DOCSLIB.ORG

Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries and Chincoteague Bay - 1991

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

W&M ScholarWorks Reports 12-1992 Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation In The Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries and Chincoteague Bay - 1991 R J. Orth Judith F. Nowak Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gary Anderson Virginia Institute of Marine Science Kevin P. Kiley Virginia Institute of Marine Science Jennifer R. Whiting Virginia Institute of Marine Science Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Orth, R. J., Nowak, J. F., Anderson, G., Kiley, K. P., & Whiting, J. R. (1992) Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation In The Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries and Chincoteague Bay - 1991. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/m2-031r-g688 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 11° oo' 76° 00' 75°00' 39° oo' 38° oo' 37° 0 10 20 30 oo' NAUTICAL MILES 11° oo' 75° oo· \/\rfl:S ~~ JJ~.i OG+ \~q I C,.3 Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries and Chincoteague Bay - 1991 by Robert J. Orth, Judith F. Nowak, Gary F. Anderson, Kevin P. Kiley, and Jennifer R. Whiting Virginia Institute of Marine Science School of Marine Science College of William and Mary Gloucester Point, VA 23062 Funded by: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Grant X00346503) National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration (Grant No. NAl 70Z0359-0l) Virginia Institute of Marine Science/School of Marine Science Maryland Department of Natural Resources (C272-92-005) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (14-16-0005-91-9023) Allied-Signal Foundation Final Report Submitted to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program Offic:e Annapolis, MD 21403 December 1992 Cover Photograph: Hydrilla verticillata in the Potomac River. (Photograph by Nancy Rybicki, USGS.) Inside Cover: Map of Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries and Chincoteague Bay. CONTENTS Page TABLES . iv FIGURES V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xiii SAV SPECIES . 1 METHODS ... 2 Introduction . 2 Aerial photography . 2 Mapping process . 5 SAV perimeter digitization and area calculation 9 Tests of precision and accuracy . 9 Standard operating procedures . 11 Choice of representative SAV bed . 11 Conversion of SAV perimeter points from X,Y centimeters to Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates in ARC/INFO format . 12 Calculation of 1991 SAV areas . 12 Organizational procedures for analysis . 13 Ground truth and other data bases . 17 RESULTS ...... 20 Data presentation 20 1991 Summary . 20 Upper Bay Zone . 20 Middle Bay Zone . 37 Lower Bay Zone . 37 Chincoteague Bay 38 Discussion of sections arranged within zones . 38 Upper Bay Zone . 38 Susquehanna Flats (Section 1) . 38 Upper Eastern Shore (Section 2) . 38 Upper Western Shore (Section 3) . 41 Chester River (Section 4) 41 Middle Bay Zone . 41 ii CONTENTS (continued) Page RESULTS (continued) Central Western Shore (Section 5) 41 Eastern Bay (Section 6) . 45 Choptank River (Section 7) . 45 Patuxent River (Section 8) . • • 45 Middle Western Shore (Section 9) 45 Lower Potomac River (Section 10) 50 Upper Potomac River (Section 11) 50 Middle Eastern Shore (Section 12) 53 Mid-Bay Island Complex (Section 13) 53 Lower Bay Zone . 53 Lower Eastern Shore (Section 14) . 53 Reedville Region (Section 15) . 57 Rappahannock River Complex (Section 16) 57 New Point Comfort Region (Section 17) 60 Mobjack Bay Complex (Section 18) . 60 York River (Section 19) ...... 60 Lower Western Shore (Section 20) 60 James River (Section 21) 65 Chincoteague Bay 65 LITERATURE CITED 68 APPENDICES . 71 A Species of submerged aquatic plants found in the Chesapeake Bay and tributaries . 73 B. Latitude and longitude coordinate points defining the 21 Chesapeake Bay sections and Chincoteague Bay 85 C. Topographic quadrangles for the Chesapeake Bay and Chincoteague Bay showing distribution, abundance, and ground trothing of SAV in 1991 . 89 Map Legend ...................... 90 D. Number of square meters of SAV for individual beds and totals for density categories for each topographic quadrangle in 1991 . 205 E. 1991 SAV ground truth data listed by topographic quadrangle and by SAV bed, cross referenced with 1990 SAV beds . 233 iii TABLES Number Page 1 Guidelines for acquisition of aerial photographs . 4 2 List of USGS 7 .5 minute topographic quadrangles for the Chesapeake Bay and Chincoteague Bay SAV study areas and corresponding code numbers . 7 3 Area descriptions for each of the 21 sections in the Chesapeake Bay SAV study area . 15 4 Total area of SAVin hectares by USGS 7 .5 minute topographic quadrangle for 1990 and 1991 . 21 5 Number ofhectares ofSAVin 1990 and 1991 for the 21 sections and three zones of the Chesapeake Bay, and for Chincoteague Bay . 