DOCSLIB.ORG

Prepared in Cooperation with The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Prepared in Cooperation with The WATER-QUALITY DATA FROM RECONNAISSANCE SURVEYS OF SELECTED ESTUARIES IN SOUTHERN NEW JERSEY, JULY-OCTOBER 1989 By R. Edward Hickman U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 91-491 Prepared in cooperation with the NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND ENERGY West Trenton, New Jersey 1992 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MANUEL LUJAN, JR., Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information Copies of this report may be write to: bej purchased from: i District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Bdoks and Open-File Reports Section Mountain View Office Park Fdderal Center Suite 206 Box 25425 810 Bear Tavern Road Denver, CO 80225 West Trenton, NJ 08628 CONTENTS Page Abstract........................................................... 1 Introduction....................................................... 1 Description of the study area. ..................................... 2 Estuaries of the Metedeconk and Toms Rivers................... 2 Estuaries of the Great Egg Harbor and Tuckahoe Rivers......... 2 Estuary of the Maurice River.................................. 8 Field and laboratory methods....................................... 8 Description of the water-quality data.............................. 17 References cited................................................... 18 Appendixes A-E. Water-quality data collected at stations in and near the estuary of the: A. Metedeconk River........................................... 21 B. Toms River................................................. 33 C. Great Egg Harbor River..................................... 40 D. Tuckahoe River............................................. 50 E. Maurice River.............................................. 58 ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Map showing locations of Barnegat Bay and the estuaries of the Metedeconk and Toms Rivers.................... 3 2-3. Maps showing locations of water-quality stations in and near the estuary of the: 2. Metedeconk River..................................... 4 3. Toms River........................................... 5 4. Map showing locations of the Great Egg Harbor Bay and the Great Egg Harbor and Tuckahoe Rivers............. 6 5-6. Maps showing locations of water-quality stations in and near the estuaries of the: 5. Great Egg Harbor and Tuckahoe Rivers................. 7 6. Maurice River........................................ 9 TABLES Tables 1-2. Water-quality stations in and near the estuary of the: 1. Metedeconk River................................... 10 2. Toms River......................................... 11 3. Predicted times of high and low tides during water- quality profiles of the Great Egg Harbor, Tuckahoe, and Maurice Rivers....................... 12 4-6. Water-quality stations in and near the estuary of the: 4. Great Egg Harbor River............................. 13 5. Tuckahoe River..................................... 15 6. Maurice River...................................... 16 iii CONVERSION FACTORS Multiply fiX To obtain centimeter 0.3927 inch meter 39.37 inch meter 3.281 foot kilometer 3,281 foot kilometer 0.6214 mile square kilometer 0.3861 square mile Multiply fiX To obtain foot 0.3048 meter mile 1.609 kilometer Temperature Conversion degrees Celsius (°C) 'F - (1.8)x(°C) + 32 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) IV WATER-QUALITY DATA FROM RECONNAISSANCE SURVEYS OF SELECTED ESTUARIES IN SOUTHERN NEW JERSEY, JULY-OCTOBER 1989 By R. Edward Hickman ABSTRACT Water-quality characteristics are presented for the estuaries of the Metedeconk, Toms, Great Egg Harbor, Tuckahoe, and Maurice Rivers. Temperature, specific conductance, pH, transparency (Secchi disk depth), and concentrations of dissolved oxygen and suspended sediment were measured. Water-quality characteristics of each estuary were measured during monthly longitudinal profiles during July-October 1989. Measurements on the Metedeconk and Toms Rivers were made during morning and afternoon in July- October and August-October, respectively; measurements on the Great Egg Harbor and Tuckahoe Rivers were made during high and low tides in July- October, and on the Maurice River were made during high and low tides in July. Additional field measurements were made on tidal tributaries of the Great Egg Harbor and Tuckahoe Rivers. INTRODUCTION Surface-water diversions from coastal streams are potential sources to help meet present and future demand for freshwater in southern New Jersey. Increased withdrawal rates are planned for the existing diversion on the Metedeconk River, and potential sites for additional diversions have been identified near the heads of tide of other selected streams. Freshwater diversions may increase the salinity in the estuaries of these rivers, and increases in salinity could cause undesirable changes in estuarine water quality. The estuary of each river is the