DOCSLIB.ORG

Geology and Ground-Water Resources of Washington, DC

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Geology and Ground-Water Resources of Washington, DC Geology and Ground-Water Resources of Washington, D.C., and Vicinity GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1776 Geology and Ground -Water Resources of Washington, B.C., and Vicinity By PAUL M. JOHNSTON With a section on CHEMICAL QUALITY OF THE WATER By D. E. WEAVER and LEONARD SIU GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1776 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1964 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director The U.S. Geological Survey Library catalog card for this publication appears after page 97. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 CONTENTS Page Abstract__-__.-_--------------------_-----------------_--_.--__ 1 Introduction.___.__-___-_-_--____-_--_-_-____---___-____-_._______ 2 Purpose and scope of the investigation ___________________________ 2 Location of the area.--__--_-_-_------------------_-_--------_- 3 Previous investigations.__-__---_--_-_-_----__---_-_-_-_-_-_____ 3 Acknowledgments. ____________________________________________ 5 Geography _______,--_-------_-_----___----_---_--___----_-_-__-_- 5 Surface features and dramage---__-_-_-__---_--__--_-____-______ 5 Climate ________--------_-------------_-_---------_-------_--. 7 Economic development-,-_--_---_--_--__-------------_-_--_-_--_-__ 8 Geology.___________-___--_---_-_----_----_-_--_---.--_-_-_--_--__ 9 Regional geologic history_----_------_------_-__----____-_--__-. 10 Geologic formations -----.--------_------_--------------_---- 11 The Piedmont____.-..__-------__-_---------__. 11 Lower Paleozoic(?) rocks--------_-----------_.-_--_---- 11 Wissahickon Formation-__.___.---_-.--_-_.-.__.___ 11 Rocks of unknown age_--_---_---'--__----_-_-_----_--__ 14 Serpentine, ------ ----__-----_---_-_---_--___-___ 14 Mafic rocks--_----_-_----_----__------_---.-_--__-- 14 Laurel Gneiss of Chapman, 1942.__-----------.--__- 16 Sykesville Formation of Jonas, 1928----------------- 17 Granitic rocks.---.--_--------------.---__----_-,-- 21 Aplite....._-.-____-.__--.____.___ 25 Quartz veins.-..-_--_-..------.-___-__-._._---._.. 26 Structure of the Piedmont rocks.----_------._-_-.------- 27 The Coastal Plain...._..._.._.._-------__..... 29 Lower and Upper Cretaceous Series __------_.__.----... 29 Potomac Group___.-.-_--.-.--_.-.-.-._.____-__.-_ 29 Lower Cretaceous Series_-_-------------_-_-----.--._- 29 Patuxent Formation________________________________ 29 Upper Cretaceous Series------.-----.----------.-------- 31 Arundel Clay.......__..___..........____. 31 Patapsco Formation_______________________________ 31 Magothy Formation __-_. ..-..................__... 32 Monmouth Formation..._.-..._-..._...._.....__.- 32 Tertiary System Paleocehe Series...__.-_--_...-....-.-. 33 Brightseat Formation_____--____-_-____----___----. 33 Eocene Series Pamunkey Group.-.--------.------------ 33 Aquia Greensand---_-__--_-----------------------_ 33 Nanjemoy Formation.--___-_----------------.---__ 34 Miocene Series Chesapeake Group -._---.--._-------- 35 m IV CONTENTS Geology Continued Geologic formations Continued The Coastal Plain Continued Page Pliocene(?) Series._....._....-..............,------.- 36 Bryn Mawr Gravel ___---_____.___________------ 36 Brandy wine Gravel, ----_-----___._--___--.--------- 37 Quaternary System Pleistocene Series___--_-_--_-------- 38 Sunderland Formation_..-_.-.._...._......_-.------ 38 Wicomico Formation,. ..____._.,_._.._._..__------ 38 Pamlico Formation_------------_----_------.------ 39 Recent alluvium and colluvium__--______._____._------ 39 Colluvium......-..._._.--_...__----____---- - 39 Recent alluvium__------------------------------- 41 Structure of the Coastal Plain deposits..----------------- 41 Water resources_....__._.._._...--.-._-.--_--.-...----._..-------- 42 History of water supply in the District of Columbia_______-__----- 42 Present status of water supply in the area_-_._.------------------ 48 District of Columbia..__________________----------------- 48 Suburban Maryland,__-__-_____-----_______-_--_-_---..---- 49 Suburban Virginia,.-__-____--_------____------._-.-------- 49 The hydrologic cycle__-_-----------_-----------,--------------- 50 Surface water-__-__----_----------------.-_--------_---------- 51 Principal streams and their use in the area_____-__---------- 51 Ground water-____-----_----_----.