DOCSLIB.ORG

Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan December 2009 Front cover: Rappahannock River and Cat Point Creek Brian Watts/The College of William and Mary Dickcissel John Drummond/USFWS Wilna Tract grassland flowers USFWS Wilna Tract Pond USFWS Bald eagle Steve Hillebrand/USFWS Back cover: Rappahannock River and Cat Point Creek Brian Watts/The College of William and Mary This blue goose, designed by J.N. “Ding” Darling, has become the symbol of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fi sh, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefi t of the American people. The Service manages the 150-million acre National Wildlife Refuge System comprised of more than 550 national wildlife refuges and thousands of waterfowl production areas. It also operates 70 national fi sh hatcheries and 81 ecological services fi eld stations. The agency enforces Federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally signifi cant fi sheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers the Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Assistance Program which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fi shing and hunting equipment to state wildlife agencies. Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long term guidance for management decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffi ng increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlfe Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan December 2009 Submitted by: ___________________________________________________ __________________________ Joseph McCauley Date Project Leader Eastern Virginia Rivers Refuge Complex Concurrence by: ___________________________________________________ __________________________ Daryle Lons Date Refuge Supervisor, South National Wildlife Refuge System ___________________________________________________ __________________________ Anthony D. Legér Date Assistant Regional Director National Wildlife Refuge System Approved by: ___________________________________________________ __________________________ Marvin E. Moriarty Date Regional Director, Region 5 Abstract Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan December 2009 Abstract Type of action: Administrative U.S. Department of Interior Lead agency: Fish and Wildlife Service Responsible official: Marvin Moriarty, Regional Director, Region 5 For further information: Project Leader Eastern Virginia Rivers Refuge Complex P. O. Box 1030 336 Wilna Road Warsaw, VA 22572-1030 Phone: 804/333-1470 FAX: 804/333-3396 Email: [email protected] Web: www.fws.gov/northeast/rappahannock This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the 7,711 acre Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge is the culmination of a planning effort involving several Virginia state agencies, local partners, refuge neighbors, private landowners, the Rappahannock Wildlife Refuge Friends Group, and the local community. This CCP establishes 15-year management goals and objectives for wildlife and habitats, public use, and administration and facilities. Under this plan, we make improvements to our biological and public use programs. We prioritize our management activities for wildlife and habitats and the visitor services we provide in order to be more effective and efficient with our resources. We will improve our outreach and visibility on the refuge and in nearby communities through new or enhanced partnerships. We will also continue to work hard with our land conservation partners to help identify and protect valuable wildlife habitats. Finally, we will employ an adaptive management approach that includes adjusting our activities as results from management actions become better understood. This flexibility is especially important as we face ecological uncertainties, such as the predicted impacts of climate change. Abstract i U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Refuge Vision “On the Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge, birds will raise Statement their young in native habitats of fi eld, forest, and marsh. They will fi nd rest and nourishment during migration and a haven in winter. We will manage refuge lands and waters with an emphasis on species whose populations have declined, assisting them on the road to recovery. “In partnership with others, we will contribute to the communities where we exist, helping renew the health and vitality of the Rappahannock River and the Chesapeake Bay. We will complement the rich traditions of hunting, fi shing, forestry and agriculture on Virginia’s Northern Neck and Middle Peninsula. “The refuge will serve as an outdoor classroom, where students of all ages will study nature’s complexity, contributing to our understanding and appreciation of the natural world and the National Wildlife Refuge System. All those who visit will fi nd enjoyment in the presence of healthy and abundant fi sh, wildlife, and plants, and will leave with a renewed personal commitment to land conservation and stewardship.” iii Table of Contents Chapters Abstract . i Refuge Vision Statement . iii Chapter 1 Purpose of and Need For Action Introduction . 1-1 The Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action . 1-3 The Service and the Refuge System: Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning . 1-4 The National Wildlife Refuge System and its Mission and Policies . 1-6 Conservation Plans and Initiatives Guiding the Proposed Action . 1-11 Refuge Establishing Purposes and Land Acquisition History . 1-19 Refuge Administration . 1-20 Refuge Operational Plans (“Step-down” Plans). 1-20 Refuge Vision Statement . 1-22 Refuge Goals . 1-22 Chapter 2 The Planning Process The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process . 2-1 Leading Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities . 2-4 Chapter 3 Existing Environment Introduction . 3-1 The Physical Landscape . 3-1 The Cultural Landscape Setting and Land Use History . 3-6 Current Climate . 3-8 Air Quality. 3-9 Water Quality . 3-10 The Regional Socio-Economic Setting . 3-15 Refuge Administration . 3-16 Special Use Permits, including Research . 3-21 Refuge Natural Resources . 3-23 Refuge Biological Resources . 3-39 Refuge Visitor Services Program . 3-58 Archaeological and Historical Resources . 3-61 Chapter 4 Management Direction and Implementation Introduction . 4-1 Summary by Major Program Area . 4-1 General Refuge Management . 4-9 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies . 4-30 Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination Introduction . 5-1 Planning to Protect Land and Resources . 5-1 Partners Involved in Refuge Planning . 5-3 Contact Information . 5-4 Planning Team. 5-4 Other Service Program Involvement . 5-5 Other Involvement . 5-6 Table of Contents v Table of Contents Chapters (cont.) Glossary (including list of acronyms) Glossary. .Glos-1 Acronyms . Glos-23 Bibliography Bibliography . Bibl-1 Appendixes Appendix A Species Known or Suspected on the Refuge, Including Species of Conservation Concern Table A.1. Birds of Conservation Concern for Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge . .A-1 Table A.2. Species List for Rappahannock River Valley Area . .A-5 Table A.3. Conservation List and Agency, Tier Categories, and Definition . A-30 Appendix B Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations Compatibility Determinations for Priority Public Uses: Environmental Education, Wildlife Observation, Interpretation and Photography. B-1 Public Deer Hunting . B-21 Recreational Fishing. B-29 Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations for Other Uses: Cooperative Farming . B-41 Firewood Cutting . B-59 Research . B-67 Retrieval of Hunting Dogs . B-85 Uses Found to be “Not Appropriate”: Bicycling Off-road . B-97 Camping. B-101 Dog Training and Field Trials . B-105 Horseback Riding. B-109 Jogging Off-road . B-113 Pets on Refuge Roads and Trails . B-117 Picnicking. B-121 Swimming / Sunbathing . B-125 Use of All-terrain Vehicles . B-129 Use of Pursuit Dogs for Hunting . B-133 Appendix C Staffing Chart Staffing Charts . .C-1 vi Table of Contents Table of Contents Appendixes (cont.) Appendix D Refuge Operations Needs (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management Systems (SAMMS) Refuge Operations Needs (RONS) and Service Asset Maintenance Management Systems (SAMMS) . ..
Recommended publications
  • Beetles in the Verde Valley

