Description: Dam data for the Chesapeake Bay watershed. This data was originally compiled in 2017 from multiple state and federal sources and edited by The Nature Conservancy for use in the Chesapeake Fish Passage Prioritization project. These data were "snapped" to a modified (single-flowline, dendritic) version of the high-resolution (1:24,000) National Hydrography Dataset, so that the dam points are geometrically coincident with the stream lines. The data underwent several quality control checks to help ensure that dams are located in the proper location. These include identifying barriers within 100m of another barrier to flag potential duplicates and assessing barriers for similar names using fuzzy string matching. Barriers identified as potential duplicates were manually reviewed against current aerial imagery in ArcGIS Pro. IN the case of duplicates, one barrier was marked as a duplicate and the other retained for use in the analysis. Original Source data (2013). Originally compiled for The Nature Conservancy's Northeast Aquatic Connectivity project from the following sources:
• National Inventory of Dams. Washington, DC :US Army Corps of Engineers : Federal Emergency Management Agency. Accessed Feb 24, 2011
• DE: Delaware Dams: Phil Carpenter, Delaware Natural Resources and Environmental Control; personal communication April 13, 2009
• MD: Jim Thompson, Fish Passage Coordinator, Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources. Personal Communication June 9, 2009
• PA: Division of Dam Safety, Department of Environmental Protection; PA Fish and Boat Commission; PA Run of River database Accessed July 10, 2009
• VA: VA Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries.> David Morton, GISP. Personal communication July 16, 2009
• WV: WV DNR: Wildlife Diversity and Technical Support Units; WV Non-coal dams, DMR Dams, NID dams: WV State GIS Data Clearinghouse: http://wvgis.wvu.edu/data/data.php; Brian Long personal communication September 14, 2009
• USGS Geographic Names Information System (GNIS); https://www.usgs.gov/tools/geographic-names-information-system-gnis Accessed Feb 20, 2010
2019 Version updates included individual review of barriers by members of the Chesapeake Fish Passage Workgroup via ArcGIS Online.
In the 2023 updates to the Chesapeake Fish Passage Prioritization tool (https://maps.tnc.org/chesfpp) these data were updated to include data from the following sources:
• Road-stream crossings that were rated as "severe" barriers from the North Atlantic Aquatic Connectivity Collaborative database (https://naacc.org)
• Dams that have been removed based on the USGS Dam Removal Information Portal (DRIP) database (https://data.usgs.gov/drip-dashboard/)Wieferich, D.J., Duda, J., Wright, J., Uribe, R., Beard J. 2021. drip-dashboard Version 2.3.2. U.S. Geological Survey software release. https://doi.org/10.5066/P9UNIWKF.
• Dams that have been removed based American Rivers' database (https://www.americanrivers.org/threats-solutions/restoring-damaged-rivers/dam-removal-map/). Rivers, American (2022): American Rivers Dam Removal Database. HTTPS://DOI.ORG/10.6084/M9.FIGSHARE.5234068.V2
Retrieved: 11:38, August 19, 2022.
• USGS fishways database (https://www.usgs.gov/data/fishway-structure-data-eastern-united-states)
• Publication Year 2022
• Title Fishway Structure Data in the Eastern United States
• DOI 10.5066/P9IB1GWS
• Authors Benjamin P Gressler, Alexander J Haro, John A Young
• Product Type Data Release
• Record Source USGS Digital Object Identifier Catalog
• USGS Organization Eastern Ecological Science Center
• Virginia Dept. of Conservation and Recreation. https://consapps.dcr.virginia.gov/arcgis/rest/services/AGOL/VFRIS_DamPoints/MapServer/0 Additional attributes provided by Arthur Kay, VA DCR. Personal communication August 17, 2022. • Individual dam updates based on the manual review of barriers by members of the Chesapeake Fish Passage Workgroup via ArcGIS Online.
Culvert data is primarily sourced from the North Atlantic Aquatic Connectivity Collaborative (NAACC): https://naacc.org/naacc_data_center_home.cfm These data are based on field surveys of road-stream crossings conducted by trained surveyors, then reviewed and submitted to the NAACC database. Surveyed culverts that are rated as 'Severe' barriers to aquatic connectivity were considered as barriers in the analysis.
Additional culvert data were obtained from Maryland DNR as part of the original dam data transfer. These culverts are generally lower in the system and were considered to be barriers to fish passage.
Copyright Text: Dams and other anthropogenic barriers to fish passage in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Compiled by The Nature Conservancy for the Chesapeake Fish Passage Prioritization project. See https://maps.tnc.org/chesfpp
Description: In 2011, the Virginia General Assembly adopted a policy into law that specifies living shorelines as the preferred management practice for erosion control in Virginia waters. In accordance with the law, the Commonwealth defines a living shoreline as ... "... a shoreline management practice that provides erosion control and water quality benefits; protects, restores or enhances natural shoreline habitat; and maintains coastal processes through the strategic placement of plants, stone, sand fill, and other structural and organic materials".The Center for Coastal Resources Management (CCRM) at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) has been developing tools for several years to guide local governments in shoreline management. In particular, they have focused on the use of ecologically preferred alternatives for erosion control and have conducted research into refining the appropriate uses for a large suite of possible treatments based on existing shoreline conditions. A series of Decision Trees were developed to determine shoreline best management practices when conducting onsite inspections. These were developed to support integrated guidance at the management and regulatory level.This body of work has been expanded and re-developed as a GIS spatial model known as the Shoreline Management Model (SMM) to determine appropriate shoreline best management practices from the desk-top using available spatial data and the decision tree logic. The assessment is conducted at parcel level scale but the output represents a reach based or cumulative approach to shoreline management. The variables used in the SMM include fetch, nearshore bathymetry, bank condition, bank height, marsh presence, beach presence, tree canopy presence, and permanent structures within the riparian zone. Version 5 adds existing shoreline erosion control structures, and the presence of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) to enhance the models capabilities for evaluating best management practices along shorelines that have already been hardened or where erosion control practices may impact SAV.Most appropriate for desk-top reviews, regulatory compliance and comprehensive planning, the recommendations derived from the SMM may be altered due to lot size, shoreline length along a single parcel, proximity of primary buildings to the shoreline, type of existing erosion control structures, land use practices, and local biota. The output of the SMM is delivered to the end user in two ways: interactive map viewer, and digital shape file.
Copyright Text: Center for Coastal Resources Management (CCRM), Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS),
Description: The VA_COUNTY dataset is a feature class component of the Virginia Administrative Boundaries dataset from the Virginia Geographic Information Network (VGIN). VA_COUNTY represents the best available city and county boundary information to VGIN.VGIN initially sought to develop an improved locality and town boundary dataset in late 2013, spurred by response of the Virginia Administrative Boundaries Workgroup community. The feature class initially started from the locality boundaries from the Census TIGER dataset for Virginia. VGIN solicited input from localities in Virginia through the Road Centerlines data submission process as well as through public forums such as the Virginia Administrative Boundaries Workgroup and VGIN listservs. Data received were analyzed and incorporated into the VA_COUNTY feature class where locality data were a superior representation of the city or county boundary.
Copyright Text: Virginia Geographic Information Network (VGIN), and the Census and Localities and Towns submitting data to the project