DOCSLIB.ORG

Whigham 2014 Summit

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Whigham 2014 Summit A landscape-scale approach to management of a major invasive species, Phragmites australis, in Chesapeake Bay tidal wetlands Dennis Whigham1, Eric Hazelton1,2, Melissa McCormick1, and Karin Kettenring1,2 1Smithsonian Environmental Research Center 2Utah State University Saltonstall. 2002. PNAS 99: 2445-2449 Rhode River 1970 Rhode River 2009 A fundamental question in ecology What drives the (rapid) spread of invasive species? Characteristics Characteristics of environment of invader Subestuaries of Chesapeake Bay studied as part of EPA-funded Atlantic Slope Consortium project Jones Falls Back Gwynns Falls Bird Patapsco Langford Curtis Southeast Magothy Corsica Severn South Wye Rhode Miles Tred Avon Battle King, R.S., W.V. Deluca, D.F. Whigham, Wicomico St. Clements St. Leonards and P.P. Marra. 2007. Threshold effects of Mill C coastal urbanization on Phragmites Breton h Manokin St. Mary's e australis (Common Reed) abundance and s Nomini a foliar nitrogen in Chesapeake Bay. p e Totuskey a Estuaries and Coasts 30: 469-481. k e Piankatank B a y Ware LANDUSE Agricultural Developed Warwick Forested Pagan Mixed-Ag Mixed-Dev Elizabeth . Kilometers 0 12.5 25 50 75 100 Have environmental factors driven the spread of Phragmites in recent years? Phragmites seedling emergence higher in disturbances (p<0.001) in some plant communities (p<0.001). Rhizome emergence was low and not related to disturbances control 40 aboveground disturbance belowground disturbance b b b b 30 b ab 20 (mean ± 1 SE)±1 (mean a a % seedling emergence seedling % 10 a a a a 0 Iva Schoenoplectus Spartina/Distichlis Typha Phragmites seedlings (but not rhizomes) growth higher under elevated nitrogen (p=0.003) and plants were taller and produced more stems 2.5 c 0 g m-2 yr-1 bc 9 g m-2 yr-1 18 g m-2 yr-1 2.0 bc 35 g m-2 yr-1 70 g m-2 yr-1 1.5 ab 1.0 a Total biomass (mean ± 1 SE)±1 (mean Total biomass 0.5 0.0 More florets (p=0.006) and inflorescences (p<0.001) are produced per plant with elevated nutrients 4000 ambient nutrients elevated nutrients 3000 2000 (mean ± 1 SE)±1 (mean Number of Number florets 1000 0 14 ambient nutrients elevated nutrients 12 10 8 6 (mean ± 1 SE)±1 (mean 4 Number of Number inflorescences 2 0 Kettenring, McCormick, Baron, and Whigham, J. Appl. Ecol. 2011 CO2 + N experiment at the SERC Global Change Research Wetland Mozdzer TJ, Megonigal JP (2012) Jack-and-Master trait responses to elevated CO2 and N: A comparison of native and Introduced Phragmites australis. PLoS ONE 7(10): e42794. doi:10.1371 Have biological factors driven the spread of Phragmites in recent years? How does Phragmites reproduce and spread? Rhizomes - Clonal (asexual) propagation Shoots - Clonal (Rooting at nodes) Seeds - Sexual reproduction (outcrossing) Substantial genetic variation within and among patches: 91% of patches had >1 genotype McCormick, Kettenring, Baron, and Whigham. 2010. Wetlands # of genotypes per patch increased with watershed development 4 p=0.035 r2=0.145 1SE) 1SE) 3 + 2 1 # of genotypes per patch (of 4 possible; mean 0 Forested Mixed- Developed Developed Watershed Class McCormick, Kettenring, Baron, and Whigham J. Ecology 2011 Kettenring, McCormick, Baron, and Whigham, J. Applied Ecology Increased local genetic diversity positively related to viable seed production Seeds and leaves 2 collected R2=0.26, P=0.0003 0 -2 -4 -6 Proportion viable seeds mean) Proportion of (logit -8 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 Bruvo genetic diversity (natural log transformed) Kettenring, McCormick, Baron, and Whigham J. Applied Ecology . 