DOCSLIB.ORG

Analysis of the Trophic Support Capacity of Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia, for Piscivorous Fish

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Analysis of the Trophic Support Capacity of Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia, for Piscivorous Fish ANALYSIS OF THE TROPHIC SUPPORT CAPACITY OF SMITH MOUNTAIN LAKE, VIRGINIA, FOR PISCIVOROUS FISH Michael J. Cyterski Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences John J. Ney, Chair Donald J. Orth Brian R. Murphy Clint W. Coakley James M. Berkson June, 1999 Blacksburg, Virginia Keywords: Striped Bass, Clupeids, Production, Bioenergetics, Hydroacoustics Copyright 1999, Michael J. Cyterski ANALYSIS OF THE TROPHIC SUPPORT CAPACITY OF SMITH MOUNTAIN LAKE, VIRGINIA, FOR PISCIVOROUS FISH Michael J. Cyterski (ABSTRACT) This investigation examined the adequacy of the forage base to meet current demand of piscivores in Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia. Surplus production, or the maximum sustainable supply, of alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) were determined using data on the biomass, growth, and mortality of each species. Mean hydroacoustic alewife biomass from 1993-1998 was 37 kg/ha and mean gizzard shad cove rotenone biomass from 1990-1997 was 112 kg/ha. Mean annual alewife surplus production was determined to be 73 kg/ha and mean annual gizzard shad surplus production totaled 146 kg/ha. Bioenergetics modeling and population density estimates were utilized to derive the annual food consumption (realized demand) of the two most popular sport fish in the system, striped bass (Morone saxatilis) and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). The striped bass population consumed 46 kg/ha of alewife and 27 kg/ha of gizzard shad annually. Largemouth bass ate 9 kg/ha of alewife and 15 kg/ha of gizzard shad annually. Annual consumption by ancillary predators was estimated to be 13 kg/ha of alewife and 35 kg/ha of gizzard shad. Prey supply to predators is limited by morphology, behavior, and distribution. The cumulative effect on prey availability of these three factors, in addition to consumption by other predators, was quantified. For largemouth bass, available supply of alewife and gizzard shad exceeded demand by 20% and 53% respectively. For striped bass, available supply of gizzard shad surpassed demand by 30% but available alewife supply was only 4% greater than demand. Annual demand of all predators was 94% of total available clupeid supply. Striped bass stockings were increased by 50% in 1998 and will remain at this level in the near future. A predator-prey simulation model of alewife and striped bass populations was developed to explore the consequences of increased predator demand. This model incorporated dependencies between alewife abundance and mortality and the mortality, abundance, and growth of striped bass. Model output showed that a 50% stocking increase has a near-zero probability of increasing the mean annual number of legal and citation striped bass in Smith Mountain Lake. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The time and effort spent writing this onerous/rewarding undertaking is only a portion of the totality of its accomplishment. Many others have had a hand in its completion, and these few pages are devoted to them. This is the one section of the dissertation where humor can hope to escape the editorial scalpel. Dr. John J. Ney, my major professor, ice-fishing mentor, rubber-band slinger, small-rodent hunter, and gardener supreme, lent me invaluable editorial guidance and support while I struggled to formulate my thoughts, direct my energies, right my inconsistencies, and harness my fantasies. He was the traditional, pragmatic, deterministic, old-world craftsman to my wandering, stochastic, technological dreamer. Who knows what I would have done without him. I’d probably be filthy rich and altogether ignorant of the important things in this life, like fresh roadkill on an otherwise deserted highway, or retinal-impairing choke-cherry wine. I feel lucky to have had him as my tutor and teacher, before he quietly slipped