Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Load more
Recommended publications
-
Powerlessness and Pollution in Alleghany County, Virginia: A
Powerlessness and Pollution in Alleghany County, Virginia: A Historical Analysis of Paternalism and Economic Coercion in Appalachia and its Relationship with Environmental Degradation Corey Lee Wrenn Thesis submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science In Sociology Committee: Toni Calasanti, Co-Chair Barbara Ellen Smith, Co-Chair Carl Riden of Longwood University August 6, 2008 Blacksburg, VA Keywords: paternalism, economic coercion, economic dependence, environment, labor relations, unionism, Appalachia Powerlessness and Pollution in Alleghany County, Virginia: A Historical Analysis of Paternalism and Economic Coercion in Appalachia and its Relationship with Environmental Degradation Corey Lee Wrenn Abstract Alleghany County, an extractive community, has depended heavily upon a single paper mill known as MeadWestvaco for over a century. The purpose of this study is to explore the degree to which MeadWestvaco utilizes paternalism and economic coercion as forms of power to control and maintain community quiescence regarding the company’s negative environmental impact in Alleghany County. This paper mill has negatively affected Alleghany County relative to other Virginia communities. However, there has been very little local action against the paper mill’s environmental impact. To define and recognize paternalism and economic coercion, I undertake a historical analysis of the cotton textile industry of the Southern Piedmont and coal mining industry of Southern Appalachia, where these systems of power have been documented. In applying the indicators of paternalism and economic coercion found in these nearby Southern industries to Alleghany County, Virginia, I find that MeadWestvaco utilizes both strategies to some degree to control and influence community awareness of and response to the company’s environmental damage. -
Summary of Public Comments to State Water Control Board Adequacy of NWP 12 to Ensure Compliance with State Standards
Summary of Public Comments to State Water Control Board Adequacy of NWP 12 to Ensure Compliance with State Standards Prepared by Wild Virginia Dominion Pipeline Monitoring Coalition (DPMC) August 15, 2018 Table of Contents Executive Summary . 7 I. Overall Body of Comments and Organization of the Online Records . 10 II. Waterbodies Discussed . 12 Mountain Valley Pipeline New River Basin Kimballton Branch . 14 (tributary to Stony Creek) Stony Creek . 15 (aka Big Stony Creek - tributary to New River) Little Stony Creek . 15 (tributary to New River) Doe Creek . 16 (tributary to New River) Greenbriar Branch . 17 (tributary to Sinking Creek) Unnamed Tributary to Grass Run . 17 (tributary to Grass Run) Sinking Creek . 18 (tributary to New River) James River Basin Craig Creek . 19 (tributary to James River) Roanoke River Basin Bottom Creek, Mill Creek, and Tributaries . 20 (tributary to South Fork Roanoke River) South Fork Roanoke River . 22 (tributary to Roanoke River) Mill Creek (Montogomery Co.) . 23 (tributary to North Fork Roanoke River) Bottom Spring . 24 (tributary to North Fork Roanoke River) Salmon Spring . 24 (tributary to North Fork Roanoke River) 2 Bradshaw Creek . 25 (tributary to North Fork Roanoke River) Flatwoods Branch . 25 (tributary to North Fork Roanoke River) North Fork Roanoke River . 25 (tributary to Roanoke River) North Fork Blackwater River . 26 (tributary to Blackwater River) Green Creek . 27 (tributary to South Fork Blackwater River) Teels Creek . 27 (tributary to Little Creek) Little Creek . 28 (tributary to Blackwater River) Blackwater River . 28 (tributary to Roanoke River - Smith Mtn. Lake) Pigg River . 29 (tributary to Roanoke River - Leesville Lake) Roanoke River . -
Winter 2017 the RIVER RUNS