2011 Where do the seeds establishing patches on hardened shoreline come from? 1.0 Rhode River Chesapeake Bay – 9 subestuaries 0.8 +SE) +SE) 0.6 Similarity 0.4 100m 500m (meanMoran's I 0.2 0.0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 500 1000 50,000 Mean distance separating sample pairs (m) The majority of dispersal is local and within subestuaries McCormick, Kettenring, Baron, and Whigham Wetlands 2010, J. Ecology 2011 Conceptual Model Based on Recent Findings Feedback Current Project (Focus: three types of subestuaries) Shoreline Structures • Genetic diversity • Dispersal Phragmites Removal Experiment • Water quality • Fish and invertebrates transects • Transects • Each quadrat (n = 405): – Plant Community – Nutrients – Salinity – Phragmites vigor – Phragmites clonal diversity – Phragmites flowering density – Phragmites herbivore density – Seed bank Shoreline disturbances Shoreline hardening promotes more genetically diverse Phragmites patches 6 shoreline P=0.005 Forested watershed P<0.001 Agriculture 5 shore x w-shed P=0.335 Developed 4 se) + 3 Genotypes (mean 2 1 0 Natural Riprap* Bulkhead Shoreline Type Why are patches associated with hardened shorelines more diverse? •Wave action deferred by bulkheads may cause repeated disturbances or may concentrate dispersing seeds at the edges. •Riprap may provide places for seeds to lodge. •Areas targeted for hardening may be those with the greatest fetch and/or disturbance and so might have the most (and most diverse) Phragmites anyway. Herbicide application (glyphosate) over three years At each site • Native • Phragmites removed • Phragmites control Patapsco River (Developed) Native outlier likely Iva Removal Native Control St. Leonard River (Forested) Control Native Removal Outlier is open water Wye River (Agricultural) Native Control Removal Is there any hope that effective management can happen? Hazelton, E.L.G., Mozdzer, T.J., Burdick, D. Kettenring, K.M. and Whigham, D.F. 2014. Phragmites australis management in the United States: 40 years of methods and outcomes. AoB Plants, doi:10.1093/aobpla/plu001 Implications For Management • Without an effective management strategy, the non-native genotype potentially could occupy all brackish wetlands and, potentially, the majority of tidal freshwater wetlands •Effective long-term management can only be done at the scale of entire subestuaries (removal of primary sources of seeds) •Following removal, management can focus on periodic inspections and removal of any new invasions. •Efforts should be made to identify important subestuaries where most of the uplands are forested and few or relatively few patches of the non- native genotype occur. Complete removal and periodic inspections and follow-up are required. •Some areas (e.g., around Baltimore and Norfolk) are so heavily invaded that removal and management are too expensive. Rock Hall Patapsco St. Leonard Creek Patch History 1970 – 1 patch Mid-1990s – 1 shoreline patch (VIMS) 2013 – 12 patches Parkers Creek Battle Creek Fairhaven: Community action Jay O’Neill – Head Technician, Plant Ecology lab, SERC Matt Sievers – SERC intern Heather Baron – SERC intern. MS - Oregon State Jared Staap – SERC intern. MS University of Maine Liza McFarland – SERC intern. MS – U. Maryland Hope Brooks – SERC intern. Senior at Penn State Funding sources: EPA – STAR program NOAA – Chesapeake Bay office Smithsonian Institution Karin and Jay NOAA Smithsonian Institution Hope Melissa Heather Matt Jared Liza .
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.