downstream, tidal reach in which the freshwater discharged by the river mixes with the saltwater of the ocean. Water-quality data are needed to gain information about the processes controlling estuarine water quality and to determine how water quality will be affected by diversions. Some water-quality data collected during the 1970's are given in reports by Makai (1978, undated a, and undated b). This report presents water-quality data measured during reconnaissance surveys of the estuaries of the Metedeconk, Toms, Great Egg Harbor, Tuckahoe, and Maurice Rivers in southern New Jersey during July-October 1989. The purpose of the estuarine surveys was to collect preliminary water-quality information that will aid in planning a more extensive project to determine the changes in water quality resulting from existing and proposed freshwater diversions. Temperature, specific conductance, pH, transparency (Secchi disk depth), and concentrations of dissolved oxygen and suspended sediment were measured. This study was done by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy. Personnel of the New Jersey Geological Survey (NJGS) of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy worked with those of the U.S. Geological Survey to make the field measurements presented in this report. NJGS also provided the boat that was used. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA Estuaries of the Metedeconk| and Toms Rivers The estuaries of the Metedeconk and Toms Rivers are part of the Barnegat Bay estuarine system (fig. 1). Each estuary consists of a downstream embayment and a narrow channel upstream from the head of the embayment (figs. 2 and 3). Both embayments! have a nearly uniform water depth of 1.5 to 2.0 meters at mean low watejr (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1986b), and a mean range of tide of about 0.15 meters (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1988). The heads of tide were ta!ken from New Jersey State tidelands maps (State of New Jersey, undated a and undated b). The Metedeconk River estuary is 9.4 kilometers long and has a maximum width of about 1.1 kilometers (fig. 2). The drainage area at the mouth, 205 square kilometers, was determined from 1:24,000-scale topographic maps by use of a planimeter; the mouth of the Metedeconk River as designated in this report is different from that in Velnich (1984). Brick Township currently withdraws freshwater just downstream from the head of tide. The Toms River estuary is 11 kilometers long and has a maximum width of about 1.6 kilometers at its mouth (fig. 3). The drainage area at the mouth is 497 square kilometers (Velnich, 1984). Estuaries of the Great Egg Harb(|>r and Tuckahoe Rivers The estuaries of the Great Egg Harbor and Tuckahoe River are tributary to the Great Egg Harbor Bay which discharges to the Atlantic Ocean (fig. 4). Both estuaries are surrounded by extensive salt-marsh wetlands. The mean range of tide is 1.1 meters in the Great Egg Harbor Bay and 1.2 meters in the Great Egg Harbor River at Mays Landing (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1988). The Great Egg Harbor River estuary extends 23 kilometers upstream from the Bay to the head of tide at the outlet of Lake Lenape at Mays Landing (fig. 5). It has a maximum width of about[0.6 kilometers and a maximum depth of about 11 meters at mean low water (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1986a). The drainage area at the mouth is 899 square kilometers (Velnich, 1984). The Tuckahoe River estuary extends 22 kilometers from the mouth of the river to Route 49 near Head of River (fig. 5). It has a maximum width of about 0.5 kilometers and a maximum depth of about 10 meters at mean low water (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1986a). The drainage area at the mouth is 264 square kilometers (Velnich, 1984). Water-quality measurements also were made in the Great Egg Harbor Bay, Middle River, Patcong Creek, and Cedar Swainp Creek. Middle River is a tributary of the Great Egg Harbor River, Patcong Creek is a tributary of the 74° 15' 74* I 75" 74" MANASQUAN RIVER POINT PLEASANT CANAL METEDECONK RIVER 40* 40' 39' 0 10 20 MILES 0 10 20 30 KILOMETERS 39°45' 10 MILES 10 15 KILOMETERS Figure 1.--Locations of Barnegat Bay and the estuaries of the Metedeconk and Toms Rivers. 74°10 74°02'30" 40° 05' - HEAD OF TIDE BRICK TOWNSHIP DIVERSION 2'30" - NEW JERSEY METEDECONK RIVER 40°00' - EXPLANATION U.S. Geological Survey water-quality station Number is index number listed in table 1. Figure 2.--Water-quality stations in and near the estuary of the Metedeconk River. 740 12'30" 10' 7'30" 74°5' 39° 57'30" 55' 76° 74° 2 MILES 41' 3 KILOMETERS 52'30" 40C EXPLANATION 1 U.S. Geological Survey water-quality * station. Number is index number listed in table 2. 39' 0 10 20 MILES 0 10 20 30 KILOMETERS 39°50' Figure 3.--Water-quality stations in and near the estuary of Toms River. 74°45' 74°30' I 39°30' GREAT EGG HARBOR BAY. LAKELENAPE Head of River TUCK AH op GREAT EGG ARBO BAY 39°15' 10 MILES i 10 15 KILOMETERS Figure 4.--Locations of the Great Egg Harbor Bay and the Great Egg Harbor and Tuckahoe Rivers. 74° 50' 45' 40' 74°35' 39°30' 75' GREAT EGG HARBOR RIVER 22'30" 39° - HEAD OF TIDE GREAT EGG HARBOR BAY EXPLANATION 39°15' Mouth of river U.S. Geological Survey water-quality station. Number is index number listed in tables 4 and 5.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Freshwaters Where a License Is Required to Fish with Handline, Rod and Line Or Long Bow and Arrow Listed by County and Alphabetically by Name of Water
