DOCSLIB.ORG

Prosser Waterbirds

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Effects of Local Shoreline and Subestuary Watershed Condition on Waterbird Community Integrity in the Chesapeake Bay Impacts of shoreline hardening and watershed land use on nearshore habitats aka “NOAA Shorelines Project” NOAA-CSCOR Funded Research (2009-2014) 17 Principal Investigators from 8 Institutions Goals • Improve scientific knowledge about effects of stressors in near-shore environments (<2m deep) • Transition new knowledge to improve management of near-shore environments Compare shoreline types Natural Marsh Phragmites Rip-Rap Bulkhead Beach Marsh Forested Residential Development Agricultural …in bays and sub-estuaries with watersheds that have differing land use Objectives – Waterbird Component • Improve our understanding of the effects of shoreline hardening and land use on waterbird communities using the Chesapeake and Coastal Bays • Work in conjunction with the other macro-fauna groups Credit: Johann Schumacher (fish and invertebrates), How to Assess Waterbird Community Usage? Community Metrics: Species Richness, Diversity Species level abundance/density; Guilds 1. Index of Waterbird Community Integrity (developed by DeLuca et al. 2008) 2. Subestuary Scale (plus 2 others) Index of Waterbird Community Integrity (IWCI) (After DeLuca et al. 2008. Biol. Conserv.) IWCI = (∑ S IWCI / S N) + (2) A I ALSO: Species Richness Where: S IWCI = Individual Species Index Species Density SN = Total no. of species Guild Analysis AI = Abundance score for each species (i) Weighted for sensitive versus tolerant species Indices Foraging Breadth Nesting Sensitivity Migratory Status Breeding Range State Listing Native Status Index of Waterbird Community Integrity SIWCI (range 21 to 5) Disturbance Sensitive Species Disturbance Tolerant Species Royal Tern Ring-billed Gull (Thalasseus maximus) (Larus delawarensis) Siwci = 21 Siwci = 9.5 Hooded Merganser Double-crested Cormorant (Lophodytes cucullatus) (Phalacrocorax auritus) Siwci = 20 Siwci = 9.5 Semipalmated Sandpiper Canada Goose (resident) (Calidrus pusilla) (Branta canadensis) Siwci = 18.5 Siwci = 8.5 Laughing Gull Mallard (Leucophaeus atricilla) (Anas platyrhynchos) Siwci = 17.5 Siwci = 7 Bald Eagle Domestic duck (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Siwci = 5 Siwci = 16.5 Resident versus Migratory Canada Geese MIGO = Siwci 12 (disturbance sensitive) CAGO = Siwci 8.5 (disturbance tolerant) • September 15 – MD DNR threshold for migrant CAGO • Compare summer surveys (should be resident) to Fall • Confirm using survey notes (on lawns) Adaptations to Deluca et al 2008 1. Updated IWCI species database a) Standardize IWCI index scores definitions Foraging Niche Nesting Site Selectivity Migratory Distance Breeding Range Conservation Status b) Score all species for Chesapeake Bay (n=120 spp) 2. Deluca used 100m transects; we used area counts and densities because it was hard to find contiguous shoreline types at that scale Prosser et al. 2017 In Press . Waterbirds Methods Area Counts– survey shoreline and open water from boat Each site visited 2 seasons per year (2010-2014) Late Summer (Aug-Sept) and late Fall (Oct –Dec) Each site visited 3 times per season Calculated Index of Waterbird Community Integrity, species richness, and density by subestuary and season Shoreline Delineations (GIS and