    [Show full text]
  • Gunpowder River
    Table of Contents 1. Polluted Runoff in Baltimore County 2. Map of Baltimore County – Percentage of Hard Surfaces 3. Baltimore County 2014 Polluted Runoff Projects 4. Fact Sheet – Baltimore County has a Problem 5. Sources of Pollution in Baltimore County – Back River 6. Sources of Pollution in Baltimore County – Gunpowder River 7. Sources of Pollution in Baltimore County – Middle River 8. Sources of Pollution in Baltimore County – Patapsco River 9. FAQs – Polluted Runoff and Fees POLLUTED RUNOFF IN BALTIMORE COUNTY Baltimore County contains the headwaters for many of the streams and tributaries feeding into the Patapsco River, one of the major rivers of the Chesapeake Bay. These tributaries include Bodkin Creek, Jones Falls, Gwynns Falls, Patapsco River Lower North Branch, Liberty Reservoir and South Branch Patapsco. Baltimore County is also home to the Gunpowder River, Middle River, and the Back River. Unfortunately, all of these streams and rivers are polluted by nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment and are considered “impaired” by the Maryland Department of the Environment, meaning the water quality is too low to support the water’s intended use. One major contributor to that pollution and impairment is polluted runoff. Polluted runoff contaminates our local rivers and streams and threatens local drinking water. Water running off of roofs, driveways, lawns and parking lots picks up trash, motor oil, grease, excess lawn fertilizers, pesticides, dog waste and other pollutants and washes them into the streams and rivers flowing through our communities. This pollution causes a multitude of problems, including toxic algae blooms, harmful bacteria, extensive dead zones, reduced dissolved oxygen, and unsightly trash clusters.
    [Show full text]
  • This Special Bulletin Brings to You the Summary and Recommendations of the Whitman, Requardt and Associates Report on Lake Rolan
    SPECIAL REPORT FROM Associates, Engineers, to do an engineering study on how THE LAKE ROLAND WATERSHED FOUNDATION, INC. best to remove silt now clogging the Lake, and collecting daily at a rapid rate. This study was authorized by Baltimore This special Bulletin brings to you the Summary and City and Baltimore County. Recommendations of the Whitman, Requardt and Associates (2) The offer of free dredging services for two months by report on Lake Roland, published in July, 1974. We are Ellicott Machine Corporation, and reduced labor-operating grateful to Mr. Douglas L. Tawney, Director, Baltimore City costs by C. J. Langenfelder & Company and the Operating Bureau of Recreation and Parks, for permission to do this. Engineers Union. We alsoprovide you with a map showing where the planned (3) Theformation of a tax-exempt, non-profit community basins will be and the location of the spoil areas. organization, under the auspices of the Ruxton-Riderwood We ask you to read this carefully so that you will know the Improvement Association, known as The Lake Roland facts when the community meeting is held Monday evening, Watershed Foundation, Inc. The Foundation will act as a September 30, in the Auditorium of the Church of the Good voice for the community, and will work to insure that any Shepherd, Boyce Avenue, Ruxton, at 8P.M. At this time, Mr. conservation program for Lake Roland is carefully and John B. Gillett of Whitman, Requardt and Associates, will sensitively executed. present the project and will try to answer any questions you (4) Expression of interest in the designation of Lake may have.
    [Show full text]
  • Upstream, Downstream from Good Intentions to Cleaner Waters
    Upstream, Downstream From Good Intentions to Cleaner Waters A Ground-Breaking Study of Public Attitudes Toward Stormwater in the Baltimore Area Sponsored by the Herring Run Watershed Association and the Jones Falls Watershed Association OpinionWorks / 2008 OpinionWorks Stormwater Action Coalition The Stormwater Action Coalition is a subgroup of the Watershed Advisory Group (WAG). WAG is an informal coalition of about 20 organizations from the Baltimore Metropolitan area who come together from time to time to interact with local government on water quality issues. WAG members represent all the region’s streams and waters and recently pressed the city and county to include stormwater as one of the five topics in the 2006 Baltimore City/Baltimore County Watershed Agreement. The Stormwater Action Coalition is focused on raising public awareness about the problems caused by contaminated urban runoff. Representa- tives of the following organizations have participated in Stormwater Action Coalition activities: Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay Baltimore Harbor Watershed Association Center for Watershed Protection Chesapeake Bay Foundation Clean Water Action Environment Maryland Friends of the Patapsco Valley Gunpowder Valley Conservancy Gwynns Falls Watershed Association Herring Run Watershed Association Jones Falls Watershed Association Parks & People Foundation Patapsco/Back River Tributary Team Prettyboy Watershed Alliance Watershed 263 We extend our appreciation to our local government colleagues: Baltimore City Department of Public Works Baltimore City Department of Planning Baltimore County Department of Environmental Protection and Resource Management Baltimore Metropolitan Council And to our funders: The Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment The Rauch Foundation The Abell Foundation The Baltimore Community Foundation The Cooper Family Fund and the Cromwell Family Fund at the Baltimore Community Foundation More than half of the study participants strongly agree that they would do more, if they just knew what to do.
