DOCSLIB.ORG

<:~7~~~~-~ ~ /(;""D~~~:1~~:?- Supervisor

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
<:~7~~~~-~ ~ /(; 12341Susquehanna Trail SouthGlen Rock,PA 17327-9067 Phone:717-235-3011 www.shrewsburytownship.org Fax:717-227-0662 June 16,2004 C> 'f1\ " .J,.- ~ ~ :z: (11 N ("') ~t". - t't1 -<"- KathleenMcGinty, Secretary .- -0 "< (/"Ii :s: Departmentof EnvironmentalProtection to r11 CJ P.O. Box 2063 r:-? ~t-- .&:'" Harrisburg,PA 17105-2063 ~ ~- Dear SecretaryMcGinty: On behalf of the ShrewsburyTownship Board of Supervisorsand the Shrewsbury TownshipPlanning Commission, I am herebyforwarding to you a petition to the EnvironmentalQuality Board (EQB) for the redesignationof Little Falls. We believe this petition satisfiesthe conditionsincluded in Section23.2 of Chapter23. We are preparedto make an oral presentationbefore the EnvironmentalQuality Board as requiredby Section23.4 of Chapter23. The ShrewsburyTownship Board of Supervisors is hopeful that the EnvironmentalQuality Board will acceptour petition and proceedwith its evaluation. Pleasebe advisedthat we are prepare.<!to provide additional infonnation if ueeded With best regards, <:~7~~~~-~~/(;""d~~~:1~~:?- PAUL].~oMON Supervisor Cc: John Seitz, York County Planning Gary Peacock,York County WatershedAlliance e5/84:':"':..,.~ 12:39 711-77~3249 ~~ PAC%:: 82/87 D1~~OOO4 ~. 3/)003 COMMO1\WEAL TH OF PE~'NS'IL V AJ\TJA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD PEnnON FORM IT. "P~"""!TION INFORM-A.nON A. nl.c pcutianer requeststhc EnviTOnmen~1QuaJity Board to (~er.k onc of the following): 0 Adopt a regulation f!I Amend a ~gula1iO11 (Citation Chapter 93: Clean Stre~s Law 35 P.$ 0 RedesJ.gn~te stre~ c1assJ.rJ.catJ.on .691.1-691.1:001 E.epeala rcgwation (CItation ) Please attcLcbsuggcsted regulatory tan~oage if requm is to adopt or amcnd a regulation. B. Why is tl'le petitioncr f&quest1ngfuis action from 1hcBoard? (Descri"beproblems encountered under ClDTent regu1ationsand fuc charlgesbeing rccom.mendedto addrcssthe problcms. Statefactual and legal contCntiartS andinchldc S11pJX>rting documCn1alion that establish&sa clear justification for thercquested action.) Little FallsJwithinPennsylvania,is currently d~signatedas a W8I1D.Water Fishery (WWF). This petition requestsa redesignationto High Quality Cold Water Fishery ~QCWF). (SeeExhibit I which consistsof a map delineatingwatershed boundaries for Little Falls in Pennsylvania) The basisfor this petition to redesignateincludes the following: 1. The current designation(WWF) is not consistent,but mther is in conflict. with the designationffi-P or natural trout watersand drinking water supply as applied by the state of Maryland to the Maryland segmentof Little Falls (It shouldbe notedthat the major watershedarea of Little Falls existswithin Maryland). In fact,the headwater areain Pennsylvaniaconstitutes only a fraction of the entire watershed 2. Little Falls is utilized as a public water supply for the Baltimore Metropolitan Region. Little Falls is a major tributary to the Big GunpowderFalls which is the sourceof water for Lock Raven Reservoirlocated in Baltimore County,Maryland. 3. Little Falls containsnative or naturally reproducingtrout populations. Exhibit n consistsof a land use map which depictsland useswithin the PennsylvaniaArea of the Wate{'Shed. It will be notedd1at the predominateuse is AgriculturaI/Forestry. CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE 65/64/::-:~ 12:39 717-772-3249 m=>~ p~ 83/87 c. Descn"bethe typcs of persons.busincsses and organi7Ationslikely to bc impactedby this proposal. This etition will not rowth or develo ment within the watershed provided all existing - local and other existing - regqlations- are satisf!~~ It is, h?~~ _r~cognized that_!:~e c,ost of development may increase if higher standards or BMP's are "required- as a_result of redesignation. 1). Docs th~ action requestedin the pe:ti!iODconccm a mattercurrcntly in litigation? Ifycs. p1easeexplain. NO E. For streamredesignation petitions. the iollowing infonnation must be included for thc pebbon to be cODsi~ comp1ctc. Attach supponing materia]as necessary. A clear delineatioo of the:watershed or strcarn~gm.ent to bc redesignated.both in narra~-e form and on a rnap.