DOCSLIB.ORG

Watershed Characteristics and Pre-Restoration Surface-Water Hydrology of Minebank Run, Baltimore County, Maryland, Water Years 2002–04

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Watershed Characteristics and Pre-Restoration Surface-Water Hydrology of Minebank Run, Baltimore County, Maryland, Water Years 2002–04 Cover. Photograph taken in June 2001 by Robert J. Shedlock of the U.S. Geological Survey at station 01583980, Minebank Run at Loch Raven, Maryland as part of the reconnaissance for the cooperative project described in this report. View is looking downstream at stream channel from the station location. Watershed Characteristics and Pre-Restoration Surface-Water Hydrology of Minebank Run, Baltimore County, Maryland, Water Years 2002–04 By Edward J. Doheny1, Roger J. Starsoneck2, Elise A. Striz3, and Paul M. Mayer3 1 U.S. Geological Survey, Baltimore, Maryland 2 Formerly of U.S. Geological Survey, Baltimore, Maryland 3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Ada, Oklahoma Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5179 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2006 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS--the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), through its Office of Research and Development, partially funded and collaborated in the research described here under an interagency agreement (DW-14-93944801-0) with the Water Science Center of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Baltimore, Md. The research described here has not been sub- jected to USEPA review and therefore does not necessarily reflect the views of USEPA, and no official endorsement should be inferred. Suggested citation: Doheny, E.J., Starsoneck, R.J., Striz, E.A., and Mayer, P.M., 2006, Watershed characteristics and pre-restoration surface-water hydrology of Minebank Run, Baltimore County, Maryland, water years 2002–04: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5179, 42 p. iii Contents Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1 Description of Study Area ............................................................................................................................2 Physiographic Setting ..........................................................................................................................2 Geologic Setting ....................................................................................................................................2 Hydrology ...............................................................................................................................................4 Land Use .................................................................................................................................................8 Soils................. ......................................................................................................................................12 Geomorphic Setting ............................................................................................................................14 Study Design .................................................................................................................................................14 Data Collection .............................................................................................................................................17 Streamflow ...........................................................................................................................................17 Continuous-Record Streamflow-Gaging Station ..................................................................17 Crest-Stage Partial-Record Stations ......................................................................................21 Precipitation.........................................................................................................................................23 Pre-Restoration Surface-Water Hydrology .............................................................................................24 Rainfall Totals, Storm Duration, and Intensity ................................................................................24 Comparison of Instantaneous Peak Discharge to Daily Mean Discharge ................................24 Stage-Discharge Rating Analysis ....................................................................................................26 Hydraulic-Geometry Relations .........................................................................................................27 Water-Surface Slope ..........................................................................................................................28 Time of Concentration ........................................................................................................................29 Flood Frequency ..................................................................................................................................29 Flood Volume .......................................................................................................................................33 Rainfall-Runoff Relations ...................................................................................................................34 Potential for Future Study ...........................................................................................................................36 Summary........................................................................................................................................................37 Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................................37 References Cited..........................................................................................................................................38 Glossary .........................................................................................................................................................41 iv Figures 1–3. Maps showing— 1. Location of Minebank Run study area, Baltimore County, Maryland .........................3 2. Physiographic provinces and province divisions in Maryland ....................................4 3. Geology of the Minebank Run watershed, Baltimore County, Maryland ...................5 