DOCSLIB.ORG

Lower Chincoteague Bay

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lower Chincoteague Bay RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SERVICE MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Emery T. Cleaves, Director COASTAL AND ESTUARINE GEOLOGY FILE REPORT NO. 98-1 The shallow sediments of the middle Chincoteague Bay area in Maryland: physical and chemical characteristics by Darlene V. Wells, James M. Hill, M. June Park, and Christopher P. Williams A report of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award #NA67OZ0302 March, 1998 ii Contents ABSTRACT..................................................................1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................3 PREVIOUS STUDIES..........................................................4 STUDY AREA ...............................................................5 GEOLOGIC SETTING ...................................................5 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS..........................................7 METHODS .................................................................14 STUDY APPROACH ...................................................14 FIELD METHODS .....................................................14 Coring Techniques................................................14 Surficial Sample Collection.........................................14 LABORATORY ANALYSES ............................................15 Xeroradiography and Initial Core Processing ...........................15 Textural Analyses ................................................15 Chemical Analyses................................................17 RESULTS ..................................................................17 SEDIMENT TEXTURE .................................................17 Cores ..........................................................17 Surficial Sediments ...............................................20 WATER CONTENT....................................................22 GEOCHEMISTRY .....................................................23 Carbon.........................................................23 Nitrogen........................................................26 Sulfur..........................................................28 Metals..........................................................30 Enrichment Factors .........................................31 Variation from Historical Norms...............................33 DISCUSSION ...............................................................36 CONCLUSIONS.............................................................41 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................42 REFERENCES CITED........................................................43 APPENDIX I- Sediment Core Data...............................................49 APPENDIX II- Surficial Sediment Data ...........................................61 APPENDIX III- Quality Assurance/Quality Control .................................95 iii Figures Page Figure 1. Study area. .......................................................6 Figure 2. Generalized geologic map of central Delmarva Peninsula with study area shown (boxed) (modified from Owens and Denny, 1979). See Figure 3 for pattern key. ............................................8 Figure 3. Cross-section showing stratigraphic relationship of geologic formations (from Owens and Denny, 1979) and pattern legend (modified from Owens and Denny, 1979) for geologic map shown in Figure 2..........................................................9 Figure 4. Water depths within the study area. ...................................10 Figure 5. Map showing shoreline segment measured for rates of erosion and accretion listed in Table I.(modified from Bartberger, 1973) ...............12 Figure 6. Middlemoor complex as it existed in a)1850 when Green Run Inlet was opened, and b) 1900 after Green Run Inlet closed (from Biggs, 1970). ..........................................................13 Figure 7. Core locations....................................................15 Figure 8. Surficial sample locations...........................................16 Figure 9. NW-SE cross section through Chincoteague Bay at Pirate Islands showing rate of Holocene sedimentation at five locations where cores were collected (from Bartberger, 1976). ...............................19 Figure 10. Distribution of sediment type based on Shepard’s (1954) classification.....................................................21 Figure 11. Distribution of total carbon in surficial sediments. .......................25 Figure 12. Distribution of total nitrogen in surficial sediments.......................27 Figure 13. Distribution of total sulfur in surficial sediments.........................29 Figure 14. Plots of C/S versus depth in cores. ...................................30 Figure 15. Plots of EF for Zn versus depth in cores................................32 Figure 16. Plots of variation values for Zn versus depth for cores 1 and 5..............35 Page iv Figure 17. Distribution of sigma levels for Zn variation from historical levels in surficial sediments. ...............................................37 Figure 18. Total carbon versus clay for surficial sediments collected in the middle Chincoteague Bay...........................................40 Tables Table I Shoreline erosion and/or accretion data for the study area (lower half of Maryland portion of Chincoteague Bay (from Singewald and Slaughter, 1949). .................................................11 Table II Summary of water content, percent nitrogen, carbon and sulfur for each sediment type for surficial sediments .............................22 Table III Correlation