DOCSLIB.ORG

R:Ores1 PEST SURVEY REPORT

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
R:Ores1 PEST SURVEY REPORT r:oRES1 PEST SURVEY REPORT PEST REPORT Virginia Division of Forestry P. 0, Box 3758 Charlottesville, VA 22903 January, 1983 GENERAL: The Gypsy moth remains the The USDA reports that treatments aimed number one pest of immediate concern in at eradication were applied to 38 Virginia; activity centers around isolated infestations in 14 States in finalizing plans by the Virginia 1982, including Oregon, Washington, Department of Agriculture and Consumer California, North and South Carolina, Services (VDACS) to assist by Alabama, Arkansas and Indiana. cost-sharing in suppression of low-level populations in northern In West Virginia, moderate to heavy Virginia; the method of treatment of defoliation is expected in localized scattered spot infestations in and areas in and around Harper's Ferry and around Richmond, Gloucester and Handcock, MD.; West Virginia has Northumberland Counties and in the applied for Federal funds for a Norfolk area. Proposed quarantined suppression project in 1983. areas for 1983 (from which a group of "restricted articles" could not move to Tigner found large numbers of egg uninfested areas without official masses at WV line (Rt. 9) and on Short inspection) include the counties of Hill Mountain in Loudoun County in Frederick, Clarke, Loudoun, Warren, December, but little evidence of high Fauquier, Fairfax, Prince William, populations west of Winchester along Stafford, including Arlington and the WV border. The VDACS is continuing Alexandria, plus the northern half of their egg mass survey in northern Shenandoah County and the Northwest Virginia and in and around larval finds edge of Culpeper County. Citizens in the more isolated infestations. As within these areas will be notified of of December 5, 1982 the VDACS had the quarantine restrictions when the found: borders are finalized by late February, County/ II Larval II Egg Egg Mass The annual inspection of Christmas tree City Sites Masses Sites lots in Virginia for egg masses of the Arlington 47 10 -r GM was completed by the VDACS in Clarke 8 40 7 mid-December, 1982, From 546 sales Fairfax 302 101 43 lots visited and 214,000 trees Fauquier 12 16 9 inspected, only 8 lots were not in Frederick 4 l l compliance with certification Loudoun 38 32 6 requirements. Only one sales lot, in Pr. William 61 Tidewater, was infested with egg Stafford 3 2 2 masses, where 15 trees were destroyed. Warren 2 1 1 CUlpeper 3 4 2 Shenandoah 3 Several locations with significant egg of applying various intervention mass densities noted by VDACS strategies, such as insecticides, inspectors include 16 at Clarke County virus, parasites, etc. to selected Fairgrounds; 17 at one location areas. Extensive monitoring of the vicinity of, Shenandoah Retreat (Clarke gypsy moth populations and an extensive Co.); 1 at Oak Grove Campground data base on forest types, recreation (Westmoreland Co.); 1 at intersection areas, watersheds and infestation Rts. 748 and 610 (West.Co.); scattered centers will be developed. egg masses in small numbers noted through Fauquier, in Culpeper (Catalpa) The Southern Pine Beetle is the second 3 in Spotsylvania (I-95 Rest Stop); 2 pest warrantingconcern for 1983, in Gloucester Co.