DOCSLIB.ORG

MARYLAND Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

MARYLAND Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment February 2005 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency in partnership with the Maryland Department of Agriculture, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources and Natural Resources Conservation Service Abstract Mandated Action: The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Commodity Credit Corporation (USDA/CCC) and the State of Maryland have agreed to implement the Maryland Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), a component of the national Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). CREP is a voluntary program for agricultural landowners. USDA is authorized by the provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (1985 Act) (16 U.S.C. 3830 et seq.), and its regulations at 7 CFR Part 1410. In accordance with the 1985 Act, USDA/CCC is seeking authorization to enroll lands into CREP through December 31, 2007. Type of Document: Programmatic Environmental Assessment Lead Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency For Further Information: James P. Fortner, National Environmental Compliance Manager Conservation and Environmental Programs Division U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency 1400 Independence Ave. S.W. Washington, DC 20250 202-720-5533 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/crep.htm ************************************************************************ The Maryland Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Programmatic Environmental Assessment has been prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347); the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508); USDA-Farm Service Agency draft environmental regulations (7 CFR Part 799.4, Subpart G); and USDA-Farm Service Agency 1-EQ, Revision 1, Environmental Quality Programs, dated November 19, 2004. ************************************************************************ Cover Photo Credits: top left, Delmarva fox squirrel, credit:: W.H. Julian, courtesy Environmental Defense website, http://www.backfromthebrink.org/; top right, Patuxent river farm, courtesy Calvert Soil Conservation District; lower right, bog turtle, credit: J. McSherry, courtesy The Tortoise Reserve; lower left, courtesy Calvert Soil Conservation District ii Maryland Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Programmatic Environmental Assessment CONTENTS Page Abstract ii Listing of Acronyms vi Note to Readers ix Executive Summary x CHAPTER 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1-1 1.1 History and Background 1-1 1.2 Proposed Federal Action 1-5 1.3 Scoping 1-13 CHAPTER 2.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSES 2-1 2.1 Preliminary Alternatives Initially Considered 2-1 2.2 Alternatives Analyses 2-1 CHAPTER 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1 3.1 Project Area Overview 3-1 3.2 Socioeconomic Characteristics 3-3 3.3 Profile of Maryland Agriculture 3-10 3.4 Natural Resources 3-15 3.5 Historic and Cultural Resources 3-33 CHAPTER 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-1 4.1 Soils 4-1 4.2 Water Resources and Water Quality 4-3 4.3 Riparian Areas, Wetlands and Floodplains 4-7 4.4 Wildlife Habitat and Forestlands 4-9 4.5 Terrestrial and Aquatic Species 4-13 4.6 Federally and State Protected Species 4-16 4.7 Invasive Species 4-18 4.8 Air Quality 4-19 4.9 Historic and Cultural Resources 4-21 4.10 Socioeconomic Impacts 4-23 4.11 Cumulative Impacts 4-27 CHAPTER 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS 5-1 CHAPTER 6.0 REFERENCES 6-1 USDA-Farm Service Agency iii February 2005February 3, 2005 APPENDICES A Maryland’s Tributary Strategy Agricultural Best Management Practices B Federal and State Legislative Matrix C U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Partners D Maryland CRP-CREP Conservation Practices and Current CREP Contracts/Acreages E Maryland Section 303(d) Waters Listing F Federally and State Protected Species in Maryland G Invasive and Exotic Species in Maryland H Maryland National Historic Landmarks Survey I Agency and Public Comments Received on the Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment J Maryland Environmental Evaluation Checklist LISTING OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table No. Page 1-1 Comparison of Land Preservation Goals Established by Chesapeake 2000, Maryland CREP and Senate Joint Resolution 10 1-8 1-2 Federal Agricultural Conservation Programs in Maryland 1-10 1-3 State of Maryland Land Conservation Programs 1-12 1-4 Summary of Maryland Land Conservation Goals and Accomplishments 1-13 1-5 Maryland CREP Scoping Comments and Responses 1-14 2-1 Maryland CREP Funding Appropriations, 2001-2003 2-2 2-2 Major Maryland Counties Holding CREP Easements, 2004 2-3 2-3 Maryland CREP Cost-Share Benefits 2-7 2-4 Comparison of Maryland CREP Alternatives 2-8 3-1 Population