-------_----_------_-------- 52 Occurrence in crystalline rocks_---__---_------_------------- 52 Occurrence in sedimentary rocks_--_------------------------- 54 Development __-____--_--------------_-_------------------ 54 Wells and springs --------------.---.---------------- 54 Well-numbering system-----.-_-_-------_--_------- 55 Springs-----.------------------.------------------ 55 Construction methods_-----_--_-----_----_---_--- 56 Comparison of well types..----.------__--.-_------- 56 Problems. .._--..-_--------------------------- 59 Selection of well sites___...__..._..-.-...---- 60 Studies of the relations of well yield, depth, and topographic position._._.----_-__----_--_-.--_-.-__---__----_------- 62 Depth and yield of drilled wells in the Piedmont by geo­ logic units.-.-_-_--------------_-__----.------------ 63 Yield of drilled wells in the Piedmont by depth intervals - - - 64 Relation of yield of drilled wells in the Piedmont to depth of weathering- __.--.-------------..-_.----.-_---------- 65 Relation of depth, casing, and yield of drilled wells in the Piedmont by topographic position_-_------------------ 65 Dug and bored wells in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain relation of depth of well and water level to topographic position._--_---_-.,-_--_----.._--_----.--_--------- 66 Yield of drilled wells in the Coastal Plain._--------------- 66 CONTENTS . V Water resources Continued Ground water Continued Page The chemical character of the ground water, by D. E. Weaver and Leonard Siu____---_-_--------_-----_-__--------__--_ 67 Geochemistry of ground water. _________________________ 67 Quality of water in relation to source _-_-----__-----_--_ 75 Wissahickon Formation__--___----_--__-.-_________ 76 Sykesville Formation of Jonas, 1928__.__..______--_ 77 Laurel Gneiss of Chapman, 1942 ------------------- 77 Granite-.__--------------_---------_--_____-__--- 77 Mafic rocks_------------------------------------ 77 Serpentine ________-----------_---__----___-___.___ 78 Potomac Group (undifferentiated)____----__.-__.__-_ 78 Patuxent Formation _.._--_.._-...___.___.____-.__ 79 Quality of water in relation to use.__-____.-.__.___..__.._ 79 Summary- __---.--_-_--_._-----------_--_-----_-_---___ 81 Potential development of ground-water resources...------------ 81 The Triassic basin __.-_____-____.________.--_____.___ 83 Fluctuations of ground-water level.- -----_--_-_-_-------___ 83 Emergency water supplies.-_---...---___---__.-_____-____--_ 85 Summary and conclusions__________---__.-________--________....___ 87 Selected references___-_-_----_------_--_-___-.------____--_-_-__--- 88 Index.---_-_---_._._.---._.-_---_---___-__-__-__._--.-___..__-... 95 ILLUSTRATIONS [Plates are in pocket] PLATE 1. Geologic map of Washington, D.C., and vicinity. 2. WelLmap. Page FIGURE 1. Map showing location of report area------------ 4 2. The Potomac River flowing over Piedmont rocks. 6 3. The Potomac River and Coastal Plain.-.__-_-._ 7 4. Wissahickon Formation in quarry-______---_--_ 13 5. Serpentine quarry__-_-_______-____----_-- 14 6. Mafic rocks.---_____-_.____-_-_____-___..____ 15 7. Laurel Gneiss in Sligo Creek_--___-_._-_-__--__ 17 8. Laurel Gneiss in Rock Creek Park._____________ 18 9. Laurel Gneiss, deeply weathered.__-_----------- 18 10. Sykesville Formation in Stonyhurst Quarry..---. 20 11. Sykesville Formation at McLean, Va_ __ ._-____ 21 12. Contact of granite and schist.----------------- 22 13. Granite dike.---------_---___-----_._-_______ 23 14. Granite in catch-basin excavation ____________ 23 VI CONTENTS Page FIGURE 15. Kensington Granite Gneiss^ -____------___._____-_---__-- 24 16. Aplite dikes at Glen Echo. ---_--________________.__._- 26 17. Fractured quartz vein_-_--____--.__._________-__--__-__- 27 18. Folding in Wissahickon Formation______________________ 28 19. Patuxent Formation in sandpit -__--__---________---___ - 30 20. Bryn Mawr(?) Gravel near Tysons Crossroads.__-._------- 37 21. Gravel pit at Lincolnia, Va_...__.....-..__-....._.--_--- 39 22. Colluvium overlying schist---------.------------..------- 40 23. Silver Spring-.-._------------___--__---______----- 42 24. Takoma Spring_____--__________________________----. 44 25. Zones of subsurface water-__--_-----___----______------- 50 26. Diagram, hydrologic principles._--___--___________--_---- 52 27. Diagram of well types..-__-_-_-_-___--_____-___._------- 58 28. Graph showing chemical constituents of ground water------- 76 29. Month-end water levels-___.___--__-________.__.__-----_- 86 TABLES Page TABLE 1. Piedmont formations and their water-bearing properties, Washington, D.C., and vicinity-.______________________ 61 2. Coastal Plain formations and their water-bearing properties, Washington, D.C., and vicinity. -.-------_____--------- 62 3. Depth and yield of drilled wells in the Piedmont by geologic units ________________________________________________ 64 4. Yield of drilled wells in the Piedmont by depth intervals ______ 64 5. Relation of yield of drilled wells in the Piedmont to depth of weathering._________________________________________ 65 6. Depth, casing, and yield of drilled wells in the Piedmont by topographic position __________________________________
