherry Morin, Mona Nicholas, Mike Niski, Brad Paul, Karri-Lynn Paul, Richard Paul, Scott Paul, Leslie Perley, Marie Perley, Robert Perley, Danny Sabattis, Bert Sacobie, Joseph Sacobie, Paul Tomer, Janet Wainwright, and Kathy Weeks. The conservation, laboratory work and analysis was facilitated by a dedicated crew of analysts, cataloguers, technicians and a conservator. These included Frances Stewart, Alexandra Sumner, Brent Suttie, Valery Monahan, Paula Paul, Ramona Nicholas, Erica Bear, Tanya Bourgeois, Janice Keenan, Bonnie Atwin, Margaret Stennitt, Diane Paul, Wendy Hogan, David Black, and Stephen Monckton. The methodological problems were overcome by considerable brainstorming by Tim MacAfee, Bazil Nash, Phil Atwin, Frank Atwin, Dale Nash, Chris Blair, Peter Jardine, and Patrick Polchies. As the educational component of the project grew under the guidance of Karen Perley, project members offered their expertise and interest, so as to bring information about our work and New Brunswick’s Wolastoqiyik community to the public and to the large number of young people who came with school or community groups, such as Ramona Nicholas, Valery Monahan, Cynthia Adams, Teana Pickles, Shelly Perley, Tim MacAfee, Pamela Dickenson, Chris Blair, Alice Paul and Erica Bear. The site was originally found due to the diligence of Colin MacKinnon, who recovered artifacts from the beach in the early 1990s, and reported them to Archaeological Services. Volunteers came to site and contributed labour, including Stella Nicholas, Rodney Bear, Tasha Moulton, Doreen Francis, Perry Perley Jr., Mike Moulton, Carl Perley Jr., Storm Perley, Baquahason Sappier and Heather Smith. Site security and transportation was handled by a number of individuals, including Daryl Paul of Oromocto First Nation, Joe Paul, Donna Paul, The Peacekeepers, including Tina Nicholas Bernard, Raymond Nicholas and Tina Nicholas Martin, and the RCMP provided additional support to these efforts. Additional legal advice was provided by Ron Gaffney. The project was coordinated by a team consisting of Susan Blair, the field director, Karen Perley, the education coordinator, Patrick Polchies the project manager, and Chris Turnbull the director of Archaeology Branch. Together with Patricia Allen of Archaeology Branch, this group ‘liaised’ between provincial and aboriginal governments. Pat Allen also provided an important support role in the field and in the main offices of the Archaeology ii Wolastoqiyik Ajemseg Branch. Further office administration was provided by Amanda Howlett, Crystall Joscak, and Ernest Merasty. A project of this magnitude benefits from the contribution of many organizations and government offices, and we received a great deal of assistance from the New Brunswick provincial government, especially Louise Gillis, Jennifer Pollock, Marsha Hello, Shirley Phillips, Mike Randall, Sharon Pond, Wayne Burley, Denis Lachappelle, Dan Horseman, Mike Phillips, Brian McEwing, Doug Johnson, Bernard Richard (Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs, Sheldon Lee (Minister of Transportation), and Ann Breault (Minister Municipalities, Culture and Housing), as well as from the Maritime Road Development Corportation, especially Bob Burdette and Bob Hodgins. First Nations governments have contributed greatly to this project, including Karen Kierstead and Roger Nason (Oromocto First Nation), and Daryl Paul (Kingsclear First Nation), and especially the Chiefs at the time, including Chief Robert Atwin, the late Chief Rufford Sacobie, Chief Edwin Bernard, Chief Patrick Francis, Chief Arthur Bear, Chief John Wallace, Vice Chief Len Tomah, Chief Tom Green and Chief Floyd Bernard. This support continues to the present Chiefs in their appointment of members to the Maliseet Advisory Committee on Archaeology, and these Chiefs include Chief Jean-Guy Cimon, Chief Stewart Paul, Chief Jeff Tomah, Chief Robert Atwin, Chief Arthur Bear, and Chief Roger Atwin. The first Maliseet advisory committee on the Jemseg Crossing Project involved a great deal of time and support from a number of individuals, including Irvin Polchies, the late Charlie Paul, David Perley, Karen Perley, Ned Bear, Dick Paul, Robert Bernard, Chris Turnbull, David Keenlyside, Brian McEwing, and Mike Phillips. Many individuals have continued to provide time and support through the second Maliseet Advisory Committee on Archaeology, including Charles (Diamond) Nicholas, Vincent Nicholas, Patty Paul, Mae Perley, Linda Paul, Marjorie Paul, Rocky Paul, Sharon Paul, Tim Nicholas, Phil Atwin, Ned Bear, Robert Bernard, Dianne Pelletier, Barb Nicholas, Amanda Howlett, Karen Perley and Patricia Allen. Many individuals independently came to the site or provided support, insight and knowledge, including Wayne Nicholas, Marlene Shumate, Shirley Bear, Gwen Bear, Darrel Paul, Alice Paul, the late Christina Nash. We would like to thank the following Elders who took part in the Spoken History project: Tina Brooks, Pat Laporte, and Josephine Paul (Sitansisk/St. Mary’s First Nation), Richard Polchies Junior (Sitansisk/St. Mary’s First Nation), the late Theresa Sacobie (Pilick/Kingsclear First Nation), Ronald Paul (Sitansisk/St. Mary’s First Nation), Charles Solomon Sr. (Pilick/Kingsclear First Nation), Rose Atwin (Pilick/Kingsclear First Nation), Gina (Jeanna) Polchies (Woodstock First Nation), Bob Nash (Gagetown), Noel Francis Junior with Kathleen Francis (Madawaska Maliseet First Nation), Elizabeth Paul (Welmooktuk/Oromocto First Nation), Charlie Bear (Neqotkuk/ Tobique First Nation), Pat Sacobie (Welmooktuk/Oromocto First Nation), Pious and the late Harriet
Recommended publications
  • Replacement Class Screening Report