matrix for trace metal concentrations and sediment textural data based on all surficial sediment samples .....................24 Table IV Least squares coefficients for metal data...............................34 Table V Mean and standard deviation of the variation values calculated for historical sediment set.............................................35 Table VI Textural and chemical data for core samples............................56 Table VII 210Pb activity data for sediment samples from cores 1 and 5................59 Table VIII Interval ages and sedimentation rates for cores 1 and 5, calculated by the CRS model. ..................................................60 Table IX Location coordinates (latitude and longitude) and field descriptions for surficial samples collected in middle Chincoteague Bay................62 Table X Textural and chemical data for surficial sediments collected in middle Chincoteague Bay ................................................82 Table XI Mean and range of water contents and calculated weight loss after cleaning for each sediment type (Shepard’s Classification) based on sediments collected in Isle of Wight and Assawoman Bays (Wells and others, 1994) .................................................97 Page v Table XII Comparison of the results of replicate and triplicate textural analyses of selected surficial samples ........................................98 Table XIII Results of nitrogen, carbon, and sulfur analyses of NIST-SRM #1646 (Estuarine Sediment) compared to the certified or known values ...........102 Table XIV Results of metal analyses of standard reference materials compared to the certified values for metal analyses of the core sediments............103 Table XV Results of metal analyses of standard reference materials compared to the certified values for metal analyses of the surficial sediments.........104 Table XVI Average detection limits for the metals based on the method used in this study. ......................................................104 vi ABSTRACT The Maryland Geological Survey, Resource Assessment Service, initiated a multi-year investigation of the character of the shallow sediments of Maryland's Chincoteague and Sinepuxent Bays. This report presents the results of the third year study which focused on the physical and chemical characteristics of the surficial sediments of the lower half of the Maryland portion of Chincoteague Bay (i.e., middle Chincoteague Bay). This year’s study was funded by a grant/agreement from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Award #NA67OZ0302. Five sediment cores and 341 surficial sediment samples were collected in the middle Chincoteague Bay. The core and surficial sediments were analyzed for water content, textural properties, total nitrogen, carbon and sulfur, and for six metals: Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, and Zn. Results from these analyses were used to map the distribution of sediment type, nitrogen, carbon and sulfur contents and relative enrichment of the six metals in the surficial sediments. The five cores were collected in a variety of sedimentary environments, ranging from shallow tidal flats adjacent to Assateague Island to low energy lagoonal deposits within Johnson Bay area. Cores 1 and 5 were analyzed for 210Pb activity, obtaining estimated average sedimentation rates of 0.17±0.08 and 0.25±0.14 cm/yr respectively. Although these rates are low compared to those reported for other areas of the coastal bays, they are probably representative of sedimentation rates within the Johnson Bay area. Based on the textural analyses of surficial sediment samples, the average textural composition of the bay bottom sediments is 49% sand, 35% silt and 16% clay. Sand is the dominant sediment type found in the eastern half of the study area. Within Johnson Bay and along the western margin of the study area, clayey silt is the predominant sediment type, reflecting
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]
  • Accomack County, Virginia Shoreline Inventory Report Methods and Guidelines
    W&M ScholarWorks Reports 9-2016 Accomack County, Virginia Shoreline Inventory Report Methods and Guidelines Marcia Berman Virginia Institute of Marine Science Karinna Nunez Virginia Institute of Marine Science Sharon Killeen Virginia Institute of Marine Science Tamia Rudnicky Virginia Institute of Marine Science Julie Bradshaw Virginia Institute of Marine Science See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports Part of the Natural Resources and Conservation Commons Recommended Citation Berman, M., Nunez, K., Killeen, S., Rudnicky, T., Bradshaw, J., Angstadt, K., Tombleson, C., Duhring, K., Brown, K., Hendricks, J., Weiss, D., Hershner, C., & Comprehensive Coastal Inventory Program. (2016) Accomack County, Virginia Shoreline Inventory Report Methods and Guidelines. Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering (SRAMSOE) No. 450. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary. http://doi.org/10.21220/V58C79 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]. Authors Marcia Berman, Karinna Nunez, Sharon Killeen, Tamia Rudnicky, Julie Bradshaw, Kory Angstadt, Christine Tombleson, Karen Duhring, Kallie Brown, Jessica Hendricks, David Weiss, Carl Hershner, and Comprehensive Coastal Inventory Program This report is available at W&M ScholarWorks: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports/61 Accomack County, Virginia Shoreline Inventory Report Methods and Guidelines Prepared By: Comprehensive Coastal Inventory Program Center for Coastal Resources Management Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary Gloucester Point, Virginia September 2016 Special report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering No.
