DOCSLIB.ORG

Affected Environment 3–1 International, National, Regional, and Landscape Context

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Affected Environment 3–1 International, National, Regional, and Landscape Context Contents Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3–1 International, National, Regional, and Landscape Context ........................................... 3–1 Ecological and Socioeconomic Conditions of the Chesapeake Bay Estuary .............................. 3–9 Geographic and Physiographic Setting ....................................................... 3–9 Relative Sea-level Rise and Its Effect....................................................... 3–11 Salinity and Tides...................................................................... 3–13 Bay Wetland Ecology................................................................... 3–14 Socioeconomic Setting of the Tidewater and Delmarva Regions .................................. 3–19 Land Use............................................................................. 3–22 Environmental Assessment Study Area......................................................... 3–24 Geographic and Physiographic Setting ...................................................... 3–25 Location and Size of Refuges............................................................. 3–26 Wetland Communities ................................................................... 3–55 Forest Communities .................................................................... 3–78 Upland Communities ................................................................... 3–84 Unique Communities ................................................................... 3–86 Fauna................................................................................ 3–91 Migratory Birds.................................................................... 3–92 Migratory Nongame Species of Management Concern .................................... 3–108 Shorebirds, Gulls, Terns, and Allied Species ............................................ 3–111 Marsh and Water Birds............................................................. 3–111 Breeding Songbirds ................................................................ 3–122 Threatened and Endangered Species................................................... 3–128 Benthic Organisms and Invertebrates.................................................. 3–140 Finfish and Shellfish............................................................... 3–140 Reptiles and Amphibians ............................................................ 3–150 Mammals........................................................................ 3–152 Exotic and Invasive Species ......................................................... 3–160 Resident Species .................................................................. 3–171 Cultural and Historical Environment.......................................................... 3–174 Paleoenvironment..................................................................... 3–174 Historical Overview ................................................................... 3–175 Cultural Resources .................................................................... 3–182 Socioeconomic Environment ................................................................ 3–186 Regional Overview.................................................................... 3–186 County Descriptions ................................................................... 3–188 Community Attitudes and Opinions ....................................................... 3–196 Recreation and Tourism ................................................................ 3–198 Recreational Opportunities on the Refuge Complex .......................................... 3–199 Administrative Staff and Facilities ........................................................ 3–202 Figures Figure 1. The mid-Atlantic coast of the United States and Chesapeake Bay (Ellison and Nichols 1975) ........... 3–1 Figure 2. Regional context ....................................................................... 3–3 Figure 3. County boundaries ...................................................................... 3–6 Figure 4. Current land use........................................................................ 3–7 Figure 5. Physiographic setting .................................................................... 3–9 Figure 6. Annual mean relative sea level at Solomons Island 1937–1997 ................................. 3–11 Figure 7. Maryland’s land cover.................................................................. 3–23 Figure 8. Barren Island Soils (color plate) .......................................................... 3–35 Figure 9. Blackwater NWR Soils (color plate)....................................................... 3–36 Figure 10. Bishop’s Head and Spring Island Soils (color plate) .......................................... 3–37 Figure 11. Honga Focus Area Soils (color plate) ..................................................... 3–38 Figure 12. Blackwater NWR salinity ranges A–J..................................................... 3–41 Figure 13. Water quality monitoring sites (color plate) ................................................ 3–42 Figure 14. Salinity at Route 335.................................................................. 3–43 Figure 15. Salinity at Shorter’s Wharf ............................................................. 3–43 Figure 16. Average salinity (Blackwater NWR)...................................................... 3–44 Figure 17. Average dissolved oxygen (Blackwater NWR).............................................. 3–44 Figure 18. Average hydrogen sulfide (Blackwater NWR).............................................. 3–45 Figure 19. Average pH (Blackwater NWR)......................................................... 3–45 Figure 20. Agriculture and moist soil units (Blackwater NWR) (color plate) ............................... 3–46 Figure 21. Comparative marsh 1939 ............................................................... 