Inventory of Historic Properties in Anne Arundel
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
No-Discharge Zones for Vessel Sewage in Maryland and Virginia
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 05/11/2021 and available online at federalregister.gov/d/2021-09957, and on govinfo.gov 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL 10021-74-Region 3] Clean Water Act: No-Discharge Zones for Vessel Sewage in Maryland and Virginia AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice–final determination. SUMMARY: On behalf of the State of Maryland, the Secretary of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources requested that the Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3 approve a no-discharge zone for thirteen water bodies in Anne Arundel County, Maryland pursuant to the Clean Water Act. After review of Maryland’s application, EPA determined that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonable available for all thirteen waterbodies within Anne Arundel County. The application is available upon request from EPA (at the email address below). DATES: This approval is effective upon the date of publication in the Federal Register on [INSTERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ferry Akbar Buchanan, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency – Region III. Telephone: (215) 814-2570; email address: [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Clean Water Act section 312(f)(3), if any state determines that the protection and enhancement of the quality of some or all of the state’s waters require greater environmental protection, the state may designate the waters as a vessel sewage no-discharge zone. However, the state may not establish the no-discharge zone until EPA has determined that adequate pumpout facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the proposed waters. -
19-1189 BP PLC V. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus BP P. L. C. ET AL. v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19–1189. Argued January 19, 2021—Decided May 17, 2021 Baltimore’s Mayor and City Council (collectively City) sued various en- ergy companies in Maryland state court alleging that the companies concealed the environmental impacts of the fossil fuels they promoted. The defendant companies removed the case to federal court invoking a number of grounds for federal jurisdiction, including the federal officer removal statute, 28 U. S. C. §1442. The City argued that none of the defendants’ various grounds for removal justified retaining federal ju- risdiction, and the district court agreed, issuing an order remanding the case back to state court. Although an order remanding a case to state court is ordinarily unreviewable on appeal, Congress has deter- mined that appellate review is available for those orders “remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed pursuant to section 1442 or 1443 of [Title 28].” §1447(d). The Fourth Circuit read this provision to authorize appellate review only for the part of a remand order deciding the §1442 or §1443 removal ground. -
MDE-Water Pollution
Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION Chapters 01-10 Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................... 1 Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION .................................................................................................................... 1 Chapters 01-10 ................................................................................................................................................ 1 Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................... 2 Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION .................................................................................................................... 2 Chapter 01 General ......................................................................................................................................... 2 .01 Definitions................................................................................................................................................. 3 .02 Principles of Water Pollution Control.................................................................................................... -
Understanding Divided Baltimore
UNDERSTANDING DIVIDED BALTIMORE How Data, Especially Mapped Data, Informed the Course WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO • Divided Baltimore was a UB response to the events of April 2015. • We wanted to share information widely with students and with interested community members with hope that we could catalyze interest in learning how Baltimore became so divided. • Presentations built around a community forum • Graduate, undergraduate, and dual enrollment high school students were enrolled in sections of the course with their own instructor. THE NEW YORK TIMES CAPTURED HOW WE ORGANIZED THE COMMUNITY FORUM http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000003 973175/uniting-a-divided-baltimore.html October 20, 2015 - By A.J. CHAVAR - U.S. - Print Headline: "Uniting a Divided Baltimore“ USING DATA AND MAPS IN THE COURSE • Today, we want to report on how we relied on the good work of BNIA and many of you in compiling data and maps that help immeasurably in comprehending the issues we face in Baltimore in achieving a fair society. HISTORICAL DATA AND MAPS— BETSY NIX • UB History Professor Betsy Nix developed a lecture on the history of segregation in Baltimore that she has now presented to a range of agencies and groups from Annie E. Casey to OSI to the last round of Baltimore City Police recruits. 1860 212,418 residents 25,500 or 12% free people of color from Freedom’s Port 1937 Redlining Map The Baltimore Chop The Baltimore Chop Map from Study for East-West Expressway, 1957. Johns Hopkins University, Sheridan Libraries. Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators Alliance, -
Maryland Historical Magazine, 1946, Volume 41, Issue No. 4