4. Lithologic cross section looking downstream along Minebank Run, Baltimore County, Maryland ..........................................................................................................................7 5a–6. Aerial photographs showing— 5a. The Minebank Run watershed, 1938 ................................................................................9 5b. The Minebank Run watershed, 1953 ..............................................................................10 6. The Minebank Run watershed, 2000 ..............................................................................11 7. Map showing distribution of impervious-surface percentages in the Minebank Run watershed .........................................................................................................13 8–9. Photographs showing— 8. Section of restored Minebank Run stream channel upstream from Interstate 695 near Towson, Maryland...........................................................................14 9. Section of unrestored Minebank Run stream channel in Cromwell Valley Park downstream from Interstate 695 near Towson, Maryland .....................15 10. Map showing detailed view of Minebank Run study area, Baltimore County, Maryland ........................................................................................................................16 11. Diagram showing general design of the Minebank Run well and piezometer transects in Cromwell Valley Park, Baltimore County, Maryland .......................................17 12a–b. Maps showing general layout of the Minebank Run study reach for hydrologic data collection .......................................................................................................................18, 19 13–14. Graphs showing— 13. Stage-discharge rating 1.0 for U.S. Geological Survey station 0158397967, Minebank Run near Glen Arm, Maryland ......................................................................20 14. Daily mean discharge for U.S. Geological Survey station 0158397967, Minebank Run near Glen Arm, Maryland, water year 2002 ........................................20 15. Photograph showing combined crest-stage gage and staff gage at station 0158397968, Minebank Run at Transect 3 near Glen Arm, Maryland ....................21 16–17. Graphs showing— 16. Profile of peak water-surface elevations in the Minebank Run study
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Geologic Map of the Piedmont in the Savage and Relay Quadrangles, Howard, Baltimore, and Anne Arundel Counties, Maryland
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Geologic Map of the Piedmont in the Savage and Relay Quadrangles, Howard, Baltimore, and Anne Arundel Counties, Maryland By Avery Ala Drake, Jr.1 Open-File Report 98-757 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic Code. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. 'Reston, VA 1998 GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE PIEDMONT IN THE SAVAGE AND RELAY QUADRANGLES, HOWARD, BALTIMORE, AND ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTIES, MARYLAND by Avery Ala Drake, Jr. INTRODUCTION The Piedmont in the Savage and Relay quadrangles (fig. 1) is largely in Howard County, Maryland. The northeasternmost part is in Baltimore County, Maryland and about 0.03 square miles is in Anne Arundel County. Most of the area is suburban and almost all outcrops are restricted to the Patapsco, Middle Patuxent, Little Patuxent, and other stream valleys. Crystalline rocks of the central Appalachian Piedmont within these quadrangles are overlain in many places by Coastal Plain deposits of Cretaceous age. Alluvium occurs along most streams. The geology of adjacent quadrangles on the west and south has been mapped by Drake (in press, unpublished data, 1991-1997) and J.N. Roen and A.A. Drake, Jr. (in press), and that to the north and east by Crowley (1976). The tectonics of the area were interpreted by Crowley (1976) and Drake (1995). Aeromagnetic and gravity surveys of the area were interpreted by Bromery (1968).
    [Show full text]
  • Baltimore County, Maryland 2017 Land Preservation, Parks and Recreation Plan
    Baltimore County, Maryland 2017 Land Preservation, Parks and Recreation Plan As Adopted by the Baltimore County Council June 5, 2017 COUNTY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND Legislative Session 2017, Legislative Day No. 10 Resolution No. 55-17 Mr. Tom Quirk, Chairman By Request of County Executive By the County Council, May 25, 2017 A RESOLUTION to adopt the Baltimore County, Maryland 2017 Land Preservation, Parks and Recreation Plan (LPPRP) as an addendum to the Baltimore County Master Plan 2020. WHEREAS, the Baltimore County Council adopted the Baltimore County Master Plan 2020 on November 15, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Baltimore County Council adopted the 2005-2006 Baltimore County Land Preservation, Parks and Recreation Plan Update as a Baltimore County Master Plan 2020 addendum on January 20, 2015; and WHEREAS, Title 5, Subtitle 9 of the Natural Resources Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland requires a local governing body to revise its land preservation and recreation plan every five years and submit the plan to the Maryland Departments of Natural Resources and Planning for review and approval; and WHEREAS, the Baltimore County Departments of Recreation and Parks, Planning, and Environmental Protection and Sustainability worked cooperatively to draft the required 2017 Land Preservation, Parks and Recreation Plan; and WHEREAS, the Baltimore County Planning Board approved the 2017 Land Preservation, Parks and Recreation Plan on April 20, 2017; and WHEREAS, the Baltimore County Council has reviewed the amended 2017 Land Preservation, Parks and Recreation Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the County Council of Baltimore County, Maryland that the Baltimore County, Maryland 2017 Land Preservation, Parks and Recreation Plan, be and is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Baltimore County Master Plan 2020 to serve as a guide for meeting the recreation, park, and open space needs of the Citizens of Baltimore County; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this Resolution be sent to the Maryland Departments of Natural Resources and Planning.
