[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]













          Quality and Quantity of Potential Anadromous Fish Spawning Sites

                                     Final Report

                               Grant No. NA88AA-D-CZ091












                                     Prepared by:

                                   Rebecca K. Wajda
                                   FWIS Coordinator


                                   Helen E. Kitchel
                                FWIS Aquatic Biologist-

                                   Michael C. Odom
                               FWIS Research Specialist


                   Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries





                                    Sponsored by:

                         Coastal Resources Management Program
                         Virginia Council on the Environment

                                    January, 1990



         SH
         167
         A7
         W35
         1990
















             Quality and Quantity of Potential Anadromous Fish Spawning Sites

                                              Final Report

                                       Grant No. NA88AA-D-CZ091


                                                                   U - S - DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
                                                                   COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
                                                                   2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
                                                                   CHARLESTON , SC 29405-24 13

                                              Prepared by:

                                            Rebecca K. Wajda
                                            FWIS Coordinator

                                            Helen E. Kitchel
                                        FWIS Aquatic Biologist

                                            Michael C. Odom
                                       FWIS Research Specialist


                        Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
                                                r-property of CSC Library


                                              Sponsored by:
     fzs-
                               Coastal Resources Management Program
                                Virginia council on the Environment

                                              January, 1990


                                 This  report was produced, in part, through
                                 financial support from the Council on the
                                 Environment pursuant to Coastal Resources
                                 Program Grant No. NA88AA-D-CZ091 from the
                                 National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                                 Administration.









           Background

           Striped bass (Morone saxatilis), American shad (Alosa
           sapidissima), hickory shad (A_. mediocris), alewife (A..
           pseudoharencrus), and blueback herring (A. aestivalis) are the
           primary anadromous fish species ascending Virginia's waters each
           spring to spawn in natal freshwater rivers or streams. These
           populations have historically provided extensive commercial and
           recreational fisheries to Virginia fishermen. However, in the
           10-year period from 1976-1985, commercial harvests of these
           species from the Chesapeake Bay drainage declined by 82%.
           -Probable causes for the decline of these stocks include
           ?verfishing, habitat loss (from dams and water pollution),
           inconsistencies-in management activities, and inadequate data
           with which to make informed decisions (ASMFC 1985, Atran et al.
           1983).

           Population recovery is presently being addressed at all levels of
           management jurisdiction. The Atlantic State Marine Fisheries
           Commission developed a fishery management plan for the anadromous
           alosids of the East Coast of the United States. The primary goal
           of this plan "shall be to promote, in a coordinated coastwide
           manner, the protection and enhancement (including restoration) of
           shad and river herring stocks occurring on the Atlantic seaboard"
           (ASMFC 1985). In 1988, the Living Resources Subcommittee of the
           Chesapeake Bay Program appointed an interjurisdictional Fish
           Passage Workgroup to develop a strategy for implementing the 1987
           Bay Agreement commitment concerning fish passage. Specifically,
           the agreement stipulated that the signatories would "provide for
           fish passage at dams, and remove stream blockages whenever
           necessary to restore natural passage for migratory fish" through
           the Basin-wide plan for removing impediments to migratory fishes
           (CEC 1988). This Bay-wide Strategy was implemented in July,
           1989. State-level fisheries management plans are presently being
           prepared by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources and the
           Virginia Marine Resources Commission.

           Since the signing of the Strategy in 1988, the Virginia
           Anadromous Fish Passage Committee has addressed the coordination
           of the activities included in the recommendations amongst its
           members. The Committee is composed of representatives of the
           Council on the Environment, the Department of Game and Inland
           Fisheries, the Marine Resources Commission, the National Marine
           Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
           Several of the recommendations were targeted by the Department of
           Game and Inland Fisheries for this particular project and are
           addressed throughout this report:

                     The signatories work together to update the
                     comprehensive inventory of dams and other
                     obstructions to fish migration;


                                           2









                    The signatories annually reassess their
                    priorities based upon updated inventories and
                    other relevant information;

                    The signatories establish a priority list for
                    future fishway projects at these smaller
                    obstructions utilizing the inventory of
                    impediments to fish passage;

                    The signatories identify specific spawning
                    reaches suitable for reintroduction.

          Specific information needed to accomplish the above tasks is
          widely scattered and often inaccessible. This project is
          designed to assist the staff of the Department of Game and Inland
          Fisheries (and other Bay agencies) in achieving the above
          recommendations. While not all recommendations were addressed in
          their entirety by the completion of this report, information has
          been compiled which identifies further research or work needed.

          The historic range of striped bass was not as widely distributed
          in Virginia as that of the anadromous alosids (Mudre et al.
          1985). One of the primary causes for the decline of the striped
          bass in the Maryland/Virginia area has been due to
          overharvesting. This problem has been addressed by a moritorium
          on striped bass fishing in Maryland, and restricted harvesting in
          Virginia. Since habitat restoration efforts are focused
          predominantly on the alosids, they will be the species considered
          in this project.























                                           3










          Proiect Obiectives and Activities


          Two primary objectives were developed to address the issues and
          needs concerning anadromous fish spawning habitat. These
          objectives were:

               1.    To compile the information necessary for
                     determining the quantity of spawning area
                     available above current obstructions to
                     anadromous fish migration; and

               2.    To develop and apply the analysis techniques
                     required to identify potential spawning sites
                     and quantify the habitat quality of those
                     potential spawning sites upstream of current
                     obstructions to anadromous fish migration.


          several activities were identified to help achieve each of the
          above objectives.

               Objective 1: To compile necessary information

               Activities:

               a.    Current inventory sources of dams and other
                     obstructions to fish migration were combined
                     in a centralized location to allow a complete
                     analysis of the obstruction problem. A
                     survey of knowledgeable individuals was
                     conducted to complete the information which
                     was missing from the various inventories.
                     This does not duplicate any current
                     inventories being conducted but only attempts
                     to bring together the information.

               b.    Stream area above the current most downstream
                     blockage to the next blockage was determined
                     as a measure of the quantity of potential
                     habitat available to spawning given passage
                     at the current blockage.

               C.    Combining information on historic spawning
                     sites, current habitat conditions and stream
                     flow characteristics, potential spawning
                     sites were delineated within the upstream
                     area. Potential spawning sites were
                     evaluated as to quality of potential site.
                     Information collected for these sites
                     included the ownership, description, and
                     potential threats to the site.

                                           4









               objective 2: To develop and apply analysis techniques

               Activities:

               a.   Literature and reports were reviewed to
                    develop a tentative model or models which,
                    based on best available information, would
                    provide a suitability index for potential
                    spawning sites for anadromous species.

               b.   Based on analysis and identification of areas
                    from the above activities, the test models
                    were used to identify and quantify known and
                    potential spawning sites in the James River
                    drainage.