MHRYMnD CWAQAZIU^j MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY BALTIMORE DECEMBER • 1946 t. IN 1900 Hutzler Brothers Co. annexed the building at 210 N. Howard Street. Most of the additional space was used for the expansion of existing de- partments, but a new shoe shop was installed on the third floor. It is interesting to note that the shoe department has now returned to its original location ... in a greatly expanded form. HUTZLER BPOTHERSe N\S/Vsc5S8M-lW MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE A Quarterly Volume XLI DECEMBER, 1946 Number 4 BALTIMORE AND THE CRISIS OF 1861 Introduction by CHARLES MCHENRY HOWARD » HE following letters, copies of letters, and other documents are from the papers of General Isaac Ridgeway Trimble (b. 1805, d. 1888). They are confined to a brief period of great excitement in Baltimore, viz, after the riot of April 19, 1861, when Federal troops were attacked by the mob while being marched through the City streets, up to May 13th of that year, when General Butler, with a large body of troops occupied Federal Hill, after which Baltimore was substantially under control of the 1 Some months before his death in 1942 the late Charles McHenry Howard (a grandson of Charles Howard, president of the Board of Police in 1861) placed the papers here printed in the Editor's hands for examination, and offered to write an introduction if the Committee on Publications found them acceptable for the Magazine. Owing to the extraordinary events related and the revelation of an episode unknown in Baltimore history, Mr. Howard's proposal was promptly accepted. -
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 -
Attachment A-1 Adjacent Property Owner Table
ATTACHMENT A JPA SECTION 6 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION ATTACHMENT A-1 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER TABLE Attachment A-1 Method on Conducting Adjacent Property Owner Search As part of the Joint Permit Application, information on property owners adjacent to the project site, across the waterway of the project, and ½ mile downstream of the proposed project components are required. Information on the adjacent property owners were obtained in five counties, including Louisa County, Spotsylvania County, Orange County, King William County, and King and Queen County. Due to the size and scope of the proposed project, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality recommended that Dominion contact the Commissioner of Revenue within each county to help identify the property owners. The table below provides specific detail for each county on how the property information was obtained. Format of Date County Method Data Received For property owners located adjacent to Lake Anna and the Dominion property, an email was sent to Nancy Pleasant, Louisa GIS Commissioner of Revenue requesting information. Nancy 6/17/10 County Shapefiles Pleasant forwarded the request to Matthias Smith, County GIS Coordinator. Email sent to Debbie Williams, Commissioner of Revenue. Spotsylvania Received email from Janet Loyd, Assistant to Commissioner GIS 6/21/10 County of Revenue, who forwarded request to David West, County Shapefiles GIS Specialist. Email sent to Donna Chewning, Commissioner of Revenue. Donna Chewning forwarded email to Deborah Kendall, Orange GIS County Interim Planning Director. Deborah Kendall requested 10/14/09 County Shapefiles information from their GIS Contractor. Files verified through Orange County’s on-line tool June 2010. King William Email sent to Betty Brooks, GIS Technician. -
River Herring Program – 2009‐2016 Grants
River Herring Program – 2009‐2016 Grants RIVER HERRING PROGRAM River Herring NORTHEAST REGION Assessing Sustainability of Maine River Herring Runs Maine Department of Marine Resources Maine Award Amount....................................................................... $400,483 Grantee Match ...................................................................... $415,340 Total Project ............................................................................ $815,823 Collect river herring population data on numerous rivers in order to create management and harvest models to help ensure the sustainability of the fishery. Project will also hire an education specialist to work with inland communities to help gain acceptance for reintroduction of river herring. River Herring Bycatch Avoidance in Small Mesh Fisheries (MA) University of Massachusetts Massachusetts Award Amount....................................................................... $305,640 Grantee Match ...................................................................... $376,929 Total Project ............................................................................ $682,569 Develop river herring bycatch avoidance incentive systems based on models that identify and predict high concentrations of river herring. Project will help to minimize bycatch of river herring in the Atlantic herring and mackerel fisheries in New England. Updated May 2017 River Herring Program – 2009‐2016 Grants Identification and Modeling of Alewife Stock Structure Gulf of Maine Research Institute -
Mayor and City Council of Baltimore V. Baltimore and Philadelphia Steamboat Company, 65 A. 353, 104 Md. 485 (Dec
Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Baltimore and Philadelphia Steamboat Company, 65 A. 353, 104 Md. 485 (Dec. 19, 1906) Russell K. George I. INTRODUCTION Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Baltimore and Philadelphia Steamboat Company1 concerns the condemnation by the City of Baltimore of properties owned by the Baltimore and Philadelphia Steamboat Company ("BPSC"). After the Great Fire of 1904, which destroyed most of the Baltimore business district, the City embarked on an effort to make various urban improvements. Among other things, the City endeavored to widen Pratt Street fifty feet to the south by condemning wharves at the corner of Light and Pratt Streets that were owned and leased by the Steamboat Company.2 The Burnt District Commission awarded the Company minimal damages for the property that was condemned, and instead assessed benefits against the Company for the widening of Pratt Street.3 The Company appealed to the Baltimore City Circuit Court, where Judge Henry Stockbridge essentially reversed the Commission awards, giving the Company much more compensation than it initially received. Both the City and the Company cross- appealed. The Maryland Court of Appeals rendered its decision on December 19, 1906, affirming Stockbridge's awards. The case represents a microcosm of the improvement efforts in Baltimore following the fire. The litigation pursued by the Steamboat Company shows how property owners posed an obstacle to urban improvements. Christine Rosen discusses this in The Limits of Power: Great Fires and the Process of City Growth in America, 1 65 A. 353 (1906). 