DOCSLIB.ORG

U.S. EPA Approved Middle Ohio North TMDL Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
U.S. EPA Approved Middle Ohio North TMDL Report Total Maximum Daily Loads for Selected Streams in the Middle Ohio River South and Middle Ohio River North Watersheds, West Virginia December 2012 CONTENTS Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions ............................................................................... vii Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................x 1.0 Report Format ....................................................................................................................1 2.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................1 2.1 Total Maximum Daily Loads ...................................................................................1 2.2 Water Quality Standards ..........................................................................................4 3.0 Watershed Description and Data Inventory....................................................................5 3.1 Watershed Description .............................................................................................5 3.2 Data Inventory .........................................................................................................9 3.3 Impaired Waterbodies ............................................................................................11 4.0 Biological Impairment and Stressor Identification .....................................................23 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................23 4.2 Data Review ...........................................................................................................24 4.3 Candidate Causes/Pathways...................................................................................24 4.4 Stressor Identification Results ...............................................................................26 5.0 Metals Source Assessment ...............................................................................................30 5.1 Metals Point Sources..............................................................................................31 5.1.1 Mining Point Sources .................................................................................34 5.1.2 Non-mining Point Sources .........................................................................35 5.1.3 Construction Stormwater Permits ..............................................................35 5.1.4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) .....................................38 5.2 Metals Nonpoint Sources .......................................................................................40 5.2.1 Abandoned Mine Lands .............................................................................40 5.2.2 SMCRA Bond Forfeiture Sites ..................................................................40 5.2.3 Sediment Sources .......................................................................................43 6.0 Fecal Coliform Source Assessment .................................................................................45 6.1 Fecal Coliform Point Sources ................................................................................45 6.1.1 Individual NPDES Permits ........................................................................45 6.1.2 Overflows ...................................................................................................45 6.1.3 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) .....................................45 6.1.4 General Sewage Permits ............................................................................46 6.2 Fecal Coliform Nonpoint Sources .........................................................................46 ii Middle Ohio River South and North Watersheds TMDL Report 6.2.1 On-site Treatment Systems ........................................................................46 6.2.2 Urban/Residential Runoff ..........................................................................50 6.2.3 Agriculture .................................................................................................50 6.2.4 Natural Background (Wildlife) ..................................................................50 7.0 Sediment Source Assessment ..........................................................................................51 8.0 Modeling Process .............................................................................................................51 8.1 Model Selection .....................................................................................................51 8.2 Model Setup ...........................................................................................................52 8.2.1 General MDAS Configuration ...................................................................52 8.2.2 Iron and Sediment Configuration ...............................................................56 8.2.3 Fecal Coliform Configuration ....................................................................57 8.3 Hydrology Calibration ...........................................................................................58 8.4 Water Quality Calibration ......................................................................................58 8.5 Modeling Technique for Biological Impairments with Sedimentation Stressors ..59 8.6 Allocation Strategy ................................................................................................62 8.6.1 TMDL Endpoints .......................................................................................62 8.6.2 Baseline Conditions and Source Loading Alternatives .............................63 8.7 TMDLs and Source Allocations ............................................................................66 8.7.1 Total Iron TMDLs ......................................................................................66 8.7.2 Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDLs ...............................................................71 8.7.3 Seasonal Variation .....................................................................................73 8.7.4 Critical Conditions .....................................................................................73 8.7.5 TMDL Presentation ...................................................................................73 9.0 TMDL Results ..................................................................................................................76 10.0 Future Growth .................................................................................................................96 