DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 163/Friday, August 21, 2020/Rules

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 163/Friday, August 21, 2020/Rules 51854 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 2020 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR review, we changed our process for regulations. We have considered all developing migratory game bird hunting pertinent comments received through Fish and Wildlife Service regulations with the goal of enabling the the close of the comment period on State agencies to select and publish April 20, 2020, which includes 50 CFR Part 20 their season dates earlier than was comments submitted in response to our [Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2019–0004; allowed under the prior process. We October 15 and March 19 proposed FF09M21200–201–FXMB1231099BPP0] provided a detailed overview of this rulemaking documents and comments process in the August 3, 2017, Federal RIN 1018–BD89 from the October SRC meeting. This Register (82 FR 36308). This final rule document establishes final frameworks is the third in a series of proposed and Migratory Bird Hunting; Final 2020–21 for migratory bird hunting regulations final rules that establish regulations for Frameworks for Migratory Bird Hunting for the 2020–21 season and includes no the 2020–21 migratory bird hunting Regulations season. substantive changes from the March 19, 2020, proposed rule. We will publish AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Regulations Schedule for 2020 Interior. State selections in the Federal Register as amendments to §§ 20.101 through ACTION: Final rule. On October 15, 2019, we published in the Federal Register (84 FR 55120) a 20.107 and 20.109 of title 50 CFR part SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife proposal to amend title 50 of the Code 20. Service (Service or we) prescribes final of Federal Regulations (CFR) at part 20. Population Status and Harvest frameworks from which States may The proposal provided a background select season dates, limits, and other and overview of the migratory bird Each year we publish reports that options for the 2020–21 migratory bird hunting regulations process, and provide detailed information on the hunting seasons. We annually prescribe addressed the establishment of seasons, status and harvest of certain migratory limits, and other regulations for hunting frameworks, or outer limits, for dates gamebird species. These reports are migratory game birds under §§ 20.101 and times when hunting may occur and available at the address indicated under the number of birds that may be taken through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or and possessed in hunting seasons. subpart K. Major steps in the 2020–21 from our website at https:// These frameworks are necessary to regulatory cycle relating to open public www.fws.gov/birds/surveys-and-data/ allow State selections of seasons and meetings and Federal Register limits and to allow harvest at levels notifications were illustrated in the reports-and-publications/population- compatible with migratory game bird diagram at the end of the October 15, status.php. population status and habitat 2019, proposed rule. For this regulatory We used the following annual reports conditions. Migratory game bird hunting cycle, we combined elements of the published in August 2019 in the seasons provide opportunities for document that is described in the development of proposed frameworks recreation and sustenance, and aid diagram as Supplemental Proposals for the migratory bird hunting Federal, State, and Tribal governments with the document that is described as regulations: Adaptive Harvest in the management of migratory game Proposed Season Frameworks. Management, 2020 Hunting Season; Further, the October 15, 2019, birds. American Woodcock Population Status, proposed rule set forth a list of 2019; Band-tailed Pigeon Population DATES: This rule takes effect on August numbered headings under which all 21, 2020. subsequent hunting frameworks and Status, 2019; Migratory Bird Hunting ADDRESSES: States should send their guidelines would be organized (see 84 Activity and Harvest During the 2017– season selections to: Chief, Division of FR 55122). Because each of the 18 and 2018–19 Hunting Seasons; Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish regulatory documents in this Mourning Dove Population Status, 2019; and Wildlife Service, MS: MB, 5275 rulemaking cycle includes only those Status and Harvests of Sandhill Cranes, Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– numbered