DOCSLIB.ORG

Basinwide Assessment Report New River Basin

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

BASINWIDE ASSESSMENT REPORT NEW RIVER BASIN NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Division of Water Quality Environmental Sciences Section April 2009 This page was intentionally left blank 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................3 LIST OF TABLES..........................................................................................................................................4 LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................................................4 INTRODUCTION TO PROGRAM METHODS..............................................................................................5 BASIN DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................................................6 NEW RIVER HUC 05050001 – UPPER NEW RIVER..................................................................................7 Description .......................................................................................................................................7 Overview of Water Quality .............................................................................................................11 River and Stream Assessment ......................................................................................................15 GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................................18 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page Appendix B-1. Summary of benthic macroinvertebrate data, sampling methods and criteria. ............20 Appendix F-1. Fish community sampling methods and criteria. ..........................................................27 Appendix F-2. A summary of fish community assessment data for 2008............................................32 Appendix F-3. Fish community data collected from the New River basin, 1998 and 2008. Basinwide sites sampled in 2008 are in bold font..........................................................................36 Appendix F-4. Fish community metric values from 22 wadeable streams in the New River basinwide monitoring program, 2008 ............................................................................................37 Appendix F-5. Fish distributional recods for the New River basin. ......................................................38 Appendix F-6. Habitat evaluations and stream and riparian habitats at 22 fish community monitoring sites in the New River basin, 2008. ..............................................................................40 Appendix F-7. Water quality at 22 fish community sites in the New River basin, 2008.......................46 Appendix F-8. Fish community references...........................................................................................49 Appendix G-1. Flow measurement and flow conditions in the New River basin. .................................50 Appendix S-1. Fish and benthos site summaries for basinwide sites collected in the New River basin for the 2008 cycle. ........................................................................................................54 3 LIST OF TABLES Table Page Table 1. Waterbodies monitored in HUC 05050001 in the New River basin for basinwide assessment, 2003 and 2008. ................................................................................................11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Figure 1. Geographical Relationships of the New River Basin...............................................................6 Figure 2. Level IV Ecoregions of the New River Basin...........................................................................8 Figure 3. Land cover in HUC 05050001 in the New River basin............................................................9 Figure 4. Sampling sites in HUC 05050001 in the New River basin. ...................................................10 4 INTRODUCTION TO PROGRAM METHODS The Division of Water Quality uses a basinwide approach to water quality management. Activities within the Division, including permitting, monitoring, modeling, nonpoint source assessments, and planning are coordinated and integrated for each of the 17 major river basins within the state. All basins are reassessed every five years. The New River basin has been sampled by the Environmental Sciences Section (ESS) four times for basinwide monitoring: 1993, 1998, 2003, and 2008. The ESS collects a variety of biological, chemical, and physical data that can be used in a myriad of ways within the basinwide-planning program. In some program areas there may be adequate data from several program areas to allow a fairly comprehensive analysis of ecological integrity or water quality. In other areas, data may be limited to one program area, such as only benthic macroinvertebrate data or only fisheries data, with no other information available. Such data may or may not be adequate to provide a definitive assessment of water quality, but can provide general indications of water quality. The primary program areas from which data were drawn for this assessment of the New River basin include benthic macroinvertebrates, fish community, ambient monitoring, and aquatic toxicity monitoring for the period 2003-2008. Details of biological sampling methods (including habitat evaluation) and rating criteria can be found in the appendices of this report. Technical terms are defined in the Glossary. This document is structured with physical, geographical, and biological data discussions presented in hydrologic units (HUCs). General water quality conditions are given in an upstream to downstream format. Lakes data, ambient chemistry data and aquatic toxicity data, with summaries, are presented in separate reports. 5 BASIN DESCRIPTION The New River Basin is located within the Blue Ridge Province of the Appalachian Mountains in the northwest corner of the state in Watauga, Ashe and Alleghany counties (Figure 1). It is the state’s 4th smallest river basin, and encompasses a 765 square-mile watershed drained by approximately 825 miles of streams. The New River originates at the confluence of the North Fork New River and South Fork New River in northeastern Ashe County, and then flows northeast into Virginia before eventually flowing into the Kanawha River (Figure 1). The New River meanders across the North Carolina-Virginia state line four times before the confluence of the Little River, the only other major tributary originating in North Carolina, which also flows north into Virginia. The New River is part of the oldest river system in North America. South Fork New River is classified as High Quality Waters (HQW) from Elk Creek near the Watauga-Ashe County line to Dog Creek and is classified as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) from Dog Creek to the New River. All North Carolina segments of the New River are classified as ORW. Other HQW waters in the New River basin are: upper segments of Flattop Branch; most of Winkler Creek; Flannery Fork; most of the Howard Creek drainage; a portion of Big Horse Creek and three of its tributaries; and the lowermost segment of Little River. The only other stream segments classified as ORW are Call Creek and the lowermost segment of Old Field Creek. Overall, more than half of the land in the New River basin is forested, with pastureland as the next largest land use. The steep slopes found in the basin limit much of the development and agriculture to the river valleys. Christmas tree farming is a rapidly expanding business in the basin. Figure 1. Geographical Relationships of the New River Basin. 6 NEW RIVER HUC 05050001 – UPPER NEW RIVER Description The North Carolina portion of HUC 05050001 includes the entire New River basin in the state. Most of the counties of Ashe and Alleghany are included, as is a central-to-northeast portion of Watauga. The towns of Sparta (population 1,817; all populations are from year 2000 U.S. Census Bureau data), Jefferson (1,422), West Jefferson (1,081), Boone (13,472), and most of Blowing Rock (1,418) are contained in the HUC. There are two active NPDES dischargers in the HUC with permitted flows of over one million gallons per day (MGD): the Town of Boone’s Jimmy Smith WWTP (permit NC0020621) with permitted flow of 4.82 MGD and discharge to South Fork New River; and United Chemi-Con, Incorporated (permit NC0000019) with permitted flow of 1.018 MGD and discharge to North Fork New River. Four Level IV ecoregions are represented by significant areas within the HUC (Figure 2): New River Plateau, Amphibolite Mountains, Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains, and Southern Metasedimentary Mountains.1 • About one-half of the HUC is within the New River Plateau ecoregion, a hilly, high-elevation area used for “pasture, orchards, cropland, livestock and dairy farms, and Christmas tree production.”1 This area has the lowest relief of the four ecoregions in the HUC, with elevations from 2300 feet on the New River floodplain to 4175 feet at Peach Bottom Mountain west-southwest of Sparta. • A western portion of the HUC is within the Amphibolite Mountains. This area is characterized by steep mountains of gneiss and amphibolite (composed mainly of hornblende, a form of amphibole) and by its high plant diversity (driven in part by disjunct populations of more northern species and by the presence
Recommended publications
  • Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S

    Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S

    Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4—An Update April 2013 Prepared by: Pam L. Fuller, Amy J. Benson, and Matthew J. Cannister U.S. Geological Survey Southeast Ecological Science Center Gainesville, Florida Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia Cover Photos: Silver Carp, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix – Auburn University Giant Applesnail, Pomacea maculata – David Knott Straightedge Crayfish, Procambarus hayi – U.S. Forest Service i Table of Contents Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ v List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ vi INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Overview of Region 4 Introductions Since 2000 ....................................................................................... 1 Format of Species Accounts ...................................................................................................................... 2 Explanation of Maps ................................................................................................................................
  • South Carolina Department of Natural Resources

    South Carolina Department of Natural Resources

    FOREWORD Abundant fish and wildlife, unbroken coastal vistas, miles of scenic rivers, swamps and mountains open to exploration, and well-tended forests and fields…these resources enhance the quality of life that makes South Carolina a place people want to call home. We know our state’s natural resources are a primary reason that individuals and businesses choose to locate here. They are drawn to the high quality natural resources that South Carolinians love and appreciate. The quality of our state’s natural resources is no accident. It is the result of hard work and sound stewardship on the part of many citizens and agencies. The 20th century brought many changes to South Carolina; some of these changes had devastating results to the land. However, people rose to the challenge of restoring our resources. Over the past several decades, deer, wood duck and wild turkey populations have been restored, striped bass populations have recovered, the bald eagle has returned and more than half a million acres of wildlife habitat has been conserved. We in South Carolina are particularly proud of our accomplishments as we prepare to celebrate, in 2006, the 100th anniversary of game and fish law enforcement and management by the state of South Carolina. Since its inception, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) has undergone several reorganizations and name changes; however, more has changed in this state than the department’s name. According to the US Census Bureau, the South Carolina’s population has almost doubled since 1950 and the majority of our citizens now live in urban areas.
  • A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States And

