DOCSLIB.ORG

An Evaluation of Habitat Structure and the Distribution of Rare and Common Darters in Ohio

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Wright State University CORE Scholar Browse all Theses and Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 2011 An Evaluation of Habitat Structure and the Distribution of Rare and Common Darters in Ohio Erin Lee Kingdom Wright State University Follow this and additional works at: https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/etd_all Part of the Biology Commons Repository Citation Kingdom, Erin Lee, "An Evaluation of Habitat Structure and the Distribution of Rare and Common Darters in Ohio" (2011). Browse all Theses and Dissertations. 466. https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/etd_all/466 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at CORE Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Browse all Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of CORE Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AN EVALUATION OF HABITAT STRUCTURE AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF RARE AND COMMON DARTERS IN OHIO A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science By ERIN LEE KINGDOM B.S., Wright State University, 2004 2011 Wright State University WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES June 20, 2011 I HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION BY Erin L. Kingdom ENTITLED An Evaluation of Habitat Structure and the Distribution of Rare and Common Darters in Ohio BE ACCEPTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Master of Science Yvonne Vadeboncoeur, Ph.D. Thesis Director David Goldstein, Ph. D. Department Chair of Biological Sciences Committee on Final Examination Yvonne Vadeboncoeur, Ph.D. James Runkle, Ph.D. Don Cipollini, Ph.D. ________________________________ Andrew Hsu, Ph.D. Dean, School of Graduate Studies Abstract Kingdom, Erin L. M.S., Department of Biological Sciences, Wright State University, 2011.―An Evaluation of Habitat Structure and the Distribution of Rare and Common Darters in Ohio‖ Darters are small benthic-feeding fish. I examined reasons why some darter species are rarer than others based on geographic range, habitat specificity, and local population size using the Ohio EPA database and field research. The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) represented habitat quality. I examined drainage area and gradient at the landscape-scale, riparian and channel characteristics at the reach-scale, and substrate, cover, and riffle/pool characteristics at the microhabitat scale. Some rare species occur in few rivers in Ohio, but throughout a basin, while other rare species occur only in moderate-sized rivers. Most rare species occur at only a few sites with low abundance. Common darters occurred in all-sized rivers and gradients. Rare darters occurred in large drainage areas with moderate gradients. Species richness was positively correlated with high QHEI, although the common johnny darter was abundant at sites with low QHEI. Mesohabitat and microhabitat were examined for each darter species within the species- rich Scioto River and Muskingum River basins. Rare species were more associated with high quality habitat than common species. Within Battelle-Darby Creek Metropark, a site with good habitat quality, species distributions differed. Overall, watershed size was the best predictor for a darter’s distribution. iii Table of Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 Evaluation of landscape-scale elements on darter distributions: Ohio EPA’s Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) ............................................................................................................. 4 Evaluation of habitat use by darters on a smaller scale: within a segment of a basin ................. 5 Objectives .................................................................................................................................... 6 2. Methods ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Large-scale habitat influence on darter distributions ................................................................... 7 Intermediate-scale habitat influence on darter distributions ........................................................ 8 Microhabitat-scale influence on darter distributions .................................................................... 9 A microhabitat field study: Big Darby Creek’s riffle-dwelling darters .................................... 11 3. Results ........................................................................................................................................ 14 Forms of rarity: darter distributions in the Eastern United States and in Ohio .......................... 14 Darter habitat at the landscape-scale .......................................................................................... 15 Distribution of darters within the Scioto and Muskingum basins .............................................. 16 Darter habitat at the reach-scale ................................................................................................. 17 Microhabitat scale ...................................................................................................................... 18 A microhabitat analysis: Big Darby Creek ................................................................................ 20 4. Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 22 5. References .................................................................................................................................. 31 6. Figures ....................................................................................................................................... 34 7. Tables ......................................................................................................................................... 56 iv List of Figures Figure Page 1. Distribution of nineteen darter species in North America and in Ohio ..................................... 34 2. Relationship between the number of sites where a particular species was present and (a) the average of individuals per site and (b) total number of individuals in Ohio .................................. 39 3. Darter abundance as a function of drainage area (feet/mile) for each of Ohio’s nineteen darter species ............................................................................................................................................ 40 4. Darter abundance as a function of gradient (feet/mile) for each of Ohio’s nineteen darter species ............................................................................................................................................ 41 5. The Scioto River and Muskingum River Basins in Ohio .......................................................... 42 6. The relationship between the number of species at a site and QHEI score .............................. 43 7. The relationship between the number of darter individuals for two common darters and the QHEI score at sites where they are found ...................................................................................... 44 8. Difference in QHEI habitat scores at sites (presence-absence) for each darter species ............ 45 9. Difference in mesoscale habitat scores at sites (presence-absence) for each darter species ..... 46 10. Difference in microscale habitat scores (cover, substrate, pool, and riffle scores) at sites (presence-absence) for common and rare darter species........................................................... 47-48 11. Overall difference in QHEI scores for each darter species (sites present- sites absent) (represented by D-statistics) against darter abundances for the Scioto and Muskingum River Basins ............................................................................................................................................. 49 12. Difference in mesoscale habitat scores for each darter species (sites present- sites absent) (represented by D-statistics) against darter abundances for the Scioto and Muskingum River Basins ............................................................................................................................................. 50 13. Difference in microhabitat scale habitat scores for each darter species (sites present- sites absent) (represented by D-statistics) against darter abundances for the Scioto and Muskingum River Basins .............................................................................................................................. 51-52 v 14. Daily discharge (cubic feet/second) from end of May to beginning of August 2006 and average daily temperatures for Big Darby Creek from June1-July31 2006. .................................. 53 15. Darter species composition in Big Darby Creek study sites ................................................... 54 16. Substrate composition and darter presence in Big Darby Creek study sites ............................ 55 vi List of Tables Table Page Table 1. Habitat use of darters modified from Trautman (1957) and Keuhne & Barbour (1983) ...........................................................................................56 Table 2. Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) components used by the Ohio EPA to quantify habitat characteristics
Recommended publications
  • Page 1 03089500 Mill Creek Near Berlin Center, Ohio 19.13 40.9638 80.9476 10.86 9.13 0.6880 58.17 0.77 0.41 2.10 03092000 Kale C