26 6 Number of square meters of SAV in 1991 for each quadrangle of the 21 sections in the Chesapeake Bay and of Chincoteague Bay 27 iv FIGURES Number Page 1 Map of Chesapeake Bay and tributaries with Upper, Middle, and Lower zones, and Chincoteague Bay, with locations of all SAV beds in 1991 ix 2 Total hectares SAV for the Upper, Middle, and Lower zones of the Chesapeake Bay in 1991 . • . x 3 Total hectares SAV in 1991 by section of the Chesapeake Bay . xi 4 Map of Chesapeake Bay, its tributaries, and Chincoteague Bay with approximate locations of flight lines for 1991 SAV photo- graphy.............................. 3 5 Location ofUSGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangles in the Chesapeake Bay, its tributaries, and Chincoteague Bay with corresponding code numbers . 6 6 Crown density scale used for determining density of SAV beds: (1) very sparse, 0-10%; (2) sparse, 10-40%; (3) moderate, 40-70%; (4) dense, 70-100% ................... 10 7 Location of Chincoteague Bay and Chesapeake Bay with Upper, Middle, and Lower zones and 21 sections used for delineation of SAV distribution patterns . , . 14 8 Distribution of SAV in the Susquehanna Flats (Section 1) 39 9 Distribution of SAV in the Upper Eastern Shore (Section 2) 40 10 Distribution of SAVin the Upper Western Shore (Section 3) 42 11 Distribution of SAV in the Chester River (Section 4) . 43 12 Distribution of SAV in the Central Western Shore (Section 5) . 44 13 Distribution of SAV in the Eastern Bay (Section 6) . 46 14 Distribution of SAV in the Choptank River (Section7) . 47 15 Distribution of SAV in the Patuxent River (Section 8) . 48 V FIGURES (continued) Number Page 16 Distribution of SAVin the Middle Western Shore (Section 9) . 49 17 Distribution of SAVin the Lower Potomac River (Section 10) 51 18 Distribution of SAVin the Upper Potomac River (Section 11) 52 19 Distribution of SAV in the Middle Eastern Shore (Section 12) 54 20 Distribution of SAVin the Mid-Bay Island Complex (Section 13) . 55 21 Distribution of SAV in the Lower Eastern Shore (Section 14) . 56 22 Distribution of SAV in the Reedville Region (Section 15) . 58 23 Distribution of SAV in the Rappahannock River Complex (Section 16) . 59 24 Distribution of SAV in the New Point Comfort Region (Section 17) 61 25 Distribution of SAV in the Mobjack Bay Complex (Section 18) 62 26 Distribution of SAV in the York River (Section 19) . 63 27 Distribution of SAV in the Lower Western Shore (Section 20) 64 28 Distribution ofSAVin the James River (Section 21) . 66 29 Distribution of SAV in the Chincoteague Bay . 67 30 Illustration of Chara spp. (Muskgrass) . 74 31 Illustration of Nitella spp. (Stonewort) . 75 32 Illustration of Najas guadalupensis (Southern naiad) . 76 33 Illustration of Vallisneria americana (Tapegrass) . 77 34 Illustration of Egeria spp. (Water-weed) . 78 35 Illustration of Hydrilla verticillata (Hydrilla) . 79 vi FIGURES (continued) Number Page 36 A comparison: illustrations of Hydrilla verticillata, Elodea canadensis, and Egeria spp. 80 37 A comparison: illustrations of Hydrilla verticillata, Elodea canadensis, and Egeria spp. 81 38 Illustration of Ceratophyllum demersum (Coontail) 82 39 Illustration of Trapa natans (Water chestnut) . 83 40 Illustration of Myriophyllum spicatum (Eurasian watermilfoil) 84 vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation, principally rooted vascular macrophytes, in the Chesapeake Bay, its tributaries, and Chincoteague Bay was mapped during May to October 1991 at a scale of 1:24,000 using black and white aerial photography. SAV bed perimeter information was digitized and stored in a computerized data base. Ground truth information was obtained from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the University of Maryland Horn Point Environmental Laboratories, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Harford Community College, Essex Community College SAV Research Group of Baltimore County, National Park Service, Assateague Island, and the College of William and MaryNirginia Institute of Marine Science/School of Marine Science. Citizen support via the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Chesapeake Bay Foundation provided additional ground truth information. In 1991, the Chesapeake Bay had 25,623 hectares of SAV, compared to 24,296 hectares in 1990, with 2,158 hectares (8.4%), 11,664 hectares (45.5%), and 11,802 hectares (46.1%) occurring in the Upper, Middle, and Lower Bay zones, respectively (Figs. 1, 2, and 3). In 1991 seventy-eight percent (1,684 hectares) of the SAV within the Upper Bay zone was located in the Susquehanna Flats (Section 1). Eight species of SAV were documented by ground truth surveys in this section, with Myriophyllum spicatum being dominant. A recently introduced exotic species, Hydrilla verticillata, was found in the Flats but occurred in small isolated beds. Overall abundance of SAV declined from the 1990 (1,773 hectares) level, but the density of beds increased slightly from 1990. Eighty-nine percent of all SAV beds in the Flats were classified as very sparse (0-10% coverage), and 7% of beds were classified as dense (70-100% coverage).
Recommended publications
  • MDE-Water Pollution

