DOCSLIB.ORG

Wetlands of Delaware

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

SE M3ER 985 U.s. - artm nt of h - n erior S ate of D lawa FiSh and Wildlife Service Department of Natural Resourc and Enviro mental Con ra I WETLANDS OF DELAWARE by Ralph W. Tiner, Jr. Regional Wetland Coordinator Habitat Resources U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5 Newton Corner, MA 02158 SEPTEMBER 1985 Project Officer David L. Hardin Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Wetlands Section State of Delaware 89 Kings Highway Dover, DE 19903 Cooperative Publication U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Delaware Department of Natural Region 5 Resources and Environmental Habitat Resources Control One Gateway Center Division of Environmental Control Newton Corner, MA 02158 89 Kings Highway Dover, DE 19903 This report should be cited as follows: Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Newton Corner, MA and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section, Dover, DE. Cooperative Publication. 77 pp. Acknowledgements Many individuals have contributed to the successful completion of the wetlands inventory in Delaware and to the preparation of this report. The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section contributed funds for wetland mapping and database construction and printed this report. David Hardin served as project officer for this work and offered invaluable assistance throughout the project, especially in coor­ dinating technical review of the draft report and during field investigations. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District also provided funds for map production. William Zinni and Anthony Davis performed wetland photo interpretation and quality control of draft maps, and reviewed portions of this report. Their work serves as the foundation for this report. John Organ provided quality control of interpreted photographs. The Service's National Wetlands Inventory Group in St. Petersburg, Florida provided technical support for producing the wetland maps and for creating the Delaware wetland database. In particular, John Montanari, Ross Pywell, Robin Gebhard, and Snsan Hazellief provided major support. The following persons reviewed the draft manuscript and provided additional information: Dr. John Carey (DNREC), Inez Connor (FWS), Dr. Franklin Daiber (University of Delaware), Richard Dyer (FWS), Tony Florio (DNREC), Dick Hall (SCS), Dr. Glenn Kinser (FWS), Charles Lesser (DNREC), Dr. Blake Parker (FWS), Ron Vickers (DNREC), Dr. Bill Wilen (FWS), and Bob Zepp (FWS). The work of the individuals who typed portions of this report and its earlier draft is acknowledged: Lynne Ricci (draft manuscript), Alicia Bruneau (tables), Priscilla Arsenault (final manuscript), and Rachel Caliendo (final manuscript). Graphic 'support was provided by Debra McGeever and the enclosed figure showing the distribution of Delaware's wetlands was prepared by Kelly Drake and Fred Seavey. Cover photo credits; Martin (wood duck), Tiner (estuarine emergent wetland), Tiner (swamp milkweed) Zinni (palustrine forested wetland), Zinni (wetland with skunk cabbage), and Fitzharris (great blue heron). Table of Contents Page Acknowledgements. : ............................................................................. i List of Figures ................................................................................. iv List of Tables .................................................................................. v List of Plates .................................................................................. vi Chapter 1. Introduction........................................................................ 1 Need for a Wetlands Inventory in Delaware ..................................................... 2 Description of the Study Area . .. 2 Purpose and Organization of This Report . ... 2 References .................................................................................. 2 Chapter 2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Wetland Definitiou aud Classification System .............. 4 Introduction. .. 4 The Service's Definition of Wetland ............................................................ 4 The Service's Wetland Classification System ...........................................•......... 7 References .................................................................................. 12 Chapter 3. National Wetlauds Iuventory Mapping Techniqnes and Results ............................ 13 Introduction ................................................................................. 13 Wetlands Inventory Techniques ................................................................ 13 Wetlands Inventory Results .................................................................... 17 National Wetlands Inventory Maps ........................................................... 17 Wetland and Deepwater Habitat Acreage Summaries ........................................... 17 State Totals ............................................................................. 17 County Totals ........................................................................... 17 Summary .................................................................................... 20 References .................................................................................. 22 Chapter 4. Wetland Hydrology ................................................................. 23 Introduction ................................................................................. 23 Tidal Wetland Hydrology ..................................................................... 23 Nontidal Wetland Hydrology .................................................................. 24 References .................................................................................. 26 Chapter 5. Hydric Soils of Delaware ............................................................ 27 Introduction ................................................................................. 27 Definition of Hydric Soil. ..................................................................... 27 Major Categories of Hydric Soils ............................................................... 27 National List of Hydric Soils .................................................................. 29 Delaware Hydric Soils ........................................................................ 29 Acreage of Hydric Soils ....................................................................... 29 Description of Hydric Soils .................................................................... 30 References .................................................................................. 33 I ii Chapter 6. Vegetation and Plant Communities of Delaware's Wetlands .............................. 34 Introduction ................................................................................. 34 Hydrophyte Definition and Concept , ........................................................... 34 Wetland Plant Communities ................................................................... 34 Marine Wetlands ........................................................................... 35 Estuarine Wetlands ......................................................................... 35 Riverine Wetlands .......................................................................... 39 Palustrine Wetlands ....................................................................... .40 Lacustrine Wetlands ....................................................................... .45 Rare and Endangered Wetland Plants: ......................................................... .46 Summary ................................................................................... 47 References ................................................................................. .47 Chapter 7. Wetland Values ..................................................................... 48 Introductiou ................................................................................ .48 Fish and Wildlife Values ..................................................................... .48 Environmental Quality Values ................................................................. 50 Socio-economic Values ........................................................................ 53 Summary ................................................................................... 56 References ................................................................................... 56 Chapter 8. Delaware Wetland Trends ............................................................ 59 Introduction ................................................................................. 59 Forces Changing Wetlands .................................................................... 59 Wetland Trends .............................................................................. 60 Future Outlook .............................................................................. 63 References .................................................................................. 63 Chapter 9. Wetland Protection .................................................................. 64 Introduction ................................................................................. 64 Wetland Regulation .......................................................................... 64 Wetland Acquisition .......................................................................... 65 Future
Recommended publications
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016