    Freshwaters where a license is required to fish with handline, rod and line or long bow and arrow Listed by county and alphabetically by name of water. A license is required upstream of each location. ATLANTIC COUNTY Oranoken Creek–Whitecar Mill, North of Beaver Dam Long Swamp Creek–Washington Street Bridge, Toms Absecon Creek–Dam at Lower Atlantic City Reservoir Oyster Creek–None–all saline water River Great Egg Harbor River–Power lines at confluence of Riggins Ditch–Route 47 Manahawkin Creek–Dams for Manahawkin W.M.A. Gravelly Run Sow and Pigs Branch Nantuxent–None–all saline impoundments bayside Middle River–None–all saline water water Metedeconk River–Rt. 70 Bridge, Laurelton Mullica River–Line between Seventh Ave., Sweetwater, Stow Creek–Buckhorn Rd. Bridge, Jericho Mill Creek–Mouth of Creek at lagoons in Beach Haven and ramp at Crowleys Landing Straight Creek–None–all saline water West Nacote Creek–Port Republic Dam West Creek–100 ft. below West Creek Lake Dam Mill Creek–Pine Beach–Ocean Gate Road Patcong Creek–Bargaintown Lake Dam (Pickle Factory Pond) Oyster Creek–Route 9 South River–Power lines immediately below Route 50 ESSEX COUNTY Parkers Run–None–all saline water Tuckahoe River–First northerly tributary downstream Passaic River–Erie Railroad Bridge between Newark Potters Creek–None–all saline water of Rt. 49 Bridge (McNeals Branch) (at Verona Ave.) and Kearny Stouts Creek–None–all saline water BERGEN COUNTY Peddie Ditch–None–all saline water Stouts Creek S. Br.–Bayside East Parkway Hackensack River–Cedar Lane Bridge between
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Pinelands Natural Heritage Trail Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan
    Southern Pinelands Natural Heritage Trail Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan Task 3: Intrinsic Qualities November 2008 Taintor & Associates, Inc. Whiteman Consulting, Ltd. Paul Daniel Marriott and Associates CONTENTS PART 1: INTRINSIC QUALITIES................................................................................................. 1 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3 Overview: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Intrinsic Qualities............................................................ 3 2. Natural Quality ........................................................................................................................ 5 Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 5 Environmental History and Context...................................................................................................... 6 Indicators of Significance...................................................................................................................... 7 Significance as a Leader in Environmental Stewardship ................................................................... 17 The Major Natural Resources of the Pinelands and Their Significance............................................. 17 3. Recreational Quality ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Places to Fish-P65
    SEGMENTS OF PUBLICLY OWNED NEW JERSEY STREAMS OPEN TO ANGLING If you’ve ever looked around for a nice stretch of stream to fish and have run into a host of “No Trespassing” signs, the following list is for you. It’s a list of stream stretches publicly owned and open to the general angler. These represent only a small percent of the approximately 8,600 miles of freshwater streams in the State, however, these waters should provide stretches of uninterrupted “hassle free” fishing. Also included is a generalized description of the major gamefish and panfish population present as well as the recreational facilities available. —GOOD LUCK— ABBREVIATIONS AGENCY N.J.D.F. & W New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife LEGEND N.J.D.P. & F. New Jersey Division of Parks and Forestry FISHING QUALITY U.S.N.P.S. United States National Park Service 1—Very good U.S.F. & W.S. United States Fish & Wildlife Service 2—Good AREA 3—Fair D.W.G.N.R.A. Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area 4—Poor or none WMA Wildlife Management Area 5—Trout Available Only During NWR National Wildlife Refuge Stocking Period FACILITIES 6—Trout Available During Entire N—No Legal Fishing Season Y—Yes Length (mi.) Av. Width (ft.) Av. Swimming Area Picnicking Cabins Campsites Trout Smallmouth Bass Largemouth Bass Largemouth Pickerel Stream Agency Area Nearest Town(s) Catfish/Eels ATLANTIC COUNTY Mullica River N.J.D.P. & F. Wharton St. Forest Sweetwater-Jackson 14.0 150 N Y Y Y 4 4 4 2 2 BERGEN COUNTY Ramapo River County Ramapo Valley Mahwah 1.0 70 N Y N N 5 3 3 3 3 Reservation Saddle River County Saddle River Park Ridgewood 0.5 30 N Y N N 5 4 4 4 3 Saddle River Municipal Lake St.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmentally Sensitive Areas Guidance Document