10.1 Iron .........................................................................................................................96 10.2 Fecal Coliform Bacteria .........................................................................................97 11.0 Public Participation .........................................................................................................98 11.1 Public Meetings .....................................................................................................98 11.2 Public Notice and Public Comment Period ...........................................................98 12.0 Reasonable Assurance .....................................................................................................98 12.1 NPDES Permitting .................................................................................................98 12.2 Watershed Management Framework Process ......................................................100 12.3 Public Sewer Projects ..........................................................................................100 12.4 AML Projects .......................................................................................................101 iii Middle Ohio River South and North Watersheds TMDL Report 13.0 Monitoring Plan .............................................................................................................102 13.1 NPDES Compliance.............................................................................................102 13.2 Nonpoint Source Project Monitoring ...................................................................102 13.3 TMDL Effectiveness Monitoring ........................................................................102 14.0 References .......................................................................................................................103 FIGURES Figure I-1. Examples of a watershed, TMDL watershed, and subwatersheds .............................. ix Figure 2-1. Hydrologic groupings of West Virginia’s watersheds ................................................ 3 Figure 3-1. Extent of the Middle Ohio River South TMDL Watersheds in West Virginia ........... 7 Figure 3-2. Extent of the Middle Ohio River North TMDLWatersheds in West Virginia ............ 8 Figure 3-3. 21 Middle Ohio River South TMDL watersheds ...................................................... 12 Figure 3-4. 9 Middle Ohio River North TMDL watersheds ........................................................ 13 Figure 4-1. Conceptual model of candidate causes and potential biological effects ................... 25 Figure 4-2. Location of the sediment reference stream, Big Run (WVOMN-13-CG-2) ............. 27 Figure 5-1. Metals point sources in the Middle Ohio River South .............................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Conowingo Tunnel and the Anthracite Mine Flood-Control Project a Historical Perspective on a “Solution” to the Anthracite Mine Drainage Problem
    The Conowingo Tunnel and the Anthracite Mine Flood-Control Project A Historical Perspective on a “Solution” to the Anthracite Mine Drainage Problem Michael C. Korb, P.E. Environmental Program Manager Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation (BAMR) Wilkes Barre District Office [email protected] www.depweb.state.pa.us Abstract Fifty-seven years ago, Pennsylvania’s Anthracite Mine Drainage Commission recommended that the Conowingo Tunnel, an expensive, long-range solution to the Anthracite Mine Drainage problem, be “tabled” and that a cheaper, short-range “job- stimulus” project be implemented instead. Today Pennsylvania’s anthracite region has more than 40 major mine water discharges, which have a combined average flow of more than 285,000 gallons per minute (GPM). Two of these average more than 30,000 GPM, 10 more of the discharges are greater than 6,000 GPM, while another 15 average more than 1,000 GPM. Had the Conowingo Tunnel Project been completed, most of this Pennsylvania Anthracite mine water problem would have been Maryland’s mine water problem. Between 1944 and 1954, engineers of the US Bureau of Mines carried out a comprehensive study resulting in more than 25 publications on all aspects of the mine water problem. The engineering study resulted in a recommendation of a fantastic and impressive plan to allow the gravity drainage of most of the Pennsylvania anthracite mines into the estuary of the Susquehanna River, below Conowingo, Maryland, by driving a 137-mile main tunnel with several laterals into the four separate anthracite fields. The $280 million (1954 dollars) scheme was not executed, but rather a $17 million program of pump installations, ditch installation, stream bed improvement and targeted strip-pit backfilling was initiated.
    [Show full text]
  • Abandoned Mine Drainage Workgroup Overview
    ABANDONED MINE DRAINAGE The headwaters of the Schuylkill River are located in the serene mountain valleys of Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. An area rich in scenic beauty and coal mining history, the Little Schuylkill and Upper Schuylkill Rivers are designated cold-water fisheries, and the Schuylkill main stem is a State Scenic River at the confluence of these two tributary waterways. Abandoned Mine Drainage (AMD) is the primary cause of pollution in the Schuylkill River headwaters and the biggest source of metals downstream. AMD is created deep below the ground in abandoned mines where streams, groundwater, and stormwater fill tunnels that were once kept dry by active pumping operations. Water and oxygen react with lingering iron sulfide (pyrite) producing metal-laden and sometimes highly acidic discharges that exit the tunnels in telltale orange and silver plumes, easily visible in these regional surface waters. Abandoned mine discharge Schuylkill PottsvillPottsville River Watershed NJ S Reading ch uy Pottstown lk ill Trenton Riv e Norri r Norristown r PA e iv Philadelphia R Camden re wa N Wilmington la e DE D W E MD S Abandoned mine tunnel AMD interferes with vegetative growth and reproduction of aquatic animals by armoring the streambed with deposits of iron and other metals. Acidity and metals impair both surface and ground drinking water resources and quickly corrode pipes and industrial mechanisms. Unattractive waterways marred by AMD can hinder tourism and recreational opportunities like fishing, boating, and swimming that attract so many people to visit, vacation, and reside in this region. Passive AMD treatment system AMD treatment is expensive, but so is the economic and environmental damage that results from untreated AMD.
