DOCSLIB.ORG

Mountain Longleaf National Wildlife Refuge Habitat Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mountain Longleaf National Wildlife Refuge Habitat Management Plan Mountain Longleaf National Wildlife Refuge ---.. Habitat Management Plan f 6/ji( ~ (1) Refuge Manager 421/z-rDate (2) Refuge£U~~Supervisor II()rfosDa e Mountain LongleafNWR Area 2 .~ C /t;; ~/~7dO.J A. z /7!~/iJ5 (3) ResourceManagement Date (41 a3ef - Divisionof Refuges ~ Southeast Region FJ.SR&~ SERVICE ~ -w . November 2005 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 1.1 Planning Process-----------------------------------------------------------------------1 1.2 Mountain Longleaf National Wildlife Refuge-------------------------------------2 1.3 Refuge Vision--------------------------------------------------------------------------2 1.4 Longleaf Pine Restoration------------------------------------------------------------3 1.5 Habitat Management Plan------------------------------------------------------------5 2.0 Environmental Setting and Background-------------------------------------------------6 2.1 Location---------------------------------------------------------------------------------6 2.2 Management Units---------------------------------------------------------------------6 2.3 Physical Features-----------------------------------------------------------------------6 2.3.1 Geology ------------------------------------------------------------------------------6 2.3.2 Topography ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 2.3.3 Hydrology ---------------------------------------------------------------------------7 2.3.4 Soils ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------8 2.4 History of Refuge Lands--------------------------------------------------------------9 2.4.1 Prehistoric Land Use -------------------------------------------------------------10 2.4.2 Historic Land Use -----------------------------------------------------------------10 2.4.3 Fort McClellan ---------------------------------------------------------------------11 2.5 Regional Biological Features -------------------------------------------------------15 2.5.1 Physiographic Description--------------------------------------------------------15 2.5.2 Landscape and Local Connections-----------------------------------------------16 2.5.3 Biological Diversity----------------------------------------------------------------17 2.5.4 Habitat Fragmentation-------------------------------------------------------------18 2.5.5 Mountain Longleaf Pine Forest Region-----------------------------------------19 3.0 Resources of Concern -----------------------------------------------------------------------23 3.1 Refuge Natural Communities-------------------------------------------------------23 3.1.1 Upland Pine Forest Community -------------------------------------------------24 3.1.2 Upland Hardwood Forest Community ------------------------------------------31 3.1.3 Lowland Hardwood Forest Community ----------------------------------------32 3.1.4 Virginia Pine Community---------------------------------------------------------33 3.1.5 Hardwood Seep Community------------------------------------------------------34 3.1.6 Loblolly Pine-Disturbed Community--------------------------------------------36 3.2 Wildlife --------------------------------------------------------------------------------37 3.2.1 Reptiles and Amphibians----------------------------------------------------------37 3.2.2 Birds----------------------------------------------------------------------------------38 3.2.3 Mammals ---------------------------------------------------------------------------40 3.3 Endangered, Threatened and Rare Species----------------------------------------42 3.3.1 Federally Listed Species ----------------------------------------------------------42 3.3.2 Rare and Uncommon Species ---------------------------------------------------45 3.3.3 Significant Biological Areas------------------------------------------------------45 4.0 Habitat Management Goals----------------------------------------------------------------51 5.0 Habitat Management Strategies and Objectives---------------------------------------54 6.0 Management Strategy Resources and Constraints------------------------------------84 6.1 Necessary Resources-----------------------------------------------------------------84 6.2 Management Constraints------------------------------------------------------------84 6.3 Regulatory Compliance -------------------------------------------------------------85 7.0 Literature Cited------------------------------------------------------------------------------86 List of Tables Table 1 – Longleaf Pine Old-Growth Stands -------------------------------------------------96 Table 2 – High Quality Longleaf Pine Forests------------------------------------------------97 Table 3 – Plant Occurrence in Old-Growth Longleaf Pine Stands-------------------------98 Table 4 – Plant Indicators of Pristine Longleaf Pine Forest-------------------------------102 Table 5 – Longleaf Pine Stand Characteristics----------------------------------------------104 Table 6 – Potential Reptiles and Amphibians-----------------------------------------------108 