Description of the Choptane Quadrangle
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Title 26 Department of the Environment, Subtitle 08 Water
Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION Chapters 01-10 2 26.08.01.00 Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION Chapter 01 General Authority: Environment Article, §§9-313—9-316, 9-319, 9-320, 9-325, 9-327, and 9-328, Annotated Code of Maryland 3 26.08.01.01 .01 Definitions. A. General. (1) The following definitions describe the meaning of terms used in the water quality and water pollution control regulations of the Department of the Environment (COMAR 26.08.01—26.08.04). (2) The terms "discharge", "discharge permit", "disposal system", "effluent limitation", "industrial user", "national pollutant discharge elimination system", "person", "pollutant", "pollution", "publicly owned treatment works", and "waters of this State" are defined in the Environment Article, §§1-101, 9-101, and 9-301, Annotated Code of Maryland. The definitions for these terms are provided below as a convenience, but persons affected by the Department's water quality and water pollution control regulations should be aware that these definitions are subject to amendment by the General Assembly. B. Terms Defined. (1) "Acute toxicity" means the capacity or potential of a substance to cause the onset of deleterious effects in living organisms over a short-term exposure as determined by the Department. -
NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5
NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5 DATABASE DESIGN DOCUMENTATION AND DATA DICTIONARY 1 June 2013 Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21403 Prepared By: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 By Jacqueline Johnson Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin To receive additional copies of the report please call or write: The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 301-984-1908 Funds to support the document The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.0; Database Design Documentation And Data Dictionary was supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency Grant CB- CBxxxxxxxxxx-x Disclaimer The opinion expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the U.S. Government, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the several states or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia or the District of Columbia. ii The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.5 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. -
Nautical Information for Skippers and Crews
Sail Plan Pentagon Sailing Club 2016 Memorial Day Raftup: “STORM FRONT COMING” 2830 May 2016 Nautical Information for Skippers and Crews FLOAT PLAN ******************************************************************************************** References: NOAA Charts 12270 Chesapeake Bay – Chesapeake Eastern Bay and South River; 1:40,000 12266 Chesapeake Bay – Chesapeake – Choptank and Herring Bay; 1:40,000 12280 Chesapeake Bay – 1:200,000 Pentagon Sailing Club RaftUp Guidelines (revised 06/2005; link online at the PSC site under “RaftUp”) Saturday, 28 May 16. Sail from Annapolis, MD the Chesapeake Bay to Trippe Creek, vicinity of Choptank River. Raft up Saturday night (see Navigation below). Distance from Annapolis (direct route past Thomas Point to Choptank River, Tred Avon River, then Trippe Creek and raft up location) is approximately 33 nm Sunday, 29 May 16. Exit Trippe Creek, Tred Avon River, then Choptank River to Campbell’s Boatyard LLC, Bachelor’s Point Marina (Oxford, MD). Dinner will be held at “The Masthead at Pier Street Marina” restaurant in Oxford, MD; cocktails from 5pm, and dinner from 6 to 8pm. Monday, 30 May 16. Sail back to respective points of origin NAVIGATION ******************************************************************************************** Saturday, 28 May: Sail from Annapolis, MD to Raft up destination is in the Trippe Creek vic 038º 42.8 North; 076º 07.3 West. See Chart A and B. From Annapolis R “2” Fl R 2.5s (Lat 038º 56.4 N; Lon 076º 25.3 W) Sail from R “2” Fl R 2.5s 185º M to WP A (Lat 038º -
Geologic Map and Cross Sections of the Leonardtown 30 X 60- Minute
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Geologic Map and Cross Sections of the Leonardtown 30 X 60- Minute Quadrangle, Maryland and Virginia by Lucy McCartan1 Wayne L. Newell1 James P. Owens1 * Gary M. Bradford1** Open-File Report 95-665 Prepared in cooperation with the Maryland Geological Survey This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards (or with the North American Stratigraphic Code). Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. 