(See Exhibit I, Section B) 2. The current designateduse(s) of the w~hed or scgmcnl. (See Section B ) 3. The requesteddesignaicd use(s) of the walcrshedor segment. (See Section B ) Availablc tcchn1caldata on instrcantcond"rtions for liIe following: watcr chemis&Iy,the aquatic conununity (benthic lt1acroin,,-e:rtebratesand/or fishes), or instrcamhabitat If such data are not included, providc a description ofthc data S~S investigated. (attached) 5. A dcscription of e.xisting and ~poserl point and oonpojnt source dischargesand '~ir impact on warer qnali~. and/or thc aquatic community. The namcs, locations, and permit numbcrs of JK'int k>1U'Ce dischar&esand a dcscription oftl1c typts and locationsofnoIIPOint sourcedischarges snould bc listed. See - -. " - - - S~ctioJl B 6. Information Iegardmg any of the quajifi&TS for designation as high quality waters (H.Q) or excCptlOnal value \"-aters(EV) in §93.4b (rela1ingto qua~'ing asHjgi1 Quality or Exceptional Value watcrs) usedas a basisfor the requcsroddesigt1ation. ( attached) " 7. A general dcscription of land use and dcvclopment pattcm5 in the watCTShed.E."'(atnples include me amount or p:rcentage of public lands (includh\g ownership)and the amount or percentageof ""al"!OUS]and use t.}-pes(such asresidential. commercial industria~agricu1tura1 and the Jike). (See SectJ.on B) 8. "Tlic- names-oI-a.u-iniJiiicipB)iiics~g1i which the watCrSb~-Or~gIncnt :£lows, incjuding'm offtcia1 contact tame and address. (See Section B) 9. LocatiooaI inforrnatioo relevantto items 4-8 (t;Xceptfor contact namesend addresscs)displayed on a map ormaps.ifpossiblc. (See Section B) ~ ;,;-~--""'"-- All petitions should be sulJmitted to the SecretaQ of the Department of Environrnental Protection " P.O. BOl: 2063 ~.f ~ ;:;i 1 ~~ ' ~I . " :, .] --j ~ (j C1 ~ ~ ~ J ~ I ./1 .".. '..;i~;:-: "'-;;~ ,- ~ ~;'. I .'j'L '\ ~ ~~i~ g~ ~ 5'~ -«") '"~.f a.i 1 (");E r !~. ~ , ~K ,-:, ~ )£ i~ ~~ 1~ u>- -= ~.- 11.8 ~.~ ;:]~ "0~ § ~ ~ "0 ~ .8 ?;- ! 8 .i ~ ~ § 1 ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ u .~ 'g E ~ .' :i~~!~ ~ I I I I ~~ ~-j u... i~ j~ ff) i>"- ~~ 1~ u> .= .S ;fS <t ~~ ~ ..c ~ ~ ~= ~ ~ = ~~ ~ ~ '- = i~ u .a 5 fIJ e ~ ~N :8 ~= ~ i ! § 1 ..E ~ u ~ !. ~ 'a u;; ~ a ~]~! d '0 ~ I I I 4~ ~<i II. ~ EXBIBI"l' IV 1 I. ~~. , : , / / \{ EXHIBIT V MUNICIPAL BUILDING 12341 Susquehanna Trail South, Glen Rock, Pa. 17327-9067 Phone: 235-3011 Fax: 227-0662 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.shrewsburvtownshiD.org MANAGER JUDITH ALBRIGHT-SHAULIS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - Meets 1-' & 2nd Weds. (~ as needed) each month, at 7:00 p.m. at the Municipa/Buifding CHAIRMAN EARL W. SCHUCKMAN 3582 Fissels Church Rd., Glen Rock, Pa. 17327 VICE-CHAIRMAN fiENRYYOUNG .. 13956 Bonair Rd., Glen Rock, Pa. 17327 SUPERVISORS PATRICK D. FERO 916 Calhoun Rd., Glen Rock, Pa. 17327 JOSEPH J. NEWBERGER 19284 Beaver Pond Court, New Freedom, Pa. 17349 PAUL SOLOMON 2473 Steltz Rd., New Freedom, Pa. 17349 EXBIBI"l' V """W~" "":;..;;;"~.;~ " .: -" ,," '. -~--~-"~;;.:::.;..~ '"'-".:~- MAYOR JEFF JOY 49 E. High St., New Freedom,Pa. 17349 MUNICIPAL BUILDING - 49 E. High St., New Freedom. Pa. 17349 Phone: 235-2337 Fax: 235-0281 E-mail: [email protected] BOROUGH ADMINISTRATOR T. L. CRAWFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL - Meets2nd Monday, 7:30 p.m., Community Center PRESIDENT BRADYTERREll 19 Washington St., New Freedom,Pa. 17349 VICE-PRES I DENT JEFF BLUM 52 Stoneridge Dr., New Freedom, Pa. 17349 MEMBERS GENE ANDREWS 49 E. High St., New Freedom, Pa. 17349 -- WAYNE BURGESS' 49 E. High St., New Freedom, Pa. 17349 I CARTER HERRMANN 49 E. High St., New Freedom,Pa. 17349 JOElECKRONE 49 E. High St., New Freedom,Pa. 17349 DENNISSARPEN 49 E. High St., New Freedom,Pa. 17349 A .J.IO:IBx:a: LITfLE FALLS 4. Available technical data on instream conditions for the following: water chemistry, the aquatic community (benthic macroinvertebrates and/or fishes), or instream habitat. If such data are not included, provide a description of the data sourcesinvestigated. Data enclosedincludes... 