items requiring attention, the Mid-continent, Rocky Mountain, Lower 3803. You may inspect comments list of remaining numbered items Colorado River Valley and Eastern received on the migratory bird hunting appears incomplete. Populations, 2019; and Waterfowl regulations at http:// We provided the meeting dates and Population Status, 2019. www.regulations.gov at Docket No. locations for the Service Regulations Our long-term objectives continue to FWS–HQ–MB–2019–0004. You may Committee (SRC) and Flyway Council include providing opportunities to obtain copies of referenced reports from meetings on Flyway calendars posted on harvest portions of certain migratory the street address above, or from the our website at https://www.fws.gov/ game bird populations and to limit Division of Migratory Bird birds/management/flyways.php. On harvests to levels compatible with each Management’s website at http:// October 8–9, 2019, we held open population’s ability to maintain healthy, www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/, or at meetings with the Flyway Council http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Consultants, at which the participants viable numbers. Having taken into No. FWS–HQ–MB–2019–0004. reviewed information on the current account the zones of temperature and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: status of migratory game birds and the distribution, abundance, economic Jerome Ford, U.S. Fish and Wildlife developed recommendations for the value, breeding habits, and times and Service, Department of the Interior, 2020–21 regulations for these species. lines of flight of migratory birds, we (202) 208–1050. The October 15, 2019, proposed rule conclude that the hunting seasons SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: provided detailed information on the provided for herein are compatible with proposed 2020–21 regulatory schedule the current status of migratory bird Process for Establishing Annual and announced the SRC meetings. populations and long-term population Migratory Game Bird Hunting On March 19, 2020, we published in goals. Additionally, we are obligated to, Regulations the Federal Register (85 FR 15870) the and do, give serious consideration to all As part of the Department of the proposed frameworks for the 2020–21 information received during the public Interior’s 2015 retrospective regulatory season migratory bird hunting comment period. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:55 Aug 20, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21AUR2.SGM 21AUR2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 51855 Review of Public Comments and believe that the hunting seasons Pacific Flyway Councils each Flyway Council Recommendations provided for herein are compatible with recommended adopting the liberal The preliminary proposed the current status of migratory bird regulatory alternative for their rulemaking, which appeared in the populations and long-term population respective flyways. The Mississippi and Central Flyway October 15, 2019, Federal Register (84 goals. The Flyway Council system of Councils further recommended several FR 55120), opened the public comment migratory bird management has been a changes to the AHM decision period for migratory game bird hunting longstanding example of State—Federal framework for mid-continent mallards regulations and described the proposed cooperative management since its beginning with the 2021–2022 (next) regulatory alternatives for the 2020–21 establishment in 1952. However, as season. Specifically, the Mississippi duck hunting season. Comments and always, we continue to seek new ways Flyway Council made the following recommendations are summarized to streamline and improve the process. recommendations: below and numbered in the order set In regard to longer duck seasons, we develop duck hunting regulations (1) Continue to base the annual forth in the October 15, 2019, proposed regulatory decision on current mallard rule. cooperatively with the four Flyway Councils and use an adaptive harvest breeding population estimates and We received recommendations from spring pond counts in central North all four Flyway Councils. Some management (AHM) decision framework that allows selection of the optimal America (Federal Waterfowl Breeding recommendations supported Population and Habitat Survey continuation of last year’s frameworks. regulation each year based on agreed- upon objectives, regulatory alternatives, [WBPHS] strata 13–18, 20–50, and 75– Due to the comprehensive nature of the 77), and in Michigan, Minnesota, and annual review of the frameworks population models, observed and expected harvest, habitat conditions, Wisconsin (State surveys). performed by the Councils, support for (2) Remove the North American continuation of last year’s frameworks is and the status of duck populations (see 1. Ducks, below, for more details on the Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) assumed for items for which no mallard population goal from the AHM recommendations were received. process for establishing duck hunting regulations). Public comments are objective function. Council recommendations for changes (3) Replace the current four discrete in the frameworks are summarized considered