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds
    Defining the Indigenous Cultural Landscape for The Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds Prepared By: Scott M. Strickland Virginia R. Busby Julia A. King With Contributions From: Francis Gray • Diana Harley • Mervin Savoy • Piscataway Conoy Tribe of Maryland Mark Tayac • Piscataway Indian Nation Joan Watson • Piscataway Conoy Confederacy and Subtribes Rico Newman • Barry Wilson • Choptico Band of Piscataway Indians Hope Butler • Cedarville Band of Piscataway Indians Prepared For: The National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Annapolis, Maryland St. Mary’s College of Maryland St. Mary’s City, Maryland November 2015 ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this project was to identify and represent the Indigenous Cultural Landscape for the Nanjemoy and Mattawoman creek watersheds on the north shore of the Potomac River in Charles and Prince George’s counties, Maryland. The project was undertaken as an initiative of the National Park Service Chesapeake Bay office, which supports and manages the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail. One of the goals of the Captain John Smith Trail is to interpret Native life in the Middle Atlantic in the early years of colonization by Europeans. The Indigenous Cultural Landscape (ICL) concept, developed as an important tool for identifying Native landscapes, has been incorporated into the Smith Trail’s Comprehensive Management Plan in an effort to identify Native communities along the trail as they existed in the early17th century and as they exist today. Identifying ICLs along the Smith Trail serves land and cultural conservation, education, historic preservation, and economic development goals. Identifying ICLs empowers descendant indigenous communities to participate fully in achieving these goals.
    [Show full text]
  • RI37 Stratigraphic Nomenclature Of
    ,--' ( UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE DELAWARE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO.37 STRATIGRAPHIC NOMENCLATURE OF NONMARINE CRETACEOUS ROCKS OF INNER MARGIN OF COASTAL PLAIN IN DELAWARE AND ADJACENT STATES BY ROBERT R. JORDAN STATE OF DELAWARE.. NEWARK, DELAWARE JUNE 1983 STRATIGRAPHIC NOMENCLATURE OF NONMARINE CRETACEOUS ROCKS OF INNER MARGIN OF COASTAL PLAIN IN DELAWARE AND ADJACENT STATES By Robert R. Jordan Delaware Geological Survey June 1983 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT. ....... 1 INTRODUCTION ..... 2 Purpose and Scope. 2 Acknowledgments.. 4 REGIONAL SETTING. 4 Regional Relationships . 4 Structural Features. 5 DESCRIPTIONS OF UNITS .. 8 Historical Summary 8 Potomac Formation. 13 Nomenclature. 13 Extent. 13 Lithology . 14 Patuxent Formation . 18 Nomenclature. 18 Extent.. 18 Lithology .... 18 Arundel Formation. 19 Nomenclature.. 19 Extent. .• 19 Lithology • 20 Page Patapsco Formation. .. 20 Nomenclature . 20 Extent .. 20 Lithology.. 20 Raritan Formation . 21 Nomenclature .. 21 Extent .. 22 Lithology.. 23 Magothy Formation .. 24 Nomenclature . 24 Extent .. 24 Lithology.. 25 ENVIRONMENTS OF DEPOSITION 28 AGES .... 29 SUBDIVISIONS AND CORRELATIONS .. 32 REFERENCES . 34 ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Geologic map of nonmarine Cretaceous deposits .. ..•.• •.. 3 2. Structural features of the Coastal Plain. ............ 6 3. Schematic diagram of lateral and vertical relationships of nonmarine Cretaceous deposits•....•... 34 TABLES Page Table 1. Usage of group and formation names. 9 STRATIGRAPHIC NOMENCLATURE OF NONMARINE CRETACEOUS ROCKS OF INNER MARGIN OF COASTAL PLAIN IN DELAWARE AND ADJACENT STATES ABSTRACT Rocks of Cretaceous age deposited in continental and marginal environments, and now found along the inner edge of the northern Atlantic Coastal Plain, have historically been classified as the Potomac Group and the Potomac, Patuxent, Arundel, Patapsco, Raritan, and Magothy forma­ tions.
