DOCSLIB.ORG

Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment September 2009 This Blue Goose, Designed by J.N

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment September 2009 This Blue Goose, Designed by J.N U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment September 2009 This blue goose, designed by J.N. “Ding” Darling, has become the symbol of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fi sh, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefi t of the American people. The Service manages the 150-million acre National Wildlife Refuge System comprised of more than 550 national wildlife refuges and thousands of waterfowl production areas. It also operates 70 national fi sh hatcheries and 81 ecological services fi eld stations. The agency enforces Federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally signifi cant fi sheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers the Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Assistance Program which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fi shing and hunting equipment to state wildlife agencies. Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long term guidance for management decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffi ng increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment September 2009 Refuge Vision Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge will sustain diverse and healthy tidal Statement marsh, aquatic and uplands habitats so the refuge supports robust populations of Federal trust species and remains an essential link in the network of conserved lands in the Chesapeake Bay. Our successes will be supported by the strong partnerships we develop with other Federal agencies, State agencies, conservation organizations, land managers, and neighboring communities. Working with those partners will provide the opportunity to showcase and demonstrate a science-based, adaptive management approach, with emphasis on the protection and restoration of shoreline and tidal marsh. We will continue to reward all who visit with an opportunity to immerse themselves in the natural sights and sounds of the Chesapeake Bay. The thrill of observing more than 100,000 migrating and wintering waterfowl moving in and out of the refuge each year, including the rare tundra swan, is an experience that forms a lasting impression about the wonders of nature. Visitors will also be delighted by the refuge’s healthy populations of bald eagles and ospreys as they dive for fish and attend to their young. They will also enjoy the opportunity to observe the phenomenon of over 100 species of birds migrating through each fall. We will enhance these and other refuge experiences by providing exceptional interpretive and visitor programs about the Chesapeake Bay and its rich diversity of natural and cultural resources. We hope residents of neighboring communities on the Delmarva Peninsula will value the refuge for enhancing their quality of life. Within the National Wildlife Refuge System, the refuge will be treasured for conserving the Chesapeake Bay’s Federal trust resources and providing inspirational outdoor experiences for present and future generations of Americans. i Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment September 2009 Summary Type of Action: Administrative — Development of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Location: Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge Rock Hall, MD Administrative Chesapeake Marshlands National Wildlife Refuge Complex located on Headquarters: Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge Cambridge, MD Responsible Official: Marvin Moriarty, Regional Director, Region 5, Northeast For Further Information: Nancy McGarigal, Natural Resource Planner Northeast Regional Office 300 Westgate Center Drive Hadley, MA 01035 (413) 253-8562 [email protected] This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes three alternatives for managing the 2,286 acre Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge over the next 15 years. This document also contains six appendixes that provide additional information supporting our analysis. Following is a brief overview of each alternative: Alternative A: This alternative is referred to as our “No Action” or “Current Management” alternative, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under this alternative, no major changes to our biological, public use or administrative management practices would occur. Alternative B: This is the Service’s preferred alternative. It represents the objectives and strategies recommended by the planning team for best achieving the refuge’s purposes, vision and goals and responding to public issues. Under this alternative, we focus on increased protection of the Eastern Neck Refuge shoreline and tidal marsh, while also enhancing the current diversity of our upland habitats. Our current public use program would be improved, but not signifi cantly expanded. Alternative C: This alternative also prioritizes protection of the refuge shoreline and tidal marsh, but would focus upland habitat management on increasing the refuge’s forest. Our current public use program would be improved, with some expansions planned. iii Table of Contents Chapters Refuge Vision Statement . i Summary . iii Chapter 1 Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action Introduction . 