DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation of Metals in Fish from Virginia Watersheds in 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluation of Metals in Fish from Virginia Watersheds in 2017 Evaluation of Metals in Fish from Virginia Watersheds in 2017 Chowan and James Rivers, Lake Anna, Lake Gordonsville, Motts Run Reservoir, and Potomac River Embayments VIRGINIA Letter Health Consultation May 10, 2019 Virginia Department of Health Division of Environmental Epidemiology 109 Governor Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 1 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Department of Health – Office of Epidemiology M. Norman Oliver, MD, MA PO BOX 2448 TTY 7-1-1 OR STATE HEALTH COMMISSIONER RICHMOND, VA 1-800-828-1120 May 10, 2019 Gabriel Darkwah Lab Data Coordinator Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 1111 E. Main Street Suite 1400 Richmond, VA 23219 Dear Mr. Darkwah, Thank you for providing metals fish tissue concentrations results for fish collected from Chowan and James Rivers, Lake Anna, Lake Gordonsville, Motts Run Reservoir, and Potomac River Embayments in 2017. The Virginia Department of Health (VDH) has finished reviewing the results for public health implications as requested. BACKGROUND AND RESULTS In October 2000, pursuant to § 32.1-248.01 of the Code of Virginia, VDH published guidelines for issuance of fish consumption advisories due to contamination of fish, including metals. In 2012, VDH updated the guidelines for establishing a fish consumption advisory. These 1 guidelines are available at Virginia Regulatory Town Hall. The current fish consumption guidelines for mercury are as follows: • Average fish tissue concentrations ranging from non-detectable to below 0.5 ppm will not warrant issuance of a fish-eating advisory. • When the average concentrations in fish range from 0.5 to below 1.0 ppm, VDH recommends limiting consumption of contaminated fish to two, 8-oz. meals per month. • When the average concentrations in fish range from 1.0 ppm to below 2.0 ppm, VDH recommends limiting consumption of contaminated fish to one, 8-oz. meal per month. 1 https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title32.1/chapter6/section32.1-248.01/ 2 • When the average concentrations in fish exceed 2.0 ppm, VDH recommends that contaminated fish should not be consumed. In 2017, the VA Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) collected fish from watersheds of the upper portions of the James River, three tributaries of the Chowan River, Lake Anna, two impoundments: Lake Gordonsville and Motts Run Reservoir, and embayments along the Potomac River. A total of 143 fish tissue samples (either individual fillets or composites) were analyzed for 17 different metal analytes including: aluminum (Al), antimony (Sb), arsenic (As), barium (Ba), beryllium (Be), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), manganese (Mn), nickel (Ni), selenium (Se), silver (Ag), thallium (Tl), vanadium (V), zinc (Zn), and mercury (Hg). A summary of the data, including only fish samples that exceeded VDH’s screening value (SV) for inorganic arsenic or VDH’s lower level of concern for mercury, are located in Table 1. The complete mercury and arsenic concentrations reported in fish from the waterways sampled are in Appendix A. Other fish tissue metal concentrations reported are not presented or discussed in this document. VDH’s current advisories for the watersheds included in this sampling data are in Appendix B. The following summarizes the sampling results, organized by river, for sampling locations where the current fish tissue concentrations of mercury reported exceeded 0.5 parts per million (ppm) or VDH’s SV for inorganic arsenic (0.09 mg/kg for cancer effects, 1.59 mg/kg for non- cancer effects).2 Summary