Groundtruth) Shoreline Type Beach Bulkhead Developed Forest Natural Marsh Open Water Phragmites Rip Rap Curtis Old Road Bay Study Sites (n=21) Langford Stony 2014 Corsica 2014 Curtis Creek (Dev) Magothy 2013 Old Road Bay (Dev) Rhode Onancock River (Mix Ag) 2012 Occohannock River (Mix Ag) Miles 2013 Harris 2011 Corrotoman River (For) 2010 Harris Creek (Agr, MixDev) Mill Creek (MixDev) St. Leonard Honga Mill Creek Mill 2012 Magothy River (MixDev, Dev) St. Mary’s Miles River (Agr, MixDev) Stony Creek (Dev) 2011 Back River (Dev) Onancock East River (For) Corrotoman Poquoson River (Mix Dev) – Poq East and West Ware River (For) Occohannock 2010 East Corsica River (Agr) Ware Honga River (Oth Mix) Langford Creek (Agr) Poquoson Rhode River (For) St. Mary River (Oth Mix,For) St. Leonard Cr. (For) Back A total of 64 species were observed American Black Duck Forster's tern Red-breasted Merganser American Coot Gadwall Redknot American Great black-backed Ring-necked Duck Oystercatcher gull Red-necked Grebe Bald eagle Great blue heron Royal tern Black-crowned Night Great egret Ruddy Duck Heron Green heron Sanderling Belted kingfisher Greater Yellowlegs Sandwich Tern Bonaparte's Gull Herring gull Short-billed Dowitcher Brown Pelican Horned Grebe Semipalmated Plover Bufflehead Hooded Merganser Canada goose Killdeer Semipalmated Sandpiper Canvasback Laughing gull Snowy egret Caspian Tern Little Blue Heron Spotted sandpiper Common Goldeneye Lesser Scaup Surf Scoter Common Loon Least tern Tri-colored Heron Common Merganser Long-tailed Duck Tundra swan Common tern Mallard Western Sandpiper Double-crested Mute swan Wood duck Cormorant Osprey Yellow-crowned Night Domestic duck/goose Pied-billed grebe Heron Fish crow Ring-billed gull 2014 Summer Surveys (Aug-Sept) IWCI Mean No. Mean Shoreline Density by Sub-estuary Birds Species Length Shoreline Observed Richness (km) Length Curtis Creek 54.39 21 17.09 3.48 16.93 Old RoadBay 26.13 17 16.66 1.45 14.26 OccohannockRiver 22.07 17 37.517 0.58 16.53 Onancock River 15.69 19 50.147 0.29 17.78 Top three species (abundance): Laughing Gull Double-crested Cormorant Canada Goose 2014 Fall Surveys (October-December) Mean No. Mean Shoreline Density by IWCI Sub-estuary Birds Species Length Shoreline Observed Richness (km) Length Curtis Creek 35.69 17 17.09 2.09 16.86 Old RoadBay 17.79 15 16.66 1.07 15.63 OccohannockRiver 46.05 17 37.517 1.23 17.27 Onancock River 44.04 15 50.147 0.88 17.22 Top three species (abundance): Bufflehead Canada Goose (Resident) Herring Gull IWCI Scores by Season Paired t-test Summer 14.13 to 19.62 Summer x=16.94 Fall 15.63 to 19.73 Fall x=17.36 p=0.057 19 18 17 IWCI Summer 16 Fall 15 14 Three Scales of Shoreline/Landcover Categorization: 1. Shoreline (Bird Survey Area) 2. Landscape 500m around bird survey boundary 3. Landscape Watershed Shoreline Delineation – Shoreline Scale Corsica Honga Langford Rhode St. Leonard Beach St. Mary Back Bulkhead East Poq. East Developed Poq. West Ware Forest Magothy Stony Natural Miles Marsh Corrotoman Phrag Harris Marsh Mill Creek Riprap Curtis Creek Old Road Bay Occohannock Onancock 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Landscape Analysis – 500m from shoreline Corsica Honga Langford St. Leonard St. Mary's Rhode Back East DEV Poquoson CROP Ware GRAS Magothy FOR Miles WETL Stony Corrotomon Harris Mill Old Road Bay Curtis Occohannock Onancock 