    [Show full text]
  • 2713^7 Contents
    MINERALS OF WASHINGTON, D.C. AND VICINITY by Lawrence R. Bernstein U. S. Geo^r^'ce.l Survey OPEN F-'::. r;.".r'0.?;r cer.-..: 2713^7 CONTENTS Introduction 1 Scope of report 4 Mineral collecting 5 Acknowledgments 6 Introduction 6a ITT3 Aclj.il1 -> ! T^______.___~^. -"» _«_____«..«_»«__.. " " .._.«__._.._*_.__._.,_.._.-. _>-.-- -_>-->.-..-. Q Triassic deposits 31 Mineral localities 38 District of Columbia : 38 IMavtrlWlCfci JT XClilUl a Tirl ~ __ ___« - - -_ -»-i-___ .__- _ __- - ________________ m~m~m~ m~ m~ «M » M* **A^J ^ Anne Arundel County 43 Baltimore County 45 Howard County - 74 Montgomery County 88 Prince Georges County 120 Virginia . 129 Arlington County 129 Fairfax County 131 Fauquier County 139 Loudoun County 143 Prince William County 149 Diabase quarries of northern Virginia 155 CAPTIONS Illustrations Plate 1. Mineral localities of Washington, B.C., and vicinity. Plate 2. Generalized geologic map of Washington. D.C. and vicinity, Plate 3. Mineral deposits and generalized geology of the Triassic rocks near Washington, D.C. List of Figures Figure 1. Index map showing region covered in this report. Stfaded area is covered in most detail. Figure 2. Block diagram of the Washington, D.C. region showing physiographic provinces and major geographic and geologic features. ITfgure -3. Coastal Plain deposits of Washington, D.C. and vicinity. Figure 4. Generalized cross section of a typical complex pegmatite of the Washington, D.C. area. Figure 5. Rhythmically.layered gabbro of the Baltimore Gabbro Com­ plex at Ilchester, Maryland. Figure 6. Triassic diabase dike forming a ridge north of Route 7 near Dranesville, Virginia.
    [Show full text]
  • Bond Funding
    2016 Bond Bill Funding During the 2016 legislative session, the Maryland General Assembly evaluated 155 bond bill requests that totaled nearly $32.5 million. The Senate and the House each funded $7.5 million in legislative projects; individual bond bills were not acted upon by the legislature. Instead, the General Assembly amended the State Capital Budget Bill (SB 191) to specifically list the projects selected for funding. The chart below indicates the status of those bond bills funded in 2016. The "Total" column on the right indicates the total amount of funding approved for each project. House Bill Senate Bill Amount House Senate Number House Sponsor Number Senate Sponsor Project Title County Requested Initiatives Initiatives Other Total Funding 432 Clippinger 790 Ferguson Baltimore Museum of Industry Statewide 500,000 200,000 200,000 1597 Oaks 1098 Klausmeier Girl Scouts of Central Maryland Urban Program Statewide 250,000 250,000 250,000 and STEM Center 1203 C. Wilson 972 Peters Patriot Point Statewide 500,000 250,000 250,000 500,000 1635 Clippinger 563 Ferguson Port Discovery Children's Museum Statewide 500,000 200,000 300,000 500,000 478 McCray 316 McFadden Ulman Cancer Fund Home for Young Adult Statewide 200,000 200,000 200,000 Cancer Patients and Caregivers 1539 Allegany County 1045 Edwards Friends Aware Facility Allegany 150,000 75,000 75,000 Delegation 1538 Allegany County 1044 Edwards Frostburg Museum Relocation Project Allegany 150,000 50,000 50,000 100,000 Delegation 987 Allegany County 900 Edwards Lefty Grove Statue Allegany
    [Show full text]
  • Geology, Geochemistry, and Age of Archean and Early Proterozoic
    Geology, Geochemistry, and Age of Archean and Early Proterozoic Rocks in the Marenisco-Watersmeet Area, Northern Michigan and Geologic Interpretation of Gravity Data, Marenisco-Watersmeet Area, Northern Michigan GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1292-A, B Geology, Geochemistry, and Age of Archean and Early Proterozoic Rocks in the Marenisco-Watersmeet Area, Northern Michigan By P. K. SIMS, Z. E. PETERMAN, W. C. PRINZ, and F. C. BENEDICT and Geologic Interpretation of Gravity Data, Marenisco-Watersmeet Area, Northern Michigan By J. S. KLASNER and P. K. SIMS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE GEOLOGY OF THE LAKE SUPERIOR REGION GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1292-A,B UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1984 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WILLIAM P. CLARK, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Main entry under title: Geology, geochemistry, and age of Archean and early Proterozoic rocks in the Marenisco-Watersmeet area, Northern Michigan. (Contributions to the geology of the Lake Superior Region) (Geological Survey Professional Paper ; 1292A-B) Bibliography: P1292-A, 41 p.; P1292-B, 13 p. Supt. of Docs. No.: 119.16:1292-A & B 1. Geology, Stratigraphic Pre-Cambrian. 2. Geology Michigan Gogebic County. 3. Gravity Michi­ gan Gogebic County. I. Sims, P. K. (Paul Kibler), 1918- II. Klasner, J. S. Geologic interpretation of gravity data, Marenisco- Watersmeet area. 1983. III. Series. IV. Series: Geological Survey professional paper ; 1292A-B. QE653.G477 1983 551.7T09774983 83-600384 For sale by the Branch of Distribution U.S. Geological Survey 604 South Pickett Street Alexandria, VA 22304 Geology, Geochemistry, and Age of Archean and Early Proterozoic Rocks in the Marenisco-Watersmeet Area, Northern Michigan By P.