1-1 The Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action . 1-3 Regional Context and Project Analysis Areas . 1-5 The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning . 1-6 Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Project . 1-13 Eastern Neck Refuge Management Profile. 1-24 Refuge Vision . 1-26 Refuge Goals . 1-27 The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process . 1-29 Development of Issues . 1-31 Chapter 2 Affected Environment Introduction . 2-1 International and National Context . 2-1 Regional Setting . 2-1 Eastern Neck Refuge Environment . 2-15 Chapter 3 Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative Introduction . 3-1 Formulating Alternatives . 3-1 Actions Common to All of the Alternatives . 3-2 Alternative A. Current Management . 3-21 Alternative B. Emphasis on Tidal Wetlands and Waterfowl (Service-preferred Alternative) . 3-39 Alternative C. Emphasis on Tidal Wetlands and Forest Habitat . 3-91 Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative . 3-101 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Introduction . 4-1 Regional Scale Impacts: Air Quality Impacts. 4-3 Regional Scale Impacts: Water Quality and Aquatic Biota . 4-7 Regional Scale Impacts: Socioeconomic Impacts . 4-15 Refuge-Specific Impacts: Shoreline Impacts . 4-19 Refuge-Specific Impacts: Tidal Marsh Impacts . 4-20 Refuge-Specific Impacts: Soils Impacts. 4-22 Refuge-Specific Impacts: Forest Habitat Impacts . 4-30 Refuge-Specific Impacts: Grassland Habitat Impact . 4-33 Refuge-Specific Impacts: Waterfowl Impacts . 4-34 Refuge-Specific Impacts: Shorebird, Marsh Bird and Wading Bird Impact . 4-38 Refuge-Specific Impacts: Impacts to Songbirds, Raptors, and Other Birds of Conservation Concern . 4-40 Refuge-Specific Impacts: Impacts to Other Native Wildlife including Game Species . 4-45 Refuge-Specific Impacts: Invertebrate Impacts . 4-48 Refuge-Specific Impacts: Impacts to Biological Diversity, Biological Integrity, and Environmental Health (BIDEH) . 4-50 Table of Contents v Table of Contents Chapters (cont.) Refuge-Specific Impacts: Impacts to Archaeological and Historic Resources . 4-54 Refuge-Specific Impacts: Impacts on Public Uses — Wildlife Observation and Photography . 4-56 Refuge-Specific Impacts: Impacts on Public Use — Environmental Education and Interpretation. 4-58 Refuge-Specific Impacts: Impacts on Public Use — Hunting . 4-58 Refuge-Specific Impacts: Impacts on Public Use — Fishing and Boating . 4-59 Refuge-Specific Impacts: Cumulative Impacts . 4-61 Refuge-Specific Impacts: Summary of the Impacts of the Alternatives . 4-70 Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination with Others Introduction . 5-1 Planning to Protect Land and Resources . 5-1 Partnerships Involved in Planning and/or Refuge Projects . 5-2 Chapter 6 List of Preparers Writers and Major Contributors . 6-1 Contractors Assisting in Document Preparation . 6-1 Other Individuals Who Contributed During CCP/EA Preparation . 6-2 Glossary (including list of acronyms) Glossary. .Glos-1 Acronyms . Glos-22 Bibliography Bibliography . Bibl-3 Appendixes Appendix A Species of Conservation Concern at Eastern Neck Refuge Species of Conservation Concern at Eastern Neck Refuge . A-1 Appendix B Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determination — Wildlife Observation, Wildlife Photography, Interpretation, and Environmental Education Compatibility Determination . .B-1 Compatibility Determination — Big Game Hunting Compatibility Determination . .B-7 Compatibility Determination
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report of the Maryland Heritage Committee to the Governor and General Assembly of Maryland