3–48 Figure 22. Comparative marsh 1989 ............................................................... 3–48 Figure 23. Eastern Shore island losses (middle portion of the Bay)....................................... 3–50 Figure 24. Eastern Shore island losses (conclusion)................................................... 3–51 Figure 25. Barren Island NWI (color plate) ......................................................... 3–57 Figure 26. Blackwater NWR NWI (color plate)...................................................... 3–59 Figure 27. Bishop’s Head and Spring Island NWI (color plate) .......................................... 3–60 Figure 28. Honga Focus Area NWI (color plate) ..................................................... 3–61 Figure 29. Martin NWR and Watts Island NWI (color plate) ........................................... 3–62 Figure 30. Nanticoke Protection Area NWI (color plate)............................................... 3–63 Figure 31. Chesapeake Bay Program segments in the Middle Chesapeake Bay (1978) (color plate) ............. 3–66 Figure 32. Segment FSBMH (hectares) (color plate).................................................. 3–67 Figure 33. Segments CB5MH and HNGMH (hectares) (color plate) ...................................... 3–68 Figure 34. Segment LCHMH (hectares) (color plate) ................................................. 3–69 Figure 35. Segment NANMH (hectares) (color plate) ................................................. 3–70 Figure 36. Segment NANOH (hectares) (color plate) ................................................. 3–71 Figure 37. Segment TANMH (hectares) (color plate) ................................................. 3–72 Figure 38. Land cover types as a percent of total area on Blackwater NWR................................ 3–85 Figure 39. Midwinter waterfowl counts on the Refuge Complex as a percent of Maryland’s total ............... 3–94 Figure 40. Midwinter dabbler counts on the Refuge Complex as a percent of Maryland’s total ................. 3–95 Figure 41. Midwinter diver counts on the Refuge Complex as a percent of Maryland’s total ................... 3–96 Figure 42. Numbers of dabblers on Blackwater NWR................................................. 3–97 Figure 43. Midwinter snow goose counts on the Refuge Complex as a percent of Maryland’s total ............ 3–102 Figure 44. Midwinter tundra swan counts on the Refuge Complex as a percent of Maryland’s total ............ 3–103 Figure 45. Midwinter Canada goose counts on the Refuge Complex as a percent of Maryland’s total ........... 3–104 Figure 46. Shorebird survey charts, Blackwater NWR (color plate) ..................................... 3–112 Figure 47. Shorebird survey charts, Blackwater NWR (color plate) ..................................... 3–113 Figure 48. Peregrine towers and water bird colony sites .............................................. 3–121 Figure 49. Fifty-Year Summary, Southern Dorchester County Christmas Count ........................... 3–125 Figure 50. Southern Dorchester County Christmas Count (continued) ................................... 3–126 Figure 51. Southern Dorchester County Christmas Count (conclusion) ................................... 3–127 Figure 52. Number of DFS observed per 100 sampling days at seven sites (color plate) ..................... 3–131 Figure 53. Number of DFS observed per 100 sampling days at two sites (BLK) (color plate) ................. 3–132 Figures. Seven benchmark sites: DFS population structure (color plate) ................................. 3–133 Figure 61. Adult, subadult, and juvenile DFS observed (BLK) (color
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2012-AG-Environmental-Audit.Pdf
    TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER ONE: YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER AND DEEP CREEK LAKE .................. 4 I. Background .......................................................................................................... 4 II. Active Enforcement and Pending Matters ........................................................... 9 III. The Youghiogheny River/Deep Creek Lake Audit, May 16, 2012: What the Attorney General Learned............................................................................................. 12 CHAPTER TWO: COASTAL BAYS ............................................................................. 15 I. Background ........................................................................................................ 15 II. Active Enforcement Efforts and Pending Matters ............................................. 17 III. The Coastal Bays Audit, July 12, 2012: What the Attorney General Learned .. 20 CHAPTER THREE: WYE RIVER ................................................................................. 24 I. Background ........................................................................................................ 24 II. Active Enforcement and Pending Matters ......................................................... 26 III. The Wye River Audit, October 10, 2012: What the Attorney General Learned 27 CHAPTER FOUR: POTOMAC RIVER NORTH BRANCH AND SAVAGE RIVER 31 I. Background .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Choptank Tributary Summary: a Summary of Trends in Tidal Water Quality and Associated Factors, 1985-2018
    Choptank Tributary Summary: A summary of trends in tidal water quality and associated factors, 1985-2018. June 7, 2021 Prepared for the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) Partnership by the CBP Integrated Trends Analysis Team (ITAT) This tributary summary is a living document in draft form and has not gone through a formal peer review process. We are grateful for contributions to the development of these materials from the following individuals: Jeni Keisman, Rebecca Murphy, Olivia Devereux, Jimmy Webber, Qian Zhang, Meghan Petenbrink, Tom Butler, Zhaoying Wei, Jon Harcum, Renee Karrh, Mike Lane, and Elgin Perry. 1 Contents 1. Purpose and Scope .................................................................................................................................... 3 2. Location ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Watershed Physiography .................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Land Use .............................................................................................................................................. 6 Land Use ................................................................................................................................................ 6 2.3 Tidal Waters and Stations ................................................................................................................... 8 3. Tidal