    [Show full text]
  • Summer 2018 Newsletter Volunteer
    Friends of Kinder Farm Park Newsletter – Summer 2018 Page 1 Summer 2018 Newsletter Inside This Issue Page 1 – Volunteer Award Banquet Page 7 – Anne Arundel Bird Club Happenings… Page 2 – Volunteer for the Fall Harvest Festival Page 9 – Visit the Woodland Garden Page 3 – We Don’t Want No Naked Scarecrows Page 10 – Blue Bird Monitors Needed Page 3 – Temporarily Under New Supervision Page 11 – A New/Old Tractor Page 3 – Farm Education Livestock News Page 13 – Pieced Together Page 4 – Tips from the Chartwell Garden Club Page 14 – Fall Harvest Festival Page 5 – The Genesis of the Friends of Kinder Page 15 – Life in the Park Photo Competition Farm Park Page 16 – FoKFP 12 Month Calendar Page 6 – Summer at the Apprentice Garden Page 18 – Business and Organization Support Online viewing feature: You can control-click on the title in the index and go directly to the article. Volunteer Award Banquet present this would be the last time we By Mike Lowman, Friends of Kinder Farm Park Board Member would see Paul, This year’s who passed away a Volunteer Banquet few weeks later. took place on a Hosts Bill Offutt beautiful Friday and Carrie Fielder evening on the 1st presented the following awards: of June at the River Birch Pavilion. Special Friends Award: This annual event The FoKFP Farm Education Livestock Groups is given to thank volunteers for their continued This group of families that care for our permanent support of the Kinder Farm Park. This year, to breeding livestock here at the park and help assure everyone’s delight, Mission Barbeque catered the that our 4H have access to affordable animals for food.
    [Show full text]
  • Northeastern Jones Falls Small Watershed Action Plan Volume 2: Appendices D & E
    Northeastern Jones Falls Small Watershed Action Plan Volume 2: Appendices D & E January 2013 December 2012 Final Prepared by: Baltimore County Department of Environmental Protection and Sustainability In Consultation with: Northeastern Jones Falls SWAP Steering Committee NORTHEASTERN JONES FALLS SMALL WATERSHED ACTION PLAN VOLUME II: APPENDICES D & E Appendix D Northeastern Jones Falls Characterization Report Appendix E Applicable Total Maximum Daily Loads APPENDIX D NORTHEASTERN JONES FALLS CHARACTERIZATION REPORT A-1 Northeastern Jones Falls Characterization Report Final December 2012 NORTHEASTERN JONES FALLS CHARACTERIZATION REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of the Characterization 1-1 1.2 Location and Scale of Analysis 1-1 1.3 Report Organization 1-5 CHAPTER 2 LANDSCAPE AND LAND USE 2.1 Introduction 2-1 2.2 The Natural Landscape 2-2 2.2.1 Climate 2-2 2.2.2 Physiographic Province and Topography 2-2 2.2.2.1 Location and Watershed Delineation 2-2 2.2.2.2 Topography 2-3 2.2.3 Geology 2-4 2.2.4 Soils 2-7 2.2.4.1 Hydrologic Soil Groups 2-7 2.2.4.2 Soil Erodibility 2-9 2.2.5 Forest 2-11 2.2.5.1 Forest Cover 2-11 2.2.6 Stream Systems 2-11 2.2.6.1 Stream System Characteristics 2-12 2.2.6.2 Stream Riparian Buffers 2-14 2.3 Human Modified Landscape 2-16 2.3.1 Land Use and Land Cover 2-16 2.3.2 Population 2-19 2.3.3 Impervious Surfaces 2-21 2.3.4 Drinking Water 2-24 2.3.4.1 Public Water Supply 2-24 2.3.5 Waste Water 2-24 2.3.5.1 Septic Systems 2-24 2.3.5.2 Public Sewer 2-24 2.3.5.3 Waste Water Treatment Facilities 2-26
    [Show full text]
  • February 7–10, 2019 | Towson, Maryland 34Th Annual MAEOE Environmental Education Conference
