DOCSLIB.ORG

Choptank River Conservation Effects Assessment Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Choptank River Conservation Effects Assessment Project Choptank River Conservation Effects Assessment Project NRCS Special Emphasis Watershed Research Findings and Recommendations 2004—2008 Conservation Effects Assessment Project USDA - Agricultural Research Service Choptank River Watershed Project Final Report Contact Information: Project PIs NRCS Special Emphasis Watershed Gregory W. McCarty As part of the USDA-Natural Resources Conser- The Choptank River Watershed project has now USDA-ARS Beltsville, Maryland vation Service (NRCS) Special Emphasis Water- been converted to a USDA-ARS Benchmark [email protected] shed Program, the Choptank River Watershed Watershed for long-term study. This document 301-504-7401 project was initiated in 2004 and was continued serves as the final report to NRCS for the spe- Laura L. McConnell through 2008. cial emphasis watershed project. USDA-ARS Beltsville, Maryland [email protected] 301-504-6298 Watershed Description Project Co-PIs Thomas R. Fisher The Choptank River is a major tributary of University of Maryland the Chesapeake Bay and is located on the Del- Center for Environmental marva Peninsula. The 1756 square km (675 Science, Horn Point Laboratory square mi) Choptank River Watershed is 58% Cambridge, Maryland agricultural (cropland and extensive poultry pro- [email protected] duction), 33% forested, and only 9% urban. Cathleen J. Hapeman Portions of the Choptank River have been identi- USDA-ARS Beltsville, Maryland fied as “impaired waters” under Section 303(d) Cathleen. [email protected] of the Federal Clean Water Act due to high levels W. Dean Hively of nutrients and sediments. USDA-ARS Beltsville, Maryland The Choptank River Watershed Project pro- [email protected] vides several unique aspects to the national Thomas E. Jordan Smithsonian Environmental Research CEAP effort. The river itself is tidal for much of Center its length and includes an ecologically delicate Edgewater, Maryland estuarine ecosystem. The soils in the region are [email protected] poorly drained and the topography is especially Megan W. Lang USDA-ARS flat; therefore, farmers have historically utilized Beltsville, Maryland a network of drainage ditches to facilitate the [email protected] movement of water into streams. Urban influ- Clifford P. Rice Choptank River Watershed ences are growing rapidly. USDA-ARS Beltsville, Maryland [email protected] Ali M. Sadeghi Project Goals USDA-ARS Beltsville, Maryland • Improve estimates of nutrient reduction [email protected] Table of Contents efficiency values for the widely accepted David Whitall NOAA-NOS-NCCOS agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) Executive Summary 2 within the Choptank. Silver Spring, Maryland Background 3 [email protected] Collaborators • Develop innovative remote sensing tools for Watershed Characteristics & Mustafa Altinikar estimate cover crop biomass/nutrient uptake Water Quality Sampling 4 University of Mississippi and to examine wetland hydroperiod and University, Mississippi Linking Land Use with Nutrient [email protected] connectivity on a watershed scale. & Pesticide Loads 5 Marilyn Fogel • Examine land use and hydrology effects on Carnegie Institution of Washington Forested Wetland Function Revealed 6 Washington, DC pesticide and nutrient loads to streams. [email protected] Improving Cover Crop Programs 8 • Utilize watershed water quality models to exam- Kenneth Staver Controlled Drainage for Nutrient Reduction 10 Wye Research and Education Center ine conservation practice implementation sce- Queenstown, Maryland narios to achieve water quality improvements. Modeling the Future of the Choptank 12 [email protected] Outreach to the Agricultural Community 14 John Rhoderick • Foster positive relationships with farmers, stake- Maryland Department of Agriculture holders, and customers to preserve the natural References 15 Annapolis, Maryland [email protected] resources of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Executive Summary Page 2 ` Project Outcomes Recommendations Linking Land use with Improving Cover Crops. Modeling the Future of to Achieve Nutrient and Pesticide Remote sensing technologies the Choptank. One sub- Water Quality Concentrations. Nutrient were combined with agronomic watershed of the Choptank, the practice