away to harass yellow pike in the silver dusk. Drs. Donald Orth, Brian Murphy, Clint Coakley, Alan Heath, and Jim Berkson, the auspicious members of my graduate committee, humbled me on more than one occasion, issuing a challenge to advance my limited understanding, inciting intellectual uprisings in the stagnant corners of my rationale, honing my perceptions of fishery science, indeed science in general. They could not be indicted for any moss that might have settled on this stone. Michael Duval, the kind, gentle, committed professional, formerly of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, gave appreciably of himself in helping me to acquire the hordes of data required to give this bird wings. Without his support and assistance, I would have no case to argue whatsoever. I would be remiss if I did not mention Scott Smith and the many others associated with VDGIF who so graciously lent of their time ii and talents to help collect the seemingly endless array of organisms that would later find new life on these thin pages. The SML Striper Club, especially Rex Smith, were always ready and willing to provide assistance with data collection, keep me informed on happenings on the lake, and introduce me first-hand to the excitement that is striped bass fishing. I owe them a sincere debt of gratitude. The faculty, staff, and students in the Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife and Statistics have left me indelible recollections of Virginia Tech. Their friendship, insights, witticisms, questions, and answers forced me to think, learn, and evolve. Some always volunteered when fieldwork arose, and many were there to lend intellectual support, as well. I would like to explicitly thank Dan Michaelson, Dan Garren, Tim Copeland, Brian Watson, Michele Steg, Travis Brenden, and Drs. Trent Sutton, Edmund Pert, Jeffrey Birch, and Eric Smith. I would like to thank my parents and siblings for their continued love and support through good times and bad. This long process of formal education, culminating in a dissertation, could not have been completed without them. Finally, I would like to acknowledge my lovely wife Trina, who gives me joy every moment I spend with her, renewing my spirit and my desire to improve. She too challenges me to expand my thinking and refine my being. She has all of my love always. All-important funding sources for this study were the Cunningham Memorial Fellowship, provided by the graduate school at Virginia Tech, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, through the Sport Fish Restoration Act. I am grateful for the opportunity both have given me. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 STUDY SITE 8 CHAPTER ONE: PREY SUPPLY 11 INTRODUCTION 11 HYDROACOUSTICS 16 OBJECTIVE 20 METHODS 21 ESTIMATION OF CLUPEID BIOMASS 21 HYDROACOUSTIC PROCEDURE 21 ALLOCATION OF ACOUSTICALLY-DETERMINED BIOMASS 24 ROTENONE PROCEDURE 26 ANNUAL PREY PRODUCTION 27 AGE-0 DYNAMICS 27 RESULTS 31 ACOUSTIC ESTIMATES OF DENSITY AND BIOMASS 31 POPULATION DYNAMICS OF ALEWIFE AND GIZZARD SHAD 34 PRODUCTION OF ALEWIFE AND GIZZARD SHAD 39 DISCUSSION 41 ACOUSTIC ESTIMATES OF DENSITY AND BIOMASS 41 HYDROACOUSTICS 41 ACOUSTIC SAMPLING AREA 43 BIOMASS PARTITIONING 44 ASSESSMENT OF RESULTS 44 CLUPEID BIOMASS 44 P/B RATIOS 47 ANNUAL VARIABILITY 47 DYNAMICS OF CLUPEID SUPPLY 48 iv CHAPTER TWO: PREDATOR CONSUMPTION 50 INTRODUCTION 50 METHODS 54 BIOENERGETICS 54 SIMULATION SPECIFICS 58 SITE-SPECIFIC INPUTS TO THE BIOENERGETICS MODEL 64 DIET ANALYSIS 64 WATER TEMPERATURE 66 PREDATOR/PREY CALORIC VALUES 68 GROWTH RATES 71 POPULATION ABUNDANCE 73 CONSUMPTION BY OTHER PREDATORS 77 RESULTS 84 SITE-SPECIFIC INPUTS 84 DIET 84 GROWTH 87 INDIVIDUAL CONSUMPTION 92 LARGEMOUTH BASS 92 STRIPED BASS 96 POPULATION ABUNDANCE 101 POPULATION CONSUMPTION 104 LARGEMOUTH BASS 104 STRIPED BASS 108 ANCILLARY MODEL OUTPUT 113 FOOD CONVERSION EFFICIENCY 113 PREDATOR P VALUES 117 CONSUMPTION BY SECONDARY PREDATORS 120 DISCUSSION 122 ASSESSMENT OF INDIVIDUAL CONSUMPTION ESTIMATES 122 ASSESSMENT OF POPULATION CONSUMPTION ESTIMATES 124 v CONVERSION EFFICIENCIES AND P VALUES 128 COMPARISON OF CONSUMPTION ESTIMATES TO OTHER