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland Stream Waders 10 Year Report
    MARYLAND STREAM WADERS TEN YEAR (2000-2009) REPORT October 2012 Maryland Stream Waders Ten Year (2000-2009) Report Prepared for: Maryland Department of Natural Resources Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division 580 Taylor Avenue; C-2 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 1-877-620-8DNR (x8623) [email protected] Prepared by: Daniel Boward1 Sara Weglein1 Erik W. Leppo2 1 Maryland Department of Natural Resources Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division 580 Taylor Avenue; C-2 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 2 Tetra Tech, Inc. Center for Ecological Studies 400 Red Brook Boulevard, Suite 200 Owings Mills, Maryland 21117 October 2012 This page intentionally blank. Foreword This document reports on the firstt en years (2000-2009) of sampling and results for the Maryland Stream Waders (MSW) statewide volunteer stream monitoring program managed by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division (MANTA). Stream Waders data are intended to supplementt hose collected for the Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) by DNR and University of Maryland biologists. This report provides an overview oft he Program and summarizes results from the firstt en years of sampling. Acknowledgments We wish to acknowledge, first and foremost, the dedicated volunteers who collected data for this report (Appendix A): Thanks also to the following individuals for helping to make the Program a success. • The DNR Benthic Macroinvertebrate Lab staffof Neal Dziepak, Ellen Friedman, and Kerry Tebbs, for their countless hours in
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Decisions Regarding Nutrient and Sediment Load Allocations and New Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Restoration Goals
    To: Principal Staff Committee Members and Representatives of Chesapeake Bay “Headwater” States From: W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr., Chair Chesapeake Bay Program Principals’ Staff Committee Subject: Summary of Decisions Regarding Nutrient and Sediment Load Allocations and New Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Restoration Goals For the past twenty years, the Chesapeake Bay partners have been committed to achieving and maintaining water quality conditions necessary to support living resources throughout the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. In the past month, Chesapeake Bay Program partners (Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Chesapeake Bay Commission) have expanded our efforts by working with the headwater states of Delaware, West Virginia and New York to adopt new cap load allocations for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment. Using the best scientific information available, Bay Program partners have agreed to allocations that are intended to meet the needs of the plants and animals that call the Chesapeake home. The allocations will serve as a basis for each state’s tributary strategies that, when completed by April 2004, will describe local implementation actions necessary to meet the Chesapeake 2000 nutrient and sediment loading goals by 2010. This memorandum summarizes the important, comprehensive agreements made by Bay watershed partners with regard to cap load allocations for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediments, as well as new baywide and local SAV restoration goals. Nutrient Allocations Excessive nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries promote undesirable algal growth, and thereby, prohibit light from reaching underwater bay grasses (submerged aquatic vegetation or SAV) and depress the dissolved oxygen levels of the deeper waters of the Bay.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland's Lower Choptank River Cultural Resource Inventory
    Maryland’s Lower Choptank River Cultural Resource Inventory by Ralph E. Eshelman and Carl W. Scheffel, Jr. “So long as the tides shall ebb and flow in Choptank River.” From Philemon Downes will, Hillsboro, circa 1796 U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle 7.5 Minute Topographic maps covering the Lower Choptank River (below Caroline County) include: Cambridge (1988), Church Creek (1982), East New Market (1988), Oxford (1988), Preston (1988), Sharp Island (1974R), Tilghman (1988), and Trappe (1988). Introduction The Choptank River is Maryland’s longest river of the Eastern Shore. The Choptank River was ranked as one of four Category One rivers (rivers and related corridors which possess a composite resource value with greater than State signific ance) by the Maryland Rivers Study Wild and Scenic Rivers Program in 1985. It has been stated that “no river in the Chesapeake region has done more to shape the character and society of the Eastern Shore than the Choptank.” It has been called “the noblest watercourse on the Eastern Shore.” Name origin: “Chaptanck” is probably a composition of Algonquian words meaning “it flows back strongly,” referring to the river’s tidal changes1 Geological Change and Flooded Valleys The Choptank River is the largest tributary of the Chesapeake Bay on the eastern shore and is therefore part of the largest estuary in North America. This Bay and all its tributaries were once non-tidal fresh water rivers and streams during the last ice age (15,000 years ago) when sea level was over 300 feet below present. As climate warmed and glaciers melted northward sea level rose, and the Choptank valley and Susquehanna valley became flooded.
