DOCSLIB.ORG

Multistate Regionalism. Commission Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Multistate Regionalism. Commission Report Preface to the Second Printing This second printing of Multistate Regionalism reissues the report largely in the same form in which it was adopted and first published in 1972. The subject has not been reexamined by the Commission, and no new recommendations are included. The only alteration is the inclusion of a new introductory chapter which briefly reviews multistate organizations, legislation, and policy issues, as they appeared early in 1978. This update does not alter in any way the findings and conclusions contained in the initial report, but provides an aid to the reader in need of more current information. This chapter was written by David R. Beam, Senior Analyst, and David B. Walker, Assistant Director, and drew upon the draft mate- rials prepared by J. H. Fonkert, a Commission intern in 1976-77. The manuscript was ably prepared for publication by Delores Dawson. Abraham D. Beame Chairman Wayne F. Anderson Executive Director For sale by tho Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Prlntlng OIRce. Washington, D.C. 20(m INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND PRIYTING CURRENT ISSUES IN MULTISTATE REGIONALISM- 1978 REGIONAL DISARRAY settled issues confronted the Title V commissions and Title I1 commissions, as well as the system of Fed- At the time the Advisory Commission on Intergov- eral Regional Councils. Only the Appalachian Ue- ernmental Relations concluded its formal study of gional Commission and the two compact-based multistate regionalism (the report was adopted at its river basin commissions (the Delaware and Susque- 'December I97 I meeting), most of these instrumen- hanna UBCs) seemed to have retained a clearly talities were still comparatively new and untried. defined role^-~-and even in these cases, the possibility The major pieces of multistate legislation---the Ap- of new Carter administration proposals for depart- palachian Regional Development Act. the Public mental reorganization and federal urban, rural, and Works and Economic Development Act, and the water development policies left some question Water Resources Planning Act- had been adopted marks. Sources of concern and tension includcd: in 1965, just six years previously. It was, in the Corn- mission's view, still much too early for any drastic increasing sectional antagonism between the revision or overhaul of these fledgling organizations, "sunbelt" and "frostbelt" states; since most of the planning activities they had em- W surprising recent growth of population in the barked upon were still in an early stage. Thus, while nation's nonmetropolitan areas, reversing past the Commission examined each of these programs in trends and forecasts; considerable depth, it felt that any major reform proposals at that time would be premature. Hence a plodding recovery from the 1974-75 recession, its recommendation to "let the experiment con- compounding continuing problems of structural tinue''--- to retain the multistate commissions unal- unemployment; tered pending further experience. W heightened awareness of resources (especially Six years later, as a second printing of this report energy and water) constraints in some sections was being prepared, these circumstances had of the nation; changed. The multistate agencies are now more fully "institutionalized" and have a longer track record-- W the creation of activist "voluntary" multistate although evaluations and especially conclusions re- regional organizations and coalitions of state garding them still vary widely. and local officials as well as of members of the But the multistate question----urgent in previous Congress; years because of the Nixon administration's opposi- uncertainty about the structuring and future role tion to regionalism as a "fourth layer of govern- of regional offices within the federal Executive ment''---was still quite pressing. Many observers in Branch; and late 1977 through mid-1978 felt that the network of multistate organizations was in serious disarray. LJn- H state-proposed expansions of the Title V system. As of mid-1978, the Carter administration had not those of state and/or local governments was a cen- yet formulated a clear position on any of the basic tral aim. Each, too, was intended to "target" assis- policy questions. However, reviews aimed at positive tance on certain specific areas, neighborhoods, or recommendations were underway in several locations; jurisdictions. In the instance of the Appalachian Re- the President's Reorganization Project, the White gional Commission, there were legislative mandates House Conference on Balanced National Growth to "serve as a focal point and coordinating unit for and Economic Development, the cabinet-level Urban Appalachian programs," and to "concentrate [in- and Regional Policy Group, and the Water Resource vestments] in areas where there is a significant Policy Study team. potential for future growth, and where the expected The multiplicity of these forun~sand issues made return on public dollars invested will be the greatest.'' predictions on the future direction of multistate re- The ACIR review, which drew upon a consider- gionalism quite uncertain. Incremental change, as able number of official and academic evaluations, always, did appear to be the most likely prospect, suggested that these particular features in the basic but the possibility of significant alterations in one or design of these programs may have been unrealistic. more of the major multistate entities could not be dis- All three target grants were found to have followed a missed