of fish with mercury exceeding VDH’s lower level of concern All fish samples collected from Hardware Creek were below VDH’s lower level of concern for mercury except for one American eel (0.66 ppm). There is a polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) consumption advisory for this waterway that includes American eel. One flathead catfish (0.77 ppm) and a composite sample of six largemouth bass (0.70 ppm) from the Maury River exceeded VDH’s lower level of concern for mercury. There is a PCB consumption advisory for this river, however, it does not include flathead catfish or largemouth bass. All of the fish collected from the Meherrin River were below VDH’s lower level of concern for mercury except one largemouth bass (0.57 ppm). There is a mercury consumption advisory for this waterway that includes largemouth bass. Fish samples collected from the Nottoway River that exceeded VDH’s lower level of concern for mercury include two blue catfish (0.60 and 1.09 ppm), a composite sample of four bowfin (1.32 ppm), and a composite sample of five largemouth bass (0.61 ppm). There is a mercury consumption advisory for the Nottoway River that includes largemouth bass and bowfin. Samples collected from Motts Run Reservoir, Lake Gordonsville, Emporia Reservoir, and the 2 Dwight D. Flammia, Rebecca LePrell, Matthew F. Skiljo, Egbe Egiebor. Metal Concentration in Fish Tissue: Implications for Public Health Following Coal Ash Release to Dan River. Presented at the 2014 National Fish Forum on Contaminants in Fish. Alexandria, VA. September 2014. 3 Blackwater River exceeded VDH’s lower level of concern for mercury. These water ways have fish consumption advisories for mercury that include fish species that exceeded VDH’s lower level of concern. Table 1: Fish samples with mercury or arsenic concentrations greater than VDH screening values. Site Waterbody Fish Species # Fish in Length Weight (g) Hg # Sample (cm) (ppm) 5 Hardware Creek American Eel 2 51.2 - 51.5 245 - 259 0.66 7 Maury River Largemouth Bass 6 40.4 - 51.9 1045 - 2268 0.70 9 Maury River Flathead Catfish 1 86.1 7000 0.77 20 Motts Run Reservoir Largemouth Bass 1 32.7 465 0.54 20 Motts Run Reservoir Largemouth Bass 3 30.0 - 31.6 353 - 390 0.57 21 Lake Gordonsville Largemouth Bass 1 33.1 479 0.54 27 Emporia Reservoir Largemouth Bass 1 44.2 1107 0.80 28 Meherrin River Largemouth Bass 1 38.7 715 0.57 29 Nottoway River Bowfin 4 56.1 - 59.5 1602 - 1855 0.90 30 Nottoway River Bowfin 3 45.5 - 60.8 904 - 2168 0.63 30 Nottoway River Largemouth Bass 5 40.7 - 45.5 998 - 1219 1.00 31 Nottoway River Bowfin 3 50.9 - 60.9 1238 - 1896 0.80 31 Nottoway River Chain Pickerel 5 38.7 - 48.8 361 - 965 0.51 31 Nottoway River Golden Redhorse 8 48.2 - 56.4 1215 - 1974 0.65 Sucker 31 Nottoway River Largemouth Bass 4 34.3 - 43.6 563 - 1247 0.74 31 Nottoway River Redear Sunfish 7 26.3 - 31.6 379 - 625 0.50 32 Blackwater River Bowfin 4 51.5 - 55.2 1395 - 2405 0.64 32 Blackwater River Chain Pickerel 2 39.6 - 46.6 395 - 711 0.50 32 Blackwater River Largemouth Bass 4 39.7 - 46.1 855 - 1781 0.89 33 Blackwater River Bowfin 4 55.7 - 62.6 1670 - 2185 0.95 33 Blackwater River Largemouth Bass 5 33.0 - 37.0 484 - 761 0.94 33 Blackwater River Largemouth Bass 2 50.0 - 54.3 1851 - 2701 1.48 33 Blackwater River Redear Sunfish 7 24.1 - 29.3 299 - 523 0.59 34 Blackwater River Bowfin* 3 56.8 - 62.9 1837 - 2153 2.06 34 Blackwater River Chain Pickerel 4 43.4 - 52.6 481 - 823 1.15 34 Blackwater River Largemouth Bass 3 31.4 - 38.5 460 - 864 0.73 34 Blackwater River Redear Sunfish 9 21.6 - 28.1 190 - 478 0.54 35 Blackwater River Bowfin 5 52.3 - 67.5 1418 - 2905 0.90 35 Blackwater River Chain Pickerel 3 37.3 - 44.5 311 - 484 0.63 35 Blackwater River Largemouth Bass 3 34.3 - 43.2 417 - 1314 1.14 35 Blackwater River Redear Sunfish 7 25.3 - 28.4 320 - 506 0.54 