2014-2015 Annual Report
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Biodiversity Work Group Report: Appendices
Biodiversity Work Group Report: Appendices A: Initial List of Important Sites..................................................................................................... 2 B: An Annotated List of the Mammals of Albemarle County........................................................ 5 C: Birds ......................................................................................................................................... 18 An Annotated List of the Birds of Albemarle County.............................................................. 18 Bird Species Status Tables and Charts...................................................................................... 28 Species of Concern in Albemarle County............................................................................ 28 Trends in Observations of Species of Concern..................................................................... 30 D. Fish of Albemarle County........................................................................................................ 37 E. An Annotated Checklist of the Amphibians of Albemarle County.......................................... 41 F. An Annotated Checklist of the Reptiles of Albemarle County, Virginia................................. 45 G. Invertebrate Lists...................................................................................................................... 51 H. Flora of Albemarle County ...................................................................................................... 69 I. Rare -
NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5
NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5 DATABASE DESIGN DOCUMENTATION AND DATA DICTIONARY 1 June 2013 Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21403 Prepared By: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 By Jacqueline Johnson Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin To receive additional copies of the report please call or write: The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 301-984-1908 Funds to support the document The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.0; Database Design Documentation And Data Dictionary was supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency Grant CB- CBxxxxxxxxxx-x Disclaimer The opinion expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the U.S. Government, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the several states or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia or the District of Columbia. ii The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.5 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. -
Scenic Landforms of Virginia
Vol. 34 August 1988 No. 3 SCENIC LANDFORMS OF VIRGINIA Harry Webb . Virginia has a wide variety of scenic landforms, such State Highway, SR - State Road, GWNF.R(T) - George as mountains, waterfalls, gorges, islands, water and Washington National Forest Road (Trail), JNFR(T) - wind gaps, caves, valleys, hills, and cliffs. These land- Jefferson National Forest Road (Trail), BRPMP - Blue forms, some with interesting names such as Hanging Ridge Parkway mile post, and SNPMP - Shenandoah Rock, Devils Backbone, Striped Rock, and Lovers Leap, National Park mile post. range in elevation from Mt. Rogers at 5729 feet to As- This listing is primarily of those landforms named on sateague and Tangier islands near sea level. Two nat- topographic maps. It is hoped that the reader will advise ural lakes occur in Virginia, Mountain Lake in Giles the Division of other noteworthy landforms in the st& County and Lake Drummond in the City of Chesapeake. that are not mentioned. For those features on private Gaps through the mountains were important routes for land always obtain the owner's permission before vis- early settlers and positions for military movements dur- iting. Some particularly interesting features are de- ing the Civil War. Today, many gaps are still important scribed in more detail below. locations of roads and highways. For this report, landforms are listed alphabetically Dismal Swamp (see Chesapeake, City of) by county or city. Features along county lines are de- The Dismal Swamp, located in southeastern Virginia, scribed in only one county with references in other ap- is about 10 to 11 miles wide and 15 miles long, and propriate counties. -
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. -
Appendix – Priority Brook Trout Subwatersheds Within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Appendix – Priority Brook Trout Subwatersheds within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Appendix Table I. Subwatersheds within the Chesapeake Bay watershed that have a priority score ≥ 0.79. HUC 12 Priority HUC 12 Code HUC 12 Name Score Classification 020501060202 Millstone Creek-Schrader Creek 0.86 Intact 020501061302 Upper Bowman Creek 0.87 Intact 020501070401 Little Nescopeck Creek-Nescopeck Creek 0.83 Intact 020501070501 Headwaters Huntington Creek 0.97 Intact 020501070502 Kitchen Creek 0.92 Intact 020501070701 East Branch Fishing Creek 0.86 Intact 020501070702 West Branch Fishing Creek 0.98 Intact 020502010504 Cold Stream 0.89 Intact 020502010505 Sixmile Run 0.94 Reduced 020502010602 Gifford Run-Mosquito Creek 0.88 Reduced 020502010702 Trout Run 0.88 Intact 020502010704 Deer Creek 0.87 Reduced 020502010710 Sterling Run 0.91 Reduced 020502010711 Birch Island Run 1.24 Intact 020502010712 Lower Three Runs-West Branch Susquehanna River 0.99 Intact 020502020102 Sinnemahoning Portage Creek-Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.03 Intact 020502020203 North Creek 1.06 Reduced 020502020204 West Creek 1.19 Intact 020502020205 Hunts Run 0.99 Intact 020502020206 Sterling Run 1.15 Reduced 020502020301 Upper Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.07 Intact 020502020302 Kersey Run 0.84 Intact 020502020303 Laurel Run 0.93 Reduced 020502020306 Spring Run 1.13 Intact 020502020310 Hicks Run 0.94 Reduced 020502020311 Mix Run 1.19 Intact 020502020312 Lower Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.13 Intact 020502020403 Upper First Fork Sinnemahoning Creek 0.96 -
