DOCSLIB.ORG

National Capital Parks-East Natural Resource Condition Assessment National Capital Region

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
National Capital Parks-East Natural Resource Condition Assessment National Capital Region ` National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science National Capital Parks-East Natural Resource Condition Assessment National Capital Region Natural Resource Report NPS/NACE/NRR—2016/1197 ON THE COVER Photograph of a National Capital Parks-East Ranger leading a canoe trip with staff from Wilderness Inquiry up the Anacostia River. Photograph courtesy of the National Park Service. National Capital Parks-East Natural Resource Condition Assessment National Capital Region Natural Resource Report NPS/NACE/NRR—2016/1197 Brianne M. Walsh1, Simon Costanzo2, William C. Dennison2 1Integration and Application Network University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science 1 Park Place, Suite 325 Annapolis, MD 21401 2Integration and Application Network University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science PO Box 775 Cambridge, MD 21613 J. Patrick Campbell, Mark Lehman and Megan Nortrup National Capital Region Inventory & Monitoring National Park Service 4598 MacArthur Blvd NW Washington, DC 20007 Mikailia Milton and Stephen Syphax National Capital Parks-East National Park Service 1900 Anacostia Drive Washington, DC 20020 April 2016 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate comprehensive information and analysis about natural resources and related topics concerning lands managed by the National Park Service. The series supports the advancement of science, informed decision-making, and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series also provides a forum for presenting more lengthy results that may not be accepted by publications with page limitations. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. Data in this report were collected and analyzed using methods based on established peer-reviewed protocols and were analyzed and interpreted within the guidelines of the protocols. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government. This report is available in digital format from the National Capital Region Network website (http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/ncrn/index.cfm) and the Natural Resource Publications Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/nrpm/). To receive this report in a format optimized for screen readers, please email [email protected]. Please cite this publication as: Walsh, B. M., J. P. Campbell, S. D. Costanzo, W. C. Dennison, M. Lehman, M. Milton, M. Nortrup, S. Syphax. 2016. National Capital Parks-East natural resource condition assessment: National Capital Region. Natural Resource Report NPS/NACE/NRR—2016/1197. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. NPS 899/132279, April 2016 ii Contents Page Figures.................................................................................................................................................. vii Tables ..................................................................................................................................................xiii Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... xvii Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ xix Background.................................................................................................................................. xix Natural Resource Condition Assessment .................................................................................... xix Recommendations and Data Gaps ............................................................................................... xix Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................... xxi 1. NRCA Background Information .................................................................................................... 1 2. Introduction and Resource Setting ................................................................................................. 5 2.1. Park enabling legislation ......................................................................................................... 6 2.2. Geographic Setting .................................................................................................................. 7 2.2.1. Park description .................................................................................................... 7 2.2.2. Land Use ............................................................................................................. 16 2.2.3. Population ........................................................................................................... 19 2.2.4. Climate ................................................................................................................ 24 2.2.5. Visitation statistics .............................................................................................. 24 2.3. Natural Resources .................................................................................................................. 26 2.3.1. Resource descriptions ......................................................................................... 26 2.4. Natural Resource Overview .................................................................................................. 44 2.4.1. Internal park threats ............................................................................................ 44 2.4.2. Regional threats .................................................................................................. 50 2.5. Resource Stewardship ........................................................................................................... 52 2.5.1. Management directives and planning guidance .................................................. 52 2.5.2. Status of supporting science ............................................................................... 52 2.5.3. Research at the park ............................................................................................ 53 2.6. Legislation ............................................................................................................................. 55 3. Study Scoping and Design............................................................................................................ 57 iii Contents (contents) Page 3.1. Preliminary scoping and park involvement ..................................................................... 57 3.2. Study design ..................................................................................................................... 