    Page 1 03089500 Mill Creek Near Berlin Center, Ohio 19.13 40.9638 80.9476 10.86 9.13 0.6880 58.17 0.77 0.41 2.10 03092000 Kale C

    Table 2-1. Basin characteristics determined for selected streamgages in Ohio and adjacent States. [Characteristics listed in this table are described in detail in the text portion of appendix 2; column headings used in this table are shown in parentheses adjacent to the bolded long variable names] Station number Station name DASS Latc Longc SL10-85 LFPath SVI Agric Imperv OpenWater W 03089500 Mill Creek near Berlin Center, Ohio 19.13 40.9638 80.9476 10.86 9.13 0.6880 58.17 0.77 0.41 2.10 03092000 Kale Creek near Pricetown, Ohio 21.68 41.0908 81.0409 14.09 12.88 0.8076 40.46 1.08 0.48 2.31 03092090 West Branch Mahoning River near Ravenna, Ohio 21.81 41.2084 81.1983 20.23 11.19 0.5068 38.65 2.35 1.01 2.51 03102950 Pymatuning Creek at Kinsman, Ohio 96.62 41.4985 80.6401 5.46 21.10 0.6267 52.26 0.82 1.18 5.60 03109500 Little Beaver Creek near East Liverpool, Ohio 495.57 40.8103 80.6732 7.89 55.27 0.4812 38.05 1.98 0.79 1.41 03110000 Yellow Creek near Hammondsville, Ohio 147.22 40.5091 80.8855 9.37 33.62 0.5439 19.84 0.34 0.33 0.36 03111500 Short Creek near Dillonvale, Ohio 122.95 40.2454 80.8859 15.25 27.26 0.3795 30.19 1.08 0.93 1.16 03111548 Wheeling Creek below Blaine, Ohio 97.60 40.1274 80.9477 13.43 27.46 0.3280 40.92 0.97 0.56 0.64 03114000 Captina Creek at Armstrongs Mills, Ohio 133.69 39.9307 81.0696 13.56 26.99 0.6797 32.76 0.54 0.64 0.66 03115400 Little Muskingum River at Bloomfield, Ohio 209.94 39.6699 81.1370 5.50 44.84 0.7516 10.00 0.25 0.12 0.12 03115500 Little Muskingum River at Fay, Ohio 258.25 39.6406 81.1531 4.32 60.10 0.7834
  • Percina Copelandi) in CANADA

