DOCSLIB.ORG

Currents the Yearly Journal of the Chester River Association Vol

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Currents the Yearly Journal of the Chester River Association Vol CURRENTS THE YEARLY JOURNAL OF THE CHESTER RIVER ASSOCIATION VOL. 27 • 2017 Letter from the CONTENTS PRESIDENT Change. It comes with this time of 3 | Cover Story: Rethinking Ag year as the long days of summer give way to the vibrant colors of autumn. 4 | The Corsica? It’s Complicated The waterfowl are back, the rockfish have moved into the Chester, and the 7 | A Surge in SAV leaves have turned. At the Chester River Association office, change is also in the air. 8 | Tale of Two Creeks After long and careful deliberation through the spring and summer, CRA’s board approved a merger between CRA, Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy, and the Sassafras River Association. The new organization will be called ShoreRivers. Evoking the image of the interconnectedness between land and water, ShoreRivers will be a powerful and unified voice for clean water on Maryland’s Eastern Shore and it will continue and expand the work of CRA in the Chester watershed. ShoreRivers will be based at the Eastern Shore Conservation Center in Easton, while maintaining the existing Chestertown and Georgetown offices of CRA and SRA. Our current Riverkeeper, Isabel Hardesty, will assume the role of Regional Director of the Chester and Sassafras programs, and Tim Trumbauer will become the next Chester Riverkeeper. The rest of our fantastic staff will continue to support efforts in these two northern watersheds. While there is much administrative work being done to ensure a smooth transition, the energy and excitement in the office are palpable. Our staff members were early and enthusiastic supporters of the merger, and are truly excited to bring the collective resources the merger represents into our local programming. The merger will allow us to improve the health of the Chester on a scale and scope that cannot be achieved independently. We will increase our impact while maintaining our grassroots identity through our Chester Riverkeeper and staff, an active Chester River Watershed Board composed of CRA board members, and our devoted volunteer corps of Chester Testers and oyster growers. On another note, I want to extend a special thanks to Anna Wolgast for her leadership and vision while serving as CRA’s Executive Director for the past four years; Anna will be retiring this fall. She did a fabulous job of hiring and empowering a superb staff whose infectious love of the river and dedication to their work has been a tremendous boost in engaging with the community. Anna quietly guided CRA through challenging Kathy Thornton times and leaves us stronger for her presence. Putting on my new hat and speaking as chair of the ShoreRivers Board, I am very excited that Anna has agreed to serve on the board of the merged organization, bringing her experience as an CRA MISSION executive director and knowledge of CRA programs to the new Achieve our vision of a healthy Chester River for organization. our community and future generations through We have not forgotten Chester River Association’s roots. science-based advocacy, restoration, and outreach. Without the dedication and vision of many people over the years, CRA would not be the vibrant engaged organization it is today. We’ve been active for 30 years and will continue to rely on you, the most important asset the Chester has, even as the organization adopts its new name. Cover photo of soil scientist Dr. Ray Weil by Shane Brill. President,nt ChesterCheh ster River Riverr AssociationAssoco iation 2 500 acres, 5 farms and ONE BIG PROJECT Story by Ellen Uzelac Photos by Shane Brill t started as an experiment early this fall. Would generation farmer participating in the project that a test group of progressive farmers change up involves 500 acres of grain on five farms in Kent and the way they plant and fertilize in a bold bid to Talbot counties. More farms may be added next year. reduce nitrogen use, enhance soil health, and "This is an exciting time for agriculture. I’ve been Iimprove water quality in the Chester River and its tributaries? As Paul Spies, Chester River Association’s former "What these farmers are doing agricultural outreach specialist, frames it: "For us, the could help promote industry-wide main goal agronomically is what is the biggest bang for the buck for water quality? What these farmers are change. Is there skepticism? Sure. doing could help promote industry-wide change. Is The question is: Will it work? These there skepticism? Sure. The question is: Will it work? These farmers want to find out." farmers want to fi nd out." The four-year initiative, developed by CRA, —Paul Spies represents a radical rethinking of conventional farming practices. If it does work, there could be significant gains in water quality. The pluses for doing this 40 years and we’re still learning. I don’t farmers? A reduced