(Bena). Although bark samples taken in the late summer and early fall of 1982 at the A meeMng sponsored by the VDACS to Naval Weapons Station and Pocahontas -1cquaint city and County administrators State Forest indicate only a moderate .,f the cost-sharing proposal for GM level of activity in 1983, samples from ·,uppression was held in Fairfax on Dec. several other areas (New Kent, Halifax 2. With only $50,000 available from the and King and Queen Counties) show State for 1983, the proposal calls for attack to emergence ratios of 1:4 to no cost-sharing for manpower--only 1:8, indicating a continuing and chemicals, blologicals, traps, etc. increasing problem in those areas in would qualify. Alexandria has 1983. Recent aerial survey flights by allocated $30,000 to $40,000 for gypsy district personnel in Halifax County moth suppression in 1983, which will (26 new spots); in Cumberland County include purchase of a sprayer. (2 spots); Lunenburg Co.CO); New Kent (1), Charles City (0) and James City '.!'he TJSFS has been conducting egg mass (4) indicate a potential upswing in searches on federal land where multiple activity. Severe damage also reported male moth catches or larval sightings on Colonial Parkway at Williamsburg. were noted in summer of 1982, Recent SPB and turpentine beetles also f:lnds include several masses at Prince reported in a new spot (10 trees) in William Forest Park (Prince William Virginia Beach and in 6 trees Sussex County); several at Quantico Marine Co. Base, Quantico, VA; 22 along the George Washington Memorial Parkway; Wolf Trap In the second halt of 1982, VDF Park (5); Manassas Natlonal Battlefield surveyors conducted aerial Park (52). No egg masses were found reconnaissance for SPB (1,475,325 A.), following searches at Fort Story, gypsy moth (1,206, 900 A) other hardwood Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, defoliators (952,630 A.) and oak wilt the Dismal Swamp NWR, and Little Creek (558,770 A); ground surveys were Naval Amphibious Base. conducted for the introduced pine sawfly (73,314A), Virginia pine sawfly A new Gypsy Moth Committee is being and associated species (32,000 A); cone organized at Virginia Tech by Dr. and seed insects (220 A.); nursery Sidney Poe. A brainstorming session by pests (100 A); white pine blister rust top scientists on future gypsy moth (1006 A) and pinewood nematodes (3A). research needs is scheduled at PA State Evaluations ranging from relatively University February 1-2, primarily to simple to rather complex were completed gain support for funding of research for the SPB, cone and seed insects, proposals. chestnut blight, mycorrhizal plots, white pine blister rust, gypsy moth and The IPM Pilot Project in Maryland has sweetfern blister rust. been funded with $500,000 (USFS Pest Management & Research) for 1983. The As a result of our federally funded project will explore the practicality evaluation/demonstration of machinery suitable for thinning pine stands, Ray Martin, a pulpwood dealer with a lence (lessened virulence :Ln the host). yard in Victoria, purchased a Case Mycovirus strains that J.na::;tivate or Uniloader (modiHed for woods work with kill the host can be a problem (in shear) for harvesting and thinning mushroom production) and an asset work# (inactivation of the Chestnut blight fungus). Virginia has received special use labels for two chemicals used for Sticky bands to catch (and predict rodent control in such commerci.al population trends) of the fall . products as ROZOL and MR.• RAT GUARD II cankerworm have been evaluated (except (conta1ns chlorophacinone) and a second at Bull Run). Heavy defoliation is product containing 2% zinc phosphide e:tpected at Iron Mt. (Smythe/Grayson (in pelleted form), available in Cos.) and moderate to heavy defoliation products such as ZP Rodent Bait. The of Middle Fork of Helton Creek and Pine Zinc Phosphide is about 40¢ a pound, Mt. (Grayson Co.) and at High Knob the materials containing (Wise Co.) Pocosin Cabin (Greene Co. chlorophacinone about $1.25/pound; the on Shenandoah National Park is expected latter is considered more effective but to suffer moderate to heavy defoliation is more toxic to other animals. in 1983. Light defoHation expected at Hidden Valley Lake in Washington Co. Introduced pine sawfly cocoons and at Mountain Lake in Giles Co. collected by Severt in several locations in SW Virginia in early Nov. REPORTS FROM FORESTED DISTRICTS: 1982 showed 31% parasitism by Rainfall - Portsmouth 3.78";Courtland Monodontomeris dentipes (100 cocoon 2.51"; Accomac 4.58" (November). sample.) The smaller (male) cocoons Portsmo•ith 61. 