    Replacement Class Screening Report

    REPLACEMENT CLASS SCREENING WORKS ON OVER-WINTERING SITES FOR OYSTER AQUACULTURE REPLACEMENT CLASS SCREENING WORKS ON OVER-WINTERING SITES FOR OYSTER AQUACULTURE TRANSPORT CANADA ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ATLANTIC REGION Heritage Court 95 Foundry Street Moncton, NB E1C 8K6 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.2. ANALYSIS AND PREDICTION OF SIGNIFICANCE OF RESIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ....................................... 14 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................1 5. ISSUES SCOPING AND VALUED ENVIRONMENTAL 1.1. CLASS SCREENING AND THE CANADIAN COMPONENT SELECTION ................................................................. 15 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT (CEAA) ...................................3 5.1. ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ON 1.2. RATIONALE FOR REPLACEMENT CLASS SELECTED VECS ................................................................................. 15 SCREENING (RCS).................................................................................4 5.2. MARINE HABITAT (MARINE WATERS AND MARINE 1.3. CONSULTATION................................................................5 SEDIMENTS)........................................................................................ 15 1.4 CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 5.2.1. WILDLIFE/MIGRATORY BIRDS................................... 16 REGISTRY (THE REGISTRY)....................................................................5 5.2.2. SPECIES AT RISK.......................................................... 16 2. PROJECTS SUBJECT TO CLASS
  • A Trip Over the Intercolonial Including Articles on the Mining Industries Of

