DOCSLIB.ORG

Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority RESERVOIR WATER QUALITY and MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT June 2018 Acknowledgements In November 2014, DiNatale Water Consultants and Alex Horne Associates were retained by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to develop a comprehensive reservoir water quality monitoring program. This proactive approach is a revision from historic water quality management by the Authority that tended to be more reactive in nature. The Authority embraced the use of sound science in order to develop an approach focused on reservoir management. Baseline data were needed for this scientific approach requiring a labor-intensive, monthly sampling program at all five system reservoirs. Using existing staff resources, the project kicked-off with training sessions on proper sampling techniques and use of sampling equipment. The results and recommendations contained within this report would not have been possible without the capable work of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority staff: • Andrea Terry, Water Resources Manager, Reservoir Water Quality and Management Assessment Project Manager • Bethany Houchens, Water Quality Specialist • Bill Mawyer, Executive Director • Lonnie Wood, Director of Finance and Administration • Jennifer Whitaker, Director of Engineering and Maintenance • David Tungate, Director of Operations • Dr. Bill Morris, Laboratory Director • Matt Bussell, Water Manager • Konrad Zeller, Water Treatment Plant Supervisor • Patricia Defibaugh, Lab Chemist • Debra Hoyt, Lab Chemist • Peter Jasiurkowski, Water Operator • Brian Estes, Water Operator • Ken Holley, Water Operator • Guy Maupin, Relief Operator • Michael Webb, Relief Operator DINATALE WATER CONSULTANTS 2 RESERVOIR WATER QUALITY Contents 1 : Introduction 19 2 : Raw Water System Overview 21 2.1 : Watersheds .................................................23 2.1.1 : Sugar Hollow Reservoir....................................23 2.1.2 : South Fork Rivanna Reservoir ..............................24 2.1.3 : Ragged Mountain Reservoir................................25 2.1.4 : Beaver Creek Reservoir ...................................26 2.1.5 : Totier Creek Reservoir ....................................27 2.2 : Physical Data ...............................................28 2.2.1 : Physical Characteristics of Reservoirs........................28 2.2.2 : Sugar Hollow Reservoir...................................30 2.2.3 : South Fork Rivanna Reservoir..............................32 2.2.4 : Ragged Mountain Reservoir ...............................33 2.2.5 : Beaver Creek Reservoir ..................................35 2.2.6 : Totier Creek Reservoir....................................36 2.3 : Land Use...................................................37 2.3.1 : Sugar Hollow Reservoir ...................................38 2.3.2 : South Fork Rivanna Reservoir..............................40 2.3.3 : Ragged Mountain Reservoir ...............................42 2.3.4 : Beaver Creek Reservoir...................................44 2.3.5 : Totier Creek Reservoir....................................46 2.4 : Hydrology . 48 2.4.1 : Watershed Area Weighted Estimation of Reservoir Inflows .......49 2.4.2 : Modeled Reservoir Inflows ................................53 2.4.3 : Sugar Hollow Reservoir...................................54 2.4.4 : South Fork Rivanna Reservoir..............................56 2.4.5 : Ragged Mountain Reservoir ...............................58 2.4.6 : Beaver Creek Reservoir...................................58 2.4.7 : Totier Creek Reservoir ....................................60 2.5 : Water Treatment Plants . .62 2.5.1 : South Rivanna Water Treatment Plant........................62 2.5.2 : Observatory Water Treatment Plant .........................63 2.5.3 : Crozet Water Treatment Plant..............................63 2.5.4 : Scottsville Water Treatment Plant ..........................64 3 : Historical Water Quality 65 3.1 : Recent History of the Reservoirs and Drainage Basins Regulations ....65 3.2 : Water Quality . .67 3.2.1 : Sugar Hollow Reservoir ...................................67 3.2.2 : South Fork Rivanna Reservoir..............................68 3.2.3 : Ragged Mountain Reservoir ...............................69 3.2.4 : Beaver Creek Reservoir...................................69 3.2.5 : Totier Creek Reservoir....................................70 RESERVOIR WATER QUALITY 3 DINATALE WATER CONSULTANTS 4 : Monitoring Program 71 4.1 : Sampling Locations .......................................... 