    Percina Copelandi) in CANADA

    Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Central and Arctic, and Quebec Regions Science Advisory Report 2010/058 RECOVERY POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT OF CHANNEL DARTER (Percina copelandi) IN CANADA Channel Darter (Percina copelandi) Figure 1. Distribution of Channel Darter in Canada. © Ellen Edmondson Context : The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) assessed the status of Channel Darter (Percina copelandi) in April 1993. The assessment resulted in the designation of Channel Darter as Threatened. In May 2002, the status was re-examined and confirmed by COSEWIC. This designation was assigned because the species exists in low numbers where found, and its habitat is negatively impacted by siltation and fluctuations in water levels. Subsequent to the COSEWIC designation, Channel Darter was included on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) when the Act was proclaimed in June 2003. A species Recovery Potential Assessment (RPA) process has been developed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Science to provide the information and scientific advice required to meet the various requirements of the SARA, such as the authorization to carry out activities that would otherwise violate the SARA as well as the development of recovery strategies. The scientific information also serves as advice to the Minister of DFO regarding the listing of the species under SARA and is used when analyzing the socio-economic impacts of adding the species to the list as well as during subsequent consultations, where applicable. This assessment considers the scientific data available with which to assess the recovery potential of Channel Darter in Canada. SUMMARY In Ontario, the current and historic Channel Darter distribution is limited to four distinct areas of the Great Lakes basin: Lake St.
  • Ground Water Pollution Potential of Washington County, Ohio

    Ground Water Pollution Potential of Washington County, Ohio

    GROUND WATER POLLUTION POTENTIAL OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, OHIO BY MICHAEL P. ANGLE, JOSH JONAK, AND DAVE WALKER GROUND WATER POLLUTION POTENTIAL REPORT NO. 55 OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER WATER RESOURCES SECTION 2002 ABSTRACT A ground water pollution potential map of Washington County has been prepared using the DRASTIC mapping process. The DRASTIC system consists of two major elements: the designation of mappable units, termed hydrogeologic settings, and the superposition of a relative rating system for pollution potential. Hydrogeologic settings incorporate hydrogeologic factors that control ground water movement and occurrence including depth to water, net recharge, aquifer media, soil media, topography, impact of the vadose zone media, and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer. These factors, which form the acronym DRASTIC, are incorporated into a relative ranking scheme that uses a combination of weights and ratings to produce a numerical value called the ground water pollution potential index. Hydrogeologic settings are combined with the pollution potential indexes to create units that can be graphically displayed on a map. Ground water pollution potential analysis in Washington County resulted in a map with symbols and colors, which illustrate areas of varying ground water pollution potential indexes ranging from 56 to 187. Washington County lies within the Nonglaciated Central hydrogeologic setting. The buried valley underlying the present Muskingum River and Ohio River basins contain sand and gravel outwash which are capable of yielding up to 500 gallons per minute (gpm) from properly designed, large diameter wells. Smaller tributaries contain only thin, fine-grained alluvial/lacustrine deposits commonly yielding less than 5 gpm.
  • Habitat Suitability and Detection Probability of Longnose Darter (Percina Nasuta) in Oklahoma

    Habitat Suitability and Detection Probability of Longnose Darter (Percina Nasuta) in Oklahoma

    HABITAT SUITABILITY AND DETECTION PROBABILITY OF LONGNOSE DARTER (PERCINA NASUTA) IN OKLAHOMA By COLT TAYLOR HOLLEY Bachelor of Science in Natural Resource Ecology and Management Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK 2016 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE December, 2018 HABITAT SUITABILITY AND DETECTION PROBABILITY OF LONGNOSE DARTER (PERCINA NASUTA) IN OKLAHOMA Thesis Approved: Dr. James M. Long Thesis Advisor Dr. Shannon Brewer Dr. Monica Papeş ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am truly thankful for the support of my advisor, Dr. Jim Long, throughout my time at Oklahoma State University. His motivation and confidence in me was invaluable. I also thank my committee members Dr. Shannon Brewer and Dr. Mona Papeş for their contributions to my education and for their comments that improved this thesis. I thank the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC) for providing the funding for this project and the Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (OKCFWRU) for their logistical support. I thank Tommy Hall, James Mier, Bill Rogers, Dick Rogers, and Mr. and Mrs. Terry Scott for allowing me to access Lee Creek from their properties. Much of my research could not have been accomplished without them. My field technicians Josh, Matt, and Erick made each field season enjoyable and I could not have done it without their help. The camaraderie of my friends and fellow graduate students made my time in Stillwater feel like home. I consider Dr. Andrew Taylor to be a mentor, fishing partner, and one of my closest friends.
  • Antidegradation Classifications Assigned to State and National Scenic Rivers in Ohio Under Proposed Rules, March 25, 2002