    [Show full text]
  • Floristic Discoveries in Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia
    Knapp, W.M., R.F.C. Naczi, W.D. Longbottom, C.A. Davis, W.A. McAvoy, C.T. Frye, J.W. Harrison, and P. Stango, III. 2011. Floristic discoveries in Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Phytoneuron 2011-64: 1–26. Published 15 December 2011. ISSN 2153 733X FLORISTIC DISCOVERIES IN DELAWARE, MARYLAND, AND VIRGINIA WESLEY M. KNAPP 1 Maryland Department of Natural Resources Wildlife and Heritage Service Wye Mills, Maryland 21679 [email protected] ROBERT F. C. NACZI The New York Botanical Garden Bronx, New York 10458-5126 WAYNE D. LONGBOTTOM P.O. Box 634 Preston, Maryland 21655 CHARLES A. DAVIS 1510 Bellona Ave. Lutherville, Maryland 21093 WILLIAM A. MCAVOY Delaware Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program 4876 Hay Point, Landing Rd. Smyrna, Delaware 19977 CHRISTOPHER T. FRYE Maryland Department of Natural Resources Wildlife and Heritage Service Wye Mills, Maryland 21679 JASON W. HARRISON Maryland Department of Natural Resources Wildlife and Heritage Service Wye Mills, Maryland 21679 PETER STANGO III Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife and Heritage Service, Annapolis, Maryland 21401 1 Author for correspondence ABSTRACT Over the past decade studies in the field and herbaria have yielded significant advancements in the knowledge of the floras of Delaware, Maryland, and the Eastern Shore of Virginia. We here discuss fifty-two species newly discovered or rediscovered or whose range or nativity is clarified. Eighteen are additions to the flora of Delaware ( Carex lucorum var. lucorum, Carex oklahomensis, Cyperus difformis, Cyperus flavicomus, Elymus macgregorii, Glossostigma cleistanthum, Houstonia pusilla, Juncus validus var. validus, Lotus tenuis, Melothria pendula var. pendula, Parapholis incurva, Phyllanthus caroliniensis subsp.