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Landscape Analysis – Watershed Corsica Honga Langford St Leonards St Marys Rhode Back East Poquoson DEV Ware CROP Magothy GRAS Miles FOR Stony WETL Corrotoman Harris Mill Old Road Bay Curtis Occohannock Onancock 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% IWCI by Dominant Landscape (Summer) IWCI Forest Agriculture Developed p=0.23, ANOVA Univariate regression (α ≤ 0.20) to determine variables for Model Selection (Full Model) Summer Fall Shoreline (7): Shoreline (7): Bulkhead Bulkhead Rip Rap Rip Rap Developed (lawns) Developed (lawns) Phragmites Phragmites Natural Marsh Natural Marsh Forest Forest Beach Beach 500m (5) Watershed (5): 500m (5) Watershed (5): DEV500m DEV DEV500m DEV CROP500m CROP CROP500m CROP GRASS500m GRASS GRASS500m GRASS FOR500m FOR FOR500m FOR WETL500m WETL WETL500m WETL Backwards Model Selection Regression: IWCI and shoreline/land use AIC ∆ AIC R2 Season Model Score c Late Summer Null 72.10 -- -- Full Model: Bulkhead + Phragmites Marsh + 69.95 2.15 0.62 Natural Marsh + WETL500m + (WETL500m) 2 Step 2: Bulkhead + Phragmites Marsh + 66.70 3.25 0.50 Natural Marsh Step 3: Bulkhead + Phragmites Marsh 63.94 2.76 0.49 Late Fall Null 60.97 -- -- Full Model: Bulkhead + Riprap + Natural 3.14 0.38 Marsh + DEV500m 64.11 Step 2: Bulkhead + Riprap + DEV500m 60.36 3.75 0.38 Step 3: Bulkhead + DEV500m 57.94 2.42 0.34 Step 4: Bulkhead 56.90 1.04 0.28 Birds are responding to effects at the shoreline scale! p=0.002 IWCI Score Percent Bulkhead p=0.04 IWCI Score Percent Phragmites Hardened vs. Non-hardened Shoreline (hardened= bulkhead and rip-rap) Hardened Non-hardened p=0.020 p=0.024 Threshold Limit of Bulkhead Development on IWCI Threshold? Cumulative Cumulative Probability of Threshold a Looking Beyond the IWCI Shorebirds Shorebirds x Wetland Positive relationship at Subestuary and Watershed Scales Shorebirds x Natural Marsh Shorebirds x Wetland (NLCD06) shoreb = - 0.3570 + 0.04752 GS_NM shoreb = - 0.3879 + 0.2957 WETLAND06 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 shoreb shoreb 2 2 1 1 p=0.002 0 0 p=0.003 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 WETLAND06 GS_NM Mallards Mallards x Development Positive relationship at Subestuary and Watershed Scales Mallards x Bulkhead Mallards x DEV (NLCD06) MALL = - 2.618 + 1.309 GS_BH 60 MALL = - 0.081 + 0.3833 DEV06 60 p=0.06 50 50 40 40 30 MALL 30 20 MALL 20 10 p<0.001 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 0 GS_BH 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 DEV06 Canada Goose density driven by Landscape level Cropland Corsica Honga Langford St Leonard St Marys Rhode Back East Poquoson East Poquoson West DEV Poquoson CROP Ware Magothy GRAS Miles FOR Stony Corrotoman WETL Harris Mill East Mill West Mill Curtis Creek Old Road Bay Geese x Landscape CROP Onancock Occohannock 6000 S 741.273 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% R-Sq 86.8% R-Sq(adj) 85.9% 5000 Geese x Local Natural Marsh 4000 6000 S 1942.76 R-Sq 15.5% R-Sq(adj) 3.5% 5000 3000 4000 p=0.31 2000 3000 Number of Geese Number MaxGoose 2000 1000 1000 0 0 p<0.001 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 GS_NM 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 CROP06 Looking across macro-fauna groups Perry et al.
Recommended publications
  • No-Discharge Zones for Vessel Sewage in Maryland and Virginia