INVESTIGATIONS 129 TOTAL PREDATOR CONSUMPTION 133 SUMMARY 135 CHAPTER THREE: PREY AVAILABILITY 138 INTRODUCTION 138 LIMITS ON PREY AVAILABILITY 139 MORPHOLOGY 139 DISTRIBUTION 141 BEHAVIOR 143 METHODS 149 BEHAVIORAL AVAILABILITY 149 MORPHOLOGICAL AVAILABILITY 151 DISTRIBUTIONAL AVAILABILITY 153 RESULTS 154 BEHAVIORAL AVAILABILITY 154 RESPONSES TO SMALL PREY 154 RESPONSES TO LARGE PREY 154 MORPHOLOGICAL AVAILABILITY 155 DISTRIBUTIONAL AVAILABILITY 167 LARGEMOUTH BASS AND ALEWIFE 167 STRIPED BASS AND CLUPEID DISTRIBUTIONS 169 AGE-0 ALEWIFE AND ADULT STRIPED BASS 171 AGE-0 ALEWIFE AND AGE-0 STRIPED BASS 171 GIZZARD SHAD AND STRIPED BASS 172 SYNTHESIS OF AVAILABILITY 174 DISCUSSION 181 BEHAVIORAL AVAILABILITY 181 MORPHOLOGIC AVAILABILITY 183 vi DISTRIBUTIONAL AVAILABILITY 184 ANNUAL VARIABILITY IN SUPPLY/DEMAND 186 SUMMARY 188 CHAPTER FOUR: MODELING INCREASED STRIPED BASS DEMAND 192 INTRODUCTION 192 METHODS 198 STRIPED BASS DYNAMICS 201 ALEWIFE DYNAMICS 205 SIMULATION SPECIFICS 211 RESULTS 212 DISCUSSION 224 SUMMARY 229 SUMMARY 230 CONCLUSIONS AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 235 LITERATURE CITED 238 APPENDICES 258 VITA 265 vii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE S.1 Map of Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia. 10 1.1 Surplus production versus production in consecutive cohorts. 14 1.2 Percent of total clupeid spawn on a weekly basis. 29 1.3 Population dynamics of the simulated age-0 gizzard shad population. 37 1.4 Population dynamics of the simulated age-0 alewife population. 38 1.5 Surplus production summary of alewife and gizzard shad populations. 40 2.1 Determination of annual growth stanzas for largemouth bass. 62 2.2 Determination of annual growth stanzas for striped bass. 63 2.3 Growth of modeled largemouth bass. 90 2.4 Growth of modeled striped bass. 91 2.5 Annual consumption by individual largemouth bass. 95 2.6 Annual consumption by individual striped bass. 100 2.7 Annual consumption by largemouth bass cohorts. 107 2.8 Annual consumption by striped bass cohorts. 112 2.9 Seasonal and annual food conversion efficiencies for largemouth bass. 115 2.10 Seasonal and annual food conversion efficiencies for striped bass.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Blackwater River Waterbodies Improved High Sediment Loadings Led to Violations of the General Standard for Aquatic Life Use in Virginia’S Blackwater River
    NONPOINT SOURCE SUCCESS STORY Agricultural Best Management PracticesVirginia Improve Aquatic Life in the Blackwater River Waterbodies Improved High sediment loadings led to violations of the general standard for aquatic life use in Virginia’s Blackwater River. As a result, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) added two segments of the Lower Blackwater River to the 2008 Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) list of impaired waters. Landowners installed agricultural best management practices (BMPs); these decreased edge-of-field sediment loading and helped improve water quality. Because of this improvement, DEQ removed two segments of the Blackwater River from Virginia’s 2014 list of impaired waters for biological impairment. Problem The Blackwater River watershed is in Franklin County, Virginia, in the Roanoke River Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit Code 03010101). The watershed lies north of Rocky Mount, Virginia, approximately 15 miles south of Roanoke, Virginia. The Blackwater River flows southeastward and empties into Smith Mountain Lake (Figure 1). The Upper Blackwater River watershed (70,303 acres) is 69% forest, 18% pasture and hay- land, 7% cropland and less than 1% urban. The Lower Blackwater River watershed (20,504 acres) is 58% forest, 33% agricultural, 8% urban and 2% water. Biological sampling conducted at monitoring sta- tion 4ABWR029.51 in 2004 showed Virginia Stream Condition Index (VSCI) scores of 60.7 in the spring and 50.1 in the fall. The VSCI score is a macroinver- Figure 1. The Blackwater River is in southwest Virginia. tebrate and fish community index, a composite mea- sure of the number and types of pollution-sensitive these segments was excessive sedimentation.
