DOCSLIB.ORG

NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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 ............................................................................................................................................... 3 THE NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATA .............................................................................. 3 RELATIONAL DATABASE CONCEPTS ............................................................................................. 4 RELATIONAL DATABASE STRUCTURE ........................................................................................... 4 NON-TIDAL BENTHIC DATABASE STRUCTURE .......................................................................................... 7 PRIMARY DATA TABLES ................................................................................................................... 7 TAB_EVENT ........................................................................................................................... 7 TAB_HABITAT_ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................. 8 TAB_IBI_METRICS ................................................................................................................. 9 TAB_STATIONS ................................................................................................................... 10 TAB_RAREFACTION_COUNTS .......................................................................................... 11 TAB_TAXONOMIC_COUNT................................................................................................. 12 TAB_TAXONOMIC_QUATIFICATION ................................................................................. 13 TAB_WQ_DATA ................................................................................................................... 14 TAB_WAREHOUSE .............................................................................................................. 15 PRINCIPAL LOOK-UP TABLES ........................................................................................................ 16 TAB_AGENCY ...................................................................................................................... 16 TAB_CBP_MSTR .................................................................................................................. 17 TAB_CONVERT_TAXA ........................................................................................................ 18 TAB_ECO_REGIONS ........................................................................................................... 19 TAB_EVENT_TYPE .............................................................................................................. 18 TAB_FAMILY ........................................................................................................................ 19 TAB_FIPS ............................................................................................................................. 20 TAB_G_METHOD ................................................................................................................. 22 TAB_HABITAT_PARAMETERS ........................................................................................... 24 TAB_HABITAT_TYPE ........................................................................................................... 25 TAB_HUCS_12 ..................................................................................................................... 26 TAB_IBI_PARAMETER ........................................................................................................ 48 TAB_KARST ......................................................................................................................... 50 TAB_LABATORY .................................................................................................................. 51 TAB_LIFE_STAGE ............................................................................................................... 52 TAB_LL_DATUMS ................................................................................................................ 54 TAB_IBI_METHOD ............................................................................................................... 55 TAB_WQ_METHOD ............................................................................................................. 55 TAB_METHODS_BIO ........................................................................................................... 58 TAB_METHODS_HAB .......................................................................................................... 59 TAB_PARAMETER_WQ ....................................................................................................... 59 TAB_PROBLEM_CODE ....................................................................................................... 61 TAB_PROGRAM ................................................................................................................... 63 TAB_PROJECT .................................................................................................................... 64 TAB_QUALIFIERS ................................................................................................................ 66 TAB_REPORTING_PREVELANCE ..................................................................................... 67 TAB_ SAMPLE_ REPLICATE_TYPES ................................................................................. 68 TAB_SAMPLE_TYPES ......................................................................................................... 69 1 The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.5 TAB_SITE_TYPE .................................................................................................................. 69 TAB_UNITS .......................................................................................................................... 69 STORED INDICATOR SCRIPTS AND TEMPORARY DATA TABLES ............................................. 71 APPENDIX A. DATABASE ENTITY RELATIONSHIP DIAGRAM ................................................................. 72 APPENDIX B. THE MAINMODULEINDICATOR STORED PROCEDURE .................................................. 74 APPENDIX C. THE RARIFIEDMETRICS STORED PROCEDURE ............................................................. 99 2 The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.5 BACKGROUND In 1996, the Chesapeake Executive Counsel adopted the "Strategy for Increasing Basin-wide Public Access to Chesapeake Bay Information". This strategy calls for the Chesapeake Bay Program partners to develop the Chesapeake Bay Information Management System (CIMS). CIMS will electronically link a variety of information sources about the Bay and rivers and make this information available to anyone—from students, to scientists, to citizens groups—electronically through the Internet and World Wide Web. The information targeted by CIMS includes technical and public information, educational material, environmental indicators, policy documents and scientific data. As a result of the CIMS initiative, the Bay Program is working to establish a system of distributed databases. In the ideal system, a CBP database would be created and managed by the data originator, reside with the data originator, and made directly available from the data originator’s institution on an Internet server. This system has several advantages over the traditional single data repository. Primarily, the people with the most expertise and knowledge about the data, the originators, will manage the data. Additional advantages include reduced cost due to elimination of intermediate data handling at a central repository, and decreased time between collection and release of the data. The key to the success of a distributed data management system lies in the willingness of the data generators to take responsibility for the quality and maintenance for their data as well as and in their adherence to the established data
Recommended publications
  • Class a Wild Trout Streams

