DOCSLIB.ORG

North Fork of the Shenandoah River Watershed Assessment Virginia and West Virginia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
North Fork of the Shenandoah River Watershed Assessment Virginia and West Virginia North Fork of the Shenandoah River Watershed Assessment Virginia and West Virginia June 2008 Rapid watershed assessments provide initial estimates of where conservation investments would best address the concerns of landowners, conservation districts, and other community organizations and stakeholders. These assessments help landowners and local leaders set priorities and determine the best actions to achieve their goals. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Richmond, Virginia "The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720- 6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer." North Fork of the Shenandoah River Watershed Assessment Virginia and West Virginia Frederick, Page, Rockingham, Shenandoah and Warren Counties, Virginia and Hardy County, West Virginia Abstract This watershed assessment involved the collection of data and information for the purpose of developing a watershed profile, including a description of the natural resource conditions and trends, issues, concerns and problems along with recommendations for local action. The information will assist decisionmakers to make informed decisions and facilitate the timely implementation of various conservation programs. Authority Prepared under the authority of the Conservation Technical Assistance Program, Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1935, as amended, Public Law 74-46, 16 U.S.C. (590a-f and 590q), 7 CFR Part 610 (CFDA 10.902). Prepared By: USDA – Natural Resources Conservation Service In Cooperation With: Potomac Valley Soil Conservation District, WV Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District, VA Shenandoah Valley Soil and Water Conservation District, VA Shenandoah Resource Conservation and Development Council, VA For further information, please contact: JOHN A. BRICKER State Conservationist USDA – Natural Resources Conservation Service Culpeper Building, Suite 209 1606 Santa Rosa Road Richmond, Virginia 23229-5014 Telephone: (804) 287-1691 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Figures …………………………………………………………………………. iv List of Tables ………………………………………………………………………….. vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ………………………………………………………….. vii PURPOSE …………………………………………………………………………….. 1 INTRODUCTION …………………………………………..……………………….. 1 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION .………… .…………………………………………… 4 General Location and Description …………………………………………………. 4 Land Cover ………………………………………………………………………… 4 Climate and Precipitation ………………………………………………………….. 5 Geology ……………………………………………………………………….......... 6 Elevation and Slope Ranges ……………………………………………………….. 8 Soils ………………………………………………………………………………... 9 Erosion Potential …………………………………………………………………… 11 Wetlands and Hydric Soils ………………………………………………………… 12 Prime and Statewide Important Farmland …………………………………………. 13 Surface Water Flows ……………………………………………………………..... 14 Flooding Concerns …………………………………………………………………. 17 Ground Water Resources …………………………………………………………... 17 Water Withdrawals ………………………………………...………………………. 18 Irrigation …………………………………………………………………………… 18 Effects of Karst Topography……………………………………………………….. 19 Threatened and Endangered Species …………………………………………......... 20 Coldwater/Trout Streams ...……………………………………………………........ 21 Fish and Wildlife …………………………………………………………………... 21 Subwatershed Descriptions ……………………………………………………........ 24 RESOURCE CONDITIONS AND TRENDS ……………………………………… 42 Development ……………………………………………………………………….. 42 Land Cover Changes ……………………………………………………………..… 42 Forest Resources …………………………………………………………………… 47 Surface Water Quality ………………………………………………………….….. 48 Water Quality Trend Analysis ………………………………………………….….. 51 Shenandoah River Fish Kills ………………………………………………….…… 53 Citizen Monitoring …………………………………………………………………. 55 TMDL Studies and Implementation Plan ………………………………………….. 56 Animal Numbers and Distribution in the Watershed ………………………………. 57 Agricultural Pollutant Loadings…………………………………………………….. 61 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Page SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA ………………………………………………………... 64 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………. 64 Population and Demographics……………………………………………………… 65 Education………………………………………………………………………….... 66 Employment………………………………………………………………………… 67 Income……………………………………………………………………………… 68 2002 Agricultural Census Data…………………………………………………….. 