Table 7 – Documented Reptiles and Amphibians------------------------------------------ 113 Table 8 – Potential Breeding Neotropical Migrant Songbirds---------------------------- 116 Table 9 – Breeding Bird Survey Results Large Forest Tracts-----------------------------119 Table 10 – Mammals Suspected or Documented------------------------------------------- 121 Table 11 – Rare and Uncommon Biota-------------------------------------------------------125 Table 12 – Significant Biological Areas------------------------------------------------------128 Table 13 – Management Strategy Costs------------------------------------------------------129 Table 14 – Schedule and Accomplishment Targets-----------------------------------------131 List of Figures Figure 1 – Refuge Location--------------------------------------------------------------------134 Figure 2 – Refuge Elevations------------------------------------------------------------------135 Figure 3 – Refuge Watersheds-----------------------------------------------------------------136 Figure 4 – Refuge Soils-------------------------------------------------------------------------137 Figure 5 – Reclaimed Borrow Pits------------------------------------------------------------138 Figure 6 – Refuge Management Access------------------------------------------------------139 Figure 7 – Mountain Longleaf Pine Distribution--------------------------------------------140 Figure 8 – General Longleaf Pine Stand Locations-----------------------------------------141 Figure 9 – Significant Biological Areas------------------------------------------------------142 Figure 10 – Prescribed Burn Units------------------------------------------------------------143 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Planning Process Habitat Management Plans (HMP) are dynamic working documents that provide refuge managers a decision making process; guidance for the management of refuge habitat; and long-term vision, continuity, and consistency for habitat management on refuge lands. Each plan incorporates the role of refuge habitat in international, national, regional, tribal, State, ecosystem, and refuge goals and objectives; guides analysis and selection of specific habitat management strategies to achieve those habitat goals and objectives; and utilizes key data, scientific literature, expert opinion, and staff expertise. The statutory authority for conducting habitat management planning on National Wildlife Refuges is derived from the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (Refuge Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 (Refuge Improvement Act), 16 U.S.C. 668dd - 668ee. Section 4(a)(3) of the Refuge Improvement Act states: "With respect to the System, it is the policy of the United States that -- (A) each refuge shall be managed to fulfill the mission of the System, as well as the specific purposes for which that refuge was established ..." and Section 4(a)(4) states: "In administering the System, the Secretary shall monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge." The Refuge Improvement Act provides the Service the authority to establish policies, regulations, and guidelines governing habitat management planning within the System. An HMP is a step-down management plan of the Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). The CCP describes the desired future conditions of a refuge or planning unit and provides long-range guidance and management direction to achieve the purpose(s) of the refuge; helps fulfill the mission of the System; maintains and, where appropriate, restores the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of each refuge and the System; helps achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System, if appropriate; and meets other mandates. A CCP has not been accomplished on Mountain Longleaf National Wildlife Refuge and will not be complete for several years. At the time of CCP preparation, the HMP will be reexamined and appropriate information will be incorporated into the CCP. HMPs comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies governing the management of National Wildlife Refuge System. The lifespan of an HMP is 15 years and parallels that of refuge CCPs. HMPs are reviewed every 5 years utilizing peer review recommendations, as appropriate, in the HMP revision process or when
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reducing Nuclear Risks in Europe a FRAMEWORK for ACTION