data to determine bio- Improvement concentrations were negatively German Branch, was used to mass and nutrient uptake by Goals correlated with percent forest test two different watershed - winter cover crops. Critical fac- water quality models: An- content. NO3 concentrations tors governing uptake were varied little over time which is nAGNPs and SWAT. The Ger- planting date, crop species, and consistent with the more steady man Branch covers nearly planting method. A threshold delivery groundwater flow. 12,000 acres and is primarily Increase implementa- cover crop biomass of about 1 Phosphorus, however, was deliv- dominated by corn and soybean tion of early planted ton per acre was observed to ered primarily via overland flow. production receiving poultry winter cover crops of control root zone nitrate. Re- Both atrazine and metolachlor manure and fertilizer applica- barley and rye. sults of this work have been showed spikes in concentration tions. This approach significantly used to improve the ef- during early spring when those increases nutrient uptake fectiveness of the Mary- herbicides are typically applied. when compared with late land Cover Crop Program, Pesticide concentrations did not planted cover crops. The and improved nutrient follow the same land use corre- recommended target efficiency values have lations as nutrients indicating cover crop biomass for been developed with the that pesticide transport is more control of root zone Chesapeake Program complicated. Delivery can occur nitrate is about 1 ton per Office Nutrient subcom- via leaching, overland flow, and acre. mittee for use in the atmospheric delivery to riparian Chesapeake Bay water corridors via drift, volatilization, quality model. and/or deposition. Strategically place controlled drainage structures to reduce Forested Wetland Controlled Drainage for Among the nutrients, nitrate nutrient flows into Function Revealed. Nutrient Reduction. losses are of particular concern, ditches. These struc- A combination of RADAR and Drainage ditches are extensively much of which escapes through tures enhance the process LiDAR remotely sensed data was used in the Choptank and pro- leaching from the crop land via of denitrification in soils. used to develop fine resolution vide a rapid pathway for nutri- subsurface flow from this domi- Storm events, however, maps of forested wetlands within ents to move into streams. nantly flat landscapes that per- can still result in nutrient the Choptank Watershed and to Studies have shown that an sist throughout the watershed. flushing into waterways. monitor their hydrology (i.e., average of 6% of nitrate applied In one assessment, the SWAT Further optimization of inundation and soil moisture). to agricultural fields can be model was used for analyses of this practice is required. This work provides a powerful transported in drainage water to alternative management prac- new approach to examine wet- receiving surface waters. Water tice and/or cropping system land connectivity and to monitor control structures installed at scenarios. Evaluation of cover Protect existing wetland function on a landscape the drainage outlet were evalu- crop effects on nitrogen reduc- wetlands within the scale. These tools also can be ated as a potential conservation tion from the watershed was Choptank watershed used to assess ecological ser- practice. Proper management of the primary objective of this utilizing newly- vices provided by wetlands. For these structures not only re- model evaluation. Simulation developed tools. example, information gained on duces water flow, but also nutri- results demonstrated that cover These tools can show the biogeochemical status and ents, mainly N, due to enhanced crops could potentially reduce connectivity with adjacent landscape connection of wet- denitrification. Drainage control large amounts of nitrate in agricultural areas and lands provides an important structures are often managed to streams. Specifically, 5 to 30% monitor wetland function. indication of the role of wetlands increase water levels to just of nitrate could be reduced in Targeted expansion of in retention or removal of agri- below the root zone during the streams if cover crops are im- existing wetland areas cultural nutrients or pesticides growing season and to near the plemented on up to 50% of the and restoration of historic from agricultural production