DOCSLIB.ORG

2013 PGSCD Soil Erosion & Sediment Control – Pond Safety Reference

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2013 PGSCD Soil Erosion & Sediment Control – Pond Safety Reference PRINCE GEORGE’S SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT SOIL EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL – POND SAFETY REFERENCE MANUAL – PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND JULY 2013 Prince George’s Soil Conservation District 5301 Marlboro Race Track Road Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 Phone (301) 574-5162 – Fax (301) 574-5156 INTRODUCTION Dependence on the natural resources of Maryland is unending---and so is the need to protect our environment. The soil and water conservation program in Maryland, aimed at protecting soil and water resources, is the result of over 70 years of cooperative effort at the federal, state, and local levels. Under the State Soil Conservation District's Law, each Board of Supervisors is responsible for carrying out a soil and water conservation program to "provide for the conservation of the soil, water, and related resources of the state and for the control and prevention of soil erosion in order to preserve natural resources, control floods, prevent impairment of dams and reservoirs, assist in maintaining the navigability of rivers and harbors, preserve wildlife, protect the tax base, protect the public lands, protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of the state, and otherwise enhance their living environment". Acceptable erosion and sediment control plans must be designed to mitigate soil erosion, prevent increases in stormwater runoff, and minimize the discharge of pollutants. The Maryland Stormwater Management Act of 2007 and the 2011 Maryland Standards and Specifications for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control requires the establishment of a comprehensive process for the review and approval of erosion and sediment control and stormwater management plans. A coordinated comprehensive review process includes the submission and review of erosion and sediment control and stormwater management plans for each of the following three phases of plan development: Concept Plan; Site Development Plan; and Final Plan. This manual is intended to be a reference guide for engineers, developers, reviewers, and inspectors who will be involved with design and implementation of erosion and sediment control practices and dam safety. Existing references have been updated and consolidated into one document. As a service to our customers, we have attempted to simplify and clarify requirements from various sources. This manual will be used by our plan reviewers to ensure consistency in the plan review process and should be the basis for plan preparation and submittal by engineering consultants. The Prince George’s Soil Conservation District prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or familial status. CONSERVATION – DEVELOPMENT – SELF-GOVERNMENT i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The latest revisions to the Prince George’s Soil Conservation District Soil Erosion and Sediment Control – Pond Safety Manual, January 2013, are the result of the effort of the Erosion and Sediment Control Environmental Site Design Committee. The committee consisted of members representing Prince George’s Soil Conservation District (PGSCD), Prince George’s County Department of Public Works and Transportation (PGDPW&T), Maryland-National Capital Building Industry Association (BIA) and engineering consultant firms. Many individuals assisted with the revision to this document by providing review comments, suggestions, reference documents, and participation at committee meetings. We would like to acknowledge the following individuals for their invaluable contributions: Graham M. Baldwin Prince George’s County DPW&T Gurmeet S. Gahunia Dewberry and Maryland-National Capital BIA Lance C. Gardner Prince George’s Soil Conservation District Michael A. Novy Ben Dyer Associates, Inc. and Maryland-National Capital BIA Rand Postell Stantec, formerly Greenhorne and O’Mara Supreet K. Rekhi Prince George’s Soil Conservation District Brenda K. Sanford Prince George’s Soil Conservation District John Tarr Prince George’s County DPW&T Massoud Towhidi Capitol Development Design, Inc. Michael E.Wagner Loiederman Soltesz Associates and Maryland-National Capital BIA Eugene K. Whitehead Prince George’s Soil Conservation District The Prince George’s Soil Conservation District, Board of Supervisors approved and adopted the revised manual. We hope this consolidated and updated information will be helpful and encourage interested persons to contribute their experiences and knowledge in a continuing process of program improvement. ii Table of Contents Section I - PGSCD Concept Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (CSC) Page A. Introduction for Concept Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Plans………. I-1-2 B. Concept Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Design Considerations………………………………………………………………..…. I-3-5 C Concept Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Preparation……………. I-6-7 D. Preliminary Soil Report Requirements…………………………………………. I-8 E. COMAR Highly Erodible Soils Map…………………………………………… I-9-14 F. Highly Quality (Tier II) Waters……………………………………………….... I-15-18 G. Sediment Impairments and TMDLS…………………………………..………... I-19-22 H. Concept Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Submittal……………… I-23 I. PGSCD Concept Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Fees……………..… I-24-25 J. Concept Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Approval…………..….. I-26 K. PGSCD Concept Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Approval Stamp…………………………………………………………………...…...