               C.   Field surveys using appropriate sampling
                    procedures were conducted during the spring
                    spawning runs to collect the data necessary
                    for validation/modification of the models to
                    assure their applicability to quantify
                    potential habitat sites.






























                                          5









           Inventory of Impediments to Anadromous Fish Passage

           Background

           The blockage of anadromous fish passage by dams or other
           obstructions has widely been recognized as one of the primary
           causes of the decline of anadromous fish populations in Virginia.
           Advances in transportation and energy needs resulted in many of
           the present impediments in Virginia. Canal dams, highway
           culverts, mill dams, and hydropower facilities have contributed
           to the loss of most of the historic anadromous fish spawning
           grounds in the Commonwealth.

           Historic records of anadromous fish indicate that several species
           migrated nearly 300 miles up the James River, to the origin at
           the confluence of the Jackson and Cowpasture Rivers. Presently,
           fish may migrate only within the first 105 river miles,
           downstream of a series of 5 dams in the Richmond area. Passage
           at these facilities would open approximately 150 additional miles
           of historic spawning grounds before the fish are stopped at the
           Scots Mill Dam in Lynchburg (River Mile 252.1). This additional
           spawning habitat would include 139 miles of the James River
           proper, as well as all tributaries between Richmond and Lynchburg
           (Odom et al. 1988a).

           Ninety-six tributaries of the lower James River (below Manchester
           Dam in Richmond) were evaluated by Odom et al. (1986). Of these
           96, 54 were found to have confirmed river herring spawning runs,
           38 were classified as "probable" spawning streams, and 4 appear
           to be "unlikely" for anadromous fish spawning (Odom et al. 1986).
           Thirty-three of the 54 tributaries known to have spawning runs
           are open up to the fall line. Twelve of the tributaries have
           dams that block fish migration; six have highway crossings that
           impede migration; one is open its entire length; one has an
           impassable private culvert; and one flows through a concrete
           channel at very low levels (Odom et al. 1986). Thirty of the 38
           "probable" are open up to the fall line; six have dams impeding
           migration; one is open its entire length; and one has been
           altered by mining operations (Odom et al. 1986). Eighty-eight
           highway crossing were evaluated in this section of the James
           River. Seven of these crossings were classified as "impassable"
           or "questionably passable." All seven are on confirmed spawning
           streams (Odom et al. 1986).

           Odom et al. (1988a) also evaluated the middle James River (from
           Manchester Dam in Richmond to Scots Mill Dam in Lynchburg). A
           total of 463 tributaries were identified as potential spawning
           areas. Of the 463, 106 tributaries were classified as "probable".
           spawning streams, 71 as "questionable," and 286 as "unlikely"
           (Odom et al. 1988a). The majority of the "unlikely" tributaries
           were classified as such because of unsuitable stream morphology
           in the first 0.1 river miles. of the 222 highway crossings

                                           6









           evaluated,  14 were classified as "impassable" or "questionably
           passable." Five of these 14 crossings were identified on streams
           classified  as "probable" spawning habitat, 3 on streams
           classified  as "questionable," and 6 on streams classified as
           "unlikely"  (Odom et al. 1988a).

           A similar study has also been completed for the Potomac River
           drainage. A total of 148 tributaries of the Potomac River
           (between Great Falls and Popes Creek) were identified as
           potential spawning streams. Of these 148 tributaries, 40 are
           "confirmed" spawning streams, 83 are "probable" spawning
           streams, and 25 are "unlikely" spawning streams (Odom et al.
           1988b). Ten of these 148 tributaries are open their entire
           length; 116 have barriers due to stream morphology, 5 had highway
           crossing obstructions, and 17 had miscellaneous other impediments
           (Odom et al. 1988b).

           Historic ranges of shad on the Rappahannock River have been
           estimated conservatively at Remington (Beverly's Ford), 188 miles
           upstream of the river mouth (Mudre et al. 1985). River herring
           have been reported to run further upstream, to Fauquier Springs
           (15 miles above Remington), 202 miles above the mouth of the
           river (Mudre et al. 1985). The present range of all of these
           species on this river is the Embry Dam, -located just above
           Fredericksburg, approximately 110 miles above the mouth of the
           river (VIMS 1986). Detailed studies of comparable impediments
           (highway, upstream limits of tributaries) on the Rappahannock
           River have just been started by Dr. Paul Angermeier at VPI&SU.
           Several major historic spawning tributaries above the Embry Dam
           are presently inaccessible. Passage at the dam would open an
           additional 146 miles (total of 217 miles) of potential riverine
           habitat for anadromous fish spawning and nursery sites (VIMS
           1986).

           The York River presently has no dams or major impediments
           preventing anadromous fish from returning to historic spawning
           areas. Tributaries have not been adequately assessed for
           potential obstructions from transportation or recent impounding
           activities. The upstream limits are set by natural falls and a
           general shallowing of the river (Mudre et al. 1985). Shad and
           herring historically ran in the Mattaponi River above Milford,
           and continue to have access to virtually this entire range (Mudre
           et al. 1985). The entire length of the Pamunkey River (into the
           South and North Anna Rivers) historically provided spawning
           habitat for both shad and herring. This area is presently still
           open to these species for spawning (Mudre et al. 1985). No work
           concerning the assessment of any type of obstruction is presently
           planned on the York River.

           other specific types of obstructions have also been studied in
           Virginia. In 1981,, the "Virginia Hydro Dam Inventory" was
           completed by Rockfish Corporation (1981). This inventory was

                                            7









          designed to provide hydroelectric information about each of the
          facilities, but also gives information useful for prioritizing
          anadromous fish restoration efforts. This inventory has not been
          updated since its completion in 1981, and therefore, may not
          presently represent all of the hydro dam facilities in Virginia.

          Finally, the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries field
          fisheries biologists prepared a Statewide Dam Inventory. This
          inventory includes the largest number of dams found in all of the
          inventories, but specific information is sparse. This inventory
          also does not include highway culvert obstructions or natural
          impediments (e.g., fall line).

          The primary purpose of this particular aspect of the project was
          to gather all of these hard copy maps and references and
             puterize the information for quicker retrieval. The time
          required to computerize the individual elements precluded merging
          com

          the information into one comprehensive system. This
          consolidation will be completed by VDGIF within the next year,
          presently at the Department's own expense. The comprehensive
          inventory will include information on the current ownership and
          use of each impediment, the species presently obstructed, and
          quality/quantity of habitat upstream of the obstruction (when
          obtainable). The inventory will also include locational and
          descriptive information about the particular site. The hydro dam
          inventory will also be updated with current information from the
          Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, including information on
          requirements for fish passage facilities.