Vol. 46, Issue No. 1 Winter 2017 THE RIVER RUNS News from the Cowpasture River Preservation Association Inside This Issue: Special Thanks! goes to Angie Brackenridge Hinebaugh for our cover photo this issue. Her view of the Cowpasture River from the swinging bridge below Griffith Knob in Alleghany Ø From the President Ø News: New Partner County won an Alleghany Highlands Chamber of Commerce Ø Director’s Corner Ø Field Trips Initiative photo contest and appears online at Pictures on Pinterest. Ø Cool, Clear, Water Ø Pipeline: Why Worry? This wintery image also appears in the CRPA’s new 8-panel membership brochure (See page 7). Ø New Brochure Ø Memorial: Peggy Paxton Angie is a new CRPA member who lives in Clifton Forge with Ø Dates to Remember Ø Thank You & Final Shot her family and enjoys kayaking the lower Cowpasture near the Walton Tract and from Sharon Park to the Evans Tract. Board of Directors (2016-2017) From the President Cowpasture Ramblin' Officers: Friends & Associates: Nelson Hoy, President The Cowpasture River Preservation Association (CRPA) Ann Warner, Vice President represents about 350 individuals, all with a common commitment to preserving surface and ground water Anne McVey, Secretary quality. Our Association's members contribute their Kate Loeffler, Treasurer time, talent and treasure to ensure cool, clear, water. Some environmental challenges, however, require resources well beyond the CRPA's financial wherewithal and subject matter expertise. The Atlantic Coast Pipeline threat and fight being a case in point. Directors: Lucius Bracey Your Association, with these limitations in mind, works to advance collaborative relationships with other environmental organizations. -
Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy
Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy Introduction Brook Trout symbolize healthy waters because they rely on clean, cold stream habitat and are sensitive to rising stream temperatures, thereby serving as an aquatic version of a “canary in a coal mine”. Brook Trout are also highly prized by recreational anglers and have been designated as the state fish in many eastern states. They are an essential part of the headwater stream ecosystem, an important part of the upper watershed’s natural heritage and a valuable recreational resource. Land trusts in West Virginia, New York and Virginia have found that the possibility of restoring Brook Trout to local streams can act as a motivator for private landowners to take conservation actions, whether it is installing a fence that will exclude livestock from a waterway or putting their land under a conservation easement. The decline of Brook Trout serves as a warning about the health of local waterways and the lands draining to them. More than a century of declining Brook Trout populations has led to lost economic revenue and recreational fishing opportunities in the Bay’s headwaters. Chesapeake Bay Management Strategy: Brook Trout March 16, 2015 - DRAFT I. Goal, Outcome and Baseline This management strategy identifies approaches for achieving the following goal and outcome: Vital Habitats Goal: Restore, enhance and protect a network of land and water habitats to support fish and wildlife, and to afford other public benefits, including water quality, recreational uses and scenic value across the watershed. Brook Trout Outcome: Restore and sustain naturally reproducing Brook Trout populations in Chesapeake Bay headwater streams, with an eight percent increase in occupied habitat by 2025. -
Roanoke Region Outdoor Impact, Infrastructure and Investment
Roanoke Region Outdoor Impact, Infrastructure and Investment Prepared for the Roanoke Regional Partnership & Roanoke Outside Foundation| August 2018 Table of Contents 04 About This Report 08 Executive Summary Business & Talent Wage Growth Attraction 12 The Case 20 Recommendations 30 Funding Structure Attractive Outdoor Impact Tourism Environment 38 Organizational Structure 44 Best Practices Healthy Global Brand Community Recognition 50 Supporting Data 60 Survey Results and National Trends 3 About This Report Avalanche Consulting, a leader in economic development consulting, and GreenPlay, a consortium of experts on parks, recreation, and open spaces, utilized research, local community input, and national studies and trends to create this report for the Roanoke Region of Virginia. Recommendations contained within this report are intended to be a blueprint for both public and private sector investment to support future growth of the region. This report includes the following: • The Case – Background information and context that shows why there is an urgent need for outdoor infrastructure investments in the region and a summary of goals and strategies to take the region’s outdoor assets to the next level. • Recommendations – A look at actionable elements and specific goals, strategies, and tactics related to investing in outdoor infrastructure, engaging the community, marketing outdoor assets to business and talent, and attracting and supporting businesses that complement the outdoor economy, ultimately setting the region up for long-term economic prosperity. • Funding and Organizational Structure – Organization and funding options are a key component to optimize a program focused on enhancing, maintaining, and sustaining outdoor infrastructure and the region’s competitive advantage. • Best Practices – Examples of organization and funding sources are outlined, including the Anacostia River Clean Up and Protection Fund, Outdoor Knoxville, and Oklahoma City MAPS. -
