DOCSLIB.ORG

CLAYTOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FISH ENTRAINMENT and IMPINGEMENT ASSESSMENT Normandeau Associates, Inc

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CLAYTOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FISH ENTRAINMENT and IMPINGEMENT ASSESSMENT Normandeau Associates, Inc University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Unpublished Works Joint EWRI-AFS Fish Passage Reference Database 2009 CLAYTOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FISH ENTRAINMENT AND IMPINGEMENT ASSESSMENT Normandeau Associates, Inc. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/ fishpassage_unpublished_works Recommended Citation Normandeau Associates, Inc., "CLAYTOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FISH ENTRAINMENT AND IMPINGEMENT ASSESSMENT" (2009). Unpublished Works. 237. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/fishpassage_unpublished_works/237 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Joint EWRI-AFS Fish Passage Reference Database at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Unpublished Works by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CLAYTOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FISH ENTRAINMENT AND IMPINGEMENT ASSESSMENT January 2009 CLAYTOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FISH ENTRAINMENT AND IMPINGEMENT ASSESSMENT Prepared for APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY Hydro Generation Department 40 Franklin Road Roanoke, VA 24011 Prepared by NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES, INC. 1921 River Road Drumore, PA 17518 and 25 Nashua Road Bedford, NH 03110 R-20979.001 January 2009 CLAYTOR HYDRO FISH ENTRAINMENT & IMPINGEMENT ASSESSMENT Table of Contents Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND............................................................................1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND GENERAL APPROACH ..............................................2 2.1 CLAYTOR LAKE DESCRIPTION AND CHARACTERISTICS...................................................2 2.2 PROJECT FACILITIES .........................................................................................................2 2.3 FISH POPULATIONS AND MANAGEMENT SPECIES ............................................................3 2.4 SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN ........................................................................................7 2.5 CURRENT EVIDENCE OF ENTRAINMENT AND IMPINGEMENT PROBLEMS.........................7 3.0 SWIM SPEED LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD VELOCITY DATA....................9 3.1 FISH SWIM SPEEDS ...........................................................................................................9 3.2 FIELD STUDY OF INTAKE VELOCITY ..............................................................................16 3.3 FIELD VELOCITIES VS FISH SWIMMING CAPABILITIES...................................................20 4.0 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SIMILAR PROJECTS...............................................23 5.0 ENTRAINMENT ASSESSMENT........................................................................................26 5.1 CHARACTERISTICS AND BEHAVIOR OF SELECTED FISHES .............................................26 5.2 REVIEW OF ENTRAINMENT RATES DEVELOPED BY EPRI (1997) ..................................31 5.3 BLADE STRIKE AND CAVITATION POTENTIAL OF EXISTING UNITS ...............................36 5.4 TURBINE PASSAGE SURVIVAL ASSESSMENT..................................................................37 6.0 OVERALL ENTRAINMENT ASSESSMENT ...................................................................42 7.0 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................46 8.0 LITERATURE CITED..........................................................................................................47 8.1 SWIM SPEED LITERATURE IN TABLE 3-1 AND SECTION 3.1 ...........................................47 8.2 FISHES AND ENTRAINMENT/IMPINGEMENT LITERATURE ..............................................49 Claytor E&I Report.docm 12/9/08 ii Normandeau Associates, Inc. CLAYTOR HYDRO FISH ENTRAINMENT & IMPINGEMENT ASSESSMENT List of Figures Page Figure 2-1. Claytor Hydroelectric Project location in Virginia...............................................................4 Figure 2-2. Representative drawing of Claytor Hydro Project intake area.............................................6 Figure 2-3. Reference photo of Claytor intakes and spillway area during project construction............7 Figure 3-1. (T110) Color-contour section for tangential line (parallel transect) approximately 40 feet off the intake wall for 10,000 cfs condition. Box outline = intake centerline 44 feet deep..............................................................................................19 Figure 3-2. (N2A10). Color-contour section for normal line (perpendicular transect) in front of Unit #2 for the 10,000 cfs condition. Distance refers to distance from the face of the intake wall. Intake centerline is 44 feet deep. ..........................................................19 Figure 3-3. (T10-43) Synoptic velocity vectors 43 feet below the surface during the 10,000 cfs condition. Intake bays are labeled U1, U2, etc. Scale arrow in lower left represents the length of a 1 ft/s vector. .............................................................................20 Claytor E&I Report.docm 12/9/08 iii Normandeau Associates, Inc. CLAYTOR HYDRO FISH ENTRAINMENT & IMPINGEMENT ASSESSMENT List of Tables Page Table 2-1. Reservoir and intake characteristics of the Claytor Hydroelectric Project..........................5 Table 2-2. Physical and hydraulic characteristics of turbines at Claytor Hydroelectric Project....................................................................................................................................6 Table 3-1. Reported swimming speed of fishes for the Claytor Hydroelectric Project ......................10 Table 3-2. Speed and direction values for each Fixed Station Profile.................................................18 Table 3-3. Speed and direction values for each Fixed Station Profile.................................................18 Table 3-4. Comparison of Claytor Lake intake velocity data and synthesis of fish swim speed information................................................................................................................22 Table 4-1. Location, hydraulic capacity and trash rack spacing of 43 sites included in