    [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]
  • The Patapsco Regional Greenway the Patapsco Regional Greenway
    THE PATAPSCO REGIONAL GREENWAY THE PATAPSCO REGIONAL GREENWAY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS While the Patapsco Regional Greenway Concept Plan and Implementation Matrix is largely a community effort, the following individuals should be recognized for their input and contribution. Mary Catherine Cochran, Patapsco Heritage Greenway Dan Hudson, Maryland Department of Natural Resources Rob Dyke, Maryland Park Service Joe Vogelpohl, Maryland Park Service Eric Crawford, Friends of Patapsco Valley State Park and Mid-Atlantic Off-Road Enthusiasts (MORE) Ed Dixon, MORE Chris Eatough, Howard County Office of Transportation Tim Schneid, Baltimore Gas & Electric Pat McDougall, Baltimore County Recreation & Parks Molly Gallant, Baltimore City Recreation & Parks Nokomis Ford, Carroll County Department of Planning The Patapsco Regional Greenway 2 THE PATAPSCO REGIONAL GREENWAY TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................4 2 BENEFITS OF WALKING AND BICYCLING ...............14 3 EXISTING PLANS ...............................................18 4 TREATMENTS TOOLKIT .......................................22 5 GREENWAY MAPS .............................................26 6 IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX .................................88 7 FUNDING SOURCES ...........................................148 8 CONCLUSION ....................................................152 APPENDICES ........................................................154 Appendix A: Community Feedback .......................................155 Appendix B: Survey
    [Show full text]
  • Marinas of Anne Arundel County
    Marina Inventory Of Anne Arundel County 2018 Office of Planning & Zoning Long Range Planning Division Marina Inventory Of Anne Arundel County July 2018 Anne Arundel County Office of Planning and Zoning Long Range Planning Division ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Office of Planning and Zoning Philip R. Hager, Planning and Zoning Officer Lynn Miller, Assistant Planning and Zoning Officer Project Team Long Range Planning Division Cindy Carrier, Planning Administrator Mark Wildonger, Senior Planner Patrick Hughes, Senior Planner Andrea Gerhard, Planner II Special Thanks to VisitAnnapolis.org for the use of the cover photo showing Herrington Harbor. Table of Contents Background Marinas Commercial Marinas Community Marinas Impacts of Marinas Direct Benefit Census Data and Economic Impact Other Waterfront Sites in the County Appendix A – Listing of Marinas in Anne Arundel County, 2018 Appendix B – Location Maps of Marinas in Anne Arundel County, 2018 Office of Planning & Zoning Long Range Planning Division Marinas of Anne Arundel County Background Anne Arundel County has approximately 533 miles of shoreline along the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. This resource provides the opportunity for the marine industry to flourish, providing services to the commercial and recreational boaters. In 1980, the first Boating and Marina Study was completed in the County. At that time, the County had 57 marinas and 1,767 boat slips.1 Since that time the County has experienced significant growth in all aspects of its economy including the marine industry. As of June 2018, there are a total of 303 marinas containing at total of 12,035 boat slips (Table 1). This report was prepared as an update to the 1997 and 2010 marina inventories2 and includes an updated inventory and mapping of marinas in the County.