255 James River Basin 02011400 Jackson River Near Bacova
JAMES RIVER BASIN 255 02011400 JACKSON RIVER NEAR BACOVA, VA LOCATION.--Lat 38°02'32", long 79°52'53", NAD83, Bath County, Hydrologic Unit 02080201, on left bank 0.1 mi downstream from ford, 1.8 mi upstream from Back Creek, and 2.2 mi southwest of Bacova. DRAINAGE AREA.--158 mi2. WATER-DISCHARGE RECORDS PERIOD OF RECORD.--October 1974 to current year. GAGE.--Water-stage recorder. Datum of gage is 1,639.20 ft NGVD of 1929. REMARKS.--Records good except those for estimated daily discharges, which are fair. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers satellite water temperature, precipitation and gage-height telemeter at station. Maximum discharge, 30,000 ft3/s, from rating curve extended above 1,300 ft3/s on basis of slope-area measurements at gage heights 8.88 ft, 11.40 ft, 13.88 ft, and 22.25 ft. Minimum gage height, 2.42 ft, Aug. 18, 19, 1988. EXTREMES OUTSIDE PERIOD OF RECORD.--Flood of June 21, 1972, reached a stage of 11.40 ft, discharge, 4,800 ft3/s, and flood of Dec. 26, 1973, reached a stage of 13.88 ft, discharge, 7,560 ft3/s, from rating curve extended as explained above. PEAK DISCHARGES FOR CURRENT YEAR.--Peak discharges greater than base discharge of 1,500 ft3/s and maximum (*): Discharge Gage height Discharge Gage height Date Time (ft3/s) (ft) Date Time (ft3/s) (ft) Mar 28 1845 *2,310 *8.65 No other peak greater than base discharge. DISCHARGE, CUBIC FEET PER SECOND WATER YEAR OCTOBER 2004 TO SEPTEMBER 2005 DAILY MEAN VALUES DAY OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP 1 344 64 858 126 87 145 426 601 93 106 123 58 2 252 62 709 117 -
Nitrate Tmdl Development: the Muddy Creek/Dry River Case Study
NITRATE TMDL DEVELOPMENT: THE MUDDY CREEK/DRY RIVER CASE STUDY Teresa B. Culver Kathryn A. Neeley Shaw L. Yu Harry X. Zhang, Andrew L. Potts Troy R. Naperala Civil Engineering Department University of Virginia In 1972, Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) estuaries, which includes approximately 475,000 established the regulatory concept of a Total Maximum kilometers (300,000 miles) of river and shoreline Daily Load (TMDL) as the maximum loading rate of a (USEPA, 2001). The USEPA suggests that states plan pollutant that a receiving water can assimilate without to complete the TMDL’s with a maximum planning resultant water quality impairments with respect to the time frame of 13 years (Perciasepe, 1997). Given that applicable water quality standards. The CWA specified there are typically hundreds of impaired waterbodies per that the watershed-level TMDL approach should be state, the effort required to meet these timelines is used to systematically manage both point and non-point enormous. Furthermore, in many states, court orders or source pollution. However, it was not until the 1990’s consent decrees now specify the rate at which TMDL’s after a series of legal actions that the TMDL program must be established (USEPA, 2001). In addition, active has been actively pursued at federal and state levels. and effective community involvement is expected in a The TMDL concept has now grown into a TMDL project, so modeling analysis should be made comprehensive surface water management approach. A intelligible to community members. thorough description and guidance for the TMDL program can be found at the U.S. -
Studies of Longitudinal Stream Profiles in Virginia and Maryland