Growth in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, 2000-2020 3-3 3-2 Comparison of Demographic Characteristics in Maryland, 1997-2000 3-3 3-3 Maryland Farm Operator Demographic Characteristics, 2002 3-4 3-4 State of Maryland and County Population Estimates, 1990-2020 3-5 3-5 Fastest Growing Counties in Maryland, 1985-1997 3-6 3-6 Annual Percentage Change in Farmland, 1959-1997 3-7 iv Maryland Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Programmatic Environmental Assessment Table No. Page 3-7 Existing and Projected Land Use Changes in Maryland, 1997-2020 3-8 3-8 Maryland Counties with Highest Projected Average Annual Rate of Development, 1997-2020 3-8 3-9 Maryland Counties with Highest Number of CREP Easements, July 2004 3-11 3-10 Value of Farm Sales in Maryland, 2002 3-12 3-11 Maryland Counties Leading Loss in Agricultural Acres, 1985-2020 3-13 3-12 County Ranking by Pesticide and Fertilizer Use in Maryland, 1994 and 1997 3-14 3-13 Maryland Counties and Areas Designated as Nonattainment for 8-HourOzone Standards 3-15 3-14 Directive and Tributary Strategy Forest Buffer Goals, 1996 and 2003 3-23 3-15 Wetland Types throughout Maryland, 1995 3-25 3-16 Wetland Types and Acreages by County, 1981-1982 3-25 3-17 Federally and State Protected Species in Maryland, 2003 3-28 3-18 Declining Species of Concern in Maryland, 2004 3-28 3-19 Maryland Midwinter Waterfowl Survey Results, 2000-2004 3-29 Figure No. Page 1-1 Statewide Priority Funding Areas and Rural Legacy Areas 1-11 3-1 State of Maryland by Agricultural Statistics District 3-1 3-2 Chesapeake Bay Watershed 3-2 3-3 Population Trends Projected for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, 1990-2020 3-4 3-4 Population Projections for Maryland’s Jurisdictions, 2000-2025 3-6 3-5 Decline in Cropland throughout the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, 1982-2002 3-7 3-6 Existing Forestland and Agricultural Land in Maryland, 1997 3-9 3-7 Projected Forestland and Agricultural Land in Maryland, 2020 3-10 3-8 Groundwater and Streamflow Discharges into the Chesapeake Bay 3-17 3-9 Annual Mean Inflow into the Chesapeake Bay, 1937-2003 3-18 USDA-Farm Service Agency v February 2005February 3, 2005 Figure No. Page 3-10 Sources of Nitrogen and Phosphorous Loads to the Chesapeake Bay, 2002 3-19 3-11 Maryland Section 303(d) Impaired Waterbodies 3-21 3-12 Functions of Riparian Forest Buffers 3-22 3-13 Restoration of Riparian Forest Buffers, 1996-2003 3-23 3-14 Maryland Riparian Forest Buffers, 1994-2004 3-24 3-15 Percentage of Land in Forest in Maryland by County 3-27 3-16 Ecologically Significant Areas of Maryland 3-30 3-17 Maryland National Natural Landmarks, 2004 3-31 4-1 Total Erosion on Cropland and CRP Lands Nationwide 4-2 4-2 Effectiveness of Approved BMPs in Meeting Maryland’s Tributary Strategy 4-5 vi Maryland Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Programmatic Environmental Assessment LISTING OF ACRONYMS BMPs Best Management Practices CASA Chesapeake Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture, Future Harvest CBA Chesapeake Bay Agreement CCC Commodity Credit Corporation CD Conservation District CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations COC County Office Coordinator COMAR Code of Maryland Regulations CP Conservation Practice CRP Conservation Reserve Program CREP Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program CWA Clean Water Act EAC Early Action Compact EBI Environmental Benefits Index ECP Emergency Conservation Program EI Erodibility Index EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973 EWPP Emergency Watershed Protection Program EWRP Emergency Wetland Reserve Program FIP Forestry Incentive Program FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FSA Farm Service Agency FWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service HEL Highly Erodible Land MACS Maryland Agricultural Water Quality Cost Share MALPF Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation MBSS Maryland Biological Streams Survey MDA Maryland Department of Agriculture MDE Maryland Department of the Environment MDNR Maryland Department of Natural Resources MDP Maryland Department of Planning MOA Memorandum of Agreement NHL National Historic Landmark NNL National Natural Landmark NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service PDA Public Drainage Association PDR Purchase of Development Rights PEA Programmatic Environmental Assessment PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement USDA-Farm Service Agency vii February 2005February 3, 2005 PIP Practice Incentive Payment P.L. Public Law POS Program Open Space ppt parts-per-thousand RFB Riparian Forest Buffer RLA Rural Legacy Area RLP Rural Legacy Program SCD Soil Conservation District SEP State Enhancement Program SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SIP Signing Incentive Payment; also State Implementation Plan SWCD
Recommended publications
  • Nanticoke Currents Summer 2017