The Walker May/June 2010 Volume 18, Issue 3
The Walker May/June 2010 www.odatc.net Volume 18, Issue 3 Konnarock The May Meeting July 22-July 26 & July 29-August 2 May 18, 2010 at Trinity Lutheran Church, 2315 N. Parham Rd., Richmond, VA 23229 Every year ATC recruits trail crews to work from late spring to fall on various trail programs. The Konnarock Come join us for our annual Pot Luck Dinner at our new Crew works from May to mid-August and will be work- venue. As a member you are asked to provide a salad and/ ing with ODATC on the dates above. We will work or a side-dish to serve 6-8 people. The club will provide with rocks, dirt, tree roots, yellow jackets, hot weather, the meat, dinnerware, drinks, and dessert. Dinner will rain, and lots of great folks and have fun working on the begin at 6:30 pm after the blessing by Hank Harmon. We trail! You might be trimming, cutting, raking, digging, will show slides of past maintenance and Konnarock work collecting, crushing, stacking, etc. You don’t need ex- trips, trail hiking trips from across the U.S. and interna- perience to volunteer, but a great sense of humor is tionally. Look for these activities at the meeting: helpful. If you plan to participate, free camping is avail- Members can “sock it to the boot” by donating a dollar able at Sherando Lake (you can take a swim after a long to offset the cost of the chicken. hot day.) You can work as many days as you like. -
2019 Stream Health Report
Photo by Ashley Twiggs Photo by Ashley Rivanna River Watershed 2019 Stream Health Report River Stewards Report Biological Monitoring Results Bacteria Monitoring Results 2018 was a year of highs for the Rivanna River watershed and The high water levels also hindered our collection of benthic RCA’s Monitoring Program. Some were good highs. We samples, pushing the monitoring season later in the year. moved into a new office on River Road with a much-improved However, with a lot of perseverance and many layers of lab space. We successfully completed our first full year of clothing, we got through the last benthic sample on a cold, Level III bacteria sampling. We also welcomed a wonderful snowy day at Moores Creek and wrapped up the year. Inside new Benthic Monitoring Manager, Rachel Pence. Others were you will find the results from our monitoring efforts. We wish more challenging highs. With historic precipitation levels and to thank all the dedicated volunteers who worked hard in associated stormwater runoff and flooding, bacteria levels challenging conditions to collect these important data. We were up from previous years and the percentage of benthic couldn’t do it without them. sites failing to meet water quality standards increased. Yours in water quality, Julia Ela and Lisa Wittenborn, RCA Co-Directors Water Quality Monitoring Long-term and comprehensive stream monitoring is a In recent years, RCA’s data have been instrumental in crucial component of successful stewardship of the supporting the development of Total Maximum Daily Load watershed. RCA is a regional leader in collecting the (TMDL) cleanup plans for Cunningham Creek in Fluvanna highest quality data possible on stream and river County and for the North Fork of the Rivanna River. -
Piedmont-View-Newsletter-Summer
The Piedmont View A MEMBERSHIP NEWSLETTER OF THE PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL SUMMER 2021 Story Map Brings History to Light By Cindy Sabato A Community PAGE 2 Forest Grows n 1860, free and enslaved African Americans made up half of Fauquier County’s entire population. Black communities Ilike Morgantown, two miles south of Marshall and where Afro- American Historical Association of Fauquier County President Karen Hughes White and Board Member Angela Davidson were raised, grew out of emancipation. They held powerful meaning as community centers where New Guides PAGE 3 Released & PAGE 6 7 Signs of a Scenic River n western Albemarle County, the cold, intensive, two-year, grassroots pristine waters of the Moormans River effort that culminated in 1988 spill over a towering Sugar Hollow with Virginia Scenic River designa- I Dam and wind eastward for 14.3 miles. tion for the Moormans, a nod to Flowing gently at first through historic its superior natural and scenic Sugar Hollow and White Hall, it gathers beauty, fish and wildlife—includ- strength and speed from Doyles River, Wards ing the endangered James Creek, and other streams before joining the spinymussel—and historic, rec- Mechum River at Brinnington to form the reational, geologic, and cultural Rivanna River. Eventually, the Moormans’ features. A ceremonial ribbon waters reach the James River and the Chesa- cutting by then-supervisor Char- peake Bay. lotte Humphris and a parade Albemarle Supervisor Ann Mallek pulls the cover off “The Moormans has always been a very that included horses, dogs and a the new Moormans Scenic River sign at the Millington special river. -
Rivanna River Watershed 2012-2014 Stream Health Report
Rivanna River Watershed 2012-2014 Stream Health Report 6% 10% e live in a modern age when things The health of our streams is deter- progress quickly and we see mined using benthic macroinvertebrate Wresults immediately. It is easy to forget sampling (see page 2 for explanation). 26% how slow nature can be in response to Streams are rated from “very poor” to improving or declining ecological “very good” based on results from conditions. Just as it can take up to a multiple samples. Streams rated as “fair” 58% decade for the health of a forest to or worse fail the Virginia water quality rebound after a fire, the health of a standard for aquatic life. All data collect- stream can take years to respond to ed by StreamWatch meets the highest development occuring in a watershed. standards of the Virginia Department of When we monitor local water quality Environmental Quality. for an extended period of time, we have Our findings indicate that stream the opportunity to observe subtle chang- health has not substantially changed over Stream Health es. By watching our local streams cafeful- time, as results are similar to those of ly, we will know when and where water years past. From 2012 to 2014, 64 Very Good (5 of 50) quality is improving or declining. percent of monitored sites failed to meet StreamWatch has been monitoring the Virginia standard for aquatic life and stream and river health within the only 36 percent met the standard. The Good (13 of 50) Rivanna River watershed since 2003. main stem of the Rivanna is faring a bit While the Rivanna watershed is in our better than the watershed as a whole. -