    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016

    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Revised February 24, 2017 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate.
  • BMP #: Constructed Wetlands

    BMP #: Constructed Wetlands

    Structural BMP Criteria BMP #: Constructed Wetlands Constructed Wetlands are shallow marsh sys- tems planted with emergent vegetation that are designed to treat stormwater runoff. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001 Key Design Elements Potential Applications z Adequate drainage area (usually 5 to 10 acres Residential Subdivision: YES minimum) Commercial: YES Ultra Urban: LIMITED Industrial: YES z Maintenance of permanent water surface Retrofit: YES Highway/Road: YES z Multiple vegetative growth zones through vary- ing depths Stormwater Functions z Robust and diverse vegetation Volume Reduction: Low z Relatively impermeable soils or engineered liner Recharge: Low Peak Rate Control: High z Sediment collection and removal Water Quality: High z Adjustable permanent pool and dewatering Pollutant Removal mechanism Total Suspended Solids: x Nutrients: x Metals: x Pathogens: x Pennsylvania Stormwater Management Manual 1 Section 5 - Structural BMPs Figure 1. Demonstration Constructed Wetlands in Arizona (http://ag.arizona.edu/AZWATER/arroyo/094wet.html) Description Constructed Wetlands are shallow marsh systems planted with emergent vegetation that are designed to treat stormwater runoff. While they are one of the best BMPs for pollutant removal, Constructed Wetlands (CWs) can also mitigate peak rates and even reduce runoff volume to a certain degree. They also can provide considerable aesthetic and wildlife benefits. CWs use a relatively large amount of space and require an adequate source of inflow to maintain the perma- nent water surface. Variations Constructed Wetlands can be designed as either an online or offline facilities. They can also be used effectively in series with other flow/sediment reducing BMPs that reduce the sediment load and equalize incoming flows to the CW.
  • Comparison of Swamp Forest and Phragmites Australis

    Comparison of Swamp Forest and Phragmites Australis

    COMPARISON OF SWAMP FOREST AND PHRAGMITES AUSTRALIS COMMUNITIES AT MENTOR MARSH, MENTOR, OHIO A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree Master of Science in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Jenica Poznik, B. S. ***** The Ohio State University 2003 Master's Examination Committee: Approved by Dr. Craig Davis, Advisor Dr. Peter Curtis Dr. Jeffery Reutter School of Natural Resources ABSTRACT Two intermixed plant communities within a single wetland were studied. The plant community of Mentor Marsh changed over a period of years beginning in the late 1950’s from an ash-elm-maple swamp forest to a wetland dominated by Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steudel. Causes cited for the dieback of the forest include salt intrusion from a salt fill near the marsh, influence of nutrient runoff from the upland community, and initially higher water levels in the marsh. The area studied contains a mixture of swamp forest and P. australis-dominated communities. Canopy cover was examined as a factor limiting the dominance of P. australis within the marsh. It was found that canopy openness below 7% posed a limitation to the dominance of P. australis where a continuous tree canopy was present. P. australis was also shown to reduce diversity at sites were it dominated, and canopy openness did not fully explain this reduction in diversity. Canopy cover, disturbance history, and other environmental factors play a role in the community composition and diversity. Possible factors to consider in restoring the marsh are discussed. KEYWORDS: Phragmites australis, invasive species, canopy cover, Mentor Marsh ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A project like this is only possible in a community, and more people have contributed to me than I can remember.
  • Evaluation of Approaches for Mapping Tidal Wetlands of the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays

    Evaluation of Approaches for Mapping Tidal Wetlands of the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays

    remote sensing Article Evaluation of Approaches for Mapping Tidal Wetlands of the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays Brian T. Lamb 1,2,* , Maria A. Tzortziou 1,3 and Kyle C. McDonald 1,2,4 1 Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, The City College of New York, City University of New York, New York, NY 10031, USA; [email protected] (M.A.T.); [email protected] (K.C.M.) 2 Earth and Environmental Sciences Program, The Graduate Center, City University of New York, New York, NY 10016, USA 3 NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA 4 Carbon Cycle and Ecosystems Group, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 1 July 2019; Accepted: 3 October 2019; Published: 12 October 2019 Abstract: The spatial extent and vegetation characteristics of tidal wetlands and their change are among the biggest unknowns and largest sources of uncertainty in modeling ecosystem processes and services at the land-ocean interface. Using a combination of moderate-high spatial resolution ( 30 meters) optical and synthetic aperture radar (SAR) satellite imagery, we evaluated several ≤ approaches for mapping and characterization of wetlands of the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays. Sentinel-1A, Phased Array type L-band Synthetic Aperture Radar (PALSAR), PALSAR-2, Sentinel-2A, and Landsat 8 imagery were used to map wetlands, with an emphasis on mapping tidal marshes, inundation extents, and functional vegetation classes (persistent vs. non-persistent). We performed initial characterizations at three target wetlands study sites with distinct geomorphologies, hydrologic characteristics, and vegetation communities.
  • The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts

    The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts

    The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: A County Checklist • First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Somers Bruce Sorrie and Paul Connolly, Bryan Cullina, Melissa Dow Revision • First A County Checklist Plants of Massachusetts: Vascular The A County Checklist First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP), part of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, is one of the programs forming the Natural Heritage network. NHESP is responsible for the conservation and protection of hundreds of species that are not hunted, fished, trapped, or commercially harvested in the state. The Program's highest priority is protecting the 176 species of vertebrate and invertebrate animals and 259 species of native plants that are officially listed as Endangered, Threatened or of Special Concern in Massachusetts. Endangered species conservation in Massachusetts depends on you! A major source of funding for the protection of rare and endangered species comes from voluntary donations on state income tax forms. Contributions go to the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Fund, which provides a portion of the operating budget for the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program. NHESP protects rare species through biological inventory,
  • Meadow Pond Final Report 1-28-10

    Meadow Pond Final Report 1-28-10

    Comparison of Restoration Techniques to Reduce Dominance of Phragmites australis at Meadow Pond, Hampton New Hampshire FINAL REPORT January 28, 2010 David M. Burdick1,2 Christopher R. Peter1 Gregg E. Moore1,3 Geoff Wilson4 1 - Jackson Estuarine Laboratory, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824 2 – Natural Resources and the Environment, UNH 3 – Department of Biological Sciences, UNH 4 – Northeast Wetland Restoration, Berwick ME 03901 Submitted to: New Hampshire Coastal Program New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services 50 International Drive Pease Tradeport Portsmouth, NH 03801 UNH Burdick et al. 2010 Executive Summary The northern portion of Meadow Pond Marsh remained choked with an invasive exotic variety of Phragmites australis (common reed) in 2002, despite tidal restoration in 1995. Our project goal was to implement several construction techniques to reduce the dominance of Phragmites and then examine the ecological responses of the system (as a whole as well as each experimental treatment) to inform future restoration actions at Meadow Pond. The construction treatments were: creeks, creeks and pools, sediment excavation with a large pool including native marsh plantings. Creek construction increased tides at all treatments so that more tides flooded the marsh and the highest spring tides increased to 30 cm. Soil salinity increased at all treatment areas following restoration, but also increased at control areas, so greater soil salinity could not be attributed to the treatments. Decreases in Phragmites cover were not statistically significant, but treatment areas did show significant increases in native vegetation following restoration. Fish habitat was also increased by creek and pool construction and excavation, so that pool fish density increased from 1 to 40 m-2.
  • Bridge Index