    Nanticoke Currents Summer 2017

    Nanticoke June | 2017 currents CONSERVING THE NATUR AL, CULTURAL, AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES OF THE NANTICOKE RI VER Homeowners Workshops Golden Nanticoke Creek Freaks Workshop Learn about rain gardens, Was there a fungus among The NWA offers educators an rain barrels, pollinator- us? Find out what caused a opportunity to learn about friendly gardening practices, golden sheen on the our local waterways and lawn fertilization, converting Nanticoke in May. learn activities they can lawns to meadows, and conduct with their students See pages 2 & 3 . more. inside and outside. See page 6. See page 5. C+ Grade for the Nanticoke Report Card The Nanticoke’s grades slipped a bit this year. Increased rainfall and higher levels of phosphorus are damaging the waterways. Learn more about the issues and what you can do. See page 7. Unusual Golden Sheen on the Nanticoke River Photo Credit: Tom Darby Written by Mike Pretl & Judith Stribling May 22 dawned as a normal though periodically rainy day for NWA’s Creekwatchers. Every other Monday from late March through early November – rain or shine -- our trained volunteers visit 36 sites on the river and its major tributaries, from Delaware down to Nanticoke. These citizen scientists collect water samples and partner labs analyze for total nitrogen, total phosphorus, chlorophyll a, and bacteria. Creekwatchers also measure dissolved oxygen, salinity, water temperature, water clarity, and total water depth directly. Lastly, Creekwatchers note and record on data sheets the temperature and weather conditions as well as any unusual phenomenon of the water or its surrounding habitat. That morning, our river waters displayed nothing abnormal, only an occasional, slight film of brownish algae, to be expected in the spring months.
  • Maryland Historical Magazine, 1997, Volume 92, Issue No. 2