    Class a Wild Trout Streams

    CLASS A WILD TROUT STREAMS STATEWIDE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REVIEW STREAM REDESIGNATION EVALUATION Drainage Lists: A, C, D, E, F, H, I, K, L, N, O, P, Q, T WATER QUALITY MONITORING SECTION (MAB) DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS BUREAU OF POINT AND NON-POINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION December 2014 INTRODUCTION The Department of Environmental Protection (Department) is required by regulation, 25 Pa. Code section 93.4b(a)(2)(ii), to consider streams for High Quality (HQ) designation when the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) submits information that a stream is a Class A Wild Trout stream based on wild trout biomass. The PFBC surveys for trout biomass using their established protocols (Weber, Green, Miko) and compares the results to the Class A Wild Trout Stream criteria listed in Table 1. The PFBC applies the Class A classification following public notice, review of comments, and approval by their Commissioners. The PFBC then submits the reports to the Department where staff conducts an independent review of the trout biomass data in the fisheries management reports for each stream. All fisheries management reports that support PFBCs final determinations included in this package were reviewed and the streams were found to qualify as HQ streams under 93.4b(a)(2)(ii). There are 50 entries representing 207 stream miles included in the recommendations table. The Department generally followed the PFBC requested stream reach delineations. Adjustments to reaches were made in some instances based on land use, confluence of tributaries, or considerations based on electronic mapping limitations. PUBLIC RESPONSE AND PARTICIPATION SUMMARY The procedure by which the PFBC designates stream segments as Class A requires a public notice process where proposed Class A sections are published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin first as proposed and secondly as final, after a review of comments received during the public comment period and approval by the PFBC Commissioners.

  • Frederick County

    FREDERICK COUNTY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION -- Frederick County -- Line 1 INTERSTATE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM PROJECT: I-70, Baltimore National Pike DESCRIPTION: Widen I-70 east of MD 355 to east of MD 144 (1.57 miles), replace the I-70 bridge over Reich's Ford Road. The existing ramps to Monocacy Boulevard and Reich's Ford Road are reconstructed (Phase 2D). PURPOSE & NEED SUMMARY STATEMENT: Signed as I-70, this section was constructed as US 40 Relocated and does not meet current Interstate highway standards. Existing interchanges have short acceleration and deceleration lanes, very sharp curves, short merging and weaving sections and missing movements. Improvements include widening of the four lane section and reconstruction of the interchanges. This project will enhance access to the City of Frederick and improve Interstate travel. SMART GROWTH STATUS: Project Not Location Specific Not Subject to PFA Law X Project Inside PFA Grandfathered Project Outside PFA Exception Will Be Required PFA Status Yet To Be Determined Exception Granted ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS: STATE GOALS : Maryland Transportation Plan (MTP) Goals/Selection Criteria: I-70, Mt. Phillip Road to MD 144FA (Line 6) X Safety & Security Environmental Stewardship X System Preservation Community Vitality X Quality of Service Economic Prosperity EXPLANATION: By improving the geometry of the existing interchange ramps between I-70 and Construction underway. Monocacy Boulevard and Reich's Ford Road, this project will improve operations along I-70 through STATUS: Frederick and reduce collision and injury rates. SIGNIFICANT CHANGE FROM FY 2013 - 18 CTP: None. POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE: X SPECIAL X FEDERAL GENERAL OTHER CLASSIFICATION: STATE - Principal Arterial TOTAL PROJECT CASH FLOW PHASE ESTIMATED EXPEND CURRENT BUDGET SIX BALANCE FEDERAL - Interstate COST THRU YEAR YEAR FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY YEAR TO STATE SYSTEM : Primary ($000) 2013 2014 2015 ....2016...
  • Title 26 Department of the Environment, Subtitle 08 Water