….. I-27-28 L. PGSCD Concept Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Transmittal Letter……………………………………………………………….. I-29 M. PGSCD Concept Grading, Erosion Sediment Control Plan Site Analysis…..…. I-30 Section II – PGSCD Environmental Site Development Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (SSC) A. Introduction for Environmental Site Development Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Plans……………………………..………………………. II-1 B. Environmental Site Development Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Design Considerations………………………………….. II-2-4 C. Environmental Site Development Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Preparation……………………………….…………..…. II-5-6 D. PGSCD Small Pond Soil Reports and Borrow Areas…………..…………….…. II-7 E. PGSCD Dam Hazard Classification………………………………….…….……. II-8-9 F. TR-66 Simplified Dam-Breach Routing Procedure………………………..……. II-10 G. Preliminary Pond Exemptions…………………………………………..….……. II-11-12 H. Examples of Embankment, Excavated and Exempt Ponds……………………… II-13-18 I. Maryland Average Rainfall from NOAA Atlas 14…………………………….... II-19 J. Environmental Site Development Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Submittal…………………………..……………….…… II-20 K. PGSCD Environmental Site Development Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Fees…………………………….……………….. II-21-22 L. Environmental Site Development Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Approval……………………………………………….. II-23-24 M. PGSCD Environmental Site Development Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Approval Stamp…………………..…………….. II-25-28 N. PGSCD Environmental Site Development Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Transmittal Letter…………………………. II-29 O. PGSCD Environmental Site Development Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Site Analysis……………………..…..……. II-30 iii Table of Contents Section III – PGSCD Final Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (FSC) Page A. Introduction for Final Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Plans……………………………………………………………..……… III-1-2 B. Final Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Design Considerations…………………………………………………………..……….. III-3-8 C. Final Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Preparation………………... III-9-15 D. Final Soil Report Requirements……………………………………………….… III-16-17 E. Final Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Practices Review Checklist………………………………………………………………... III-18-24 F. Vegetative Stabilization……………………..………………………………….. III-25-35 G. Critical Area Planting Code-342…………………………………..……………. III-36-59 H. UM Turfgrass Technical Update TT-77, July 2012……………………..……… III-60-66 I. Final Rough Grading Plan Checklist……………...…………………..………… III-67-68 J. Final Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Submittal………………..... III-69 K. PGSCD Final Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Fees……………… III-70-72 L. Final Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Approval………………….. III-73-74 M. PGSCD Final Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Approval Stamp..…...... III-75-78 N. PGSCD Final Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Transmittal Letter……………………………………………………………...... III-79 O. PGSCD Final Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Site Analysis…….…………………………………………………………..….. III-80 P. Final Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Updates….….……….….... III-81-82 Q. Adequacy of Existing Erosion and Sediment Controls Checklist….…..………. III-83-88 R. Minor Plan Changes…………………………………………..…………..……. III-89 S. Major Plan Changes…………………………………..…………..……..……… III-90 T. Locations of Resource Documents……………………………………..…..….. III-91-92 Section IV – PGSCD Standard Erosion and Sediment Control Plan A. Standard Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Checklist….……..……….……. IV-1 B. Non-Tidal Wetlands of Special State Concern………………………………… IV-2 C. Sample copy of PGSCD Standard Erosion and Sediment Control Plan……………………………………………………....……….…… IV-3-4 Section V – Prince George’s Soil Conservation District Details A. PGSCD Detail – 1 Sediment Basin Horizontal Draw – Down Device………… V-1-4 B. PGSCD Detail – 2 Sandbag Diversion…………………………………………. V-5-8 iv Table of Contents Section VI – PGSCD Forest Harvest
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Native News, September/October 2006
    Native News Newsletter of the Maryland Native Plant Society September/October 2006 Volume 6 Number 5 Inside This Issue: Upcoming Monthly Meetings President’s Letter Page 2 “Goldenrods, Asters, and Thoroughworts” ~ Tuesday, September 26, 7:30 pm MNPS Contacts White Oak Library – Large Meeting Room Page 2 ~ The Asteraceae (Aster Family) is a large and diverse family that is MNPS Announcements especially well-developed in North America. Maryland and the mid- Page 3 Atlantic region are home to a particularly rich diversity of native plants ~ in the Aster Family. Join botanist Rod Simmons for an in-depth Upcoming Chapter Events Page 3 presentation of the many native species of Solidago, Eupatorium, and ~ Aster (formerly) in Maryland. The talk will focus on identification of Wildflower in Focus the common species, but will also include uncommon and rare ones Page 4 and habitats throughout the state where they may be found. Live plant ~ material will be available for hands-on identification. Late Summer/Fall Field Trips Page 5 “The Importance of Hybridization in the ~ Invasive Exotic Plant Systematic Evolution of Oaks” Removal Workdays Tuesday, October 24, 7:30 pm Page 6 White Oak Library – Large Meeting Room ~ General Announcements The oaks are one of North America’s most widespread and important Page 7 trees. Nearly 80 native species of oaks occur in North America, not including the numerous natural hybrids and app. 100 species in Mexico. Maryland is one of the most diverse areas in the east for oaks, with 21 of the 41 oak species native to the eastern U.S., not including hybrids.