1 Reston, Va. *Deceased **Volunteer for Science CONTENTS Page Introduction 3 Map contruction 4 Mapping paradigms 4 Time 5 Depositional environments 5 Previous work 6 Geologic overview 6 Structural setting 7 Ground-water chemistry 9 Discussion of selected stratigraphic units 10 Pleistocene deposits 11 Lowland unit Q2 11 Lowland unit Q3 11 Lowland unit Q4 11 Lowland unit Q5 12 Pliocene deposits 13 Upland unit T1 13 Yorktown Formation 14 Miocene deposits 14 Eastover Formation 14 St. Marys Formation 15 Choptank Formation 15 Calvert Formation 16 Pre-Miocene units 16 Nanjemoy Formation 17 Marlboro Clay 18 Aquia Formation 18 Acknowledgements 19 References cited 20 Description of map units 26 TABLES Units found only below land surface (see cross sections) 28 Table 1 Regional correlation of stratigraphic units 29 Table 2 Ground-water chemistry of selected formations 30 Table 3 Some typical characteristics of stratigraphic units 34 FIGURES Explanation of map units 35 Map symbols 36 Figure 1 Map showing distribution of depositional lithofacies of the Yorktown Formation 37 GEOLOGIC MAP AND CROSS SECTIONS OF THE LEONARDTOWN 30 X 60 MINUTE QUADRANGLE, MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA by Lucy McCartan, W.L. -
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 ....................................................................................................... -
MARK-RECAPTURE ASSESSMENT of the RECREATIONAL BLUE CRAB (Callinectes Sapidus) HARVEST in CHESAPEAKE BAY, MARYLAND
ABSTRACT Title of Thesis: MARK-RECAPTURE ASSESSMENT OF THE RECREATIONAL BLUE CRAB (Callinectes sapidus) HARVEST IN CHESAPEAKE BAY, MARYLAND Robert Francis Semmler, Master of Science, 2016 Directed By: Professor, Marjorie Reaka, Marine Estuarine Environmental Science In Maryland, commercial blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) harvests are monitored through mandatory, annual harvest reporting, but no annual monitoring exists for recreational fishers. This study used a large-scale mark-recapture program to assess relative exploitation between the recreational and commercial fishing sectors in 15 harvest reporting areas of Maryland, then incorporated movement information and extrapolated reported commercial harvest data to generate statewide estimates of recreational harvest. Results indicate spatial variation in recreational fishing, with a majority of recreational harvests coming from tributaries of the Western Shore and the Wye and Miles Rivers on the Eastern Shore. Statewide, recreational harvest has remained approximately 8% as large as commercial harvest despite management changes in 2008, and remains a larger proportion (12.8%) of male commercial harvest. In addition, this study provides detailed spatial information on recreational harvest and the first information on rates of exchange of male crabs among harvest reporting areas. MARK-RECAPTURE ASSESSMENT OF THE RECREATIONAL BLUE CRAB (Callinectes sapidus) HARVEST IN CHESAPEAKE BAY, MARYLAND By Robert Francis Semmler Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science, 2016 Advisory Committee: Professor Anson H. Hines, Co-Chair Professor Marjorie L. Reaka, Co-Chair Professor Elizabeth W. North Dr. Matthew B. Ogburn © Copyright by Robert Francis Semmler 2016 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr. -
Report Card 2017 Midshore Rivers
Report Card 2017 Midshore Rivers 114 South Washington Street Suite 301 Easton, MD 21601 shorerivers.org EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ShoreRivers is pleased to release this eighth annual River Report Card regarding the Choptank, Miles and Wye Rivers, Eastern Bay, and their tributaries. This is produced from data collected by our scientists, Riverkeepers, and approximately 50 volunteer Midshore Creekwatchers who together sampled at over 100 sites from May to October 2017. I am pleased to report that the results are in line with those from the past two years, reflecting improved water clarity, expanding grass beds, and reduced or stable pollution concentrations for many sampling locations. The year 2017 had wet and dry months and the data correlated to these weather trends. Months with increased rainfall washed from the land pollutants such as sediments and fertilizers into our rivers, an important indicator that river pollution comes from the surrounding land. As in years past, our organization has been heavily involved in installing pollution- reducing practices across our watersheds that are contributing to improved river health. As many of you know, Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy merged January 1, 2018 with the Chester River Association and the Sassafras River Association to become ShoreRivers, employing four Riverkeepers and a staff of twenty river advocates. We are in the process of developing a uniform program including a quality assurance project plan (QAPP) that will meet the standards set forth by the state and federal government for Tier III status so that our data will be acceptable to state and federal agencies for consideration in policy decision-making. -
Smithsonian Contributions and Studies