    Bridge Index

    Co Br# Page Facility Carried Featured Intersedtion Co Br# Page Facility Carried Featured Intersedtion 1 001 12 2-G RISING SUN RD BRANDYWINE CREEK 1 087 9 10-C SNUFF MILL RD BURRIS RUN 1 001A 12 2-G RISING SUN RD BRANDYWINE CREEK 1 088 9 10-C SNUFF MILL RD TRIB OF RED CLAY CREEK 1 001B 12 2-F KENNETT PIKE WATERWAY & ABANDON RR 1 089 9 10-C SNUFF MILL RD. WATERWAY 1 002 9 12-G ROCKLAND RD BRANDYWINE CREEK 1 090 9 10-C SNUFF MILL RD. WATERWAY 1 003 9 11-G THOMPSON BRIDGE RD BRANDYWINE CREEK 1 091 9 10-C SNUFF MILL RD. WATERWAY 1 004P 13 3-B PEDESTRIAN NORTHEAST BLVD 1 092 9 11-E KENNET PIKE (DE 52) 1 006P 12 4-G PEDESTRIAN UNION STREET 1 093 9 10-D SNUFF MILL RD WATERWAY 1 007P 11 8-H PEDESTRIAN OGLETOWN STANTON RD 1 096 9 11-D OLD KENNETT ROAD WATERWAY 1 008 9 9-G BEAVER VALLEY RD. BEAVER VALLEY CREEK 1 097 9 11-C OLD KENNETT ROAD WATERWAY 1 009 9 9-G SMITHS BRIDGE RD BRANDYWINE CREEK 1 098 9 11-C OLD KENNETT ROAD WATERWAY 1 010P 10 12-F PEDESTRIAN I 495 NB 1 099 9 11-C OLD KENNETT RD WATERWAY 1 011N 12 1-H SR 141NB RD 232, ROCKLAND ROAD 1 100 9 10-C OLD KENNETT RD. WATERWAY 1 011S 12 1-H SR 141SB RD 232, ROCKLAND ROAD 1 105 9 12-C GRAVES MILL RD TRIB OF RED CLAY CREEK 1 012 9 10-H WOODLAWN RD.
  • Cooper's Hill Pond 1 (Josh Hellon)

    Cooper's Hill Pond 1 (Josh Hellon)

    Photo: Cooper’s Hill Pond 1 (Josh Hellon) 1 Contents 1 Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 2 2 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 3 3 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 4 4 Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 Site description ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Invertebrate & plant survey ................................................................................................................ 5 5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 5 6 References ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Appendices ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Appendix 1 species lists and index calculation ...........................................................................
  • The Vascular Flora of Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge and False Cape State Park, Virginia

    The Vascular Flora of Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge and False Cape State Park, Virginia

    Medical Research Archives The Vascular Flora of Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge and False Cape State Park, Virginia The Vascular Flora of Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge and False Cape State Park, Virginia Richard Stalter* and Eric E. Lamont ** Department of Biological Sciences, St. John's University, Jamaica, NY 11439 New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY 10458 *Corresponding Author Dr. Richard Stalter ( [email protected] ) Copyright 2015 KEI Journals. All rights reserved. Medical Research Archives The Vascular Flora of Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge and False Cape State Park, Virginia ABSTRACT The vascular flora of Bay National Wildlife Refuge and False Cape State Park, Virginia consists of 602 species within 343 genera and 123 families. Of these 519 are native (86%) while 83 are not native to the region. Thirty two species are listed as rare or endangered in Virginia including two small populations of Bartonia verna at False Cape State Park found nowhere else in the state. Several species with southern affinities reach their northern range limit on the Back Bay region, whereas only two northern taxa, Hudsonia tomentosa and Myrica pensylvania are near their southern limit. Non-native varieties of Phragmites australis are a major component of the natural vegetation and pose a threat to native taxa. Each taxonomic entry in the checklist is accompanied by an annotation which includes the locality and habitat in which each taxon occurs, frequence of occurrence, range extensions, rarity status, and pertinent synonyms. Key words : flora, distribution, biodiversity, Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge, False Cape State Park, Virginia. Copyright 2015 KEI Journals.
  • Chapter 2 Delaware's Wildlife Habitats