    Report of the Maryland Heritage Committee to the Governor and General Assembly of Maryland Maryland celebrates 350 years MARYLAND HERITAGE COMMITTEE March, 1985 On the Occasion of Maryland’s 350th Birthday from the Ark of refuge, from the Dove of peace, we have become. we celebrate three hundred fifty years of learning. turning watermen and women, hill folk and city, into citizens. safe now and at peace in this proud state named for a woman we blend our brown and yellow, red and black and white into a greater We. Maryland, heiress to refuge and to peace. We celebrate. We praise. by Lucille Clifton Poet Laureate of Maryland This book was composed in Caslon 540 text and display type by Brushwood Graphics Studio from a design by Carleton ‘B’ Hayek. It was printed by the Collins Lithographing & Printing Company, Inc. 20C71453 Report of The MARYLAND HERITAGE COMMITTEE Annapolis March 29, 1985 Report of the Maryland Heritage Committee to the Governor and General Assembly of Maryland Peoples and nations pause occasionally to celebrate their gods, their heroes and victories, their origins and successes. Maryland first celebrated its founding in 1834 and has continued to do so in 50 year intervals. The pattern for celebrating thus established, Maryland was ready as 1984 approached to look back with pride on 350 years of political, social and cultural achievement. As in previous an- niversaries, the celebration of the past became an affirmation of the future. To prepare the state for its 1984 celebration, the 1982 General Assembly of Maryland passed a resolution (Appendix i) creating the 350 Coordinating Com- mittee which subsequently became the Maryland Heritage Committee.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report of the Librarian of Congress
    ANNUAL REPO R T O F THE LIBR ARIAN OF CONGRESS ANNUAL REPORT OF T HE L IBRARIAN OF CONGRESS For the Fiscal Year Ending September , Washington Library of Congress Independence Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC For the Library of Congress on the World Wide Web visit: <www.loc.gov>. The annual report is published through the Public Affairs Office, Office of the Librarian, Library of Congress, Washington, DC -, and the Publishing Office, Library Services, Library of Congress, Washington, DC -. Telephone () - (Public Affairs) or () - (Publishing). Managing Editor: Audrey Fischer Copyediting: Publications Professionals LLC Indexer: Victoria Agee, Agee Indexing Design and Composition: Anne Theilgard, Kachergis Book Design Production Manager: Gloria Baskerville-Holmes Assistant Production Manager: Clarke Allen Library of Congress Catalog Card Number - - Key title: Annual Report of the Librarian of Congress For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP Washington, DC - A Letter from the Librarian of Congress / vii Library of Congress Officers and Consultants / ix Organization Chart / x Library of Congress Committees / xiii Highlights of / Library of Congress Bicentennial / Bicentennial Chronology / Congressional Research Service / Copyright Office / Law Library of Congress / Library Services / National Digital Library Program / Office of the Librarian / A. Bicentennial / . Steering Committee / . Local Legacies / . Exhibitions / . Publications / . Symposia / . Concerts: I Hear America Singing / . Living Legends / . Commemorative Coins / . Commemorative Stamp: Second-Day Issue Sites / . Gifts to the Nation / . International Gifts to the Nation / v vi Contents B. Major Events at the Library / C. The Librarian’s Testimony / D. Advisory Bodies / E. Honors / F. Selected Acquisitions / G. Exhibitions / H. Online Collections and Exhibitions / I.
    [Show full text]
  • Dates Associated with the 250Th Anniversary of the American Revolution in Maryland January 14, 2019 Year Date(S) Event Location
    Dates Associated with the 250th Anniversary of the American Revolution in Maryland January 14, 2019 Year Date(s) Event Location 1765 March 22 Passage of Stamp Act. A related site is Patuxent Manor, the home of Calvert County political leader Charles Grahame, a vocal critic of the Act (Owings) 1765 September 2 Tax collector hung in effigy (Elkridge) Howard County 1765 August 26 Attack on tax collector Annapolis 1765 November 23 Repudiation Day; Frederick County judges “repudiate” the Stamp Act Frederick 1772 March 28 Cornerstone laid for Maryland State House, the oldest state capitol in Annapolis continuous legislative use in the Unites States 1774 Establishment of Catoctin Iron Furnace at Bloomsbury, supplier of Frederick County shot and ammunition to Colonial forces (Urbana) 1774 May 23 Chestertown Tea Party (“according to tradition”) and Chestertown Kent County Resolves 1774 May 24 Talbot Resolves protest the closing of the Port of Boston and pledge Talbot County support “as friends to liberty” (Easton) 1774 June 11 Hungerford Resolves adopted in support of the Sons of Liberty Montgomery County (Rockville) 1774 October 19 Burning of the Peggy Stewart/Annapolis Tea Party Annapolis Year Date(s) Event Location 1775 March 22 Bush Declaration adopted by the Committee of Harford, expressing Harford County support for the Patriot cause 1776 July 17-29 British Landing repulsed at St. George Island St. Mary’s County 1776 August 27 Maryland troops earn the honor as the “Maryland 400” for their heroic sacrifice in covering the retreat of Washington’s Army at the Battle of Brooklyn (Battle of Long Island) 1776 October 1 Montgomery and Washington Counties are established by the Maryland Montgomery and Frederick Constitutional Convention by dividing the eastern and western portions Counties of Frederick County.