    [Show full text]
  • Smith Mountain Lake Water Quality Monitoring Program
    Smith Mountain Lake Water Quality Monitoring Program SMLA Ferrum College Prepared by Dr. Carolyn L. Thomas and Dr. David M. Johnson Life Sciences Division Ferrum College Sponsored by The Smith Mountain Lake Association Funded by American Electric Power Bedford County Franklin County Pittsylvania County Tri-county Lake Administrative Commission May 2004 SMLA WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 2003 CONTENTS CONTENTS......................................................................................................................... i FIGURES...........................................................................................................................iii TABLES ............................................................................................................................. v 2003 Officers ....................................................................................................................vii 2003 Directors...................................................................................................................vii 2003 Smith Mountain Lake Volunteer Monitors.............................................................viii 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 1 1.1 The Conclusions.......................................................................................................1 1.2 The Facts Supporting These Conclusions................................................................1 2. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Adoption Resolutions
    Appendix A: Adoption Resolutions Appendix A: Adoption Resolutions Placeholder for Adoption Resolutions CVPDC Hazard Mitigation Plan 2020 Update A-1 Appendix B: FEMA Crosswalk Appendix B: FEMA Crosswalk REGULATION CHECKLIST CROSSWALK REFERENCE # ELEMENT A. PLANNING PROCESS A1. Does the Plan document the planning process, including how it was Section 3: Planning prepared and who was involved in the process for each jurisdiction? Process (Requirement §201.6(c)(1)) A2. Does the Plan document an opportunity for neighboring communities local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation Section 3.6: Coordination activities, agencies that have the authority to regulate development as with other Agencies, well as other interests to be involved in the planning process? Entities, and Plans (Requirement §201.6(b)(2)) A3. Does the Plan document how the public was involved in the Section 3.7: Public planning process during the drafting stage? (Requirement §201.6(b)(1)) Involvement 5.3: Planning Capabilities, A4. Does the Plan describe the review and incorporation of existing 6.0: Mitigation, 7.2: Plan plans, studies, reports, and technical information (Requirement Integration and §201.6(b)(3)) Implementation A5. Is there discussion of how the community(ies) will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process (Requirement 7.4: Public Involvement §201.6(c)(4)(iii)) A6. Is there a description of the method and schedule for keeping the 7.3: Evaluating and plan current (monitoring, evaluating and updating the mitigation plan Updating within a 5-year cycle)? (Requirement 201.6(c)(4)(i)) ELEMENT B. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT B1. Does the Plan include a description of the type, location, and extent 4.0: Hazard Identification of all natural hazards that can affect each jurisdiction(s)? (Requirement and Risk Assessment §201.6(c)(2)(i)) B2.