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Robinson V. Salazar 3Rd Amended Complaint
    Case 1:09-cv-01977-BAM Document 211 Filed 03/19/12 Page 1 of 125 1 Evan W. Granowitz (Cal. Bar No. 234031) WOLF GROUP L.A. 2 11400 W Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Los Angeles, California 90064 3 Telephone: (310) 460-3528 Facsimile: (310) 457-9087 4 Email: [email protected] 5 David R. Mugridge (Cal. Bar No. 123389) 6 LAW OFFICES OF DAVID R. MUGRIDGE 2100 Tulare St., Suite 505 7 Fresno, California 93721-2111 Telephone: (559) 264-2688 8 Facsimile: (559) 264-2683 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon and David Laughing Horse Robinson 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 KAWAIISU TRIBE OF TEJON, and Case No.: 1:09-cv-01977 BAM DAVID LAUGHING HORSE ROBINSON, an 14 individual and Chairman, Kawaiisu Tribe of PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED 15 Tejon, COMPLAINT FOR: 16 Plaintiffs, (1) UNLAWFUL POSSESSION, etc. 17 vs. (2) EQUITABLE 18 KEN SALAZAR, in his official capacity as ENFORCEMENT OF TREATY 19 Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior; TEJON RANCH CORPORATION, a (3) VIOLATION OF NAGPRA; 20 Delaware corporation; TEJON MOUNTAIN VILLAGE, LLC, a Delaware company; COUNTY (4) DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY 21 OF KERN, CALIFORNIA; TEJON IN VIOLATION OF THE 5th RANCHCORP, a California corporation, and AMENDMENT; 22 DOES 2 through 100, inclusive, (5) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY 23 Defendants. DUTY; 24 (6) NON-STATUTORY REVIEW; and 25 (7) DENIAL OF EQUAL 26 PROTECTION IN VIOLATION OF THE 5th AMENDMENT. 27 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 28 1 PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 1:09-cv-01977-BAM Document 211 Filed 03/19/12 Page 2 of 125 1 Plaintiffs KAWAIISU TRIBE OF TEJON and DAVID LAUGHING HORSE ROBINSON 2 allege as follows: 3 I.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Quality Profile of Curtis Bay, Brooklyn and Hawkins Point, Maryland
    Air Quality Profile Of Curtis Bay, Brooklyn and Hawkins Point, Maryland © 2011, Curtis W. Wright, All Rights Reserved March 2012 Revised June 2012 About the Environmental Integrity Project The Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to the enforcement of the nation’s anti-pollution laws and to the prevention of political interference with those laws. EIP provides objective analysis of how the failure to enforce or implement environmental laws increases pollution and harms public health. We also help local communities obtain the protection of environmental laws. Acknowledgement Environmental Integrity Project Research Analyst Robbie Orvis and Attorneys Abel Russ and Leah Kelly contributed to this report. Data Limitations EIP’s analysis of toxic emissions and potential health impacts is based on publicly available data retrieved and analyzed from EPA, state agencies and private companies. Occasionally, government data may contain errors, either because information is inaccurately reported by the regulated entities or incorrectly transcribed by government agencies. In addition, this report is based on data retrieved between August 2011 and February 2012, and subsequent data retrievals may differ slightly as some companies and agencies correct prior reports. EIP is committed to ensuring that the data we present are as accurate as possible. We will correct any errors that are verifiable. June 2012 Revision EIP revised this report in June of 2012 in order to exclude fine particulate matter (PM2.5) data recorded at the FMC Fairfield monitor in Curtis Bay during the year 2008. We did this because we were informed by the Maryland Department of the Environment that this monitor was removed in August of 2008, meaning that the average PM2.5 concentration for that year did not take into account the fall months, during which PM2.5 concentrations tend to be lower than in the summer.