    [Show full text]
  • Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail Connecting
    CAPTAIN JOHN SMITH CHESAPEAKE NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL CONNECTING TRAILS EVALUATION STUDY 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 405 Annapolis, MD 21403 CONTENTS Acknowledgments 2 Executive Summary 3 Statement of Study Findings 5 Introduction 9 Research Team Reports 10 Anacostia River 11 Chester River 15 Choptank River 19 Susquehanna River 23 Upper James River 27 Upper Nanticoke River 30 Appendix: Research Teams’ Executive Summaries and Bibliographies 34 Anacostia River 34 Chester River 37 Choptank River 40 Susquehanna River 44 Upper James River 54 Upper Nanticoke River 56 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are truly thankful to the research and project team, led by John S. Salmon, for the months of dedicated research, mapping, and analysis that led to the production of this important study. In all, more than 35 pro- fessionals, including professors and students representing six universities, American Indian representatives, consultants, public agency representatives, and community leaders contributed to this report. Each person brought an extraordinary depth of knowledge, keen insight and a personal devotion to the project. We are especially grateful for the generous financial support that we received from the following private foundations, organizations and corporate partners: The Morris & Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation, The Clay- ton Fund, Inc., Colcom Foundation, The Conservation Fund, Lockheed Martin, the Richard King Mellon Foundation, The Merrill Foundation, the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, the Rauch Foundation, The Peter Jay Sharp Foundation, Verizon, Virginia Environmental Endowment and the Wallace Genetic Foundation. Without their support this project would simply not have been possible. Finally, we would like to extend a special thank you to the board of directors of the Chesapeake Conser- vancy, and to John Maounis, Superintendent of the National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Office, for their leadership and unwavering commitment to the Captain John Smith Chesapeake Trail.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeological Survey of the Chesapeake Bay Shorelines Associated with Accomack County and Northampton County, Virginia
    ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE ATLANTIC COAST SHORELINES ASSOCIATED WITH ACCOMACK COUNTY AND NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA Survey and Planning Report Series No. 7 Virginia Department of Historic Resources 2801 Kensington Avenue Richmond, VA 23221 2003 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE ATLANTIC COAST SHORELINES ASSOCIATED WITH ACCOMACK COUNTY AND NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA Virginia Department of Historic Resources Survey and Planning Report Series No. 7 Author: Darrin L. Lowery Chesapeake Bay Watershed Archaeological Research Foundation 5264 Blackwalnut Point Road, P.O. Box 180 Tilghman, MD 21671 2003 ii ABSTRACT This report summarizes the results of an archaeological survey conducted along the Atlantic shorelines of both Accomack County and Northampton County, Virginia. Accomack and Northampton Counties represent the southernmost extension of the Delmarva Peninsula. The study area encompasses all of the lands adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean and shorelines associated with the back barrier island bays. A shoreline survey was conducted along the Atlantic Ocean to gauge the erosion threat to the archaeological resources situated along the shoreline. Archaeological sites along shorelines are subjected to numerous natural processes which hinder site visibility and limit archaeological interpretations. Summaries of these natural processes are presented in this report. The primary goal of the project was to locate, identify, and record any archaeological sites or remains along the Atlantic seashore that are threatened by shoreline erosion. The project also served as a test of a prehistoric site predictive/settlement model that has been utilized during other archaeological surveys along the Chesapeake Bay shorelines and within the interior sections of the Delmarva Peninsula. The prehistoric site predictive/settlement model is presented in detail using archaeological examples from Maryland and Virginia’s Eastern Shore.