    [Show full text]
  • Capper-Cramton Resource Guide 2019
    Resource Guide Review of Projects on Lands Acquired Under the Capper-Cramton Act TAME Coalition TAME F A Martin Northwest Branch Trail Indian Creek Stream Valley Park Overview The Capper-Cramton Act (CCA) of 1930 (46 Stat. 482) was enacted for the acquisition, establishment, and development of the George Washington Memorial Parkway and stream valley parks in Maryland and Virginia to create a comprehensive park, parkway, and playground system in the National Capital.1 In addition to authorizing funding for acquisition, the act granted the National Capital Park and Planning Commission, now the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), review authority to approve any Capper-Cramton park development or management plan in order to ensure the protection and preservation of the region’s valuable watersheds and parklands. Subsequent amendments to the Capper-Cramton Act2 allocated funds for the acquisition and extension of this park and parkway system in Maryland and Virginia. Title to lands acquired with such funds or lands donated to the United States as Capper Cramton land is vested in the state in which it is located. The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) utilized Capper-Cramton funds to protect stream valleys in parts of Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties. Similarly, the District of Columbia used federal funds to develop recreation centers, playgrounds, and park systems. There is no evidence that Virginia utilized Capper-Cramton funds to acquire stream valley parks under the CCA. Today, over 10,000 acres of Capper-Cramton land have been established and preserved as a result of the act. This resource guide is for general information purposes, and is not a regulatory document.
    [Show full text]
  • “A People Who Have Not the Pride to Record Their History Will Not Long
    STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE i “A people who have not the pride to record their History will not long have virtues to make History worth recording; and Introduction no people who At the rear of Old Main at Bethany College, the sun shines through are indifferent an arcade. This passageway is filled with students today, just as it was more than a hundred years ago, as shown in a c.1885 photograph. to their past During my several visits to this college, I have lingered here enjoying the light and the student activity. It reminds me that we are part of the past need hope to as well as today. People can connect to historic resources through their make their character and setting as well as the stories they tell and the memories they make. future great.” The National Register of Historic Places recognizes historic re- sources such as Old Main. In 2000, the State Historic Preservation Office Virgil A. Lewis, first published Historic West Virginia which provided brief descriptions noted historian of our state’s National Register listings. This second edition adds approx- Mason County, imately 265 new listings, including the Huntington home of Civil Rights West Virginia activist Memphis Tennessee Garrison, the New River Gorge Bridge, Camp Caesar in Webster County, Fort Mill Ridge in Hampshire County, the Ananias Pitsenbarger Farm in Pendleton County and the Nuttallburg Coal Mining Complex in Fayette County. Each reveals the richness of our past and celebrates the stories and accomplishments of our citizens. I hope you enjoy and learn from Historic West Virginia.