    [Show full text]
  • Read Ebook {PDF EPUB} 1111 by Kayil York
    Read Ebook {PDF EPUB} 1111 by Kayil York 11:11 by Kayil York (2019, Trade Paperback) С самой низкой ценой, совершенно новый, неиспользованный, неоткрытый, неповрежденный товар в оригинальной упаковке (если товар поставляется в упаковке). Упаковка должна быть такой же, как упаковка этого товара в розничных магазинах, за исключением тех случаев, когда товар является изделием ручной работы или был упакован производителем в упаковку не для розничной продажи, например в коробку без маркировки или в пластиковый пакет. См. подробные сведения с дополнительным описанием товара. Complete Maryland accident reports and news. Home to the Baltimore-Washington Metro Area, Maryland sees millions of people on the road every day. While Maryland has a population of nearly 6 million on its own, the metro region, which directly impacts highway congestion, has a population topping 8 million. Both the metro area’s major biotechnology and defense contractor industries and tourists visiting the area for its rich history keep the small area’s many major roadways full: Interstate 70 starts at a Baltimore park and ride and extends all the way to Cove Fort, Utah. Interstate 81 runs through Hagerstown. Interstate 83 has its southern terminus in Baltimore, a route for travelers from there to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.​ Interstate 95 is the east coast’s major highway, serving every major metropolitan area from Maine to Florida. It is the nation’s longest north-south interstate. ​ Interstate 97: Known as an intrastate interstate, I-97 runs entirely within the state of Maryland and connects Baltimore and Annapolis. It connects Annapolis with Baltimore-Washington International Airport (BWI). Interstate 195 : Also known as Metropolitan Boulevard, Interstate 195 is just 4.71 miles long.
    [Show full text]
  • Interest and the Panamint Shoshone (E.G., Voegelin 1938; Zigmond 1938; and Kelly 1934)
    109 VyI. NOTES ON BOUNDARIES AND CULTURE OF THE PANAMINT SHOSHONE AND OWENS VALLEY PAIUTE * Gordon L. Grosscup Boundary of the Panamint The Panamint Shoshone, also referred to as the Panamint, Koso (Coso) and Shoshone of eastern California, lived in that portion of the Basin and Range Province which extends from the Sierra Nevadas on the west to the Amargosa Desert of eastern Nevada on the east, and from Owens Valley and Fish Lake Valley in the north to an ill- defined boundary in the south shared with Southern Paiute groups. These boundaries will be discussed below. Previous attempts to define the Panamint Shoshone boundary have been made by Kroeber (1925), Steward (1933, 1937, 1938, 1939 and 1941) and Driver (1937). Others, who have worked with some of the groups which border the Panamint Shoshone, have something to say about the common boundary between the group of their special interest and the Panamint Shoshone (e.g., Voegelin 1938; Zigmond 1938; and Kelly 1934). Kroeber (1925: 589-560) wrote: "The territory of the westernmost member of this group [the Shoshone], our Koso, who form as it were the head of a serpent that curves across the map for 1, 500 miles, is one of the largest of any Californian people. It was also perhaps the most thinly populated, and one of the least defined. If there were boundaries, they are not known. To the west the crest of the Sierra has been assumed as the limit of the Koso toward the Tubatulabal. On the north were the eastern Mono of Owens River.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 8 Manzanar
    CHAPTER 8 MANZANAR Introduction The Manzanar Relocation Center, initially referred to as the “Owens Valley Reception Center”, was located at about 36oo44' N latitude and 118 09'W longitude, and at about 3,900 feet elevation in east-central California’s Inyo County (Figure 8.1). Independence lay about six miles north and Lone Pine approximately ten miles south along U.S. highway 395. Los Angeles is about 225 miles to the south and Las Vegas approximately 230 miles to the southeast. The relocation center was named after Manzanar, a turn-of-the-century fruit town at the site that disappeared after the City of Los Angeles purchased its land and water. The Los Angeles Aqueduct lies about a mile to the east. The Works Progress Administration (1939, p. 517-518), on the eve of World War II, described this area as: This section of US 395 penetrates a land of contrasts–cool crests and burning lowlands, fertile agricultural regions and untamed deserts. It is a land where Indians made a