    Maryland Historical Magazine, 1997, Volume 92, Issue No. 2

    i f of 5^1- 1-3^-7 Summer 1997 MARYLAND Historical Magazine TU THE MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY Founded 1844 Dennis A. Fiori, Director The Maryland Historical Magazine Robert I. Cottom, Editor Patricia Dockman Anderson, Associate Editor Donna B. Shear, Managing Editor Jeff Goldman, Photographer Angela Anthony, Robin Donaldson Coblentz, Christopher T.George, Jane Gushing Lange, and Robert W. Schoeberlein, Editorial Associates Regional Editors John B. Wiseman, Frostburg State University Jane G. Sween, Montgomery Gounty Historical Society Pegram Johnson III, Accoceek, Maryland Acting as an editorial board, the Publications Committee of the Maryland Historical Society oversees and supports the magazine staff. Members of the committee are: John W. Mitchell, Upper Marlboro; Trustee/Ghair Jean H. Baker, Goucher Gollege James H. Bready, Baltimore Sun Robert J. Brugger, The Johns Hopkins University Press Lois Green Garr, St. Mary's Gity Gommission Toby L. Ditz, The Johns Hopkins University Dennis A. Fiori, Maryland Historical Society, ex-officio David G. Fogle, University of Maryland Jack G. Goellner, Baltimore Averil Kadis, Enoch Pratt Free Library Roland G. McGonnell, Morgan State University Norvell E. Miller III, Baltimore Richard Striner, Washington Gollege John G. Van Osdell, Towson State University Alan R. Walden, WBAL, Baltimore Brian Weese, Bibelot, Inc., Pikesville Members Emeritus John Higham, The Johns Hopkins University Samuel Hopkins, Baltimore Gharles McG. Mathias, Ghevy Ghase The views and conclusions expressed in this magazine are those of the authors. The editors are responsible for the decision to make them public. ISSN 0025-4258 © 1997 by the Maryland Historical Society. Published as a benefit of membership in the Maryland Historical Society in March, June, September, and December.
  • Native News, September/October 2006

    Native News, September/October 2006

    Native News Newsletter of the Maryland Native Plant Society September/October 2006 Volume 6 Number 5 Inside This Issue: Upcoming Monthly Meetings President’s Letter Page 2 “Goldenrods, Asters, and Thoroughworts” ~ Tuesday, September 26, 7:30 pm MNPS Contacts White Oak Library – Large Meeting Room Page 2 ~ The Asteraceae (Aster Family) is a large and diverse family that is MNPS Announcements especially well-developed in North America. Maryland and the mid- Page 3 Atlantic region are home to a particularly rich diversity of native plants ~ in the Aster Family. Join botanist Rod Simmons for an in-depth Upcoming Chapter Events Page 3 presentation of the many native species of Solidago, Eupatorium, and ~ Aster (formerly) in Maryland. The talk will focus on identification of Wildflower in Focus the common species, but will also include uncommon and rare ones Page 4 and habitats throughout the state where they may be found. Live plant ~ material will be available for hands-on identification. Late Summer/Fall Field Trips Page 5 “The Importance of Hybridization in the ~ Invasive Exotic Plant Systematic Evolution of Oaks” Removal Workdays Tuesday, October 24, 7:30 pm Page 6 White Oak Library – Large Meeting Room ~ General Announcements The oaks are one of North America’s most widespread and important Page 7 trees. Nearly 80 native species of oaks occur in North America, not including the numerous natural hybrids and app. 100 species in Mexico. Maryland is one of the most diverse areas in the east for oaks, with 21 of the 41 oak species native to the eastern U.S., not including hybrids.
  • Evaluating the Relative Cost Effectiveness of the Farm Service Agency’S Farm Loan Programs

    Evaluating the Relative Cost Effectiveness of the Farm Service Agency’S Farm Loan Programs

    United States Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency Economic Policy Analysis Staff August 2006 Report to Congress Evaluating the Relative Cost Effectiveness of the Farm Service Agency’s Farm Loan Programs Charles Dodson Steven Koenig* *Agricultural Economists, Economic Policy Analysis Staff, Farm Service Agency, 3741 SB, 202-720-3451,[email protected], [email protected] ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Valuable comments and suggestions were provided by the Farm Service Agency’s Office of the Deputy Administrator for Farm Loan Programs during the course of drafting the report. Chris Beyerhelm, Assistant Deputy Administrator, and Jim Radintz, Director, Loan Making Division, had primary responsibility for these comments and suggestions. Sheila Oellrich, Loan Servicing and Property Management Division, provided valuable assistance in developing data necessary to complete the report. Technical guidance and suggestions were provided by Joy Harwood, Director, and Terry Hickenbotham, of the Farm Service Agency’s Economic and Policy Analysis Staff. Members of a USDA Advisory Working Group for the report provided helpful comments and suggestions, including Joe Glauber (Office of the Chief Economist), David Grahn (Office of the General Counsel), Jim Staiert (Office of Budget and Program Analysis), Pat Sullivan, (Economic Research Service), and Dennis Taitano (Farm Service Agency, Budget Division). Jerome Stam, retired Senior Economist at USDA's Economic Research Service, provided historical documentation used in preparing the background discussions. Technical editing and report preparation were provided by April MacDonald and Mitch Yoshida. TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .…..…………………………………………….……………1 I. Introduction……………………………………………………………………8 II. Justification for Federal Farm Credit Programs..……..…………...……...….11 III. Overview of Farm Loan Programs………...……………………..…….…….13 a.
  • Section III: County Profile