71 4.2 : Sampling Methods ...........................................72 4.3 : Analysis....................................................74 4.4 : Monitoring Schedule .........................................75 4.5 : Monitoring program Value.....................................75 5 : Water Quality Monitoring Results 76 5.1 : Sugar Hollow Reservoir .......................................77 5.1.1 : Temperature and Thermal Stratification.......................77 5.1.2 : Dissolved Oxygen........................................78 5.1.3 : Nutrients . 78 5.1.4 : Phytoplankton: Algal Chlorophyll & Water Clarity...............81 5.1.5 : Phytoplankton: Algal Species ..............................82 5.1.6 : Conclusions for the July 2015 Anabaena bloom ...............83 5.2 : South Fork Rivanna Reservoir ..................................85 5.2.1 : Temperature and Thermal Stratification ......................85 5.2.2 : Dissolved Oxygen .......................................87 5.2.3 : Nutrients ..............................................89 5.2.4 : Phytoplankton: Algal Chlorophyll & Water Clarity ..............93 5.2.5 : Phytoplankton: Algal Species..............................94 5.2.6 : Spatial Variability........................................95 5.2.7 : Effects of Precipitation....................................96 5.2.8 : Data from Older Documents...............................97 5.3 : Ragged Mountain Reservoir ...................................99 5.3.1 : Temperature and Thermal Stratification ......................99 5.3.2 : Dissolved Oxygen .......................................100 5.3.3 : Nutrients ..............................................101 5.3.4 : Phytoplankton: Algal Chlorophyll & Water Clarity ..............101 5.3.5 : Phytoplankton: Algal Species ..............................102 5.3.6 : Effects of Recent Reservoir Expansion.......................102 5.4 : Beaver Creek Reservoir .......................................103 5.4.1 : Temperature and Thermal Stratificaiton ......................103 5.4.2 : Dissolved Oxygen .......................................104 5.4.3 : Nutrients ..............................................105 5.4.4 : Phytoplankton: Algal Chlorophyll & Water Clarity ..............116 5.4.5 : Phytoplankton: Algal Species ..............................116 5.4.6 : Spatial Variability........................................118 5.5 : Totier Creek Reservoir ........................................119 5.5.1 : Temperature and Thermal Stratification ......................119 5.5.2 : Dissolved Oxygen .......................................120 5.5.3 : Suspended Solids .......................................120 5.5.4 : Nutrients ..............................................120 5.5.5 : Phytoplankton: Algal Chlorophyll & Water Clarity ..............121 5.5.6 : Phytoplankton: Algal Species ..............................122 6 : Special Studies 123 6.1 : Sediment Studies ............................................123 6.1.1 : Sediment Nutrient Flux ....................................123 6.1.2 : Sediment Core Samples...................................129 DINATALE WATER CONSULTANTS 4 RESERVOIR WATER QUALITY 6.1.3 : Additional Sediment Sampling..............................134 6.1.4 : Conclusions for Sediment Samples..........................135 6.2 : Spatial Heterogeneity ........................................136 6.3 : Beaver Creek Reservoir Watershed Study ........................141 6.3.1 : Beaver Creek Reservoir Watershed Conclusions . .143 6.4 : Totier Creek Watershed .......................................144 7 : Case Studies 147 7.1 : Summary....................................................148 7.2 : Mid-Sized Virginia Utility 1 . .151 7.2.1 : Water Quality Concerns and In-lake Management ..............152 7.2.2 : Recreation and Watershed ................................153 7.2.3 : Monitoring..............................................154 7.3 : Large Virginia Utility . 155 7.3.1 : Water Quality Concerns and In-lake Management ..............155 7.3.2 : Recreation and Watershed.................................156 7.3.3 : Monitoring..............................................156 7.4 : Small Virginia Utility . 157 7.4.1 : Water Quality Concerns and In-lake Management ..............158 7.4.2 : Recreation and Watershed.................................158 7.4.3 : Monitoring..............................................159 7.5 : Mid-small Sized Virginia Utility..................................160 7.5.1 : Water Quality Concerns and In-lake Management ..............160 7.5.2 : Recreation and Watershed ................................162 7.5.3 : Monitoring..............................................163 7.6 : Very Large Utility.............................................164 7.6.1 : Water Quality Concerns and In-lake Management ..............164 7.6.2 : Recreation and Watershed.................................165 7.6.3 : Monitoring..............................................165 7.7 : Very Large Colorado Utility .....................................167
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biodiversity Work Group Report: Appendices