    [Show full text]
  • Anne Arundel County
    1 Anne I .\RUNDE1 County ilBII pi I • 'lill Mllvlli 'il I I I 1 ;■ ' 11 {[[•^1 I Dept. 6eo«ogy. 8B< Wj,w Johns Hopkins Univewity Baltimore, Maryland MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY BALTIMORE THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS 1917 COMMISSION EMEESON C. HARRINGTON, .... Peesident. GOVERNOR OF MARYLAND JOHN M. DENNIS, COMPTROLLER OF MARYLAND FRANK J. GOODNOW, .... Executive Officer. PRESIDENT OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY H. J. PATTERSON, Secretary. PRESIDENT OF THE MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE ■ SCIENTIFIC STAFF Wm. Bullock Clark, State Geologist. SUPERINTENDENT OF THE SURVEY. Edward B. Matiiews, . Assistant State Geologist. C. K. Swartz, Geologist. E. W. Berry, Geologist. J. T. Singewald, Jr., Geologist. Also with the cooperation of several members of the scientific bureaus of the National Government. LETTER OF TRANSM1TTAL To His Excellency Emerson C. Harrington, Governor of Maryland and President of the Geological Survey Commission. Sir:—I have the honor to present herewith a report on The Physical Features of Anne Arundel County. This volume is the eighth of a series of reports on the county resources, and is accompanied by large scale topographical, geological, and agricultural soil maps. The information contained in this volume will prove of both economic and educational value to the residents of Anne Arundel County as well as to those who may desire information regarding this section of the State. I am, Very respectfully, Wm. Bullock Clark, State Geologist. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. March, 1916. ■ ■ CONTENTS page PREFACE 19 DEVELOPMENT OF KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING THE PHYSICAL FEATURES OF ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY. By Homer P. Little 23 Introductory 23 HISTORICAL REVIEW 23 General Contributions 23 The Lower Cretaceous 26 The Upper Cretaceous 29 The Eocene 30 The Miocene 31 The Pliocene (?) and Pleistocene 32 Bibliography 34 THE PHYSIOGRAPHY OF ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources Research Center in the District of Columbia: Water
    DC WRRC Report. No. 36 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Water Resources Research Center WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Water Supply Management In the District of Columbia: An Institutional Assessment by Daniel P. Beard, Principal Investigator February 1982 WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT IN TI-M DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: AN INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT WRRC Report No. 36 by Or. Daniel Beard ERRATA The following errors should be corrected as follows: Page V-5, Line 11 - The diameter of the conduit from Great Falls is 9 ft. not 90 ft. Page V-6, Line 18 - The operation of the water department of the District is not under the Chief of Engineers. Page V-8, Figure 14 - The line of supply to the Federal Government in Virginia is through the D.C.-DES, not through Arlington County. Page VI-8 - Mr. Jean B. Levesque was the Administrator of the Water Resources Management Administration of the Department of Environmental Services. DISCLAIMER "Contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the United States Department of the Interior, Office of Water Research and Technology, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute their endorsement or recommendation for use by the United States Government”. ABSTRACT This study defines the District of Columbia's water management structure, explains how it operates, delineates the issues it will have to deal with in the 1980's, and assesses how the District is prepared to deal with these issues. The study begins with a description of the Potomac River Basin and the physical environment water managers in the Washington Metropolitan have to deal with.