    A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States And

    t a AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY QL 614 .A43 V.2 .A 4-3 AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY Special Publication No. 2 A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes -^ ru from the United States m CD and Canada (SECOND EDITION) A/^Ssrf>* '-^\ —---^ Report of the Committee on Names of Fishes, Presented at the Ei^ty-ninth Annual Meeting, Clearwater, Florida, September 16-18, 1959 Reeve M. Bailey, Chairman Ernest A. Lachner, C. C. Lindsey, C. Richard Robins Phil M. Roedel, W. B. Scott, Loren P. Woods Ann Arbor, Michigan • 1960 Copies of this publication may be purchased for $1.00 each (paper cover) or $2.00 (cloth cover). Orders, accompanied by remittance payable to the American Fisheries Society, should be addressed to E. A. Seaman, Secretary-Treasurer, American Fisheries Society, Box 483, McLean, Virginia. Copyright 1960 American Fisheries Society Printed by Waverly Press, Inc. Baltimore, Maryland lutroduction This second list of the names of fishes of The shore fishes from Greenland, eastern the United States and Canada is not sim- Canada and the United States, and the ply a reprinting with corrections, but con- northern Gulf of Mexico to the mouth of stitutes a major revision and enlargement. the Rio Grande are included, but those The earlier list, published in 1948 as Special from Iceland, Bermuda, the Bahamas, Cuba Publication No. 1 of the American Fisheries and the other West Indian islands, and Society, has been widely used and has Mexico are excluded unless they occur also contributed substantially toward its goal of in the region covered. In the Pacific, the achieving uniformity and avoiding confusion area treated includes that part of the conti- in nomenclature.
  • Affect Space Use by Warpaint Shiners (Luxilus Coccogenis)

    Affect Space Use by Warpaint Shiners (Luxilus Coccogenis)

    Received: 26 February 2018 | Revised: 16 July 2018 | Accepted: 19 July 2018 DOI: 10.1111/eff.12440 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Stocked rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) affect space use by Warpaint Shiners (Luxilus coccogenis) Duncan Elkins | Nathan P. Nibbelink | Gary D. Grossman Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, Abstract Georgia Due to widespread stocking, Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss Walbaum) are per- Correspondence haps the most widely distributed invasive species in the world. Nonetheless, little is Gary D. Grossman, Warnell School of known about the effects of stocked Rainbow Trout on native non- game species. We Forestry & Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA. conducted experiments in an artificial stream to assess the effects of hatchery Email: [email protected] Rainbow Trout on home range and behaviour of Warpaint Shiners (Luxilus coccogenis Funding information Cope), a common minnow frequently found in stocked Southern Appalachian Georgia Department of Natural Resources, streams. We used the LoCoH algorithm to generate polygons describing the home Grant/Award Number: 2021RR272; Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources; ranges used by Warpaint Shiners. When a stocked trout was present Warpaint USDA McIntire-Stennis Program, Grant/ Shiners: (a) increased home range size by 57%, (b) were displaced into higher velocity Award Number: GEOZ-0176-MS Grossman mesohabitats, and (c) reduced mean overlap between the home ranges of individual warpaint shiners. Rainbow Trout did not significantly affect the edge/area ratio of Warpaint Shiner home ranges. Warpaint Shiner density (two and five fish treatments) did not significantly affect any response variable. Displacement from preferred mi- crohabitats and increases in home range size likely result in increased energy ex- penditure and exposure to potential predators (i.e., decreased individual fitness) of Warpaint Shiners when stocked trout are present.
  • Freshwater Aquarium Model Designs

    Freshwater Aquarium Model Designs

    01_04425x ffirs.qxp 10/9/06 11:10 AM Page i FRESHWATER AQUARIUM MODELS Recipes for Creating Beautiful Aquariums That Thrive JOHN TULLOCK 01_04425x ffirs.qxp 10/9/06 11:10 AM Page ii Copyright © 2007 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. All rights reserved. Photography © Aaron Norman Howell Book House Published by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise, except as permitted under Sections 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through pay- ment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400, fax (978) 646-8600, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Legal Department, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 10475 Crosspoint Blvd., Indianapolis, IN 46256, (317) 572-3447, fax (317) 572-4355, or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions. Wiley, the Wiley Publishing logo, Howell Book House, and related trademarks are trademarks or registered trademarks of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. Wiley Publishing, Inc. is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. The publisher and the author make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation warranties of fitness for a particular purpose.
  • SC Priority Species SC CWCS