    Chapter 2 Delaware's Wildlife Habitats

    CHAPTER 2 DELAWARE’S WILDLIFE HABITATS 2 - 1 Delaware Wildlife Action Plan Contents Chapter 2, Part 1: DELAWARE’S ECOLOGICAL SETTING ................................................................. 8 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 9 Delaware Habitats in a Regional Context ..................................................................................... 10 U.S. Northeast Region ............................................................................................................. 10 U.S. Southeast Region .............................................................................................................. 11 Delaware Habitats in a Watershed Context ................................................................................. 12 Delaware River Watershed .......................................................................................................13 Chesapeake Bay Watershed .....................................................................................................13 Inland Bays Watershed ............................................................................................................ 14 Geology and Soils ......................................................................................................................... 17 Soils .......................................................................................................................................... 17 EPA
  • Carex Gigantea Rudge in Florida

    Carex Gigantea Rudge in Florida

    ILLINOI S UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN PRODUCTION NOTE University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library Large-scale Digitization Project, 2007. c f ConservationAssessment for the Giant Sedge (Carex giganteaRudge) 31 July 2006 Steven R. Hill, Ph.D. Illinois Natural History Survey Center for Wildlife and Plant Ecology 1816 South Oak Street Champaign, Illinois 61820 ILLINOIS NATURAL HISTORY SURVEY Illinois Natural History Survey Center for Wildlife and Plant Ecology Technical Report 2006 (10) Cover photo: Carex gigantea Rudge in Florida. Photo by Shirley Denton. http://www.simple-grandeur.com/plants/native.php This Conservation Assessment was prepared to compile the published and unpublished information on the subject taxon or community; or this document was prepared by another organization and provides information to serve as a Conservation Assessment for the Eastern Region of the Forest Service. It does not represent a management decision by the U.S. Forest Service. Though the best scientific information available was used and subject experts were consulted in preparation of this document, it is expected that new information will arise. In the spirit of continuous learning and adaptive management, if you have information that will assist in conserving the subject taxon, please contact the Eastern Region of the Forest Service - Threatened and Endangered Species Program at 310 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 580 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203. 2 Conservation Assessment for the Giant Sedge (Carex gigantea Rudge) Table of Contents Acknowledgm
  • SP20 Delaware Piedmont Geology

    SP20 Delaware Piedmont Geology

    Delaware Piedmont Geology including a guide to the rocks of Red Clay Valley RESEARCH DELAWARE SERVICEGEOLOGICAL SURVEY EXPLORATION Delaware Geological Survey University of Delaware Special Publication No. 20 By Margaret O. Plank and William S. Schenck 106/1500/298/C Delaware Piedmont Geology Including a guide to the rocks of Red Clay Valley Delaware Geological Survey University of Delaware Special Publication No. 20 Margaret O. Plank and William S. Schenck 1998 Contents FOREWORD . v INTRODUCTION . vii Acknowledgments . viii BASIC FACTS ABOUT ROCKS . 1–13 Our Earth . 1 Crust . 1 Mantle . 2 Core. 2 Plate Tectonics . 3 Minerals . 5 Rocks . 6 Igneous Rocks . 6 Sedimentary Rocks. 8 Metamorphic Rocks . 9 Deformation. 11 Time . 12 READING THE ROCKS: A HISTORY OF THE DELAWARE PIEDMONT . 15–29 Geologic Setting . 15 Piedmont . 15 Fall Line. 17 Atlantic Coastal Plain. 17 Rock Units of the Delaware Piedmont . 20 Wilmington Complex . 20 Wissahickon Formation . 21 Setters Formation & Cockeysville Marble . 22 Geologic Map for Reference . 23 Baltimore Gneiss . 24 Deformation in the Delaware Piedmont . 24 The Piedmont and Plate Tectonics . 27 Red Clay Valley: Table of Contents iii A GUIDE TO THE ROCKS ALONG THE TRACK . 31–54 Before We Begin . 31 Geologic Points of Interest . 31 A Southeast of Greenbank . 35 B Workhouse Quarry at Greenbank. 36 C Red Clay Creek and Brandywine Springs Park . 36 D Brandywine Springs to Faulkland Road . 38 E Hercules Golf Course . 39 F Rock Cut at Wooddale . 40 G Wissahickon Formation at Wooddale. 43 H Quarries at Wooddale. 43 I Red Clay Creek Flood Plain . 44 J Mount Cuba . 44 K Mount Cuba Picnic Grove .