54"; Courtland 4 7. 96"; showed noticeably higher parasitism, Accomac 51. 91" (December). Southern most probably because the males spin Pine Beetle & Black Turpentine beetle earlier than the female larvae. found in Virginia Beach on Loblolly (10 trees); Shot.hole Borer - Chesapeake, 6 A recent Canadian publication li.uks the white oak; Turpentine beetle 011 pine in ~ffects of climate on population Virginia Beach. outbreaks and declines of a number of defoliators of conifers and hardwoods, Halifax reports red headed pine sawfly The forest tent caterpillar, spruce damage; Beaver damage to planted hudworm and jackpine budworm were found stands. SPBB activity in Cumberland to be favored by warm weather during County on 5 acres; City of Williamsburg May to July and August to October. Two reports i+ acres. Sussex Co.- SPBB on other major pests--the large aspen 6 trees. White Pine aphid infested 16 tortrix and the larch sawfly--are acres in Floyd County and Dogwood twig favored by cool weather during May to borer in Indian Valley on one July. dogwood. An excellent summary article on Myco­ C. L, Morris, Chief viruses in fungi i.s found in "Plant Insect & Disease Brauch Disease", Vol. 66(12)p.1106 (Dec. 1/24/83 REPORTS FROM FORESTED 1982). It points out that viruses in DISTRICTS: Ra infail""- Salem - .fungi are as common as in vertebrates 2.9l"(Sept), 4.62" (Oct) Staunton - and flowering plants. In some genera 1. 9 ° of fungi, such as Penicillium and Aspergillus, most of the species examined have been virus-infected, whereas in other fungal genera viruses have not been found so far. The presence of a mycovirus in a. fungus does not necessarily imply hypoviru- .. , A ( FOREST PEST ·REPORT' r le . Vi~ginia Division of Forestry ' · · · P. 0 . .Sox 37:'.>8 · Cna~.1.ottesv~lle, VA 2290J-07Jv . April, 17U 3 ,. ~ GtHEitAL: Unusual.ly warm ueatu~;. in GYSl'Y t,~0'1'11: \;inter deli be ..· at ions tlle late fall of l,ol a1ic, in :,1·a:.:ch over 7 stat,e and loc.al governments are speedect 11atcl1ir,i,-; of _at least one p1.ne ready to do &att.Le · \~ :1th tne [;ypsy uefo l.1.ato~, t tie VJ.rginia pir~e sawfly, ·: moth, exp.ected to· hatch in no:.: t i1.ern· 'virginia Hl late Aprii.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Volume XXVII No.4 July-Aug 2013
    THE JULY / AUGUST 2013 I ISSUE 4 VOL. 27 TACF EBRAT EL ES 30C 1 YEARS 9 3 83 -201 OF THE AMERICAN CHESTNUT FOUNDATION Game Changers for the Appalachian Forest over the Past 100 Years Biological Control Efforts in the West Salem Stand Register Now for TACF’s 30th Annual Meeting in Herndon, VA WWW.ACF.ORG | THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHESTNUT FOUNDatION 1 Enter to Win! TACF’s 2013 Chestnut Photo Contest Submit your photos to win great prizes and see your images in print! Send your best chestnut-related photos to TACF. The top entries will be featured at TACF’s 30th Annual Meeting, this fall in Herndon, VA. Meeting attendees will vote for the winning photo, which will be featured on an upcoming cover of The Journal of The American Chestnut Foundation. The winner will receive a TACF T-shirt, a copy of Mighty Giants, An American Chestnut Anthology, and a complimentary one-year TACF membership. How to Enter and Contest Terms • Photos should be sent digitally (submitted on disk or flash drive, or via e-mail or Drop Box) by September 30, 2013. • Include your name, address, and telephone number with your submission, as well as the words: “Entry for TACF Photo Contest.” • All photos must have been taken by you and not previously published or submitted to any other contest. • All entries must be submitted with caption information including names of subjects, locations, etc. • All photos must in some way relate to the American chestnut. • Entries must be at least 1920 x 1080 pixels and in a .jpeg or a .tiff format.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Native Trees of Virginia, Virginia Department of Forestry