    [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]
  • Stopping the Flood Beneath Baltimore's Streets
    Stopping the Flood Beneath Baltimore’s Streets The city’s failure to comply with a federal sewage consent decree, and how delay harms homeowners and the Inner Harbor DECEMBER 15, 2015 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funded by the Abell Foundation. This report was researched and written by Tom Pelton, Courtney Bernhardt, Kira Burkhart, and Sylvia Lam of the Environmental Integrity Project. THE ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY PROJECT The Environmental Integrity Project (http://www.environmentalintegrity.org) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization established in March of 2002 by former EPA enforcement attorneys to advocate for effective enforcement of environmental laws. EIP has three goals: 1) to provide objective analyses of how the failure to enforce or implement environmental laws increases pollution and affects public health; 2) to hold federal and state agencies, as well as individual corporations, accountable for failing to enforce or comply with environmental laws; and 3) to help local communities obtain the protection of environmental laws. For questions about this report, please contact EIP Director of Communications Tom Pelton at (202) 888-2703 or [email protected]. EXPLORE THE INTERACTIVE MAP http://arcg.is/1NGm2x3 PHOTOS: Cover: Sewage overflow , Falls Road, Baltimore Page 1: iStock Pages 3, 8, 16 (top), 17, back cover: Tom Pelton Pages 6, 11: Photos by Fern Shen for Baltimore Brew, with permission. https://www.baltimorebrew.com/ Page 16 (bottom): Doris Brightful Page 18: Brenda Johnson Executive Summary n 2002, the U.S. Justice Department sued Baltimore over a chronic problem: the city’s leaky, overloaded sewer system was routinely and illegally releasing tens of millions of I gallons of raw human waste into urban streams, the Inner Harbor, and Chesapeake Bay.
    [Show full text]
  • Total Maximum Daily Load of Sediment in the Jones Falls Watershed, Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Maryland
    Total Maximum Daily Load of Sediment in the Jones Falls Watershed, Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Maryland FINAL DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 540 Baltimore, Maryland 21230-1718 Submitted to: Watershed Protection Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 September 2011 EPA Submittal Date: September 28, 2009 EPA Approval Date: September 29, 2011 Jones Falls Sediment TMDL Document Version: 9/29/2011 FINAL Table of Contents List of Figures..................................................................................................................... ii List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... ii List of Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ v 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 2.0 SETTING AND WATER QUALITY DESCRIPTION ............................................... 3 2.1 General Setting ...................................................................................................... 3 2.1.1. Land Use..................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Source Assessment ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Keep Maryland Beautiful Award Recipients
    Protecting Land Forever Keep Maryland Beautiful Award Recipients Fiscal Year 2019 Bill James Environmental Grants Historic Sotterley, Inc Howard County Antique Farm Machinery Club Mountain Laurel Garden Club North County High School Pocomoke Middle School Clean Up & Green Up Maryland Grants African American Firefighters Historical Society Alice Ferguson Foundation Allegany County Commissioners & the Allegany County Solid Waste Management Board Annapolis Arts District Annapolis Green, Inc. Antietam-Conococheague Watershed Alliance Back River Restoration Committee, Inc. Banner Neighborhoods Bel Air Downtown Alliance Bethesda Green Beyond the Classroom, Inc. Brunswick Main Street, Inc. BUILD - Rebuild Johnston Square Neighborhood Org C.A.R.E Community Association, Inc Centreville Main Street Town of Centreville City of Greenbelt Department of Public Works Downtown Frederick Partnership Downtown Sykesville Connection at the Community Foundation of Carroll County Druid Heights Community Development Corporation Dundalk Renaissance Corporation Elkton Alliance, Inc. Fusion Partnerships, Inc. (Whitelock Community Farm) Galena Tree and Park Committee Havre de Grace Citizens Against Trash Historic Frostburg - a Maryland Main Street Community Howard County Conservancy I'm Still Standing By Grace Intersection of Change, Inc. Let's Beautify Cumberland! Main Street Historic Chestertown Main Street Middletown, MD Inc Main Street Princess Anne Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Milton Montford Montgomery Parks Foundation Park Heights Renaissance Pigtown Main Street, Inc. Sandtown South Neighborhood Alliance Southeast Community Development Corporation Strong City Baltimore Takoma/Langley Crossroads Development Authority, Inc. The 6th Branch The Town of Colmar Manor Town of Emmitsburg Town of Manchester Town of Oakland Town of Thurmont & Main Street Westport Community Economic Development Corporation Margaret Rosch Jones Awards All Saints Episcopal Church Cool Green Schools Maryland Coastal Bays Program Sky Valley Association, Inc.
    [Show full text]