          Data Capture

          The textual information from all of the above sources (where
          applicable) was entered into datafiles developed using Advanced
          Revelation (Revelation Technologies, Inc.), the Department's
          chosen database management system. Each entry was given an ID
          number which would link it to the digital files containing X,Y
          coordinates for the site in question. Actual locations of
          highway crossings, upstream impediments, and hydro dams were
          captured using digitizing programs developed in Advanced
          Revelation by VDGIF staff. The coordinates are maintained as UTM
          coordinate pairs, but can be displayed or output as
          latitude/longitude coordinates. Samples of each datafile may be
          seen on pages 10-13.

          The initial evaluations of the James and Potomac Rivers by VPI&SU
          have been computerized into one database. The data collection
          efforts on each segment were comparable, allowing us to combine
          the information into one system. The system is divided into two
          components: tributary analysis and highway crossing assessment.
          Each highway crossing is related back to the tributary on which
          it occurs. The following information has been entered for the
          tributary analysis: USGS 7.51 quadrangle name, river to which it

                                           8









           is a tributary, the distance the tributary is above the mouth of
           the primary river, the mileage open on the tributary, the use
           category (confirmed, probable, or unlikely for anadromous fish
           use), the migration obstruction on the tributary, and a narrative
           of any additional information pertinent to anadromous fish use of
           the tributary. The structural evaluation of highway crossings
           includes: the name or route number of the road crossing the
           tributary, the date the site was evaluated, the structure type,
           its size and vertical drop, the depth and velocity of water
           through the structure, the passage status (passable,
           questionable, impassable for migrating anadromous fish), and any
           notes concerning the location. Fish species using'the tributary,
           or blocked on the tributary, are generally mentioned in the
           narrative sections. The species information will be arranged in
           a separate, retrievable field when the datafiles are merged in
           the next year.

           specific pieces of information were selected by Fish Division
           Chief (VDGIF) from the complete "Virginia Hydro Dam Inventory"
           (Rockfish Corp. 1981) for inclusion in the database. The
           information captured includes: facility name, descriptive
           location, river, USGS 7.51 quadrangle name, VA dam ID number,
           latitude/longitude coordinates, owner, date built, length,
           height, type of construction, original use, current use,
           condition, access, reservoir area, flow, nearest USGS gaging
           station, US Army Corps of Engineers summaries, and any specific
           comments about the structure. This inventory does not provide
           any information about species blocked by these facilities. No
           FERC information was included. These data will be compiled in
           the comprehensive inventory later in 1990.

           The inventory compiled by VDGIF fisheries field biologists is
           relatively comprehensive (statewide), but provides only minimal
           information about each location in question. The data included
           in the information system are: county, descriptive location,
           river, dam name, height (if known), indication of whether or not
           fish passage occurs at that structure, and which migratory
           species are impeded by that facility. This information will be
           added to the other inventories and elaborated upon in the
           comprehensive system.

           Programs have been developed by VDGIF staff to output UTM
           coordinates from the Advanced Revelation system into an ARC/INFO
           (ESRI) "generate" format. These files can then be processed
           through the ARC/INFO system to develop coverages. Work will
           begin on this conversion for in-house use by VDGIF staff within
           the next 6 months.








                                           9





  L rginia Hydro Dam Inventory




        Number NA-26        Name STAUNTON DAM


        Location 8 miles south of Stokesville, Augusta County(Geo.Wash. Nat.Fbrest)

        River NORTH                              VA.Dam.ID 01518


        Quad STOKESVILLE                         Longitude 79 12.1

        Owner CITY OF STAUNTON                   Latitude 38 20.1


        Date.Built 1925            Length 266          Height 46

        Type.of.Construction CONCRETE GRAVITY WITH OGEE SPILLWAY

        Original.Use WATER SUPPLY               Current.Use WATER SUPPLY

        Condition good, gunited 1971, some erosion at right abutment


        Access good, off Forestry road 95 and State Route 250

        Reservoir.Area 30.4     Flow 33       Nearest.Gaging.Station

        USA. Corps. Summary
          No remedial measures necessary.



        Comments
          Drainage area - 28.9 square miles. Water supply dam with 16" water
          supply line to City of Staunton. 14 miles to nearest 3-phase power
          lines. 36" drain pipe could be used for hydro installation.















                                                 10



  I
  tributary Assessment - VDOT Highway Project




         Stream.No LJ-77          Stream CHICKAHOWNY RIM


         Quad.No
         5506     Claremont
         5507     Brandon
         5508     wtilkers


         Tributary.of JAMES RIVER                           Miles.Above.Mouth 46.5

         Use.Category CONFIFHO (D, L)                       Mileage.Open 23.3

         Migration.Obstruction WALKERS  DAM


         Narrative
         American shad, striped bass, and herring run up the Chickahominy River to
         the base of Walkers Dam. Walkers Dam is only about 30 am high during high
         tide, but it is a barrier to fish during most years. Several locals have
         remarked that during some years, an unusually high tide will allow herring
         to get over this dam and into the impouadment above. How far herring will
         run above Walkers Dam is unknown at this time. Passage does not happen
         every year, so few fisherman and locals look for them above the dam;
         consequently, local knowledge is lacking. 7he crossings above Walkers Dam
         were not evaluated in this study.

         Structure.No IJ-77-1



 I
 ttructure Evaluation - VDOT Highway Project




        Structure.Nd LJ-77-1


        Road.Crossing ROUTE 5

        Date.Evaluated 04-04-86         Passage.Status PASSABLE


        Structure.Type BRIDGE                                     size

        Vertical.Drop NONE                Depth.In.Calvert > 1.0 M

        Velocity.In.Culvert < 25 CM/S

        Notes
        This is a draw bridge with no passage problems.































                                                 12



   I
   IWIF Dms Inventory Dow in Middlesex' Cotmty
    T. OOLWN  ....... NAME .....................    RIVER.SIREAM  .............  T.1YPE.... T. r%dVSE   ......  SPWIES  ........
   fiddlesex          BARRICKS DAM                  MILL CREEK                   Earth        Other             S.BASS
                                                                                 Qmvity                         SHAD
                                                                                                                HERRING
   i
      ddle8ex         BEAZLEV DAM                   PARRUITS CREEK               Earth        Recreation        S.BASS
    r                                                                                         Other             SHAD
                                                                                                                HERRING
      ddlesex         am M111 wm                    LACRANGE CREEK               Earth        Rm-reation        SHAD
   r                                                                                                            HERRING
    Middlesex         CC MRAOS DM                   WILIM CREEK                  Earth        Recreation        Sm
                                                                                 Gravity                        HERRING
   Fddlesex           C)CRBEN HALL FARM DAM         IR RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER        Earth        Recreation        Sm
                                                                                              IrTigation        HERRING
    Middlesex         CRAYS DAM                     DRACCN SWAMP CREEK           Earth        Recreation        Sm
                                                                                              Irrigation        HERRING
   liddlesex          ffic= wm                      m4m am                       Earth        Recreation        SHAD
                                                                                                                HERRING
      ddlesex:        HILURDS DAM                   NICKLEBERRY SWAMP            Earth        Recreation        SHAD
   (ddlesex           IDVER ROSEGIIL IAKE DAM       11R RAPPARW= RIVER           Earth                          HERRING
      ddlesex:        ROSEGILL UPPE1R DAM           1E RAPPAHANNOCK              Earth        Recreation        Sm
                                                                                              Irrigation        HERRING
   (ddlesex:          MW ERMCE PCND BAN             IUM BRIDGE SWAMP             Earth        Recreation        sm
                                                                                                                HERRINGS







