1) 2000-2004Maryland Biological StreamSurvey data for Little Falls 6. Information regarding any of the qualifiers for designation as high quality waters (HQ) or exceptional value waters (EV) in §93.4b (relating to qualifying as High Quality or Exceptional Value waters) used as a basis for the requested designation. 1) Letter from ~;~~a)*~~~~?onmenta1 Protectionand Resource Managementidentifying naturally reproducingtrout populationsin Little Falls Creek.The sameletter identifies Little Falls as being designatedUse ill-P which is the highestquality designationin Maryland requiring specialprotection. 2) It would seemlogical for the samelevel of protection be required in the headwatersof this streamto protect downstreamuses. 3) Macroinvertabratedata appearsto indicate the presenceof pollution intolerant speCIes Department of Environmental Protection and Resource Management Baltimore County Jame.r7: Smith, JI:, CountyExecutive 401 Bosley Avenue. Suite 416 David A.C. Canol/, Director Towson. Maryland 21204 January 29, 2003 Mr. Paul J. Solomon,Supervisor and PlanningCoordinator ShrewsburyTownship 12341Susquehanna Trail S. Glen Rock, PA 17327- 9067 Dear Paul: It is my understandingthat die ShrewsburyTownship PlanningCommission intends to petition the PennsylvaniaEnvironmental Hearing Board to upgradethe classificationof Deer Creek and Little Falls from Cold Water Fishes(CWF) to High Quality - Cold Water Fishes(HQ- CWF) and that supportis being soughtfor this position. Both of thesestreams flow dIrougb northern Baltimore County on their way
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5
    NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5 DATABASE DESIGN DOCUMENTATION AND DATA DICTIONARY 1 June 2013 Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21403 Prepared By: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 By Jacqueline Johnson Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin To receive additional copies of the report please call or write: The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 301-984-1908 Funds to support the document The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.0; Database Design Documentation And Data Dictionary was supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency Grant CB- CBxxxxxxxxxx-x Disclaimer The opinion expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the U.S. Government, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the several states or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia or the District of Columbia. ii The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.5 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Report of Investigations 71 (Pdf, 4.8
    Department of Natural Resources Resource Assessment Service MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Emery T. Cleaves, Director REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 71 A STRATEGY FOR A STREAM-GAGING NETWORK IN MARYLAND by Emery T. Cleaves, State Geologist and Director, Maryland Geological Survey and Edward J. Doheny, Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey Prepared for the Maryland Water Monitoring Council in cooperation with the Stream-Gage Committee 2000 Parris N. Glendening Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend Lieutenant Governor Sarah Taylor-Rogers Secretary Stanley K. Arthur Deputy Secretary MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 580 Taylor Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21401 General DNR Public Information Number: 1-877-620-8DNR http://www.dnr.state.md.us MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 2300 St. Paul Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218 (410) 554-5500 http://mgs.dnr.md.gov The facilities and services of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources are available to all without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, or physical or mental