    MDE-Water Pollution

    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 Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................... 1 Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION .................................................................................................................... 1 Chapters 01-10 ................................................................................................................................................ 1 Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................... 2 Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION .................................................................................................................... 2 Chapter 01 General ......................................................................................................................................... 2 .01 Definitions................................................................................................................................................. 3 .02 Principles of Water Pollution Control....................................................................................................
  • Deer and Turkey Tagging & Checking

    Deer and Turkey Tagging & Checking

    DEER AND TURKEY TAGGING & CHECKING Garrett Allegany CWDMA Washington Frederick Carroll Baltimore Harford Lineboro Maryland Line Cardiff Finzel 47 Ellerlise Pen Mar Norrisville 24 Whiteford ysers 669 40 Ringgold Harney Freeland 165 Asher Youghiogheny 40 Ke 40 ALT Piney Groev ALT 68 615 81 11 Emmitsburg 86 ge Grantsville Barrellville 220 Creek Fairview 494 Cearfoss 136 136 Glade River aLke Rid 546 Mt. avSage Flintstone 40 Cascade Sabillasville 624 Prospect 68 ALT 36 itts 231 40 Hancock 57 418 Melrose 439 Harkins Corriganville v Harvey 144 194 Eklo Pylesville 623 E Aleias Bentley Selbysport 40 36 tone Maugansville 550 419410 Silver Run 45 68 Pratt 68 Mills 60 Leitersburg Deep Run Middletown Springs 23 42 68 64 270 496 Millers Shane 646 Zilhman 40 251 Fountain Head Lantz Drybranch 543 230 ALT Exline P 58 62 Prettyboy Friendsville 638 40 o 70 St. aulsP Union Mills Bachman Street t Clear 63 491 Manchester Dublin 40 o Church mithsburg Taneytown Mills Resevoir 1 Aviltn o Eckhart Mines Cumberland Rush m Spring W ilson S Motters 310 165 210 LaVale a Indian 15 97 Rayville 83 440 Frostburg Glarysville 233 c HagerstownChewsville 30 er Springs Cavetown n R 40 70 Huyett Parkton Shawsville Federal r Cre Ady Darlingto iv 219 New Little 250 iv Cedar 76 140 Dee ek R Ridgeley Twiggtown e 68 64 311 Hill Germany 40 Orleans r Pinesburg Keysville Mt. leasP ant Rocks 161 68 Lawn 77 Greenmont 25 Blackhorse 55 White Hall Elder Accident Midlothian Potomac 51 Pumkin Big pringS Thurmont 194 23 Center 56 11 27 Weisburg Jarrettsville 136 495 936 Vale Park Washington
  • Multiproxy Evidence of Holocene Climate Variability from Estuarine Sediments, Eastern North America T

    Multiproxy Evidence of Holocene Climate Variability from Estuarine Sediments, Eastern North America T