58 3.2.1. Reporting areas ................................................................................................... 58 3.2.2. Indicator framework ........................................................................................... 58 3.2.3. General approach and methods ........................................................................... 59 3.2.4. Thresholds .......................................................................................................... 59 3.2.5. Data synthesis ..................................................................................................... 60 3.2.6. Condition assessment calculations ..................................................................... 60 4. Natural Resource Conditions ........................................................................................................ 61 4.1. Air quality ........................................................................................................................ 61 4.1.1 Air quality summary ........................................................................................... 61 4.1.2. Wet sulfur deposition .......................................................................................... 64 4.1.3. Wet nitrogen deposition ...................................................................................... 67 4.1.4 Ozone .................................................................................................................. 71 4.1.5. Visibility ............................................................................................................. 74 4.1.6. Particulate matter ................................................................................................ 78 4.1.7. Mercury deposition ............................................................................................. 80 4.2. Water
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds
    Defining the Indigenous Cultural Landscape for The Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds Prepared By: Scott M. Strickland Virginia R. Busby Julia A. King With Contributions From: Francis Gray • Diana Harley • Mervin Savoy • Piscataway Conoy Tribe of Maryland Mark Tayac • Piscataway Indian Nation Joan Watson • Piscataway Conoy Confederacy and Subtribes Rico Newman • Barry Wilson • Choptico Band of Piscataway Indians Hope Butler • Cedarville Band of Piscataway Indians Prepared For: The National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Annapolis, Maryland St. Mary’s College of Maryland St. Mary’s City, Maryland November 2015 ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this project was to identify and represent the Indigenous Cultural Landscape for the Nanjemoy and Mattawoman creek watersheds on the north shore of the Potomac River in Charles and Prince George’s counties, Maryland. The project was undertaken as an initiative of the National Park Service Chesapeake Bay office, which supports and manages the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail. One of the goals of the Captain John Smith Trail is to interpret Native life in the Middle Atlantic in the early years of colonization by Europeans. The Indigenous Cultural Landscape (ICL) concept, developed as an important tool for identifying Native landscapes, has been incorporated into the Smith Trail’s Comprehensive Management Plan in an effort to identify Native communities along the trail as they existed in the early17th century and as they exist today. Identifying ICLs along the Smith Trail serves land and cultural conservation, education, historic preservation, and economic development goals. Identifying ICLs empowers descendant indigenous communities to participate fully in achieving these goals.
    [Show full text]
  • NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5
    NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5 DATABASE DESIGN DOCUMENTATION AND DATA DICTIONARY 1 June 2013 Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21403 Prepared By: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 By Jacqueline Johnson Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin To receive additional copies of the report please call or write: The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 301-984-1908 Funds to support the document The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.0; Database Design Documentation And Data Dictionary was supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency Grant CB- CBxxxxxxxxxx-x Disclaimer The opinion expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the U.S. Government, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the several states or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia or the District of Columbia. ii The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.5 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • News Release Address: Email and Homepage: U.S
    News Release Address: Email and Homepage: U.S. Department of the Interior Maryland-Delaware-D.C. District [email protected] U.S. Geological Survey 8987 Yellow Brick Road http://md.water.usgs.gov/ Baltimore, MD 21237 Release: Contact: Phone: Fax: January 4, 2002 Wendy S. McPherson (410) 238-4255 (410) 238-4210 Below Normal Rainfall and Warm Temperatures Lead to Record Low Water Levels in December Three months of above normal temperatures and four months of below normal rainfall have led to record low monthly streamflow and ground-water levels, according to hydrologists at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Baltimore, Maryland. Streamflow was below normal at 94 percent of the real-time USGS gaging stations and 83 percent of the USGS observation wells across Maryland and Delaware in December. Record low streamflow levels for December were set at Winters Run and Pocomoke River. Streamflow levels at Deer Creek and Winters Run in Harford County have frequently set new record daily lows for the last four months (see real-time graphs at http://md.water.usgs.gov/realtime/). Streamflow was also significantly below normal at Antietam Creek, Choptank River, Conococheague Creek, Nassawango Creek, Patapsco River, Gunpowder River, Patuxent River, Piscataway Creek, Monocacy River, and Potomac River in Maryland, and Christina River, St. Jones River, and White Clay Creek in Delaware. The monthly streamflow in the Potomac River near Washington, D.C. was 82 percent below normal in December and 54 percent below normal for 2001. Streamflow entering the Chesapeake Bay averaged 23.7 bgd (billion gallons per day), which is 54 percent below the long-term average for December.