    [Show full text]
  • Shoup's Run Watershed Association
    11/1/2004 Shoup Run Watershed Restoration Plan Developed by the Huntingdon County Conservation District for The Shoup Run Watershed Association Introduction Watershed History The Shoup Run, locally known as Shoup’s Run, watershed drains approximately 13,746 acres or 21.8 square miles, in the Appalachian Mountain, Broad Top region of the Valley-Ridge Physiographic Province. Within this province, the area lies within the northwestern section of the Broad Top Mountain Plateau. This area is characterized by narrow valleys and moderately steep mountain slopes. Shoup Run is located in Huntingdon County, but includes drainage from portions of Bedford County. Shoup Run flows into the Raystown Branch of the Juniata River near the community of Saxton at river mile 42.4. Shoup Run has five named tributaries (Figure 1). Approximately 10% of the surface area of the Shoup Run basin has been surface mined. Much of the mining activity was done prior to current regulations and few of the mines were reclaimed to current specifications. Surface mining activity ended in the early 1980’s. There is currently no active mining in the watershed. Deep mines underlie approximately 12% of the Shoup Run watershed. Many abandoned deep mine entries and openings still exist in the Shoup Run Basin. Deep mining was done below the water table in many locations. In order to dewater the mines, drifts were driven into the deep mines to allow water to flow down slope and out of many of the mines. The bedrock in this area is folded and faulted. Tunnels were driven through many different lithologies to allow drainage.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 Ontonagon, Presque Isle, Black, and Montreal River Watersheds
    MI/DEQ/WRD-13/014MI/DEQ/WRD-15/024 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY WATER RESOURCES DIVISION JULY 2015 STAFF REPORT A BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE ONTONAGON, PRESQUE ISLE, BLACK, AND MONTREAL RIVERS WATERSHEDS AND OTHER SELECTED WATERSHEDS IN GOGEBIC, HOUGHTON, IRON, AND ONTONAGON COUNTIES, MICHIGAN JULY-AUGUST 2013 INTRODUCTION Staff of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), Surface Water Assessment Section (SWAS), conducted biological, chemical, and physical habitat surveys during the summer of 2013 throughout the Ontonagon (Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 04020102), Presque Isle (HUC 04020101), Black (HUC 04020101), and Montreal (HUC 04010302) (OPBM) Rivers watersheds. Additionally, some streams located in smaller western Lake Superior coastal watersheds were surveyed (Figure 1). The goals of this monitoring were to: (1) assess the current status and condition of individual water bodies and determine whether Michigan Water Quality Standards (WQS) are being met; (2) evaluate biological integrity temporal trends; (3) satisfy monitoring requests submitted by external and internal customers; and (4) identify potential nonpoint source (NPS) pollution problems. These surveys qualitatively characterized the biotic integrity of macroinvertebrate communities with respect to existing habitat conditions at randomly selected sites throughout the OPBM watersheds region. The results of the surveys are used by the SWAS’s Status and Trends Program to estimate the amount of these watersheds that is supporting the other indigenous aquatic life and wildlife designated use component of R 323.1100(1)(e) of the Part 4 rules, WQS, promulgated under Part 31, Water Resources Protection, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended. BACKGROUND AND HISTORICAL SAMPLING EFFORTS The OPBM watersheds are located in the extreme west end of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.
    [Show full text]
  • Corridor Analysis for the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail in Northern Virginia
    Corridor Analysis For The Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail In Northern Virginia June 2011 Acknowledgements The Northern Virginia Regional Commission (NVRC) wishes to acknowledge the following individuals for their contributions to this report: Don Briggs, Superintendent of the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail for the National Park Service; Liz Cronauer, Fairfax County Park Authority; Mike DePue, Prince William Park Authority; Bill Ference, City of Leesburg Park Director; Yon Lambert, City of Alexandria Department of Transportation; Ursula Lemanski, Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program for the National Park Service; Mark Novak, Loudoun County Park Authority; Patti Pakkala, Prince William County Park Authority; Kate Rudacille, Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority; Jennifer Wampler, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation; and Greg Weiler, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The report is an NVRC staff product, supported with funds provided through a cooperative agreement with the National Capital Region National Park Service. Any assessments, conclusions, or recommendations contained in this report represent the results of the NVRC staff’s technical investigation and do not represent policy positions of the Northern Virginia Regional Commission unless so stated in an adopted resolution of said Commission. The views expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the jurisdictions, the National Park Service, or any of its sub agencies. Funding for this report was through a cooperative agreement with The National Park Service Report prepared by: Debbie Spiliotopoulos, Senior Environmental Planner Northern Virginia Regional Commission with assistance from Samantha Kinzer, Environmental Planner The Northern Virginia Regional Commission 3060 Williams Drive, Suite 510 Fairfax, VA 22031 703.642.0700 www.novaregion.org Page 2 Northern Virginia Regional Commission As of May 2011 Chairman Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • Countywide Park Trails Plan Amendment