36 Nottoway River Blue Catfish* 1 92.0 15300 1.09 36 Nottoway River Blue Catfish* 1 73.7 5646 0.60 36 Nottoway River Bowfin 4 55.0 - 60.9 1613 - 1924 1.32 36 Nottoway River Largemouth Bass 5 33.5 - 40.3 480 - 1120 0.61 *Indicate fish sample that exceeded screening value for inorganic arsenic (inorganic arsenic is 20% of total arsenic reported in Appendix A. See appendix for total arsenic results). ppm = parts per million. cm = centimeters. g = grams. Summary of inorganic arsenic in fish from Chowan River basin Arsenic in fish is predominantly the less toxic organic arsenic. The remaining arsenic is the more toxic inorganic arsenic. Inorganic arsenic may be 5-15% of total arsenic, however, in abundance of caution VDH considers inorganic arsenic to account for 20% of total arsenic reported. VDH 4 calculates the inorganic arsenic in the two blue catfish from the Nottoway River to be 0.11 and 0.098 ppm, or 20% of total arsenic, 0.55 and 0.49 ppm, respectively. This exceeds VDH’s cancer SV for inorganic arsenic (0.09 ppm). The calculated inorganic arsenic (0.12 ppm) in a composite sample of three bowfin fish collected in the Blackwater River exceeded VDH’s cancer SV for inorganic arsenic Assessing the need for changes to the fish consumption advisories When assessing the fish tissue mercury and arsenic concentrations for the waterways sampled, VDH considers the abundance of the fish species in the waterway, their size, and the average concentration of contaminant in at least 12 fish of edible size before issuing a fish consumption advisory. VDH also seeks input from DEQ and the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF). VDH met with DEQ to discuss the mercury and arsenic concentration in fish from these waterway in March 2019. Subsequently, VDH, DEQ, and DGIF discussed concerns and guidance when issuing a fish consumption advisory in April 2019.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A. Conditional Use Permit Matthew W
    SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Regular Session i October 22, 2012 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS Attached for your reference please find information related to three (3) scheduled public hearings. SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Regular Session i October 22, 2012 A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MATTHEW W. CROWDER This public hearing is held pursuant to § 15.2-2204, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended to receive public comment on a request by Matthew W. Crowder, applicant, on behalf of FIATP Timber LLC, owner, for a Conditional Use Permit for the extraction and processing of sand on property known as Tax Parcel 92-23. The land is 424 acres in size and is located approximately 630’ west of Delaware Road (Rt. 687) and approximately 1,500’ south of General Thomas Highway (Rt. 671). The notice of this public hearing was published in the Tidewater News on October 7 and October 14, 2012 and all adjacent property owners were notified in writing by first class mail as required by law. Following its public hearing on September 13, 2012, the Southampton County Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request, subject to twelve conditions offered by the applicant. After conclusion of tonight’s public hearing, the Board of Supervisors will consider the comments offered and may act upon the matter or defer action until such time as it deems appropriate. Mrs. Beth Lewis, our Director of Community Development and Secretary to the Planning Commission will provide introductory remarks after which all interested parties are invited to come forward and express their views. MOTION REQUIRED: If the Board is so inclined, a motion is required to accept the Planning Commission recommendation and issue the conditional use permit.