Thecachampsa antiqua (Leidy, 1852) (Crocodylidae: Thoracosaurinae) from Fossil Marine Deposits at Lee Creek Mine, Aurora, North Carolina, USA Albert C. Myrick, Jr. Formation (early Pliocene; Gibson, 1983; Hazel, 1983). It ABSTRACT provides a first opportunity to study the Lee Creek crocodilian materials in relation to other similar forms of comparable geo- Fossil remains of crocodilians at Lee Creek Mine have been few and fragmentary. Nevertheless, isolated teeth and dermal plates logic age. The purpose of this paper is to describe the Lee from the spoil piles are identifiable as Thecachampsa antiqua Creek Mine crocodilian specimens and to comment on the (Leidy). This species was established by Leidy on characters of taxonomic status and paleozoogeographic implications related teeth presumably from the Calvert Formation of Virginia (late to the Lee Creek Mine occurrence and to occurrences of early to early middle Miocene), but the species is now validated by skulls and numerous elements from the middle Miocene forma- closely related forms elsewhere. tions of the Chesapeake Group. The same form is common in the ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.•The Lee Creek Mine specimens cit- Florida early Pliocene, where it is represented by several fairly ed in this report were collected and donated by P.J. Harmatuk, complete skeletons known as Gavialosuchus americanus (Sell- F. Hyne, and B. Hyne. I thank L.G. Barnes (Los Angeles arás). It also is known from numerous skulls from early and mid- County Museum of Natural History) for providing refresher dle Miocene formations near Lisbon, Portugal, as Tomistoma lusitanica (Vianna and Moraes). Teeth and a dermal scute indicat- information on the California specimens. -
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 -
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. -
Report of Investigations 71 (Pdf, 4.8
Department of Natural Resources Resource Assessment Service MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Emery T. Cleaves, Director REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 71 A STRATEGY FOR A STREAM-GAGING NETWORK IN MARYLAND by Emery T. Cleaves, State Geologist and Director, Maryland Geological Survey and Edward J. Doheny, Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey Prepared for the Maryland Water Monitoring Council in cooperation with the Stream-Gage Committee 2000 Parris N. Glendening Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend Lieutenant Governor Sarah Taylor-Rogers Secretary Stanley K. Arthur Deputy Secretary MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 580 Taylor Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21401 General DNR Public Information Number: 1-877-620-8DNR http://www.dnr.state.md.us MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 2300 St. Paul Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218 (410) 554-5500 http://mgs.dnr.md.gov The facilities and services of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources are available to all without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, or physical or mental disability. COMMISSION OF THE MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY M. GORDON WOLMAN, CHAIRMAN F. PIERCE LINAWEAVER ROBERT W. RIDKY JAMES B. STRIBLING CONTENTS Page Executive summary.........................................................................................................................................................1 Why stream gages?.........................................................................................................................................................4 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................4 -
DGS OFR46.Qxd
State of Delaware DELAWARE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY John H. Talley, State Geologist REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 75 STRATIGRAPHY AND CORRELATION OF THE OLIGOCENE TO PLEISTOCENE SECTION AT BETHANY BEACH, DELAWARE by Peter P. McLaughlin1, Kenneth G. Miller2, James V. Browning2, Kelvin W. Ramsey1 Richard N. Benson1, Jaime L. Tomlinson1, and Peter J. Sugarman3 University of Delaware Newark, Delaware 1 Delaware Geological Survey 2008 2 Rutgers University 3 New Jersey Geological Survey State of Delaware DELAWARE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY John H. Talley, State Geologist REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 75 STRATIGRAPHY AND CORRELATION OF THE OLIGIOCENE TO PLEISTOCENE SECTION AT BETHANY BEACH, DELAWARE by Peter P. McLaughlin1, Kenneth G. Miller2, James V. Browning2, Kelvin W. Ramsey1, Richard N. Benson,1 Jaime L. Tomlinson,1 and Peter J. Sugarman3 University of Delaware Newark, Delaware 2008 1Delaware Geological Survey 2Rutgers University 3New Jersey Geological Survey Use of trade, product, or firm names in this report is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the Delaware Geological Survey. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACTG........................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTIONG................................................................................................................... 1 Previous WorkG.......................................................................................................... 2 AcknowledgmentsG.....................................................................................................