    Title 26 Department of the Environment, Subtitle 08 Water

    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION Chapters 01-10 2 26.08.01.00 Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION Chapter 01 General Authority: Environment Article, §§9-313—9-316, 9-319, 9-320, 9-325, 9-327, and 9-328, Annotated Code of Maryland 3 26.08.01.01 .01 Definitions. A. General. (1) The following definitions describe the meaning of terms used in the water quality and water pollution control regulations of the Department of the Environment (COMAR 26.08.01—26.08.04). (2) The terms "discharge", "discharge permit", "disposal system", "effluent limitation", "industrial user", "national pollutant discharge elimination system", "person", "pollutant", "pollution", "publicly owned treatment works", and "waters of this State" are defined in the Environment Article, §§1-101, 9-101, and 9-301, Annotated Code of Maryland. The definitions for these terms are provided below as a convenience, but persons affected by the Department's water quality and water pollution control regulations should be aware that these definitions are subject to amendment by the General Assembly. B. Terms Defined. (1) "Acute toxicity" means the capacity or potential of a substance to cause the onset of deleterious effects in living organisms over a short-term exposure as determined by the Department.
  • New Design Water Treatment Plant /'7I.E.C

    New Design Water Treatment Plant /'7I.E.C

    Final Report Potomac River Source Water ~s.ejgitllm~tsjjK.,..~IW1I~ for Marylan . Prepared by: Becker and O'Melia, LLC in association with Straughan Environmental Services, Inc. Becker and O'Melia, LLC WATER PROCESS RESEARCHERS AND CONSULTANTS POTOMAC SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENTS Introduction The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments required states to develop and implement source water assessment prograIlli to evaluate the safety of all public drinking water systems. A Source Water Assessment (SWA) is a process for evaluating the vulnerability to contamination ofthe source of a public drinking water supply. The assessment does not address the treatment processes, or the storage and distribution aspects of the water system, which are covered under separate provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) is the lead state agency in this source water assessment effort. There are three main steps in the assessment process: (1) delineating the watershed drainage area that is likely to contribute to the drinking water supply, (2) identijYing potential contaminants within that area and (3) assessing the vulnerability, or susceptibility, of the system to those contaminants. Public notification is the final component of the source water assessment report process. The goal of the source water assessment program is to provide a framework for local stakeholders and governments in developing a Source Water Protection Plan. The source water assessments for Maryland water systems utilizing the Potomac River was undertaken as a joint effort by MDE, the Washington Suburban Sanitary Conunission (WSSC), and several consultants, including The Center for Watershep Ptotection, and Becker & O'Melia, the lead consultant.
  • Pennsylvania Nonpoint Source Program Fy2003 Project Summary

    Pennsylvania Nonpoint Source Program Fy2003 Project Summary

    Rev.1/30/03 PENNSYLVANIA NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM FY2003 PROJECT SUMMARY Base Program/District Staff Project Title: Conservation District Mining Program Project Number: 2301 Budget: $ 125,000 Lead Agency: Western Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation (WPCAMR) Location: Western Pennsylvania bituminous coal region Point of Contact: Garry Price, BWM or Bruce Golden, Regional Coordinator, Western Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation The purpose of the WPCAMR is to promote and facilitate the reclamation and remediation of abandoned mine drainage (AMD) in western Pennsylvania. Through this project the Regional Coordinator will continue to develop an education program, coordinate AMD remediation activities, generate local support for remediation efforts, and assist watershed associations and conservation districts in the development of watershed management plans and in securing funding for AMD remediation. The Watershed Coordinator will continue to assist with the development and implementation of funded projects. Project Title: Conservation District Mining Program Project Number: 2302 Budget: $ 118,000 Lead Agency: Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation (EPCAMR) Location: Anthracite and northern bituminous regions of Pennsylvania Point of Contact: Garry Price, BWM or Robert Hughes, Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation EPCAMR was formed to promote and facilitate the reclamation and remediation of land and water adversely affected by past coal mining practices in eastern Pennsylvania. EPCAMR is a complimentary organization to the Western Pennsylvania Coalition. The EPCAMR Regional Coordinator will continue efforts to organize watershed associations, develop an education program, coordinate AMD remediation activities, generate local support for remediation efforts, and assist watershed associations and conservation districts in the development of watershed management plans and in securing funding for AMD remediation.
  • Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Section 106 Annual Report - 2019

    Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Section 106 Annual Report - 2019

    Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Section 106 Annual Report - 2019 Prepared by: Cultural Resources Unit, Environmental Policy and Development Section, Bureau of Project Delivery, Highway Delivery Division, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Date: April 07, 2020 For the: Federal Highway Administration, Pennsylvania Division Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Officer Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Penn Street Bridge after rehabilitation, Reading, Pennsylvania Table of Contents A. Staffing Changes ................................................................................................... 7 B. Consultant Support ................................................................................................ 7 Appendix A: Exempted Projects List Appendix B: 106 Project Findings List Section 106 PA Annual Report for 2018 i Introduction The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) has been delegated certain responsibilities for ensuring compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) on federally funded highway projects. This delegation authority comes from a signed Programmatic Agreement [signed in 2010 and amended in 2017] between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and PennDOT. Stipulation X.D of the amended Programmatic Agreement (PA) requires PennDOT to prepare an annual report on activities carried out under the PA and provide it to
  • Program Overview

    Program Overview

    WWeett WWaaddeerrss aanndd BBeeyyoonndd TThhee CCoonnddiittiioonn ooff OOuurr SSttaattee’’ss WWaatteerrss AA CCiittiizzeenn’’ss PPeerrssppeeccttiivvee 1 WV Department of Environmental Protection Division of Water and Waste Management, Nonpoint Section 601 57th Street, SE Charleston, WV 25304 The document was prepared by Tim Craddock, WV DEP’s Citizens’ Monitoring Coordinator and is available electronically in Portable Document Format (PDF). To request your copy send e-mail to Tim Craddock at: [email protected]. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Color photographs provided by: Alana Hartman, DEP’s Potomac Basin Coordinator; Abby Chappel, WV River Network; Sherry Evasic, Blue Heron Environmental Network; Neil Gillies, Cacapon Institute; Suzanne Hubbard, The Mountain Institute; Renee Cain, Lower West Fork Watershed Association; Martin Christ, Friends of Deckers Creek; Bobby Bonnett, Heizer-Manila Watershed Organization; Diana Green, Davis Creek Watershed Association; James Grey, Morris Creek Watershed Association; Larry Orr, Kanawha Valley Chapter of Trout Unlimited; Valerie Wilson, Science Teacher, Oak Hill Catholic Center; Brad Durst, WV Conservation Agency and Curtis Canada, Upper Guyandotte Watershed Association. WV Save Our Streams would like to recognize all the volunteer monitors, not only those directly associated with the program, but any others who have given their time and energy in an effort to protect our state’s streams and rivers. WV Save Our Streams would also like to recognize all of the agency and other partners who have provided assistance of any kind, to help guide volunteers through the myriad of processes involved with water quality issues. “Perception is not acquired by formal education, nor is it reserved for persons learned in the arts or sciences.
  • Shoreline Situation Report Stafford County, Virginia