    Section III: County Profile

    Section III: County Profile Approved General Plan | 51 SECTION III: COUNTY PROFILE 52 | PLAN Prince George’s 2035 SECTION III: COUNTY PROFILE County Profile and Analysis .....54 Assets and Challenges ............. 72 Indicates that the definition of a word or term may be found in the Glossary of Terms, which starts on page 282. Approved General Plan | 53 County Profile and Analysis COUNTY PROFILE AND ANALYSIS County Profile and Analysis Understanding who Prince George’s County is today and who it is becoming is critical to developing effective policies and strategies to meet the needs of current and future residents. Regional Context Prince George’s County consists of 498 square miles (approximately 320,000 acres). It is bounded by Howard County to the north, Anne Arundel County and Calvert County to the east, Charles County to the south, and Montgomery County, Fairfax County, Virginia, and the District of Columbia to the west (see Map 5). Prince George’s County is located within the Washington metropolitan area, which is home to 5.6 million residents and 3.9 million jobs. The region’s strong and diverse economy is fueled by federal spending that has weathered recent recessions and nurtured growing research, commerce, information, and technology sectors. Municipalities Prince George’s County has 27 incorporated municipalities which help provide a range of critical services for County residents (see Public Facilities Element). Demographic Profile Population With an estimated population of 881,130 in 2012, Prince George’s County is the third most populous jurisdiction in the Washington metropolitan area, following Fairfax County (1,118,602), Virginia and neighboring Montgomery County (1,004,709).
  • DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service

    DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service

    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 04/21/2021 and available online at DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREfederalregister.gov/d/2021-08152, and on govinfo.gov Agricultural Marketing Service [Document Number AMS-TM-21-0034] Supply Chains for the Production of Agricultural Commodities and Food Products AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice; request for public comments. SUMMARY: On February 24, 2021, President Biden issued an Executive Order on “America’s Supply Chains,” which directs several Federal agency actions to secure and strengthen America’s supply chains. One of these directions is for the Secretary of Agriculture (the Secretary) to submit, within one year, a report to the President that assesses the supply chains for the production of agricultural commodities and food products. This notice requests comments and information from the public to assist the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in preparing the report required by the Executive Order. Through this notice, USDA is also requesting public comment to inform our thinking regarding how stimulus relief programs and spending related to food supply chain resilience as authorized by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA), and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) can help to increase durability and resilience within the U.S. food supply. DATES: Comments must be received by [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. ADDRESSES: All written comments in response to this notice should be posted online at www.regulations.gov. Comments received will be posted without change, including any personal information provided. All comments should reference the docket number AMS-TM-21-0034, the date of submission, and the page number of this issue of the Federal Register.
  • Agriculture Big Data (Agbd) Challenges and Opportunities from Farm to Table: a Midwest

    Agriculture Big Data (Agbd) Challenges and Opportunities from Farm to Table: a Midwest