    Biodiversity Work Group Report: Appendices A: Initial List of Important Sites..................................................................................................... 2 B: An Annotated List of the Mammals of Albemarle County........................................................ 5 C: Birds ......................................................................................................................................... 18 An Annotated List of the Birds of Albemarle County.............................................................. 18 Bird Species Status Tables and Charts...................................................................................... 28 Species of Concern in Albemarle County............................................................................ 28 Trends in Observations of Species of Concern..................................................................... 30 D. Fish of Albemarle County........................................................................................................ 37 E. An Annotated Checklist of the Amphibians of Albemarle County.......................................... 41 F. An Annotated Checklist of the Reptiles of Albemarle County, Virginia................................. 45 G. Invertebrate Lists...................................................................................................................... 51 H. Flora of Albemarle County ...................................................................................................... 69 I. Rare
    [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]
  • Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: 2005-2014
    Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: 2005-2014 NY 6 NTN Stations 9 7 10 8 Susquehanna 11 82 Eastern Shore 83 Western Shore 12 15 14 Potomac 16 13 17 Rappahannock York 19 21 20 23 James 18 22 24 25 26 27 41 43 84 37 86 5 55 29 85 40 42 45 30 28 36 39 44 53 31 38 46 MD 32 54 33 WV 52 56 87 34 4 3 50 2 58 57 35 51 1 59 DC 47 60 62 DE 49 61 63 71 VA 67 70 48 74 68 72 75 65 64 69 76 66 73 77 81 78 79 80 Prepared on 10/20/15 Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: All Stations NTN Stations 91 NY 6 NTN New Stations 9 10 8 7 Susquehanna 11 82 Eastern Shore 83 12 Western Shore 92 15 16 Potomac 14 PA 13 Rappahannock 17 93 19 95 96 York 94 23 20 97 James 18 98 100 21 27 22 26 101 107 24 25 102 108 84 86 42 43 45 55 99 85 30 103 28 5 37 109 57 31 39 40 111 29 90 36 53 38 41 105 32 44 54 104 MD 106 WV 110 52 112 56 33 87 3 50 46 115 89 34 DC 4 51 2 59 58 114 47 60 35 1 DE 49 61 62 63 88 71 74 48 67 68 70 72 117 75 VA 64 69 116 76 65 66 73 77 81 78 79 80 Prepared on 10/20/15 Table 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Albemarle County Combined Local TMDL Action Plan
    Albemarle County Combined Local TMDL Action Plan: Benthic TMDL for the Rivanna River and Bacteria TMDL for the Rivanna River Mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and Tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek Watersheds For Special Condition (Part II.B) of the 2018-2023 VPDES General Permit for Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems VAR040074 prepared by: Albemarle County Environmental Services Division 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 (434) 296-5816 www.albemarle.org/water April 30, 2020 Table of Contents List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2 1. TMDL Project Name and EPA Approval Dates (Parts II.B.3.a,b) ........................................................... 3 2. Pollutants Causing the Impairments ..................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Benthic TMDL Pollutant ............................................................................................................ 3 2.2 Bacteria TMDL Pollutant ........................................................................................................... 5 3. Wasteload Allocations and Corresponding Percent Reductions (Part II.B.3.c)..................................... 7 3.1 Sediment WLA
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Division of Mineral Resources Minerals Of
    VIRGINIA DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES PUBLICATION 89 MINERALS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA Richard S. Mitchell and William F. Giannini COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF MINES, MINERALS AND ENERGY DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES Robert C. Milici, Commissioner of Mineral Resources and State Geologist CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRG INIA 1988 VIRGINIA DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES PUBLICATION 89 MINERALS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA Richard S. Mitchell and William F. Giannini COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF MINES, MINERALS AND ENERGY DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES Robert C. Milici, Commissioner of Mineral Resources and State Geologist CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 1 988 VIRGINIA DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES PUBLICATION 89 MINERALS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA Richard S. Mitchell and William F. Giannini COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF MINES, MINERALS AND ENERGY DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES Robert C. Milici, Commissioner of Mineral Resources and State Geologist CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 19BB DEPARTMENT OF MINES, MINERALS AND ENERGY RICHMOND, VIRGIMA O. Gene Dishner, Director COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGIMA DEPARTMENT OF PURCHASES AND SUPPLY RICHMOND Copyright 1988, Commonwealth of Virginia Portions of this publication may be quoted if credit is given to the Virginia Division of Mineral Resources. CONTENTS Page I I I 2 a J A Epidote 5 5 5 Halloysite through 8 9 9 9 Limonite through l0 Magnesite through muscovite l0 ll 1l Paragonite ll 12 l4 l4 Talc through temolite-acti 15 15 l5 Teolite group throug l6 References cited l6 ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1. Location map of I 2. 2 A 4. 6 5. Goethite 6 6. Sawn goethite pseudomorph with unreplaced pyrite center .......... 7 7. 1 8. 8 9. 10. 11.
    [Show full text]
  • Living in Our Watershed
    Living in Our Watershed Correlates of Biological Condition in Streams and Rivers of the Rivanna Basin—Winter 2003/04 through Fall 2005 StreamWatch monitors and assesses Rivanna Basin streams and rivers to help the community maintain and restore healthy waterways. / / / StreamWatch is a partnership composed of Albemarle and Fluvanna counties, The Nature Conservancy, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District, Rivanna Conservation Society, and Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. We have various roles in the conservation, utilization, and management of Rivanna Basin aquatic resources. StreamWatch serves our diverse missions by providing scientifically accurate information about the condition of the stream and river system. We believe this report to be a fact-based, scientific appraisal of conditions in the Rivanna watershed and stream system, and of factors driving those conditions. We believe good information fosters better community decision-making, and we hope the following objective report serves the enterprises of resource management, conservation, and community education so that the bounties of our streams and rivers may be enjoyed for generations to come. / / / This report is dedicated to the generous, talented, and stalwart volunteers of the StreamWatch program. StreamWatch Steering Committee Scott Clark, Albemarle County • Rochelle Garwood, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission • Angus Murdoch, Rivanna Conservation Society • Alyson Sappington, Thomas Jefferson Soil
    [Show full text]
  • Most Effective Basins Funding Allocations Rationale May 18, 2020
    Most Effective Basins Funding Allocations Rationale May 18, 2020 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program Office Most Effective Basins Funding In the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 Appropriations Conference Report, an increase to the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) Budget was provided in the amount of $6 million for “state-based implementation in the most effective basins.” This document describes the methodology EPA followed to establish the most effective use of these funds and the best locations for these practices to be implemented to make the greatest progress toward achieving water quality standards in the Chesapeake Bay. The most effective basins to reduce the effects of excess nutrient loading to the Bay were determined considering two factors: cost effectiveness and load effectiveness. Cost effectiveness was considered as a factor to assure these additional funds result in state-based implementation of practices that achieve the greatest benefit to water quality overall. It was evaluated by looking at what the jurisdictions have reported in their Phase III Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) as the focus of their upcoming efforts, and by looking at the average cost per pound of reduction for BMP implementation by sector. Past analyses of cost per pound of reduction have shown that reducing nitrogen is less costly by far than reducing phosphorus1. Based on that fact, EPA determined that the focus of this evaluation would be to target nitrogen reductions in the watershed. Evaluating the load reduction targets in all the jurisdictions’ Phase III WIPs shows that the agricultural sector is targeted for 86 percent of the overall reductions identified to meet the 2025 targets collectively set by the jurisdictions.