disability. COMMISSION OF THE MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY M. GORDON WOLMAN, CHAIRMAN F. PIERCE LINAWEAVER ROBERT W. RIDKY JAMES B. STRIBLING CONTENTS Page Executive summary.........................................................................................................................................................1 Why stream gages?.........................................................................................................................................................4 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • The Patapsco Regional Greenway the Patapsco Regional Greenway
    THE PATAPSCO REGIONAL GREENWAY THE PATAPSCO REGIONAL GREENWAY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS While the Patapsco Regional Greenway Concept Plan and Implementation Matrix is largely a community effort, the following individuals should be recognized for their input and contribution. Mary Catherine Cochran, Patapsco Heritage Greenway Dan Hudson, Maryland Department of Natural Resources Rob Dyke, Maryland Park Service Joe Vogelpohl, Maryland Park Service Eric Crawford, Friends of Patapsco Valley State Park and Mid-Atlantic Off-Road Enthusiasts (MORE) Ed Dixon, MORE Chris Eatough, Howard County Office of Transportation Tim Schneid, Baltimore Gas & Electric Pat McDougall, Baltimore County Recreation & Parks Molly Gallant, Baltimore City Recreation & Parks Nokomis Ford, Carroll County Department of Planning The Patapsco Regional Greenway 2 THE PATAPSCO REGIONAL GREENWAY TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................4 2 BENEFITS OF WALKING AND BICYCLING ...............14 3 EXISTING PLANS ...............................................18 4 TREATMENTS TOOLKIT .......................................22 5 GREENWAY MAPS .............................................26 6 IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX .................................88 7 FUNDING SOURCES ...........................................148 8 CONCLUSION ....................................................152 APPENDICES ........................................................154 Appendix A: Community Feedback .......................................155 Appendix B: Survey
    [Show full text]
  • A Summary of Peak Stages Discharges in Maryland, Delaware
    I : ' '; Ji" ' UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY · Water Resources Division A SUMMARY OF PEAK STAGES AND DISCHARGES IN MARYLAND, DELAWARE, AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR FLOOD OF JUNE 1972 by Kenneth R. Taylor Open-File Report Parkville, Maryland 1972 A SUJ1D11ary of Peak Stages and Discharges in Maryland, Delaware, and District of Columbia for Flood of June 1972 by Kenneth R. Taylor • Intense rainfall associated with tropical storm Agnes caused devastating flooding in several states along the Atlantic Seaboard during late June 1972. Storm-related deaths were widespread from Florida to New York, and public and private property damage has been estllna.ted in the billions of dollars. The purpose of this report is to make available to the public as quickly as possible peak-stage and peak-discharge data for streams and rivers in Maryland, Delaware, and the District of Columbia. Detailed analyses of precipitation, flood damages, stage hydrographs, discharge hydrographs, and frequency relations will be presented in a subsequent report. Although the center of the storm passed just offshore from Maryland and Delaware, the most intense rainfall occurred in the Washington, D. c., area and in a band across the central part of Maryland (figure 1). Precipitation totals exceeding 10 inches during the June 21-23 period • were recorded in Baltimore, Carroll, Cecil, Frederick, Harford, Howard, Kent, Montgomery, and Prince Georges Counties, Md., and in the District of Columbia. Storm totals of more than 14 inches were recorded in Baltimore and Carroll Counties. At most stations more than 75 percent of the storm rainfall'occurred on the afternoon and night of June 21 and the morning of June 22 (figure 2).