    Reducing A FrAmework For Action Nuclear Risks e dited by Steve AndreASen in Europe And iSAbelle williAmS Featured essay: “the race between ­Cooperation and catastrophe” by sam NuNN Reducing Nuclear Risks in Europe a FrameWork For acTIoN Edit eD by STeve aNDreaSeN aND ISabelle WIllIamS Featured essay: “The race between ­Cooperation and catastrophe” by sam NuNN Nuclear ThreaT INITIaTIve Washington, D.c. t he Nuclear threat INItIatIve NTI is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization with a mission to strengthen global security by reducing the risk of use and preventing the spread of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and to work to build the trust, transparency, and security that are preconditions to the ultimate fulfillment of the Non-Proliferation Treaty’s goals and ambitions. www.nti.org The views expressed in this publication are the authors’ own and do not reflect those of NTI, its Board of Directors, or other institutions with which the authors are associated. © 2011 the Nuclear Threat Initiative All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval sys- tem, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission of the publisher and copyright holder. c over phoTo oF a u.S. aIr Force F-16 FIghTINg FalcoN aIrcraFT courTeSy oF The u.S. aIr Force. phoTo by maSTer SgT. WIllIam greer/releaSeD. ii T able oF coNTeNTS Acknowledgments v Authors and Reviewers vii summary coNteNt executive summary: Reassembling a More Credible NATO Nuclear Policy and Posture 1 Joan Rohlfing, Isabelle Williams, and Steve Andreasen featured essay: The Race Between Cooperation and Catastrophe 8 Sam Nunn chaPters 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Professionalisation of the Indonesian Military
    The Professionalisation of the Indonesian Military Robertus Anugerah Purwoko Putro A thesis submitted to the University of New South Wales In fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Humanities and Social Sciences July 2012 STATEMENTS Originality Statement I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial proportions of material which have been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project's design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged. Copyright Statement I hereby grant to the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I retain all property rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. Authenticity Statement I certify that the Library deposit digital copy is a direct equivalent of the final officially approved version of my thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Measures for the Siberian Crane
    CMS Technical Series Publication No. 1 Conservation Measures for the Siberian Crane Convention on Migratory Species Published by: UNEP/CMS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany Recommended citation: UNEP/CMS. ed.(1999). Conservation Measures for the Siberian Crane. CMS Technical Series Publication No.1, UNEP/CMS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. Cover photograph: Siberian Crane (Grus leucogeranus) in snow. © Sietre / BIOS, Paris © UNEP/CMS, 1999 (copyright of individual contributions remains with the authors). Reproduction of this publication, except the cover photograph, for educational and other non-commercial purposes is authorized without permission from the copyright holder, provided the source is cited and the copyright holder receives a copy of the reproduced material. Reproduction of the text for resale or other commercial purposes, or of the cover photograph, is prohibited without prior permission of the copyright holder. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNEP/CMS, nor are they an official record. The designation of geographical entities in this publication, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP/CMS concerning the legal status of any country, territory or area, or of its authorities, nor concerning the delimitation of its frontiers and boundaries. Copies of this publication are available from the UNEP/CMS Secretariat, United Nations Premises in Bonn, Martin-Luther-King-Str. 8, D-53175
    [Show full text]
  • BOOK REVIEW: SWEDISH ARANEAE, PART 2, FAMILIES DICTYNIDAE to SALTICIDAE by Sven Almquist 317 Pages, 482 Plates of Grey-Scale Figures, 219 Maps, 24.2 X 20.5 Cm
    www.britishspiders.org.uk Newsl. Br. arachnol. Soc. 110 1978: Robertus insignis O.P.-Cambr. described on material from Sweden (Araneae: Theridiidae). Entomologica scand . 9: 124–128. 1981: Spiders and harvestmen in strawberry fields in southern Sweden. Ent. Tidskr. 102 : 159–162 (in Swedish). 1982: Spiders and harvestmen in spruce plantations in southern Scania. Ent. Tidskr. 103 : 97–105 (in Swedish). 1983: Spiders of the Junkarälven region of Pite Lappmark. Ent. Tidskr. 104 : 9–11 (in Swedish). 1984: The communities of spiders and harvestmen on a mire of Öland, Sweden. Ent. Tidskr. 105 : 143–150 (in Swedish). 1994: Four species of spiders (Araneae) new to Sweden. Ent. Tidskr. 115 : 113–117. 2005: Swedish Araneae, part 1 – families Atypidae to Hahniidae (Linyphiidae excluded). Insect Syst. Evol. Suppl. 62 : 1–284. 2006: Swedish Araneae, part 2 – families Dictynidae to Salticidae. Insect Syst. Evol. Suppl. 63 : 285–601. BOOK REVIEW: SWEDISH ARANEAE, PART 2, FAMILIES DICTYNIDAE TO SALTICIDAE by Sven Almquist 317 pages, 482 plates of grey-scale figures, 219 maps, 24.2 x 20.5 cm. Soft-cover. Insect Systematics & Evolution , Supplement no 63, 2006: 285–603; in English. Obtainable from Scandinavian Entomology Ltd., After another 10 years as a high-school teacher he retired Päronvägen 19, S-224 56 Lund, Sweden; phone & fax in 1983, but retirement and inactivity did not suit him well +46/(0)46-51823; e-mail: [email protected]; cost 455 and after some time he visited me at the Museum of SEK (€49.30 or £33.60) plus postage. Further details Zoology in Lund. This visit turned out to be very online at www.scanentom.se.