2020 Stream Health Report
Photo by Doug RogersDoug by Photo Our Mission Working with the community to conserve the Rivanna River and its tributaries through monitoring, restoration, education, and advocacy. Our Vision We envision a healthy Rivanna River and watershed that benefit an engaged community. 2019 was a successful year for RCA’s Water Quality Monitoring Program. Despite a wet spring and dry fall, we collected samples at all 50 of our long-term biological sites and processed and reported the results of 276 E.coli bacteria samples. We involved 120 volunteers, who graciously contributed 987 hours to our efforts. Our River Stewards also contributed important observational data to the program and we engaged over 900 students from diverse backgrounds in educational monitoring activities. Tracking the long-term “The Rivanna Conservation Alliance was a critical condition of our waterways partner in the development of the North Fork is the foundation of our Rivanna benthic TMDL … RCA staff also played a monitoring work, but it is key role in outreach to engage the local community in benthic data for 19 of the 32 monitoring only one of this program’s the development of the TMDL study …” sites considered in the study. Having such many important a robust dataset helped the group - Nesha McRae, VADEQ Regional TMDL Coordinator contributions. RCA’s develop a more thorough cleanup plan monitoring program also with a strong chance of success. helps improve the health of our waterways and our community. In our watershed, RCA’s monitoring data help The reach of RCA’s monitoring program also extends identify, track, and solve acute water quality problems, like a beyond the Rivanna watershed. -
Rivanna Forests to Faucets (F2F) Initiative Payments for Watershed Services and the Optimum Infrastructure Expenditure (OIE) Version I System
Rivanna Forests to Faucets (F2F) Initiative Payments for Watershed Services and the Optimum Infrastructure Expenditure (OIE) Version I System Interim Program Report By: Funded by: October 18, 2012 I. Abstract A 3-year payment for watershed services initiative is being tested in the Rivanna River Basin of Virginia. Protocols to compensate landowners for tree planting, forest stewardship management plans, harvest site stabilization, enhanced conservation easement, forest establishment, riparian buffer tax credit match, and fencing from livestock have been developed. Actual payments totaling approximately $200,000 have been provided to date. A prototype Optimum Infrastructure Expenditure (OIE) Version I System was created to provide a financial linkage between urban water consumers and rural landowners. The system is designed for water supply utility and local government watershed managers to optimize annual expenditures for afforestation, forest conservation easements, and dredging. A system metric, the Watershed Reservoir Wellness Index (WRWI) was created to provide an optimization goal. Use of the system on the South Fork Rivanna River Watershed Reservoir, Virginia reveals four findings. Afforestation has similar impact on reservoir lifetime as does dredging for approximately the same expenditures during a 30 year planning horizon. The lifetime cost effectiveness of afforestation as compared to dredging ranges from approximately the same to significantly greater, due to sediment load reduction that continues beyond the planning horizon, depending upon the likelihood of afforestation reversion. Forest conservation easements have a high lifetime cost effectiveness to mitigate future increases in sediment loading, when future forestland conversion is certain. A combination of expenditures for afforestation, easements, and dredging maximizes reservoir lifetime and WRWI at least infrastructure lifetime cost. -
Prepared in Cooperation With
SENSITIVITY OF STREAM BASINS IN SHENANDOAH NATIONAL PARK TO ACID DEPOSITION By Dennis D. Lynch and Nancy B. Dise U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 85-4115 Prepared in cooperation with UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Richmond, Virginia 1985 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be Chief, Virginia Office purchased from: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Services Section 3600 West Broad Street, Room 606 Western Distribution Branch Richmond, Virginia 23230 U.S. Geological Survey Box 25425, Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 (Telephone: (303) 236-7476) CONTENTS Page Abstract .................................. 1 Introduction ................................ 2 Background ............................... 2 Purpose and scope ........................... 3 Acknowledgments ............................ 3 Location and description of study area ................... 3 Geology ................................ 5 Soils ................................. 7 Precipitation ............................. 9 Methods of study .............................. 10 Selection of sampling sites ...................... 10 Description of basin characteristics .................. 12 Sample collection and analytical techniques .............. 12 Data reduction and statistical techniques ............... 14 Indices of sensitivity to acid deposition ................. 25 Factors affecting sensitivity