    [Show full text]
  • 2000 Data Report Gunpowder River, Patapsco/Back River West Chesapeake Bay and Patuxent River Watersheds
    2000 Data Report Gunpowder River, Patapsco/Back River West Chesapeake Bay and Pat uxent River Watersheds Gunpowder River Basin Patapsco /Back River Basin Patuxent River Basin West Chesapeake Bay Basin TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 3 GUNPOWDER RIVER SUB-BASIN ............................................................................. 9 GUNPOWDER RIVER....................................................................................................... 10 LOWER BIG GUNPOWDER FALLS ................................................................................... 16 BIRD RIVER.................................................................................................................... 22 LITTLE GUNPOWDER FALLS ........................................................................................... 28 MIDDLE RIVER – BROWNS............................................................................................. 34 PATAPSCO RIVER SUB-BASIN................................................................................. 41 BACK RIVER .................................................................................................................. 43 BODKIN CREEK .............................................................................................................. 49 JONES FALLS .................................................................................................................. 55 GWYNNS FALLS ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Floods of August and September 1971 in Maryland and Delaware
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY FLOODS OF AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 1971 IN MARYLAND AND DELAWARE Prepared in cooperation with the MARYLAND STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Open-file report Parkville, Maryland 19 7 4 (200) C225f 1974 00} t~5f 7~ · UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERI OR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY FLOODS OF AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 1971 IN MARYLAND AND DELAWARE .BY D. H. .-Carpenter Prepared in cooperation with t he MARYLAND STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Ope n- file report Parkville, Maryland 1974 CONTENTS Page Abstract . ........................................... 1 In t rod uc ti on . ....................................... 2 Descriptio n of t he s t orms and flooding .............. 7 I sohy e t al maps .. .................................... 12 Flood s t a ges and discharges ....•..................... 13 Re ferences cited..................................... 22 Appe ndix - St at i o n descriptions...................... 23 ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Location map for flood measure ment s ites.. 5 2. I sohye t al map, August 1-2, 1971..... ... ... 9 3. I sohyetal map, August 26-28, 1971......... 10 4. I sohye tal map, September 11-13, 1971...... 11 5 . Relation of peak unit d i scharge t o drain ­ a ge area, floods of Au gus t and September 1971...................................... 21 TABLES Table 1. Flood s t a ges and discharges in Maryland and Delaware.............................. 15 III ABSTRACT Intense rainfall, resulting most l y from severe t hunderstorms in Augus t and September 1971 caused con­ siderable flooding throughout much of Maryland and Delaware. Preci pit ation t ot als of 5 . 47 inches in 3 hours and 12. 6 inches i n 12 hours were reported for t he mo s t severe s t orm of the period whi ch occurred on Aug .
    [Show full text]
  • Baltimore Region Transportation Improvement Program 2020-2023
    BALTIMORE REGION TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2020-2023 DEVELOPED BY THE BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION CITY OF ANNAPOLIS ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY BALTIMORE CITY BALTIMORE COUNTY CARROLL COUNTY HARFORD COUNTY HOWARD COUNTY QUEEN ANNE’S COUNTY HARFORD TRANSIT MD DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MD DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT MD DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING MD TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION The preparation of this document has been financed through funds provided by the Maryland Department of Transportation and the Baltimore Metropolitan Council as matching shares for funds from the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration of the United States Department of Transportation. Electronic copies are available from the: Baltimore Metropolitan Council’s website https://www.baltometro.org/sites/default/files/bmc_documents/general/transportation/tip/20-23/20-23TIP.pdf Print copies are available from the: Baltimore Metropolitan Council 1500 Whetstone Way, Suite 300 Baltimore, Maryland 21230 Phone: 410-732-0500 Fax: 410-732-8248 Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2020-2023 Table of Contents Information about the TIP 1 I.A Introduction - Summary 1 I.B Introduction - Metropolitan Planning Organization Self-Certification 6 I.C Introduction - Consistency with Maximize2045 7 II.A Federal Requirements - Requirements of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act 9 II.B Federal Requirements - Environmental Justice 12 II.C Federal Requirements - Coordinating Human Service Transportation 20 II.D Federal Requirements - Additional Programs for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities 21 II.E Federal Requirements - Status of Projects from the 2019-2022 TIP and New Projects in the 2020-2023 TIP 23 II.F Federal Requirements - Conformity with Air Quality Planning 35 II.G Federal Requirements - Performance Based Planning and Programming 37 III.A Program Development - Integration with Federal, State and Local Programs 49 III.B Program Development - Federal Fund Sources for Surface Transportation Projects 50 IV.