    [Show full text]
  • Franklin County Health Assessment (CHNA)
    Page | 1 Table of Contents Disclaimer ............................................................................................................................. 5 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... 6 Project Management Team ................................................................................................... 6 Community Health Assessment Team (CHAT) ........................................................................ 6 CHAT Members ................................................................................................................ 7 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 8 Method ............................................................................................................................ 8 Findings ........................................................................................................................... 8 Response ......................................................................................................................... 9 Target Population ................................................................................................................ 10 Service Area ........................................................................................................................ 10 Community Health Improvement Process ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Conditions
    NATURAL CONDITIONS This section of the Comprehensive Plan Update discusses the natural conditions and physical characteristics for the County. Air quality, climate, soils, slope or topography, water, floodplains, and geology are important factors in the physical development of a locality and can directly and indirectly affect economic growth and development. Land use, housing, and transportation planning are directly influenced by physical factors since, for example, intensive land use tends to proceed along patterns which first consume land which is the most problem free: smooth, low slope topography; good soil characteristics; away from floodplains; and good depth to bedrock. Franklin County, seventh in size among Virginia counties, is located in the south- central part of Virginia. The County is bounded on the north by Roanoke and Bedford Counties, on the east by Pittsylvania County, on the south by Henry and Patrick Counties, and on the west by Floyd County. The Blue Ridge Mountains border the County on the north and west, and the Roanoke River and Smith Mountain Lake bound the County in the northeast. In the southwest is Philpott Lake and in the southeast is Turkeycock Mountain/Wildlife Management Area. Geological Structure and Mineral Resources Franklin County is situated in two major physiographic provinces. Approximately two-thirds of the County is in the Piedmont Province, while the remaining land area, the County's western section, is in the Blue Ridge Province. The Piedmont Province is a maturely dissected upland underlain by a vast complex of igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks which are predominantly of the Precambrian Age. The Blue Ridge Province is a remnant of a former highland which is formed by complexly folded and faulted Precambrian and Cambrian rocks.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Our Guide
    Welcome to the Outdoor Recreation Guide– your personal guide to outdoor adventure in and around the Roanoke Region of Virginia. Over 30 hand- picked recommendations ensure you find the perfect adventure. Don’t just sit there – Get Outside! Outdoor Recreation Highlights in the Roanoke Region of Virginia • The most visited National Park in the U.S. – the Blue Ridge Parkway • The longest footpath in the U.S. – the Appalachian Trail • The 2nd largest municipal park in the U.S. – Carvins Cove Natural Reserve • Four State Parks – Douthat, Smith Mountain Lake, Claytor Lake, & New River Trail • Smith Mountain Lake and Lake Moomaw are ideal for boating and fishing • Over 140 miles of trails that exist as part of the region’s extensive greenway system • Two major rivers, the James and the New Find more events, adventures, CONTENTS attractions, and people Overview Map………………. I - - - - - - - - - - - Hiking Adventures………… II Visit the Roanoke Outside Biking Adventures………… III Facebook group to see what’s going on with the Water Adventures…………. IV local outdoor community - - - - - - - - - - - Outdoor Attractions……….. V Tweet a question and Outfitters & Guides………... VI get answers from the local community by Outdoor Stores…………….. VII sending a message to @Roanoke_Outside and including #roaout in your message Hiking Adventure McAfee Knob is the most photographed site along the Appalachian Trail which crosses 14 states on its 2,178 mile journey from Georgia to Maine. The Knob has an almost 270 degree panorama of the Catawba Valley and North Mountain to the west, Tinker Cliffs to the north and the Roanoke Valley to the east. Hopefully, you will get to meet a thru-hiker - a person hiking the entire trail from Georgia to Maine.