    [Show full text]
  • Deed VA Brunswick Abs Books Vol 4 1765-1770
    Deed Abstracts, VA, Brunswick, Vol 4 1765 - 1770 BRUNSWICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DEED BOOKS Volume 4 1765 - 1770 Abstracted by Dr. Stephen E. Bradley, Jr. Page 1 of 44 Deed Abstracts, VA, Brunswick, Vol 4 1765 - 1770 4 Deed Book 8 24-(39) WILLIAM PARHAM of Albemarle Parish in Sussex Co to George Booth of said parish. 26 Nov 1763. £400. 389 acres which was a patent to David Williams 31 May 1753, joining Cornelious Cargill, Beaver Pond Creek. Wit: Thomas Vines Jr, Thomas Booth, GEORGE PARHAM. Proved 25 Feb 1765. N. Edwards Jr DCC 25-(41) Thomas Flewelling of Brunswick Co to George Booth of Sussex Co. 15 Feb 1765. £100 VA 170 acres as by deed from Richard Berry to said Thomas Flewelling. Wit: William Averis, Rawleigh Hightower, Thomas Anderson, Mary McTyer. Proved 25 Feb 1765. N. Edwards DCC 26-(42) Kinchen Taylor merchant of Hartford Co NC to Miles Cary & Henry Taylor of Southampton Co. 30 Jul 1764. said Cary & said Henry Taylor did become bound with said Kinchen Taylor to John Woodrop merchant of Nansemond Co to pay £318; thus this transaction to save harmless the said Cary & said Henry Taylor. Thus for 55, the release to said Cary & said Henry Taylor of 1200 acres on Roses Creek which said Kinchen Taylor had purchased from Andrew Troughton & Which had been a patent to the said Troughton. Wit: John Simmons, William Peterson, John Taylor, James Taylor. Proved 25 Mar 1765, N. Edwards Jr DCC 27-(44) Benjamin Harrison of Westover Parish of Charles City Co to William Batte of Marton Brandon Parish in Prince George Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Southside Virginian
    Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from LYRASIS members and Sloan Foundation http://www.archive.org/details/southsidevirgini1198283 THE SOUTHSIDE VIRGINIAN OCTOBER 1982 VOLUME 1, NUMBER 1 Reprinted May, 1991 THE SOUTHSIDE VIRGINIAN Volume 1 October 1?82 Number 1 Contents 1 From the Editors 2 Brunswick County Will Book 2 3 Amelia County Tithable List for 1737 15 Urquhart Family Cemetery, Southampton County 22 Account Book of Estates put into the Hands of the 23 Sheriff's Office, Nansemond County, 18^0- 1845 Register of Births and Deaths of William Browne and 24 Ann his wife of "Cedar Fields", Surry County. Some Importations from Lunenburg County Order Books 25 Wills from Southampton County Loose Papers 26 ^ Removals from Delinquent Tax Lists 30 Greensville County Powers of Attorney 31 Black Creek Baptist Church, Southampton County, ^3 Register of Births Queries 48 Lyndon H. Hart, J. Christian Kolbe, editors Copyright 1982 The subscription price is $15.00 per annum. All subscriptions begin with the October issue of the volume. Issues are not sold separately. Correspondence should be addressed: Box 118, Richmond, Virginia 23201. This is a reprint. For subscription information, contact: The Southside Virginian, P.O. Box 3684, Richmond, VA ' 23235. I FROM THE EDITORS The Southside Virginian is a genealogical quarterly devoted to to research in the counties of Southside Virginia, including the counties of Princess Anne, Norfolk, Nansemond, Isle of Wight, Southampton, Surry, Sussex, Prince George, Chesterfield, Dinwiddle, Powhatan, Greensville, Amelia, Nottoway, Brunswick, Cumberland, Prince Edward, Mecklenburg, Charlotte, Halifax, Henry, Pittsylvania. The purpose of this quarterly is to promote scholarly genealogical research in Southside Virginia by making available to its subscribers transcriptions and abstracts of county, church, and cemetery records.