    New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Release Prevention ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS GUIDANCE DOCUMENT Revised September 2014 Introduction This guidance on environmentally sensitive areas is intended for use as a reference and a guide when gathering information to be used in preparing the topographical maps for Discharge Prevention, Containment and Countermeasure (DPCC), and Discharge Cleanup and Removal (DCR) Plans. It gathers in one place all the citations listed in N.J.A.C. 7:1E-1.8, which establishes the definition of environmentally sensitive areas (ESA) for the purpose of developing the DPCC/DCR plan. The areas described in this document are by no means the only ESA in New Jersey, but represent those most likely to be adversely affected by a discharge of a hazardous substance. When used in conjunction with the requirements of N.J.A.C. 7:1E-4.10, Mapping criteria, it will prove useful in preparing the topographical maps and the offsite response measures that are required as part of the DCR plan. Additional information concerning the certification of ESA information is available in A Guide to the Preparation of Discharge Prevention, Containment and Countermeasure (DPCC) and Discharge Cleanup and Removal (DCR) Plans and Plan Renewals, available on the Bureau of Release Prevention website at http://www.nj.gov/dep/rpp/brp/dp/index.htm. N.J.A.C. 7:1E-4.2(b)9 requires that topographical maps be included in the DPCC plan, while N.J.A.C. 7:1E-4.10(d) requires that these maps cover all surrounding areas which could be affected by a discharge from the facility, including ESA.
    [Show full text]
  • New Jersey Future Van Abs 2014 Pinelands Growth Area Water
    Effects of Land Development on Water Resources of the Pinelands Region Prepared for New Jersey Future by Daniel J. Van Abs, PhD, PP/AICP Principal Investigator Rutgers – The State University of New Jersey School of Environmental and Biological Sciences Department of Human Ecology 55 Dudley Road, New Brunswick, NJ 08903 e: [email protected] p: (848) 932-9432 June 2014 Cover photo credit: Van Abs Effects of Land Development on Water Resources of the Pinelands Region Daniel J. Van Abs, Oliver Stringham, Yuling Gao and Tim Evans June 2014 Contents Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... v Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... vii Overview of Target Area Results.............................................................................................................xiii Evesham/Medford Target Area ..........................................................................................................xiii Hammonton Target Area .................................................................................................................... xiv Little Egg Harbor/Tuckerton Target Area ............................................................................................ xiv Changes in Subwatershed Integrity .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Great Egg Harbor River Boat Dock
    1 likit4( _________ NOV 15 nal Supt. Exec /C (40r' (NF'S/PHSO/S&P-C) CI-15014%LS° Supt. Re: Gregory Norell Permit Application 315 Old River Road; Mays Landing, NJ Frank Cianfrani, Chief Regulatory Branch Department of the Army - Phila. District Wanarna.ker Building 100 Penn Square East Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390 Dear Mr. Cianfrani: We have received information from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. regarding an application to legalize and extend the dock located at 315 Old River Road in Mays Landing. The proposed structure would be approximately 165 feet channelward for the mooring of private boats in the Great Egg Harbor National Scenic and Recreational River. We have reviewed the above referenced permit pursuant to section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended (P.L. 90-542) which states "no department or agency of the United States shall assist by loan, grant, license, or otherwise in the construction of any water resources project that would have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which such river was established, as determined by the Secretary charged with its administration." National Park Service authority under Section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act has been upheld in federal district court. In the case of the United States versus Kenneth Harris in 1992 a decision was rendered that upheld the removal of an illegal dock on the Little Miami River. In 1998 in Sierra Club, et al., versus United States, the federal district court clarified what constitutes a "water resources project" and also upheld the authority to review such projects under Section 7(a).