Studies of Longitudinal Stream Profiles in Virginia and Maryland By JOHN T. HACK SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL GEOLOGY GEOLOGICAL. SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 294-B Preliminary results of a study of the form of small river valleys in relation to geology. Some factors controlling the longitudinal profiles of streams are described in q'uantitative terms UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1957 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FRED A. SEATON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. - Price 75 cents (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Peg* AbstractL 45 Relation of particle size of material on the bed to stream IntroductionL 47 lengthL 68 Methods of study and definitions of factors measuredL 47 Mathematical expression of the longitudinal profile and Description of areas studied L 49 its relation to particle size of material on the bedL 69 Middle River basinL 50 Mathematical expression in previous work on longitudinal North River basinL 50 profilesL 74 Alluvial terrace areasL 50 Origin and composition of stream-bed materialL 74 Calfpasture River basinL 50 Franks Mill reach of the Middle RiverL 76 Tye River basin L 52 Eidson CreekL 81 Gillis FallsL 52 East Dry BranchL 82 Coastal Plain streamsL 53 North RiverL 84 Factors determining the slope of the stream channelL 53 Calfpasture ValleyL 84 Discharge and drainage areaL 54 Gillis FallsL 85 Size of material on the stream bedL 54 Ephemeral streams in areas of residuumL 85 Channel cross sectionL 61 Some factors controlling variations in size: conclusions_ _ _ 86 Summary of factors controlling channel slopeL 61 The longitudinal profile and the cycle of erosionL 87 Factors determining the position of the channel in space: the References cited L 94 shape of the long profileL 63 IndexL 95 Relation of stream length to drainage area L 63 ILLUSTRATIONS Pag e Page PLATE99. -
THE COWPASTURE RIVER VALLEY of VIRGINIA by C. Nelson Hoy, Forester & Rancher
THE COWPASTURE RIVER VALLEY OF VIRGINIA by C. Nelson Hoy, Forester & Rancher Editor’s note: The following essay is the first in a five-year series on water resources stewardship in the Cowpasture River Watershed, sponsored by the Cowpasture River Preservation Association and published by The Recorder. The goal of the series is to create awareness among students, citizens and officials of the critical need to protect our surface and groundwater resources, and to stimulate interest in progressive stewardship. WILLIAMSVILLE – The Cowpasture River of Virginia is arguably the cleanest and most pristine river basin in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Nestled among the Allegheny Mountains and bulwarked against the influences of Washington and Richmond by the great Shenandoah Mountain, the Cowpasture River flows 84 miles southward through Highland, Bath, Alleghany and Botetourt Counties. The Cowpasture River joins the Jackson River near Irongate and together, these two rivers form the James River. Geology – The Cowpasture River Valley is part of the valley and ridge province of Virginia and characterized by long parallel ridges and valleys underlain by sedimentary rock formations – limestone, shale and sandstone – repeatedly folded and faulted. The limestone formations underlying the Valley and its surrounding mountains, dissolved and eroded over geological time by water, create the fragile karst topography of the Cowpasture River Valley with many caves, sinkholes and losing streams. The Cowpasture River Watershed covers a land area of about 265,000 acres. Tributaries – The primary tributary of the Cowpasture is the Bullpasture River with its headwaters north of Doe Hill, Virginia. The Bullpasture flows in a southwest direction for 26 miles between Jack Mountain on the west and Bullpasture Mountain on the east and it creates in between the Bullpasture Gorge before joining the Cowpasture River just below Williamsville. -
GAME FISH STREAMS and RECORDS of FISHES from the POTOMAC-SHENANDOAH RIVER SYSTEM of VIRGINIA
) • GAME FISH STREAMS AND RECORDS OF FISHES FROM THE POTOMAC-SHENANDOAH RIVER SYSTEM Of VIRGINIA Robert D. Ross Associate Professor of Biology Technical Bulletin 140 April 1959 Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station Virginia Polytechnic Institute Blacksburg, Virginia ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer is grateful to Eugene S. Surber, Robert G. Martin and Jack M. Hoffman who directed the survey and gave their help and encouragement. A great deal of credit for the success of the Survey is due to all game wardens who rendered invaluable assistance. Special thanks are due to many sportsmen and assistant game wardens who helped the field crew. Personnel of the Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries, who helped in the work from time to time were William Fadley, William