    [Show full text]
  • 96> ? SOLDIER in the SOUTHWEST: the CAREER of GENERAL AV
    Soldier in the Southwest: the career of General A. V. Kautz, 1869-1886 Item Type text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Wallace, Andrew Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 11/10/2021 12:35:25 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/552260 7?/ /96> ? zyz /, / {LOjO. >2y SOLDIER IN THE SOUTHWEST: THE CAREER OF GENERAL A. V. KAUTZ, 1869-1886 by ANDREW WALLACE Volume I A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In The Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1968 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE I hereby recommend that this dissertation prepared under my direction by Andrew W h-U r c p __________________________________ entitled _________ Soldier in the Southwest:______________ The Career of General A. V. Kautz, 1869-1886 be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy_________________________ Dissertation Director Date After inspection of the final copy of the dissertation, the following members of the Final Examination Committee concur in its approval and recommend its acceptance:* This approval and acceptance is contingent on the candidate's adequate performance and defense of this dissertation at the final oral examination. The inclusion of this sheet bound into the library copy of the dissertation is evidence of satisfactory performance at the final examination.
    [Show full text]
  • Nomination Form
    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin, How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. VLR Listed: 12/12/2019 1. Name of Property NRHP Listed: 3/19/2020 Historic name: Courtland Historic District Other names/site number: VDHR Architectural Inventory Number: 201-5001 Name of related multiple property listing: __N/A____________________________ (Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing ____________________________________________________________________________ 2. Location Street & number: City or town: _Courtland_ State: VA County: Southampton Not For Publication: N/A Vicinity: N/A ____________________________________________________________________________ 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this X nomination ___ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural
    [Show full text]
  • The Sesquicentennial Commemoration
    Issue 23, summer 2014 THE SESQUICENTENNIAL COMMEMORATION In June, July and August of 1864, with less than ten months left in the War, fierce and deadly battles continued. There were a myriad of “smaller” engagements throughout the South as well as the major conflicts at Cold Harbor, Atlanta and the Marietta Operations, Kennesaw Mountain and the slaughter at Petersburg. One bright spot for Confederate Prisoners the South was Forrest’s performance at Brice’s Crossroads but one inspired victory Prisoner exchange had virtually ceased and could not offset the continued critical loss of this further added to the Southern woes. As men and materiel by the Confederacy. we now know the lack of exchange also Sherman had designs on Atlanta and Grant created places like Andersonville. wanted to attack Richmond and the armies of the South were dwindling. It was a time of The summaries of the summer Battles begin crisis but Lee, Johnson, Hood and the others on the next page. fought on. 1 The Summer Battles Grant continued his Overland Campaign and Accepting his loss and abandoning the well- on May 31 the bloody Battle of Cold Harbor defended approaches to Richmond, Grant began. This included the Cavalry engagement sought to shift his army quickly south of the at Trevilian Station and a concluding battle river to threaten Petersburg. known as Saint Mary’s Church. Summaries of these three combats follow. Cold Harbor Location: Hanover County VA Campaign: Grant’s Overland Campaign (May-June 1864) Dates: May 31-June 12, 1864 Principal Commanders: Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and Maj.