bottom of the drainage ditch conventional croplands in the wetlands could be used as areas. Furthermore, these tools during planting and harvesting. watershed. Furthermore, the an effective management can be used to monitor the ef- Proper management of these model simulations showed that strategy to reduce nutri- fectiveness of broad scale wet- structures can potentially reduce nitrogen loss reductions could ent and pesticide loads land hydrologic restoration. nitrate losses in drainage water also be more effective if cover prior to entering streams. from 15% to 30%. These re- crop implementation followed a sults have led to the addition of targeted watershed manage- controlled drainage to the Mary- ment approach. land cost share program. Background Page 3 Land use, Conservation Programs, and Conservation Concerns Land Use. The Choptank vation practices implemented by lar
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bladensburg Prehistoric Background
    Environmental Background and Native American Context for Bladensburg and the Anacostia River Carol A. Ebright (April 2011) Environmental Setting Bladensburg lies along the east bank of the Anacostia River at the confluence of the Northeast Branch and Northwest Branch of this stream. Formerly known as the East Branch of the Potomac River, the Anacostia River is the northernmost tidal tributary of the Potomac River. The Anacostia River has incised a pronounced valley into the Glen Burnie Rolling Uplands, within the embayed section of the Western Shore Coastal Plain physiographic province (Reger and Cleaves 2008). Quaternary and Tertiary stream terraces, and adjoining uplands provided well drained living surfaces for humans during prehistoric and historic times. The uplands rise as much as 300 feet above the water. The Anacostia River drainage system flows southwestward, roughly parallel to the Fall Line, entering the Potomac River on the east side of Washington, within the District of Columbia boundaries (Figure 1). Thin Coastal Plain strata meet the Piedmont bedrock at the Fall Line, approximately at Rock Creek in the District of Columbia, but thicken to more than 1,000 feet on the east side of the Anacostia River (Froelich and Hack 1975). Terraces of Quaternary age are well-developed in the Bladensburg vicinity (Glaser 2003), occurring under Kenilworth Avenue and Baltimore Avenue. The main stem of the Anacostia River lies in the Coastal Plain, but its Northwest Branch headwaters penetrate the inter-fingered boundary of the Piedmont province, and provided ready access to the lithic resources of the heavily metamorphosed interior foothills to the west.
    [Show full text]
  • News Release Address: Email and Homepage: U.S
    News Release Address: Email and Homepage: U.S. Department of the Interior Maryland-Delaware-D.C. District [email protected] U.S. Geological Survey 8987 Yellow Brick Road http://md.water.usgs.gov/ Baltimore, MD 21237 Release: Contact: Phone: Fax: January 4, 2002 Wendy S. McPherson (410) 238-4255 (410) 238-4210 Below Normal Rainfall and Warm Temperatures Lead to Record Low Water Levels in December Three months of above normal temperatures and four months of below normal rainfall have led to record low monthly streamflow and ground-water levels, according to hydrologists at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Baltimore, Maryland. Streamflow was below normal at 94 percent of the real-time USGS gaging stations and 83 percent of the USGS observation wells across Maryland and Delaware in December. Record low streamflow levels for December were set at Winters Run and Pocomoke River. Streamflow levels at Deer Creek and Winters Run in Harford County have frequently set new record daily lows for the last four months (see real-time graphs at http://md.water.usgs.gov/realtime/). Streamflow was also significantly below normal at Antietam Creek, Choptank River, Conococheague Creek, Nassawango Creek, Patapsco River, Gunpowder River, Patuxent River, Piscataway Creek, Monocacy River, and Potomac River in Maryland, and Christina River, St. Jones River, and White Clay Creek in Delaware. The monthly streamflow in the Potomac River near Washington, D.C. was 82 percent below normal in December and 54 percent below normal for 2001. Streamflow entering the Chesapeake Bay averaged 23.7 bgd (billion gallons per day), which is 54 percent below the long-term average for December.