    [Show full text]
  • New Jersey Estuaries Finfish Resource Assessment
    .. """ . Technical Report New Jersey Estuaries Finfish Resource Assessment Phase I: Literature Summarv.., Kenneth W. Able and Susan C. Kaiser Det.-ember l W4 Marine Field Statiun . d Coastal St:tences [nstitute ot Manne a_n .. f New Jersey 1 Rumers. The State U mverstty l K087 • Tuckenon. New Jersey 0 Contribution g4-xx TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ii LIST OF FIGURES ii I?'JTRODLCTION SCOPE RESULTS 2 Finfish Literature Summaries by Estuary Fiufish Literature Re'View.~ by E~tullfy LITERATURE CITED 60 APPENDIX 1: Checklist of New Jersey Estuarine Fishes 69 APPENDIX II: List of Unavailable and/or Marginal Literurure 77 LIST OF T.-\BLES TJble i. List llf estuanne syo.;rems ror finfish literature summaries 3 Table 2. List ot common and scientific.: names of fishes in summaries 5 Table 3-1: Finfish literature summary for Hudson River 9 Table 3-2. Finfish literature summary for Newark Bay 17 Table 3-3. Finfish literature summary for Raritan River & BayiNew York Harbur 18 Table 3-..J.. Finfish literature summary for Sandy Hook Bay 20 Table 3-5. Finfish literature summary for Shark River 23 Table 3-6. Finfish literuture sununary fm Manasquan Ri'fer 24 Table 3-7. Finfish liter..tture summary for Barnegat Bay 26 Table 3-X. Finfish liter..tture summary for Little Egg Harbor 34 Table 3-lJ. Finfish literature summary for Mullic.:a River & Great Bay 38 Table 3-10. Finfish litemture summary for Brig-..tntine 45 Table 3-ll. Finfish literature :mmll14lry for Great Egg Harbor 47 Table 3-12. Finfish literature summary for Corson\ fnlet ..J.X Table 3-13.
    [Show full text]
  • Crossroads of the American Revolution in New Jersey
    The National Park Service Northeast Region Philadelphia Support Office Crossroads of the American Revolution in New Jersey Special Resource Study National Heritage Area Feasibility Study Environmental Assessment August 2002 This report has been prepared to provide Congress and the public with information about the resources in the study area and how they relate to criteria for inclusion within the national park system and for feasibility of a national heritage area. Publication and transmittal of this report should not be considered an endorsement or a commitment by the National Park Service to seek or support either specific legisla- tive authorization for the project or appropriation for its implementation. Authorization and funding for any new commitments by the National Park Service will have to be considered in light of competing priorities for existing units of the national park system and other programs. This report was prepared by the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Philadelphia Support Office. For additional copies or more information contact: National Park Service Philadelphia Support Office Planning and Legislation Program 200 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 597-6479 Abstract Special Resource Study National Heritage Area Feasibility Study Environmental Assessment Crossroads of the American Revolution, New Jersey August 2002 This Special Resource Study (SRS), National Heritage Area (NHA) Feasibility Study and Environmental Assessment examines the resources within a fifteen-county
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation
    NEW JERSEY CONSERVATION Saving Land A Directory of Land Conservation Organizations in New Jersey 2017 Cover photo: Hill & Dale Preserve from www.njconservation.org. 2 Saving Land A Directory of Land Conservation Organizations in New Jersey August 2017 Compiled by New Jersey Conservation Foundation With the following Volunteers: Anne Gaus Ali Hiple Ash Kumar Kirill Leshiner John Romanko Valerie Snow Visit www.njconservation.org to view the directory online. 3 Celebrate Saving Land! Thank you to the 112 nonprofit conservation organi- zations working to preserve New Jersey’s natural, cultur- al, recreational and agricultural lands. Together, with state agencies and local governments, a total of 1.4 mil- lion acres (29%) of New Jersey’s lands are preserved. These lands protect drinking water supplies, provide local healthy foods, encourage a healthy citizenry, and ensure a diversity of habitats for current and future generations. We are awed by the work of our state’s nonprofit conservation partners, and are happy to say that New Jer- sey Conservation Foundation has partnered with over three-fourths of the organizations featured in the “Saving Land” directory. We will continue to embrace our conser- vation assistance role—Land Trust Network, annual land conservation conference, and Franklin Parker Conserva- tion Excellence grants—to maintain the strength of our conservation community. We have about one million acres yet to preserve. Let’s get to work—together! Michele S. Byers Executive Director New Jersey Conservation Foundation 4 Building bridges with NJ’s land trust community 5 About The Directory The directory will promote communication and partnerships among groups within the conservation com- munity.