                                                                       13









          Review of Habitat Models and H4bitat Assessment

          Background

          The most well-known comprehensive assessments of habitat
          requirements for shad and river herring can be found in the
          Habitat Suitability Indices developed by the U.S. Fish and
          Wildlife Service. An additional source of more recent
          information on species life histories and environmental
          requirements can be found in the Species Profiles prepared by the
          U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the U.S. Army Corps of
          Engineers. A variety of papers also have been published
          concerning species habitat requirements, but these usually target
          a particular element (e.g., substrate, flow, water chemistry) and
          generally are not specific for spawning.


          River Herring

          River herring occur on the Atlantic Coast from Newfoundland to
          the northeastern Florida coast. Specifically, alewives are found
          from Newfoundland to South Carolina, and blueback herring range
          from Nova Scotia to northern Florida (Loesch 1987, Mullen et al.
          1986,,Pardue 1983). The species occur sympatrically in Virginia,
          but few studies have been conducted concerning their spawning
          activities specifically in the state.

          The species spawn from late March to July; spawning occurs
          progressively later from south to north. In the Chesapeake Bay
          area, primary spawning runs for alewives begin in March; spawning
          runs in Virginia tributaries to the Bay begin in mid-March
          (Loesch 1987). Primary spawning runs for blueback herring begin
          in early April (slightly later in the upper reaches of the Bay)
          (Loesch 1987). The primary factor initiating spawning appears to
          be water temperature. Alewife spawn in temperatures from 10.5C-
          27C, while blueback herring spawn in slightly warmer temperatures
          of 14C to 27C (Pardue 1983).

          In areas such as the Bay region where alewives and blueback
          @erring occur sympatrically, the species are generally spatially
          isolated. Alewives spawn in lentic sections of streams or ponds
          and lakes, while blueback herring prefer the lotic sites (Loesch
          1987, Pardue 1983). Two major areas in the eastern United States
          have been intensely studied concerning river herring habitat. In
          New England, where alewives are the predominant species, river-
          herring spawn mostly in freshwater ponds or low-flow sections of
          streams and rivers (Loesch 1987, Mullen et al. 1986, Pardue
          1983). In the Carolinas, where blueback herring are the
          predominant species, the fish are seen spawning in more diverse
          habitats (oxbows and swamps as well as riverine sections) (Loesch
          1987, Mullen et al. 1986, Pardue 1983).


                                         14









          Blueback herring appear to be the more dominant species of river
          herring in Virginia. However, both species are limited in
          upstream movement and occur in such numbers that they appear to
          partition the available riverine resource. At such sites,
          alewives tend to favor shore-bank eddies or deep pools, while
          blueback herring tend to congregate in the mainstem flow areas
          (J. Loesch, VIMS, 1989, pers. comm.; J. Mowrer, MD Dept. Natural
          Resources, 1989, pers. comm; S. Rideout, USFWS, 1989, pers. comm;
          C. Walton, ME Dept. Marine Resources, 1989, pers. comm; M. Odom,
          USFWS, 1988, pers. comm.; Loesch 1987).

          American Shad

          American shad are found along the Atlantic Coast from Labrador to
          Florida (Weiss-Glanz et al. 1986, Stier and Crance 1985). The
          species is most abundant in the center of its range, from
          Connecticut to North Carolina (Weiss-Glanz et al. 1986, Stier and
          Crance 1985).

          The species begin spawning as early as mid-November in Florida
          and as late as July in some Canadian rivers (Stier and Crance
          1985). The spawning run peaks at a temperature of about 18C,
          i@ith a range of 13C to 20C. In Virginia, this means that the
          initial spawning runs begin at about the same time river herring
          runs begin, but taper off approximately one month before herring
          have finished spawning.

          Unlike the river herring, shad populations in Virginia are
          predominantly semelparous (one-time spawners). Only about 25% of
          the shad running in Virginia rivers are repeat spawners (Weiss-
          Glanz et al. 1986).

          American shad spawn over a variety of substrates, but seem to
          prefer a sand or gravel bottom with sufficient water velocity to
          eliminate silt deposits on the eggs (Stier and Crance 1985).
          Spawning has been observed in a wide variety of depths; depth
          does not appear to be a critical factor in selection of spawning
          sites (Weiss-Glanz et al. 1986, Stier and Crance 1985).


          Review and Modification of Habitat Suitability Models

          American Shad

          The HSI model developed by Stier and Crance (1985) has two
          components: a riverine component and an estuarine component. The
          riverine model assumes that, if water temperatures and water
          velocities are suitable, all other habitat variables will be
          acceptable for spawning and rearing young-of-the-year until their
          downstream migration to the estuary.



                                          15









          Studies presently-ongoing in Virginia and Maryland indicate that
          certain water quality parameters not previously associated with
          shad habitat suitability may be contributing to declines in shad
          populations (Klauda 1989, CBP 1987, ASMFS 1985). We feel that
          future models may want to consider pH, chlorine, and prey
          densities. Additionally, we have made one modification to the
          existing SI values for substrate type. The existing model does
          not give suitability index values for riverweed or Justica beds.
          Classifying these substrate types with the plant/detritus would
          be an under-representation of the quality of such substrate for
          spawning. The water flow through these living plant materials
          offers abundant dissolved oxygen (DO) and low siltation. These
          substrate types additionally offer numerous opportunities for egg
          attachment during the water-hardening stage and some cover from
          predators. Based on this assessment, we believe that the SI
          values for the substrate component should be modified   as follows:

               Substrate                                      SI
               Living plant (riverweed, water willow)         1.0
               Detritus (logs, sticks, leaf packs)            0.0
               Mud/soft clay                                  0.1
               Silt                                           0.2
               Sand                                           1.0
               Gravel                                         1.0
               Cobble/rubble                                  1.0
               Boulder                                        0.6
               Bedrock                                        0.4



          River Herring

          The river herring model developed by Pardue (1983) has two
          separate models within it: model for spawning adult, egg, and
          larvae, and a model for juveniles.

          The spawning adult model has two components to it: cover
          (substrate characteristics and associated vegetation) and water
          quality (temperatures). The cover component makes the assumption
          that substrates with 75% silt and other soft materials containing
          detritus and vegetation, and slow water flow are optimal for
          river herring. Harder and coarser substrates are considered less
          desirable. The water quality component assumes that mean daily
          water temperatures of 15C-20C for alewives and 20C-24C for
          blueback herring are optimal for spawning.- This model is to be
          applied only in areas where water depth is 0.15m-3.Om and water
          velocity is greater than 0 ft/sec and less than 1.0 ft/sec. Any
          flow values (0 ft/sec, >1.0 ft/sec.) outside-of those values are
          assigned an SI value of 0.0.