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Mussel Assessment in the Upper Nottoway River and Its Tributaries on Fort Pickett, VA
    Freshwater Mussel Assessment in the Upper Nottoway River and its Tributaries on Fort Pickett, VA Atlantic pigtoe, Fort Pickett, VA, July 2014 Prepared by: Caitlin S. Carey, Eric D. Wolf, and Verl R. Emrick The Conservation Management Institute College of Natural Resources and Environment Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 1900 Kraft Dr., Suite 250 Moss Building Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 540-231-7348 September 2014 Freshwater Mussel Assessment in the Upper Nottoway River and its Tributaries on Fort Pickett, VA Prepared for: Virginia Army National Guard and Virginia Department of Military Affairs Facilities Management–Environmental Division Blackstone, Virginia September 2014 Citation: Carey, C.S., E.D. Wolf, and V. Emrick. 2014. Freshwater mussel assessment in the upper Nottoway River and its tributaries on Fort Pickett, Virginia. Report-02-2014. Conservation Management Institute, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg. 41 pp. Page 1 Freshwater Mussel Assessment in the Upper Nottoway River and its Tributaries on Fort Pickett, VA Abstract The upper reaches of the Nottoway River and its tributaries on Fort Pickett, Virginia are located within one of the most diverse river basins of the Atlantic Slope region. Freshwater mussels are vital components of these aquatic ecosystems and are often referred to as ecosystem engineers. Mussel surveys on Fort Pickett have historically concentrated on the central reaches of the Nottoway below the reservoir. Thus, assessments in tributaries and sites above the reservoir were needed. We evaluated a total of 68 sites across Fort Pickett and implemented a two-phase sampling design using time-constrained and quadrat-based surveys at a sub-set of these sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Caddisflies from Greensville County, Virginia (Insecta: Trichoptera)
    17 Banisteria, Number 9, 1997 © 1997 by the Virginia Natural History Society Caddisflies from Greensville County, Virginia (Insecta: Trichoptera) Richard L. Hoffman Virginia Museum of Natural History Martinsville, Virginia. 24112 Charles R. Parker U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division Great Smoky Mountains National Park Gatlinburg, Tennessee 37738 INTRODUCTION During a brief visit to the Dismal Swamp in May 1963, the first author collected nine species of caddisflies Despite several years (1976-1980) of intensive that were attracted to a gasoline lantern. These were sent sampling by the second author and colleagues at for identification to Dr. Herbert H. Ross, whose comment VPI&SU, and a much longer period of more sporadic about them (in litt.) "The remarkable circumstance about collecting by Oliver S. Flint, Jr. (USNM), the caddisflies of this list is that it is typical of a spring fed stream in Long Virginia are still inadequately known, and this is Island or in the Adirondacks rather than what we particularly true for the fauna of southeastern Virginia. consider to be the fauna of a southern swamp" stimulated The only published list of the state's caddisflies (Parker & an interest in pursuing such an intriguing lead. Voshell, 1981), which was based exclusively on material in Establishment of the VMNH in 1988, and employment the VPI&SU collection, accounted a total of 239 species. there of the first author, finally provided the opportunity Recent collections by VMNH personnel and others have to conduct sampling in many places in the southeastern since added nearly a score of additional forms, and search counties and cities.
    [Show full text]
  • “Calamitous War” Mecklenburg County, Virginia, and the War Between the States
    “Calamitous War” Mecklenburg County, Virginia, and the War Between the States “God grant some better day may come.” Mecklenburg County, Virginia, emerged from the Civil War unscarred by battle within its boundaries. The only obvious physical evidence now that the war had even touched the county is a marker or two and the statue of a Civil War soldier before the courthouse. No earthworks. No cannonballs in the sides of buildings. The scars the war did leave are harder to see. The Scene Is Set When the war started, Mecklenburg and neighboring counties were generally known as being rich counties. In the July 4, 1861, issue of the Richmond, Virginia, Daily Dispatch, a correspondent noted that “Old Mecklenburg is by no means the least among the counties of Virginia in size, wealth and numbers. In refinement of its population, she is among the first rank, and … in patriotism perhaps the first of the State. Glorious Old Dominion!” The correspondent had mentioned a point to keep in mind: Virginia — the glorious Old Dominion. For many Southerners, loyalty to one’s state was paramount. Many U.S. Army and Navy officers resigned their commissions, followed their home states out of the Union, and accepted Confederate commissions. They included Mecklenburg County natives J. Thomas Goode (Lieut. Col., CSA) and William Conway Whittle (Commodore, CSA). Robert E. Lee resigned from the U.S. Army as well, “[p]erhaps … tugged by what his cousin Anna Maria Fitzhugh called ‘a sweet binding to this spot of earth, this soil of Virginia that is irresistible.’ ” In 1853, writer J.G.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nature Conservancy's Watershed Approach To