    [Show full text]
  • Site Report, Phase II, Handwritten Draft
    Generally the site cJot _ /confined to the area above the 21.5 meter contour interval (Figure 5). The southwest , ^ corner of the site was not clearly defined^ since it was disturbed by a gravel road and lies outside the impact_area./" . _ _ _ _, . current | alignment of^Ro'ute 21 i| obscures the norther^Tb^n^ry. North of"' Route"2IU a "' !sewer line runs parallel to the road, and a steep slope rises immediatelyj" beyond that. - —l The distributions of various classes of cultural material from the . were plotted in order to determine the locations of clusters. First, ? maps depicting flakes and fire?jcracked rock4 (Figure •&) show two main activity areas, one on the northern edge of the site and another toward the southern' end. Flakes are dispersed across the entire site as well. Mapped by raw • material (quartz, quartzite, rhyolite, and chert), flake distributions do not differ from the overall pattern, and are thus not illustrated.' '^r ^d^t^^a^^L^/^Uv^^Jl <^^e^^t^A^ F'/^-^tiXi^J^yt ., £*£3t*^)--<t^-3£^J^<^^ .. V ' yf Ceramics from shovel test pits are scattered across the site (Figure w, with concentrations in the center and southern parts of the site. When l\euJ IJ plotted by ceramic type according to period (Figures - A•), most of the ceramic types are dispersed across the site,' with no noticeable clustering. The only exceptions are the Late Woodland types (Potomac Creek, Townsend, and Moyaone), which show a tendency to occur in the central and southern portions !HL of the site. 'h A comparison of the flake and ceramic distributions suggest a negative correlation between the two artifact classes except in the southern area, where there is a concentration of both.
    [Show full text]
  • Seas of Change
    S EA OF CHANGE Text and design by Chris M. Cerino, M.T. Vice President, Sultana Projects, Inc. This publication funded by a generous grant from the National Park Service’s Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network Sultana on the Chesapeake Bay September 1769 - August 1770 fras R P assa a S ta ps c r o e R iv ive R r r te s e h C r e v i R 6 k n a t p o h C r e iv R P e at k u o x c en ti t R n i a R ve N co r i om ic W P ot om R ac a R p i p v a er h a 5 n n o c k R iv e r 4 Y o rk Ri v 3 e r J ame s Ri ver 2 1 Areas where Sultana patrolled the Chesapeake Bay included: 1. Norfolk/Hampton 2. Williamsburg/Jamestown 3. Yorktown 4. Cape Charles/Hungars Creek/Cherrystone Inlet 5. Mouth of the Potomac River 6. Mount Vernon/Alexandria Special thanks to the artists who donated their work to this publication: Marcy Dunn Ramsey Michael Wootton C. Keith Wilbur, M.D. Lucian Neimeyer John Poicus Darby Hewes ON THE COVER: Photograph of Sultana courtesy Lucian Neimeyer. All other photographs courtesy Michael Wootton. Engraving of the Boston Massacre by Paul Revere, 1770. Engraving of British troops landing at Boston Harbor by Paul Revere, 1768, courtesy Winterthur Museum. S EA OF CHANGE Colonial History Unit for Classroom Teachers An Educational Initiative of SULTANA PROJECTS, INC.
    [Show full text]
  • Preservation and Partners: a History of Piscataway Park
    Preservation and Partners: A History of Piscataway Park Janet A. McDonnell, PhD December 2020 Resource Stewardship and Science, National Capital Area, National Park Service and Organization of American Historians EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During the early republic period of American history, President George Washington was the most renowned resident of the Potomac River valley. His sprawling Mount Vernon estate sat on a hill directly across the Potomac River from the 17th century Marshall Hall estate in Maryland. There is ample evidence that Washington and his guests enjoyed and very much appreciated the stunning view. Many years later preserving this view would become the major impetus for establishing what we know today as Piscataway Park (PISC), a few miles south of Washington, DC. These lands along the Maryland shore of Potomac River were actively cultivated during George Washington’s time, and the existing park setting, which includes agricultural lands and open spaces interspersed with forests and wetlands, closely approximates that historic scene. The National Park Service’s (NPS) primary goal and responsibility in managing the park has been, and continues to be, preserving this historic scene of open fields and wooded areas and ensuring that it does not authorize any landscape alterations except those that would restore previously undisturbed sites, reduce visual intrusions, or maintain open fields. The NPS continues to take into account the slope and orientation of the terrain and the tree cover when considering the location of any new facilities. Piscataway Park and its associated lands are for the most part held under scenic easements and constitute a National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) historic district made up of nearly 5,000 acres of meadow, woodland, and wetland, along six miles of the Potomac River shoreline from the head of Piscataway Creek to the historic Marshall Hall in Maryland’s Prince George’s and Charles counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Collection Resources for Teaching About Ships, Sailing, and Baltimore’S Port Contents Introduction