    [Show full text]
  • Section III: County Profile
    Section III: County Profile Approved General Plan | 51 SECTION III: COUNTY PROFILE 52 | PLAN Prince George’s 2035 SECTION III: COUNTY PROFILE County Profile and Analysis .....54 Assets and Challenges ............. 72 Indicates that the definition of a word or term may be found in the Glossary of Terms, which starts on page 282. Approved General Plan | 53 County Profile and Analysis COUNTY PROFILE AND ANALYSIS County Profile and Analysis Understanding who Prince George’s County is today and who it is becoming is critical to developing effective policies and strategies to meet the needs of current and future residents. Regional Context Prince George’s County consists of 498 square miles (approximately 320,000 acres). It is bounded by Howard County to the north, Anne Arundel County and Calvert County to the east, Charles County to the south, and Montgomery County, Fairfax County, Virginia, and the District of Columbia to the west (see Map 5). Prince George’s County is located within the Washington metropolitan area, which is home to 5.6 million residents and 3.9 million jobs. The region’s strong and diverse economy is fueled by federal spending that has weathered recent recessions and nurtured growing research, commerce, information, and technology sectors. Municipalities Prince George’s County has 27 incorporated municipalities which help provide a range of critical services for County residents (see Public Facilities Element). Demographic Profile Population With an estimated population of 881,130 in 2012, Prince George’s County is the third most populous jurisdiction in the Washington metropolitan area, following Fairfax County (1,118,602), Virginia and neighboring Montgomery County (1,004,709).
    [Show full text]
  • News and Notes Prince George's County J § 'W
    News and Notes Prince George's County J § 'W . CO , Historical Society ! = = 3 e 'MaritlU' February 1997 Our 45th Year Volume XXV Number 1 BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1997 President - Jane Eagen Directors 1997-1999 Past Presidents Vice President - Eugene Roberts, Jr. Mildred Ridgeley Gray John Giannetti Secretary - Sarah Bourne Melinda Alter Paul T. Lanham Treasurer - John Bourne Katherine Clagett Warren Rhoads Historian - Frederick DeMarr Directors 1996-1998 W.C. (Bud) Button Editor - Sharon Howe Sweeting Julie Bright Joyce MacDonald John Mitchell William Uber Illustration by Fred H. Greenberg from Washington Itself by E. J. Applewhite, 1986 JOIN US on SATURDAY, MARCH 8 at 2:00 pm at the Glenn Dale Community Center Mr David J. Danelski, Supreme Court Historian, will speak on Sons of Maryland on the United States Supreme Court: Thomas Johnson, Samuel Chase, Gabriel Duvall, Roger Brooke Taney and Thurgood Marshall. Mr. Danelski has researched, taught and written extensively about the United States Supreme Count. He will share little know stories and attempt to undo some popular misconceptions about these men. We have invited the members of the Duvall Society to join us for this celebration of Gabriel Duvall. The reception following the program will be at Marietta, home of Gabriel Duvall. FROM THE EDITOR'S DESK Happy New Year. You will notice on the cover the new/old Board of Directors of the Historical Society and an announcement of the meeting on Saturday, March 8 (2:00 pm, Glenn Dale Community Center) on "Sons of Maryland on the United States Supreme Court." This issue begins with the continuation of a column called Meet the Meet the Board Board written by Secretary Sarah Bourne.