    A Trip Over the Intercolonial Including Articles on the Mining Industries Of

    LP F 5012 JL TBIP OVERthe INTERCOLONIAL INCLUDING ABTICIES 01 THE MINING. DIDUSTBIES NOVA SCOTIA & NEW BRUNSWICK A DESCRIPTION OF THE CITIES OF ST. JOHN AND HALIFAX. FRED. J. HAMILTON, {Special Correspondent) REPRINTED FftOM THE MONTREAL, " GAZETTE." MONTREAL: « GAZETTE" POINTING HOUSE, NEXT THE POST OFFICE, 1876. ZEST^BXjISHIEID 1871. GENERAL INSURANCE AGENCY, 51 PRINCESS STREET, ST. JOHN, N. B. Fire, Life, Marine, Accident and Guarantee In- surance effected on the most favorable terms. KEPKESENTS HOME COMPANIES ONLY. The Citizen's Insurance Company of Canada, HEAD OFFICE: MONTREAL, Established 1S64- FIRE, LIFE, ACCIDENT AND GUARANTEE, Capital $2,000, 000.00 Deposited with Dominion Government 103,000.00 Sik Hugh Allan, President. AdolpH Roy, • - Vice-President. DIRECTORS. Robt. Anderson, N- B Corse, Henry Lyman. Canada Fire and Marine Insurance Company, HEAD OFFICE: HAMILTON, ONT. Established 1874. Capital ;'.;. $5,000,000.00 Deposited with the Dominion Government • • 50.000-00 John Winer, Esq., (of Messrs. J. Winer & Co.) President. Geo- Roach, Esq., Mayor of Hamilton, . \ vVice-Fresidents.„, t>„„„-j„ * 1). Thompson, Esq., M. P., County of Haldimand .. \ Chas. D. Cory, Secretary and Manager- The Mutual Life Association of Canada, HEAD OFFICE: HAMILTON, ONI. THE ONLY PURELY MUTUAL CANADIAN LIFE COMPANY. Deposited with Dominion Government $50,000-00. LOCAL. DIRECTORS. For New Brunswick. For Nova Scotia. For P. E. Island. His Honor S. L. Tilley, Hon. Alex. K- ith, P. C. L. Hon. L. C. Owen. Lieut. Gov. New Bruns'k. Hon. Jeremiah Northup, Hon. Thos. W. Dodd. C. H. Fairweather, J sq., Hon-H.W. Smith, At. Gen. Hon. D. Laird, Min. Interior.
  • Integrated Eel Fishery Management Plan Eastern

    Integrated Eel Fishery Management Plan Eastern

    INTEGRATED EEL FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN EASTERN NEW BRUNSWICK AREA GULF REGION 2007–2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................1 1.1. Overview of the Fishery..........................................................................................1 1.2. Participants..............................................................................................................4 1.3. Location of the fishery ..........................................................................................10 1.4. Fishing seasons and minimum length ...................................................................15 1.5. Fishing methods ....................................................................................................15 1.6. Landings, value and market ..................................................................................16 1.7. Advisory process...................................................................................................19 1.8. Type of management.............................................................................................20 2. INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT....................................21 3. SPECIES AT RISK ACT .........................................................................................22 4. STOCK STATUS REPORT.....................................................................................24 4.1. Biology, environment and habitat.........................................................................24
  • 1.NO-ATL Cover

    1.NO-ATL Cover

    EXHIBIT 20 (AR L.29) NOAA's Estuarine Eutrophication Survey Volume 3: North Atlantic Region July 1997 Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment National Ocean Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Department of Commerce EXHIBIT 20 (AR L.29) The National Estuarine Inventory The National Estuarine Inventory (NEI) represents a series of activities conducted since the early 1980s by NOAA’s Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment (ORCA) to define the nation’s estuarine resource base and develop a national assessment capability. Over 120 estuaries are included (Appendix 3), representing over 90 percent of the estuarine surface water and freshwater inflow to the coastal regions of the contiguous United States. Each estuary is defined spatially by an estuarine drainage area (EDA)—the land and water area of a watershed that directly affects the estuary. The EDAs provide a framework for organizing information and for conducting analyses between and among systems. To date, ORCA has compiled a broad base of descriptive and analytical information for the NEI. Descriptive topics include physical and hydrologic characteristics, distribution and abundance of selected fishes and inver- tebrates, trends in human population, building permits, coastal recreation, coastal wetlands, classified shellfish growing waters, organic and inorganic pollutants in fish tissues and sediments, point and nonpoint pollution for selected parameters, and pesticide use. Analytical topics include relative susceptibility to nutrient discharges, structure and variability of salinity, habitat suitability modeling, and socioeconomic assessments. For a list of publications or more information about the NEI, contact C. John Klein, Chief, Physical Environ- ments Characterization Branch, at the address below.
  • NEW BRUNSWICK REGULATION 90-80 Under the RÈGLEMENT DU