    [Show full text]
  • Organic Compounds and Trace Elements in the Pocomoke River and Tributaries, Maryland
    Organic Compounds and Trace Elements in the Pocomoke River and Tributaries, Maryland Open-File Report 99-57 (Revised January 2000) In cooperation with George Mason University and Maryland Department of the Environment U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Organic Compounds and Trace Elements in the Pocomoke River and Tributaries, Maryland By Cherie V. Miller, Gregory D. Foster, Thomas B. Huff, and John R. Garbarino Open-File Report 99-57 (Revised January 2000) In cooperation with George Mason University and Maryland Department of the Environment Baltimore, Maryland 2000 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY U.S. Department of the Interior BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Charles G. Groat, Director The use of trade, product, or firm names in this report is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. For additional information contact: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey 8987 Yellow Brick Road Baltimore, MD 21237 Copies of this report can be purchased from: U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services Box 25286 Denver, CO 80225-0286 CONTENTS Abstract.........................................................................................................................................1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................1 Background ......................................................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Characterization Upper Chester River Watershed in Kent County And
    Characterization Of The Upper Chester River Watershed In Kent County and Queen Anne’s County, Maryland March 2005 In support of a Watershed Restoration Action Strategy for the Upper Chester River Watershed by Queen Anne’s County and Kent County Product of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources Watershed Services In Partnership With Queen Anne’s County and Kent County STATE OF MARYLAND Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., Governor Michael S. Steele, Lt. Governor Maryland Department of Natural Resources C. Ronald Franks, Secretary Watershed Services Tawes State Office Building, 580 Taylor Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21401-2397 Internet Address: http://www.dnr.maryland.gov Telephone Contact Information: Toll free in Maryland: 1-877-620-8DNR x8746, Out of state call: 410-260-8746 TTY users call via Maryland Relay The facilities and services of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources are available to all without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, national origin or physical or mental disability. This document is available in alternative format upon request from a qualified individual with disability A publication of the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program, Department of Natural Resources pursuant to NOAA Award No. NA04NOS4190042. Financial as- sistance provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, admin- istered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Upper Chester River Watershed Characterization, March 2005 Publications Tracking
    [Show full text]
  • Defining the Nanticoke Indigenous Cultural Landscape
    Indigenous Cultural Landscapes Study for the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail: Nanticoke River Watershed December 2013 Kristin M. Sullivan, M.A.A. - Co-Principal Investigator Erve Chambers, Ph.D. - Principal Investigator Ennis Barbery, M.A.A. - Research Assistant Prepared under cooperative agreement with The University of Maryland College Park, MD and The National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Annapolis, MD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Nanticoke River watershed indigenous cultural landscape study area is home to well over 100 sites, landscapes, and waterways meaningful to the history and present-day lives of the Nanticoke people. This report provides background and evidence for the inclusion of many of these locations within a high-probability indigenous cultural landscape boundary—a focus area provided to the National Park Service Chesapeake Bay and the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail Advisory Council for the purposes of future conservation and interpretation as an indigenous cultural landscape, and to satisfy the Identification and Mapping portion of the Chesapeake Watershed Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit Cooperative Agreement between the National Park Service and the University of Maryland, College Park. Herein we define indigenous cultural landscapes as areas that reflect “the contexts of the American Indian peoples in the Nanticoke River area and their interaction with the landscape.” The identification of indigenous cultural landscapes “ includes both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife therein associated with historic lifestyle and settlement patterns and exhibiting the cultural or esthetic values of American Indian peoples,” which fall under the purview of the National Park Service and its partner organizations for the purposes of conservation and development of recreation and interpretation (National Park Service 2010:4.22).
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended Maximum Fish Meals Each Year For
    Recommended Maximum Meals Each Year for Maryland Waters Recommendation based on 8 oz (0.227 kg) meal size, or the edible portion of 9 crabs (4 crabs for children) Meal Size: 8 oz - General Population; 6 oz - Women; 3 oz - Children NOTE: Consumption recommendations based on spacing of meals to avoid elevated exposure levels Recommended Meals/Year Species Waterbody General PopulationWomen* Children** Contaminants 8 oz meal 6 oz meal 3 oz meal Anacostia River 15 11 8 PCBs - risk driver Back River AVOID AVOID AVOID Pesticides*** Bush River 47 35 27 PCBs - risk driver Middle River 13 9 7 Northeast River 27 21 16 Patapsco River/Baltimore Harbor AVOID AVOID AVOID American Eel Patuxent River 26 20 15 Potomac River (DC Line to MD 301 1511 9 Bridge) South River 37 28 22 Centennial Lake No Advisory No Advisory No Advisory Methylmercury - risk driver Lake Roland 12 12 12 Pesticides*** - risk driver Liberty Reservoir 96 48 48 Methylmercury - risk driver Tuckahoe Lake No Advisory 93 56 Black Crappie Upper Potomac: DC Line to Dam #3 64 49 38 PCBs - risk driver Upper Potomac: Dam #4 to Dam #5 77 58 45 PCBs & Methylmercury - risk driver Crab meat Patapsco River/Baltimore Harbor 96 96 24 PCBs - risk driver Crab "mustard" Middle River DO NOT CONSUME Blue Crab Mid Bay: Middle to Patapsco River (1 meal equals 9 crabs) Patapsco River/Baltimore Harbor "MUSTARD" (for children: 4 crabs ) Other Areas of the Bay Eat Sparingly Anacostia 51 39 30 PCBs - risk driver Back River 33 25 20 Pesticides*** Middle River 37 28 22 Northeast River 29 22 17 Brown Bullhead Patapsco River/Baltimore Harbor 17 13 10 South River No Advisory No Advisory 88 * Women = of childbearing age (women who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or are nursing) ** Children = all young children up to age 6 *** Pesticides = banned organochlorine pesticide compounds (include chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, or heptachlor epoxide) As a general rule, make sure to wash your hands after handling fish.