    [Show full text]
  • Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail Connecting
    CAPTAIN JOHN SMITH CHESAPEAKE NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL CONNECTING TRAILS EVALUATION STUDY 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 405 Annapolis, MD 21403 CONTENTS Acknowledgments 2 Executive Summary 3 Statement of Study Findings 5 Introduction 9 Research Team Reports 10 Anacostia River 11 Chester River 15 Choptank River 19 Susquehanna River 23 Upper James River 27 Upper Nanticoke River 30 Appendix: Research Teams’ Executive Summaries and Bibliographies 34 Anacostia River 34 Chester River 37 Choptank River 40 Susquehanna River 44 Upper James River 54 Upper Nanticoke River 56 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are truly thankful to the research and project team, led by John S. Salmon, for the months of dedicated research, mapping, and analysis that led to the production of this important study. In all, more than 35 pro- fessionals, including professors and students representing six universities, American Indian representatives, consultants, public agency representatives, and community leaders contributed to this report. Each person brought an extraordinary depth of knowledge, keen insight and a personal devotion to the project. We are especially grateful for the generous financial support that we received from the following private foundations, organizations and corporate partners: The Morris & Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation, The Clay- ton Fund, Inc., Colcom Foundation, The Conservation Fund, Lockheed Martin, the Richard King Mellon Foundation, The Merrill Foundation, the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, the Rauch Foundation, The Peter Jay Sharp Foundation, Verizon, Virginia Environmental Endowment and the Wallace Genetic Foundation. Without their support this project would simply not have been possible. Finally, we would like to extend a special thank you to the board of directors of the Chesapeake Conser- vancy, and to John Maounis, Superintendent of the National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Office, for their leadership and unwavering commitment to the Captain John Smith Chesapeake Trail.
    [Show full text]
  • Deer and Turkey Tagging & Checking
    DEER AND TURKEY TAGGING & CHECKING Chronic Wasting Disease Management Area Boundary Description The management area includes all of Allegany County and Harvest Management Unit 250 in western Washington County. • Eastern Boundary: I-70 from the Maryland/ • Western Boundary: The Allegany/Garrett County Pennsylvania border south to Rt. 522, then south line from the Maryland/West Virginia border on Rt. 522 to the Maryland/West Virginia border. north to the Maryland/Pennsylvania border. • Southern Boundary: The Maryland/West • Northern Boundary: The Maryland/ Virginia border from Rt. 522 west to the Pennsylvania border from the Allegany/Garrett Allegany/Garrett County line. County line east to I-70. PUBLIC LAND CODES BY COUNTY ALLEGANY COUNTY 01 Earleville WMA 363 Gunpowder SP 327 Patuxent Naval Air Station 465 Dan’s Mountain WMA 240 Fair Hill NRMA 364 Susquehanna SP 328 Elm’s CWMA 466 Warrior Mountain WMA 241 Grove Farm WMA 366 Stoney Demonstration Forest 329 St. Mary’s SP or Salem Tract 467 Green Ridge SF 242 Old Bohemia WMA 367 HOWARD COUNTY 13 Historic St. Mary’s City CWMA 468 Billmeyer WMA 243 CHARLES COUNTY 08 Hugg-Thomas WMA 415 Greenwell SP 469 Rocky Gap SP 244 Riverside WMA 395 Patuxent River SP 416 Myrtle Point CWMA 600 Belle Grove WMA 245 Chapman SP (Mt. Aventine) 397 Patapsco SP 417 SOMERSET COUNTY 19 Sideling Hill WMA 246 Nanjemoy WMA 398 Triadelphia/Rocky Gorge Deal Island WMA 500 604 McCoole Fishery Management Cedar Point WMA 399 (WSSC) Fairmount WMA 501 247 Indian Head Naval Ordinance Cedar Island WMA 503 Area 400 KENT COUNTY
    [Show full text]
  • Digest of Testimony of the Joint Public Hearing September 27, 2016 With
    Prince George’s County Preliminary Resource Conservation Plan DIGEST OF TESTIMONY Joint Public Hearing September 27, 2016 with Planning Board Actions The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Prince George’s County Planning Department pgplanning.org Planning Board District Council Testimony Speaker/Exhibit Discussion/Staff Recommendation Action Action General Comments 1 Topic: Overall support of the plan. Discussion: Planning Board concurs with staff “The City Council supports the Plan’s objectives, policies and Exhibit 28 N/A recommendation. strategies, and appreciates the opportunity to provide comment.” G. Frederick Robinson Staff Recommendation: Mayor for Bowie No change to the plan. City Council “We find the Conservation Plan consistent with the planning Exhibit 29 principles and policies of NCPC’s Comprehensive Plan for the Marcel Acosta National Capital: Federal Elements (Comprehensive Plan). The Executive Director Conservation Plan goals, including enhancing water quality, tree National Planning coverage, and designated viewsheds reinforces multiple policies Capital in the Environment, Parks and Open Space; and Historic Commission Preservation Elements of the Comprehensive Plan.” “The RCP is a comprehensive plan that recognizes the Exhibit 30 importance of protecting the natural resources within the county. Steven E. Darcy The plan strives to strike a balance between growth, conservation District Manager and preservation of the county’s significant rural character. The Prince George’s plan suggests actions to maintain and indeed improve the Soil Conservation sustained economic growth of the county. Connectivity of green District spaces, forestland and agricultural land suggested by the RCP strives to provide a process to economic growth, sustainability and improved quality of life.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland Land Preservation and Recreation Plan 2014-2018