    MCPB Item #______ Date: 9/29/16 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 22, 2016 TO: Montgomery County Planning Board VIA: Michael F. Riley, Director of Parks Mitra Pedoeem, Deputy Director, Administration Dr. John E. Hench, Ph.D., Chief, Park Planning and Stewardship Division (PPSD) FROM: Charles S. Kines, AICP, Planner Coordinator (PPSD) Brooke Farquhar, Supervisor (PPSD) SUBJECT: Worksession #3, Countywide Park Trails Plan Amendment Recommended Planning Board Action Review, approve and adopt the plan amendment to be titled 2016 Countywide Park Trails Plan. (Attachment 1) Changes Made Since Public Hearing Draft Attached is the final draft of the plan amendment, including all Planning Board-requested changes from worksessions #1 and #2, as well as all appendices. Please focus your attention on the following pages and issues: 1. Page 34, added language to clarify the addition of the Northwest Branch Trail to the plan, in order to facilitate mountain biking access between US 29 (Colesville Rd) and Wheaton Regional Park. In addition, an errata sheet will be inserted in the Rachel Carson Trail Corridor Plan to reflect this change in policy. 2. Page 48, incorporating Planning Board-approved text from worksession #2, regarding policy for trail user types 3. Appendices 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 15. In addition, all maps now accurately reflect Planning Board direction. Trail Planning Work Program – Remainder of FY 17 Following the approval and adoption of this plan amendment, trail planning staff will perform the following tasks to implement the Plan and address other trail planning topics requested by the Planning Board: 1. Develop program of requirements for the top implementation priority for both natural and hard surface trails.
    [Show full text]
  • Farm 67 Lawson.Pdf
    l-1: 13-32 ACHS s tJ:irr.rn RY FOP,~>I 1. Name Tenmile Creek Stream Valley '"~. Planning Area/Site Number 13/32 3 ..HNCPPC Atlas Reference Map 6 I-12 4. Address Northwestern Montgomery County between Route 121 ~West Old Baltimore Road 5. Classifica~ion Summary Category Multiple Resource Ovmership Various Public Acquisition In process Status Occupied Accessible Yes: restricted Present use A~Ti culture, Park, Private Residence Previous Survey Recording M-NCPPC Federal__ State_LCounty_LLocal __ (Titls and date: Inventory of Historical Sites 1976 6. Date 7. Original Owner 8. Apparent Condition b. Altered 9. Descriotion: Tenmile Creek Road, one of but a few dirt roads remaining in le County, winds past a nineteenth century schoolhouse, a slave cabin, a fire- ~:~oof house built on the site of a turreted mansion destroyed by fire in 1945, a Victorian summer boarding house and private park, a mid-nineteenth century mill site and pond, and a deserted, early road. The road leads through a green valley where jersey cows graze, up a gentle rise and around a bend where the trees meet overhead, through a ford, to the intersection with West Old Baltimore Road and a pond of pink and yellow water lilies. The creek valley contains numerous natural springs, many lined with watercress, meadows of wildflowers, surrounded with tree covered hills. 10. Significance: The valley of Tenmile Creek, immediately northwest of Boyds, Md. is an uncompromised historic & environmentally significant area that has suc­ ceeded in maintaining its character. Saved from development, it is now threatened by an impoundment. Historically the area contains potentially signifi­ cant archeological sites -- possibly of prehistoric Indian culture -- associated with woodland settlements of eighteenth century tobacco planters, a mill site, pond, race & house, a large boarding house constructed to accommodate summer visitors after the area became accessible by railroad in 1873, & later structures erected by dairy farmers.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishing Regulations JANUARY - DECEMBER 2004
    WEST VIRGINIA Fishing Regulations JANUARY - DECEMBER 2004 West Virginia Division of Natural Resources D I Investment in a Legacy --------------------------- S West Virginia’s anglers enjoy a rich sportfishing legacy and conservation ethic that is maintained T through their commitment to our state’s fishery resources. Recognizing this commitment, the R Division of Natural Resources endeavors to provide a variety of quality fishing opportunities to meet I increasing demands, while also conserving and protecting the state’s valuable aquatic resources. One way that DNR fulfills this part of its mission is through its fish hatchery programs. Many anglers are C aware of the successful trout stocking program and the seven coldwater hatcheries that support this T important fishery in West Virginia. The warmwater hatchery program, although a little less well known, is still very significant to West Virginia anglers. O West Virginia’s warmwater hatchery program has been instrumental in providing fishing opportunities F to anglers for more than 60 years. For most of that time, the Palestine State Fish Hatchery was the state’s primary facility dedicated to the production of warmwater fish. Millions of walleye, muskellunge, channel catfish, hybrid striped bass, saugeye, tiger musky, and largemouth F and smallmouth bass have been raised over the years at Palestine and stocked into streams, rivers, and lakes across the state. I A recent addition to the DNR’s warmwater hatchery program is the Apple Grove State Fish Hatchery in Mason County. Construction of the C hatchery was completed in 2003. It was a joint project of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the DNR as part of a mitigation agreement E for the modernization of the Robert C.