    No-Discharge Zones for Vessel Sewage in Maryland and Virginia

    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 05/11/2021 and available online at federalregister.gov/d/2021-09957, and on govinfo.gov 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL 10021-74-Region 3] Clean Water Act: No-Discharge Zones for Vessel Sewage in Maryland and Virginia AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice–final determination. SUMMARY: On behalf of the State of Maryland, the Secretary of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources requested that the Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3 approve a no-discharge zone for thirteen water bodies in Anne Arundel County, Maryland pursuant to the Clean Water Act. After review of Maryland’s application, EPA determined that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonable available for all thirteen waterbodies within Anne Arundel County. The application is available upon request from EPA (at the email address below). DATES: This approval is effective upon the date of publication in the Federal Register on [INSTERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ferry Akbar Buchanan, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency – Region III. Telephone: (215) 814-2570; email address: [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Clean Water Act section 312(f)(3), if any state determines that the protection and enhancement of the quality of some or all of the state’s waters require greater environmental protection, the state may designate the waters as a vessel sewage no-discharge zone. However, the state may not establish the no-discharge zone until EPA has determined that adequate pumpout facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the proposed waters.
  • Title 26 Department of the Environment, Subtitle 08 Water

    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.
  • Maryland Stream Waders 10 Year Report

    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
  • Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources Shallow Water

    Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources Shallow Water

    77°15'0"W 76°30'0"W 75°45'0"W 75°0'0"W Station CBP_Station Description Latitude Longitude ARM XIE2581 Patapsco River - Fort Armistead 39.20852 -76.53215 BCP XJG7461 Bush River - Church Point 39.45821 -76.23227 BET XJH2362 Sassafras River - Betterton Beach 39.37170 -76.06252 BSH XDM4486 Coastal Bays - Bishopville Prong 38.42397 -75.18863 BUD XJI2396 Sassafras River - Budds Landing 39.37225 -75.83987 ! COR XHH3851 Corsica River - Sycamore Point 39.06283 -76.08162 DWN XHF6841 Chesapeake Bay - Down's Park 39.11825 -76.43217 BCP SUS ! 39°30'0"N 39°30'0"N FLT XKH0375 Chesapeake Bay - Susquehanna Flats 39.50530 -76.04143 GOO XEF3551 Chesapeake Bay - The Gooses 38.55630 -76.41470 Ü GOB XEF3551 Chesapeake Bay - The Gooses Bottom 38.55630 -76.41470 ! ! GYK XDN6921 Coastal Bays - Greys Creek 38.44902 -75.13245 OPC FLT HON XCG5495 Honga River - Muddy Hook Cove 38.25682 -76.17398 HOW XIF1735 Chesapeake Bay - Fort Howard 39.19530 -76.44210 BUD HPT XCG9168 Honga River - House Point 38.31907 -76.21955 ! ! IND XEB5404 Potomac River - Indian Head 38.59017 -77.16063 IPL WXT0013 Patuxent River - Iron Pot Landing 38.79600 -76.72080 MCH Maryland JUG PXT0455 Patuxent River - Jug Bay 38.78128 -76.71370 HOW LMN LMN0028 Wicomico River - Little Monie Creek 38.20855 -75.80458 BET LUV XHG2318 Chesapeake Bay - Love Point 39.03939 -76.30381 MSV Dept. of Natural Resources MAT XEA3687 Potomac River - Mattawoman 38.55925 -77.18870 ! MCH XIE5748 Patapsco River - Fort McHenry 39.26130 -76.58630 ! MSV XIE4741 Patapsco River - Masonville Cove 39.24440 -76.59570 ARM ! THX
  • The Course of the Corsica: a Report on Restoration