    [Show full text]
  • Sugar Hollow School [Pdf]
    PRELIMINARY INFORMATION FORM (PIF) for INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES DHR No. (to be completed by DHR staff) _____002-1134____ Purpose of Evaluation Please use the following space to explain briefly why you are seeking an evaluation of this property. This property was recently vacated by a tenant who had lived there for many years, providing an opportunity for inspection. To preserve it will require repair to the foundation, repair or replacement of some concrete blocks, and a new roof. In the course of research we realized that the school had significant historical value as a vestige of mountaineer culture in western Albemarle County prior to the establishment of the Shenandoah National Park. Are you interested in applying for State and/or Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credits? Yes ___x__ No _____ Are you interested in receiving more information about DHR’s easement program? Yes ____x No _____ 1. General Property Information Property name: Sugar Hollow School Property address: 6326 Sugar Hollow Road City or Town: Crozet Zip code: 22932 Name of the Independent City or County where the property is located: __Albemarle County____ Category of Property (choose only one of the following): Building __x__ Site _____ Structure _____ Object _____ 2. Physical Aspects Acreage: _____1.74________________ Setting (choose only one of the following): Urban _____ Suburban _____ Town _____ Village _____ Hamlet _____ Rural__x___ Briefly describe the property’s overall setting, including any notable landscape features: The Sugar Hollow School is situated in Sugar Hollow on the Moormans River, a beautiful state scenic river which flows out of the Shenandoah National Park. Several Sugar Hollow Road properties are held in conservation easement, and the schoolhouse parcel is surrounded by property owned by the Virginia Skyline Girl Scout Council, which operates Camp Sugar Hollow and hosts The Living Earth School.
    [Show full text]
  • Stream Biological Health of Streams and Rivers of the Rivanna River Watershed Wacommunity Watcter Monitoringh for a Healthy Rivanna
    stream Biological Health of Streams and Rivers of the Rivanna River Watershed WACommunity waTCter monitoringH for a healthy Rivanna Executive Summary THE RIVANNA RIVER and its tributaries flow through the heart of our neighborhoods and communities, supplying our drinking water and giving us abundant opportunities for fishing, swimming and boating. The value of safe water supplies cannot be overestimated nor should be taken for granted in light of recent hazardous materials spills elsewhere in Virginia, West Virginia and North Carolina. Here on the eastern slope of the Blue Ridge, we in the Rivanna watershed enjoy a high quality of life, due in large part to our proximity to forests, waterways and open spaces. Yet a three-year StreamWatch assessment of the ecological health of the Rivanna and its tributaries tells a different story: nearly 70% of our local streams are failing the Virginia state standard for aquatic health. Since 2003, StreamWatch volunteers have been monitoring river health and reporting findings to the community and our government leaders. Our high standards for data quality are recognized by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Failing to take care of our streams means failing to take care of ourselves. We believe we can and should be doing better as a community to protect our water resources. With modest improvement in land and water management practices, such as planting tree buffers along our streams, and by supporting sound land-use policies and decisions, many of these failing streams can be returned to good health. Our goal as a community should be to return our streams to full health.