entirely. similar course: This brief discussion is not intended to point out the proper path. The ACIR has not conducted a for- The most basic observation regarding all three mal reassessment of the full range of multistate or- target grant programs indicates their inability to ganizations and for this reason has not reconsidered draw together, meld, and coordinate-in short, its I971 recommendations.' However, this new intro- to "target3'-other federal assistance programs. ductory material does summarize some of the prin- None experienced more than limited success in cipal developments on the multistate regional scene this fundamental purpose. The capacity for over the intervening years, and describes the issues as complex, fully coordinated administrative ac- they appeared early in 1978.' tion among federal agencies and the three gov- ernmental levels was tested and found to be limited. THE APPALACHIAN REGIONAL The target grants did not fully conform with COMMISSION the basic conception behind them in a second re- The Appalachia program--certainly foremost in spect as well. Each of the programs was in- scope and importance among the multistate organi- tended to serve specific, restricted, target areas zations- was renewed by the Regional Development and populations. Yet, each was faced with the Act of 197.5; for four years (and its highway pro- political need to generate widespread Congres- gram for six). The new legislation induded a number sional and popular support. This need brought of measures intended to strengthen Commission op- pressures for expansion which reduced the pro- erations, including provisions assuring more active grams' targeting effects and, in some cases, gubernatorial participation, a mandate for an overall badly stretched available f~nds.~ regional development plan, and encouragement of local development districts to prepare comprehensive The report also summarized evaluative research "areawide action program^."^ Overall, however, concerning the ARC in particular and various recom- these amendments remained true to the original mendations for both expansion and abolition.' vision behind the ARC, and were intended simply to Although not discussed in the grants management assist in realizing them. study, weaknesses of the planning processes of both In a 1977 study of federal grants management the Title V and Title I1 commissions as well as short- issues, the ACIR offered a brief update on ARC ac- comings in the performance of the Federal Regional tivities and a comparison of the Appalachian pro- Councils also illustrate the serious organizational and gram with two other "target grants"---community ac- political obstacles to the coordination of policies tion and model cities.' These three programs all among a number of federal agencies and state-local stemmed from the same historical period (1964 to governments. These were not generally recognized in 1966) and included certain common objectives. In the mid-60s. but have been amply documented since. each case, the coordination of the activities of a Yet the Appalachian program, like any public en- broad range of federal agencies and programs with deavor, must be assessed by a number of different (sometimes competing or even conflicting) criteria. TITLE V COMMISSIONS Proponents of the Commission system stress espe- cially its "partnership approach" to federal, state, The Regional Development Act of 1975 extended and local investment decisionmaking. They argue the authorization of the Title V Commissions-more that it offers an important middle ground between properly, the regional action planning commis- revenue sharing programs on the one hand-which sions--for two years, with minor amendment. The provide little opportunity for federal program direc- authcrity of the commissions was expanded some- tion-and categorical grants on the other, in which what, with the creation of four new program areas: the reins of federal administration often are very energy, transportation, vocational education, and tightly held.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hawk Migration Over the Western Tip of Lake Superior1
    HAWK MIGRATION OVER THE WESTERN TIP OF LAKE SUPERIOR1 P. B. HOFSLUND INCE 1951, members of the Duluth Bird Club and the Minnesota Ornithol- S ogists ’ Union have spent slightly more than 922 hours of 201 days in counting the hawks that pass over the city of Duluth during the fall migration. In this time we have tallied 159,397 individuals, an average of 172+ hawks per hour of observation. The pattern of flight can be discerned to some extent by studying Tables 1 and 2. The 93,187 Broad-winged Hawks (Buteo platypterus) and 33,475 Sharp-shinned Hawks (Accipiter striatus) make up nearly 80 per cent of the count (actually they probably make up over 80 per cent, as the 16,852 un- identified hawks more than likely contain a great percentage of these two species). The relative position of the other 12 regular species perhaps does not express accurately the true picture of the flight. There is a bias due to an uneven distribution of observation periods through the three main months of the flight. Prior to 1961, only 28 days were given to the period following the end of the big Broadwing flights in September. Consequently, we have missed, in most years, the peak Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicemis) , Rough-legged Hawk (B. Zagopus), and Goshawk (Accipiter gent&s) flights. Prior to 1961, only 80 Goshawks were tallied; since 1961, 1,117 have graced our tally sheets. It was not at all unusual in 1963 to count more Goshawks in a single observation period than we had tallied as a total during the first 10 years of observation.