    Beetles in the Verde Valley

    Beetles in the Verde Valley 1 2 1. (Scarab) The Glorious Scarab Chrysina gloriosa 2. (Scarab) The Goldsmith Scarab Catalpa lanigera 1 3. (Scarab) The Rhinocerous Beetle Xyloryces 4 jamaicensis 4. (Scarab) The Southwestern Hercules Beetle Dynastes granti Male with large horn. 5. (Scarab) The Ten Lined June Beetle Polyphyla 4 decemlineata Male with large antennae. 6. (Longhorn) Horned Prionus Prionus species 3 Below the beetle is the chamber made by the feeding larva. 7. (Longhorn) Longhorn species exiting from wood 7 5 8. (Stag Beetle) Cottonwood Stag Beetle Lucanus mazama 3 9. (Blister Beetle) Family Meloidae 9 8 10. (Click Beetle) Family Elataridae 2 6 11. (Darkling) Stink Beetle Eleodes obscurus 10 11 Beetles The beetles in this display are from Sedona and are in the insect order Coleoptera. Beetles are distinguished from other insects by their modified fore-wings called elytra (e-ly-tra). The elytra are hardened structures that protect the soft body of the beetle and its hind wings, that are used for flight. There are over 350,000 species of beetles in the world and they live in a wide range of habitats, from deserts to lakes/streams, and from high in the mountains to the beaches of the oceans. Beetles have complete metamorphosis that includes three distinct stages after egg hatch; a larva, pupa, and the adult. What other insects also have these same stages? (See answer at the bottom) Beetle larvae may live in: • soil eating debris and roots (scarabs, click and ground beetles); • bore tunnels and consume old (longhorn and Jewel beetles) or living wood (bark beetles); • are aggressive predators (lady bugs and tiger beetle larvae; • feed on stored grains (weevils); • old fruit (fruit beetles); • in dung (scarabs); • and various other places since some beetles are very specialized in their larval feeding habits.
  • Appendix C Historic Resources