    PALEOCEANOGRAPHY, VOL. 20, PA4006, doi:10.1029/2005PA001145, 2005 Multiproxy evidence of Holocene climate variability from estuarine sediments, eastern North America T. M. Cronin,1 R. Thunell,2 G. S. Dwyer,3 C. Saenger,1 M. E. Mann,4,5 C. Vann,1 and R. R. Seal II1 Received 14 February 2005; revised 19 May 2005; accepted 8 July 2005; published 19 October 2005. [1] We reconstructed paleoclimate patterns from oxygen and carbon isotope records from the fossil estuarine benthic foraminifera Elphidium and Mg/Ca ratios from the ostracode Loxoconcha from sediment cores from Chesapeake Bay to examine the Holocene evolution of North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)-type climate variability. Precipitation-driven river discharge and regional temperature variability are the primary influences 18 on Chesapeake Bay salinity and water temperature, respectively. We first calibrated modern d Owater to salinity 18 and applied this relationship to calculate trends in paleosalinity from the d Oforam, correcting for changes in water temperature estimated from ostracode Mg/Ca ratios. The results indicate a much drier early Holocene in which mean paleosalinity was 28 ppt in the northern bay, falling 25% to 20 ppt during the late Holocene. Early Holocene Mg/Ca-derived temperatures varied in a relatively narrow range of 13° to 16°C with a mean temperature of 14.2°C and excursions above 16°C; the late Holocene was on average cooler (mean temperature of 12.8°C). In addition to the large contrast between early and late Holocene regional climate conditions, multidecadal (20–40 years) salinity and temperature variability is an inherent part of the region’s climate during both the early and late Holocene, including the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age.
  • 2010 Regular Session

    2010 Regular Session

    Martin O'Malley, Governor Ch. 431 Chapter 431 (House Bill 1472) AN ACT concerning Hunting Wild Waterfowl – Dorchester, St. Mary’s, Somerset, and Wicomico Counties FOR the purpose of altering the location in which a person may hunt wild waterfowl by certain methods in the waters of Dorchester, St. Mary’s, Somerset, and Wicomico counties; decreasing the distance from shore that the Department of Natural Resources prescribes by regulation for the hunting of wild waterfowl by certain methods in the waters of Dorchester, St. Mary’s, Somerset, and Wicomico counties; and generally relating to hunting wild waterfowl in the waters of Dorchester, St. Mary’s, Somerset, and Wicomico counties. BY repealing and reenacting, with amendments, Article – Natural Resources Section 10–604 through 10–606 Annotated Code of Maryland (2007 Replacement Volume and 2009 Supplement) SECTION 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MARYLAND, That the Laws of Maryland read as follows: Article – Natural Resources 10–604. (a) A person may hunt wild waterfowl while standing in water on the natural bottom only in the waters of the Susquehanna Flats, the nontidal waters of the Potomac River, THE WATERS OF TANGIER SOUND, FISHING BAY, MONIE BAY, MANOKIN RIVER, BIG ANNEMESSEX RIVER, POCOMOKE SOUND, AND KEDGES STRAITS IN THE WATERS OF DORCHESTER, SOMERSET, AND WICOMICO COUNTIES, and in other waters of the State in areas and on days the Department prescribes by regulation. (b) A person may hunt wild waterfowl while standing in water on the natural bottom at a licensed offshore stationary blind or blind site. (c) A person hunting wild waterfowl while standing in water on the natural bottom shall remain at least 250 yards from all offshore stationary blinds or blind sites or another person hunting wild waterfowl offshore.
  • Attorney General's 2013 Chesapeake Bay

    Attorney General's 2013 Chesapeake Bay

    TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 2 CHAPTER ONE: LIBERTY AND PRETTYBOY RESERVOIRS ......................................................... 5 I. Background ...................................................................................................................................... 5 II. Active Enforcement Efforts and Pending Matters ........................................................................... 8 III. The Liberty Reservoir and Prettyboy Reservoir Audit, May 29, 2013: What the Attorney General Learned .............................................................................................. 11 CHAPTER TWO: THE WICOMICO RIVER ........................................................................................ 14 I. Background .................................................................................................................................... 14 II. Active Enforcement and Pending Matters ..................................................................................... 16 III. The Wicomico River Audit, July 15, 2013: What the Attorney General Learned ......................... 18 CHAPTER THREE: ANTIETAM CREEK ............................................................................................ 22 I. Background .................................................................................................................................... 22 II. Active
  • Appendix L Natural Resources Technical Report May 2020

    Appendix L Natural Resources Technical Report May 2020

    APPENDIX L NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT MAY 2020 and NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study Corridors ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Study Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Alternatives Evaluated .................................................................................................................. 4 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...............................................................9 2.1 Topography, Geology, and Soils .................................................................................................... 9 2.1.1 Regulatory Context and Methods ......................................................................................... 9 2.1.2 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................. 10 2.1.3 Environmental Effects ......................................................................................................... 13 2.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation ..........................................................................
  • Watersheds.Pdf