last stand against the invading white man, where bandits sought refuge from early vigilante retribution; a land of fortunes–past and present–in gold, silver, tungsten, marble, soda, and borax; and a land esteemed by sportsmen because of scores of lakes and streams abounding with trout and forests alive with game. The highway follows the irregular base of the towering Sierra Nevada, past the highest peak in any of the States–Mount Whitney–at the western approach to Death Valley, the Nation’s lowest, and hottest, area. The following pages address: 1) the physical and human setting in which Manzanar was located; 2) why east central California was selected for a relocation center; 3) the structural layout of Manzanar; 4) the origins of Manzanar’s evacuees; 5) how Manzanar’s evacuees interacted with the physical and human environments of east central California; 6) relocation patterns of Manzanar’s evacuees; 7) the fate of Manzanar after closing; and 8) the impact of Manzanar on east central California some 60 years after closing.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Guns Are Now Legal for Most Game Species, See Each Game Section for Regulations
    Youth Waterfowl Hunt maximum age now 16 years old. | Page 39 MARYLAND GUIDE TO & 2017-2018 Air Guns Are Now Legal For Most Game Species, See Each Game Section For Regulations. Page 19 Pages 30 Pages 54 New Sunday Deer New Sunday Turkey New Apprentice Hunting Hunting For Kent & Hunting License Is Now Available Montgomery Counties For Junior Hunt and Spring For First Time Hunters with Shooting Hours Restrictions Season In Kent County Introducing… 410-756-5656 JB FARMS “The All-Natural Choice” Carroll County DEER PROCESSING CarrollTaneytown, County Maryland DEERJB PROCESSING FARMS 24-HOUR DROP-OFFTaneytown, MD “Let Us Do the Work!” All Wild Game Bears Bears • Hogs • Exotics • Wild Turkeys • Game Birds Skinned • Custom Cut • Wrapped • Frozen Hogs Deer Bologna, Deer Hot Dogs, Deer Sausage Exotics The All Natural Choice! Grass Fed Wild Turkeys Beef • Lamb • Goats • Chickens • Rabbits • Ducks Free Range Chicken Eggs! Game Birds Skinned Custom Cut WrappeD Frozen Located at: 3523“Let Harney Us Road, Do Taneytown, The Work!” MD 21787 24-HOURWebsite: DROP-OFF JBFarmsMD.com • All Wild Game The 410-756-5656All Natural Choice! Grass Fed Meats available We clean farm and wild birds! Jerky • Bologna • Hot Dogs Snack Sticks • Fresh Sausage We accept donations. You can help! Cube Steaks • Deer Burger Recycle your hide Just drop off in box! Chipped Deer • Smoked Deer Ham dnr.maryland.gov 48 30 44 37 page 8 46 12 CONTENTS 32 59 Messages ����������������������������������� 4 Small Game Hunting ����������������� 46 New Laws and Regulations Furbearer for 2017-18
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 8 Migration Studies
    Chapter 8 Migration Studies 100 Migration Studies Overview Theme he Pacific Flyway is a route taken by migratory birds during flights between breeding grounds in the north and wintering grounds in the south. Steigerwald Lake National Wildlife Refuge plays an important role in migration by providing birds with a protected resting area during their arduous journey. Migration makes it possible for birds to benefit the most from favorable weather conditions; they breed and feed in the north during the summer and rest and feed in the warmer south during the winter. This pattern is called return migration — the most common type of migration by birds. Through a variety of activities, students will learn about the factors and hazards of bird migration on the Pacific Flyway. Background The migration of birds usually refers to their regular flights between summer and winter homes. Some birds migrate thousands of miles, while others may travel less than a hundred miles. This seasonal movement has long been a mystery to humans. Aristotle, the naturalist and philosopher of ancient Greece, noticed that cranes, pelicans, geese, swans, doves, and many other birds moved to warmer places for the winter. Like others of times past, he proposed theories that were widely accepted for hundreds of years. One of his theories was that many birds spent the winter sleeping in hollow trees, caves, or beneath the mud in marshes. 101 Through natural selection, migration evolved as an advantageous behavior. Birds migrate north to nest and breed because the competition for food and space is substantially lower there. In addition, during the summer months the food supply is considerably better in many northern climates (e.g., Arctic regions).