    Common Native Trees of Virginia GI N VI R IA Virginia Department of Forestry 900 Natural Resources Drive, Suite 800 Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 Identification Guide Phone: (434) 977-6555 www.dof.virginia.gov Virginia Department of Forestry 2016 Edition VDOF P00026; 08/2016 www.dof.virginia.gov This institution is an equal opportunity provider. www.dof.virginia.gov website: Forestry’s Departmentof Virginia more information,visitthe For beginninginJanuary. year each are accepted Camp Forestry for Nominations and competitions. sessions exploratory demonstrations, trips, field include activities Additional wildlife management and habitat improvement, and environmental protection. timber harvesting and reforestation; tree identification and measurement; other resource specialists. Subjects include forest ecology andmanagement; biologistsand foresters, instruction fromprofessional learning, with interactive outdoor classroomfor The workingforestprovides avast Forest. State Appomattox-Buckingham 20,000-acre in the located Educational Center, 4-H Lake Holiday at place takes experience field-oriented hands-on, This careers. conservation who maywanttoexplore forestry andothernaturalresource Forestry Camp is designed for studentswith an interestin natural resource at aminimalpersonalcost. organizations andbusinesses.Sponsorshipsallowallcamperstoparticipate in cooperation with otheragencies, Forestry, Departmentof by theVirginia The campissponsored forestresourcesand theirmanagement. state’s Holiday LakeForestryCamp introduces teens toour Each
    [Show full text]
  • Restoration of American Chestnut to Forest Lands
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior National Capital Region Center for Urban Ecology Restoration of American Chestnut to Forest Lands Proceedings of a Conference and Workshop May 4 – 6, 2004 The North Carolina Arboretum Edited by Kim C. Steiner and John E. Carlson Natural Resources Report NPS/NCR/CUE/NRR — 2006/001 RESTORATION OF AMERICAN CHESTNUT TO FOREST LANDS Proceedings of a conference and workshop held at The North Carolina Arboretum Asheville, North Carolina, U. S. A. May 4–6, 2004 Natural Resources Report NPS/NCR/CUE/NRR – 2006/001 Organized and Edited by: Kim C. Steiner, Professor of Forest Biology and John E. Carlson, Associate Professor of Molecular Genetics School of Forest Resources The Pennsylvania State University Sponsored by: USDI National Park Service National Capital Region Chesapeake Watershed Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit and Southern Appalachian Mountains Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit May 2006 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service National Capital Region Center for Urban Ecology Natural Resources Reports are the designated medium for information on technologies and resource management methods; “how to” resource management papers; proceedings of resource management workshops or conferences; and natural resource program descriptions and resource action plans. Views and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect policies of the National Park Service. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. This report was accomplished under Cooperative Agreement 1443CA309701200, Task Agreement Number T-3097-01-002 with assistance from the National Park Service.