the EPRI database......................................................................................................................24 Table 4-2. Size composition of entrainment catch by bar rack spacing (after Winchell et al. 2000)....................................................................................................................................25 Table 5-1. Average entrainment densities for Claytor Hydro Project fish species of interest drawn from EPRI (1997) entrainment database. Annual density standardized and shown as number of fish per million cubic feet of water. ..................................................32 Table 5-2. Estimated entrainment losses for Claytor Lake fish species of interest. Annual density standardized and shown as number of fish per million cubic feet of water..........35 Table 5-3. Values of turbine parameters used in blade strike and survival estimates.........................36 Table 5-4. Predicted turbine passage survival at Claytor Project turbines based on the blade strike probability formula developed by Franke et al. (1997)............................................38 Table 5-5. Mean fish survival rates for Francis turbines and representative fish sizes in EPRI database (source: Winchell et al. 2000)..............................................................................39 Table 5-6. Site characteristics of empirical studies at Francis installations not reviewed in EPRI database. All studies performed using balloon tag technology...............................40 Table 5-7. Immediate (1-h) survival of representative fish species at Francis installations not reviewed in EPRI database. All studies performed using balloon tag technology...........40 Table 5-8. Estimated annual mortality due to turbine passage for Claytor Lake fish species of interest. The source of mortality rates was Winchell et al. (2000). ...............................41 Table 6-1. Comparison of factors that may influence entrainment or survival rates at Claytor Hydro Project.......................................................................................................................42 Claytor E&I Report.docm 12/9/08 iv Normandeau Associates, Inc. CLAYTOR HYDRO FISH ENTRAINMENT & IMPINGEMENT ASSESSMENT 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The purpose of this report is to evaluate the potential for fish entrainment and impingement at the Claytor Hydroelectric Project (No. 739). Appalachian Power Company (Appalachian) is in the process of relicensing the Project using the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) as defined by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The ILP process involves many participants or stakeholders, including government agencies, local governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the public, and other interested parties. Stakeholders were solicited for input on project- related issues that needed to be addressed during relicensing. An initial step was preparation and submittal of a Pre-Application Document that identified issues for study. Meetings with stakeholders and a work group guided study plan preparation during summer 2006. A revised study plan was developed in October 2006, and approved by FERC letter in November 2006. This report addresses the likelihood of impingement, entrainment, and turbine mortality at the Claytor Project within a comprehensive
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fries Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No
    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE Fries Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2883-009 Virginia Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing 888 First Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 December 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... i LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ iii LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. iv ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................ v 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 1.1 APPLICATION ............................................................................................. 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER .................................. 1 1.2.1 Purpose of Action .............................................................................. 1 1.2.2 Need for Power .................................................................................. 3 1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ......................... 4 1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT ......................................................... 4 1.4.1 Scoping .............................................................................................. 4
    [Show full text]
  • Broadband Strategic Plan
    In Association with: September 30, 2016 TRANSMITTAL LETTER Mr. Peter Huber Board of Supervisors Pulaski County Administrator Pulaski County 143 Third Street, NW 143 Third Street, NW Pulaski, Virginia 24301 Pulaski, Virginia 24301 RE: Pulaski County, VA Community Broadband Telecommunications Strategic Planning Project Dear Mr. Huber and Pulaski County Board of Supervisors: Consulting Gateway Corporation (CGC) and Dewberry are pleased to provide the Community Broadband Telecommunications Planning Project study report for Pulaski County, VA. This report provides guidance to meet the established project milestones and expectations of the County while fulfilling the requirements of the Commonwealth of Virginia Rural Broadband Planning Initiative funded through the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) consisting of 1) Analyzing Existing Conditions, 2) Setting Broadband Goals, and 3) Identifying Needed Action to Achieve Goals. After examining the options and roles for the County to consider, it is our recommendation that the County can best meet their stated goal of enhancing and encouraging high speed Internet connectivity throughout the county by partnering with private sector providers in implementing a variety of proposed solutions presented in the report. Such a partnership is intended to use funds in a fiscally responsible manner, take advantage of the typical funding opportunities while minimizing the need for other long term funding. Four (4) options are presented for consideration that are not exclusive of each other and it is believed the most impactful solution may be a combination of some of the solutions presented. Details on these options are outlined in the study report. Last Mile Connectivity Solutions Considerations Information Provided Option No.