    Antidegradation Classifications Assigned to State and National Scenic Rivers in Ohio Under Proposed Rules, March 25, 2002

    State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Antidegradation Classifications Assigned to State and National Scenic Rivers in Ohio under Proposed Rules, March 25, 2002 March 25, 2002 prepared by Division of Surface Water Division of Surface Water, 122 South Front St., PO Box 1049, Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 644-2001 Introduction Federal Water Quality Standard (WQS) program regulations require that States adopt and use an antidegradation policy. The policy has two distinct purposes. First, an antidegradation policy must provide a systematic and reasoned decision making process to evaluate the need to lower water quality. Regulated activities should not lower water quality unless the need to do so is demonstrated based on technical, social and economic criteria. The second purpose of an antidegradation policy is to ensure that the State’s highest quality streams, rivers and lakes are preserved. This document deals with the latter aspect of the antidegradation policy. Section 6111.12(A)(2) of the Ohio Revised Code specifically requires that the Ohio EPA establish provisions “ensuring that waters of exceptional recreational and ecological value are maintained as high quality resources for future generations.” Table 1 explains the proposed classification system to accomplish this directive. The shaded categories denote the special higher resource quality categories. The proposed rule contains 157 stream segments classified as either State Resource Waters (SRW) or Superior High Quality Waters (SHQW). The approximate mileage in each classification is shown in Table 1. The total mileage in both classifications represents less than four percent of Ohio’s streams. Refer to “Methods and Documentation Used to Propose State Resource Water and Superior High Quality Water Classifications for Ohio’s Water Quality Standards” (Ohio EPA, 2002) for further information about the process used to develop the list of streams.
  • River of the Little Owls

    River of the Little Owls

    at Kenyon College Field Notes July 2014 Vol. 18 / No.3 July, August, September Before the State Route 229 that we know today, a wagon road followed the river between Mount Vernon and Gambier. This photo appeared in William Bodine’s 1891 “The Kenyon Book.” change the name back to the melodic original, which thankfully stuck.1 Though it makes for an interesting tale, thousands of years prior to the river’s naming a much larger regime of change led to its birth from a immense sheet of ice known as the Wisconsin glacier. Prior to its advance, the Ko- kosing River did not exist, nor the Ohio River. Instead, the great Teays River flowed from east to west through the center of the state. River of the Little Owls The Wisconsin glacier advanced 20,000 years ago over the Teays valley, scrap- ping, grinding and trapping all manner The State Scenic Kokosing River winds through the of earth and stone under its frozen heart of our community and colors our past with mass. As it receded, great volumes of melt water cut new river valleys, in- tales of ice, exploration, and survival. cluding the Kokosing’s. Boulders and The first of a two-part series, by Heather Doherty crushed rock were also released from the ice and deposited on the river’s edges. The Kokosing River runs through the that explores how the river connects us heart of Knox County and Mount to our past and touches us today. Fast-forward to 1890, and that glacial Vernon, and has long been central to debris becomes an important local com- life in the region.
  • Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form Instruction Manual

    Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form Instruction Manual

    Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form Instruction Manual With the support of the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Fund and the Ohio Historic Preservation Office of the Ohio Historical Society Copyright © 2007 Ohio Historical Society, Inc. All rights reserved. The publication of these materials has been made possible in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of the Interior’s National Park Service, administered by the Ohio Historic Preservation Office. However, its contents do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Department of the Interior, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products imply their endorsement. The Ohio Historic Preservation Office receives federal assistance from the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Fund. U.S. Department of the Interior regulations prohibit unlawful discrimination in depart- mental federally assisted programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, age or disability. Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility operated by a recipient of Federal assistance should write to: Office of Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1849 C Street N.W., Washington D.C. 20240. Ohio Historic Preservation Office 567 East Hudson Street Columbus, Ohio 43211-1030 614/ 298-2000 Fax 614/ 298-2037 Visit us at www.ohiohistory.org OAl Rev. June 2003 Table of Contents Introduction and General Instructions 1 Definition of Archaeological Resource (Site) 1 Submitting an Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form 2 Itemized Instructions 3 A. Identification 3 1. Type of Form 3 2.
  • Stability, Persistence and Habitat Associations of the Pearl Darter Percina Aurora in the Pascagoula River System, Southeastern USA

    Stability, Persistence and Habitat Associations of the Pearl Darter Percina Aurora in the Pascagoula River System, Southeastern USA

    Vol. 36: 99–109, 2018 ENDANGERED SPECIES RESEARCH Published June 13 https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00897 Endang Species Res OPENPEN ACCESSCCESS Stability, persistence and habitat associations of the pearl darter Percina aurora in the Pascagoula River System, southeastern USA Scott R. Clark1,4,*, William T. Slack2, Brian R. Kreiser1, Jacob F. Schaefer1, Mark A. Dugo3 1Department of Biological Sciences, The University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39406, USA 2US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory EEA, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180, USA 3Mississippi Valley State University, Department of Natural Sciences and Environmental Health, Itta Bena, Mississippi 38941, USA 4Present address: Department of Biology and Museum of Southwestern Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, USA ABSTRACT: The southeastern United States represents one of the richest collections of aquatic biodiversity worldwide; however, many of these taxa are under an increasing threat of imperil- ment, local extirpation, or extinction. The pearl darter Percina aurora is a small-bodied freshwater fish endemic to the Pearl and Pascagoula river systems of Mississippi and Louisiana (USA). The last collected specimen from the Pearl River drainage was taken in 1973, and it now appears that populations in this system are likely extirpated. This reduced the historical range of this species by approximately 50%, ultimately resulting in federal protection under the US Endangered Species Act in 2017. To better understand the current distribution and general biology of extant popula- tions, we analyzed data collected from a series of surveys conducted in the Pascagoula River drainage from 2000 to 2016. Pearl darters were captured at relatively low abundance (2.4 ± 4.0 ind.
  • Spatial Criteria Used in IUCN Assessment Overestimate Area of Occupancy for Freshwater Taxa

    Spatial Criteria Used in IUCN Assessment Overestimate Area of Occupancy for Freshwater Taxa

    Spatial Criteria Used in IUCN Assessment Overestimate Area of Occupancy for Freshwater Taxa By Jun Cheng A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Toronto © Copyright Jun Cheng 2013 Spatial Criteria Used in IUCN Assessment Overestimate Area of Occupancy for Freshwater Taxa Jun Cheng Masters of Science Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Toronto 2013 Abstract Area of Occupancy (AO) is a frequently used indicator to assess and inform designation of conservation status to wildlife species by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The applicability of the current grid-based AO measurement on freshwater organisms has been questioned due to the restricted dimensionality of freshwater habitats. I investigated the extent to which AO influenced conservation status for freshwater taxa at a national level in Canada. I then used distribution data of 20 imperiled freshwater fish species of southwestern Ontario to (1) demonstrate biases produced by grid-based AO and (2) develop a biologically relevant AO index. My results showed grid-based AOs were sensitive to spatial scale, grid cell positioning, and number of records, and were subject to inconsistent decision making. Use of the biologically relevant AO changed conservation status for four freshwater fish species and may have important implications on the subsequent conservation practices. ii Acknowledgments I would like to thank many people who have supported and helped me with the production of this Master’s thesis. First is to my supervisor, Dr. Donald Jackson, who was the person that inspired me to study aquatic ecology and conservation biology in the first place, despite my background in environmental toxicology.
  • Biological and Water Quality Study of the Olentangy River and Selected Tributaries 1999 Delaware and Franklin Counties, Ohio

    Biological and Water Quality Study of the Olentangy River and Selected Tributaries 1999 Delaware and Franklin Counties, Ohio