    The Course of the Corsica: a Report on Restoration

    The Course of the Corsica: A Report on Restoration December 2020 The Corsica River Conservancy (CRC) works to develop and maintain a constituency to restore and preserve the Corsica River and its surrounding lands through direct action, partnerships, and enhanced environmental awareness. This publication, developed by CRC, provides a history of a 15-year effort to restore and conserve the River and its watershed, the importance of doing so, and challenges we see going forward. Contributions to the pamphlet were also made by Maryland’s Department of the Environment and Department of Natural Resources, Town of Centreville, ShoreRivers, Queen Anne’s County, Washington College Center for Environment and Society, and Eastern Shore Land Conservancy. Board of Directors Frank DiGialleonardo, President Susan Buckingham Katherine Schinasi, Vice President Gayle Jayne Liz Hammond, Treasurer Ed Nielsen Elaine Studley, Secretary Debbie Pusey Rachel Rhodes Jeff Smith The Corsica River is a tidal estuary of the Chester River on the Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake Bay, across the bay from Washington DC and Baltimore, Maryland. The Corsica is entirely located in Queen Anne’s County, Maryland. Map courtesy of: Chesapeake Bay Program https://www.chesapeakebay.net/ Executive Summary The restoration of the Corsica is entering its fifteenth year. It continues to serve as a model of comprehensive and sustained effort with important lessons learned. Extensive improvements to nutrient management, pollution control, and stormwater management appear to have led to measurable improvement in water quality and habitat. Yet, in the main stem of the River, sustained water clarity, restored underwater grass habitat, and reduced algae are yet to be realized outcomes.
  • Nesting in Chesapeake Bay Regions of Concern

    Nesting in Chesapeake Bay Regions of Concern

    W&M ScholarWorks VIMS Articles Virginia Institute of Marine Science 9-2015 Decadal re-evaluation of contaminant exposure and productivity of ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) nesting in Chesapeake Bay Regions of Concern RS Lazarus BA Rattner PC McGowan Robert Hale Virginia Institute of Marine Science et al Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/vimsarticles Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Lazarus, RS; Rattner, BA; McGowan, PC; Hale, Robert; and al, et, "Decadal re-evaluation of contaminant exposure and productivity of ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) nesting in Chesapeake Bay Regions of Concern" (2015). VIMS Articles. 1661. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/vimsarticles/1661 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in VIMS Articles by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Environmental Pollution 205 (2015) 278e290 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Environmental Pollution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envpol Decadal re-evaluation of contaminant exposure and productivity of ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) nesting in Chesapeake Bay Regions of Concern * Rebecca S. Lazarus a, b, Barnett A. Rattner a, , Peter C. McGowan c, Robert C. Hale d, Sandra L. Schultz a, Natalie K. Karouna-Renier a, Mary Ann Ottinger b, 1 a U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Beltsville, MD 20705, USA b Marine-Estuarine Environmental Sciences Program and Department of Animal and Avian Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA c U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office, Annapolis, MD 21401, USA d Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA 23062, USA article info abstract Article history: The last large-scale ecotoxicological study of ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) in Chesapeake Bay was con- Received 30 March 2015 ducted in 2000e2001 and focused on U.S.
  • 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
  • Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail Connecting

    Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail Connecting

    CAPTAIN JOHN SMITH CHESAPEAKE NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL CONNECTING TRAILS EVALUATION STUDY 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 405 Annapolis, MD 21403 CONTENTS Acknowledgments 2 Executive Summary 3 Statement of Study Findings 5 Introduction 9 Research Team Reports 10 Anacostia River 11 Chester River 15 Choptank River 19 Susquehanna River 23 Upper James River 27 Upper Nanticoke River 30 Appendix: Research Teams’ Executive Summaries and Bibliographies 34 Anacostia River 34 Chester River 37 Choptank River 40 Susquehanna River 44 Upper James River 54 Upper Nanticoke River 56 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are truly thankful to the research and project team, led by John S. Salmon, for the months of dedicated research, mapping, and analysis that led to the production of this important study. In all, more than 35 pro- fessionals, including professors and students representing six universities, American Indian representatives, consultants, public agency representatives, and community leaders contributed to this report. Each person brought an extraordinary depth of knowledge, keen insight and a personal devotion to the project. We are especially grateful for the generous financial support that we received from the following private foundations, organizations and corporate partners: The Morris & Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation, The Clay- ton Fund, Inc., Colcom Foundation, The Conservation Fund, Lockheed Martin, the Richard King Mellon Foundation, The Merrill Foundation, the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, the Rauch Foundation, The Peter Jay Sharp Foundation, Verizon, Virginia Environmental Endowment and the Wallace Genetic Foundation. Without their support this project would simply not have been possible. Finally, we would like to extend a special thank you to the board of directors of the Chesapeake Conser- vancy, and to John Maounis, Superintendent of the National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Office, for their leadership and unwavering commitment to the Captain John Smith Chesapeake Trail.
  • The Iron Ores of Maryland, with an Account of the Iron Industry