    [Show full text]
  • Shoreline Management Plan
    Claytor Project FERC No. 739 Shoreline Management Plan June 13, 2017* * includes revised language from Order Issuing New License dated December 27, 2011and Order Approving Amended Shoreline Management Plan issued January 7, 2014 Appalachian Power Company Claytor Project Shoreline Management Plan Table of Contents Table of Contents ………….………………………………………..………………. i List of Tables …………………………………………………..…………………….ii List of Figures ……………………………………………..………………………....ii Glossary…………………….…………………………..…………………………….iii 1.0 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………. 1 1.1 Purpose and Authority ……………………………………………… 1 1.2 Goals and Objectives ………………………………………………. 2 1.3 Project Area Description …………………………………………… 2 1.4 Consultation …………………………………………………………… 3 2.0 Methods and Planning Process ……………………………………………… 4 2.1 Data Collection 2.1.1 Land Use …………………………….……………………….4 2.1.2 Shoreline Condition and Stabilization …….…………………4 2.1.3 Ecological Resources ……………………………..………….4 2.1.4 Cultural Resources………………………………………..…..6 2.1.5 Bathymetric and Topographical Data… ……………… 7 2.1.6 Public and Private Recreation Facilities…………..………….7 2.1.7 Local, State, and Federal Regulations………………..………7 2.1.8 Recreation Use Density………………………………….…...7 2.1.9 Scenery Assessment……………………………………….…9 2.2 Mapping……………………………………………….………………..9 2.2.1 Mapping Revision Process…………………………..…..…10 2.3 Shoreline Classifications ……………………………………………...10 2.4 Parameters …………………………………………………………..…13 2.5 Regulations………….………………………………………………... 14 2.5.1 High Density Commercial ………………………………... 14 2.5.2 High Density Multi-Use
    [Show full text]
  • 7. Wild and Scenic Rivers
    7. Wild and Scenic Rivers Virginia Wild and Scenic Rivers Designation NEPAassist Maps Distance to Closest Wild and Scenic Rivers Downstream – Bluestone River WV Upstream – New River (So. Fork) NC New River Wild and Scenic River Study Executive Summary of Findings [2009] NEPAssist Map Distance by Direct Route NEPAssist Map Distance by Water Route Nationwide Rivers Inventory Inventory for Virginia NEPAssist Maps Distance to Little River Downstream by Direct Route Downstream by Water Route NEPAssist Maps Distance to Big Reed Island Crk Downstream by Direct Route Downstream by Water Route VA CDBG #15-15 Pulaski Kersey Bottom / Case Knife Road Revitalization Project Environmental Review Record 12/17/2015 Virginia HOME NATIONAL SYSTEM MANAGEMENT RESOURCES PUBLICATIONS CONTACT US KID'S SITE VIRGINIA Virginia has approximately 49,350 miles of river, but no designated wild & scenic rivers. Virginia does not have any designated rivers. Virginia Go Choose A River Go While progress should never come to a halt, there are many places it should never come to at all. — Paul Newman NATIONWIDE RIVERS INVENTORY KID'S SITE CONTACT US PRIVACY NOTICE Q & A SEARCH ENGINE SITE MAP http://www.rivers.gov/virginia.php 1/2 12/17/2015 NEPAssist NEPAssist Measure Find address or place Print Basemap Imagery Measure Draw Erase Identify | Miles 37.705532, ­79.542102 + Measurement Result 39.5 Miles – 0 10 20mi The project area is located approximately 39.5 miles (direct route) from the location where the Bluestone River, a designated Wild and Scenic River in West Virginia, flows into the New River. The project area is located on Peak Creek, which flows into the New River upstream from this point where the Bluestone River flows into the New River.