    Appendix C Historic Resources

    APPENDIX C HISTORIC RESOURCES HISTORIC RESOURCES APPENDIX – Adopted November 14, 2013 Page 1 HISTORIC RESOURCES The following Historic Resources appendix resources have been studied and documented to satisfy Virginia State Code Sec. 15.2-2224, Surveys and studies to be made in preparation of plan; implementation of plan. Additionally, the information is an educational resource for the community, offering valuable insights into environmental and land use planning within Spotsylvania County. HISTORY OF SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY A timeless sense of self, place and community are at the center of life. Spotsylvania’s heritage supports this truth as the foundation for present and future change. A preservation plan, therefore, includes a summary of character defining history. The following time periods have been established by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources for use in cultural resource documentation. Pre Historic Native American, Late Woodland Period, Pre 1607 Before European settlement, present day Spotsylvania County was home to the Siouan tribes. While these Native Americans were dominantly nomadic, there tended to be an ethnic division of land among them. The Fall Line marked the boundary between the Coastal Algonquians and the Piedmont Siouan- speakers at the end of the Late Woodland period. The land between the North Anna and Rappahannock Rivers, principally roamed by the Manahoacs, formed the region that later became Spotsylvania County. Settlement to Society, 1607-1750 Forts and friendly Indian settlements were established as the first colonists arrived from Europe. Alexander Spotswood was appointed Lieutenant Governor to the Colony of Virginia in 1710, and playing a significant role in westward expansion. Importing German immigrants, mainly indentured servants, he devised a settlement based on iron ore discoveries along the Rapidan River, and founded the County of Spotsylvania in 1721.
  • Chapter 3 USFWS Great Spangled Fritillary

    Chapter 3 USFWS Great Spangled Fritillary

    Chapter 3 USFWS Great spangled fritillary Existing Environment ■ Introduction ■ The Physical Landscape ■ The Cultural Landscape Setting and Land Use History ■ Current Climate ■ Air Quality ■ Water Quality ■ Regional Socio-Economic Setting ■ Refuge Administration ■ Special Use Permits, including Research ■ Refuge Natural Resources ■ Refuge Biological Resources ■ Refuge Visitor Services Program ■ Archealogical and Historical Resources The Physical Landscape Introduction This chapter describes the physical, biological, and social environment of the Rappahannock River Valley refuge. We provide descriptions of the physical landscape, the regional setting and its history, and the refuge setting, including its history, current administration, programs, and specifi c refuge resources. Much of what we describe below refl ects the refuge environment as it was in 2007. Since that time, we have been writing, compiling and reviewing this document. As such, some minor changes likely occurred to local conditions or refuge programs as we continued to implement under current management. However, we do not believe those changes appreciably affect what we present below. The Physical Landscape Watershed Our project area is part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, a drainage basin of 64,000 square miles encompassing parts of the states of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The waters of that basin fl ow into the Chesapeake Bay, the nation’s largest estuary. The watershed contains an array of habitat types, including mixed hardwood forests typical of the Appalachian Mountains, grasslands and agricultural fi elds, lakes, rivers, and streams, wetlands and shallow waters, and open water in tidal rivers and the estuary. That diversity supports more than 2,700 species of plants and animals, including Service trust resources such as endangered or threatened species, migratory birds, and anadromous fi sh (www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/ coastpgm.htm).
  • Quaternary Deposits and Landscape Evolution of the Central Blue Ridge of Virginia

    Quaternary Deposits and Landscape Evolution of the Central Blue Ridge of Virginia

    Geomorphology 56 (2003) 139–154 www.elsevier.com/locate/geomorph Quaternary deposits and landscape evolution of the central Blue Ridge of Virginia L. Scott Eatona,*, Benjamin A. Morganb, R. Craig Kochelc, Alan D. Howardd a Department of Geology and Environmental Science, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA 22807, USA b U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA 20192, USA c Department of Geology, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA 17837, USA d Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA Received 30 August 2002; received in revised form 15 December 2002; accepted 15 January 2003 Abstract A catastrophic storm that struck the central Virginia Blue Ridge Mountains in June 1995 delivered over 775 mm (30.5 in) of rain in 16 h. The deluge triggered more than 1000 slope failures; and stream channels and debris fans were deeply incised, exposing the stratigraphy of earlier mass movement and fluvial deposits. The synthesis of data obtained from detailed pollen studies and 39 radiometrically dated surficial deposits in the Rapidan basin gives new insights into Quaternary climatic change and landscape evolution of the central Blue Ridge Mountains. The oldest depositional landforms in the study area are fluvial terraces. Their deposits have weathering characteristics similar to both early Pleistocene and late Tertiary terrace surfaces located near the Fall Zone of Virginia. Terraces of similar ages are also present in nearby basins and suggest regional incision of streams in the area since early Pleistocene–late Tertiary time. The oldest debris-flow deposits in the study area are much older than Wisconsinan glaciation as indicated by 2.5YR colors, thick argillic horizons, and fully disintegrated granitic cobbles.
  • Acts of the Eleventh Congress of the United States