69 Farmer Profile………………………………………………………………………. 79 STAKEHOLDERS: ISSUES, CONCERNS AND OPPORTUNITIES ………….. 81 Natural Resource Considerations and Strategy Options …………………………… 90 CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES IN THE WATERSHED ….…………………… 92 Conservation Organizations ………………………………………………………... 92 Activities in the Watershed ………………………………………………………… 94 Agricultural/Forestal Districts ……………………………………………………... 95 Conservation Lands and CREP ……………………………………………………. 96 Conservation Practice Installation …………………………………………………. 97 CURRENT AND FUTURE CONDITIONS ………………………………………... 98 SUMMARY ………………………………………………………………………....... 101 CONCLUSIONS …………………………………………………………………....... 103 RECOMMENDATIONS ……………………………………………………………. 105 REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………. 107 REPORT AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS and REVIEWERS …………………… 110 APPENDICES Appendix A: Map Sources ………………………………………………………… A-1 Appendix B: Sociological/Community Considerations and Strategy Options ……. B-1 iii List Of Figures Figure Page 1 – Location of North Fork Shenandoah River Watershed……………………………. 2 2 – Watershed Map with 10-digit Subwatershed Boundaries ………..……………….. 3 3 – 2001 Land Cover Data …………………………………………………………….. 4 4 – Average Annual Precipitation Ranges …………………………………………….. 5 5 – Geology ……………………………………………………………………..……... 7 6 – STATSGO Soil Map Units ………………………………………….…….............. 9 7 – Elevation and Slope Ranges (10m Data)…………………………….…………...... 10 8 – Soil Erosion Potential ……………………………………………………………... 11 9 – Hydric Soils and NWI Wetlands ….…………………………………….………… 12 10– Prime and Statewide Important Farmland ...…………………………………...…. 13 11 – Prime and Statewide Important Farmland by Percent of Watershed …………….. 13 12 – Flow Gauging Stations and Groundwater Monitoring Site ……………………… 15 13 – Flow Data for Linville Creek …………………………………………………….. 16 14 – Flow Data for North Fork of Shenandoah River ………………………………… 16 15 – Flow Data for Passage Creek …………………………………………………….. 17 16 – Shenandoah Salamander, Plethodon shenandoah ……………………………….. 21 17 – Threatened and Endangered Species Sample Sites and Cold Water Streams……. 22 18 – Bailey’s EcoRegions ……………………………………………………………... 23 19 – Potential and Confirmed Habitat for Tier I Species in Virginia …………………. 23 20 – Corn Grown in the Shenandoah Valley ………………………………………….. 24 21 – Example of a Dead Bird Composter …………….……………………………….. 25 22 – Sacrifice Lot …………………………..………………………………………….. 26 23 – Frost-proof Trough for Livestock Water ………………………………………… 27 24 – North Fork Shenandoah River - Shoemaker River (PS-K) - Land Use and Features …………………………………………………………… 28 25 – Smith Creek (PS-L) - Land Use and Features ..………………………………….. 30 26 – North Fork Shenandoah River - Linville Creek (PS-M) – Land Use and Features …………………………………………………………… 32 27 – Stony Creek (PS-N) - Land Use and Features …………………………………… 34 28 – North Fork Shenandoah River - Narrow Passage Creek (PS-O) – Land Use and Features …………………………………………………………… 36 29 – Cedar Creek (PS-P) - Land Use and Features ……………………………………. 38 30 – North Fork Shenandoah River - Passage Creek (PS-Q) – Land Use and Features …………………………………………………………… 40 31 – Change in Acreage of Urban Land 1992-2001 …………….…………………….. 45 32 – Change in Acreage of Agricultural Land 1992-2001 ……………………………. 45 33 – Land Cover in 1992 and 2001 by NLCD Data Classes ………………………….. 46 34 – Impaired Streams, Monitoring Stations, and NPDES Discharge Points ………… 50 35 – The North Fork Shenandoah River at Red Banks in Shenandoah County ………. 51 36 – Water Quality Trends for Bacteria ………………………………………………. 52 37 – Water Quality Trends for Total Nitrogen ………………………………………... 52 38 – Water Quality Trends for Total Phosphorus ……………………………………... 52 iv List of Figures (cont.) Figure Page 39 – Water Quality Trends for Total Suspended Solids ………………………………. 52 40 – Water Quality Trends for Dissolved Oxygen ……………………………………. 52 41 – Water Quality Trends for Oxidized Nitrogen ……………………………………. 52 42 – Water Quality Trends for pH …………………………………………………….. 53 43 – Water Quality Trends for Temperature ………………………………………….. 53 44 – Water Quality Trends for Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen ……………………………… 53 45 – Citizen Monitoring ………………………………………………………………. 55 46 – TMDL Implementation Plans ……………………………………………………. 56 47 – 12-Digit Hydrologic Units within the Watershed ………………………………... 57 48 – Animal Feeding Operations - Confined Chickens during a Cycle ………………. 58 49 – Animal Feeding Operations - Confined Turkeys during a Cycle ………………... 58 50 – Animal Feeding Operations - Confined Beef ……………………………………. 59 51 – Animal Feeding Operations - Unconfined Beef ………………………………….