    [Show full text]
  • Cla Ytor Lake Festival Claytor Lake State
    In the Fall of 2014, FOCL was invited to partner with the local chapter of The U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary to teach a Boater/Water Safety Class at the Hensel Eckman YMCA in Pulaski. Allison Hunter, Director of the “Y”, Sharon Eifred of the Coast Guard Auxiliary, and Cheri Strenz from FOCL, developed a plan to introduce Boater and Water Safety to young children. Volunteer instructors from FOCL included, Laura Walters, Larry Bandolin, and Cheri Strenz. For six weeks, second grade students from the elementary schools in Pulaski County attend swim classes at the “Y”. One of these sessions is to teaching what a family should know before going out on a boat for the day. This includes the equipment required for boating, general rules of navigation, and how to identify and select a Coast Guard Approved life jacket. Many of these children have made numerous trips to Claytor Lake and are aware that a life jacket should be worn. Sadly, many did not know that a life jacket is required to be worn by all children 12 and under. They also learned, by trying on various sizes, that a properly fitted Coast Guard Approved lifejacket is essential to providing the proper amount of life saving protection. This critical information about boating and being around the water is important having a fun and safe day at Claytor Lake, or any other body of water. FOCL is looking forward to continued participation in this worthwhile program. This year the Pulaski County Chamber of Commerce awarded its first Non-Profit Award for outstanding work in the community at The Draper Claytor Lake Community Programs Community Lake Claytor Mercantile.
    [Show full text]
  • Dunkard's Bottom: Memories on the Virginia Landscape, 1745 to 1940
    DUNKARD’S BOTTOM: MEMORIES ON THE VIRGINIA LANDSCAPE, 1745 TO 1940 HISTORICAL INVESTIGATIONS FOR SITE 44PU164 AT THE CLAYTOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PULASKI COUNTY, VIRGINIA FERC PROJECT NO. 739 Prepared for: Prepared by: Appalachian Power Company S&ME, Inc. 40 Franklin Road 134 Suber Road Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Columbia, South Carolina 29210 and and Kleinschmidt Associates, Inc. Harvey Research and Consulting 2 East Main Street 4948 Limehill Drive Strasburg, Pennsylvania 17579 Syracuse, New York 13215 Authors: Heather C. Jones, M.A., and Bruce Harvey, Ph.D. Final Report – July 2012 History of Dunkard’s Bottom Appalachian Power Company Claytor Hydroelectric Project July 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 2 TABLE OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 3 DUNKARD‘S BOTTOM ............................................................................................................... 3 The Dunkards ......................................................................................................................................... 4 William Christian ................................................................................................................................. 12 The Cloyd Family
    [Show full text]
  • Pulaski County Serve Pulaski County Unserved Last Mile Broadband - Phase One
    Application to DHCD Submitted through CAMS Pulaski County Serve Pulaski County Unserved Last Mile Broadband - Phase One Application ID: 64508312019091002 Application Status: Pending Program Name: Virginia Telecommunications Initiative 2020 Organization Name: Pulaski County Organization Address: 143 Third St, NW Pulaski, VA 24301-4900 Profile Manager Name: Jared Linkous Profile Manager Phone: (540) 980-7710 Profile Manager Email: [email protected] Project Name: Serve Pulaski County Unserved Last Mile Broadband - Phase One Project Contact Name: Jonathan Sweet Project Contact Phone: (540) 980-7710 Project Contact Email: [email protected] Project Location: 143 Third Street Pulaski, VA 24301-4900 Project Service Area: Pulaski County Total Requested Amount: $612,475.00 Required Annual Audit Status: Pending Review 9/4/2019 1:50:08 PM Pages: 1 of 17 Application to DHCD Submitted through CAMS Pulaski County Serve Pulaski County Unserved Last Mile Broadband - Phase One Budget Information: Cost/Activity Category DHCD Request Other Funding Total Telecommunications $612,475.00 $410,000.00 $1,022,475.00 Construction $342,900.00 $235,600.00 $578,500.00 Construction Related Soft Costs $122,049.00 $80,400.00 $202,449.00 Other: Equipment, Redundancy $147,526.00 $94,000.00 $241,526.00 Total: $612,475.00 $410,000.00 $1,022,475.00 Budget Narrative: The total cost of the last mile broadband shovel ready project is $1,022,475. The project includes network design, engineering, and configuration for a cost of $ 100,000; Network Operations Center