    Maryland Land Preservation and Recreation Plan 2014-2018 Dear Citizens: Our land is the foundation of our economic and social prosperity, rich in productive forests and farms, vital wildlife habitat, opportunities for recreation and tourism, culture and history. As our State grows and changes, it is important to continually evaluate our mission and investments for the benefit of Maryland and its citizens. As champion of public land conservation and outdoor recreation, DNR is pleased to present the Land Preservation and Recreation Plan for 2014-2018 — a comprehensive, statewide plan that will guide our efforts to conserve open space and enhance outdoor resources on State lands for the next five years. Outlining clear goals and measurable action items, the Plan will enhance coordination among local, County and State planners; promote the benefits of outdoor recreation and natural resources; improve access to land and water-based recreation for every Marylander; and connect public trails and lands to the places where people work, live and play. This Plan was developed in cooperation with State, County and local officials, stakeholders and citizens in accordance with the U.S. Department of Interior, Land and Water Conservation Fund guidelines. By helping direct preservation to priority lands and fostering a greater connection to the outdoors, it supports the benefits of health and recreation, economic vitality and environmental sustainability for all citizens. Sincerely, Martin O’Malley Joseph P. Gill Governor Secretary THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Maryland Land Preservation and Recreation Plan 2014-2018 “Connecting People & Places” Honorable Martin J. O’Malley, Governor State of Maryland Joseph P.
    [Show full text]
  • Final DRAFT - Public Environmental Conditions Report Louise F
    Final DRAFT - Public Environmental Conditions Report Louise F. Cosca Regional Park January 2021 LOUISE F. COSCA REGIONAL PARK ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS REPORT Prepared For: M-NCPPC Cosca Regional Park 11000 Thrift Road Clinton, MD 20735 Prepared By: Environmental Systems Analysis, Inc. 2141 Priest Bridge Drive, Suite 1 Crofton, MD 21114 FINAL DRAFT FOR PUBLIC VIEW JANUARY 2021 Environmental Conditions Report Cosca Regional Park Master Park Development Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Methods .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Results .................................................................................................................................................... 3 Forest Stands/Natural Communities ..................................................................................................... 3 Forest Stand #1 - Mature Mixed Hardwoods ................................................................................... 5 Forest Stand #2 - Forested Floodplain and Bottomlands ................................................................... 7 Forest Stand #3 – Mid-Seral Disturbed ............................................................................................. 7 Site Soils ............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Part B Guidelines for the Preparation of a Natural Resource Inventory
    Part B Guidelines for the Preparation of a Natural Resource Inventory 1.0 INTRODUCTION A Natural Resources Inventory (NRI), as defined in Subtitles 24 and 27 is: “A plan map and supporting documentation or letter that provides all required information regarding the existing physical and environmental conditions on a site that is approved by the Planning Director or designee as described in the Environmental Technical Manual as approved and amended from time to time.” An NRI is a detailed inventory of the lots or parcels or combination of lots and parcels that will be the subject of a development application. It provides detailed information on the land, ecological resources, and hydrologic resources, as well as any existing structural features of a site. The primary purpose of an NRI is to provide a base plan to be used in the design of the site for land development proposals. It is also used by regulatory agencies for review with various development applications. There are five (5) types of NRIs; however, an NRI is not a substitute, exemption or waiver from the requirements of Subtitle 25, Division 2, Woodland and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Ordinance (WCO). 1.1 NRI APPLICABILITY The following provides clarification of the types of applications that do and do not require a NRI. 1.1.1 Applications That DO Require Submittal of a NRI An approved NRI is required to be included in the following applications: • Preliminary Plan of Subdivision • Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Conservation Plan • Type 2 Tree Conservation Plan applications to establish a Woodland Conservation Bank • Stormwater Management IF the project does not meet the criteria listed in section 1.1.2.