    NEW BRUNSWICK REGULATION 90-80 Under the RÈGLEMENT DU

    C-6.1 Clean Water Act 90-80 NEW BRUNSWICK RÈGLEMENT DU REGULATION 90-80 NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK 90-80 under the pris en vertu de la CLEAN WATER ACT LOI SUR L’ASSAINISSEMENT DE L’EAU (O.C. 90-532) (D.C. 90-532) Filed June 29, 1990 Déposé le 29 juin 1990 Under section 40 of the Clean Water Act, the En vertu de l’article 40 de la Loi sur l’assainissement Lieutenant-Governor in Council makes the following Reg- de l’eau, le lieutenant-gouverneur en conseil établit le rè- ulation: glement suivant : 1 This Regulation may be cited as the Watercourse and 1 Le présent règlement peut être cité sous le titre : Rè- Wetland Alteration Regulation - Clean Water Act. glement sur la modification des cours d’eau et des terres 2003-16 humides - Loi sur l’assainissement de l’eau. 2003-16 2 In this Regulation 2 Dans le présent règlement “Act” means the Clean Water Act. « Loi » désigne la Loi sur l’assainissement de l’eau. PERMITS PERMIS OBLIGATOIRE 3(1) A person is exempt from the requirement to obtain 3(1) Quiconque entreprend ou entame un projet ou une a permit under paragraph 15(1)(b) of the Act if the person construction visant la modification d’un cours d’eau ou is undertaking or proceeding with a project or structure des parties d’un cours d’eau désignés dans la première co- involving any alteration of or to those parts of a water- lonne de l’Annexe A qui sont du côté du large ou en aval course named in the first column of Schedule A that are de la ligne reliant les emplacements visés délimités dans on the seaward or downstream side of the line joining the les deuxième et troisième colonnes de cette annexe est associated location described in the second and third col- exempté de l’exigence d’obtenir un permis en vertu de umns of Schedule A.
  • Dynamics of Larval Fish Abundance in Penobscot Bay, Maine

    Dynamics of Larval Fish Abundance in Penobscot Bay, Maine

    81 Abstract–Biweekly ichthyoplankton Dynamics of larval fi sh abundance surveys were conducted in Penobscot Bay, Maine, during the spring and early in Penobscot Bay, Maine summer of 1997 and 1998. Larvae from demersal eggs dominated the catch from late winter through spring, but Mark A. Lazzari not in early summer collections. Larval Maine Department of Marine Resources fi sh assemblages varied with tempera- P.O. Box 8 ture, and to a lesser extent, plankton West Boothbay Harbor, Maine 04575 volume, and salinity, among months. E-mail address: [email protected] Temporal patterns of larval fi sh abun- dance corresponded with seasonality of reproduction. Larvae of taxa that spawn from late winter through early spring, such as sculpins (Myoxocepha- lus spp.), sand lance (Ammodytes sp.), and rock gunnel (Pholis gunnellus) For most fi sh, the greatest mortality tial variation in species diver sity and were dominant in Penobscot Bay in occurs during early life stages (Hjort, abundance, and 3) to relate these vari- March and April. Larvae of spring to early summer spawners such as 1914; Cushing, 1975; Leggett and Deb- ations to differences in location and en- winter fl ounder (Pleuronectes america- lois, 1994). Therefore, it is essential that vironmental variables. nus) Atlantic seasnail (Liparis atlan- fi sh eggs and larvae develop in favorable ticus), and radiated shanny (Ulvaria habitats that maximize the probability subbifurcata) were more abundant in of survival. Bigelow (1926) recognized Materials and methods May and June. Penobscot Bay appears the signifi cance of the coastal shelf for to be a nursery for many fi shes; there- the production of fi sh larvae within the Field methods fore any degradation of water quality Gulf of Maine, noting that most larvae during the vernal period would have were found within the 200-m contour.
  • Seafloor Features and Characteristics of the Black Ledges Area, Penobscot Bay, Maine, USA

    Seafloor Features and Characteristics of the Black Ledges Area, Penobscot Bay, Maine, USA