    [Show full text]
  • 1983 Meeting
    1983 MIIDD-lE A1rLANJlf ARCHAEOLOGICAh CONFER&NC& PRQGR~M REHOBOTf.l BEACH, DELAWARE APRIL 8- 10 1983 Middle Atlantic Conference April 8 - 10, 1983 Behoboth Beach, Delaware PROGRAM Friday Afternoon (April 8) 1:30 Opening Remarks Contract Archeology in the Middle Atlantic 1:45 Introduction (June Evans, Chair) 1:50 Roads to Knowledge or Highway Survey: An Examination of Techniques and Methods for the Retrieval of Cultural Data - Maureen Kavanagh ~nd Silas Hurry, Maryland Geological Survey 2:10 Archaeological Contracting Within the National Forest System of Virginia: A Report on Adequacy - Michael B. Barber and George Tolley, USDAForest Service 2:30 Digging the City: Urban Archaeology in· the Era of Cultural Resource . Management - John P. McCarthy, Temple University 2:50 Break (15 udnutes) . 3:05 Regional Research Problems: Can Archaeologists Agree? - Charles Cheek and Charles Leedecker, Soils Systems, Inc. 3:25 Sermons in Stones - Louis Brelinan, Pace University 3:45 The Gold in (the) Marshalltown - June Evans,- The American University 4:0S- S:00 Discussion: Cara Wise and Joe Dent, ~iscussants Friday Evening ,, .... 7:30 Fluted Points in the Middle Atlantic Region (William Gardner,·Chair) Saturday Morning (April 9) General Session: Research in the Middle Atlantic 9:00 Introduction (Dennis Curry, Chair) • 9:05 The-Effects of -Mid Post-Glacial Changes at Conowingo: A Stratified Late Archaic Through Late Woodland Site in the Piedmont Floodplain of the Lower Susquehanna River Valley - Joseph McNamara, Maryland Geological Survey 9:25 The Glen Haven Site: 1983 Interim Report - Ellis E. McDowell-Loudan and Gary Loudan, SUNYCortland 9:45 Fish, Fires, and Foresight: Middle Woodland Economic Adaptations in the Abbott Farm National Landmark, Trenton, New Jersey - John A.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Space Plan.Pdf
    TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Introduction ............................................................………...............… 5 Overview .............................................................................….........…. 7 1. Open Space Preservation in Camden County ................ 17 State Open Space ........................................................................ 17 Wharton State Forest ...................................................................... 17 Winslow Wildlife Management Area............................................ 18 County Open Space ........................................................... 19 Camden County Park System .................................................. 19 Municipal Open Space ...................................................... 39 Municipal Open Space Inventory ........................................... 39 Municipal Greenways ............................................................. 39 2. Farmland Preservation in Camden County .................... 41 3. Historic Preservation in Camden County ........................ 43 Early History of Camden County ............................................ 43 Local Historic Preservation Efforts ........................................ 46 4. Planning Goal and Objectives ............................................. 49 5. Criteria Ranking for Site Prioritization ........................... 51 6. Application Procedures ......................................................... 57 APPENDICES PAGE Appendix A - Inventory of Municipal Open Space in Camden
    [Show full text]
  • Wetlands of New Jersey
    National Wetlands Inventory JULY 1985 WETLANDS OF NEW JERSEY u.s. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service WETLANDS OF NEW JERSEY by Ralph W. Tiner, Jr. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5 Habitat Resources One Gateway Center Newton Comer, MA 02158 JULY 1985 This report should be cited as follows: Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of New Jersey. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Newton Comer, MA. 117 pp. Acknowledgements Many individuals and organizations have contributed to the successful completion ofthe wetlands inventory in New Jersey and to the preparation of this report. The Service's National Wetlands Inventory Group in St. Petersburg, Florida provided technical support for producing the wetland maps and for constructing the New Jersey wetland database. The U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, New York District (Passaic River Basin Study Group) and the N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Coastal Resources (Coastal Planning and Development) contributed funds to complete mapping in northern New Jersey and to digitize wetland maps along the coast, respectively. The N.J.D.E.P. Office of Environmental Analysis provided space and equipment for conducting the photo interpretation phase of the inventory. Special attention and appreciation is given to Larry Vinzant who performed nearly all of the photo interpretation. His work serves as the foundation of this report. I also thank John Organ, my former assistant, for his help in providing quality control of interpreted photos and draft maps and in reviewing the draft of this report. The efforts of Bill Zinni in completing photo interpretation (Frankfort and Lumberville maps), preparing Figures 14 and 22, and reviewing parts of the draft manuscript are also appreciated.
    [Show full text]