need for costly nitrogen fertilizer, know a farmer who doesn’t have a test plot growing improved soil health, and higher crop yields. some place. We’re all trying to grow healthier, more efficient crops." "Higher yields, less fertilizer? If we can make that happen, we’ll do it," says Allen Davis, a sixth- Continued on Page 12 Brothers Olin Davis, left, and Allen Davis at the fi eld where they planted a mixed seed cover crop. 3 The Corsica Conundrum Is the Corsica River healthy? It’s complicated. By Tim Trumbauer, Watershed Manager " oly @#$%!" that, this tributary of the Chester River had the only recorded fish kill in the watershed in 2017. The fish In the relatively unexciting realm of water kill was almost certainly caused by a nutrient-fueled quality monitoring, one doesn’t hear (or algal bloom. Hutter) those words often. This particular exclamatory remark was triggered by an algae This is not encouraging stuff. sample near Centreville Wharf on the Corsica River. Chester Riverkeeper Isabel Hardesty had just pushed The poor water quality near the Centreville Wharf 50 milliliters of Corsica River water through a glass is particularly disheartening since Corsica River microfiber filter using our LaMotte Company Code restoration has been targeted with a significant 1050 Syringe Assembly — affectionately called the investment of time, brain power, and money over "chlorophyll thingy." As the water is pushed through the chlorophyll thingy with a plunger, the filter collects fine In the Corsica, we have materials, including chlorophyll pigments (a measurement of algae) and other particulate matter. relatively healthy nontidal Fresh out of the package, a clean filter is bright white. Typically, after processing a sample, the filter waters yet unhealthy tidal turns a light tan or green color — similar to a green tea. That day, the filter looked like black sludge. waters. Why? Unfortunately, the waters at Centreville Wharf routinely produce dirty filters, often representing the the past two decades. Here’s a brief timeline: In 1998, highest level of algae that we measure throughout Maryland’s Clean Water Action Plan designated the the Chester River watershed. Here’s some pretty Corsica as a river "in need of restoration." As a follow sorry math: Of the 13 sites we tested for algae up, in 2004, the town of Centreville and partners between 2014 and 2016, the Centreville Wharf area including the Chester River Association published averaged more than twice as much as the next the Corsica River Watershed Action Strategy. most polluted site. Doubly unfortunate, this is not The action plan outlined 13 strategies to remedy the only negative superlative associated with the water quality issues like excessive sediments, the Centreville Wharf area. It also has the worst or nearly presence of fecal coliform, and an overabundance of worst water quality in terms of measured nutrient nutrients. In 2006, a stakeholder group, the Corsica pollution, sediment pollution, and clarity. Not only Implementation Committee, launched with representatives from state and local government, the Chester River Association, Corsica River Conservancy, and Master Gardeners. The group still meets monthly. Its mission: to track water quality progress and develop new water quality initiatives. How does all that translate into on-the-ground restoration? At last count, the Corsica River Conservancy had installed nearly 400 rain gardens in and around Centreville along with several river-friendly vegetated ditches called bioswales. Other improvements at the wharf itself: a living shoreline, pervious pathways, and native plantings. So what’s wrong with Centreville, a model for the implementation of river-friendly practices? Most of the pollution reduction strategies or goals have been met or Google map 4 Tim Trumbauer Tim The Centreville Wharf area, pictured here, suffers from very poor water quality. exceeded, yet we still have poor water quality at the Chesapeake Bay is cleaner than our local waters. Centreville Wharf. The closer to the Bay you are, the cleaner the water. Fittingly, the areas downriver in the Corsica tend It wouldn’t be a big jump to assume that current to have much better water quality than near the efforts aren’t working — but that would be an Centreville Wharf. In our 2016 Chester River Report oversimplified conclusion. First, some background. Card, the tidal Corsica River received the lowest At CRA, our water quality monitoring is divided grade: a disappointing D. The reason? Poor water into two major programs: tidal and nontidal. Tidal quality in the Centreville Wharf area drags down the waterways are just that — any water that has a average. measurable tide. Our tidal waterways are also marked by varying levels of salinity. If you have a dock and In contrast, the nontidal waters in the Corsica a boat, chances are you live on a tidal waterway. watershed get high grades for clean water, Nontidal creeks and streams, on the other hand, have consistently receiving a B.