    [Show full text]
  • Kikimora Palustris Eskov, 1988 (Araneae: Linyphiidae) Found in Europe
    © Entomologica Fennica. 30 October 2002 Kikimora palustris Eskov, 1988 (Araneae: Linyphiidae) found in Europe Seppo Koponen, Julia Hoffmann & Yuri M. Marusik Koponen, S., Hoffmann, J. & Marusik, Y. M. 2002: Kikimora palustris Eskov, 1988 (Araneae: Linyphiidae) found in Europe. — Entomol. Fennica 13: 129– 133. Kikimora palustris Eskov, an erigonine spider known hitherto from Siberia only, was found in northernmost Finland. Males and females were trapped in a palsa mire in Enontekiö, 1999. Redescription with diagnostic figures is given, and taxonomy, distribution and ecology briefly discussed. Slit sense organs were found on basal part of male cymbium. Seppo Koponen, Zoological Museum, Centre for Biodiversity, University of Turku, FIN-20014 Turku, Finland; E-mail: sepkopo@utu.fi Julia Hoffmann, Zoological Museum, Centre for Biodiversity, University of Turku, FIN-20014 Turku, Finland; Present address: Käsivarrentie 9974, Iitto, FIN-99300 Muonio, Finland Yuri M. Marusik, Institute for Biological Problems of the North, Russian Academy of Sciences, Portovaya Str. 18, Magadan, 685000 Russia; E-mail: [email protected] Received 21 November 2001, accepted 12 March 2002 1. Introduction 2. Redescription The monotypic erigonine genus Kikimora and Because Eskov’s (1988) description is in Russian, the species K. palustris were described from Si- a brief redescription is given here. The name beria by Eskov (1988). The type locality is Kikimora is from Russian folklore and means an Putorana Plateau, Central Siberia, and the range old, ugly woman living mainly on bogs. The type given by Eskov (1988) included Putorana, material from Putorana Plateau, examined by YM, Evenkia, and upper Kolyma. In this paper, we is deposited in the Zoological Museum of the Mos- report Kikimora palustris for the first time from cow State University.
    [Show full text]
  • 89 STAT. 546 PUBLIC LAW 94-107—OCT. 7, 1975 Public Law 94-107 94Th Congress an Act Uct
    89 STAT. 546 PUBLIC LAW 94-107—OCT. 7, 1975 Public Law 94-107 94th Congress An Act Uct. /, 1975^ rpQ authorize certain construction at military installations, and for other purposes. [S. 1247] Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the Military United States of America in Congress assenibled^ construction and guard and reserve TITLE I—ARMY forces facilities authorization acts, 1976. SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Army may establish or develop mili­ Military tary installations and facilities by acquiring, constructing, converting, Construction rehabilitating, or installing permanent or temporary public works, Authorization including land acquisition, site preparation, appurtenances, utilities, Act, 1976. and equipment for the following acquisition and construction: INSIDE THE UNITED STATES UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES COMMAND Defense Support Activity (Fargo Building), Boston, Massachu­ setts, $8,000,000. Fort Bragg, North Carolina. $13,214,000. Fort Campbell, Kentucky, $13,680,000. Fort Carson, Colorado, $10,732,000. Fort Hood, Texas, $46,281,000. Fort Sam Houston, Texas, $870,000. Fort Lewis, Washington, $31,861,000. Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, $2,892,000. Fort Ord, California, $32,209,000. Fort Polk, Louisiana, $54,361,000. Fort Richardson, Alaska, $1,685,000. Fort Riley, Kansas, $14,879,000. Fort Stewart/Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia, $39,480,000. UNITED STATES ARMY TRAINING AND DOCTRINE COMMAND Fort Benning, Georgia, $44,212,000. Fort Eustis, Virginia, $633,000. Fort Gordon, Georgia, $6,945,000. Fort Jackson, South Carolina, $14,546,000. Fort Knox, Kentucky, $42,898,000. Fort Lee, Virginia, $719,000. Fort McClellan, Alabama, $41,090,000.
    [Show full text]
  • A List of Utah Spiders, with Their Localities
    Great Basin Naturalist Volume 43 Number 3 Article 22 7-31-1983 A list of Utah spiders, with their localities Dorald M. Allred Brigham Young University B. J. Kaston San Diego State University, San Diego, California Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn Recommended Citation Allred, Dorald M. and Kaston, B. J. (1983) "A list of Utah spiders, with their localities," Great Basin Naturalist: Vol. 43 : No. 3 , Article 22. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn/vol43/iss3/22 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Basin Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. A LIST OF UTAH SPIDERS, WITH THEIR LOCALITIES Allred' B. Kaston- Dorald M. and J. Abstract. — The 621 species of spiders known to occnr in Utah as recorded in the Hterature or Utah universities' collections are listed with their junior synonyms and collection localities. Two-fifths (265 species) are known from onlv one locality each, and only one-fifth (123 species) from five or more localities in the state. Little is known of the distribution or eco- Much of our knowledge of Utah spiders logical relationships of Utah spiders. Each of was contributed by Ralph Chamberlin, who 265 species of the 621 recorded for the State authored or coauthored the naming of 220 of is known from only one locality. Even the the species listed for Utah.