    SC Priority Species SC CWCS

    Chapter 2: SC Priority Species SC CWCS CHAPTER 2: SOUTH CAROLINA PRIORITY SPECIES The State Wildlife Grants program established funding for species not traditionally covered under federal funding programs. To qualify for these funds, each state was mandated to develop a Strategy with a focus on “species of greatest conservation concern;” guidance was provided to the states to begin identifying these species. SCDNR recognized the importance of including species that are currently rare or designated as at-risk, those for which we have knowledge deficiencies and those that have not received adequate conservation attention in the past. Additionally, SCDNR included species for which South Carolina is “responsible,” that is, species that may be common in our state, but are declining or rare elsewhere. SCDNR also included species that could be used as indicators of detrimental conditions. These indicator species may be common in South Carolina; as such, changes in their population status are likely to indicate stress to other species that occur in the same habitat. The diversity of animals in South Carolina is vast. Habitats in this state range from the mountains to the ocean and include many different taxonomic animal groups. SCDNR wanted to address as many of those groups as possible for inclusion in the list of priority species for the CWCS; as such, twelve taxonomic groups are included in the Strategy: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, freshwater fishes, diadromous fishes, marine fishes, marine invertebrates, crayfish, freshwater mussels, freshwater snails, and insects (both freshwater and terrestrial). However, taxonomic groups that are excluded from this version of the SC CWCS may be included in future revisions of the Strategy, as additional information and experts specific to those groups are identified.
  • Response of Fish Communities to Cropland Density and Natural

    Response of Fish Communities to Cropland Density and Natural

    Response of Fish Communities to Cropland Density and Natural Environmental Setting in the Eastern Highland Rim Ecoregion of the Lower Tennessee River Basin, Alabama and Tennessee, 1999 Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4268 National Water-Quality Assessment Program U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover photographs: Background photograph is the Duck River at Osteen Bend (river mile 173.1), Marshall County, Tennessee (Photograph by Rodney Knight, USGS). Left photo is the Northern studfish— Fundulus catenatus (Photograph by Rodney Knight, USGS). Right photo is the Slackwater Darter— Etheostoma boschungi (Photograph by J.R. Shute, Conservation Fisheries, Inc. Used with permission.) Response of Fish Communities to Cropland Density and Natural Environmental Setting in the Eastern Highland Rim Ecoregion of the Lower Tennessee River Basin, Alabama and Tennessee, 1999 By Jeffrey R. Powell U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4268 Nashville, Tennessee 2003 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Gale Norton, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm name in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. For additional information write to: Copies of this report may be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services 640 Grassmere Park, Suite 100 Box 25286 Nashville, Tennessee 37211 Denver, Colorado 80225-0286 More information about the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program is available via the World Wide Web at: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/naqwa_home.html FOREWORD The U.S.
  • Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Cowpens National Battlefield Natural Resource Report NPS/ COWP/NRR—2012/521

    Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Cowpens National Battlefield Natural Resource Report NPS/ COWP/NRR—2012/521

    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Cowpens National Battlefield Natural Resource Report NPS/ COWP/NRR—2012/521 ON THE COVER Main Entrance Photograph courtesy of Cowpens National Battlefield Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Cowpens National Battlefield Natural Resource Report NPS/ COWP/NRR—2012/521 Luke Worsham, Gary Sundin, Nathan P. Nibbelink, Michael T. Mengak, Gary Grossman Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources University of Georgia 180 E. Green St. Athens, GA 30602 April 2012 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received informal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S.
  • Laboratory Operations Manual Version 2.0 May 2014

    Laboratory Operations Manual Version 2.0 May 2014

    United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Washington, DC EPA 841‐B‐12‐010 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐2014 Laboratory Operations Manual Version 2.0 May 2014 2013‐2014 National Rivers & Streams Assessment Laboratory Operations Manual Version 1.3, May 2014 Page ii of 224 NOTICE The intention of the National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐2014 is to provide a comprehensive “State of Flowing Waters” assessment for rivers and streams across the United States. The complete documentation of overall project management, design, methods, quality assurance, and standards is contained in five companion documents: National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Quality Assurance Project Plan EPA‐841‐B‐12‐007 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Site Evaluation Guidelines EPA‐841‐B‐12‐008 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Non‐Wadeable Field Operations Manual EPA‐841‐B‐ 12‐009a National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Wadeable Field Operations Manual EPA‐841‐B‐12‐ 009b National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Laboratory Operations Manual EPA 841‐B‐12‐010 Addendum to the National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013‐14: Wadeable & Non‐Wadeable Field Operations Manuals This document (Laboratory Operations Manual) contains information on the methods for analyses of the samples to be collected during the project, quality assurance objectives, sample handling, and data reporting. These methods are based on the guidelines developed and followed in the Western Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (Peck et al. 2003). Methods described in this document are to be used specifically in work relating to the NRSA 2013‐2014.
  • Fish Inventory in Four National Park Service Units in South Carolina And