    [Show full text]
  • Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Plan
    Restoration Plan for the Anacostia River Watershed in Prince George’s County December 30, 2015 RUSHERN L. BAKER, III COUNTPreparedY EXECUTIV for:E Prince George’s County, Maryland Department of the Environment Stormwater Management Division Prepared by: 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 Fairfax, VA 22030 COVER PHOTO CREDITS: 1. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 7. USEPA 2. Tetra Tech, Inc. 8. USEPA 3. Prince George’s County 9. Montgomery Co DEP 4. VA Tech, Center for TMDL and 10. PGC DoE Watershed Studies 11. USEPA 5. Charles County, MD Dept of 12. PGC DoE Planning and Growth Management 13. USEPA 6. Portland Bureau of Environmental Services _Tom Liptan Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Plan Contents Acronym List ............................................................................................................................... v 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of Report and Restoration Planning ............................................................................... 3 1.1.1 What is a TMDL? ................................................................................................................ 3 1.1.2 What is a Restoration Plan? ............................................................................................... 4 1.2 Impaired Water Bodies and TMDLs .............................................................................................. 6 1.2.1 Water Quality Standards ....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • United States National Museum Bulletin 282
    Cl>lAat;i<,<:>';i^;}Oit3Cl <a f^.S^ iVi^ 5' i ''*«0£Mi»«33'**^ SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION MUSEUM O F NATURAL HISTORY I NotUTus albater, new species, a female paratype, 63 mm. in standard length; UMMZ 102781, Missouri. (Courtesy Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan.) UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 282 A Revision of the Catfish Genus Noturus Rafinesque^ With an Analysis of Higher Groups in the Ictaluridae WILLIAM RALPH TAYLOR Associate Curator, Division of Fishes SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS CITY OF WASHINGTON 1969 IV Publications of the United States National Museum The scientific publications of the United States National Museum include two series, Proceedings of the United States National Museum and United States National Museum Bulletin. In these series are published original articles and monographs dealing with the collections and work of the Museum and setting forth newly acquired facts in the fields of anthropology, biology, geology, history, and technology. Copies of each publication are distributed to libraries and scientific organizations and to specialists and others interested in the various subjects. The Proceedings, begun in 1878, are intended for the publication, in separate form, of shorter papers. These are gathered in volumes, octavo in size, with the publication date of each paper recorded in the table of contents of the volume. In the Bulletin series, the first of which was issued in 1875, appear longer, separate publications consisting of monographs (occasionally in several parts) and volumes in which are collected works on related subjects. Bulletins are either octavo or quarto in size, depending on the needs of the presentation. Since 1902, papers relating to the botanical collections of the Museum have been published in the Bulletin series under the heading Contributions from the United States National Herbarium.
    [Show full text]
  • Shoreline Situation Report Stafford County, Virginia
    W&M ScholarWorks Reports 1975 Shoreline Situation Report Stafford County, Virginia Carl H. Hobbs III Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gary F. Anderson Virginia Institute of Marine Science Dennis W. Owen Virginia Institute of Marine Science Peter Rosen Virginia Institute of Marine Science Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports Part of the Environmental Monitoring Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Recommended Citation Hobbs, C. H., Anderson, G. F., Owen, D. W., & Rosen, P. (1975) Shoreline Situation Report Stafford County, Virginia. Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 79. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary. https://doi.org/10.21220/V5PB01 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Shoreline Situation Report ST AFFORD COUNTY, VIRGINIA Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 79 Chesapeake Research Consortium Report Number 13 Supported by the National Science Foundation, Research Applied to National Needs Program NSF Grant Nos. GI 34869 and GI 38973 to the Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc. Published With Funds Provided to the Commonwealth by the Office of Coastal Zone Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Grant No. 04-5-158-50001 VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 1975 Shoreline Situation Report ST AFFORD COUNTY, VIRGINIA Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 79 Chesapeake Research Consortium Report Number 13 Prepared by: Carl H.