Load more

Recommended publications
  • UPPER SHENANDOAH RIVER BASIN Drought Preparedness and Response Plan
    UPPER SHENANDOAH RIVER BASIN Drought Preparedness and Response Plan Prepared by Updated June 2012 Upper Shenandoah River Basin Drought Preparedness and Response Plan (This page intentionally left blank) June 2011 Page 2 Upper Shenandoah River Basin Drought Preparedness and Response Plan Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 5 2.0 Historical Background .................................................................................................................. 6 3.0 Drought Response Stage Declaration, Implementation and Response Measures.......................... 8 Drought Declaration .................................................................................................................... 10 Drought Indicators ....................................................................................................................... 10 Drought Response Stages and Response Measures ..................................................................... 10 4.0 Drought Response Stage Termination .......................................................................................... 11 5.0 Plan Revisions ............................................................................................................................... 11 Appendix A Locality Drought Watch, Warning and Emergency Indicators Appendix B Drought Watch Responses and Water Conservation Measures Appendix C Drought Warning Responses
    [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]
  • State Water Control Board Page 1 O F16 9 Vac 25-260-350 and 400 Water Quality Standards
    STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD PAGE 1 O F16 9 VAC 25-260-350 AND 400 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 9 VAC 25-260-350 Designation of nutrient enriched waters. A. The following state waters are hereby designated as "nutrient enriched waters": * 1. Smith Mountain Lake and all tributaries of the impoundment upstream to their headwaters; 2. Lake Chesdin from its dam upstream to where the Route 360 bridge (Goodes Bridge) crosses the Appomattox River, including all tributaries to their headwaters that enter between the dam and the Route 360 bridge; 3. South Fork Rivanna Reservoir and all tributaries of the impoundment upstream to their headwaters; 4. New River and its tributaries, except Peak Creek above Interstate 81, from Claytor Dam upstream to Big Reed Island Creek (Claytor Lake); 5. Peak Creek from its headwaters to its mouth (confluence with Claytor Lake), including all tributaries to their headwaters; 6. Aquia Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 7. Fourmile Run from its headwaters to the state line; 8. Hunting Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 9. Little Hunting Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 10. Gunston Cove from its headwaters to the state line; 11. Belmont and Occoquan Bays from their headwaters to the state line; 12. Potomac Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 13. Neabsco Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 14. Williams Creek from its headwaters to its confluence with Upper Machodoc Creek; 15. Tidal freshwater Rappahannock River from the fall line to Buoy 44, near Leedstown, Virginia, including all tributaries to their headwaters that enter the tidal freshwater Rappahannock River; 16.