          The juvenile model has two components: food (number of
          zooplankton per liter) and water quality (salinity and
          temperature). The food component ignores zooplankton

                                           16









          composition, assuming that there will be an appropriate species
          composition. one hundred zooplankton per liter or more is
          considered optimal. Salinities of 0-5 ppt are considered
          optimal. Ideal water temperatures for alewives are considered to
          be 15-20C, and 20-30C for blueback herring.

          We feel that future models for river herring in Virginia should
          include several additional elements. While current studies
          indicate that low pH levels can adversely affect egg and larval
          survival (Klauda 1989; D. Kelso, George Mason University, 1989,
          pers. comm.; CBP 1987; ASMFC 1985), the existing model does not
          consider pH a significant variable. We believe that this should
          be reconsidered in light of this new evidence. Additional
          evidence suggests that total residual chlorine (primarily from
          sewage effluent) can be high enough to extirpate or severely
          impact river herring runs in those streams (Kelso, 1989, pers.
          comm; Morgan and Prince 1977), and should be considered in the
          model.

          we also  suggest modifications in the substrate and flow elements
          of the existing model based on the abundance of both alewives and
          blueback herring. Blueback herring are the predominant river
          herring in Virginia. When both species occur in an area, the
          blueback herring use faster flowing water over harder substrate
          types. It appears that the existing model values for these two
          variables are based on information collected for alewives in New
          England and blueback herring in the Carolinas, using slow water
          over soft substrates. After conversations with J. Loesch (VIMS),
          S. Rideout (USFWS), C. Walton (ME Dept. Marine Resources), J.
          Mowrer (MD Dept. Natural Resources) concerning their knowledge
          and observations of river herring spawning, and our own
          observations in Virginia, we are suggesting the following
          modified SI values for the substrate and velocity components in
          the river herring model.

          Depth

                     Depth (m)                       SI
                      0.00                           0.0
                      0.09                           0.0
                      0.20                           1.0
                      1.25                           1.0
                      3.01                           0.0

          These values are based on the values in    Pardue's (1983) HSI model
          with 0.15-3.Om receiving SI=1.0; S. Rideout (pers. comm.) seeing
          bluebacks spawning in water greater than 0.10m; C. Walton (pers.
          comm.) seeing bluebacks spawning in depths from 0.30m-1.22m, with
          most from 0.61m-0.91m; and J. Mowrer (pers. comm.) seeing
          bluebacks spawning in water depths for 0.20m-0.61m.



                                            17









          Velocity

                    Velocity Ws)                   SI
                       O.Om/s                      0.0
                       0.02m/s                     1.0
                       1.22m/s                     1.0
                       1.35m/s                     0.0

          These values are based on values in Pardue's (1983) HSI model; C.
          Walton (pers. comm.) indicating that some flow is required for
          both species and observing bluebacks using areas with velocities
          of 0.89m/s-1.34m/s; J. Mowrer (pers. comm.) indicating that
          although some flow is required for both species, flows in excess
          of 1.22m/s appear to be too high for bluebacks in Maryland.
          Substrate Substrate                                           SI
                    Live plant material (riverweed, water willow)       1.0
                    Woody debris                                        0.9
                    Temporarily flooded plant detritus                  0.8
                    Gravel                                              1.0
                    Cobble/rubble                                       1.0
                    Boulder                                             0.7
                    Sand                                                0.6
                    Bedrock                                             0.4
                    Silt                                                0.2
                    Mud/soft clay                                       0.1
                    Muck/decomposing organic matter                     0.0

          conversations with several recognized anadromous fish experts
          confirmed our own observations that this component most likely
          does not accurately represent spawning grounds in Virginia.
          Loesch (pers. comm.) agreed that the primary spawning areas for
          bluebacks in Virginia is relatively fast-flowing water over
          gravel and coarser substrates. Rideout (pers. comm.) indicated
          that he has seen blueback herring spawning in a tributary of the
          Connecticut River over gravel-cobble substrate in water as
          shallow as 10-15 cm. Walton (pers. comm.) indicated that in
          Maine, he has observed blueback herring spawning on gravel,
          cobble, and boulders up to 30.5-35.6 cm in diameter. Mowrer
          (pers. comm.) has seen blueback herring spawning in Maryland over
          hard substrate, especially over gravel that is 2.5-5.0 cm in
          diameter. He has also observed them utilizing flooded woodlands,
          detritus (sticks), and wetland plants.








                                          18









           Field Assessment of Habitat Quality and Quantity

           Several areas on Virginia rivers were considered for an
           assessment of habitat quality and quantity, using the modified
           habitat suitability index models mentioned above. The intent of
           this portion of the project was to select two rivers with known
           obstructions to anadromous fish passage (James River and
           Appomattox River) and evaluate the habitat between the first and
           second blockage. A series of 5 dams occurs within a 6-7 mile
           stretch of the James River in the city of Richmond. The first
           impediment on the James River is the Manchester Dam. A
           comparable series of 4 dams exists on the Appomattox River just
           upstream of the city of Petersburg. The first obstruction on the
           Appomattox River is the Harvell Dam, on the western limit of
           Petersburg. Because each of these systems has a series of dams
           in such close proximity to one another, the habitat was evaluated
           on both rivers between the first and the last of the series of
           dams (pp. 21-22).

           Aerial photographs were obtained from the Virginia Department of
           Transportation at a scale of 111:120011 for the reaches of concern
           on both rivers. Stream channels and islands were delineated
           using a stereoscope to allow for digitizing once field work was
           completed. Reaches were identified on each river, using obvious
           breaks (dams,-pipelines) where available. Ten to twenty random
           points were selected in each reach for specific habitat
           measurements and marked on the photographs. The number of points
           in any given reach was determined by the relative size of the
           particular reach.

           Field work on each river required 3 days, which were spread over
           a period of one month due to high water levels. Gage heights
           were noted for each field day and flow values were calculated
           from USGS conversion tables. Data were also verified by follow-
           up calls to USGS. A review of the tables on pages 23-25
           indicates that the water flows encountered during the field days
           was comparable to flows generally found in those rivers during
           March to May. At each sampling site, water depth and velocity
           were measured, and substrate composition was determined with a
           qualitative assessment of a 1-meter circle around the point. The
           additional parameters mentioned in the review of the habitat
           suitability models (i.e, temperature, pH, etc.) were not measured
           in this study. Shad and herring already have a history of
           spawning in each of these rivers below the primary impediment, so
           we assume that these parameters are at acceptable levels during
           the spawning season,

           Water depth measurements were taken in meters using a 4-meter
           stick. Velocity measurements were made using a Oceanics flow
           meter. Velocities were calculated using the conversion equation
           provided by the manufacturer. Substrate composition was measured
           as percentages of specific substrate types. A range finder was

                                            19









          used to ensure that sampling points were located as accurately as
          possible.