    Shoreline Situation Report Stafford County, Virginia

    W&M ScholarWorks Reports 1975 Shoreline Situation Report Stafford County, Virginia Carl H. Hobbs III Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gary F. Anderson Virginia Institute of Marine Science Dennis W. Owen Virginia Institute of Marine Science Peter Rosen Virginia Institute of Marine Science Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports Part of the Environmental Monitoring Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Recommended Citation Hobbs, C. H., Anderson, G. F., Owen, D. W., & Rosen, P. (1975) Shoreline Situation Report Stafford County, Virginia. Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 79. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary. https://doi.org/10.21220/V5PB01 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Shoreline Situation Report ST AFFORD COUNTY, VIRGINIA Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 79 Chesapeake Research Consortium Report Number 13 Supported by the National Science Foundation, Research Applied to National Needs Program NSF Grant Nos. GI 34869 and GI 38973 to the Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc. Published With Funds Provided to the Commonwealth by the Office of Coastal Zone Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Grant No. 04-5-158-50001 VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 1975 Shoreline Situation Report ST AFFORD COUNTY, VIRGINIA Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 79 Chesapeake Research Consortium Report Number 13 Prepared by: Carl H.
  • Town of Otsego Comprehensive Plan Appendices

    Town of Otsego Comprehensive Plan Appendices

    Town of Otsego Comprehensive Plan Appendices Draft (V6) March 2007 Town of Otsego Comprehensive Plan – Draft March 2007 Table of Contents Appendix A Consultants Recommendations to Implement Plan A1 Appendix B 2006 Update: Public Input B1 Appendix C 2006 Update: Profile and Inventory of Town Resources C1 Appendix D Zoning Build-out Analysis D1 Appendix E Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats Analysis E1 Appendix F 1987 Master Plan F1 Appendix G Ancillary Maps G1 See separate document for Comprehensive Plan: Section 1 Introduction Section 2 Summary of Current Conditions and Issues Section 3 Vision Statement Section 4 Goals Section 5 Strategies to Implement Goals Section 6 Mapped Resources Appendix A Consultants Recommendations to Implement Plan APPENDIX A-1 Town of Otsego Comprehensive Plan – Draft March 2007 Appendix A. Consultants Recommendations to Implement Plan This section includes strategies, actions, policy changes, programs and planning recommendations presented by the consultants (included in the plan as reference materials) that could be undertaken by the Town of Otsego to meet the goals as established in this Plan. They are organized by type of action. Recommended Strategies Regulatory and Project Review Initiatives 1. Utilize the Final GEIS on the Capacities of the Cooperstown Region in decision making in the Town of Otsego. This document analyzes and identifies potential environmental impacts to geology, aquifers, wellhead protection areas, surface water, Otsego Lake and Watershed, ambient light conditions, historic resources, visual resources, wildlife, agriculture, on-site wastewater treatment, transportation, emergency services, demographics, economic conditions, affordable housing, and tourism. This document will offer the Planning Board and other Town agencies, background information, analysis, and mitigation to be used to minimize environmental impacts of future development.
  • 2021 State Transportation 12-YEAR PROGRAM Commission AUGUST 2020

    2021 State Transportation 12-YEAR PROGRAM Commission AUGUST 2020

    2021 State Transportation 12-YEAR PROGRAM Commission AUGUST 2020 Tom Wolf Governor Yassmin Gramian, P.E. Secretary, PA Department of Transportation Chairperson, State Transportation Commission Larry S. Shifflet Deputy Secretary for Planning State Transportation Commission 2021 12-Year Program ABOUT THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION The Pennsylvania State Transportation Commission (STC) serves as the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s (PennDOT) board of directors. The 15 member board evaluates the condition and performance of Pennsylvania’s transportation system and assesses the resources required to maintain, improve, and expand transportation facilities and services. State Law requires PennDOT to update Pennsylvania’s 12-Year Transportation Program (TYP) every two years for submission to the STC for adoption. PAGE i www.TalkPATransportation.com TABLE OF CONTENTS ABOUT THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION....i THE 12-YEAR PROGRAM PROCESS............................................................9 Planning and Prioritizing Projects.....................................................9 TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................ii Transportation Program Review and Approval...............................10 From Planning to Projects...............................................................11 50TH ANNIVERSARY........................................................................................1 TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE.............................................13
  • Jjjn'iwi'li Jmliipii Ill ^ANGLER