    [Show full text]
  • Smith Mountain Lake Association Water Quality Monitoring Program
    Smith Mountain Lake Association Water Quality Monitoring Program 1995 Report Carolyn L. Thomas and David M. Johnson Ferrum College Ferrum, Virginia 24088 In Cooperation with The Smith Mountain Lake Association Moneta, Virginia 24121 December 1995 SMLA Water Quality Monitoring Program 1995 CONTENTS CONTENTS......................................................................................................................... i FIGURES...........................................................................................................................iii TABLES ............................................................................................................................ iv 1995 Officers ...................................................................................................................... v 1995 Directors..................................................................................................................... v 1995 Smith Mountain Lake Volunteer Monitors............................................................... vi 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 1 2. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 3 3. METHODS ................................................................................................................... 6 4. RESULTS ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Official Statement Relating to the Issuance Of
    In the opinion of Hawkins Delafield & Wood LLP, New York, New York, Bond Counsel to the City, under existing statutes and court decisions and assuming compliance with certain tax covenants described herein, interest on the Bonds (i) is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes pursuant to Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”) and (ii) is not treated as a preference item in calculating the alternative minimum tax imposed on individuals and corporations under the Code; such interest, however, is included in the adjusted current earnings of certain corporations for purposes of calculating the alternative minimum tax imposed on such corporations. In addition, in the opinion of Bond Counsel to the City, under the existing statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia, interest on the Bonds is not includable in computing the Virginia income tax. See “TAX MATTERS” herein. RATINGS: NEW ISSUE — Fitch: AA+ BOOK-ENTRY ONLY Moody’s: Aa2 Standard & Poor’s: AA+ (See “RATINGS” herein) Official Statement Relating To The Issuance Of $115,190,000 City Of Lynchburg, Virginia, General Obligation Public Improvement and Refunding Bonds, Series 2014 Dated: Date of Delivery Due: As Shown On Inside Cover This Official Statement has been prepared by the City of Lynchburg to provide information on the Bonds. Selected information is presented on this cover page for the convenience of the reader. To make an informed decision regarding the Bonds, a prospective investor should read this Official Statement in its entirety. Purpose The proceeds of the Bonds will be used to finance the costs of various public improvement projects of and for the City, to pay the outstanding principal of a general obligation note issued to finance the costs of various public improvement projects of and for the City, and to refund and defease certain outstanding general obligation bonds of the City (see “INTRODUCTION” and “PLAN OF REFUNDING” herein).
    [Show full text]
  • Smith Mountain Pumped Storage Project What Is the Smith Mountain Project?
    Smith Mountain Pumped Storage Project What is the Smith Mountain Project? The Smith Mountain Project is a federally- licensed hydroelectric facility consisting of Smith Mountain Dam two (2) dams and two (2) lakes. Leesville Dam What is the Smith Mountain Project? The Project is unique in that it recycles water between the two lakes in a process Smith Mountain Dam known as “pumped storage.” Leesville Dam What is the Smith Mountain Project? Water from the upper reservoir (Smith Mountain Lake) passes through turbines at Smith Mountain Dam to generate electricity, then is released into the lower reservoir (Leesville Lake). Water can be pumped back into Smith Mountain Lake for re-use, or passed through turbines at Leesville Dam to generate more electricity before being released downstream. What is the Smith Mountain Project? Pumped-storage allows the Smith Mountain Project to generate 636 megawatts of electricity – approximately 10-times more energy than a conventional run-of-the-river hydro facility. The primary purpose of the Project is to generate electricity. This is known as the “Project Use.” The Project also benefits the local community by providing opportunities for: • public recreation • scenic enjoyment • fish & wildlife habitat • economic development What is the Smith Mountain Project? The Smith Mountain Project includes • more than 25,000 acres of water • more than 600 miles of shoreline • more than 13,000 individual parcels of land adjacent to the Project boundary Appalachian Power is responsible for managing various operational
    [Show full text]
  • Smith Mountain Lake State Park 1235 State Park Road Huddleston, Virginia 24104-9547