    [Show full text]
  • Nelson County Comprehensive Plan
    Nelson County Comprehensive Plan As Approved by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors and Nelson County Planning Commission Adopted October 8, 2002 Prepared by The Nelson County Planning Commission with the assistance of The Citizens of Nelson County at the request of The Nelson County Board of Supervisors Staff support from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Design Resources Center, University of Virginia Nelson County Department of Planning Nelson County Comprehensive Plan Acknowledgements The Nelson County Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission thank all the citizens, business people, and community groups who participated in the preparation of this Comprehensive Plan. As a result, this Comprehensive Plan better represents the wishes of the residents of Nelson County. Nelson County Board of Supervisors Gary E. Wood, Chair Thomas D. Harvey Harry S. Harris Thomas H. Bruguiere, Jr. Connie Brennan Nelson County Planning Commission Robert Brush, Chair Lebron Drumheller Philippa Proulx Valdrie Walker Robert Harlow James Giles Linda C. Russell Walter Hoffman, Jr. Thomas D. Harvey, Board of Supervisors Representative Nelson County Staff Stephen A. Carter, County Administrator Fred Boger, Director of Planning Thomas Jefferson Planning District Staff Harrison B. Rue, Executive Director Nancy K. O’Brien, Former Executive Director William N. Wanner, Assistant Director Chris Gensic, Senior Planner John Foster, Intern Design Resources Center Staff Kenneth Schwartz, Director Kathleen Galvin, Assistant Director Nelson County Comprehensive
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Existing Plans
    Summary of Existing Plans Original Nelson County Comprehensive Plan (cover) - 1971 General Plans – page 1 Transportation Plans – page 4 Infrastructure Plans – page 6 Economic Development & Tourism Plans – page 8 Other Plans: Environment, History, and Recreation – page 11 GENERAL PLANS Nelson County Comprehensive Plan (2002; updated 2014) The Comprehensive Plan acts as a blueprint for the future of Nelson County, and guides citizens, the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors, state agencies, and private developers. Implementation of the Plan occurs through an official map, a capital improvements program, the zoning ordinance and zoning map, and the subdivision ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan identifies Goals and Principles in 8 key areas: Economic Development, Transportation, Education, Public & Human Services, Natural & Scenic Resources, Recreation, Development Areas, and Rural Conservation. The Comprehensive Plan specifies 5 Development Models: Rural Small Town, Rural Village Development, Neighborhood Mixed Use Development, Mixed Commercial Development, and Light Industrial Development. Areas not designated as one of the five Development Models are labeled Rural Areas, which is divided into Rural Residential Districts appropriate around designated development areas, and Rural and Farming Districts comprised of agricultural uses and open spaces. The Future Land Use Plan is organized around the Development Model and Rural Areas concept, and is based on two fundamental principles: new growth and development should be concentrated into the County’s designated development areas; and the County’s unique rural heritage should be preserved and the agricultural and forestal landscapes should be maintained. The Future Land Use Map describes the bulk of the county as Rural and Farming, a designation adhering to the Land Use for Plan Rural Areas.
    [Show full text]
  • July PA 1998
    ISSN 098-8154 The Potomac Appalachian The Newsletter of the Potomac Appalachian Trail Club Volume 27, Number 7 118 Park Street. S.E., Vienna, VA 22180-4609 July 1998 PATC Sponsors Event for Disabled Hikers ne of a trail club’s most important mis- Counselors need training before they can help important, there was cohesion among the Osions is to reach out to non-traditional others. And that was the purpose of the gath- counselors encouraged by the beauty of the trail users those with disabilities and chronic ering at Blackburn - to take teenagers to the location. The camp broke up about mid-af- health conditions. Sometimes the disability point of leadership. Ten CITs (Counselors in ternoon on Sunday. The counselors seemed is blindness, sometimes the hikers are wheel- Training) joined with four staff members to ready to begin the regular camp in June. chair-bound. In the case of a group occupy- have group sessions and training, funded by ing Blackburn Trail Center on the weekend a grant from the Appalachian Trail Confer- The CITs, the staff and parents who drove to of April 25 and 26, they were teenagers and ence. Dr. John McNamara, the chairman of the camp were equally impressed with the mag- adults with epilepsy. the newly formed PATC medical committee, nificent scenery and the Blackburn facility. conducted training in wilderness medicine Many commented that they had no idea that Every year, the Neurology Department at and snake identification, including recogni- such a fine lodge existed in the area, and asked Children’s National Medical Center sponsors tion of poisonous snakes.