Hawley, Max Carpenter and Dixie L. Shumate. The Virginia Academy of Science gener- ously donated funds for the purchase of alcohol in which the fish collection was preserved. GAME FISH STREAMS AND RECORDS OF FISHES FROM THE SHENANDOAH-POTOMAC RIVER SYSTEMS OF VIRGINIA Robert D. Ross Associate Professor of Biology Virginia Polytechnic Institute INTRODUCTION From June 15 to September 15, 1956, the Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries, Division of Fisheries, Richmond, Virginia, undertook a survey of a major part of the Shenandoah-Potomac River watershed in Virginia. This work was done as Federal Aid Project No. F-8-R-3, in cooperation with Vir- ginia Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, under the direction of Robert G. Martin, Dingell-Johnson Coordinator, and Jack M. Hoffman, Leader. Robert D. Ross, Crew Leader, and David W. Robinson and Charles H. Hanson worked in the field. -
Bath County, Virginia COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2014 – 2019
Bath County, Virginia COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2014 – 2019 Adopted December 9, 2014 Bath County, Virginia COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2014-2019 Adopted December 9, 2014 Board of Supervisors Planning Commission Bruce McWilliams, Chair Williamsville District John Cowden Henry “Kevin” Fry, Vice-Chair Valley Springs District Jason Miller Claire A. Collins Cedar Creek District Trudy Woodzell Phillip “Bart” Perdue Warm Springs District John B. Loeffler Clifford A. Gilchrest Millboro District Michael Grist, Chair County Administrator Ashton N. Harrison County Planner Sherry Ryder Bath County Comprehensive Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF MAPS .................................................................................................................. ii LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................. iii CHAPTER 1: Introduction .............................................................................................. 1-1 Vision and Values ............................................................................................................ 1-4 Visioning Workshops ....................................................................................................... 1-9 History ............................................................................................................................ 1-13 Perspectives on Agriculture .......................................................................................... 1-18 CHAPTER 2: Demographics .......................................................................................... -
The Virginia Flood of 1969
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT l . t/( Jo..., DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES I RICHMOND, VIRGINIA INFORMATION BULLETIN 505 1911 THE VIRGINIA FLOOD OF 1969 the effects of Hurricane Camille in the James River Basin of Virginia UNITED STATES GB 1225 .V8 K3 PARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ~ .... ... .. - ... d .... .. ... ··~.-.. ~ .. __ . ... .. _ , Q3 I CJ,;J $' \fb ~<3 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER RESOURCES DIVISION THE VIRGINIA FLOOD OF 1969 the effect$ of Hurricane Camille in the James River Basin of Virginia By Donovan Kelly I; DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT v~. DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES RICHMOND, VIRGINIA INFORMATION BULLETIN 505 1971 THE VIRGINIA FLOOD OF 1969 The Effects of Hurricane Camille in the James River Basin of Virginia by Donovan B. Kelly INTRODUCTION At one point the rains fell at a rate and volume not likely to be equaled or exceeded in the stricken area Tuesday, August 19 began as a quiet Election Day in more than once in a 1 ,QOO-years or more. Hurricane Virginia and ended as the night of the flood of '69-in Camille was the prime cause of the rains but not the sole deaths and dollars, probably the greate~t natural disaster cause. in the history of the State. In the wake of a 1 ,000-year As the election polls closed on that Tuesday, August rain, a 100-year flood, and landslides that reshaped 19, Camille was a tropical depression (an area of low slopes and valleys along a 40-square mile stretch of the pressure, moderate winds, and moderate precipitation) Blue Ridge, 152 Virginians were dead or missing, centered somewhere in eastern Kentucky.