    [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]
  • Survey of Aquatic Invasive Species in Maryland Lakes
    Survey of Aquatic Invasive Species in Maryland Lakes Report of Survey Activity and Results January 2018 Prepared For Maryland State Legislature Maryland Department of Natural Resources Maryland Park Service Maryland Fishing and Boating Service Prepared by Mark Lewandowski and Mike Naylor Appendix A. by Cathy Wazniak and Celia Dawson Maryland Department of Natural Resources Resource Assessment Service Tidewater Ecosystem Assessment 1 Table of Contents Executive Summary Page 3 Report Page 3 Figure 1- Map of State Lakes Page 5 Lake Survey Findings New Germany Lake Page 6 Tuckahoe Lake Page 7 Myrtle Grove Lake Page 8 Blairs Valley Lake Page 9 Urieville Mill Pond Page 10 Greenbriar Lake Page 11 Hunting Creek Lake Page 12 Smithville Lake Page 13 Unicorn Lake Page 14 Wye Mills Lake Page 15 Herrington Lake Page 16 Clopper Lake Page 17 Lake Habeeb Page 18 St. Mary’s Lake Page 19 Savage River Reservoir Page 20 Deep Creek Lake Page 21 Recommendations Page 22 Table 1- SAV, Emergent Plant and Floating Plant Summary Page 24 Appendix A- Algae Synopsis Page 26 2 Executive Summary Biologists from DNR’s Resource Assessment Service conducted the first Aquatic Invasive Species survey in all sixteen state -owned lakes in the summer of 2016. Surveys were conducted from kayaks, canoes and motor boats to assess the aquatic macrophyte communities in each lake. The purpose of the survey was to assess the current condition of the state lakes and assist in making management decisions related to aquatic invasive species. Overall, twenty-nine species of submerged aquatic vegetation and six species of floating or emergent plants were observed.
    [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]
  • Summary of Decisions Regarding Nutrient and Sediment Load Allocations and New Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Restoration Goals
    To: Principal Staff Committee Members and Representatives of Chesapeake Bay “Headwater” States From: W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr., Chair Chesapeake Bay Program Principals’ Staff Committee Subject: Summary of Decisions Regarding Nutrient and Sediment Load Allocations and New Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Restoration Goals For the past twenty years, the Chesapeake Bay partners have been committed to achieving and maintaining water quality conditions necessary to support living resources throughout the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. In the past month, Chesapeake Bay Program partners (Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Chesapeake Bay Commission) have expanded our efforts by working with the headwater states of Delaware, West Virginia and New York to adopt new cap load allocations for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment. Using the best scientific information available, Bay Program partners have agreed to allocations that are intended to meet the needs of the plants and animals that call the Chesapeake home. The allocations will serve as a basis for each state’s tributary strategies that, when completed by April 2004, will describe local implementation actions necessary to meet the Chesapeake 2000 nutrient and sediment loading goals by 2010. This memorandum summarizes the important, comprehensive agreements made by Bay watershed partners with regard to cap load allocations for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediments, as well as new baywide and local SAV restoration goals. Nutrient Allocations Excessive nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries promote undesirable algal growth, and thereby, prohibit light from reaching underwater bay grasses (submerged aquatic vegetation or SAV) and depress the dissolved oxygen levels of the deeper waters of the Bay.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland's Lower Choptank River Cultural Resource Inventory
    Maryland’s Lower Choptank River Cultural Resource Inventory by Ralph E. Eshelman and Carl W. Scheffel, Jr. “So long as the tides shall ebb and flow in Choptank River.” From Philemon Downes will, Hillsboro, circa 1796 U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle 7.5 Minute Topographic maps covering the Lower Choptank River (below Caroline County) include: Cambridge (1988), Church Creek (1982), East New Market (1988), Oxford (1988), Preston (1988), Sharp Island (1974R), Tilghman (1988), and Trappe (1988). Introduction The Choptank River is Maryland’s longest river of the Eastern Shore. The Choptank River was ranked as one of four Category One rivers (rivers and related corridors which possess a composite resource value with greater than State signific ance) by the Maryland Rivers Study Wild and Scenic Rivers Program in 1985. It has been stated that “no river in the Chesapeake region has done more to shape the character and society of the Eastern Shore than the Choptank.” It has been called “the noblest watercourse on the Eastern Shore.” Name origin: “Chaptanck” is probably a composition of Algonquian words meaning “it flows back strongly,” referring to the river’s tidal changes1 Geological Change and Flooded Valleys The Choptank River is the largest tributary of the Chesapeake Bay on the eastern shore and is therefore part of the largest estuary in North America. This Bay and all its tributaries were once non-tidal fresh water rivers and streams during the last ice age (15,000 years ago) when sea level was over 300 feet below present. As climate warmed and glaciers melted northward sea level rose, and the Choptank valley and Susquehanna valley became flooded.