    February 7–10, 2019 | Towson, Maryland 34th Annual MAEOE Environmental Education Conference Welcome to the 2019 MAEOE Conference! Full STEAM Ahead: Expanding the Potential of Environmental Education We hope that you will expand your Environmental Education-STEAM connections at the 34th MAEOE Conference! E-STEAM is about expanding ideas and creating. It is also about helping students develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills that will lead to 21st Century jobs. E-STEAM can prepare students to transform systems, conserve resources, and make decisions that will lead to a sustainable future. We hope that you will explore the STEAM Festival on Friday evening, enjoy the speakers that will open doors to connect STEAM and the environment, try out a field experience on Friday or Sunday, and connect with colleagues throughout the conference! We can’t wait to hear about the E-STEAM connections that you make! Laura Johnson Collard - Executive Director, MAEOE MAEOE Advisory Council Chair Welcome! We welcome you to the 34th Annual MAEOE Conference. MAEOE has had some changes this year that we would like to take this opportunity to share with you. One significant change has been to our organizational structure. This change should be seamless to our members and stakeholders, but has been put in place to strengthen the organization and build our capacity for the future. As of October 2018, MAEOE now has an Advisory Council and Board of Directors. The Advisory Council is comprised of experts in the field of outdoor and environmental education. They are charged with developing strategies to ensure that Maryland remains a leader in environmental and outdoor education by supporting the MAEOE staff with keystone projects like the conference and Maryland Green Schools Youth Summit.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 GRANT LISTING 2016 Grant Recipients Exelon Corporation
    2016 GRANT LISTING 2016 Grant Recipients Exelon Corporation Exelon’s vision of providing superior value for our customers, employees and investors extends to the communities that we serve. In 2016, the Exelon family of companies provided over $46.1 million to non-profit organizations in the cities, towns and neighborhoods where our employees and customers live and work. In addition, the Exelon Foundation contributed over $3.5 million to communities Exelon serves. Exelon’s philanthropic efforts are focused on math and science education, environment, culture and arts and neighborhood development. Our employees’ efforts complement corporate contributions through volunteering and service on non-profit boards. Our employees volunteered 171,341 hours of community service in 2016. In addition, employees contributed a total of $10.7 million to the charity of their choice through the Exelon Foundation Matching Gifts Program and the Exelon Employee Giving Campaign. Exelon Corporation (NYSE: EXC) is a Fortune 100 energy company with the largest number of utility customers in the U.S. Exelon does business in 48 states, the District of Columbia and Canada and had 2016 revenue of $31.4 billion. Exelon’s six utilities deliver electricity and natural gas to approximately 10 million customers in Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey and Pennsylvania through its Atlantic City Electric, BGE, ComEd, Delmarva Power, PECO and Pepco subsidiaries. Exelon is one of the largest competitive U.S. power generators, with more than 32,700 megawatts of nuclear, gas, wind, solar and hydroelectric generating capacity comprising one of the nation’s cleanest and lowest-cost power generation fleets.