    [Show full text]
  • Lighthouses – Clippings
    GREAT LAKES MARINE COLLECTION MILWAUKEE PUBLIC LIBRARY/WISCONSIN MARINE HISTORICAL SOCIETY MARINE SUBJECT FILES LIGHTHOUSE CLIPPINGS Current as of November 7, 2018 LIGHTHOUSE NAME – STATE - LAKE – FILE LOCATION Algoma Pierhead Light – Wisconsin – Lake Michigan - Algoma Alpena Light – Michigan – Lake Huron - Alpena Apostle Islands Lights – Wisconsin – Lake Superior - Apostle Islands Ashland Harbor Breakwater Light – Wisconsin – Lake Superior - Ashland Ashtabula Harbor Light – Ohio – Lake Erie - Ashtabula Badgeley Island – Ontario – Georgian Bay, Lake Huron – Badgeley Island Bailey’s Harbor Light – Wisconsin – Lake Michigan – Bailey’s Harbor, Door County Bailey’s Harbor Range Lights – Wisconsin – Lake Michigan – Bailey’s Harbor, Door County Bala Light – Ontario – Lake Muskoka – Muskoka Lakes Bar Point Shoal Light – Michigan – Lake Erie – Detroit River Baraga (Escanaba) (Sand Point) Light – Michigan – Lake Michigan – Sand Point Barber’s Point Light (Old) – New York – Lake Champlain – Barber’s Point Barcelona Light – New York – Lake Erie – Barcelona Lighthouse Battle Island Lightstation – Ontario – Lake Superior – Battle Island Light Beaver Head Light – Michigan – Lake Michigan – Beaver Island Beaver Island Harbor Light – Michigan – Lake Michigan – St. James (Beaver Island Harbor) Belle Isle Lighthouse – Michigan – Lake St. Clair – Belle Isle Bellevue Park Old Range Light – Michigan/Ontario – St. Mary’s River – Bellevue Park Bete Grise Light – Michigan – Lake Superior – Mendota (Bete Grise) Bete Grise Bay Light – Michigan – Lake Superior
    [Show full text]
  • WISCONSIN POINT TRAIL MAP CHIPPEWA BURIAL SITE Near the End of the Point Is the Sign Announcing the Chippewa Burial Site And
    CHIPPEWA BURIAL SITE THE LIGHT HOUSE WISCONSIN POINT TRAIL MAP Near the end of the point is the sign Wisconsin Point Light House sits at the announcing the Chippewa burial site entrance to Superior Harbor on a pier jutting and the stone marker. The marker from the end of a three-mile spit of land, reads: “Here was the burial ground of which protects the ore docks and the harbor. the Fond du Lac Band of the Chip- The peninsula became city park space except pewa People dating from the 17th for the tip where the lighthouse and Army century. It was removed in 1919 to St Corps buildings were constructed. Francis Cemetery, Superior.” Wisconsin Point, along with Minnesota Point, report- edly make up the largest freshwater sandbar in the world. 203 acres with 2 3/4 miles of beach Bird watching, hiking, beach use, and duck hunting Watchable Wildlife area Historical marker for a sacred Chippewa bur- ial ground Superior entry lighthouse Important Items to Note Motor vehicle traffic and parking is prohib- ited between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m. on Wisconsin Point Road, including any parking areas, beyond Lot #1, except during the spring smelt run season as defined by the Parks and Recreation Department The burial site is covered with items left Glass beverage containers are prohibited by visitors through the years, such as Fires may not be started closer than ten (10) beads and feathers, stuffed animals, feet from the nearest plant life walking sticks, coins, and tobacco. Camping is not allowed between the hours of 10:30 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • St. Louis and Lower Nemadji River Watershed
    Wisconsin St. Louis and Lower Nemadji Watersheds River Watershed 2010 Water Quality Management Plan Update Lake Superior Basin, Wisconsin August, 2010 The t.S Louis River, the largest U.S. tributary to Lake Superior, drains 3,634 square miles, entering the southwestern corner of the lake between Duluth, Minnesota and Superior, Wisconsin. The river flows 179 miles through three distinct areas: coarse soils, glacial till and outwash deposits at its headwaters; a deep, narrow gorge at Jay Cooke State Park in Minnesota; and red clay deposits in its lower reaches. As the St. Louis River approaches Duluth and Superior, the river takes on the characteristics of a 12,000 Contents acre freshwater estuary. The upper estuary has some Watershed Details 1 wilderness-like areas, while the lower estuary is character- Population and Land Use . 1 ized by urban development, an industrial harbor, and Ecological Landscapes . 3 a major port. The lower estuary includes St. Louis Bay, Other Details . 3 Map 1: St Louis River and Lower Nemadji Superior Bay, Allouez Bay, Kimball’s Bay, Pokegama Bay, River Watershed Invasive Species . 3 Howard’s Bay, and the lower Nemadji River. Historical Note . 4 Watershed Details Watershed Condition 4 Priority Issues . 4 Water Quality Goals . 4 Population and Land Use Overall Condition . 4 The watershed is dominated by Point and Nonpoint Sources . 5 forests (65%), agriculture (9%), Fish Consumption Advice . 5 followed closely by open water River and Stream Condition . 5 and open space (8%) (Figure 1). Lakes and Embayments . 16 Wetlands . 17 In 1987, the International Joint Waters of Note: . .22 Commission, an advisory com- mission on U.S-Canadian border Watershed Actions 23 Figure 1: Land Use in the St Louis and Lower Nemadji River Partnership Activities .
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Superior Streams
    EPA-905/9-79-004 January 1979 RED CLAY TURBIDITY AND ITS TRANSPORT IN LAKE SUPERIOR by Michael Sydor Richard T. Clapper Gordon J. Oman Kirby R. Stortz Physics Department University of Minnesota, Duluth Duluth, Minnesota 55812 E.P.A. Grant No. R005175-01 Project Officer Anthony G. Kizlauskas U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region V Great Lakes National Program Office Chicago, Illinois 60605 GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION V CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60605 DISCLAIMER This report has been reviewed by the Great Lakes National Program Office, Region V, -U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor doesmentionof trade names constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. ii FOREWORD The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created because of increasing public and governmental concern about the dangers of pollution to the health and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled land are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural envi­ ronment. The Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) of the U.S. EPA was established in Region V, Chicago, to provide a specific focus on the water quality concerns of the Great Lakes. GLNPO provides funding and personnel support to the International Joint Commission activities under the U.S.­ Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Several water quality studies have been funded to support the Upper Lakes Reference Group (ULRG) under the Agreement to address specific objec­ tives related to pollution in the Upper Lakes (Lake Superior and Lake Huron).
    [Show full text]
  • St. Louis River Restoration Initiative
    he St. Louis River is among 43 Great Lakes “Areas THE Federal funding from the Great Lakes Restoration Tof Concern” listed through the Great Lakes Water Initiative, and new Minnesota sales tax funds give us Quality Agreement between the U.S. and Canada in unprecedented opportunities to proceed with clean-up the 1980s. These “Areas of Concern” share a history S T. LOUI S RIVER and restoration of the St. Louis River Estuary & Harbor. of past industrial uses when dumping waste on land and water was common place. These past practices left Restoration Initiative For more information on the St. Louis River Remedial innesota and Wisconsin have worked Action Plan, the Lower St. Louis River Habitat Plan Mtogether for over 20 years to improve the St. “legacy” pollutants in bottom sediment, which degraded and goals for the St. Louis River see: Louis River. Our strong partnerships have made great habitat for fish and wildlife, and contributed to human www.stlouisriver.org progress to clean up, restore, and protect our water. health risks. The Water Quality Agreement called upon However, important clean-up projects still need to be states, provinces, and the federal governments to clean completed. With these new funding sources, we can up these areas. Sustained funding, however, has not been This brochure was developed by: make major progress to restore and protect the value available to fully realize this goal. In 1992, the states of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources of our St. Louis River, estuary, and harbor. Minnesota and Wisconsin developed a Remedial Action Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Plan for the St.
    [Show full text]
  • Park Point Small Area Plan Are Contained in Appendix a 2 Park Point Small Area Plan TABLE of CONTENTS
    P P OINT ARK SMALL AREA PLAN ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Mayor City Planning Division Staff Don Ness Keith Hamre, Director John Judd, Senior Planner City Council John Kelley, Planner II Zack Filipovich Steven Robertson, AICP, Senior Planner Jay Fosle Kyle Deming, Planner II Sharla Gardner Jenn Reed Moses, AICP, Planner II Howie Hanson Jennifer Julsrud Small Area Plan Committee Linda Krug Sharla Gardner, City Council Emily Larson Heather Rand, City Planning Commission Barb Russ Thomas Beery, City Parks and Recreation Commission Joel Sipress John Goldfine, Business Representative Jan Karon, Resident Planning Commission Sally Raushenfels, Resident Marc Beeman Dawn Buck, Resident Terry Guggenbuehl Deb Kellner, Resident Janet Kennedy Kinnan Stauber, Resident Tim Meyer Garner Moffat Heather Rand Luke Sydow Michael Schraepfer Zandra Zwiebel City Council Resolutions for the Park Point Small Area Plan are contained in Appendix A 2 Park Point Small Area Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Assessment ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Purpose of the Plan ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Wisconsin and Minnesota State Line Along the St. Louis River: Lake Superior to the State Line Meridian
    The Wisconsin and Minnesota State Line along the St. Louis River: Lake Superior to the State Line Meridian. The 1852 General Land Office “State Line Survey.” A Supreme Court Judicial Line Decided Oct. 1921. Report of Retracement of the State Line: January, 2018. Anthony Lueck, Land Surveyor License in Minnesota and Wisconsin Lives in Duluth, Minnesota Work Experience: U.S. Forest Service Engineers-Engineering Technician St. Louis County Surveyors Office-Survey Technician Krech-Ojard and Associates Consulng Engineer-Land Surveyor North Country Land Surveying-Land Surveyor USGS Map showing Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary along the St. Louis River running southwesterly of St. Louis Bay & Superior Bay west of Lake Superior. The Minnesota and Wisconsin Boundary Line Surveys -1852 GLO Survey along St. Louis River: Lake Superior Entry [mouth] of the St. Louis River to the State Line in Township 48 North Range 15 West by the General Land Office Survey by U.S. Deputy Surveyor George R. Stuntz directed by Congress. -1861 Lake Survey Maps: The Twin Ports of Lake Superior Harbor and St. Louis River maps and charts from the Corps of the Topographical Engineers. -1916 to 1918 Hearings: 1916 Minnesota files complaint. 1917 Tesmony hearings. 1918 Briefs filed by Minnesota & Wisconsin to the Supreme Court for State Line. -1919 & 1920 U.S. Supreme Court on Boundary Dispute: September 1919 the Supreme Court heard the case. March 1920 Decree for the Boundary. October 1920 a Survey Commission appointed to survey the State Line. -1921 Commissioners Survey: Descripon of the Supreme Court surveyed along the St. Louis River between the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin.
    [Show full text]
  • Paleolimnological Investigation of the St. Louis River Estuary to Inform Area of Concern Delisting Efforts
    PALEOLIMNOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE ST. LOUIS RIVER ESTUARY TO INFORM AREA OF CONCERN DELISTING EFFORTS A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Elizabeth E. Alexson IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE Dr. Euan D. Reavie August 2016 © Elizabeth Alexson 2016 Acknowledgements This work was made possible by two grants. (1) This work is the result of research sponsored by the Minnesota Sea Grant College Program supported by the NOAA office of Sea Grant, United States Department of Commerce, under grant No. R/CE-05-14. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for government purposes, notwithstanding any copyright notation that may appear hereon. (2) Project funding was made available by a contract with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency through USEPA grant #00E05302 and support from the Minnesota Clean Water Legacy Amendment. Thanks go to: Dr. Euan Reavie, Dr. Rich Axler, and Dr. Mark Edlund for their guidance in the development of my thesis; Dr. Pavel Krasutsky and Dr. Sergiy Yements of the Natural Resources Research Institute for completing pigment analysis; Lisa Estepp, Kitty Kennedy, Meagan Aliff, and the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa for their help with field and lab work; Dr. Daniel Engstrom of the Science Museum of Minnesota for completing 210Pb analysis and interpretation; Dr. Robert Pillsbury for completing diatom identification and enumeration for the core from western Lake Superior. Diane Desotelle and Molly Wick (MPCA) provided helpful reviews of earlier drafts of this manuscript. i Abstract The St.
    [Show full text]
  • Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact Annual
    Great Lakes- St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact Annual Water Conservation and Efficiency Assessment November 21, 2017 State of Minnesota Minnesota Annual Water Conservation and Efficiency Assessment 2017 – page 1 Report Purpose: The Water Conservation and Efficiency Program Assessment is a submitted to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Council annually. These Program Reports are submitted by Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and are available online, dating back to 2008. Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Compact The report format requires a listing of laws, regulations and policies. In 2017 there were no major changes to this section. There is additional discussion of the new DNR Water Conservation Reporting tool in the Mandatory/Benchmark discussion and an update on the Statewide Drought Plan. The five listed objectives are part of the required template and are not necessarily in priority order. The 2017 report includes new actions that were started or accomplished during the calendar year. For previous or ongoing water conservation and sustainability programs please see earlier reports. This plan is submitted by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). We have captured some of the highlights from our cooperating partners including: USGS, USFWS, USFS, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources (BWSR), Natural Resources Research Institute (NRRI) at the University of Minnesota at Duluth (UMD), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Clean Water Council, county and local agencies and other governmental and non-governmental groups involved in conserving the Lake Superior resources. Cover photo by Gary Alan Nelson Minnesota Annual Water Conservation and Efficiency Assessment 2017 – page 2 State of Minnesota Note: All underlined items are linked to the referenced Websites 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Superior Water Trail Map 1 from St. Louis River to Two Harbors
    LAKE SUPERIOR- MAP 1 Route Description LAKE SUPERIOR • Always wear a U.S. Coast Guard approved The National Weather Service broadcasts a 24-hour • All watercraft (including non-motorized canoes In Miles (0.0 at Minnesota Entrance – Duluth Lift Bridge). STATE WATER ake Superior is the largest freshwater lake personal floatation device. updated marine forecast on KIG 64, weather band and kayaks longer than 9 feet) must be registered WATER TRAILA TRAIL Guide Note: Mile markers for sites within the St. Louis River and on our planet, containing 10% of all the channel 1 on the maritime VHF frequency, from in Minnesota or the state of residence. along Minnesota Point are relative distances based on the fresh water on earth. The lake’s 32,000 • Be familiar with dangers of hypothermia and Duluth; a version of this broadcast can be heard by map’s linear scale. Actual paddling distances between sites square mile surface area stretches dress appropriately for the cold water (32 to 50 calling 218-729-6697, press 4 for Lake Superior • Choose your trip and daily travel distance in will vary. across the border between the United degrees Fahrenheit). weather information. The VHF radio can also be relation to experience, fitness and an average Note: (L) and (R) represent left and right banks of the St. States and Canada; two countries, three Cold water is a killer – wearing a wet or dry suit is used to call for emergency help. kayaking speed of 2-3 m.p.h.. Louis River when facing downstream (facing lakeward). states, one province and many First Nations strongly recommended.
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota Point Unit MN-01
    570000mE 572000mE 574000mE 576000mE 578000mE Duluth 5180000mN LAKE SUPERIOR Duluth Harbor Basin HEARDING ISLAND STATE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA 5178000mN MINNESOTA WISCONSIN Duluth SUPERIOR Howards Bay BAY 5176000mN 53 MINNESOTA POINT APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY MN-01 Superior 2 BARKERS ISLAND MINNESOTA WISCONSIN 5174000mN Superior Harbor Basin LAKE SUPERIOR 53 HOG ISLAND WISCONSIN 51 000m 72 N POINT N e m a d ji R i v e RICHARD r ALLOUEZ BAY BONG AIRPORT 5170000mN 53 South Superior JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM System Unit Boundary Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; This map has been produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as authorized OPAs are identified on the map by the by Section 4(c) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-348), letter "P" following the unit number as amended by the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-591). The CBRA requires the Secretary of the Interior to review the maps of the Coastal Minnesota Point Unit MN-01 Approximate State Boundary Barrier Resources System (CBRS) at least once every 5 years and make any minor 36 000m 2000- meter Universal Transverse Mercator and technical modifications to the boundaries of the CBRS units as are necessary 54 N solely to reflect changes that have occurred in the size or location of any CBRS grid values, Zone 15 North unit as a result of natural forces. The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing system, Imagery Date(s): 2013 including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-ft bathymetric contour.
    [Show full text]