    [Show full text]
  • Mississippi Flyway Council Policy Management of Mute Swans
    MISSISSIPPI FLYWAY COUNCIL POLICY MANAGEMENT OF MUTE SWANS Introduction This document briefly describes the history, status, selected biology, management concerns, and recommendations for the management of mute swans (Cygnus olor), a non-native, invasive species that has become established in several locations in the Mississippi Flyway (e.g., Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Ontario, and Wisconsin). Although the populations are relatively low in most Flyway states, establishing and implementing a Flyway policy is important because the birds have high reproductive potential and have negative impacts on native species and damage aquatic habitats. In recent years, the numbers have continued to increase. The policy recommendations below represent the consensus of wildlife agencies in the Mississippi Flyway with respect to management of this species. The purpose of this document is to provide direction for the cooperative management of mute swans by natural-resource agencies in the Flyway. Background Introduction and Populations - Mute swans are native to Eurasia. Although once severely reduced in numbers by market-hunting and war within their natural range, they have been domesticated for centuries and are now widely distributed throughout Europe. The Eurasian population is estimated at 1 million. Mute swans were introduced into North America during the late 1800s as decorative waterfowl and have now established feral populations in all four Flyways due to escaped and released birds. Nelson (1997) estimated a population of 18,000 mute swans in North America, with most being in the Atlantic Flyway. By 2000, Nelson estimated a total of 6,800 mute swans in the Mississippi Flyway, with feral populations occurring in 9 of 17 states or provinces.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Mid-Coast Initiative Area
    Gulf Coast Joint Venture: Texas Mid-Coast Initiative JO ST INT V OA EN C T F U L R U E G North American Waterfowl Management Plan 2002 Photo and Illustration Credits Cover and page i: Northern pintails, Ducks Unlimited, Inc. Page iii: (top) pintails, C. Jeske, U.S. Geological Survey; (bottom), gadwall, R.J. Long, Ducks Unlimited, Inc. Page iv: U.S. Geological Survey. Page 8: mallard pair, B. Wilson, Gulf Coast Joint Venture. Page 10: scaup pair, B. Hinz, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Page 11: mottled duck pair, R. Paille, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Page 12: lesser snow geese, T. Hess, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Page 13: hydrologic structure, B. Wilson, Gulf Coast Joint Venture; breakwater structures, T. Hess, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries; earthen terraces, T. Hess, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Page 14: erosion control vegetation, T. Hess, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries; oil-drilling access canal plug, B. Wilson, Gulf Coast Joint Venture; marsh burning, B. Wilson, Gulf Coast Joint Venture. Page 15: flooded agriculture field, U.S. Geological Survey; beneficial use of dredge material, T. Hess, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries; American wigeon pair, B. Hinz, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Page 20: American wigeon pair, R. Stewart, Sr., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Page 22: northern shovelers and blue-winged teal, U.S. Geological Survey. Page 23: male ring-necked duck, W.L. Hohman, U.S. Geological Survey. Page 25: blue-winged teal males, W.L. Hohman, U.S. Geological Survey.
    [Show full text]
  • Baltimore Gateway 3700 Koppers Street Baltimore, MD 21227
    Baltimore Gateway 3700 Koppers Street Baltimore, MD 21227 SJPI.COM | 410.788.0100 Building Features: Five-Story Class 'A' Office • Five story, 100,000 sq. ft. office building 3700 Koppers Street 100,000 SF • Exterior: steel construction with brick masonry Five-Story Specifications and ribbon glass • Abundant, free on-site parking LEED Gold | Core & shell • LEED Gold certified Ceiling Height 9 ft. clear minimum • Visible to 195,000+ vehicles per day along I-95 Suite Sizes 1,500 up to 100,000 SF • Proximate to I-695, MD-295, and I-895 Elevator Yes • On-site deli, catering and fitness center Walls Brick on steel • Baltimore City Enterprise Zone tax credits Office Build to suit available to tenants Parking 5 spaces per 1,000 SF • Located in Baltimore City HubZone HVAC Gas, VAV with zone control • Three elevators serve all five floors Heat Gas Pictured Clockwise From Top Right: Exterior glass line and landscaping of 3700 Koppers Street; lobby interior; tenant exclusive on-site fitness center Visit sjpi.com/baltimoregateway to learn more Baltimore Gateway Local Amenities MARYLAND 372 WILKENS AVE CATON AVE 95 50B 1 Baltimore 50A ALT 95 Gateway 1 JOH AVE CATON HOUSE 97 RESTAURANT 95 CATON PARK RESEARCH CENTER 95 AVENUE 648 CAFE II 97 372 648 144 372 195 144 395 195 295 395 695 295 895 695 895 H A M M O N D ALT WASHINGTON BLVD 695 S F E R 1 R Y R D 95 97 648 372 144 HOLLINS FERRY RD 195 395 295 695 895 26 CHARLES VILLAGE 140 40 DOWNTOWN 40 BALTIMORE CITY GWYNNS FALLS FELLS POINT CANTON WASHINGTON BLVD RIVERSIDE WILKENS AVE Baltimore Gateway 95 95 295 ALT r sco Rive 1 W PATAPSCO AVE Patap CHERRY HILL 69595 895 97 648 895 2 BROOKLYN 372 Distances144 to: Baltimore, MD (Downtown) .......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Central Flyway Databook 2020 MIGRATORY GAME BIRD HUNTING PERMITS by PROVINCE/TERRITORY of PURCHASE in CANADA
    CENTRAL FLYWAY HARVEST AND POPULATION SURVEY DATA BOOK 2020 compiled by: James A. Dubovsky CENTRAL FLYWAY REPRESENTATIVE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE DIVISION OF MIGRATORY BIRD MANAGEMENT 134 Union Blvd., Suite 540 Lakewood, CO 80228 (303) 275-2386 Suggested Citation: Dubovsky, J. A., compiler. 2020. Central Flyway harvest and population survey data book 2020. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lakewood CO. CENTRAL FLYWAY 1948-2020 73 YEARS OF MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION Important Note to Users: From 1961-2001, estimates of waterfowl harvest, waterfowl hunter participation, and waterfowl hunter success in the United States were derived from a combination of several sources: 1) sales of migratory bird conservation stamps (Duck Stamps), 2) a Mail Questionnaire Survey of individuals who purchased ducks stamps for hunting purposes, and 3) the Waterfowl Parts Collection Survey (PCS). This survey, which was based on duck stamp sales was discontinued after the 2001 hunting season. Beginning in 1999, new survey methods were implemented that obtained estimates of waterfowl harvest, hunter participation, and hunter success from: 1) States' lists of migratory bird hunters identified through the Harvest Information Program (HIP), 2) a questionnaire (HIP Survey) sent to a sample of those hunters, and 3) the Waterfowl PCS. The basic difference is that during 1961 - 2001 waterfowl hunter activity and harvest estimates were derived from a Mail Questionnaire Survey (MQS) of duck stamp purchasers, whereas from 1999 to the present those estimates were derived from HIP surveys of people identified as migratory bird hunters by the States. Both survey systems relied on the Waterfowl PCS for species composition data.
    [Show full text]
  • Structured Decision Making for Delta Smelt Demo Project
    Structured Decision Making for Delta Smelt Demo Project Prepared for CSAMP/CAMT Project funded by State and Federal Water Contractors Prepared by Graham Long and Sally Rudd Compass Resource Management Ltd. 604.641.2875 Suite 210- 111 Water Street Vancouver, British Columbia Canada V6B 1A7 www.compassrm.com Date May 4, 2018 April 13th – reviewed by TWG and comments incorporated Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... i Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... iii Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 Approach .......................................................................................................................... 1 Problem Definition ........................................................................................................... 4 Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 5 Alternatives ...................................................................................................................... 9 Evaluation of Trade-offs ................................................................................................. 17 Discussion and Recommendations ................................................................................
    [Show full text]