    Acts of the Eleventh Congress of the United States

    ACTS OF THE ELEVENTH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Passed at the first session, which was begun and held at the City of Washington, in the District of Columbia, on Monday, the twenty- second day of May, 1809, and ended on the twenty-eighth day of June, 1809. JAMES MADISON, President; GEORGE CLINTON, Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate; ANDREW GREGG, Pre- sident of the Senate pro tempore, on the 28th of June; J. B. VARNUM, Speaker of the House of Representatives. STATUTE I. CHAPTER I.--.n AcJt respecting the ships or vessels owned by citizens or subjects May 30, 1809. of foreign nations with which commercial intercourseis permitted. [Obsolete.] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United Act of March States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the 1,1809, ch. 24. Ships and ves- passing of this act, all ships or vessels owned by citizens or subjects of sels of foreign any foreign nation with which commercial intercourse is permitted by nations with the act, entituled "An act to interdict the commercial intercourse be- which inter- course is per- tween the United States and Great Britain and France, and their depen- mitted by the dencies, and for other purposes," be permitted to take on board cargoes act of March 1, of domestic or foreign produce, and to depart with the same for any 1809, shall be permitted to foreign port or place with which such intercourse is, or shall, at the take cargoes time of their departure respectively, be thus permitted, in the same man- and depart for ner, and on the same conditions, as is provided by the act aforesaid, for any port with which inter.
  • Department of Entomology Museum of Comparative Zoology Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

    Department of Entomology Museum of Comparative Zoology Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

    TYPE SPECIMENS OF SPECIES OF DYNASTINI (COLEOPTERA: SCARABAEIDAE: DYNASTINAE) DESCRIBED BY J. L. LECONTE AND G. H. HORN BY JONATHAN R. MAWDSLEY Department of Entomology Museum of Comparative Zoology Cambridge, MA 02138 USA ABSTRACT A lectotype is designated for Megasoma thersites LeConte (type-locality Cape San Lucas, Baja California) from the Leconte collection, Museum of Comparative Zoology. The holotype of Dynastes grantii Horn is preserved in the Horn collection, Museum of Comparative Zoology. INTRODUCTION The pioneer American coleopterists John L. LeConte and George H. Horn each described a single species of Dynastini. Given the popularity of scarabs, particularly dynastines, with col- lectors and the relative accessibility of the LeConte and Horn col- lections in the Museum of Comparative Zoology (MCZ), it is surprising that no previous workers were aware that Megasoma thersites LeConte was described from 8 specimens, none of which had originally been designated as a holotype. Hardy (1972:773) speculated that this species had been described from a single holo- type male, but an examination of the LeConte collection and LeConte's original description (1861:336) clearly indicate that multiple specimens were used to describe this species. I have therefore designated a male specimen from the syntype series as lectotype. The single species of Dynastini described by G. H. Horn, Dynastes grantii, was described from a single specimen from Fort Grant, Arizona, and the holotype of this species is in the Horn col- lection in the MCZ. I have provided bibliographies and brief diag- Manuscript received 7 July 1993. 173 174 Psyche [Vol. 100 noses for each of these species below.
  • Methane Production in Terrestrial Arthropods (Methanogens/Symbiouis/Anaerobic Protsts/Evolution/Atmospheric Methane) JOHANNES H

    Methane Production in Terrestrial Arthropods (Methanogens/Symbiouis/Anaerobic Protsts/Evolution/Atmospheric Methane) JOHANNES H