    [Show full text]
  • Let's Take a Hike in Catoctin Mountain Park Meghan Lindsey University of South Florida, [email protected]
    University of South Florida Scholar Commons Tampa Library Faculty and Staff ubP lications Tampa Library 2008 Let's Take a Hike in Catoctin Mountain Park Meghan Lindsey University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/tlib_facpub Part of the Education Commons Scholar Commons Citation Lindsey, Meghan, "Let's Take a Hike in Catoctin Mountain Park" (2008). Tampa Library Faculty and Staff Publications. 1. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/tlib_facpub/1 This Data is brought to you for free and open access by the Tampa Library at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tampa Library Faculty and Staff ubP lications by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SSACgnp.RA776.ML1.1 Let’s Take a Hike in Catoctin Mountain Park How many Calories will you burn off hiking a five-mile loop trail? Core Quantitative Literacy Topics Slope; contour maps Core Geoscience Subject Topographic maps Supporting Quantitative Literacy Topics Unit Conversions Arctangent, radians Reading Graphs Image from: http://www.nps.gov/cato Ratios and Proportions Percent increase Meghan Lindsey Department of Geology, University of South Florida, Tampa 33620 © 2008 University of South Florida Libraries. All rights reserved. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number NSF DUE-0836566. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. 1 Getting started After completing this module you should be able to: • use Excel spreadsheet to make your calculations.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Trips Guide Book for Photographers Revised 2008 a Publication of the Northern Virginia Alliance of Camera Clubs
    Field Trips Guide Book for Photographers Revised 2008 A publication of the Northern Virginia Alliance of Camera Clubs Copyright 2008. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced or copied in any manner whatsoever. 1 Preface This field trips guide book has been written by Dave Carter and Ed Funk of the Northern Virginia Photographic Society, NVPS. Both are experienced and successful field trip organizers. Joseph Miller, NVPS, coordinated the printing and production of this guide book. In our view, field trips can provide an excellent opportunity for camera club members to find new subject matter to photograph, and perhaps even more important, to share with others the love of making pictures. Photography, after all, should be enjoyable. The pleasant experience of an outing together with other photographers in a picturesque setting can be stimulating as well as educational. It is difficullt to consistently arrange successful field trips, particularly if the club's membership is small. We hope this guide book will allow camera club members to become more active and involved in field trip activities. There are four camera clubs that make up the Northern Virginia Alliance of Camera Clubs McLean, Manassas-Warrenton, Northern Virginia and Vienna. All of these clubs are located within 45 minutes or less from each other. It is hoped that each club will be receptive to working together to plan and conduct field trip activities. There is an enormous amount of work to properly arrange and organize many field trips, and we encourage the field trips coordinator at each club to maintain close contact with the coordinators at the other clubs in the Alliance and to invite members of other clubs to join in the field trip.
    [Show full text]
  • Bikeway, Trails and Pedestrian Mobility
    THE ROLE OF TRAILS AND COMPLETE STREETS IN ACTIVE LIVING AND HEALTHY LIFE STYLES - A CASE STUDY FROM PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND Fred Shaffer Prince George’s County M-NCPPC Trails have traditionally been thought of as recreation facilities. However, there is growing recognition that trails can also serve as transportation connections and can facilitate healthier and more active lifestyles in both children and adults. Trail from student housing to the Trail from an apartment complex to the University of Maryland West Hyattsville Metro Recent plans and legislation have recognized the importance of promoting walking and biking and incorporating trails into communities and new developments. The Countywide Master Plan of Transportation recommends a countywide network of bicycle, pedestrian, and trail facilities. 2009 Approved Countywide Master Plan of Transportation (MPOT) – included extensive bicycle and pedestrian recommendations: Over 250 projects for trails, bikeways, and sidewalk construction Complete Streets Section and Policies Trail projects that improve access to parks, transit, and other destinations Sidewalk and trail construction through the development review process Identification of Priority Sidewalk Corridors (retrofit projects) The plan recommends a variety of facilities along roads and within open space that can connect to and complement park facilities and trails. These recommended facilities are within dedicated parkland, along utility and transit corridors, along road rights-of-way, and within future development. COMPLETE STREETS – IMPROVE ACCESS TO TRAILS AND ACCOMMODATE ALL MODES No matter how many trails you have, it is still crucial to have sidewalks and bikeways along roads to get people to all the destinations they need to go.