    Smith Mountain Lake State Park 1235 State Park Road Huddleston, Virginia 24104-9547 SMITH MOUNTAIN LAKE STATE PARK MASTER PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2020 UPDATE Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Planning and Recreation Resources 600 E Main Street, 24th Floor Richmond, Virginia 23219 Smith Mountain Lake State Park MASTER PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2020 UPDATE Presented for review at a public meeting on September 30, 2019, then recommended for adoption by the Board of Conservation and Recreation on January 6, 2020, and then reviewed for 30 days by the Virginia General Assembly. Adopted: ________/S/_________________ March 2, 2020 Clyde E. Cristman, Director Date Department of Conservation and Recreation SMITH MOUNTAIN LAKE STATE PARK MASTER PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2020 UPDATE Park Purpose Statement “The purpose of Smith Mountain Lake State Park is to provide premiere outdoor recreational and educational opportunities associated with Virginia’s largest lake, while interpreting the natural, historical, and cultural resources of the west piedmont region of Virginia.” Introduction The Smith Mountain Lake State Park Master Plan Executive Summary is an update to the official unabridged master plan document adopted in 2003 by the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) Board. This 2020 executive summary represents the most recent ten year review mandated in §10.1-200.1 of the Code of Virginia. Smith Mountain Lake State Park is on the 20,600-acre Smith Mountain Lake that was created in 1960 when Appalachian Power Company (now American Electric Power) built a dam on the Roanoke River in Smith Mountain Gap. Construction of the dam was completed in 1966, and a year later Appalachian Power donated the first parcel of land to the Commonwealth for the establishment of the state park.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pros & Cons
    Table of Contents Introduction: Welcome to Smith Mountain Lake! Chapter 1: Waterfront, Water Access, or Near the Lake Chapter 2: Vacation and Retirement Homes Chapter 3: Price Ranges at Smith Mountain Lake Chapter 4: Community Living vs. Private Property Chapter 5: Main Channel vs. Back of Cove Chapter 6: Franklin, Bedford, or Pittsylvania County Chapter 7: Ready-to-Move vs. Fixer-Upper Chapter 8: The House or the Lot: Which Matters More? Chapter 9: Should You Buy or Build? The Pros & Cons Chapter 10: A Quick Guide to Recreation at Smith Mountain Lake Debbie Shelton | 540.797.3177 | [email protected] Introduction: Welcome to Smith Mountain Lake! The pristine and breathtaking Smith Mountain Lake, the “Jewel of the Blue Ridge Mountains,” is nestled in the Blue Ridge Mountains of southwestern Virginia. This 20,600-acre, 40-mile long lake was created in 1966 by a hydro-electric power dam at the base of Smith Mountain. Two rivers, the Roanoke and the Blackwater, feed into Smith Mountain Lake and keeps its waters fresh and clean. Desirable Real Estate, Affordable Living Smith Mountain Lake, known locally as SML, is the most popular lake in Virginia. With 500 miles of shoreline, a swimming season that lasts from May through September, exceptional recreational activities and water sports, and friendly communities all around, SML is a fantastic place to live, play, and vacation. This region features some of the most affordable lakefront and water access living in the country. At SML, you’ll find something for every budget. About This Guide The search for the perfect property at Smith Mountain Lake can be daunting.
    [Show full text]
  • Leesville Lake 2019 Water Quality Monitoring
    Leesville Lake 2019 Water Quality Monitoring Prepared for: Leesville Lake Association Prepared by: Dr. Thomas Shahady University of Lynchburg Ethan Batchelor University of Lynchburg February 2019 Funds Supplied by: American Electric Power & Leesville Lake Association 2019 ‐ Leesville Lake Water Quality Monitoring Report (Page Left Intentionally Blank) 2 Leesville Lake Water Quality Monitoring Report ‐ 2019 Table of Contents Page List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………...4 List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………..5 List of Acronyms…………………………………………………………………………..7 Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………..…8 Section 1: Current Conditions (2019)……………………………………………………..10 1.1 General 1.2 Methods 1.3 Water Quality: Current Test Results (2019) 1.3.1 Temporal Analysis by Station 1.3.1.1 Dam (Lacustrine) 1.3.1.2 Leesville Lake Marina 1.3.1.3 Tri County Marina 1.3.1.4 Mile Marker 6 (Transition) 1.3.1.5 Mile Marker 9 1.3.1.6 Toler Bridge (Riverine) 1.3.1.7 Pigg River 1.3.1.8 Smith Mountain Lake Tail waters Section 2: Lake Wide Trends……………………………………………………….……49 2.1 Analysis of Trophic State 2.2 Statistical Analysis 2.3 Pigg River Study Section 3: Management Implications………………………………………………….…65 References Appendix A: Background of Water Quality Program Appendix B: Water Parameter Testing Details Appendix C: Quality Assurance (QA)/ Quality Control (QC) Appendix D: Quality Assurance (QA)/ Quality Control (QC) Checklist Appendix E: Initial Pigg River Water Quality Study Appendix F: Collected Data 2019 3 2019 ‐ Leesville Lake Water Quality Monitoring
    [Show full text]