    [Show full text]
  • 2012-AG-Environmental-Audit.Pdf
    TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER ONE: YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER AND DEEP CREEK LAKE .................. 4 I. Background .......................................................................................................... 4 II. Active Enforcement and Pending Matters ........................................................... 9 III. The Youghiogheny River/Deep Creek Lake Audit, May 16, 2012: What the Attorney General Learned............................................................................................. 12 CHAPTER TWO: COASTAL BAYS ............................................................................. 15 I. Background ........................................................................................................ 15 II. Active Enforcement Efforts and Pending Matters ............................................. 17 III. The Coastal Bays Audit, July 12, 2012: What the Attorney General Learned .. 20 CHAPTER THREE: WYE RIVER ................................................................................. 24 I. Background ........................................................................................................ 24 II. Active Enforcement and Pending Matters ......................................................... 26 III. The Wye River Audit, October 10, 2012: What the Attorney General Learned 27 CHAPTER FOUR: POTOMAC RIVER NORTH BRANCH AND SAVAGE RIVER 31 I. Background .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Documenting a Sinking Cemetery Step, Engraved with the TNC Logo
    MARYLAND/DC Summer 2019 • nature.org/marylanddc Profile of a Conservationist Michelle Canick There’s a somewhat mysterious tradition at The Nature Conservancy. A tradition involving a chair. According to tradition, when an employee reaches her Joseph Fehrer prepares to measure the distance between the southernmost headstone of the Robon family burial plot and the edge of the 25th work anniverary, a secret encroaching marsh. Photo © Matt Kane/TNC committee delivers a beautiful wooden arm-chair to their door- Documenting A Sinking Cemetery step, engraved with the TNC logo. On The Nature Conservancy’s Robinson Neck Preserve This month, Michelle Canick will receive her chair. “There will come a day when these headstones become oyster substrate. That’s just the reality of this place.” Michelle is a member of the MD/ Joseph Fehrer, Lower Shore Conservationist, The Nature Conservancy Maryland/DC Chapter DC chapter’s coastal resilience and science teams. In 2015 she On a cold and clear February day, Joe Fehrer, lower shore conservationist for The co-led a project with the Maryland Nature Conservancy’s Maryland/DC chapter, lies on his stomach and delicately sweeps Department of Natural away a pile of pine needles lying at the base of a half-sunken headstone so that he can Resources to conduct a landscape- read the last few lines of text. Joe is documenting the Robson family burial plot, located level spatial analysis and modeling on the TNC’s Robinson Neck Preserve, for the Maryland Historical Trust before the effort that identifies where natural cemetery is lost to the rising waters of the Chesapeake Bay.
    [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]
  • A Brief History of Worcester County (PDF)
    Contents Worcester’s Original Locals ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Native American Names ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5 From Colony To Free State ................................................................................................................................................................. 6 A Divided Land: Civil War .................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Storm Surges & Modern Times ........................................................................................................................................................... 8 Our Historic Towns .............................................................................................................................................................................. 9 Berlin ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Ocean City .................................................................................................................................................................................. 10 Ocean Pines
    [Show full text]
  • Ocean City Harbor Inlet and Sinepuxent Bay Maryland Fact Sheet
    OCEAN CITY HARBOR & INLET & SINEPUXENT BAY, MD FACT SHEET as of February 2019 AUTHORIZATION: The project was approved by the River and Harbor Act of August 1935 in accordance with Rivers and Harbors Committee Document No. 38, 72nd Congress and modified in Document No. 60. It was also modified in 1954. TYPE OF PROJECT: Navigation PROJECT PHASE: Operation and Maintenance CONGRESSIONAL INTEREST: Senators Van Hollen and Cardin (MD), Representatives Harris (MD-1) NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR: Worcester County, Maryland BACKGROUND: The location of the Ocean City inlet is on the far eastern boundary of Maryland along the Atlantic Coast. The project provides for an inlet channel 10 feet deep from the Atlantic Ocean through West Ocean City harbor. The inlet channel width varies from 100 to 200 feet. The inlet channel is protected by two stone jetties at the entrance from the Atlantic Ocean. The project also includes a channel 6 feet deep and with widths that vary from 100 to 150 feet in Sinepuxent Bay from the inlet to Chincoteague Bay. The project also includes a channel 6 feet deep with widths that vary from 75 to 125 feet from the inlet into the Isle of Wight Bay. STATUS: The Ocean City inlet has a history of shoaling rapidly, especially near the entrance to the West Ocean City harbor. Limited maintenance dredging of the Ocean City inlet via one of the Corps’ special purpose dredges will be accomplished with fiscal year (FY) 2019 funds. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS – BALTIMORE DISTRICT 2 Hopkins Plaza, Baltimore MD 21201 https://www.nab.usace.army.mil page 1 of 5 BUDGET: Federal Funds Data Total Allocation for FY 2018 750,000 President Budget FY 20191 5,000 Allocation for FY 20192 255,000 President Budget FY 20201 TBD 1 The President typically sends the budget to Congress in February each year.