    THE NATURE CONSERVANCY’S WATERSHED APPROACH TO COMPENSATION PLANNING FOR THE VIRGINIA AQUATIC RESTORATION TRUST FUND December 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART ONE: THE NATURE CONSERVANCY’S CONSERVATION BY DESIGN .... 2 Background ..................................................................................................................... 2 The Nature Conservancy’s Conservation By Design ..................................................... 3 Element I: Geographic service area delineation ............................................................ 4 Elements ii, iii and iv: Threats Assessment ................................................................... 8 Elements v and vi: Aquatic resource goals / objectives and a prioritization strategy.. 10 Element xii. Satisfying Criteria for Use of Preservation ............................................. 13 Element viii. A description of any public and private stakeholder involvement in the plan ................................................................................................................................ 13 Element ix. Long-term protection and management strategies ................................... 15 Element x. Monitoring and Evaluating Progress .......................................................... 15 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 17 PART II. OVERVIEW OF ECOREGIONAL PRIORITY CONSERVATION AREAS BY DEQ/CORPS SERVICE AREAS .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cheroenhaka Nottoway Indian Oral History Supported by Archeological Finds at the Hand Site
    Cheroenhaka Nottoway Indian Oral History Supported by Archeological Finds At The Hand Site VISIT THE PLACES WHERE OUR HISTORY LIVES Cheroenhaka Nottoway Indian Oral History Supported by Archeological Finds At The Hand Site (44SN22) Written by: Chief Walt “Red Hawk” Brown and Theresa Preston All photos courtesy of Bert Wendell (ASV) It’s sad but true that the oral histories of Native First Peoples are hardly ever taken seriously. It’s rare to hear an oral history and immediately recognize that there is physical evidence to support the claim. But that’s exactly what happened when Archeological Society of Virginia (ASV) member, Russell Darden, of Courtland VA, heard Chief Walt “Red Hawk” Brown recount the oral history of the Cheroenhaka Nottoway Tribe of Southampton County Virginia. A story had been passed down by the tribal elders that there had been a “saving mission” down river, into the region known today as the Outer Banks of North Carolina. People from far away had come by boat into the region. The boat off loaded many people and supplies and then left. Those remaining behind struggled to survive. They needed to be taught basic survival skills. Their sheer numbers had overwhelmed the capability of the local Native People. Abundant food resources were available, but not the necessary man power to devote to daily mentoring of such a large group. The language barrier didn’t help. Thus neighboring tribes up river were called to come and take some of these new people. The Cheroenhaka Nottoway was one of the tribes who responded. Mr. Darden knew that archeological evidence had been found that proves that at least one, a European woman, lived, and was buried in the tribal burial grounds along with grave goods consisting of her European scissors, hair comb and a handmade wrought iron carpentry nail.
    [Show full text]
  • Franklin 2010 Comp Plan.Cdr
    FRANKLIN 2010 The City of Franklin, Virginia Comprehensive Plan PEP05-07 November 2005 MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Mr. James P. Councill, III, Mayor Mr. E. Kent Pope, Vice Mayor Mr. Mark S. Fetherolf Mrs. Mary E. Hilliard Ms. Raystine D. Johnson Mr. Joseph J. Scislowicz Mr. Charles A. Wrenn Mr. Rowland L. “Bucky” Taylor, City Manager Mr. William “Bill” Donnelly, City Attorney MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Dr. Daniel Peak, Jr., Chairman Mr. Lawyer Artis Mr. Harlan Lewis Mr. Ray Smith Mr. Thomas K. Stephenson Mr. R. W. “Bobby” Tyler Ms. Carolyn Williams Mr. Donald Goodwin, Planning Director ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The staff of the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission wishes to acknowledge the cooperation and assistance extended by the officials and staff of the City of Franklin. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY OF FRANKLIN, VIRGINIA Prepared by the Staff of the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission In Cooperation with The City of Franklin NOVEMBER 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................v CHAPTER 1 - DEMOGRAPHICS ..................................................................... 1-1 CHAPTER 2 - HOUSING ................................................................................. 2-1 CHAPTER 3 – ECONOMICS............................................................................ 3-1 CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS ................................ 4-1 CHAPTER 5 – TRANSPORTATION................................................................
    [Show full text]