    The Sail Baltimore Curriculum Collection Resources for Teaching about Ships, Sailing, and Baltimore’s Port Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Module 1 – Chesapeake Bay and Port of Baltimore History ......................................................................... 4 Chesapeake Bay History – Native Americans, John Smith, Colonization .................................................. 4 The Port of Baltimore through History ................................................................................................... 15 The Port of Baltimore Today ................................................................................................................... 24 Environmental Changes and Challenges ................................................................................................. 31 Module 2 – Sailing Ships ............................................................................................................................. 34 Baltimore Clippers and the Pride of Baltimore ....................................................................................... 34 The Science of Sailing .............................................................................................................................. 41 Module 3 – Operation and Navigation of Ships .......................................................................................... 49 Introduction: The Schooner
    [Show full text]
  • Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan March 2010 Front cover: Waterfowl on Hail Creek Terry Willis Northern diamondback terrapin Ryan Haggerty/USFWS Bald eagle Steve Hillebrand/USFWS Tundra swans ©Heather R. Davidson Monarch butterfly USFWS Back cover: Waterfowl on Hail Creek Terry Willis This blue goose, designed by J.N. “Ding” Darling, has become the symbol of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fi sh, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefi t of the American people. The Service manages the 150-million acre National Wildlife Refuge System comprised of more than 550 national wildlife refuges and thousands of waterfowl production areas. It also operates 70 national fi sh hatcheries and 81 ecological services fi eld stations. The agency enforces Federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally signifi cant fi sheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers the Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Assistance Program which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fi shing and hunting equipment to state wildlife agencies. Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long term guidance for management decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Bee Final Round Bee Final Round Regulation Questions
    USHB Nationals Bee 2015-16 Bee Final Round Bee Final Round Regulation Questions (1) In his memoirs, the losing general of this battle claimed he \always regretted that the last assault at [this battle] was ever made." One general on the winning side called this battle \murder, not war." For several days, the losing side refused to ask for a truce to collect the wounded, who suffered to death in the June heat. After this battle, the losing side retreated to cross the James River, then completed the Overland Campaign and began the siege of Petersburg. For the point, name this battle that climaxed on June 3, 1864, when Robert E. Lee's fortified army killed thousands of advancing Union troops. ANSWER: Battle of Cold Harbor (2) Curt Gentry alleges these documents were taken away by John Mohr and James Jesus Angleton, who claimed they were merely transporting \spoiled wine." In 1972, Helen Gandy was instructed to begin destroying these documents, although several of them ended up with their owner's subordinates, like Mark Felt. These documents contained information about the sexual lives of men like John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. For the point, name these incriminating documents used by a powerful director of the F.B.I. to blackmail and control much of Washington. ANSWER: the personal files of J. Edgar Hoover (or Hoover's Official and/or Confidential File; prompt on FBI files) (3) This work's frontispiece features a quote reminding an audience \that obloquy is a necessary ingredient" in forming true glory. Theodore Sorensen may have ghostwritten this work, which was written while its author was bedridden due to back surgery.
    [Show full text]
  • K-10 Widehall (Water Lot #16)
    K-10 Widehall (Water Lot #16) Architectural Survey File This is the architectural survey file for this MIHP record. The survey file is organized reverse- chronological (that is, with the latest material on top). It contains all MIHP inventory forms, National Register nomination forms, determinations of eligibility (DOE) forms, and accompanying documentation such as photographs and maps. Users should be aware that additional undigitized material about this property may be found in on-site architectural reports, copies of HABS/HAER or other documentation, drawings, and the “vertical files” at the MHT Library in Crownsville. The vertical files may include newspaper clippings, field notes, draft versions of forms and architectural reports, photographs, maps, and drawings. Researchers who need a thorough understanding of this property should plan to visit the MHT Library as part of their research project; look at the MHT web site (mht.maryland.gov) for details about how to make an appointment. All material is property of the Maryland Historical Trust. Last Updated: 02-07-2013 MHT K-10 10 Form 10-300 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ( uly 1969) NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Maryland C OUN TV- NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES Kent INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM FOR NPS USE ONLY EN TRV NU>^BER (Type all entries — complete applicable sections) |l. NAME C OMMON: Widehall AND- OR HISTORIC: Water Lot #16 [^LOCATION STHEET i'JrrjUMBER: 101 Water Street CITV OR TOWN; Chestertown C OUNTV Maryland 24 Kent • 070 3. CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY ACCESSIBLE OWNERSHIP
    [Show full text]