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Appalachian Power Company Claytor Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 739 Debris Management Plan June 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Description Page SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………… 1 1.0 Introduction……………………………………………………………….. 2 1.1 Project Lands and Waters…………………………………………. 2 1.2 Debris Study Objectives and Conclusion………………………… 2 2.0 Debris Management………………………………………………………. 3 2.1 Existing Efforts…………………………………………………… 3 2.2 Beneficial Debris…………………………………………………. 4 3.0 Management Measures…………………………………………………… 4 3.1 Debris Removal………………………………………………….. 4 3.2 Offload/Disposal Sites……………………………………………. 5 3.3 Volunteer Lake Clean-up Efforts………………………………… 5 3.4 Education…………………………………………………………. 5 3.5 Coordination……………………………………………………… 6 3.6 Costs……………………………………………………………… 6 3.7 Schedule………………………………………………………….. 6 4.0 Modifications to Plan…………………………………………………….. 7 5.0 Report ……………………………………………………………………. 7 SUMMARY The Claytor Project (No. 739) is licensed to Appalachian Power Company (Appalachian) and is a conventional hydroelectric project located on the New River in Pulaski County, Virginia. The project boundary for the Claytor Project generally follows the 1850 foot contour around the perimeter of the reservoir. Elevations are referred to National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). The purpose of this Debris Management Plan is to identify debris removal and control measures within the project boundary for the Claytor Project that maintains the aesthetic values, reduce access difficulties, and reduce boating hazards associated with floating debris while also benefiting
    [Show full text]
  • Creel & Length Limit Table
    CREEL (HARVEST) AND LENGTH LIMITS How to Measure a Fish The tables that follow give statewide creel (harvest) and length limits for major sport fish and -ex ceptions for major rivers and lakes. Regulations for many smaller lakes and boat access areas are posted on site, and posted regulations are in effect (see “OTHER USES” under Department-owned Lakes, Ponds, Streams or Boat Access Sites, page 14). For smaller lakes, information can be found online at: www.virginiawildlife.gov/fishing. Creel limits are per person per day. Total Length CREEL OR LENGTH LIMITS CREEL AND LENGTH LIMIT GEOGRAPHIC EXCEPTIONS FOR EXCEPTIONS Largemouth, Smallmouth Bass LAKES No largemouth or smallmouth bass 16 to 24 Briery Creek Lake inches, only 1 per day longer than 24 inches Only 2 of 5 largemouth or smallmouth Buggs Island Lake/Kerr Reservoir bass less than 14 inches Claytor Lake No smallmouth less than 14 inches No largemouth bass less than 12 inches; Flannagan Reservoir no smallmouth bass less than 15 inches Only 2 of 5 largemouth or smallmouth Lake Gaston bass less than 14 inches Only 2 of 5 largemouth or smallmouth Leesville Reservoir bass less than 14 inches No largemouth or smallmouth bass less Lake Moomaw than 12 inches No largemouth or smallmouth bass less Philpott Reservoir than 12 inches No largemouth or smallmouth bass 12 to Quantico Marine Base waters 15 inches Only 2 of 5 largemouth or smallmouth Smith Mt. Lake and its tributaries below Niagara Dam bass less than 14 inches South Holston Reservoir No smallmouth less than 15 inches RIVERS No largemouth or smallmouth bass less Clinch River–within the boundaries of Scott, Wise, Russell or Taze- than 20 inches, only 1 per day longer than well counties 5 per day in the aggregate (combined) 20 inches No statewide length limits Dan River and tributaries downstream from the Union Street Dam, Only 2 of 5 largemouth or smallmouth Danville bass less than 14 inches James River–Confluence of the Jackson and Cowpasture rivers No largemouth or smallmouth bass 14 to 22 (Botetourt Cty) downstream to the 14th St.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Claytor Lake Fisheries Report from the Department of Wildlife