          Upon completion of field work, the river maps/photographs were
          sent to VPI&SU where project staff digitized the individual
          reaches using the ARC/INFO geographic information system. River
          system and individual reach maps were generated to illustrate the
          project activities (Appendix 1) and reach areas were calculated
          using the ARC/INFO system (p. 26).








































                                          20




                                               MMMM*M MMMMM









                                                                  JAMES RIVER


                                                    (Boshers Dom to Brown Island Dam)














                                                               Williams Island Dam
                                      REACH 3


                                                                                REACH 5


         REACH I                                          REACH 4                                                 REACH 7

                            REACH 2


    Boshers Dom                                                                                  REACH 6




                    scol.


                    0 meters   1000








                                       APPOMATTOX RIVER


                                        (Brasfield Dom to Harvell Dom)











             N



   Brasfield Dam           REACH 2       REACH 3
                                                     REACH 4

        REACH I                                                                          R
                                                                    REACH 5

                  Abutment Dom









          Scale 1:41,666


          0 meters  1000














           ESTIMATED MEAN MONTHLY FLOW OF JAMES RIVER AT RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

                        (Does not include flow in Kanawha Canal)

                                 (cubic feet per second)

                                  (USGS data: 1934-1981)




           MONTH                MINIMUM         MEDIAN           MAXIMUM


           January                840            8,200           22,500

           February             3,240           10,270           20,750

           March                 5,690          11,510           25,900

           April                 2,770          10,050           22,760

           May                   2,430           6,130           16,990

           June                    900           3,660           30,910

           July                      so          2,270           11,300

           August                  150           1,820           21,710

           September               130           11350           16,730

           October                 180           1,680           18,670

           November                540           3,180           19,710

           December                450           4,610           20,160















                                            23
















                    ESTIMATED MEAN MONTHLY FLOW OF APPOMATTOX RIVER
                                   AT MATOACA, VIRGINIA

                                 (cubic feet per second)

                                  (USGS data: 1969-1989)




           MONTH                MINIMUM               MEDIAN         MAXIMUM


           January                 384                 1,662           5,868

           February                889                 2,065           3,931

           March                   478                 2,019           5,149

           April                   498                 1,982           5,003

           May                     411                 1,189           4,452

           June                    161                   616           5,293

           July                      99                  438           1,987

           August                    85                  483           1,818

           September                 99                  288           5,312

           October                 129                   349           6,869

           November                200                   733           5,648

           December                398                 1,404           2,912
















                                            24

















                        DISCHARGE ON JAMES AND APPOMATTOX RIVERS


                             DURING HABITAT SAMPLING PERIOD






                               James River, Westham Gage

                                  10/31/89 - 11/02/89


                               Date                           Discharge

                          October 31, 1989                    5,920 cfs

                          November 1, 1989                    5,920 cfs

                          November 2, 1989                    6,070 cfs







                             Appomattox River, Matoaca Gage

                             10/11/89 - 10/12/89, 10/26/89


                               Date                           Discharge

                          October 11, 1989                     417 cfs

                          October 12, 1989                     374 cfs

                          October 26, 1989                     920 cfs*




                       Estimate based on gage height 6 hours prior to
                       sampling (3.51)




                                           25











                               AREA OF INDIVIDUAL REACHES


                               APPOMATTOX AND JAMES RIVERS

                                        (hectares)



                                       James River



                     Reach                 Total Area           Water Area


                        1                    36.783                 36.395


                        2                    36.783                 36.395

                        3                    65.243                 63.240


                        4                    49.641                 47.938

                        .5                   57.136                 57.136

                        6                    77.284                 69.130

                        7                    79.143                 68.456


                        8                    47.397                 42.207


                        9                    28.419                 27.337


                       10                    36.035                 34.252



                                     Appomattox River

                     Reach                 Total Area           Water Area

                        1                    16.495                 16.241

                        2                    34.953                 22.817

                        3                    10.155                   9.100

                        4                      6.517                  6.494

                        5                    44.030                 31.556

                        6                    22.366                 15.699

                        7                      7.653                  7.158

                                            26









          suitability indices (SI) were calculated for each variable at
          each reach for American shad and river herring using the modified
          habitat suitability model developed earlier in this project.
          Once SI were calculated, the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI)
          value for that particular site was determined to be the lowest SI
          value for any of the variables. Mean HSI values were calculated
          for each reach to determine a reach HSI value (p. 28).

          Overall habitat suitability should not be determined by HSI
          values alone, but must include some measure of the area available
          in a given location. Habitat Units (HU) were calculated for each
          reach. The HU value in any reach is the product of  -the reach
          mean HSI value and the reach area (in hectares) (p. 29). The
          calculated HU values were then compared to an optimal HU (HSI=l x
          reach area) for a relative evaluation of the available habitat
          for spawning.

          The HU values of the James River indicate that this system is
          good habitat quality and area for both American shad and river
          herring spawning. The Appomattox River does not appear to be
          good habitat for American shad spawning; limiting factors appear
          to be water velocity or water depth. It will, however, provide
          good river herring habitat for spawning once passage is made to
          the last of the structures in that reach.


































                                          27











                             MEAN HSI VALUES FOR SAMPLED REACHES

                                Mean HSI (Standard Deviation)


                                           James River


            Reach                       American Shad                River Herring

              1                           0.84 (0.13)                  0.68 (0.22)

              2                           0.69 (0.17)                  0.33  (0.31)

              3                           0.75  (0.13)                 0.59  (0.21)

              4                           0.48  (0.25)                 0.66  (0.16)

              5                           0.69  (0.27)                 0.51  (0.28)

              6                           0.26  (0.29)                 0.68  (0.20)

              7                           0.48  (0.22)                 0.45  (0.21)

              8                           0.32  (0.27)                 0.69  (0.18)

              9*

              10                          0.31  (0.37)                 0.51  (0.35)


              Due to the difficult nature of sampling in Reach         9, no habitat
              measurements were made

                                        Appomattox River


            Reach                       American Shad                River Herrin

              1                           0.20 (0.20)                  0.37 (0.25)

              2                           0.13 (0.13)                  0.72  (0.25)

              3                           0.07  (0.10)                 0.79  (0.31)

              4                           0.64  (0.16)                 0.70  (0.13)

              5                           0.27  (0.25)                 0.77  (0.19)

              6                           0.34  (0.30)                 0.46  (0.34)

              7                           0.10  (0.20)                 0.31  (0.35)