    The Iron Ores of Maryland, with an Account of the Iron Industry

    Hass 77,>0 3- Book ffjZd6 MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC SURVEY WM. BULLOCK CLARK, State Geologist REPORT ON THE IRON ORES OF MARYLAND WITH AN ACCOUNT OF THE IRON INDUSTRY BY JOSEPH T. SINGEWALD, JR.- (Special Publication, Volume IX, Part III) THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS Baltimore, December, 1911 / / MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC SURVEY WM. BULLOCK CLARK, State Geologist REPORT ON r? Sr THE IRON ORES OF MARYLAND / £ WITH AN ACCOUNT OF THE IRON INDUSTRY BY JOSEPH T. SINGEWALD, JR. M (Special Publication, Volume IX, Part III) THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS • Baltimore, December, 1911 V n, ffi ft- sre so i CONTENTS PAGE PART III. REPORT ON THE IRON ORES OF MARYLAND, WITH AN ACCOUNT OF THE IRON INDUSTRY. By Joseph T. Sxngewald, Jr. 121 The Ores of Iron.123 Magnetite . 124 Hematite . 124 Limonite . 124 Carbonate or Siderite. 125 Impurities in the Ores and Their Effects. 125 Mechanical Impurities. 125 Chemical Impurities. 126 Practical Considerations. 127 History of the Maryland Iron Industry. 128 The Colonial Period. 128 The Period from 1780 to 1830. 133 • The Period from 1830 to 1885. 133 The Period from 1885 to the present time. 136 Description of Maryland Iron Works.139 Maryland Furnaces. 139 Garrett County..'... 139 Allegany County. 139 Washington County. 143 Frederick County. 146 Carroll County. 149 Baltimore County. 150 Baltimore City. 159 Harford County. 160 Cecil County. 162 Howard County. 168 Anne Arundel County. 169 Prince George’s County. 171 Worcester County. 172 9 Other Iron Works in Maryland. 173 Allegany County. 173 Baltimore County. 173 Cecil County. 174 CONTENTS PAGE Queen Anne’s County.
  • Draft Patuxent River PCB TMDL Implementation Plan 8-10-2018

    Draft Patuxent River PCB TMDL Implementation Plan 8-10-2018

    Patuxent River Segmentsheds PCB TMDL Implementation Plan PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT August 10, 2018 OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL) OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS IN THE PATUXENT RIVER MESOHALINE, OLIGOHALINE AND TIDAL FRESH CHESAPEAKE BAY SEGMENTS The Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration (MDOT SHA) was issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit, (Permit No. 11-DP-3313), by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) on October 9, 2015. This permit covers stormwater discharges from the storm drain system owned or operated by MDOT SHA within Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Cecil, Charles, Fredrick, Harford, Howard, Montgomery, Prince George’s, and Washington Counties. The permit requires MDOT SHA to submit an implementation plan to MDE that addresses Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-approved stormwater waste load allocations (WLAs) within one year of EPA approval. EPA approved the Total Maximum Daily Load of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in the Patuxent River Mesohaline, Oligohaline and Tidal Fresh Chesapeake Bay Segments on September 19, 2017. The MDOT SHA Office of Environmental Design (OED) is soliciting comments on its draft Implementation Plan to meet this WLA as required under the MS4 Permit. A 30-day public comment period will take place from August 10, 2018 to September 10, 2018. The draft Implementation Plan is available on MDOT SHA’s website at http://www.roads.maryland.gov/Index.aspx?PageId=362. Comments should be submitted to MDOT SHA on or before September 10, 2018 by emailing to [email protected], faxing to (410) 209-5003, or mailing to: Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration Office of Environmental Design, C-303 707 N.
  • 536 Part 117—Drawbridge Operation Regulations