    [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]
  • Stegosaurian Footprints from the Morrison Formation of Utah and Their Implications for Interpreting Other Ornithischian Tracks Gerard D
    Stegosaurian footprints from the Morrison Formation of Utah and their implications for interpreting other ornithischian tracks Gerard D. Gierliński and Karol Sabath Polish Geological Institute, Rakowiecka 4, 00-975 Warsaw, Poland. e-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT - The supposed stegosaurian track Deltapodus Whyte & Romano, 1994 (Middle Jurassic of England) is sauro- pod-like, elongate and plantigrade, but many blunt-toed, digitigrade, large ornithopod-like footprints (including pedal print cast associated with the manus of Stegopodus Lockley & Hunt, 1998) from the Upper Jurassic of Utah, better fit the stego- saurian foot pattern. The Morrison Formation of Utah yielded other tracks fitting the dryomorph (camptosaur) foot pattern (Dinehichnus Lockley et al., 1998) much better than Stegopodus. If the Stegopodus pedal specimen (we propose to shift the emphasis from the manus to the pes in the revised diagnosis of this ichnotaxon) and similar ichnites are proper stegosaur foot- prints, Deltapodus must have been left by another thyreophoran trackmaker. Other Deltapodus-like (possibly ankylosaurian) tracks include Navahopus Baird,1980 and Apulosauripus Nicosia et al., 1999. Heel-dominated, short-toed forms within the Navahopus-Deltapodus-Apulosauripus plexus differ from the gracile, relatively long-toed Tetrapodosaurus Sternberg, 1932, traditionally regarded as an ankylosaurian track. Thus, the original interpretation of the latter as a ceratopsian track might be correct, supporting early (Aptian) appearance of ceratopsians in North America. Isolated pedal ichnites from the Morrison Formation (with a single tentatively associated manus print, and another one from Poland) and the only known trackways with similar footprints (Upper Jurassic of Asturias, Spain) imply bipedal gait of their trackmakers. Thus, problems with stegosaur tracks possibly stem from the expectation of their quadrupedality.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Report on Ground, Virginia
    Plcue rcturn thb publication to thc Virginia Geologicd Suryey when you havc no furthcr uc for it. Portage will be rcfundcd, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA STATE COMMISSION ON CONSERVATTON AND DEVELOPMENT VIRGINIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ARTHUR BEVAN, Stde e'eologi.t Bulletin 4l 2tt Preliminary Report on Ground, Water Resources of Northern Virginia BY CADY PREPARED IN COOPERATION WITH THE I.II{ITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY UNIVERSITY, VIRGINIA 1933 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA STATE COMMISSION ON CONSERVATION .AND DEVELOPMENT VIRGINIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ARTHUR BEVAN' State Geolosict Bulletin 4l Preliminary Report on Ground, Water Resources of Northern Virginia BY C. CADY PREPARED IN COOPERATION WITH THE'UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY UNIVERSITY, VIRGINIA 1933 RICHMOND: DtvrsroN or Puncseso exo Pnrwrruc 1933 STATE COMMISSION ON CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT Wrr,rranr E. Censon, Chai,runan,, Riverton Cor,Buam Wonrualr, Vi,ce-Chai,rtnoz, Richmond E. Gnrnrrrrr Doosor.r, Norfolk Tnouas L. Fannen, Charlottesville Juxrus P. FrsununN, Roanoke Lne LoNc, Dante Rurus G. Rorrnrs, Culpeper Rrcseno A. Grrr,rem, E r e c wt izt e S e c r e t ar y an d, T r e a s urer, Richmond lll LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL ColtlnoNwBALTH oF VrncrNre Vrncrxre Gnor.ocrcer, Sunvev IJmrvensrrv or VrncrNre Crrenr,omesvnr,q Vrncrmre, January 10, 1933. To the State Cowrnissi,on on Conservati,on and Develobrnent: Gpnmeueu: I have the honor to transmit and to recommend for publication as Bulletin 41 of the Virginia Geological Survey series of reports the manuscript and illustrations of a Preliwi,nary Report on Ground'-water Resources of Northern Vbgi.nia., by Mr. R. C.