2 See Diagram, attached. 1 concluding that the progressive nature of Baltimore, which had developed prior to the fire,4 helped the City to overcome various obstacles to change, including private property ownership and political deadlock.5 In addition, the case presents issues concerning the condemnation value of waterfront property, particularly the value of certain riparian rights and the question of whether they are to be included in the fair market value of the property. -
2020 Regular Session
HOUSE BILL 95 M2 0lr2125 CF SB 162 By: Delegates Howard, Bagnall, Bartlett, Cain, Carey, Chang, Chisholm, Henson, Malone, Rogers, and Saab Introduced and read first time: January 13, 2020 Assigned to: Environment and Transportation A BILL ENTITLED 1 AN ACT concerning 2 Anne Arundel County – Natural Resources – Fishing With a Haul Seine 3 FOR the purpose of repealing certain provisions of law that restrict the length of a haul 4 seine that a person may use in certain waters of Anne Arundel County; authorizing 5 a person to use a haul seine to fish in the waters of Anne Arundel County except 6 under certain circumstances; making technical, stylistic, and clarifying changes; and 7 generally relating to fishing with a haul seine in Anne Arundel County. 8 BY repealing and reenacting, without amendments, 9 Article – Natural Resources 10 Section 4–713 11 Annotated Code of Maryland 12 (2018 Replacement Volume and 2019 Supplement) 13 BY repealing and reenacting, with amendments, 14 Article – Natural Resources 15 Section 4–714 16 Annotated Code of Maryland 17 (2018 Replacement Volume and 2019 Supplement) 18 SECTION 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MARYLAND, 19 That the Laws of Maryland read as follows: 20 Article – Natural Resources 21 4–713. 22 (a) A person who fishes with haul seine equipment shall possess a tidal fish 23 license to catch finfish. EXPLANATION: CAPITALS INDICATE MATTER ADDED TO EXISTING LAW. [Brackets] indicate matter deleted from existing law. *hb0095* 2 HOUSE BILL 95 1 (b) Haul seines shall be limited to a depth or width of 15 feet graduating to a 2 width of 22 feet at the bunt or back. -
2021 Regular Session
HOUSE BILL 843 M2 1lr2482 By: Delegate Howard Introduced and read first time: January 29, 2021 Assigned to: Environment and Transportation A BILL ENTITLED 1 AN ACT concerning 2 Anne Arundel County – Natural Resources – Fishing With a Haul Seine 3 FOR the purpose of repealing certain provisions of law that restrict the length of a haul 4 seine that a person may use in certain waters of Anne Arundel County; repealing a 5 certain penalty for a violation of certain provisions of law that restrict the length of 6 a haul seine that a person may use in certain waters of Anne Arundel County; 7 authorizing a person to use a haul seine to fish in the waters of Anne Arundel County 8 except under certain circumstances; making technical, stylistic, and clarifying 9 changes; and generally relating to fishing with a haul seine in Anne Arundel County. 10 BY repealing and reenacting, without amendments, 11 Article – Natural Resources 12 Section 4–713 13 Annotated Code of Maryland 14 (2018 Replacement Volume and 2020 Supplement) 15 BY repealing and reenacting, with amendments, 16 Article – Natural Resources 17 Section 4–714 18 Annotated Code of Maryland 19 (2018 Replacement Volume and 2020 Supplement) 20 SECTION 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MARYLAND, 21 That the Laws of Maryland read as follows: 22 Article – Natural Resources 23 4–713. 24 (a) A person who fishes with haul seine equipment shall possess a tidal fish 25 license to catch finfish. EXPLANATION: CAPITALS INDICATE MATTER ADDED TO EXISTING LAW. [Brackets] indicate matter deleted from existing law. -
Marinas of Anne Arundel County
Marina Inventory Of Anne Arundel County 2018 Office of Planning & Zoning Long Range Planning Division Marina Inventory Of Anne Arundel County July 2018 Anne Arundel County Office of Planning and Zoning Long Range Planning Division ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Office of Planning and Zoning Philip R. Hager, Planning and Zoning Officer Lynn Miller, Assistant Planning and Zoning Officer Project Team Long Range Planning Division Cindy Carrier, Planning Administrator Mark Wildonger, Senior Planner Patrick Hughes, Senior Planner Andrea Gerhard, Planner II Special Thanks to VisitAnnapolis.org for the use of the cover photo showing Herrington Harbor. Table of Contents Background Marinas Commercial Marinas Community Marinas Impacts of Marinas Direct Benefit Census Data and Economic Impact Other Waterfront Sites in the County Appendix A – Listing of Marinas in Anne Arundel County, 2018 Appendix B – Location Maps of Marinas in Anne Arundel County, 2018 Office of Planning & Zoning Long Range Planning Division Marinas of Anne Arundel County Background Anne Arundel County has approximately 533 miles of shoreline along the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. This resource provides the opportunity for the marine industry to flourish, providing services to the commercial and recreational boaters. In 1980, the first Boating and Marina Study was completed in the County. At that time, the County had 57 marinas and 1,767 boat slips.1 Since that time the County has experienced significant growth in all aspects of its economy including the marine industry. As of June 2018, there are a total of 303 marinas containing at total of 12,035 boat slips (Table 1). This report was prepared as an update to the 1997 and 2010 marina inventories2 and includes an updated inventory and mapping of marinas in the County.