    [Show full text]
  • River Watch Summer 2006
    Vol. 3 Summer 2006 River Watch 1 River Watch Volume 3 Summer 2006 Governor Visits New Shenandoah Riverkeeper Jeff Kelble had been the Shenandoah Riverkeeper for two weeks when Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine, US Senator Russ Potts, and Secretary of Natural Resource Preston Bryant flew from Richmond to hold a meeting at his bed and breakfast. The Governor wanted to be briefed on the status of the ongoing fish kills on the Shenandoah River, and he wanted to hear from citizens who had personally been affected by the rivers problems. Evi- dently Jeffs story rang true: man runs fishing guide service on the Shenandoah, businessman buys old house in Shenandoah Valley and renovates for two years to open B&B to cater to fishermen, fish kills occur, mans dreams dashed. Jeff has served on the Virginia Fish Kill Task Force since its inception, originally as a fishing guide but now as the Shenandoah Riverkeeper. The Fish Kill Task Force is composed of State environment and game Governor Kaine discusses Shenandoah fish health. officials, Shenandoah Valley non-profit conservation groups, federal fish pathology experts, federal water chemistry experts, university scientists and Jeff. Out of the task force has come several studies to determine why Shenandoah fish were forming lesions and dying. The studies have been underway since April and the task force is scheduled to run out of money at the end of the summer. This is why the Governors help is needed. Jeff reports that the meeting was strong and that the Governor had very good answers to his three questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Development of Shenandoah River
    SDMS DocID 2109708 Decision Rationale Total Maximum Daily Load of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) for the Shenandoah River, Virginia and West Virginia I. Introduction The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) be developed for those water bodies identified as impaired by the state where technology-based and other controls did not provide for attainment of water quality standards. A TMDL is a determination of the amount of a pollutant from point, nonpoint, and natural background sources, including a margin of safety, that may be discharged to a water qualit>'-limited water body. This document will set forth the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rationale for establishing the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) of PGBs for the Shenandoah River. EPA's rationale is based on the determination that the TMDL meets the following 8 regulatory conditions pursuant to 40 CFR §130. 1) The TMDL is designed to implement applicable water quality standards. 2) The TMDL includes a total allowable load as well as individual waste load allocations and load allocations. 3) The TMDL considers the impacts of background pollutant contributions. 4) The TMDL considers critical environmental conditions. 5) The TMDL considers seasonal environmental variations. 6) The TMDL includes a margin of safety. 7) The TMDL has been subject to public participation. 8) There is reasonable assurance that the TMDL can be met. II. Background The Shenandoah River drains 1,957,690 acres of land. The watershed can be broken down into several land-uses. Forest and agricultural lands make-up roughly 1,800,000 acres of watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • Resolution No: 12-3 Second: Supervisor Floyd Meeting Date: March 14, 2012
    March 14, 2012 (1) March 14, 2012 The Regular Meeting of the Rockingham County Board of Supervisors was held on Wednesday, March 14, 2012, at 3:00 p.m. at the Rockingham County Administration Center, Harrisonburg, Virginia. The following members were present: PABLO CUEVAS, Election District #1 FREDERICK E. EBERLY, Election District #2 DEE E. FLOYD, Election District #3 WILLIAM B. KYGER, JR., Election District #4 MICHAEL A. BREEDEN, Election District #5 Also present: BRYAN F. HUTCHESON, Sheriff DOUGLAS L. GEIB, Registrar JOSEPH S. PAXTON, County Administrator THOMAS H. MILLER, JR., County Attorney STEPHEN G. KING, Deputy County Administrator JAMES L. ALLMENDINGER, Director of Finance BARRY E. HERTZLER, Director of Public Works KATHARINE S. McQUAIN, Director of Recreation TERRI M. PERRY, Director of Technology STEPHEN N. RIDDLEBARGER, Director of Human Resources ROBERT A. SYMONS, Fire & Rescue Chief WILLIAM L. VAUGHN, Director of Community Development DIANA C. STULTZ, Zoning Administrator GRETCHEN M. SALLAH, Deputy Clerk DONALD F. KOMARA, Residency Administrator Virginia Department of Transportation oooooOooooo CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. Chairman Kyger called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. March 14, 2012 (2) Chairman Kyger asked for a moment of silence in honor of Dr. Harry Jopson, former County School Board member, Bridgewater Town Councilmember, and Biology professor at Bridgewater College for 45 years who passed away on March 9, 2012. Mr. Jopson, a dedicated member of the community, was 100 years old. Supervisor Cuevas gave the Invocation and Finance Director Allmendinger led the Pledge of Allegiance. oooooOooooo APPROVAL OF MINUTES. On motion by Supervisor Floyd, seconded by Supervisor Eberly and carried by a vote of 5 to 0, voting recorded as follows: BREEDEN - AYE; CUEVAS - AYE; EBERLY - AYE; FLOYD - AYE; KYGER - AYE; the Board approved the minutes of the regular meeting of February 15, 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Camping Places (Campsites and Cabins) with Carderock Springs As