    [Show full text]
  • Organic Compounds and Trace Elements in the Pocomoke River and Tributaries, Maryland
    Organic Compounds and Trace Elements in the Pocomoke River and Tributaries, Maryland Open-File Report 99-57 (Revised January 2000) In cooperation with George Mason University and Maryland Department of the Environment U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Organic Compounds and Trace Elements in the Pocomoke River and Tributaries, Maryland By Cherie V. Miller, Gregory D. Foster, Thomas B. Huff, and John R. Garbarino Open-File Report 99-57 (Revised January 2000) In cooperation with George Mason University and Maryland Department of the Environment Baltimore, Maryland 2000 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY U.S. Department of the Interior BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Charles G. Groat, Director The use of trade, product, or firm names in this report is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. For additional information contact: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey 8987 Yellow Brick Road Baltimore, MD 21237 Copies of this report can be purchased from: U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services Box 25286 Denver, CO 80225-0286 CONTENTS Abstract.........................................................................................................................................1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................1 Background ......................................................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • This Land Is Whose Land?
    This Land Is Whose Land? Author: Mary Davis, Anne Arundel County Public Schools Grade Level: Upper Elementary Duration: One 90 minute class (or two 1 hour classes) Overview: In the latter half of the 17 th century, the expanding colony of Maryland came into conflict with the Eastern Woodland Indian tribes who had been hunting and farming the region for almost 6,000 years. The conflict developed from competing views of land use. The Indians saw the land as the bearer of seasonal resources to be used when available and the English colonists saw it as a commodity to be bought and sold. When the Nanticoke tribe could no longer repel the incursions of colonists, they petitioned the Maryland Assembly to have lands granted to them for their exclusive use. The terms of the agreement and size of the lands granted were insufficient for the traditional lifeways of the Nanticoke, which led to further conflicts with their neighbors. In this lesson, the students will use a series of legal documents from the Maryland Assembly to trace the development of the conflict over land ownership. Content Standards: Era 1: Three Worlds Meet (Beginnings to 1620) Standard 2: How early European exploration and colonization resulted in cultural and ecological interactions among previously unconnected peoples Historical Thinking Standards: Standard 3: Historical Analysis and Interpretation C. Analyze cause­and­effect relationships and multiple causation, including the importance of the individual, the influence of ideas, and the role of chance. Lesson Objectives: ­Students will read primary source documents about relationships between colonial Maryland and nearby Native American tribes.