    Journal of Coastal Research SI 36 333-339 (ICS 2002 Proceedings) Northern Ireland ISSN 0749-0208 Seafloor Features and Characteristics of the Black Ledges Area, Penobscot Bay, Maine, USA. Allen M. Gontz, Daniel F. Belknap and Joseph T. Kelley Department of Geological Sciences, 111 Bryand Global Science Center, University of Maine, Orono, Maine, USA04469-5790. [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] ABSTRACT The Black Ledges, a series of islands, shoals, and ledges in East Penobscot Bay, Maine, was mapped with digital sidescan sonar and shallow marine seismic reflection equipmentA total of 38 km2 of sidescan and 600 km of seismic data was collected during four cruises in 2000-2001. The sidescan sonar reveals a surficial geology dominated by muddy sediments with frequent, patchy outcrops of gravel and minor amounts of bedrock. There are seven large concentrations of pockmarks with populations totaling over 3500 in the areas of muddy sediments. Generally circular, pockmarks range in size from five to 75 meters in diameter and up to eight meters deep. Calculations show over 2 x 106 m3 of muddy sediment and pore water were removed from the system during pockmark formation. Seismic data reveal a simple stratigraphy of modern mud overlying late Pleistocene glaciomarine sediment, till and Paleozoic bedrock. Seismic data indicate areas of gas-rich sediments and gas- enhanced reflectors in close association with pockmarks, suggesting methane seepage as a cause of pockmark formation. Pockmarks are alsorecognized in areas lacking evidence of subsurface methane accumulations adding further validity to the late stage of development for the field.
  • Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

    Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

    APPENDIX L ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT (PHYSICAL HABITAT) JACKSONVILLE HARBOR NAVIGATION (DEEPENING) STUDY DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT JACKSONVILLE HARBOR NAVIGATION STUDY DUVAL COUNTY, FL Final Report January 2011 Prepared for: Jacksonville District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Prudential Office Bldg 701 San Marco Blvd. Jacksonville, FL 32207 Prepared by: Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. 490 Osceola Avenue Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. III LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................... III 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 2.0 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT DESIGNATION ................................................................. 6 2.1 Assessment ........................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Managed Species .................................................................................................. 8 2.2.1 Penaeid Shrimp .................................................................................................. 9 2.2.1.1 Life Histories ............................................................................................... 9 2.2.1.1.1 Brown Shrimp ......................................................................................
  • Ibastoryspring08.Pdf

    Ibastoryspring08.Pdf

    irds find Maine attractive for many of the same reasons we do—the state offers a unique blend of landscapes spanning from mountains to the sea, with forests, grasslands, rivers, marshes, and long coastlines in between. B Where we find beautiful places to hike and kayak, camp and relax, birds find the habitat they need for their survival. But while Maine’s diverse habitats serve an important role for over IBAs 400 bird species—some threatened, endangered, or of regional conservation in concern—the state’s not immune to a growing list of threats that puts these birds at further risk. Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation due to development, toxins such as mercury and lead, oil spills on the coast and Maine inland waters, and climate change are top among them. BY ANDREW COLVIN In the face of these threats, a crucial step in conserving Maine’s birds is to identify the areas of the state that are most important for breeding, wintering, and migration. After several years of working toward that goal, Maine Audubon Lists Maine Audubon has recently completed the first phase of its Important 22 of the Most Important Bird Areas (IBA) program, identifying 22 areas across Maine that are vital Places in Maine for Vulnerable Birds to state—and even global—bird populations. HANS TOOM ERIC HYNES Eight of the rare birds used to identify IBAs in Maine (clockwise from left): Short-eared owl, black-throated blue warbler, least tern, common moorhen, scarlet tanager, harlequin duck, saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrow, and razorbill. MIKE FAHEY Important
  • Maine State Legislature