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail Connecting
    CAPTAIN JOHN SMITH CHESAPEAKE NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL CONNECTING TRAILS EVALUATION STUDY 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 405 Annapolis, MD 21403 CONTENTS Acknowledgments 2 Executive Summary 3 Statement of Study Findings 5 Introduction 9 Research Team Reports 10 Anacostia River 11 Chester River 15 Choptank River 19 Susquehanna River 23 Upper James River 27 Upper Nanticoke River 30 Appendix: Research Teams’ Executive Summaries and Bibliographies 34 Anacostia River 34 Chester River 37 Choptank River 40 Susquehanna River 44 Upper James River 54 Upper Nanticoke River 56 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are truly thankful to the research and project team, led by John S. Salmon, for the months of dedicated research, mapping, and analysis that led to the production of this important study. In all, more than 35 pro- fessionals, including professors and students representing six universities, American Indian representatives, consultants, public agency representatives, and community leaders contributed to this report. Each person brought an extraordinary depth of knowledge, keen insight and a personal devotion to the project. We are especially grateful for the generous financial support that we received from the following private foundations, organizations and corporate partners: The Morris & Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation, The Clay- ton Fund, Inc., Colcom Foundation, The Conservation Fund, Lockheed Martin, the Richard King Mellon Foundation, The Merrill Foundation, the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, the Rauch Foundation, The Peter Jay Sharp Foundation, Verizon, Virginia Environmental Endowment and the Wallace Genetic Foundation. Without their support this project would simply not have been possible. Finally, we would like to extend a special thank you to the board of directors of the Chesapeake Conser- vancy, and to John Maounis, Superintendent of the National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Office, for their leadership and unwavering commitment to the Captain John Smith Chesapeake Trail.
    [Show full text]
  • Severn River Commission Presentation
    69 Franklin Street Annapolis, MD 21401 410-216-9441 www.chesapeakelegal.org [email protected] OUR MISSION To use the law to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed by providing pro bono legal assistance through a network of volunteer attorneys. OUR VISION A clean, healthy Chesapeake Bay that can be enjoyed safely by humans, sustain viable fishing harvests, and support thriving and diverse aquatic and wildlife populations. HOW IT WORKS Intake and Evaluation Client CLA Attorney request for assistance connect with assistance Restoration and Protection Our Clients and Partners v Individuals v Ad-Hoc Coalitions v Community Groups v State and Local v Environmental Organizations Government v Conservation Organizations v Home Owners Associations v Coalitions CLA Clients 1000 Friends of Maryland Bedford County Citizen Choose Clean Water Federal Hill Residents Action Committee for Transit Group Coalition Food and Water Watch Agricultural Certainty Work Beechwood Hill Homeowners Choptank Riverkeeper Frederick County Citizens Group Association Citizens Against Plan for Group Allentown Residents for Berrywood Community Eva Mar Development Friends of Bryan Park Clean Air Association Citizens for a Better Charles Friends of Cabin John Creek Alliance for the Chesapeake Blue Water County Watershed Bay Baltimore/Baltimore Citizens to Protect Blu Point Friends of Hillmead Park Alliance to Restore Northwest Harbor Waterkeeper Citizens to Save Little Pimmit Friends of Jug Bay Creek BMAT Restoration Work Run Friends of Mc Millan Park
    [Show full text]
  • Chester River and Choptank River Watershed Management Plan
    Chester River and Choptank River Watershed Management Plan Final Plan November 2014 Prepared for: Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) Prepared by: KCI Technologies, Inc. 1352 Marrows Road Suite 100 Newark, DE 19711 Chester River and Choptank River Watershed Management Plan Final Plan November 2014 Prepared for: Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) Prepared by: KCI Technologies, Inc. 1352 Marrows Road Suite 100 Newark, DE 19711 KCI Job Order No. 17133560 Chester River and Choptank River Watershed Management Plan 2014 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Regulatory and Programmatic Environment ................................................................................ 7 1.3 Watershed Priorities ..................................................................................................................... 8 2 Watershed Characteristics.............................................................................................. 8 2.1 Watershed Delineation and Planning Segments .......................................................................... 8 2.2 Chester and Choptank ................................................................................................................. 11 2.2.1 Chester River ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • (Tmdls) Analysis for Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin, Delaware
    Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) Analysis for Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin, Delaware: Chester River, Choptank River, Marshyhope Creek, Nanticoke River, Gum Branch, Gravelly Branch, Deep Creek, Broad Creek and Pocomoke River Watersheds Prepared by: Watershed Assessment Section Division of Water Resources Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 820 Silver Lake Boulevard, Suite 220 Dover, Delaware 19904 September 2006 _______________________________________Analysis of Chesapeake Drainage TMDLs, Delaware Table of Contents 1 1 Introduction/Background ......................................................................................... 1 1 1 Introduction/Background ......................................................................................... 1 2 Study Area....................................................................................................................3 2.1 Chester River Watershed ........................................................................................ 3 2.2 Choptank River Watershed..................................................................................... 5 2.3 Marshyhope Creek Watershed................................................................................ 7 2.4 Pocomoke River Watershed.................................................................................. 10 2.5 The Nanticoke River Basin................................................................................... 12 2.6 Designated Uses...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bay Grasses Backgrounder
    Bay Grasses Backgrounder - Page 1 of 5 Upper Bay Zone In the Upper Bay Zone (21 segments extending south from the Susquehanna River to the Bay Bridge), underwater bay grasses increased 21 percent from 18,922 acres in 2007 to 22,954 acres in 2008. Ten of the 21 segments increased by at least 20 percent and by at least 12 acres from 2007 totals: 21%, Northern Chesapeake Bay Segment: 1,833 acres (2007) vs. 1,008 acres (2008) 21%, Northern Chesapeake Bay Segment 2: 11,725 acres (2007) vs. 14,194 acres (2008) 59%, Northeast River: 116 acres (2007) vs. 183 acres (2008) 70%, Upper Chesapeake Bay: 373 acres (2007) vs. 633 acres (2008) 50%, Sassafras River Segment: 1,368 acres (2007) vs. 551 acres (2008) 1204%, Sassafras River Segment 2: 5 acres (2007) vs. 52 acres (2008) 40%, Gunpowder River Segment 1: 558 acres (2007) vs. 783 acres (2008) 50%, Middle River: 551 acres (2007) vs. 828 acres (2008) 53%, Upper Central Chesapeake Bay: 124 acres (2007) vs. 188 acres (2008) 23%, Lower Chester River: 67 acres (2007) vs. 84 acres (2008) None of the 21 segments decreased by at least 20 percent and by at least 12 acres from 2007 totals. Two of the 21 segments remained unvegetated in 2008. Acres of SAV & Goal Attained Upper Chesapeake Bay Region Segment 2007 2008 Restoration Goal 2008 % of goal Northern Chesapeake Bay Segment 1 834 1007 754 134 Northern Chesapeake Bay Segment 2 11726 14194 12149 117 Northern Chesapeake Bay Total 12560 15202 12903 118 Northeast River 115 183 89 205 Elk River Segment 1 1590 1907 1844 103 Elk River Segment 2 391 440 190 232
    [Show full text]
  • Chesapeake Bay, Eastern Shore N Chapter 14 N 335
    Chesapeake Bay, Eastern Shore n Chapter 14 n 335 Chesapeake Bay,Eastern Shore (1) This chapter describes the Eastern Shore of Chesa- describes Fishermans Island, Cape Charles Light on peake Bay from Cape Charles to Swan Point, about 6 Smith Island, and the Atlantic entrance to Chesapeake miles northward of the entrance to Chester River, and Bay. several bodies of water and their tributaries that empty (7) Kiptopeke Beach , 3.2 miles northward of Wise into this part of the bay. Included are Pocomoke Sound, Point, is the site of a former ferry terminal. The off- Pocomoke River, Tangier Sound, Wicomico River, shore breakwaters are obsolete ships filled with sand Nanticoke River, Little Choptank River, Choptank and sunk end-to-end. Just northward of the abandoned River, Eastern Bay, and Chester River, and the off-lying terminal is Butlers Bluff, which has steep bare faces islands of Tangier, Smith, Hooper, and Tilghman. conspicuous from the bay. (2) Also described are the ports of Cape Charles, (8) Old Plantation Creek , 7 miles northward of Wise Pocomoke City, Tangier, Crisfield, Salisbury, Easton, Point, has depths of about a foot. Many of the bars and Cambridge, St. Michaels, and several smaller ports and middle grounds are marked by discolored water, and landings. the channel usually is marked by bush stakes, but it is narrow and difficult to navigate without local knowl- COLREGS Demarcation Lines edge. The opening in the thick woods at the mouth is (3) The lines established for Chesapeake Bay are de- visible from outside. No supplies are available along the scribed in 80.510, chapter 2.
    [Show full text]