    [Show full text]
  • Chincoteague Discusses Possible Measures Ahead of July 1 Marijuana Legalization Abracadabra Or Fata Morgana — What Made the Sh
    CIRCULATION 10,000 Free April 23, 2021 Abracadabra or Fata Morgana — What Made the Ship Hover? Chincoteague Discusses Possible Measures Ahead of July 1 Marijuana Legalization By Carol Vaughn Chincoteague town council members at the April 15 meeting discussed im- plications for the town of the legaliza- tion of marijuana possession in Virgin- ia, which takes effect July 1. Other parts of the legislation, including retail sales, do not take effect until 2024. The legislation makes possession of up to an ounce of marijuana legal for people 21 and older starting July 1. Adults caught with more than an ounce but less than a pound face a $25 fine. On a recent trip across the bay, Shore native Ed Holland captured an image of a ship appearing to hover Vice Mayor Chris Bott said he re- above the water. He attributes the oddity to a phenomenon called fata morgana, a mirage caused by alter- ceived information from the Virginia nating layers of hot and cold air. Photo by Ed Holland. Municipal League about recent Gen- eral Assembly actions, including mar- ijuana legalization. Virginians Age 16 and Up Eligible for COVID-19 Vaccine “July 1, it’s on in the state of Virgin- By Stefanie Jackson Virginia adults are fully vaccinated. munity,” Northam said. ia,” Bott said, adding, “It’s a different All Virginia adults who want the Northam predicted every adult who “Vaccinations are the only way we world in these localities where this is COVID-19 vaccine are now eligible to wants the vaccine should be able to re- end this pandemic and get back to nor- on.
    [Show full text]
  • Town of Chincoteague Comprehensive Plan
    TOWN OF CHINCOTEAGUE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chincoteague, Virginia Approved January 4, 2010 5 YEAR UPDATE Approved February 2, 2015 Chincoteague, Virginia Comprehensive Plan Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................. I-1 Plan Organization ..................................................................................................... I-2 Legal Framework ...................................................................................................... I-2 Acronyms…………………………………………………………………………...I-4 List of Reports/Studies……………………………………………………………. I-5 Chapter 1 Community Profile .............................................................................. 1-1 History of Chincoteague .......................................................................................... 1-1 Socio-Economic Characteristics ............................................................................. 1-3 Population ............................................................................................................ 1-4 Race...................................................................................................................... 1-4 Age and Sex ......................................................................................................... 1-4 Households ........................................................................................................... 1-4 Natural Features .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Bays
    Priority Areas for Wetland Restoration, Preservation, and Mitigation in Maryland’s Coastal Bays Prepared by: Maryland Department of the Environment Nontidal Wetlands and Waterways Division Funded by: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency State Wetland Program Development Grant CD 983378-01-1 December 2004 Table of Contents Priority Wetland Restoration, Preservation, and Mitigation in Maryland’s Coastal Bays EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 2 TARGETING........................................................................................................................................... 8 Wetlands and wetland loss......................................................................................................................10 Existing management plan goals ............................................................................................................32 Existing targeting efforts.........................................................................................................................36 Additional targeting considerations ........................................................................................................41 GIS data sources .....................................................................................................................................54 Summary of restoration targeting information - existing recommendations..........................................56 MDE restoration
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries and Chincoteague Bay
    Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries and Chincoteague Bay QH 541.5 Virginia Institute of Marine Science .~8 School of Marine Science 11.:. E-,.:-nr-c-tll Prntecfion figency 083 College of William and Mary F:<;Y~ r r fntrrnai\on Rts$urce 1987 <;-::r I 2~~521 $1; CLn~'lu'SfrCcf 1987 Phli~I~Ip~bi,'1 13107 Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries and Chincoteague Bay - 1987 Robert J. Orth, Adam A. Fri sch, Judith F. Nowak, and Kenneth A. Moore Virginia Institute of Marine Science School of Marine Science College of Will iam and Mary Gloucester Point, VA 23062 Contributions by: Nancy Rybicki U.S. Environmental Protection Agenq R.T. Anderson Region 111 Information Resource Virginia Carter Center (3PM52) U. S . Geol ogi cal Survey 841 Che~inutStreet Reston, VA 22092 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Funded by: Mary1 and Department of Natural Resources Virginia Institute of Marine Science U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Environmental Protection Agency All ied-Signal Inc. National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration Final Report Submitted to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program Annapolis, MD 21403 April, 1989 Cover Photo: Aerial photograph of the Potomac River south of Washington D.C., shot at 12,000 feet by AEROECO Inc., Edgewater, MD. CONTENTS Paqe Tables .............................................................. iv Figures ............................................................. Executive Summary ..................................................
    [Show full text]