                                                28









                    HABITAT UNITS (HU) FOR JAMES AND APPOMATTOX RIVERS

                               (HSI Mean Reach x Water Area)


                                         James River

                 Reach           American Shad HU           River Herring HU

                    1                  13.64                      11.04


                    2                  15.74                       7.53


                    3                   6.83                       5.37


                    4                  23.01                      31.64


                    5                  39.42                      29.14


                    6                  17.97                      47.01


                    7                  32.86                      30.81


                    8                  13.51                      29.12


                    9*                  ---                        ---


                   10                  10.62                      17.47



              Since no HSI values were calculated for Reach 9, no Habitat
              Units can be calculated




                                      Appomattox River

                 Reach           American Shad HU           River Herring HU

                    1                   3.25                        6.01


                    2                   2.97                       16.43


                    3                   0.64                        7.19


                    4                   4.16                        4.55


                    5                   8.52                       24.30


                    6                   5.34                        7.22


                    7                   0.72                        2.22


                                              29










          Summary and Recommendations

          Computerized databases of existing inventories of river
          obstructions were developed using the Advanced Revelation
          database management software. These database are presently
          maintained by the Fish and Wildlife Information System at the
          Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Gaps in
          inventory information were identified on the Rappahannock and
          York Rivers to completely cover the Chesapeake Bay drainage.

          Habitat suitability models for American shad and river herring
          were evaluated and modified according to current literature and
          personal communications with individuals knowledgeable of
          anadromous fish populations in Virginia. Site assessments were
          conducted to illustrate the use of the modified models in
          determining habitat quality and quantity. The James River was
          found to be better overall for all alosid species, while the
          Appomattox River was identified as good river herring habitat.

          During the course of this project, many information needs were
          identified as meriting further research. The following is a
          summary of these regional information needs:

               1.    Need for basic habitat requirements and life
                     history information for hickory shad in
                     Virginia. So little data are presently
                     available that we were not able to include
                     this species in our assessments. This
                     species can be locally abundant and support a
                     significant recreational fishery, such as on
                     the Rappahannock and Occoquan Rivers. The
                     value of this recreational resource has yet
                     to be quantified.

               2.    Need for information regarding the freshwater
                     spawning and nursery habitats of alosids in
                     Virginia, especially for blueback herring and
                     American shad. The majority of the
                     information used to assess stocks in Virginia
                     have been derived from New England or
                     Carolina studies, and appear to be in some
                     conflict with the actual habitat use in
                     Virginia. Validation of the modified habitat
                     models would be possible as a result of this
                     activity.

               3.    Need for information on the effects of
                     watershed development on known anadromous
                     fish streams where the species have been
                     extirpated from only certain areas of the
                     watershed. Water chemistry information,
                     including pH, residual chlorine, and

                                          30









                    aluminum, need to be collected and evaluated
                    for these areas.

               4.   Water quality parameters of the modified
                    river herring and American shad models need
                    to be quantified. This relates back to
                    problems addressed in 13. Several studies
                    are presently being conducted, but this
                    research needs to be directed at larger areas
                    of the state.

               5.   Highway crossing evaluations need to be
                    conducted on the York River and its
                    tributaries. Additional funding should be
                    provided to complete the assessment of the
                    Rappahannock River (above Embry Dam).



































                                          31










          Literature Cited


          Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commossion (ASMRC). 1985.
               Fishery Management Plan for the Anadromous Alosid
               Stocks of the Eastern United: American Shad, Hickory
               Shad, Alewife, and Blueback Herring: Phase II in
               Interstate Management Planning for Migratory Alosids of
               the Atlantic Coast. Washington, DC. 347pp.

          Atran, S.M., J.G. Loesch, W.H. Kriete, Jr., and B. Rizzo.
               1983. Feasibility study of fish passage facilities in
               the James River, Richmond, Virginia. VIMS Special
               Report No. 269, Virginia Institute of Marine Science,
               Gloucester Point, VA. 109pp.

          Chesapeake Bay Living Resources Task Force (CBP). 1987.
               Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living
               Resources. Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis, MD.
               86pp.

          Chesapeake Executive Council (CEC). 1988. Stategy for
               removing impediments to migratory fishes in the
               Chesapeake Bay Watershad; Agreement Commitment Report,
               Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis, MD. 12pp +
               Appendices.

          Klauda, R. 1989. Definitions of critical environmental
               conditions for selected Chesapeake Bay finfishes
               exposed to acidic episodes in spawning and nursery
               habitats. Prepared for Versar, Inc. ESM Operations
               9200 Rumsey Road, Columbia, MD and Maryland Dept. of
               Nat. Resources, Tidewater Administration, Chesapeake
               Bay Research and Monitoring Division, Tawes State
               Office Bldg. Annapolis, MD. 158pp.

          Loesch, J.G. 1987. Overview of life history aspects of
               anadromous alewife and blueback herring in freshwater
               habitats. American Fisheries Society Symposium 1:89-
               103.

          Morgan, R.P., and R.D. Prince. 1977. Chlorine toxicity to
               eggs and larvae of five Chesapeake Bay fishes. Trans.
               Am. Fish. Soc. 106:380-385.           1

          Mudre, J.M., J.J. Ney, and R.J. Neves. 1985. An analysis of
               the impediments to spawning migrations of anadromous
               fish in Virginia rivers. Final Report. Virginia
               Highway Research Council, Virginia Department of
               Highways and Transportation, Charlottesville, VA.
               81pp.


                                          32









           Mullen, D.M., C.W. Fay, and J.R. Moring. 1986. Species
                profiles: life histories and environmental requirements
                of coastal fishes and invertebrates (North Atlantic)--
                alewife/blueback herring. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                Service Biol. Rep. 82(11.56). U.S. Army Corps of
                Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 21ppo

           Odom, M.C., R.J. Neves, J.J. Ney, and J.M. Mudre. 1986. Use
                of tributaries of the lower James River by anadromous
                fishes. Final Report. Virginia Highway Research
                Council, Virginia Department of Highways and
                Transportation, Charlottesville, VA. 181pp.

           Odom, M.C., R.J. Neves, and J.J. Ney. 1988a. Potential use
                of tributaries of the middle James River by anadromous
                fishes. Final Report. Virginia Highway Research
                Council, Virginia Department of Highways and
                Transportation, Charlottesville, VA. 318pp.

           Odom, M.C., R.J. Neves, and J.J. Ney. 1988b. Use of
                Virginia's tributaries of the Potomac River by
                anadromous fishes. Final Report. Virginia Highway
                Research Council, Virginia Department of Highways and
                Transportation, Charlottesville, VA. 126pp.

           Pardue, G.B. 1983. Habitat suitability index models: alewife
                and blueback herring. U.S. Dept. of Into, Fish and
                Wildlife Service.
                FWS/OBS-82/1058o 22ppo

           Rockfish Corporation. 1981. Virginia Hydro Dam Inventory.
                Prepared for U.S. Dept. of Energy, Region III, VA State
                Office of Emergency and Energy Services. Rockfish
                Corp., Afton, VA. 3 Volumes.