    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
  • House Bill 1472

    House Bill 1472

    HOUSE BILL 1472 M2 (0lr3400) ENROLLED BILL — Environmental Matters/Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs — Introduced by Dorchester County Delegation, Somerset County Delegation, and Wicomico County Delegation Read and Examined by Proofreaders: _______________________________________________ Proofreader. _______________________________________________ Proofreader. Sealed with the Great Seal and presented to the Governor, for his approval this _______ day of _______________ at ________________________ o’clock, ________M. ______________________________________________ Speaker. CHAPTER ______ 1 AN ACT concerning 2 Hunting Wild Waterfowl – Dorchester, St. Mary’s, Somerset, and Wicomico 3 Counties 4 FOR the purpose of altering the location in which a person may hunt wild waterfowl 5 by certain methods in the waters of Dorchester, St. Mary’s, Somerset, and 6 Wicomico counties; decreasing the distance from shore that the Department of 7 Natural Resources prescribes by regulation for the hunting of wild waterfowl by 8 certain methods in the waters of Dorchester, St. Mary’s, Somerset, and 9 Wicomico counties; and generally relating to hunting wild waterfowl in the 10 waters of Dorchester, St. Mary’s, Somerset, and Wicomico counties. 11 BY repealing and reenacting, with amendments, 12 Article – Natural Resources 13 Section 10–604 through 10–606 EXPLANATION: CAPITALS INDICATE MATTER ADDED TO EXISTING LAW. [Brackets] indicate matter deleted from existing law. Underlining indicates amendments to bill. Strike out indicates matter stricken from the bill by amendment or deleted from the law by amendment. Italics indicate opposite chamber/conference committee amendments. *hb1472* 2 HOUSE BILL 1472 1 Annotated Code of Maryland 2 (2007 Replacement Volume and 2009 Supplement) 3 SECTION 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF 4 MARYLAND, That the Laws of Maryland read as follows: 5 Article – Natural Resources 6 10–604.
  • Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries and Chincoteague Bay - 1991

    Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries and Chincoteague Bay - 1991

    W&M ScholarWorks Reports 12-1992 Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation In The Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries and Chincoteague Bay - 1991 R J. Orth Judith F. Nowak Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gary Anderson Virginia Institute of Marine Science Kevin P. Kiley Virginia Institute of Marine Science Jennifer R. Whiting Virginia Institute of Marine Science Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Orth, R. J., Nowak, J. F., Anderson, G., Kiley, K. P., & Whiting, J. R. (1992) Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation In The Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries and Chincoteague Bay - 1991. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/m2-031r-g688 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 11° oo' 76° 00' 75°00' 39° oo' 38° oo' 37° 0 10 20 30 oo' NAUTICAL MILES 11° oo' 75° oo· \/\rfl:S ~~ JJ~.i OG+ \~q I C,.3 Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries and Chincoteague Bay - 1991 by Robert J. Orth, Judith F. Nowak, Gary F. Anderson, Kevin P. Kiley, and Jennifer R. Whiting Virginia Institute of Marine Science School of Marine Science College of William and Mary Gloucester Point, VA 23062 Funded by: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Grant X00346503) National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration (Grant No. NAl 70Z0359-0l) Virginia Institute of Marine Science/School of Marine Science Maryland Department of Natural Resources (C272-92-005) U.S.
  • Archaeological Survey of the Chesapeake Bay Shorelines Associated with Accomack County and Northampton County, Virginia

    Archaeological Survey of the Chesapeake Bay Shorelines Associated with Accomack County and Northampton County, Virginia

    ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE ATLANTIC COAST SHORELINES ASSOCIATED WITH ACCOMACK COUNTY AND NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA Survey and Planning Report Series No. 7 Virginia Department of Historic Resources 2801 Kensington Avenue Richmond, VA 23221 2003 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE ATLANTIC COAST SHORELINES ASSOCIATED WITH ACCOMACK COUNTY AND NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA Virginia Department of Historic Resources Survey and Planning Report Series No. 7 Author: Darrin L. Lowery Chesapeake Bay Watershed Archaeological Research Foundation 5264 Blackwalnut Point Road, P.O. Box 180 Tilghman, MD 21671 2003 ii ABSTRACT This report summarizes the results of an archaeological survey conducted along the Atlantic shorelines of both Accomack County and Northampton County, Virginia. Accomack and Northampton Counties represent the southernmost extension of the Delmarva Peninsula. The study area encompasses all of the lands adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean and shorelines associated with the back barrier island bays. A shoreline survey was conducted along the Atlantic Ocean to gauge the erosion threat to the archaeological resources situated along the shoreline. Archaeological sites along shorelines are subjected to numerous natural processes which hinder site visibility and limit archaeological interpretations. Summaries of these natural processes are presented in this report. The primary goal of the project was to locate, identify, and record any archaeological sites or remains along the Atlantic seashore that are threatened by shoreline erosion. The project also served as a test of a prehistoric site predictive/settlement model that has been utilized during other archaeological surveys along the Chesapeake Bay shorelines and within the interior sections of the Delmarva Peninsula. The prehistoric site predictive/settlement model is presented in detail using archaeological examples from Maryland and Virginia’s Eastern Shore.
  • Deer and Turkey Tagging & Checking

    Deer and Turkey Tagging & Checking

    DEER AND TURKEY TAGGING & CHECKING Chronic Wasting Disease Management Area Boundary Description The management area includes all of Allegany County and Harvest Management Unit 250 in western Washington County. • Eastern Boundary: I-70 from the Maryland/ • Western Boundary: The Allegany/Garrett County Pennsylvania border south to Rt. 522, then south line from the Maryland/West Virginia border on Rt. 522 to the Maryland/West Virginia border. north to the Maryland/Pennsylvania border. • Southern Boundary: The Maryland/West • Northern Boundary: The Maryland/ Virginia border from Rt. 522 west to the Pennsylvania border from the Allegany/Garrett Allegany/Garrett County line. County line east to I-70. PUBLIC LAND CODES BY COUNTY ALLEGANY COUNTY 01 Earleville WMA 363 Gunpowder SP 327 Patuxent Naval Air Station 465 Dan’s Mountain WMA 240 Fair Hill NRMA 364 Susquehanna SP 328 Elm’s CWMA 466 Warrior Mountain WMA 241 Grove Farm WMA 366 Stoney Demonstration Forest 329 St. Mary’s SP or Salem Tract 467 Green Ridge SF 242 Old Bohemia WMA 367 HOWARD COUNTY 13 Historic St. Mary’s City CWMA 468 Billmeyer WMA 243 CHARLES COUNTY 08 Hugg-Thomas WMA 415 Greenwell SP 469 Rocky Gap SP 244 Riverside WMA 395 Patuxent River SP 416 Myrtle Point CWMA 600 Belle Grove WMA 245 Chapman SP (Mt. Aventine) 397 Patapsco SP 417 SOMERSET COUNTY 19 Sideling Hill WMA 246 Nanjemoy WMA 398 Triadelphia/Rocky Gorge Deal Island WMA 500 604 McCoole Fishery Management Cedar Point WMA 399 (WSSC) Fairmount WMA 501 247 Indian Head Naval Ordinance Cedar Island WMA 503 Area 400 KENT COUNTY
  • Area's #1 Fishing & Hunting Outfitter

    Area's #1 Fishing & Hunting Outfitter

    Dear Angler: Here in Maryland, we need only look to our State Seal — depicting the fisherman and the ploughman — for proof that fishing really is part of our heritage. It’s a fun, affordable and accessible activity for all ages, and a great excuse to get our children away from video and computer games and into the great outdoors! Approximately 700,000 adults and thousands of young people fish each year in Maryland, with an estimated annual impact of $1 billion on our economy. Gov. Martin O’Malley and Sec. John R. Griffin More than a third of our anglers visit from out of state, testimony to the value and quality of our great fishing resources. We are very fortunate to have expert biologists and managers – working to- gether with our Sport Fisheries, Tidal Fisheries and Oyster Advisory Commissions, and our Coastal Fisheries Advisory Committee, to guide fisheries management across our State. We are also very fortunate to have you -- committed conserva- tionists and advocates – working with us. Your license revenues support protection and enhancement of Maryland’s fishery resources, research and management activities, expanded public access and enhanced law enforcement. And we look forward to strengthening our partnership with you as we work toward our goals for a restored Chesapeake Bay, thriving freshwater streams, and healthy abundant fish populations. Thank you for being a part of a great cultural tradition, and here’s wishing you a terrific year of fishing in Maryland. Martin O’Malley John R. Griffin Governor Secretary About the Cover: This edition of the Maryland Fishing Guide is dedicated to Frances McFaden, who retired from public service after 43 years as a steadfast, ever-helpful, and resourceful Maryland state worker.