    [Show full text]
  • Participationin the Restoration and Protection of the Chesapeake
    CHESAPEAKE BAY TRUST ANNUAL REPORT FY 2002 Working to promote public awareness and participation in the restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries LETTER FROM THE CHAIRMAN Dear Friends of the Chesapeake Bay, The Chesapeake Bay Trust entered its seventeenth year with high expectations, significant objectives, and an unwavering commitment to involve the citizens of Maryland in the restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. With the support and generosity of Marylanders and our many partners, we are pleased to report that the Tr ust exceeded its grant giving goals by providing more resources and involving more citizens in 2002 than any time in our history. In fact, the Trust approved more than $1.2 million in grants and involved thousands of Maryland school children and other volunteers in towns, cities, and counties throughout the State. Moreover, contributions by Marylanders were well allocated, with 90 percent of our revenue directly funding programs that benefit the Bay restoration and protection effort. This year we helped advance our mission of promoting public awareness and participation in the restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries by supporting creative and inspired activities. •At Urbana High School in Frederick, a small Trust grant supported the purchase of aquaculture equipment so that students could study the effects of nutrients on important Bay grasses. •With the Trust’s support, millions of oysters were restored in the Bay’s rivers and thousands of trees were planted along its streams by leading environmental and civic organizations, and public agencies. •In Montgomery County, Forest Oak Middle School received funding for field trips, planting materials, and water quality monitoring equipment to support the school’s commitment of using the Bay and its rivers as a tool for better learning.
    [Show full text]
  • River Runs Through It – Strengthening Networks and Connections
    Maryland Water Monitoring Council 22ND ANNUAL CONFERENCE RIVER A RUNS THROUGH strengthening networks connectionsIT DECEMBER 2 , 2 0 1 6 THE MARITIME INSTITUTE LINTHICUM , MARYLAND 2016 MWMC Annual Conference Vendors and Sponsors AKRF Aquatic Informatics Aridea Solutions Biohabitats Chesapeake Bay Trust EA Engineering, Science and Technology Ecoanalysts Environmental Quality Resources Heavy Seas Beer Hood College In-Situ Isaac Walton League KCI Technologies Kisters North America LaMotte Microbac Laboratories Maryland Stream Restoration Association Opti OTT Hydromet Straughan Environmental Versar YSI MWMC 2016 Annual Conference Program Page 1 Table of Contents Vendors and sponsors……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1 President's Welcome………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3 The Carl S. Weber Award…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5 2015 Annual Conference Planning Committee…………………………………………………………………..………… 7 Agenda and List of Posters…………………………………………………………….………………………….………… 8 Oral Presentation Abstracts………………………………………………………………………………………………… 14 Poster Abstracts…………………………………………………………..………………………………………………… 42 Annual and Standing Committee Reports………………………………………………………………………………… 56 Board of Directors………………………………………………………………………..………………………………… 64 MWMC 2016 Annual Conference Program Page 2 The 22nd Annual Conference of the Maryland Water Monitoring Council A River Runs Through It – Strengthening Networks and Connections The 2016 MWMC Annual Conference Planning Committee and I would like to welcome you to the 22nd Annual Conference of the
    [Show full text]
  • Using the Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration and GIS to Assess the Effects of Urbanization on Flood Risk