           Stier, D.J., and J.H. Crance. 1985. Habitat suitability
                index models and instream flow suitability curves:
                American shad. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biol.
                Repo 82(10o88). 34pp.

           Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS). 1986.
                Anadromous fish restoration demostration project on the
                Embry Dam in the Rappahannock River, Virginia. VIMS,
                School of Marine Science, College of William and Mary,
                Gloucester Point, Virginia. 12pp.

           Weiss-Glanz, L.S., J.G. Stanley, and J.R. Moring. 1986,
                Species profiles: life histories and environmental
                requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (North
                Atlantic)--American shad. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                Service Biol. Rep. 82(11.59). U.S. Army Corps of
                Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 16ppo

                                           33



 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I                                    Appendix I
 I
 .I
 I
 I
 I
 I                                                  r
 I
 I
 1                                        34
 1




          = = M M = = M = M = M M M = M
                                                                        JAMES RIVER

                                                                                                     Reach I





                                                                                      , 2
                                                              . 1                                .4                   .6                                                      .8
                                                                                                                                                                                       . !), 10
                                                                                                                                                       . 7


            Boshers Dam
                                                                                          . 3
                                                                                                  . 5












        Scoie = 1.10,204
         i        I        I        I        I        i
        0 meters                                   Soo



          = = M = = = = M M = M M = M 0
                                                                       JAMES RTVER

                                                                                                   Reach 2


                                                                                                                                                                    .9


                                                                                                                                                                                    .1






                                                                                                                                  . 7


                                                                                                                                           .8




                                                                                                                             .6
                                                                                                                .5



                                                                                                        . 4




                                                                                                           .3


                                                                                             . I
       Scale = 1:10,204

        i        I                 I         "I
       0 meters                                   500




                      = mm mm'm mm mmm
                        JAMES RIVER

                                   Reach 3



                                                             13










                                  .6




                                                        12

                  .3       .4



                   .2
                                                         W   II I ams





  Scale    1:10,204


  0 me@ers       500




                      JAMES RIVER

                                 Reach 4



                 Williams Island Darn




                                     0






                           .2


                                                 7


                              3                                .9





  Scale    1:10,204


 !0 meters       500



         m m m m m m m m m m m m m = m
                                                             JAMES RIVER

                                                                                      Reach 5







                                        . 1         .2

                                                                                                . 4


                                                                                       .3


                                                                                                        .5                        . 7

                                                                                                                         .6


                                                                                                                             .8



                                                                                                                                                                     .10
                                                                                                                                            .9


      Scale = 1:10,204
                              I- @          --i
     0 meters                              500




                    JAMES RIVER

                            Reach 6



                       .2





                                  7
                                             10









                          .3







  Scale  i@10,204


  0 meters    500




                   J-AMES RIVER

                            Reach 7







                  .2             .6

                             4
                  .3









 Scale   1:10,204


 0 meters     Soo




                      JAMES RIVER

                               Reach 8





                                                Bel les Islan





                                     .9



                                  7
                             3
                                  6
                                         C7

                              2

  Scale   1:10,204                Cle

  0 me@ers     500




 = = M= mmm MM'= == mm M
        JAMES RIVER

           Reach 9




               0
               Q>

             0


Belles Island Dam
              p
              q





          @o
            p
          e@p
Scale = 1:10,204
i  IIIi
0 me@ers 500




         = = m = = = = = m = = m m = m
                                                                       JAMES RIVER

                                                                                               Reach I a


                                                                                                                                            .9
                                                                                                                                         .  @;- - 10                          Browns


                                                                                              . 1           6F      . 3                   .6
                                                                                                        0 @
                                                                                                   .!::i?
                                                                                                 C,0                                        . 5         . 7

                                                                                                                                                 13
                                             N ,                                                                                               .d

                                                                                                                                               0

                                                                                                                                             D

                                                                                                                                      .2    a

                                                                                                                                a
       Scale = 1 :10,204
        i        I    -- I         I -
       0 me@ers                                   500




        M 1=1 M M M M =1 1=1 M IM M M M M 0
                                         APPOMATTOX RIVE

                                                                                     Reach I



                      Brasfield Dom
                                                                                                                                                           Abut

                                  0
                                q
                                  .3
                                                                                                                                             - 11ï¿½          . 17 . I

                                                                                                                                         . i



                                                                                                                        . 13

                                                                                                      . 0         1
                                                                    .8           .9                   . I






     Scale = 1:10,204
      i                      I              I
     0 meters                            500                                                                                                        N




             APPOMATTOX RIVER

                                Reach 2





                                                            13

                             .5


           C7




     Abutment Dam




  Scale    1:10,204


  0 meters       Soo




 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 0
       APPOMATTOX RIVE

               Reach 3




             I .

               4
              .3


                   7









 Scale = 1.10,204
 iI  __rI
 0 meters 500




 = = m = = = = = = m = m = m =
       APPOMATTOX RIVE

               Reach 4





               .2
                   .5@1
                   .067.* -. 10









Scale = 1:10,204
 F===:- I I I
@ meters- Soo




         = = M = = M = M = M = = M = M


   i
                                         APPOMATTOX RIVE

                                                                                       Reach 5




                        1






                                 13

                                                           Cz>
                                                            C==-,





                                                                                               1z,
                                                                                                         @-_;8                                  . 0          ; I I

                                                                                                                                                          <Z@@



      Scale = 1:10,204
       i      I                       I
      0 meters                            500




          mm M = = MM = M'= = = mm w
                                               APPOMATTOX RIVE

                                                                                                    Reach 6


                                                                                                                                                                                               Ba
                                                                                                                                                                                   . oz
                                                                                                                                                                       69




                                                                                                                   ,@@7
                                                                                                              . 4


                                                                                                . 3



                                                             --------
                                               . I             -










      Scale :z 1:10,204

                1         --- I - 11
                                                    I
      0 meters                                  500



 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
       APPOMA'TTOX RIVE

               Reach 7




    N                    I--," Harve I

                . 4-
              e

              .-I -
i
 Battersea Dam--'




 Scale = 1:10,204
 F=== L I I i
 @ me@ers 500
                     7
                       .9.

































I




                                                                                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                                                                                            I
                                                                                                                                                                            I
                                                                                                                                                                            I
                                                                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                DATE DUE                                                                                   I
                                                                                                                                                                          I
                                                                                                       I                                                                  I
                                                                                                                                                                          I
                                                                          I                                                                                               I
                                                                 GAYLORD No. 2333                       PRINTED 114 U.SA                                                 I
                                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                             - -- -- --    - - - - -      - - -                                                         I
                                                                       1 11111191111
                                                                            3 6668 1 107 356               11                                                          1
                                                                                   ---                                                                                 I