    Proc. Nati. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 91, pp. 5441-5445, June 1994 Microbiology Methane production in terrestrial arthropods (methanogens/symbiouis/anaerobic protsts/evolution/atmospheric methane) JOHANNES H. P. HACKSTEIN AND CLAUDIUS K. STUMM Department of Microbiology and Evolutionary Biology, Faculty of Science, Catholic University of Nijmegen, Toernooiveld, NL-6525 ED Nimegen, The Netherlands Communicated by Lynn Margulis, February 1, 1994 (receivedfor review June 22, 1993) ABSTRACT We have screened more than 110 represen- stoppers. For 2-12 hr the arthropods (0.5-50 g fresh weight, tatives of the different taxa of terrsrial arthropods for depending on size and availability of specimens) were incu- methane production in order to obtain additional information bated at room temperature (210C). The detection limit for about the origins of biogenic methane. Methanogenic bacteria methane was in the nmol range, guaranteeing that any occur in the hindguts of nearly all tropical representatives significant methane emission could be detected by gas chro- of millipedes (Diplopoda), cockroaches (Blattaria), termites matography ofgas samples taken at the end ofthe incubation (Isoptera), and scarab beetles (Scarabaeidae), while such meth- period. Under these conditions, all methane-emitting species anogens are absent from 66 other arthropod species investi- produced >100 nmol of methane during the incubation pe- gated. Three types of symbiosis were found: in the first type, riod. All nonproducers failed to produce methane concen- the arthropod's hindgut is colonized by free methanogenic trations higher than the background level (maximum, 10-20 bacteria; in the second type, methanogens are closely associated nmol), even if the incubation time was prolonged and higher with chitinous structures formed by the host's hindgut; the numbers of arthropods were incubated.
  • Integrating Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments Into Adaptation Planning

    Integrating Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments Into Adaptation Planning

    Integrating climate change vulnerability assessments into adaptation planning A case study using the NatureServe Climate Change Vulnerability Index to inform conservation planning for species in Florida A Report Prepared for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Natalie Dubois, Astrid Caldas, Judy Boshoven & Aimee Delach Defenders of Wildlife is a national, nonprofit, membership organization dedicated to the protection of all native wild animals and plants in their natural communities. Jamie Rappaport Clark, President Donald Barry, Executive Vice President This report was made possible with the generous support of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the Kresge Foundation and the Educational Foundation of America AUTHORS Natalie Dubois Astrid Caldas Judy Boshoven Aimee Delach With additional input from Amielle DeWan and Kathleen Theoharides PRODUCTION Claire Colegrove © 2011 Defenders of Wildlife, 1130 17th St NW, Washington D.C. 20036 http:/www.defenders.org Disclaimer: This document represents the work and views of the authors and does not necessarily imply endorsement by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Suggested citation: Dubois, N., A. Caldas, J. Boshoven, and A. Delach. 2011. Integrating Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments into Adaptation Planning: A Case Study Using the NatureServe Climate Change Vulnerability Index to Inform Conservation Planning for Species in Florida [Final Report]. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington D.C. CONTENTS Executive Summary ...................................................................................
  • Arizona Wildlife Notebook

    Arizona Wildlife Notebook

    ARIZONA WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ARIZONA WILDLIFE NOTEBOOK GARRY ROGERS Praise for Arizona Wildlife Notebook “Arizona Wildlife Notebook” by Garry Rogers is a comprehensive checklist of wildlife species existing in the State of Arizona. This notebook provides a brief description for each of eleven (11) groups of wildlife, conservation status of all extant species within that group in Arizona, alphabetical listing of species by common name, scientific names, and room for notes. “The Notebook is a statewide checklist, intended for use by wildlife watchers all over the state. As various individuals keep track of their personal observations of wildlife in their specific locality, the result will be a more selective checklist specific to that locale. Such information would be vitally useful to the State Wildlife Conservation Department, as well as to other local agencies and private wildlife watching groups. “This is a very well-documented snapshot of the status of wildlife species – from bugs to bats – in the State of Arizona. Much of it should be relevant to neighboring states, as well, with a bit of fine-tuning to accommodate additions and deletions to the list. “As a retired Wildlife Biologist, I have to say Rogers’ book is perhaps the simplest to understand, yet most comprehensive in terms of factual information, that I have ever had occasion to peruse. This book should become the default checklist for Arizona’s various state, federal and local conservation agencies, and the basis for developing accurate local inventories by private enthusiasts as well as public agencies. "Arizona Wildlife Notebook" provides a superb starting point for neighboring states who may wish to emulate Garry Rogers’ excellent handiwork.
  • Notes on Virginia Butterflies, with Two New State Records!

    Notes on Virginia Butterflies, with Two New State Records!