    Maine State Legislature

    MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE The following document is provided by the LAW AND LEGISLATIVE DIGITAL LIBRARY at the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library http://legislature.maine.gov/lawlib Reproduced from scanned originals with text recognition applied (searchable text may contain some errors and/or omissions) ACTS AND RESOLVES AS PASSED BY THE Ninety-sixth Legislature OF THE STATE OF MAINE Published by the Director of Legislative Research in accordance with subsection VI of section 26 of chapter 9 of the Revised Statutes of 1944. KENNEBEC JOURNAL AUGUSTA, MAINE 1953 INDEX 1111 Index to Acts and Resolves Passed at Special Sessions of the Ninety-First, Ninety-Second and Ninety-Fourth Legislatures and the Regular Sessions of the Ninety-Second, Ninety-Third, Ninety-Fourth, Ninety-Fifth and Ninety-Sixth Legislatures. A 1945 1947 1949 1951 1953 Page Page Page Page Page ADATEIIIENT OF TAXES See Taxation; name of particular town, etc. ADBOTT BROOK Fishing .............••.•.•..•...••.... 880 ABSENT VOTING See Elections ACADEJIIES See Education ACADIA. NATIONAL PARK Deer, see Deer ACCIDENT INSURANCE See Insurance and Insurance Companies ACCIDENTS See Financial Responsibility Law; Insur­ ance and Insurance Companies; Motor Vehicles ACCOUNTS Assignment ..........•.......•..••..•• 140 Bank, impounded, charged off ••••..•••• 342, 1162, 1165 Joint, in banks, etc...•.•.•....••..•.•• 30, 23 134 Loan and building associations, share savings .............•..•.•.•........ 178 See Audit; Finances; State Accounts; State Auditor ACTIONS Executors and
  • IMPORTANT BIRD AREAS of MAINE an Analysis Of

    IMPORTANT BIRD AREAS of MAINE an Analysis Of

    IMPORTANT BIRD AREAS OF MAINE An Analysis of Avian Diversity and Abundance Compiled by: Susan Gallo, Thomas P. Hodgman, and Judy Camuso A Project Supported by the Maine Outdoor Heritage Fund IMPORTANT BIRD AREAS OF MAINE An Analysis of Avian Diversity and Abundance February 7, 2008 Compiled by: Susan Gallo, Maine Audubon, 20 Gilsland Farm Rd., Falmouth, ME 04105 Thomas P. Hodgman, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 650 State St., Bangor, ME 04401 Judy Camuso, Maine Audubon, 20 Gilsland Farm Rd., Falmouth, ME 04105 (Present Address: Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 358 Shaker Road, Gray, ME 04039) Recommended citation: Gallo, S., T. P. Hodgman, and J. Camuso, Compilers. 2008. Important Bird Areas Of Maine: an analysis of avian diversity and abundance. Maine Audubon, Falmouth, Maine. 94pp. Cover Photo: Scarborough Marsh at sunrise, by W. G. Shriver ii Table of Contents History ..........................................................................................................................................1 What is an Important Bird Area?.......................................................................................1 Qualifying Criteria...................................................................................................................1 Data Use and Applicability Disclaimer .............................................................................2 Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................3
  • National Estuary Program Nomination STATE of MAINE OFFICEOF the GOVERNOR AUGUSTA

    National Estuary Program Nomination STATE of MAINE OFFICEOF the GOVERNOR AUGUSTA

    PENOBSCOTBAY Maine National Estuary Program Nomination STATE OF MAINE OFFICEOF THE GOVERNOR AUGUSTA. MAINE 04333 ANGUS S. KING, JR. GOVERNOR March 6, 1995 Administrator Carol Browner US. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M. Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 Dear Ms. Browner: 1 am pleased to submit a State of Maine Conference Agreement that nominates Penobscot Bay for designation in the National Estuary Program. The Agreement describes the Bay's key issues and actions to respond to them, how we will continue to involve the public in developing and implementing solutions to these most pressing issues, and how we propose to finance this estuary project. Our nomination for Penobscot Bay is consistent with EPA's December; 1994 guidance that calls for considerable initiative by a state before requesting designation. Public and private entities have worked cooperatively since 1992 and made remarkable progress. Two major conferences have brought together all levels of government, the nonprofit community, Bay businesses and the public to talk openly about key issues and possible solutions. These and other activities described in the attached document have laid a solid foundation for a successful national estuaq project. I believe our estuary project will be successfully implemented because of the active participation of five state agencies over the past three years. These agencies (the Departments of Environmental Protection, Marine Resources, Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Economic and Community Developmenf and the State Planning Office) are committed to this project and I am confident that in concert with our nonprofit, municipal and business partners we will m&e important strides to protect and restore Penobscot Bay.