    [Show full text]
  • Turning Point
    National Parks Conservation Association® Protecting Our National Parks for Future Generations® Turning Point Will we continue to protect against air pollution threats to the Habitats, Health, Heritage, and Horizons of our national parks? Or will we fail to save them for future generations? PHOTOS FROM LEFT TO RIGHT: BIG STOCK PHOTO, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, SCOTT KIRKWOOD, BIG STOCK PHOTO National Park Sites Located in Poor Air Quality Areas as Designated by the EPA (continued on inside back cover) ALABAMA San Francisco Maritime NHP Potomac Heritage NST Fort Washington Park Russell Cave NM Santa Monica Rock Creek Park Greenbelt Park Mountains NRA Theodore Roosevelt Island George Washington ARIZONA Sequoia NP Thomas Jefferson MEM Memorial PKWY Casa Grande Ruins NM Yosemite NP Vietnam Veterans MEM Hampton NHS Chiricahua NM Washington Monument Harpers Ferry NHP Coronado NMEM COLORADO White House Monocacy NB Fort Bowie NHS Rocky Mountains NP National Capital Parks Grand Canyon NP GEORGIA CONNECTICUT Piscataway Park Hohokam Pima NM Chattahoochee River NRA Appalachian NST Thomas Stone NHS Organ Pipe Cactus NM Chickamauga & Weir Farm NHS Saguaro NP Chattanooga NMP MASSACHUSETTS Tonto NM DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Kennesaw Mountain NBP Cape Cod NS Tumacacori NHP Chesapeake & Ohio Martin Luther King, Jr. NHS Adams NHP Canal NHP Ocmulgee NM Appalachian NST CALIFORNIA Carter G. Woodson NHS Boston African- Cabrillo NM INDIANA Constitution Gardens American NHS Channel Islands NP Indiana Dunes NL Franklin Delano Boston Harbor Islands NRA Death Valley NP Lincoln
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland Stream Waders 10 Year Report
    MARYLAND STREAM WADERS TEN YEAR (2000-2009) REPORT October 2012 Maryland Stream Waders Ten Year (2000-2009) Report Prepared for: Maryland Department of Natural Resources Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division 580 Taylor Avenue; C-2 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 1-877-620-8DNR (x8623) [email protected] Prepared by: Daniel Boward1 Sara Weglein1 Erik W. Leppo2 1 Maryland Department of Natural Resources Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division 580 Taylor Avenue; C-2 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 2 Tetra Tech, Inc. Center for Ecological Studies 400 Red Brook Boulevard, Suite 200 Owings Mills, Maryland 21117 October 2012 This page intentionally blank. Foreword This document reports on the firstt en years (2000-2009) of sampling and results for the Maryland Stream Waders (MSW) statewide volunteer stream monitoring program managed by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division (MANTA). Stream Waders data are intended to supplementt hose collected for the Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) by DNR and University of Maryland biologists. This report provides an overview oft he Program and summarizes results from the firstt en years of sampling. Acknowledgments We wish to acknowledge, first and foremost, the dedicated volunteers who collected data for this report (Appendix A): Thanks also to the following individuals for helping to make the Program a success. • The DNR Benthic Macroinvertebrate Lab staffof Neal Dziepak, Ellen Friedman, and Kerry Tebbs, for their countless hours in
    [Show full text]
  • Deer Plan Cover 09-18.Cdr
    Maryland White-tailed Deer Plan 2009-2018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) currently garner more attention than any other wildlife species in Maryland. Wildlife-watchers, photographers and hunters contribute millions of dollars each year to the state’s economy while pursuing deer. At the same time, deer are responsible for Maryland’s farmers and other citizens sustaining millions of dollars worth of damage to crops, landscaping and vehicles. Managing the deer population to satisfy recreational interests, while at the same time reducing damage concerns, is a challenging and controversial process. White-tailed deer were plentiful in Maryland at the time of settlement in the 1600s. However, market- hunting and habitat destruction nearly extirpated deer from the state by 1900. The early 1900s through the 1960s was a period of population restoration and deer proliferated due to ideal habitat conditions and the protection of female deer from harvest. By the 1980s, management philosophies across much of the state changed from restoring deer to stabilizing and reducing deer numbers. Active management of deer is a necessity in Maryland today if we are to maintain population levels compatible with the varied interests of the citizens of the state. As an evolutionary prey species, deer exhibit a high fecundity rate, enabling them to rapidly increase in number. Presently, non-lethal management techniques (such as contraceptives) and non-hunting mortality (disease, injuries and predators) are not sufficient to maintain deer populations at satisfactory levels. The lethal control of deer via regulated hunting remains the most effective way to balance the deer population with environmental and cultural concerns on a landscape scale.
    [Show full text]