    [Show full text]
  • County Council of Dorchester County Regular Meeting Minutes November 5, 2013
    County Council of Dorchester County Regular Meeting Minutes November 5, 2013 The County Council of Dorchester County met in regular session on November 5, 2013 with the following members present: Present were Jay L. Newcomb, President; William V. Nichols, Vice President; Ricky Travers; Rick Price and Tom Bradshaw. Also present were E. Thomas Merryweather, County Attorney and Donna Lane, Executive Administrative Specialist. REGULAR SESSION EXECUTIVE SESSION The Council adjourned from a Regular Session and convened in a closed Executive Session pursuant to State Government Article pursuant to §l0-508(A)(1) to discuss the appointment, employment, assignment, promotion, discipline, demotion, compensation, removal, resignation, or performance evaluation of appointees, employees, or officials over whom it has jurisdiction; and pursuant to §10-508(A)(7) to consult with counsel to obtain legal advice on a legal matter. Voting in favor of the closed Executive Session were all Council members. REGULAR SESSION INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chief Sewell Winterhawk Fitzhugh led the invocation and Councilman Bradshaw led the pledge of allegiance. CALL FOR ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO AGENDA The Council approved the following additions to the agenda: the request of the State’s Attorney to amend State law to include language regarding the potential appointment of a criminal investigator subject to the approval of the County Council and a discussion regarding a potential Solar System project. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-OCTOBER 15, 2013 The Council approved
    [Show full text]
  • Watersheds.Pdf
    Watershed Code Watershed Name 02130705 Aberdeen Proving Ground 02140205 Anacostia River 02140502 Antietam Creek 02130102 Assawoman Bay 02130703 Atkisson Reservoir 02130101 Atlantic Ocean 02130604 Back Creek 02130901 Back River 02130903 Baltimore Harbor 02130207 Big Annemessex River 02130606 Big Elk Creek 02130803 Bird River 02130902 Bodkin Creek 02130602 Bohemia River 02140104 Breton Bay 02131108 Brighton Dam 02120205 Broad Creek 02130701 Bush River 02130704 Bynum Run 02140207 Cabin John Creek 05020204 Casselman River 02140305 Catoctin Creek 02130106 Chincoteague Bay 02130607 Christina River 02050301 Conewago Creek 02140504 Conococheague Creek 02120204 Conowingo Dam Susq R 02130507 Corsica River 05020203 Deep Creek Lake 02120202 Deer Creek 02130204 Dividing Creek 02140304 Double Pipe Creek 02130501 Eastern Bay 02141002 Evitts Creek 02140511 Fifteen Mile Creek 02130307 Fishing Bay 02130609 Furnace Bay 02141004 Georges Creek 02140107 Gilbert Swamp 02130801 Gunpowder River 02130905 Gwynns Falls 02130401 Honga River 02130103 Isle of Wight Bay 02130904 Jones Falls 02130511 Kent Island Bay 02130504 Kent Narrows 02120201 L Susquehanna River 02130506 Langford Creek 02130907 Liberty Reservoir 02140506 Licking Creek 02130402 Little Choptank 02140505 Little Conococheague 02130605 Little Elk Creek 02130804 Little Gunpowder Falls 02131105 Little Patuxent River 02140509 Little Tonoloway Creek 05020202 Little Youghiogheny R 02130805 Loch Raven Reservoir 02139998 Lower Chesapeake Bay 02130505 Lower Chester River 02130403 Lower Choptank 02130601 Lower
    [Show full text]