    [Show full text]
  • Characterization Upper Chester River Watershed in Kent County And
    Characterization Of The Upper Chester River Watershed In Kent County and Queen Anne’s County, Maryland March 2005 In support of a Watershed Restoration Action Strategy for the Upper Chester River Watershed by Queen Anne’s County and Kent County Product of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources Watershed Services In Partnership With Queen Anne’s County and Kent County STATE OF MARYLAND Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., Governor Michael S. Steele, Lt. Governor Maryland Department of Natural Resources C. Ronald Franks, Secretary Watershed Services Tawes State Office Building, 580 Taylor Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21401-2397 Internet Address: http://www.dnr.maryland.gov Telephone Contact Information: Toll free in Maryland: 1-877-620-8DNR x8746, Out of state call: 410-260-8746 TTY users call via Maryland Relay The facilities and services of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources are available to all without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, national origin or physical or mental disability. This document is available in alternative format upon request from a qualified individual with disability A publication of the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program, Department of Natural Resources pursuant to NOAA Award No. NA04NOS4190042. Financial as- sistance provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, admin- istered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Upper Chester River Watershed Characterization, March 2005 Publications Tracking
    [Show full text]
  • Defining the Nanticoke Indigenous Cultural Landscape
    Indigenous Cultural Landscapes Study for the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail: Nanticoke River Watershed December 2013 Kristin M. Sullivan, M.A.A. - Co-Principal Investigator Erve Chambers, Ph.D. - Principal Investigator Ennis Barbery, M.A.A. - Research Assistant Prepared under cooperative agreement with The University of Maryland College Park, MD and The National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Annapolis, MD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Nanticoke River watershed indigenous cultural landscape study area is home to well over 100 sites, landscapes, and waterways meaningful to the history and present-day lives of the Nanticoke people. This report provides background and evidence for the inclusion of many of these locations within a high-probability indigenous cultural landscape boundary—a focus area provided to the National Park Service Chesapeake Bay and the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail Advisory Council for the purposes of future conservation and interpretation as an indigenous cultural landscape, and to satisfy the Identification and Mapping portion of the Chesapeake Watershed Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit Cooperative Agreement between the National Park Service and the University of Maryland, College Park. Herein we define indigenous cultural landscapes as areas that reflect “the contexts of the American Indian peoples in the Nanticoke River area and their interaction with the landscape.” The identification of indigenous cultural landscapes “ includes both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife therein associated with historic lifestyle and settlement patterns and exhibiting the cultural or esthetic values of American Indian peoples,” which fall under the purview of the National Park Service and its partner organizations for the purposes of conservation and development of recreation and interpretation (National Park Service 2010:4.22).
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended Maximum Fish Meals Each Year For
    Recommended Maximum Meals Each Year for Maryland Waters Recommendation based on 8 oz (0.227 kg) meal size, or the edible portion of 9 crabs (4 crabs for children) Meal Size: 8 oz - General Population; 6 oz - Women; 3 oz - Children NOTE: Consumption recommendations based on spacing of meals to avoid elevated exposure levels Recommended Meals/Year Species Waterbody General PopulationWomen* Children** Contaminants 8 oz meal 6 oz meal 3 oz meal Anacostia River 15 11 8 PCBs - risk driver Back River AVOID AVOID AVOID Pesticides*** Bush River 47 35 27 PCBs - risk driver Middle River 13 9 7 Northeast River 27 21 16 Patapsco River/Baltimore Harbor AVOID AVOID AVOID American Eel Patuxent River 26 20 15 Potomac River (DC Line to MD 301 1511 9 Bridge) South River 37 28 22 Centennial Lake No Advisory No Advisory No Advisory Methylmercury - risk driver Lake Roland 12 12 12 Pesticides*** - risk driver Liberty Reservoir 96 48 48 Methylmercury - risk driver Tuckahoe Lake No Advisory 93 56 Black Crappie Upper Potomac: DC Line to Dam #3 64 49 38 PCBs - risk driver Upper Potomac: Dam #4 to Dam #5 77 58 45 PCBs & Methylmercury - risk driver Crab meat Patapsco River/Baltimore Harbor 96 96 24 PCBs - risk driver Crab "mustard" Middle River DO NOT CONSUME Blue Crab Mid Bay: Middle to Patapsco River (1 meal equals 9 crabs) Patapsco River/Baltimore Harbor "MUSTARD" (for children: 4 crabs ) Other Areas of the Bay Eat Sparingly Anacostia 51 39 30 PCBs - risk driver Back River 33 25 20 Pesticides*** Middle River 37 28 22 Northeast River 29 22 17 Brown Bullhead Patapsco River/Baltimore Harbor 17 13 10 South River No Advisory No Advisory 88 * Women = of childbearing age (women who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or are nursing) ** Children = all young children up to age 6 *** Pesticides = banned organochlorine pesticide compounds (include chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, or heptachlor epoxide) As a general rule, make sure to wash your hands after handling fish.
    [Show full text]