    [Show full text]
  • CHESAPEAKE BAY LOWLANDS ECOREGIONAL PLAN Conservation Science Support—Northeast and Caribbean
    CHESAPEAKE BAY LOWLANDS ECOREGIONAL PLAN Conservation Science Support—Northeast and Caribbean The Chesapeake Bay Lowlands Plan is a first iteration. The draft report that was distributed in hardcopy for review on 6/27/2002 is included on the CD. No updates were made to that version. CSS is now developing a standard template for ecoregional plans, which we have applied to the CBY ecoregional plan report. Some of the CBY results have been edited or updated for this version. Click on index in the navigation plane to browse the report sections. Note: The Bibliography (still slightly incomplete) contains the references cited in all report sections except for the Marine references, which have their own bibliography. What is the purpose of the report template? The purpose of creating a standard template for ecoregional plans in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic is twofold: — to compile concise descriptions of methodologies developed and used for ecoregional planning in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. These descriptions are meant to meet the needs of planning team members who need authoritative text to include in future plan documents, of science staff who need to respond to questions of methodology, and of program and state directors looking for material for general audience publications. — to create a modular resource whose pieces can be selected, incorporated in various formats, linked to in other documents, and updated easily. How does the template work? Methods are separated from results in this format, and the bulk of our work has gone into the standard methods sections. We have tried to make each methods section stand alone.
    [Show full text]
  • Fiscal Year 2020 DNR Lands Acreage Report
    Fiscal Year 2020 DNR Lands Acreage Report Table of Contents Overview of the Department’s Public Lands System 4 Land Unit Designations and Types – Definitions 4 County Abbreviations 7 Acreage Summary 8 DNR Acreage by Type of Facility State Park System 9 State Forest System 12 Wildlife Management Areas 13 Fishery Management Areas 15 Undesignated Properties 16 Marine / Communications Facilities 16 DNR Acreage by County Allegany 17 Anne Arundel 17 Baltimore County 17 Calvert 18 Caroline 18 Carroll 18 Cecil 18 Charles 18 Dorchester 19 Frederick 19 Garrett 20 Harford 20 Howard 20 Kent 20 Montgomery 21 Prince George's 21 Queen Anne's 21 Somerset 22 St. Mary's 22 Talbot 22 Washington 22 Wicomico 23 Worcester 23 Maryland’s Heritage Conservation System Statewide Acreage 24 Maryland’s Wildlands Preservation System Statewide Acreage 25 Wildlands Graphic 26 Acreage Report 2020 Page 2 Printed on Recycled Paper Get this data and map links from our FREE app Google Play is a trademark of Google Inc. Apple and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries. App Store is a service mark of Apple Inc. Acreage Report 2020 Page 3 Printed on Recycled Paper Overview of the Department’s Public Lands System Maryland is recognized throughout the nation for its innovative land acquisition and protection programs, including Program Open Space, the Rural Legacy Program, and the Maryland Environmental Trust (MET). The Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) owns (in fee simple) and manages over 498,000 acres of public lands and protected open space across the state.
    [Show full text]
  • