Subchapter C—The National Wildlife Refuge System
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Docket No. FWS–HQ–NWRS–2019–0040; FXRS12610900000-190-FF09R20000]
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 09/10/2019 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2019-18054, and on govinfo.gov Billing Code 4333-15 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Parts 26, 32, 36, and 71 [Docket No. FWS–HQ–NWRS–2019–0040; FXRS12610900000-190-FF09R20000] RIN 1018-BD79 2019–2020 Station-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), open seven National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) that are currently closed to hunting and sport fishing. In addition, we expand hunting and sport fishing at 70 other NWRs, and add pertinent station-specific regulations for other NWRs that pertain to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and sport fishing for the 2019–2020 season. We also formally open 15 units of the National Fish Hatchery System to hunting and sport fishing. We also add pertinent station- specific regulations that pertain to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and sport fishing at these 15 National Fish Hatcheries (NFHs) for the 2019–2020 season. This rule includes global administrative updates to every NWR entry in our refuge- specific regulations and the reorganization of general public use regulations. We remove approximately 2,100 regulations that will have no impact on the administration of hunting and sport fishing within the National Wildlife Refuge System. We also simplify over 2,900 refuge- specific regulations to comply with a Presidential mandate to adhere to plain language standards 1 and to reduce the regulatory burden on the public. -
The 2011 Ohio River Flooding of the Cache River Valley in Southern Illinois Kenneth R
doi:10.2489/jswc.69.1.5A FEATURE The 2011 Ohio River flooding of the Cache River Valley in southern Illinois Kenneth R. Olson and Lois Wright Morton n late April and early May of 2011, was once northwest of Cairo, Illinois. The of Kentucky, flowed through the Cache the Ohio River briefly reclaimed its ancient Cache River Valley, 80 km (50 mi) River Basin and was smaller than the cur- I ancient floodway through southern long and 2.5 to 5.0 km (1.5 to 3.0 mi) wide, rent Ohio River (Cache River Wetlands Illinois to the Mississippi River as heavy was formed by the melt waters of north- Center 2013). At that time, the Wabash rains and early snowmelt over the eastern ern glaciers as they advanced and retreated River (Indiana) had not yet formed, and Ohio Basin raised the Ohio River gage at in at least four iterations over the last the Tennessee River was not a tributary of Cairo, Illinois, to 18.7 m (61.72 ft) (NOAA million years. The Mississippi River flow- the Ohio but was the main channel where 2012). The Cache River Valley, carved by ing southward from Minnesota was (and the Ohio River is today. the ancient Ohio River prior to the last is today) a meandering river of oxbows During the Woodfordian period glacial period approximately 14,000 years and cutoffs, continuously eroding banks, (30,000 years BP), the floodwaters from ago, once again filled with a torrent of redepositing soil, and changing paths. Its the historic Ohio River Watershed drained waters as the Ohio River at flood stage historic meandering is particularly appar- into eastern Illinois via Bay Creek to the pushed into and reversed the flow of the ent in western Alexander County, Illinois, northwest and then west through the Post Creek Cutoff, a diversionary ditch where topographical maps show swirls Cache River Valley (figure 1) to present- Copyright © 2014 Soil and Water Conservation Society. -
Section 3.4 Biological Resources 3.4- Biological Resources
SECTION 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4- BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section discusses the existing sensitive biological resources of the San Francisco Bay Estuary (the Estuary) that could be affected by project-related construction and locally increased levels of boating use, identifies potential impacts to those resources, and recommends mitigation strategies to reduce or eliminate those impacts. The Initial Study for this project identified potentially significant impacts on shorebirds and rafting waterbirds, marine mammals (harbor seals), and wetlands habitats and species. The potential for spread of invasive species also was identified as a possible impact. 3.4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SETTING HABITATS WITHIN AND AROUND SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY The vegetation and wildlife of bayland environments varies among geographic subregions in the bay (Figure 3.4-1), and also with the predominant land uses: urban (commercial, residential, industrial/port), urban/wildland interface, rural, and agricultural. For the purposes of discussion of biological resources, the Estuary is divided into Suisun Bay, San Pablo Bay, Central San Francisco Bay, and South San Francisco Bay (See Figure 3.4-2). The general landscape structure of the Estuary’s vegetation and habitats within the geographic scope of the WT is described below. URBAN SHORELINES Urban shorelines in the San Francisco Estuary are generally formed by artificial fill and structures armored with revetments, seawalls, rip-rap, pilings, and other structures. Waterways and embayments adjacent to urban shores are often dredged. With some important exceptions, tidal wetland vegetation and habitats adjacent to urban shores are often formed on steep slopes, and are relatively recently formed (historic infilled sediment) in narrow strips. -
Reel/Lake Hunt 00
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Waterfowl Hunting is prohibited on For inquiries about refuge programs and Send applications to: Refuge Manager, Reelfoot and Lake Isom National activities contact the refuge manager at: Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge Wildlife Refuges. Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges Specific Fishing Regulations Reelfoot and Reelfoot and Lake Isom 4343 Highway 157 Fishing is seasonally permitted from Squirrel Season: August 19-September 28 and Union City, TN 38261 sunrise to sunset (Central time) on the October 14-29 Phone: 901/538 2481 waters of Reelfoot and Lake Isom Lake Isom Bag limit: same as State NWR’s (see maps for specific locations How to obtain a Reelfoot Refuge deer or and dates of closures). Frogging and turkey quota permit Reelfoot and Lake Isom Commercial turtleing are prohibited. To apply for a permit, submit a Raccoon Season: October 13-28 Visitors must comply with all National Wildlife Refuges stamped, self-addressed U.S. Postal Hunting hours: 7:00 pm-12:00 applicable state fishing and boating Service post card to the Refuge midnight regulations. Manager at the address given above. Public Use Regulations Bag limit: no limit Applications for deer permits must be Raccoon hunters must check-out and Only boats with motors of 10 hp. or postmarked during July and turkey 2000-2001 present all bagged raccoons for less are permitted at Lake Isom. permit applications postmarked inspection and tagging at refuge check during February. Applicants will be station. notified of the drawing results. Fishing with bow and arrow is not permitted at Lake Isom. -
The Vascular Flora of Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge and False Cape State Park, Virginia
Medical Research Archives The Vascular Flora of Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge and False Cape State Park, Virginia The Vascular Flora of Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge and False Cape State Park, Virginia Richard Stalter* and Eric E. Lamont ** Department of Biological Sciences, St. John's University, Jamaica, NY 11439 New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY 10458 *Corresponding Author Dr. Richard Stalter ( [email protected] ) Copyright 2015 KEI Journals. All rights reserved. Medical Research Archives The Vascular Flora of Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge and False Cape State Park, Virginia ABSTRACT The vascular flora of Bay National Wildlife Refuge and False Cape State Park, Virginia consists of 602 species within 343 genera and 123 families. Of these 519 are native (86%) while 83 are not native to the region. Thirty two species are listed as rare or endangered in Virginia including two small populations of Bartonia verna at False Cape State Park found nowhere else in the state. Several species with southern affinities reach their northern range limit on the Back Bay region, whereas only two northern taxa, Hudsonia tomentosa and Myrica pensylvania are near their southern limit. Non-native varieties of Phragmites australis are a major component of the natural vegetation and pose a threat to native taxa. Each taxonomic entry in the checklist is accompanied by an annotation which includes the locality and habitat in which each taxon occurs, frequence of occurrence, range extensions, rarity status, and pertinent synonyms. Key words : flora, distribution, biodiversity, Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge, False Cape State Park, Virginia. Copyright 2015 KEI Journals. -
& Trapping Guide
TENNESSEE HUNTING & TRAPPING GUIDE EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1, 2016 - JULY 31, 2017 »New White-tailed Deer Units and Antlerless Opportunities: see page 22 www.tnwildlife.org »New Elk Quota Hunting Opportunities on Private Lands: see page 30 Follow us on: »New Fall Turkey Bag Limits: see page 32 Includes 2017 Spring Turkey Season BRING HOME THE BIG BUCKS. IT’S EASIER WITH THE RIGHT GEAR. THE BEST BRANDS IN RIFLES, LOW PRICES ON AMMO, PLUS ADVICE FROM SEASONED PROS -- LET ACADEMY® PREP YOU BEFORE HEADING TO THE BLIND. HORNADY VORTEX VIPER MOSSBERG PATRIOT SUPERFORMANCE SST HS 4-16x50 WOOD STOCK RIFLE AMMO RIFLESCOPE BOLT-ACTION RIFLE WITH VORTEX SCOPE M2016Tennessee.indd 1 6/17/16 1:31 PM 1 WELCOME TO TENNESSEE WELCOME TO TENNESSEE WE’RE WILD That You’re Here! Welcome to the Great State of Tennessee! Whether you fish, hunt, or just appreciate watching birds and wildlife, we’re happy to have you here. Our state deeply appreciates and depends on the revenue generated from visitors like you. In fact, in 2011, state $ and nonresidents spent 2.9 billion on wildlife recreation in Tennessee. We estimate that more than 26 million wildlife enthusiasts walk the trails, hunt the woods and fish our pristine lakes and streams every year. So, whether this is your first visit or thousandth trek, we hope you’ll embrace Tennessee as your permanent home on the wild side of life. *2011 Census Report TENNESSEE HUNTING & TRAPPING GUIDE 2016-2017 CONTENTS 6 | What’s New 16 | Small Game Hunting 36 | Wildlife Management Changes to Hunting and Trapping Season Dates and -
Reelfoot and Lake Isom
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges Introduction and History Unmatched anywhere in The lure and beauty of Reelfoot Lake make it a captivating place, known the world, the National not only for its rich fish and wildlife resources, but also for its unique This blue goose, origin and natural history. Wildlife Refuge System designed by “Ding” Darling, During the winter of 1811, time is an extensive network has become a momentarily stopped in the central symbol of the Mississippi River valley as the earth of lands and waters Refuge System. suddenly began to shake and violently move about. The once peaceful woodlands rolled like ocean waves protected and managed and landslides covered many rivers and streams. A great depression was especially for wildlife formed in northwest Tennessee and the waters of the Mississippi River and its habitat. Refuges filled the sunken area. Thus, Reelfoot stretch across the U.S. Lake, as presently known, from above the Arctic was formed as a result of one of the most violent Circle in Alaska to the earthquakes recorded in subtropical waters of North America. Numerous the Florida Keys and shocks were recorded from December, 1811 beyond to the Caribbean to February, 1812 and aftershocks and South Pacific. The were recorded Dave Menke for several decades. The formation National Wildlife Refuge of Reelfoot Lake created a valuable wetland area which became a haven for many wildlife species, attracting System is managed by the hunters and outdoorsmen such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie. -
REPORT, Balloon Litter in VA 1-4-21 FINAL Final
MARINE LITTER REPORT January 2021 Deadly Litter: Balloons & Plastic Ribbons on Virginia’s Coastal Beaches Deadliest Type of Trash Latex balloons, foil balloons, plastic ribbons and other attachments on helium-filled balloons are among the deadliest types of ocean trash. Found Everywhere, Especially on Beaches Littered balloons and ribbons can be found inland, but they mostly accumulate in Virginia’s remote coastal environments, between the high tide line and the dune vegetation, which is critical habitat for nesting birds, sea turtles, and diamondback terrapins. Most Common Debris Item on Remote Beaches Balloon debris was the number one or two type of debris found on Virginia’s remote beaches. • Up to 272 pieces of balloon-related litter per mile* • On one beach, 212 pieces of balloon-related litter in a half mile** Data on balloon debris supports the calls for laws, policies and behavior-change campaigns. Photo by Katie Register, CVW significantly more balloons as compared to public Why Study Balloon Litter? beaches. These findings led Clean Virginia Waterways In 2014, 236 volunteers found 904 balloons on (CVW) to partner with the Virginia Aquarium & Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in a Marine Science Center (VAQ) to conduct in-depth three-hour period during the International Coastal research on the fate and accumulation of balloons and Cleanup (ICC) in Virginia. ribbons in coastal environments. Over a period of five years, Virginia’s ICC volunteers Balloon Litter Data from Studies in VA found and reported 4,916 pieces of balloon litter; of A 2014-18 study conducted by the VAQ and CVW these, 3,122 (63.5%) were found on ocean beaches. -
Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge, Illinois
Hydrogeomorphic Evaluation of Ecosystem Restoration Options for Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge, Illinois Prepared For: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Refuges, Region 3 Minneapolis, Minnesota Greenbrier Wetland Services Report 12-05 Mickey E. Heitmeyer Karen E. Mangan July 2012 HYDROGEOMORPHIC EVALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION OPTIONS FOR CYPRESS CREEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, ILLINOIS Prepared For: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System, Region 3 Minneapolis, MN and Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge Ullin, IL By: Mickey E. Heitmeyer, PhD Greenbrier Wetland Services Rt. 2, Box 2735 Advance, MO 63730 and Karen E. Mangan U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge 0137 Rustic Campus Drive Ullin, IL 62992 Greenbrier Wetland Services Report 12-05 July 2012 Mickey E Heitmeyer, PhD Greenbrier Wetland Services Route 2, box 2735 Advance, MO. 63730 Publication No. 12-05 Suggested citation: Heitmeyer, M. E., K. E. Mangan. 2012. Hy- drogeomorphic evaluation of ecosystem restora- tion and management options for Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge,Ullin Il.. Prepared for U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3, Minne- apolis, MN and Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge,Ullin,Il. Greenbrier Wetland Services Report 12-05, Blue Heron Conservation Design and Printing LLC, Bloomfield, MO. Photo credits: COVER: Limekiln Slough by Michael Jeffords Michael Jeffords, Jan Sundberg, Cary Aloia (Gardners- Gallery.com), Karen Kyle This publication printed on recycled paper by ii -
National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Survey 2012: Individual Refuge Results for Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge
National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Survey 2012: Individual Refuge Results for Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge By Alia M. Dietsch, Natalie R. Sexton, Lynne Koontz, and Shannon J. Conk My children and I had a wonderful time at Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge. A friend told me about the environmental education program offered for children and it far exceeded my expectations. The staff was very knowledgeable and friendly… My 80 year old mother also joined us. She had a ball too. Keep up the good work. — Survey comment from a visitor to Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Contents Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................................................... iv Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Organization of Results .................................................................................................................................................. 2 Methods ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Selecting Participating Refuges .................................................................................................................................. 3 Developing the Survey Instrument -
San Francisco Bay Joint Venture
The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Management Board Bay Area Audubon Council Bay Area Open Space Council Bay Conservation and Development Commission The Bay Institute The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Bay Planning Coalition California State Coastal Conservancy Celebrating years of partnerships protecting wetlands and wildlife California Department of Fish and Game California Resources Agency 15 Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District Ducks Unlimited National Audubon Society National Fish and Wildlife Foundation NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Natural Resources Conservation Service Pacific Gas and Electric Company PRBO Conservation Science SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Estuary Partnership Save the Bay Sierra Club U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey Wildlife Conservation Board 735B Center Boulevard, Fairfax, CA 94930 415-259-0334 www.sfbayjv.org www.yourwetlands.org The San Francisco Bay Area is breathtaking! As Chair of the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture, I would like to personally thank our partners It’s no wonder so many of us live here – 7.15 million of us, according to the 2010 census. Each one of us has our for their ongoing support of our critical mission and goals in honor of our 15 year anniversary. own mental image of “the Bay Area.” For some it may be the place where the Pacific Ocean flows beneath the This retrospective is a testament to the significant achievements we’ve made together. I look Golden Gate Bridge, for others it might be somewhere along the East Bay Regional Parks shoreline, or from one forward to the next 15 years of even bigger wins for wetland habitat. -
GRA 9 – South Delta
2-900 .! 2-905 .! 2-950 .! 2-952 2-908 .! .! 2-910 .! 2-960 .! 2-915 .! 2-963 .! 2-964 2-965 .! .! 2-917 .! 2-970 2-920 ! .! . 2-922 .! 2-924 .! 2-974 .! San Joaquin County 2-980 2-929 .! .! 2-927 .! .! 2-925 2-932 2-940 Contra Costa .! .! County .! 2-930 2-935 .! Alameda 2-934 County ! . Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2013 Calif. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Area Map Office of Spill Prevention and Response I Data Source: O SPR NAD_1983_C alifornia_Teale_Albers ACP2 - GRA9 Requestor: ACP Coordinator Author: J. Muskat Date Created: 5/2 Environmental Sensitive Sites Section 9849 – GRA 9 South Delta Table of Contents GRA 9 Map ............................................................................................................................... 1 Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... 2 Site Index/Response Action ...................................................................................................... 3 Summary of Response Resources for GRA 9......................................................................... 4 9849.1 Environmentally Sensitive Sites 2-900-A Old River Mouth at San Joaquin River....................................................... 1 2-905-A Franks Tract Complex................................................................................... 4 2-908-A Sand Mound Slough ..................................................................................