    144 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY NOTES ON VIRGINIA BUTTERFLIES, WITH TWO NEW STATE RECORDS! CHARLES V. COVELL, JR. Deparbnent of Biology, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky 40208 AND GERALD B. STRALEY Botany Department, POlter Hall, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio 45701 In 1951 Austin and Leila Clark published The Butterflies of Virginia. This work crowned 20 years of avid collecting and observation in the Old Dominion by the Clarks and their colleagues, and brought together all the records and knowledge about the Virginia butterfly fauna up to that time. According to the nomenclature used by the Clarks, a total of 154 species and subspecies (144 species) was recorded as having been collected in Virginia. Keys, diagnostic features, range, variation, occurrence, season, and interesting discussions were given for the butter­ flies and a complete bibliography of literature on Virginia butterflies rounded out the work. Since the appearance of Clark & Clark (1951) very little has been published to add to our knowledge of the Virginia butterfly fauna. Covell ( 1962) added Satyrium kingi (Klots & Clench) to the State list and Straley (1969) recorded Thymelicus lineola (Ochsenheimer) for the first time from the State. Nomenclature and arrangement of species were brought into line with dos Passos (1964), the present standard for North American Rhopalocera classification, by Covell (1967). The latter list also included the first record of Megathymus yuccae (Boisduval & Le Conte) for Virginia. In this paper we include two more first records for the State-Problema bulenta (Boisduval & Le Conte) and Satyrium caryaevorus (McDun­ nough). In accordance with the dos Passos arrangement, plus recent changes in the nomenclature of Lethe, 158 species and subspecies (149 species) of butterflies are now known to have been taken in Virginia.
  • B a N I S T E R I A

    B a N I S T E R I A

    B A N I S T E R I A A JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE NATURAL HISTORY OF VIRGINIA ISSN 1066-0712 Published by the Virginia Natural History Society The Virginia Natural History Society (VNHS) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the dissemination of scientific information on all aspects of natural history in the Commonwealth of Virginia, including botany, zoology, ecology, archaeology, anthropology, paleontology, geology, geography, and climatology. The society’s periodical Banisteria is a peer-reviewed, open access, online-only journal. Submitted manuscripts are published individually immediately after acceptance. A single volume is compiled at the end of each year and published online. The Editor will consider manuscripts on any aspect of natural history in Virginia or neighboring states if the information concerns a species native to Virginia or if the topic is directly related to regional natural history (as defined above). Biographies and historical accounts of relevance to natural history in Virginia also are suitable for publication in Banisteria. Membership dues and inquiries about back issues should be directed to the Co-Treasurers, and correspondence regarding Banisteria to the Editor. For additional information regarding the VNHS, including other membership categories, annual meetings, field events, pdf copies of papers from past issues of Banisteria, and instructions for prospective authors visit http://virginianaturalhistorysociety.com/ Editorial Staff: Banisteria Editor Todd Fredericksen, Ferrum College 215 Ferrum Mountain Road Ferrum, Virginia 24088 Associate Editors Philip Coulling, Nature Camp Incorporated Clyde Kessler, Virginia Tech Nancy Moncrief, Virginia Museum of Natural History Karen Powers, Radford University Stephen Powers, Roanoke College C. L. Staines, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center Copy Editor Kal Ivanov, Virginia Museum of Natural History Copyright held by the author(s).
  • 2012-2013 Annual Report to the Community 1 Who We Are

    2012-2013 Annual Report to the Community 1 Who We Are

    The President’s Message At Germanna Community College, we know we must not waste our greatest resource--the potential of all of the people in our communities. That potential lies not only in the minds of the young, but in the untapped abilities of workers who must be retrained especially in fields where there will be high-wage jobs. An educated workforce creates a better economy for us all, translating into higher pay for local people and a better quality of life for their families, helping existing businesses be more profitable, attracting new employers from outside the area and helping to spawn start-up companies. An educated community makes for better citizens and brighter futures for all. With your support, Germanna will continue to expand to meet our communities’ needs. With your support, we will move forward with plans for a permanent campus in Stafford County and continue to seek ways to better serve Caroline and Madison County residents. With your support, we will continue to expand our Fredericksburg Campus in Spotsylvania, to grow our respected nursing program at our Locust Grove Campus in Orange County, offer new programs at our Daniel echnologyT Center in Culpeper and offer classes at Dahlgren. “Let us think of Germanna is working hard to respond quickly to provide students with the education as the knowledge, skills and attitude that lead to jobs that pay well and give local companies a competitive edge in a challenging global market. means of developing Nearly 80 percent of Germanna students remain in our area after our greatest abilities, completing their college work, investing the skills they’ve learned in their local communities.