    [Show full text]
  • This Annotated Checklist Is Meant to Bring Together Both My Own
    28 BANISTERIA NO. 43, 201 4 Walker, J. F., O. K. Miller, Jr., & J. L. Horton. Worley, J. F., & E. Hacskaylo. 1959. The effects of 2008. Seasonal dynamics of ectomycorrhizal fungus available soil moisture on the mycorrhizal association assemblages on oak seedlings in the southeastern of Virginia pine. Forest Science 5: 267-268. Appalachian Mountains. Mycorrhiza 18: 123-132. Yahner, R. H. 2000. Eastern Deciduous Forest Ecology Wilcox, C. S., J. W. Ferguson, G. C. J. Fernandez, & and Wildlife Conservation. University of Minnesota R. S. Nowak. 2004. Fine root growth dynamics of four Press, Minneapolis, MN. 295 pp. Mojave Desert shrubs as related to soil and microsite. Journal of Arid Environments 56: 129-148. Banisteria, Number 43, pages 28-39 © 2014 Virginia Natural History Society Dragonflies and Damselflies of Albemarle County, Virginia (Odonata) James M. Childress 4146 Blufton Mill Road Free Union, Virginia 22940 ABSTRACT The Odonata fauna of Albemarle County, Virginia has been poorly documented, with approximately 20 species on record before this study. My observations from 2006 to 2014, along with historical and other recent records, now bring the total species count for the county to 95. This total includes 64 species of dragonflies, which represents 46% of the 138 species known to occur in Virginia, and 31 species of damselflies, which represents 55% of the 56 species known to occur in Virginia. Also recorded here are the observed date ranges for adults of each species and some observational notes. Key words: Odonata, dragonfly, damselfly, Albemarle County, Virginia. INTRODUCTION STUDY AREA For many counties in Virginia, there has been Albemarle County (Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended-Sediment Loads and Trends Measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network Stations: Water Year 2016 Update
    Summary of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended-Sediment Loads and Trends Measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network Stations: Water Year 2016 Update Prepared by Douglas L. Moyer and Joel D. Blomquist, U.S. Geological Survey, December 13, 2017 Changes in nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended-sediment loads in rivers across the Chesapeake Bay watershed have been calculated using monitoring data from 115 stations that are part of the Non-tidal monitoring network (NTN) (Moyer and others, 2017). Constituent loads are calculated with at least five years of monitoring data and trends are reported after at least ten years of data collection. Data collection began in 1985 at nine of these locations, referred to as River Input Monitoring (RIM) stations, where loads are delivered directly to tidal waters. These results are used to help assess efforts to decrease nutrient and sediment loads being delivered to the bay. Additional information for each monitoring station is available through the USGS Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Web site (https://cbrim.er.usgs.gov/) that provides State, Federal, and local partners, as well as the general public, ready access to a wide range of data for nutrient and sediment conditions across the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Results from two time periods are reported in this summary: a long-term time period (1985- 2016), and short-term time period (2007-2016). All annual results are based on a water year which extends from October 1 to September 30. The results are summarized for 1. loads delivered directly to the tidal waters for the most recent year (Water Year 2016); specifically, the combined load from the nine River Input Monitoring (RIM) stations, 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Working Plan
    Distribution, Genetic Characterization, and Life History of the James spinymussel, Pleurobema collina (Bivalvia: Unionidae), in Virginia and North Carolina by Melissa A. Petty Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences Approved: ____________________________ _____________________________ Dr. Richard J. Neves, Chairperson Dr. Eric M. Hallerman _________________________ Dr. Paul Angermeier February 11, 2005 Blacksburg, Virginia Keywords: James spinymussel, Pleurobema collina, Distribution, Survey, Life History, DNA Sequences, Fish Host, Phenotype, Morphology, Monophyletic, Genetic Drift Distribution, Genetic Characterization, and Life History of the James spinymussel, Pleurobema collina (Bivalvia: Unionidae), in Virginia and North Carolina by Melissa A. Petty Richard J. Neves, Chairperson Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences (ABSTRACT) Three spined, mussel species occur in the United States along the Atlantic slope; James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina), Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana), and Altamaha spinymussel (E. spinosa). The James spinymussel was listed as endangered in 1988, and was until recently considered to be endemic to the James River basin (Clarke and Neves 1984; USFWS 1990). Biologists with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) discovered spinymussel populations in the Dan and Mayo rivers in NC in 2000 and 2001, respectively. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) tentatively identified this species as Pleurobema collina. My project proposed by the Virginia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit to the USFWS and the Virginia Transportation Research Council, determined where P. collina resides in VA and what the extent of its range is within the state. An informal preliminary survey design for P.
    [Show full text]