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Flora of Three Ridges Mountain, Nelson County, Virginia
    W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 1981 Vascular Flora of Three Ridges Mountain, Nelson County, Virginia Francis D. Watson College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Watson, Francis D., "Vascular Flora of Three Ridges Mountain, Nelson County, Virginia" (1981). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539625124. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-bah1-zg44 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VASCULAR FLORA OF THREE RIDGES MOUNTAIN NELSON COUNTY, VIRGINIA A Thesis Presented to The Faculty o f the Department o f Biology The College of William and Mary in Virginia In Partial Fulfillment o f the Requirements fo r the Degree o f Master of Arts By Francis D. Watson 1981 APPROVAL SHEET This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillm ent o f the requirements fo r the degree of Master of Arts Author Approved, December 1981 / UPJUUVXL U . I* Stewart A. ware, Ph.D. ''Q&nnz / y , S. UJzte Donna M. E. Ware, Ph.D. Greg i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................. iv LIST OF TABLES.................... v LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 24. Thomas Jefferson Planning Region Local Action Plan Summary
    24. THOMAS JEFFERSON PLANNING REGION LOCAL ACTION PLAN SUMMARY WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN AND LOCAL SUMMARIES OVERVIEW Wildlife Action Plan Virginia is fortunate to contain a wide variety of natural resources and landscapes that provide Virginians with a range of benefits, services, and economic opportunities. Natural resource conservation in Virginia, as in most states, is implemented by government agencies, non- governmental organizations, private institutions, academic institutions, and private citizens. These groups work to enhance the quality of life within the Commonwealth by conserving Virginia’s air, land, water, and wildlife. Adequate funding and human capital needed to manage and conserve these valuable resources are not always available. In 2005, Virginia’s conservation community first came together to maximize the benefits of their actions and created the state’s first Wildlife Action Plan (Action Plan). It was written to prioritize and focus conservation efforts to prevent species from declining to the point where they become threatened or endangered (DGIF 2005). The 2015 Action Plan is an update of the original Plan. The Action Plan must address eight specific elements mandated by Congress. They are: 1. Information on the distribution and abundance of species of wildlife, including low and declining populations as the state fish and wildlife agency deems appropriate, that are indicative of the diversity and health of the state’s wildlife; and 2. Descriptions of locations and relative condition of key habitats and community types essential to conservation of species identified in (1); and 3. Descriptions of problems which may adversely affect species identified in (1) or their habitats, and priority research and survey efforts needed to identify factors which may assist in restoration and improved conservation of these species and habitats; and 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Recommendations
    A duathlon on the Strasburg River Walk. Photo by Shenandoah County Parks and Recreation Department. CHAPTER10 Regional Recommendations MAP ICON KEY VOP Mapper Data explorer 2013 Virginia Outdoors Plan PDF 10.1 CHAPTER 10 Regional Recommendations Region 13Introduction • Southside “I haven’t been everywhere, but it’s on my list.” — Susan Sontag Recreation planning regions • Have involvement and support from multiple jurisdictions in the region. The Virginia Outdoors Plan divides the Commonwealth into 21 outdoor recreational planning regions. These regions • Are able to be initiated within the next five years. coincide in name, area, number and boundaries with existing planning districts (See Map 10). For the purposes of this Recreation mapping plan, when a jurisdiction is a member of multiple planning district commissions, one planning region is selected to avoid Tools available to assist with recreation planning: duplication of inventory data and resource recommendations. • The VOP Mapper, an interactive map tool. Regional public input • The Natural Heritage Data Explorer, a map tool useful for land conservation, natural resource and planning. To initiate the regional planning process, 42 public meetings were held across the 21 recreational regions from December • A PDF map, which indicates recreation resources for each 2011 through March 2012. Regional projects reflect input region. from some 480 people attending these public meetings along with more than 120 written comments from citizens, Recreation plan implementation organizations, technical advisory members and agencies. Information received during public meetings, along with input Results from the 2011 Virginia Outdoors Demand Survey and from planners, recreation professionals, nonprofit groups 2012 Outdoor Recreation Areas and Facilities Inventory are and planning district staff are incorporated into regional important for prioritizing future outdoor recreation needs.
    [Show full text]