    State of Ohio Ecological Assessment Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water Biological and Water Quality Study of the Olentangy River and Selected Tributaries 1999 Delaware and Franklin Counties, Ohio k Mayfly (Stenonema) Creek Chub (Semolotus atromaculatus) Bob Taft April 11, 2001 Governor, State of Ohio Christopher Jones Director, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency P.O. Box 1049, Lazarus Government Center, 122 S. Front St., Columbus, OH 43216-1049 MAS/2000-12-6 1999 Olentangy River TSD April 11, 2001 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Olentangy River and Selected Tributaries 1999 Delaware and Franklin Counties, Ohio April 11, 2001 OEPA Technical Report MAS/2000-12-6 prepared by State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water Lazarus Government Center 122 South Front St., Columbus OH 43215 Mail to: P.O. Box 1049, Columbus OH 43216-1049 Bob A Taft Governor, State of Ohio Christopher Jones Director, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency MAS/2000-12-6 1999 Olentangy River TSD April 11, 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS NOTICE TO USERS ........................................................ i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................... iii INTRODUCTION ..........................................................1 SUMMARY ...............................................................2 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................5 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................6 METHODS ...............................................................16
  • Fourth Year Permit Compliance Report for Corridor D WAS-50-4.40 (PID 23565)

    Fourth Year Permit Compliance Report for Corridor D WAS-50-4.40 (PID 23565)

    Fourth Year Permit Compliance Report For Corridor D WAS-50-4.40 (PID 23565) Fourth Year Monitoring Davis Creek Relocations USACE Permit: UN Trib Davis Creek-200400265 Prepared by 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43223 January, 2012 Table of Contents Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1 Methods………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2 Fourth Year Monitoring Results…………….………………………………………………………………….. 3 QHEI and HHEI……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3 Water Quality and Hydrology………………………………………………………………………… 3 Native Vegetation………..………………………………………………………………………………… 4 Table 1. QHEI and HHEI scores……………………………………………………………………….. 5 Table 2. Water Quality……………………………………………………………………………………. 5 Permit Compliance Summary and Contingency Plan..……………………………………………….. 6 Davis Creek and its Unnamed Tributary…………………………………………………………. 6 Conservation Easement East Branch Little Hocking River…………………………..….. 6 Conservation Easement Unnamed Tributary Goss Fork…………………………………. 7 Literature Cited…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8 Appendix A: Figures Figure 1. Corridor D Interchange Location Map (USGS Topographic) Figure 2. Corridor D Interchange Location Map (Aerial) Figure 3. Conservation Easement Unnamed Tributary Goss Fork (USGS Topographic) Figure 4. As built drawings for stream relocations after construction Figure 5. Stream relocations as surveyed in 2010. Figure 6. Vegetation Map showing Community Types Figure 7. 2011 Aerial Photograph of the Relocated Portions of Davis Creek and the Unnamed Tributary to Davis Creek Appendix
  • A HISTORY of BELPRE Washington County, Ohio

    A HISTORY of BELPRE Washington County, Ohio

    A HISTORY OF BELPRE Washington County, Ohio -By- C. E. DICKINSON, D. D. Formerly Pastor of Congregational Church Author of the History of the First Congregational Church Marietta, Ohio PUBUIBHID FOR THB AUTHOR BY GLOBE PRINTING & BINDING COMPANY PARKRRSBURG. WEST VIRGINIA Copyrighted in 1920 by C. E. DICKINSON DEDICATED To the Belpre Historical Society with the hope that it will increase its efficiency and keep alive the interest of the people in the prosperity of their own community. FOREWORD The history of a township bears a similar relation to the history of a nation that the biography of an indi­ vidual bears to the record of human affairs. Occasionally an individual accomplishes a work which becomes an essential and abiding influence in the history of the world. Such persons however are rare, although a considerable number represent events which are important in the minds of relatives and friends. The story of only a few townships represents great historic events, but ac­ counts of the transactions in many localities are of im­ portance to the present and future residents of the place. Belpre township is only a small spot on the map of Ohio and a smaller speck on the map of the United* States. Neither is this locality celebrated for the transaction of many events of world-wide importance; at the same time the early history of Belpre exerted an influence on the well being of the State which makes an interesting stqpy for the descendants of the pioneers and other residents of the township. Within a very few months of the arrival of the first settlers at Mariettapfchey began to look for the most favorable places to locate jtheir homes.