    Claytor Lake: More than a Wide Spot in the New River John R. Copeland, Fisheries Biologist, Blacksburg Office April 1, 2020 Imagine yourself on a waterbody that is more like a wide river than a lake. When you do, you have a picture of Claytor Lake. Claytor Lake, a 4,363 acre reservoir, stretches northeastward from Allisonia across the Pulaski County countryside for about 21 miles to its dam near Radford. From Claytor Lake State Park, visitors view a sparkling lake, bustling with boating activity, with the top of Claytor Lake dam in the distance. Visitors who want to explore can ride 15 miles upstream to Allisonia, where the New River enters the lake. Claytor Lake is shallow in areas upstream from Lighthouse Bridge, the only bridge that crosses the main lake (Pulaski County Route 672), so be cautious if you roam upstream from the bridge. Near the midpoint of Claytor Lake, the only major tributary, Peak Creek, enters the lake. If you are not familiar with Claytor Lake’s key locations, refer to the lake overview map on the last page of this report. View of Claytor Lake dam from Claytor Lake State Park’s boat ramp. American Electric Power Company (now known as Appalachian Power Company) constructed Claytor Dam in 1939 to produce hydroelectric power from the incessant flow of the New River, installing 4 hydroelectric turbines to produce electricity. Because Claytor Lake is a main stem impoundment with a large watershed upstream, water passes through more quickly than in most large Virginia reservoirs. As a result, Claytor Lake has different temperature and oxygen 1 levels than other nearby reservoirs like Smith Mountain Lake.
    [Show full text]
  • Recreation & Tourism
    PULASKI COUNTY is... RECREATION & TOURISM RECREATION By the numbers: Parks, public spaces and recreational activities are vital to the health and fabric of the community. They connect people, Pulaski County Owned Parks promote active living, and shape community identity. Parks and & Recreation Facilities Recreation programs have many economic benefits. Availability and easy access to quality parks and recreation enhance property values. Residents spend money during recreational The County owns and maintains nine parks with activities, which directly or indirectly helps local businesses. more than 250 acres, including: Tourism benefits from Parks and Recreation as it generates » Belsprings Park - 2 acres income from visitors. The social benefits of parks, trails and recreational facilities are clear but also hard to quantify. Parks » Draper Community Park - 6 acres create a healthy and thriving community. » Dublin Lions Club Park - 12 acres Within the County there is approximately 34,500 total acres of recreational lands. These assets are managed by local, state, » Harry Dehaven Park - 2 acres federal and private agencies such as Pulaski County, Pulaski » Loving Field - 28 acres County School Board, Town of Pulaski, Virginia Deptartment of Conservation and Recreation, Commonwealth of Virginia, U.S. » New River Community Park - 2 acres Forest Service and Boys Scouts of America. Notable natural features within the County that provide ample opportunities » Old Riverlawn Elementary Park - 13 acres for outdoor recreation are the New River and Claytor Lake. The George Washington and Jefferson National Forest lie within the » Randolph Park - 83 acres County boundaries. » Smith Farm Property - 100 acres The County desires to make significant investments on trail » Joseph L.
    [Show full text]
  • An Assessment of the Bald Eagle Population Along Claytor Lake, Virginia
    W&M ScholarWorks CCB Technical Reports Center for Conservation Biology (CCB) 2007 An assessment of the bald eagle population along Claytor Lake, Virginia B. D. Watts The Center for Conservation Biology, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/ccb_reports Recommended Citation Watts, B. D., "An assessment of the bald eagle population along Claytor Lake, Virginia" (2007). CCB Technical Reports. 370. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/ccb_reports/370 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Center for Conservation Biology (CCB) at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in CCB Technical Reports by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AN ASSESSMENT OF THE BALD EAGLE POPULATION ALONG CLAYTOR LAKE, VIRGINIA January, 2008 Bryan D. Watts, PhD Center for Conservation Biology College of William and Mary Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795 Recommended Citation: Watts, B. D. 2007. An assessment of the bald eagle population along Claytor Lake, Virginia. Center for Conservation Biology Technical Report Series, CCBTR-07- 12. College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA. 13 p. A Cooperative Project By: Normandeau Associates, Inc. & Center for Conservation Biology College of William and Mary BACKGROUND Context The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) originally listed the Bald Eagle as federally endangered on 11 March 1967 under The Endangered Species Protection Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668aa-668cc) and subsequently under The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq). The primary reason cited for the original listing was broad-scale population declines linked to dichloro-dephenyl- trichloroethane (DDT) and associated reproductive failure.
    [Show full text]