    Jjjn'iwi'li Jmliipii Ill ^ANGLER

    JJJn'IWi'li jMlIipii ill ^ANGLER/ Ran a Looks A Bulltrog SEPTEMBER 1936 7 OFFICIAL STATE September, 1936 PUBLICATION ^ANGLER Vol.5 No. 9 C'^IP-^ '" . : - ==«rs> PUBLISHED MONTHLY COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA by the BOARD OF FISH COMMISSIONERS PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF FISH COMMISSIONERS HI Five cents a copy — 50 cents a year OLIVER M. DEIBLER Commissioner of Fisheries C. R. BULLER 1 1 f Chief Fish Culturist, Bellefonte ALEX P. SWEIGART, Editor 111 South Office Bldg., Harrisburg, Pa. MEMBERS OF BOARD OLIVER M. DEIBLER, Chairman Greensburg iii MILTON L. PEEK Devon NOTE CHARLES A. FRENCH Subscriptions to the PENNSYLVANIA ANGLER Elwood City should be addressed to the Editor. Submit fee either HARRY E. WEBER by check or money order payable to the Common­ Philipsburg wealth of Pennsylvania. Stamps not acceptable. SAMUEL J. TRUSCOTT Individuals sending cash do so at their own risk. Dalton DAN R. SCHNABEL 111 Johnstown EDGAR W. NICHOLSON PENNSYLVANIA ANGLER welcomes contribu­ Philadelphia tions and photos of catches from its readers. Pro­ KENNETH A. REID per credit will be given to contributors. Connellsville All contributors returned if accompanied by first H. R. STACKHOUSE class postage. Secretary to Board =*KT> IMPORTANT—The Editor should be notified immediately of change in subscriber's address Please give both old and new addresses Permission to reprint will be granted provided proper credit notice is given Vol. 5 No. 9 SEPTEMBER, 1936 *ANGLER7 WHAT IS BEING DONE ABOUT STREAM POLLUTION By GROVER C. LADNER Deputy Attorney General and President, Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen PORTSMEN need not be told that stream pollution is a long uphill fight.
  • Forest Regeneration Following Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus Planipennis Fairemaire) Enhances Mesophication in Eastern Hardwood Forests

    Forest Regeneration Following Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus Planipennis Fairemaire) Enhances Mesophication in Eastern Hardwood Forests

    Article Forest Regeneration Following Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus planipennis Fairemaire) Enhances Mesophication in Eastern Hardwood Forests Benjamin Dolan 1,* ID and Jason Kilgore 2 ID 1 Department of Biology, University of Findlay, 1000 North Main Street, Findlay, OH 45840 USA 2 Biology Department, Washington & Jefferson College, 60 South Lincoln Street, Washington, PA 15301 USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: dolan@findlay.edu; Tel.: +1-419-434-5530 Received: 9 March 2018; Accepted: 10 May 2018; Published: 14 June 2018 Abstract: Emerald ash borer (EAB, Agrilus planipennis Fairemaire) is a phloem-feeding beetle that was introduced into North America in the late 20th century and is causing widespread mortality of native ash (Fraxinus) species. The loss of an entire genus from the forest flora is a substantial disturbance, but effects vary because of differences in Fraxinus dominance and remaining vegetation. At three sites near the center of the North American EAB range, we investigated the impacts of Fraxinus mortality on recruitment of woody and non-native vegetation in 14 permanent plots from 2012 to 2017. We used the change in relative Fraxinus basal area to determine the impact of EAB on density of woody species and non-native vegetation less than 2.5 cm diameter at breast height (dbh). Changes in canopy cover were not correlated with loss of Fraxinus from the overstory, and only the density of shade-tolerant shrubs and saplings increased with Fraxinus mortality. Both native and non-native shrub species increased in density at sites where they were present before EAB, but no new invasions were detected following Fraxinus mortality.