    Agriculture Big Data (AgBD) Challenges and Opportunities From Farm To Table: A Midwest Big Data Hub Community† Whitepaper Shashi Shekhar1, Patrick Schnable2, David LeBauer3, Katherine Baylis4 and Kim VanderWaal5 1 Dept. of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities 2 Dept. of Agronomy, Dept. of Genetics, Development and Cell Biology, Iowa State University 3 Carl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 4 Dept. of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 5 Dept. of Veterinary Population Medicine, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Abstract: Big data is critical to help agriculture meet the challenges of growing world population, climate change and urbanization. Recent success stories include precision agriculture, phenotyping, and global agricultural monitoring. Many of these initiatives are made possible by novel data sources such as satellite imagery, instrumented tractors and initiatives such as the Global Open Data for Agriculture and Nutrition (GODAN). This whitepaper surveys agricultural big datasets, characterizes their limitations, lists transformative opportunities and suggests a plan to engage and nurture Agriculture Big Data (AgBD) research community. Public big data includes satellite imagery (e.g., Earth on Amazon Web Services, Google Earth Engine), surveys (e.g., National Agricultural Statistics Service), financial statistics (e.g., Economic Research Service), social media (e.g., Twitter), etc. Private datasets describe yield (e.g., precision agriculture, Farm Service Agency), farm loss (e.g., Risk Management Agency) and condemnation (Food Safety and Inspection Service), etc. Limitations include data and metadata gaps, insufficient data storage, preservation, and documentation, lack of scalable spatiotemporal big data analytics methods, and inadequate secure data-sharing mechanisms.
  • Maryland Stream Waders 10 Year Report

    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
  • News and Notes Prince George's County J § 'W

    News and Notes Prince George's County J § 'W

    News and Notes Prince George's County J § 'W . CO , Historical Society ! = = 3 e 'MaritlU' February 1997 Our 45th Year Volume XXV Number 1 BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1997 President - Jane Eagen Directors 1997-1999 Past Presidents Vice President - Eugene Roberts, Jr. Mildred Ridgeley Gray John Giannetti Secretary - Sarah Bourne Melinda Alter Paul T. Lanham Treasurer - John Bourne Katherine Clagett Warren Rhoads Historian - Frederick DeMarr Directors 1996-1998 W.C. (Bud) Button Editor - Sharon Howe Sweeting Julie Bright Joyce MacDonald John Mitchell William Uber Illustration by Fred H. Greenberg from Washington Itself by E. J. Applewhite, 1986 JOIN US on SATURDAY, MARCH 8 at 2:00 pm at the Glenn Dale Community Center Mr David J. Danelski, Supreme Court Historian, will speak on Sons of Maryland on the United States Supreme Court: Thomas Johnson, Samuel Chase, Gabriel Duvall, Roger Brooke Taney and Thurgood Marshall. Mr. Danelski has researched, taught and written extensively about the United States Supreme Count. He will share little know stories and attempt to undo some popular misconceptions about these men. We have invited the members of the Duvall Society to join us for this celebration of Gabriel Duvall. The reception following the program will be at Marietta, home of Gabriel Duvall. FROM THE EDITOR'S DESK Happy New Year. You will notice on the cover the new/old Board of Directors of the Historical Society and an announcement of the meeting on Saturday, March 8 (2:00 pm, Glenn Dale Community Center) on "Sons of Maryland on the United States Supreme Court." This issue begins with the continuation of a column called Meet the Meet the Board Board written by Secretary Sarah Bourne.
  • Financial Assistance for Farm Operations and Farm Households in the Face of COVID-19

    Financial Assistance for Farm Operations and Farm Households in the Face of COVID-19