    Using the Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration and GIS to Assess the Effects of Urbanization on Flood Risk Tim Ward Outline • Introduction – Objective – Project Overview • Data and Methods – IHA - Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration – Image Classification: Impervious Surface Coverage (ISC) – Spatial analysis using GIS • Results • Conclusion • Discussion Introduction • Objective – Exploratory research – How has urbanization and ISC affected local flood risk in Baltimore County? – Is the IHA an effective method of measurement? • Location – Baltimore County, MD • Time Period – 1986 - 2005 IHA - Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration • Brian D. Richter • Parametric and *Non-Parametric statistical analysis • 33 hydrologic parameters • Grouped into 5 categories – Magnitude, frequency, duration, timing, and rate of change – Includes annual, monthly, 1, 3, and 7 day statistics • Median values • Assess ecological impact of a disturbance – Pre vs. Post – Proven effective for urbanization • Urbanization as a disturbance • Available through the Nature Conservancy IHA Score Card Non-Parametric IHA Scorecard BeaverDamRun Pre-impact period: Post-impact Watershed area 1 1 Mean annual flow 24.92 31.34 Mean flow/area 24.92 31.34 Annual C. V. 1.21 1.58 Flow predictability 0.68 0.74 Constancy/predictability 0.71 0.65 % of floods in 60d period 0.26 0.28 Flood-free season 13 9 COEFF. of DEVIATIO SIGNIFICAN MEDIANS DISP. N FACTOR CE COUNT Pre Post Pre Post Medians C.D. Medians C.D. Parameter Group #1 October 13 18.5 0.4192 0.4324 0.4231 0.03149 0 0.968 November
    [Show full text]
  • “Tomorrow's Roads Today”
    “TOMORROW’S ROADS TODAY” EXPRESSWAY CONSTRUCTION IN MARYLAND, 1948-1965 Historic Context and Survey of SHA Bridges Statewide with Determination of Eligibility Forms Maryland State Highway Administration Office of Planning & Preliminary Engineering, Environmental Planning Division 707 North Calvert Street, Baltimore, MD 21202 Prepared By: Anne E. Bruder Senior Architectural Historian May 2010 (Final September 2011) 2 Abstract Between 1948 and 1965, the Maryland State Roads Commission (SRC) built 3,452 miles of new highways and 557 bridges throughout the state in order to correct long standing engineering problems found on older roads. The SRC sought to create safe roads and bridges using design standards that would result in an efficient transportation system. In Maryland, the need for the new highways came about as a result of rapidly growing traffic volumes, new suburban development outside the state’s cities and towns, and the need for military preparedness because of Maryland’s common border with Washington, DC. These problems had existed before World War II, but by 1947 required resolution. Three public works programs, “The Five Year Plan,” “The Twelve Year Program,” and the “Go Roads Program” provided funding for the highway construction projects. Although the SRC was solely responsible for the design of the highways and bridges, and the development of the programs, political leadership by Governors William Preston Lane, Jr., Theodore R. McKeldin and J. Millard Tawes allowed the SRC to receive dedicated financing in order to complete construction of new highways and bridges. The new highways and bridge transformed Maryland’s landscape and connected neighboring areas within the state with ease and speed.
    [Show full text]
  • Baltimore County
    2019 Calendar Year HIGHWAY LOCATION REFERENCE Data as of December 31, 2019 BALTIMORE COUNTY SHA DISTRICT #4 BA MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION DATA SERVICES DIVISION 2019 HIGHWAY LOCATION REFERENCE COUNTY: BALTIMORE DISTRICT: 4 DATE: 8/2/2021 VERSION:1.0 ROUTE NUMBER: IS 70 DIRECTION: EAST(INVENTORY) ROAD NAME FUNCTIONAL STATE NHS MAINTENANCE MILEPOINT MILEPOINT DESCRIPTION MEDIAN TYPE MARKED AADT CLASS SYSTEM LANES NO NAME U -Interstate STATE PRIMARY NHS State Highway Agency 000.000 HOWARD CO/L POSITIVE BARRIER 6 107,909 000.000 IS 70 NO NAME 000.000 STRUC #030229001 - PATAPSCO RIVER 000.112 MILE MARKER 89.0 000.460 STRUC #030228001 - FOREST & PARKS RD 000.775 MILE MARKER 90.0 001.640 ATR STATION #0053 (CABINET WB/L) 001.784 MILE MARKER 91.0 001.970 5 002.228 3 002.348 CO 8890 ROLLING RD N (SB/L) 002.350 STRUC #030227001 002.352 CO 8890 ROLLING RD N 002.370 35,361 002.429 RP 70 RAMP 6 FR IS 70 EB TO IS 695 SB 002.793 MILE MARKER 92.0 002.878 RP 70 RAMP 3 FR RAMP 6 TO RAMP 2 (TO IS695 NB) 002.885 IS 695 BALTO BELTWAY (OUTER LOOP) 002.890 EXIT #91 002.890 RP 70 RAMP 1 FR RAMP 4 (FR IS695 NB) TO RAMP 8 002.890 STRUC #030127031 - (IS 70) 002.890 STRUC #030128001 002.890 STRUC #030129001 002.896 IS 695 BALTO BELTWAY (INNER LOOP) 002.902 RP 70 RAMP 5 FR RAMP 8 (FR IS695 SB) TO RAMP 4 003.420 STRUC #030240001 0 003.420 CO 2501 WOODLAWN DR 003.450 003.450 RP 70 RAMP 4 FR IS 695 NB TO IS 70 EB 003.590 6 PAGE: 1 MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION DATA SERVICES DIVISION 2019 HIGHWAY
    [Show full text]