    Camping places (campsites and cabins) With Carderock Springs as the center of the universe, here are a variety of camping locations in Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Delaware. A big round of applause to Carderock’s Eric Nothman for putting this list together, doing a lot of research so the rest of us can spend more time camping! CAMPING in Maryland 1) Marsden Tract - 5 mins - (National Park Service) - C&O canal Mile 11 (1/2 mile above Carderock) three beautiful group campsites on the Potomac. Reservations/permit required. Max 20 to 30 people each. C&O canal - hiker/biker campsites (no permit needed - all are free!) about every five miles starting from Swains Lock to Cumberland. Campsites all the way to Paw Paw, WV (about 23 sites) are within 2 hrs drive. Three private campgrounds (along the canal) have cabins. Some sections could be traveled by canoe on the Potomac (canoe camping). Closest: Swains Lock - 10 mins - 5 individual tent only sites (one isolated - take path up river) - all close to parking lot. First come/first serve only. Parking fills up on weekends by 8am. Group Campsites are located at McCoy's Ferry, Fifteen Mile Creek, Paw Paw Tunnel, and Spring Gap. They are $20 per site, per night with a maximum of 35 people. Six restored Lock-houses - (several within a few miles of Carderock) - C&O Canal Trust manages six restored Canal Lock-houses for nightly rental (some with heat, water, A/C). 2) Cabin John Regional Park - 10 mins - 7 primitive walk-in sites. Pit toilets, running water.
    [Show full text]
  • Scenic Landforms of Virginia
    Vol. 34 August 1988 No. 3 SCENIC LANDFORMS OF VIRGINIA Harry Webb . Virginia has a wide variety of scenic landforms, such State Highway, SR - State Road, GWNF.R(T) - George as mountains, waterfalls, gorges, islands, water and Washington National Forest Road (Trail), JNFR(T) - wind gaps, caves, valleys, hills, and cliffs. These land- Jefferson National Forest Road (Trail), BRPMP - Blue forms, some with interesting names such as Hanging Ridge Parkway mile post, and SNPMP - Shenandoah Rock, Devils Backbone, Striped Rock, and Lovers Leap, National Park mile post. range in elevation from Mt. Rogers at 5729 feet to As- This listing is primarily of those landforms named on sateague and Tangier islands near sea level. Two nat- topographic maps. It is hoped that the reader will advise ural lakes occur in Virginia, Mountain Lake in Giles the Division of other noteworthy landforms in the st& County and Lake Drummond in the City of Chesapeake. that are not mentioned. For those features on private Gaps through the mountains were important routes for land always obtain the owner's permission before vis- early settlers and positions for military movements dur- iting. Some particularly interesting features are de- ing the Civil War. Today, many gaps are still important scribed in more detail below. locations of roads and highways. For this report, landforms are listed alphabetically Dismal Swamp (see Chesapeake, City of) by county or city. Features along county lines are de- The Dismal Swamp, located in southeastern Virginia, scribed in only one county with references in other ap- is about 10 to 11 miles wide and 15 miles long, and propriate counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Smith Creek Watershed Management Plan
    Smith Creek Watershed Management Plan Smith Creek Watershed Management Plan ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Smith Creek Planning Initiative Working Partners New Hanover County Planning City of Wilmington Planning City of Wilmington Stormwater Services New Hanover Soil and Water Conservation District UNCW Coastal Land Trust North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program North Carolina Coastal Federation Cape Fear River Watch Watershed Management Advisory Board Members William Caster, New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Don Cooke, Progress Energy Carlton Fisher, Coastal Realty Company William F. Gage, Smith-Gage Architects Clark Hipp – Hipp + Best Architects John Jefferies – Jefferies & Faris Architects Brenda McDonald – First Mortgage Corporation Shelly Miller – New Hanover Soil and Water Conservation District Laura Padgett – Wilmington City Council Larry Sneeden – ESP Associates Watershed Management Advisory Board Technical Committee Members Shawn Ralston, New Hanover County Planning Department Phil Prete, City of Wilmington Planning Department Shelly Miller, New Hanover Soil and Water Conservation District Jennifer Butler, City of Wilmington Stormwater Services Nicole Miller, Airlie Gardens Environmental Education Program Matthew Collogan, Airlie Gardens Environmental Education Program Kristen Miguez, North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program Mike Mallin, UNCW Center for Marine Sciences Nancy Preston, Coastal Land Trust Smith Creek Watershed Management Plan Table of Contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Assessment
    DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Lucky Minerals (Montana), Inc. Lucky Minerals Project, Park County, MT Exploration License Application #00795 Prepared by Montana Department of Environmental Quality Hard Rock Mining Bureau 1520 East Sixth Avenue PO Box 200901 Helena, MT 59620-0901 October 13, 2016 Table of Contents 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ........................................................................................... 1 1.1 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED ............................................................................................................. 1 1.3 HISTORICAL MINING AND PREVIOUS EXPLORATION DISTURBANCE ................. 2 1.3.1 Emigrant Mining District Chronology (Geologic Systems Ltd., 2015) ....................... 2 1.3.2 St. Julian Claim Block ........................................................................................................ 4 1.4 PROJECT LOCATION............................................................................................................... 4 1.5 AUTHORIZING ACTION ........................................................................................................ 9 1.6 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ....................................................................................................... 9 1.6.1 SCOPING ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy
    Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy Introduction Brook Trout symbolize healthy waters because they rely on clean, cold stream habitat and are sensitive to rising stream temperatures, thereby serving as an aquatic version of a “canary in a coal mine”. Brook Trout are also highly prized by recreational anglers and have been designated as the state fish in many eastern states. They are an essential part of the headwater stream ecosystem, an important part of the upper watershed’s natural heritage and a valuable recreational resource. Land trusts in West Virginia, New York and Virginia have found that the possibility of restoring Brook Trout to local streams can act as a motivator for private landowners to take conservation actions, whether it is installing a fence that will exclude livestock from a waterway or putting their land under a conservation easement. The decline of Brook Trout serves as a warning about the health of local waterways and the lands draining to them. More than a century of declining Brook Trout populations has led to lost economic revenue and recreational fishing opportunities in the Bay’s headwaters. Chesapeake Bay Management Strategy: Brook Trout March 16, 2015 - DRAFT I. Goal, Outcome and Baseline This management strategy identifies approaches for achieving the following goal and outcome: Vital Habitats Goal: Restore, enhance and protect a network of land and water habitats to support fish and wildlife, and to afford other public benefits, including water quality, recreational uses and scenic value across the watershed. Brook Trout Outcome: Restore and sustain naturally reproducing Brook Trout populations in Chesapeake Bay headwater streams, with an eight percent increase in occupied habitat by 2025.
    [Show full text]
  • Description of the Franklin Quadrangle
    DESCRIPTION OF THE FRANKLIN QUADRANGLE. GEOGRAPHY. York to Alabama, and the lowlands of Tennessee, portion of the province they form the Delaware, North Fork rise the steep slopes of the Alle­ Kentucky, and Ohio. Its northwestern boundary Susquehanna, Potomac, James, and Roanoke gheny Front, Timber Ridge, and Spruce Moun­ General relations. The Franklin quadrangle is indefinite, but may be regarded as an arbitrary rivers, each of which passes through the Appa­ tain. The Allegheny Front attains an altitude of embraces the quarter of a square degree which line coinciding with the Tennessee River from lachian Mountains in a narrow gap and flows east­ 4300 feet, and in Roaring Plains, its southwestern lies between the parallels 38° 30' and 39° north northeast Mississippi to its mouth, and then cross­ ward to the sea. In the central portion of the extension, its elevation is over 4400 feet. In latitude and the meridians 79° and 79° 30' west ing the States of Indiana and Ohio to western province, in Kentucky and Virginia, these longi­ Green Knob the altitude is over 4600 feet. This longitude. It measures approximately 34.5 miles New York. Its eastern boundary is defined by tudinal streams form the New (or Kanawha) range is cut across by Seneca Creek, a branch of from north to south and 26.9 miles from east to the Allegheny Front and the Cumberland escarp­ River, which flows westward in a deep, narrow the North Fork, south of which rise Timber west, and its area is about 931 square miles. Of ment. The rocks of this division are almost gorge through the Cumberland Plateau into the Ridge and Spruce Mountain, with summits over the counties in West Virginia, it includes the entirely of sedimentary origin and remain very Ohio River.
    [Show full text]