    [Show full text]
  • Bulletin 19 of the Department of Geology, Mines and Water Resources
    COMMISSION OF MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY S. JAMES CAMPBELL Towson RICHARD W. COOPER Salisbury JOHN C. GEYER Baltimore ROBERT C. HARVEY Frostburg M. GORDON WOLMAN Baltimore PREFACE In 1906 the Maryland Geological Survey published a report on "The Physical Features of Maryland", which was mainly an account of the geology and min- eral resources of the State. It included a brief outline of the geography, a more extended description of the physiography, and chapters on the soils, climate, hydrography, terrestrial magnetism and forestry. In 1918 the Survey published a report on "The Geography of Maryland", which covered the same fields as the earlier report, but gave only a brief outline of the geology and added chap- ters on the economic geography of the State. Both of these reports are now out of print. Because of the close relationship of geography and geology and the overlap in subject matter, the two reports were revised and combined into a single volume and published in 1957 as Bulletin 19 of the Department of Geology, Mines and Water Resources. The Bulletin has been subsequently reprinted in 1961 and 1966. Some revisions in statistical data were made in the 1961 and 1968 reprints. Certain sections of the Bulletin were extensively revised by Dr. Jona- than Edwards in this 1974 reprint. The Introduction, Mineral Resources, Soils and Agriculture, Seafood Industries, Commerce and Transportation and Manu- facturing chapters of the book have received the most revision and updating. The chapter on Geology and Physiography was not revised. This report has been used extensively in the schools of the State, and the combination of Geology and Geography in one volume allows greater latitude in adapting it to use as a reference or textbook at various school levels.
    [Show full text]
  • MD/DC/VA/Central and Southern DE/WV Panhandle Reports
    Hotline: Voice of the Naturalist Date: 3/26/2019 Coverage: MD/DC/VA/central and southern DE/WV panhandle Reports, comments and questions: [email protected] Compiler: Gerry Hawkins Sponsor: Audubon Naturalist Society of the Central Atlantic States (independent of NAS) Transcriber: Steve Cordle Please consider joining ANS, especially if you are a regular user of the Voice of the Naturalist (Senior $35; Individual $50; Family $65; Nature Steward $100; Audubon Advocate $200). The membership number is 301-652-9188, option 12; the address is 8940 Jones Mill Road, Chevy Chase, MD 20815; and the web site is http://www.anshome.org. This is the Voice of the Naturalist, a service of the Audubon Naturalist Society. This report covers the week starting Tuesday, March 19 and was completed on Tuesday, March 26 at 8:00 a.m. Information on noteworthy birds is presented below in taxonomic order, as set forth in the American Ornithological Society Checklist for North and Middle American Birds, as revised through the 59th Supplement (June 2018). This report does not provide information about likely escaped or released birds (e.g. various parrots and parakeets), non-established feral birds (e.g., Muscovy Duck) and introduced game birds (e.g., Ring-necked Pheasant). The top birds this week were BAR-TAILED GODWIT* and WESTERN TANAGER in VA. Other birds of interest this week included GREATER WHITE- FRONTED and CACKLING GEESE, MUTE and TRUMPETER SWANS, EURASIAN WIGEON, GREATER SCAUP, COMMON EIDER, HARLEQUIN DUCK, BLACK SCOTER, LONG-TAILED DUCK, RED-NECKED GREBE,
    [Show full text]
  • Cn1801orig.Pdf
    Protecting Wildlife in Baltimore County SPRING 2018 NO. 403 By Dave Wilson, Audubon Maryland-DC Important Bird Areas INSIDE THIS ISSUE After drawing a line on urban and suburban development some 50 years ago, Baltimore County has become the state’s poster child for smart growth Protecting Wildlife and an unlikely haven for wildlife. In Baltimore County................1, 3 In 1967, the Baltimore County Planning Board approved the establishment Welcome New Members ............1 of the Urban-Rural Demarcation Line (URDL) to “maximize the efficiency President’s Corner of county revenues on infrastructure in urban areas and preserve important Listing ...........................................2 natural and agricultural resources in rural areas.” The move drew a line around the southern county’s urban core, outside of which commercial and Watching Birds During residential development is extremely limited. Spring Migration ...................2,3,7 The board made the decision amidst the backdrop of mounting growth Bird Bits Wisdom has done it again! ...........4 pressure and the mid-sixties urban planning movement which helped bring Snowy Owl Irruption .....................4 zoning to states and counties all over the U.S. At the time, there was little Claire Wayner is Graduating .........5 opposition from landowners and farmers who saw the move as a way to Covered Dish Dinner 2018 ...........5 protect farmland and keep it affordable to farm. Middle River Christmas As a result of this historic decision, today about 90 percent of the County’s Bird Count 2017 ..........................6 827,000 residents live on just one third of the county’s total land area inside Field Trip Reports .......................7 the URDL.
    [Show full text]