    [Show full text]
  • Davis Family Langfitt and Davis British and Colonial Ancestry
    Langfitt and Davis British and Colonial Ancestry Courtesy ofFort Vance Historical Society CAMPBELL Research on.the Campbell family was done in Ohio, Brooke and Hancock Counties, W. Va., and in w·ashington County, Pa. None was done in Northern Ireland or Scotland. Not knowing the ancestors of the immigrant or the locale of their home would mak~ research there difficult. The Campbell clan in Scotland was,quite large and there were severa~ different septs of the clan. GENERATION: 1. James Campbell, the immigrant ancestor, came to America ca. ~772/73, arriving at Philadelphia. He brought with ihim his wife, Patience , and probably eight children. They had emigrated from Northern Ireland or Ulster, as it is called, to Scotland and from there to America. [HRC:205] In a court.record filed in Ohio County, Va., William Griffith deposed in 1799 that James Camp­ bell was about ~ighty years old. [CSSV Vol.II;72] According to that, if it was correct, he .was born ca. 1719. James Campbell died in Brooke County, Va., after 14 February 1804 when his will was written and before 13 July 1805 when his wife, Patience, wrote her will. Patience died in Brooke County, Va., after 13 July 1805 when her will v1as written and before November 1809 when it was probated. It is said that James Campbell was a cousin of Alexander CampbelL. Alexander and his father, Thomas, founded the Christian Church (Disciples of·. Christ) at Bethany, Va. It was at first called the Campbellite Church. Thomas was born 1763 in ' 127 LANGFri'T AND DAVIS BRITISH AND COLONIAL ANCESTRY County Down, Ireland.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service West Virginia Ecological Services Field Office Liz Stout Fish and Wildlife Biologist 694 Beverly Pike Elkins, West Virginia 26241 [email protected] 304-636-6586 x 15 Slide 1 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Today’s Goals Inform everyone of their obligations under the Endangered Species Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act Introduction to the USFWS Mission and WVFO Introduction to the Endangered Species Act Discuss how these laws relate to energy projects, more specifically to oil & gas operations within West Virginia Discuss the process of consulting with the USFWS Slide 2 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission Statement: Working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. Slide 3 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service USFWS Programs: Authority: Major Divisions: • Endangered Species Act (1973) . Migratory Birds • Bald/Golden Eagle Prot. Act (1940) . Fisheries • Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918) . Wildlife Refuges • Fish & Wildlife Coord. Act (1965) . Law Enforcement . Ecological Services Slide 4 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Functions: .Enforce Federal wildlife laws . Migratory Bird Treaty Act – 1918 & 1934 . Bald Eagle & Golden Eagle Protection Act – 1940 . Endangered Species Act - 1973 .Manage the 95 Million acre National Wildlife Refuge System . Canaan Valley NWR . Ohio River Islands NWR .Operate 66 National Fish Hatcheries . Warm Springs NFH .Manage migratory birds – waterfowl, shorebirds, songbirds Slide 5 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Functions - continued: .Restore Nationally significant fisheries . Trout, Salmon .Conserve and restore wildlife habitat . Private Lands Program .
    [Show full text]