    536 Part 117—Drawbridge Operation Regulations

    Pt. 117 33 CFR Ch. I (7–1–12 Edition) (c) Any Order of Apportionment 117.47 Clearance gages. made or issued under section 6 of the 117.49 Process of violations. Truman-Hobbs Act, 33 U.S.C. 516, may be reviewed by the Court of Appeals for Subpart B—Specific Requirements any judicial circuit in which the bridge 117.51 General in question is wholly or partly located, 117.55 Posting of requirements. if a petition for review is filed within 90 117.59 Special requirements due to hazards. days after the date of issuance of the ALABAMA order. The review is described in sec- tion 10 of the Truman-Hobbs Act, 33 117.101 Alabama River. U.S.C. 520. The review proceedings do 117.103 Bayou La Batre. 117.105 Bayou Sara. not operate as a stay of any order 117.107 Chattahoochee River. issued under the Truman-Hobbs Act, 117.109 Coosa River. other than an order of apportionment, 117.113 Tensaw River. nor relieve any bridge owner of any li- 117.115 Three Mile Creek. ability or penalty under other provi- sions of that act. ARKANSAS 117.121 Arkansas River. [CGD 91–063, 60 FR 20902, Apr. 28, 1995, as 117.123 Arkansas Waterway-Automated amended by CGD 96–026, 61 FR 33663, June 28, Railroad Bridges. 1996; CGD 97–023, 62 FR 33363, June 19, 1997; 117.125 Black River. USCG–2008–0179, 73 FR 35013, June 19, 2008; 117.127 Current River. USCG–2010–0351, 75 FR 36283, June 25, 2010] 117.129 Little Red River.
  • New Insights: Case Study Locations Executive Summary Expanding Population, Increased Fertilizer Use, and More 5 Livestock May Counteract Water Quality Improvements

    New Insights: Case Study Locations Executive Summary Expanding Population, Increased Fertilizer Use, and More 5 Livestock May Counteract Water Quality Improvements

    A tool for watershed management Adjusting our course New Insights summarizes the changes in water quality resulting from The examination of water quality monitoring data associated with best New nutrient reducing practices in more than 40 Chesapeake Bay watershed case management practice implementation in the Chesapeake Bay watershed studies. In many examples, water quality monitoring data reveal the benefits reveals multiple implications for continued efforts in Bay restoration: of restoration practices aimed at reducing nutrient and sediment pollution Investments in sewage treatment plants provide rapid water flowing into our local waters. Insights: quality improvements. 1 The science-based evidence summarized here shows that: National requirements of the Clean Air Act are benefitting the Science-based evidence of • Several groups of pollution-reducing practices, also known as best management 2 Chesapeake Bay watershed. practices or BMPS, are effective at improving water quality and habitats; water quality improvements, Some agricultural practices are providing local benefits • Specific challenges can still impede water quality improvements; and challenges, and opportunities 3 to streams. • More practices that focus on the impacts of intensified agriculture and urban and in the Chesapeake suburban development are needed for healthier waters. Lag times that delay improvements mean patience and persistence 4 are needed to realize the results of our efforts. New Insights: Case study locations Executive Summary Expanding population, increased fertilizer use, and more 5 livestock may counteract water quality improvements. NEW YORK Science should be better used to guide restoration choices and 6 subsequent monitoring is needed to evaluate effectiveness. Proven and innovative stormwater management practices need Sinnemahoning Creek to be implemented and evaluated to maintain and improve Bay 7 health as urban and suburban development expands.