    [Show full text]
  • Annotated Checklist of the Spiders of Turkey
    _____________Mun. Ent. Zool. Vol. 12, No. 2, June 2017__________ 433 ANNOTATED CHECKLIST OF THE SPIDERS OF TURKEY Hakan Demir* and Osman Seyyar* * Niğde University, Faculty of Science and Arts, Department of Biology, TR–51100 Niğde, TURKEY. E-mails: [email protected]; [email protected] [Demir, H. & Seyyar, O. 2017. Annotated checklist of the spiders of Turkey. Munis Entomology & Zoology, 12 (2): 433-469] ABSTRACT: The list provides an annotated checklist of all the spiders from Turkey. A total of 1117 spider species and two subspecies belonging to 52 families have been reported. The list is dominated by members of the families Gnaphosidae (145 species), Salticidae (143 species) and Linyphiidae (128 species) respectively. KEY WORDS: Araneae, Checklist, Turkey, Fauna To date, Turkish researches have been published three checklist of spiders in the country. The first checklist was compiled by Karol (1967) and contains 302 spider species. The second checklist was prepared by Bayram (2002). He revised Karol’s (1967) checklist and reported 520 species from Turkey. Latest checklist of Turkish spiders was published by Topçu et al. (2005) and contains 613 spider records. A lot of work have been done in the last decade about Turkish spiders. So, the checklist of Turkish spiders need to be updated. We updated all checklist and prepare a new checklist using all published the available literatures. This list contains 1117 species of spider species and subspecies belonging to 52 families from Turkey (Table 1). This checklist is compile from literature dealing with the Turkish spider fauna. The aim of this study is to determine an update list of spider in Turkey.
    [Show full text]
  • Acta Carolus Robertus 2017 7(2) Online.1.1
    Acta Carolus Robertus, 2017. 7 (2) pp 103 – 114 COVERAGE OF DEPOSIT INSURANCE FUNDS Kenesey, Zsóa – Pataki, László Summary During the recent years, the role of deposit insurance funds has increased, and their stable and ecient operation serves the interest of the bank system and also of the economy as a whole. More and more countries, including China, recognise that being familiar with the national bank system is not sucient due to the com- plexity of today’s economic connections. e bankruptcy of a geographically distant credit institution may deeply aect the bank systems of other countries, and may lead to panic. In such cases, the depositors may rush the bank branches, the panic may spread and lead to the closure of additional banks, which may cause a recess of the economy as a whole. is is when the deposit insurance funds may intervene, which are intended to minimise the damages suered by the depositors of the credit institutions and consequently by the economy as a whole in the crisis situation. In our country, the National Deposit Insurance Fund started its operation ca. 25 years ago, and it provides compensation for the depositors unfortunately more and more frequently, as a result of which its assets and coverage ratio have signicantly reduced. Key terms: deposit insurance, deposit insurance fund, NDIF, coverage, EU MARK: G21 104 Kenesey Zsóa, Pataki László Introduction In 2015, the National Deposit Insurance Fund (NDIF or Fund) requested the deposit insurers of 18 countries to supply their key gures to allow it to create an international database. e issue of deposit insurance is not gen- erally mentioned in our everyday life, but it is part of it, as it aects anyone depositing his or her savings in a credit institution.
    [Show full text]
  • Prediction of Geospace Radiation Environment and Solar Wind Parameters 637302
    Project: PROGRESS Doc No: PROGRESS RM4 Meeting: 4th Project Review Meeting Page: 1 of 17 PRediction Of Geospace Radiation Environment and Solar wind parameterS 637302 4th Project Review Meeting August 2-3, 2018 University of Sheffield, Amy Johnson Bld., Sheffield, DRAFTUK Minutes This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 637302. Project: PROGRESS Doc No: PROGRESS RM4 Meeting: 4th Project Review Meeting Page: 2 of 17 Attendees Andrej Rozkov (project officer, REA, Belgium), Zerefsan Kaymaz (external reviewer, Istan- bul Technical University, Turkey), Robertus von Fay-Siebenburgen (coordinator, University of Sheffield), Simon Walker (project manager, University of Sheffield), Michael Balikhin, (Chair Scientific Steering Committee, University of Sheffield), Carol Heathcote (PA to M. Balikhin), Richard Boynton and Hua-Liang Wei (University of Sheffield), Natalia Ganushkina (Finnish Meteorological Institute), Tony Arber (University of Warwick), Mike Liemohn (University of Michigan), Vitaliy Yatsenko (Space Research Inst. Ukraine), Peter Wintoft (Swedish Institute of Space Physics), Angelica Castillo Tibocha (GFZ German Research Centre, Potsdam). Yuri Shprits (GFZ German Research Centre) via SKYPE. Dave Pitchford and David Jackson (Stakeholder Advisory Board) via Webex. 1 Apologies Didier Mourenas (Stakeholder Advisory Board, France); Volodya Krasnoselskikh, (LPC2E, France). 2 Agenda The agenda, as previously circulated, was adopted. 3 Introductions Robertus von Fay-Siebenburgen welcomed everyone to Sheffield for the Final PROGRESS project meetings. Project: PROGRESS Doc No: PROGRESS RM4 Meeting: 4th Project Review Meeting Page: 3 of 17 4 Aims of Meeting Simon Walker (SW) asked Andrej Rozkov (AR) and Zeresfan Kaymaz (ZK), what they wanted from the meetings.
    [Show full text]
  • 97 STAT. 757 Public Law 98-115 98Th Congress an Act
    PUBLIC LAW 98-115—OCT. 11, 1983 97 STAT. 757 Public Law 98-115 98th Congress An Act To authorize certain construction at military installations for fiscal year 1984, and for Oct. 11, 1983 other purposes. [H.R. 2972] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That this Act may Military be cited as the "Military Construction Authorization Act, 1984'\ Au'thorizSn Act, 1984. TITLE I—ARMY AUTHORIZED ARMY CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Army may acquire real property and may carry out military construction projects in the amounts shown for each of the following installations and locations: INSIDE THE UNITED STATES UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES COMMAND Fort Bragg, North Carolina, $31,100,000. Fort Campbell, Kentucky, $15,300,000. Fort Carson, Colorado, $17,760,000. Fort Devens, Massachusetts, $3,000,000. Fort Douglas, Utah, $910,000. Fort Drum, New York, $1,500,000. Fort Hood, Texas, $76,050,000. Fort Hunter Liggett, California, $1,000,000. Fort Irwin, California, $34,850,000. Fort Lewis, Washington, $35,310,000. Fort Meade, Maryland, $5,150,000. Fort Ord, California, $6,150,000. Fort Polk, Louisiana, $16,180,000. Fort Richardson, Alaska, $940,000. Fort Riley, Kansas, $76,600,000. Fort Stewart, Georgia, $29,720,000. Presidio of Monterey, California, $1,300,000. UNITED STATES ARMY WESTERN COMMAND Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, $31,900,000. UNITED STATES ARMY TRAINING AND DOCTRINE COMMAND Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, $1,500,000. Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, $5,900,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Chemical Corps Regimental Association Newsletter
    Chemical Corps Regimental Association April 2012 Newsletter 2012 CBRN JIIM-IA Special Interest Articles: Register at the Link: 2012 JIIM-IA Conference & Exhibition Information theme for the conference Register now for Mark your calendars! The Strong Presence by the 2012 CBRN second CBRN Joint is “The CBRN JPEO-CBD: The Joint JIIM-IA Interagency Profession—2020 and Program Executive Conference at Intergovernmental & Multi Beyond.” This theme Officer, Joint Project Fort Leonard - National-Industry & focuses on the CBRN Managers, and Subject Wood Academia (JIIM-IA) capabilities, units, Matter Experts will be on Conference and Exhibition Soldiers, and technology CSM Gabriel required to enable the hand to share insight into will be held at Fort the future of CBRN Arnold becomes Leonard Wood 26-28 future force as described th in the current or defense as well as the 12 RCSM June 2012. developing Army updates on fielded CBRN See our Planning for this year's Capstone and Army equipment, products, and Scholarship conference is well Operating Concept. We capabilities via 10 booth Winners page 2 underway, and we will engage our strategic spaces ---both indoor and anticipate an even better thinkers of today and outdoor! There will also event than last year. The be a strong Presence by discuss preparations for th Individual our next set of challenges. 20 Support Command Highlights: (CBRNE). CSM Gabe Arnold becomes the New Regimental CSM CBRN Ladies Only Command Sergeant Major Sergeant, Delta Network 2 Gabriel Arnold becomes Company, 82d Chemical the 12th Regimental Battalion, Fort McClellan, Loss of Commandant’s Command Sergeant Major AL; Battalion CBRN NCO, Mother 3 for the U.S.
    [Show full text]