    [Show full text]
  • DC Flood Insurance Study
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WASHINGTON, D.C. REVISED: SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 110001V000A NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the Community Map Repository. Please contact the Community Map Repository for any additional data. Selected Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels for this community contain information that was previously shown separately on the corresponding Flood Boundary and Floodway Map panels (e.g., floodways and cross sections). In addition, former flood insurance risk zone designations have been changed as follows. Old Zone(s) New Zone A1 – A30 AE V1 – V30 VE B X C X The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republish part or all of this FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of this FIS report by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. Therefore, users should consult with community officials and check the Community Map Repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. Initial FIS Effective Date: November 15, 1985 Revised FIS Date: September 27, 2010 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Formation of Authigenic Deposits During Paleogene Warm Climatic
    Banerjee et al. Journal of Palaeogeography (2020) 9:27 https://doi.org/10.1186/s42501-020-00076-8 Journal of Palaeogeography REVIEW Open Access The formation of authigenic deposits during Paleogene warm climatic intervals: a review Santanu Banerjee1* , Tathagata Roy Choudhury1, Pratul Kumar Saraswati1 and Sonal Khanolkar2 Abstract Although Paleogene warm climatic intervals have received considerable attention for atmospheric and oceanographic changes, the authigenic mineralization associated with these time spans remains overlooked. An extensive review of the literature reveals a close correspondence between the high abundance of glauconite and warm climatic intervals during the Paleogene period. The abundance of phosphorite, ironstone, lignite and black shale deposits reveals similar trends. Although investigated thoroughly, the origin of these authigenic deposits is never understood in the background of Paleogene warming climatic intervals. A combination of factors like warm seawater, hypoxic shelf, low rate of sedimentation, and enhanced rate of continental weathering facilitated the glauconitization. The last factor caused the excess supply of nutrients, including Fe, Si, K, Mg and Al through the rivers, the cations needed for the formation of glauconite. The excessive inflow of nutrient-rich freshwater into the shallow seas further ensured high organic productivity and stratification in shallow shelves, causing hypoxia. The consequent rapid rise in sea-level during the warm periods created extensive low-relief shallow marine shelves starved in sediments. Oxygen-deficiency in the shallow marine environment facilitated the fixation of Fe into the glauconite structure. The inflow of nutrient-rich water during the warm climatic intervals facilitated the formation of phosphorite, ironstone, and organic-matter-rich sedimentary deposits as well.
    [Show full text]
  • Scanned Document
    1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION EASTERN SERVICE AREA CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION DECLARATION/RECORD OF DECISION The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has determined that the following proposed airspace procedure changes associated with Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) are categorically excluded from further environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). To enhance national security, and in response to a request from the United States Secret Service (USSS), the proposed action amends eight existing north flow standard instrument departures (SIDs) by moving one waypoint approximately 784 feet to the southwest to direct aircraft further away from protected airspace above the White House and Naval Observatory. Additionally, in response to a request from the Reagan National Community Noise Working Group, the proposed action amends one waypoint on six existing SIDs, which will route aircraft closer to the Potomac River. Furthermore, the proposed action will establish the AMEEE1 SID to replace the HOLTB1 and BOOCK3, both of which will be canceled. The AMEEE procedure will use the new waypoint established for national security, and will otherwise not change from the procedures it is replacing. Finally, to integrate air traffic with the Northeast Corridor (NEC) and Atlantic Coast Routes (ACR) procedures, the action proposes to implement the SCOOB transition by extending the AMEEE (HOLTB/BOOCK replacement procedure) enroute transition beyond waypoint COLIN to SCOOB. This final action also requires amending the Baltimore Washington Airport (BWI) CONLE SID and Dulles Airport (IAD) JCOBY SID to establish the SCOOB Transition beyond COLIN waypoint. The SCOOB transition will be used for aircraft flying over 18,000 feet above ground level (AGL).
    [Show full text]
  • District of Columbia Washington, D.C
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WASHINGTON, D.C. REVISED: SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 110001V000A NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the Community Map Repository. Please contact the Community Map Repository for any additional data. Selected Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels for this community contain information that was previously shown separately on the corresponding Flood Boundary and Floodway Map panels (e.g., floodways and cross sections). In addition, former flood insurance risk zone designations have been changed as follows. Old Zone(s) New Zone A1 – A30 AE V1 – V30 VE B X C X The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republish part or all of this FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of this FIS report by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. Therefore, users should consult with community officials and check the Community Map Repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. Initial FIS Effective Date: November 15, 1985 Revised FIS Date: September 27, 2010 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]