    COVID-19 Working Paper #AP-090 July 2021 COVID-19 Working Paper: Financial Assistance for Farm Operations and Farm Households in the Face of COVID-19 Anil K. Giri, Tia M. McDonald, Dipak Subedi, and Christine Whitt This paper has been published through USDA Economic Research Service’s (ERS) COVID- 19 Working Paper series. ERS’ temporary Working Paper series is designed to publicly release preliminary analyses relevant to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on agriculture, food, the environment, and rural America in a timely manner. ERS’ COVID-19 Working Papers have not undergone the review and editorial process generally accorded official ERS publications, but they have been reviewed by ERS economists and social scientists through an expedited review process. Page | 1 COVID-19 Working Paper Financial Assistance for Farm Operations and Farm Households in the Face of COVID-19, AP-090 USDA, Economic Research Service Abstract On March 13, 2020, the U.S. Federal Government declared a national emergency based on the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The Government’s response included providing assistance programs related to the economic impacts of COVID-19. This study estimates the total direct Government assistance to farm operations and farm households in calendar year 2020 from COVID-19 related programs, the Market Facilitation Program (MFP), and other existing Farm Bill (FB) programs. The insights from this study supplement the triannual U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service (ERS) farm income forecasts by providing stakeholders more forecasting details, including information regarding the distribution of Federal payments and eligibility. This working paper further documents methodologies relevant for a timely update of similar payments in the future.
  • Final 2012 NHLPA Report Noapxb.Pub

    Final 2012 NHLPA Report Noapxb.Pub

    GSA Office of Real Property Utilization and Disposal 2012 PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS REPORT NATIONAL HISTORIC LIGHTHOUSE PRESERVATION ACT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Lighthouses have played an important role in America’s For More Information history, serving as navigational aids as well as symbols of our rich cultural past. Congress passed the National Information about specific light stations in the Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act (NHLPA) in 2000 to NHLPA program is available in the appendices and establish a lighthouse preservation program that at the following websites: recognizes the cultural, recreational, and educational National Park Service Lighthouse Heritage: value of these iconic properties, especially for local http://www.nps.gov/history/maritime/lt_index.htm coastal communities and nonprofit organizations as stewards of maritime history. National Park Service Inventory of Historic Light Stations: http://www.nps.gov/maritime/ltsum.htm Under the NHLPA, historic lighthouses and light stations (lights) are made available for transfer at no cost to Federal agencies, state and local governments, and non-profit organizations (i.e., stewardship transfers). The NHLPA Progress To Date: NHLPA program brings a significant and meaningful opportunity to local communities to preserve their Since the NHLPA program’s inception in 2000, 92 lights maritime heritage. The program also provides have been transferred to eligible entities. Sixty-five substantial cost savings to the United States Coast percent of the transferred lights (60 lights) have been Guard (USCG) since the historic structures, expensive to conveyed through stewardship transfers to interested repair and maintain, are no longer needed by the USCG government or not-for-profit organizations, while 35 to meet its mission as aids to navigation.
  • Nanticoke River Explorers Brochure

    Nanticoke River Explorers Brochure

    he Nanticoke River is the wetland functions. Both Maryland and Delaware have Submerged aquatic largest Chesapeake Bay identified the Nanticoke watershed as a priority area vegetation (SAV) tributary on the lower for protecting and enhancing natural resources for is considered an SCALE SEAFORD River Towns and Delmarva Peninsula, Nanticoke River recreation and conservation and recognize the need indicator species for 0 1 2 3 Watershed NANTICOKE RIVER The Tmeandering gently through marshland, to develop a greater sense of stewardship among water quality and 1 Points of Interest forests and farmland, on its 50 mile journey from southern the growing population. provides important miles Delaware to Tangier Sound in Maryland. Navigable beyond habitat for many Present Day307 Access and313 Information Seaford Boat Ramp SEAFORD, DE 1 Seaford, Delaware, the river has played an important role in animal species. Living Resources HURLOCK 20 Seaford was once part of Dorchester Nanticoke commerce and trade throughout its history, providing a critical Historically, there NANTICOKE WILDLIFE AREA, DELAWARE County in the Province of Maryland. First were well-established water route for early Native American tribes, and later for European The interaction between land and water that takes place in the This wildlife area surrounds historic Broad Creek called “Hooper’s Landing”, Seaford was settlers. The Nanticoke watershed encompasses approximately Nanticoke watershed has created diverse natural conditions and an SAV beds in the lower just South of Seaford, DE on the Nanticoke. Visitors laid out in 1799, and incorporated in 1865, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Atmospheric National Oceanic and Woodland just three days prior to the end of the Civil 725,000 acres, including over 50,000 acres of tidal wetlands.