    Fish Inventory in Four National Park Service Units in South Carolina And

    Fish Inventory in Four National Park Service Units in South Carolina Job Title: and North Carolina Period Covered January 1, 2005 through December 30, 2006 Summary South Carolina Department of Natural Resources Freshwater Fisheries staff inventoried freshwater fishes during 2005-2006 for the National Park Service (NPS) in four Cumberland Piedmont Network parks in South Carolina and North Carolina. The parks were: 1) Ninety Six National Historic Site (NISI), 2) Kings Mountain National Military Park (KIMO), 3) Cowpens National Battlefield (COWP), and 4) the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site (CARL). As requested by NPS, each park is reported separately. Sample collections were made in all aquatic habitat types identified on each park, including impoundments, ponds, perennial streams, ephemeral streams, and springs. A total of twenty-two species was collected in NISI, seven species in COWP, eighteen species in KIMO, and fourteen species from CARL. Introduction South Carolina Department of Natural Resources Freshwater Fisheries staff inventoried freshwater fishes during 2005-2006 for the National Park Service in four Cumberland Piedmont Network parks in South Carolina and North Carolina. The inventory comprised a series of tasks that were addressed, as applicable: (A) Identifying species richness (to a 90% level), 1 (B) Describing the distribution of each species within a park, (C) Determining abundance (particularly of sensitive species), (D) Collecting voucher specimens for those species where none exist or where species is not readily identifiable by photograph (no collecting of sensitive species), (E) Recording habitat variables and mapping observation coordinates (F) Collecting and organizing data to be compatible with existing databases, (G) Conducting representative sampling of common habitats and comprehensive coverage of specialized habitats, (H) Identifying fish species that are non-native to a park, (I) Reviewing Existing NPS Database Records for accuracy.
  • Uwharrie National Forest

    Uwharrie National Forest

    BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION REPORT FOR THE NATIONAL FOREST SERVICE NC 24/27 WIDENING – UWHARRIE NATIONAL FOREST MONTGOMERY COUNTY, NC TIP NO. R-2527 WBS ELEMENT 35572.1.1 APRIL 2019 Contact Person: Matthew M. Haney Environmental Program Specialist North Carolina Department of Transportation Natural Environment Section Biological Surveys Group 1598 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 919.707.6122 [email protected] Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 II. POTENTIAL IMPACTS CONSIDERED ................................................................................. 1 III. SPECIES CONSIDERED AND METHODS ........................................................................... 2 IV. EXISTING BIOLOGICAL CONDITION ............................................................................... 2 A. BIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AREA................................................................................................................. 2 B. STUDY AREA .......................................................................................................................................... 7 C. TIMING OF FIELD SURVEYS ................................................................................................................... 7 D. THREATENED, ENDANGERED, FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN, AND NORTH CAROLINA LISTED SPECIES .....................................................................................................................................................
  • Status of Plants in Virginia

    Status of Plants in Virginia

    SPRING/SUMMER 2015 VOL. 66, No. 1 & 2 SPRINGFall/SUMMER 2015 2015 VOL. 66,V No.OL. 1 66,& 2No. 3 inia Fall 2015 VOL. 66, No. 3 rg ORGN. AGE SUMMER/SPRING 2014 VOL. 65, No. 1 & 2 T Vi AID P U.S. POST Permit No. 2276 Richmond, NON-PROFI VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE VIRVGIRGINIINIAA JO JOURURNALNAL OF O SFC SIECIENCENCE VIRGINIAVIRGINIA JOURNAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE OF SCIENCE SPRING/SUMMER 2015 VOL. 66, No. 1 & 2 Fall 2015 VOL. 66, No. 3 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE VIRGINIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE VIRGINIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE OFFIOCFFICIALIAL PUB LPUBICALTICATIOION OFN T OHFE TH VIER GVIRGINIAINIA ACA ACADEMDEMY OFY SOCFI ESCIENCENCE e ginia r Vi eet A23220 oadStr r .B OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE VIRGINIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE W ess Service Requested giniaAcademyofScienc r Vi ScienceMuseumof Addr 2500 Richmond,V OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE VIRGINIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE VIRGINIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE THE VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE Instructions to Authors All manuscripts and correspondence should be sent to the Editor ([email protected]). The Virginia Journal of Science welcomes for consideration original articles and short notes in the various disciplines of engineering and science. Cross-disciplinary papers dealing with advancements in science and technology and the impact of these on man and society are particularly welcome. Submission of an article implies that the article has not been published elsewhere while under consideration by the Journal. Submit manuscripts in electronic form as an MS Word OR WordPerfect file.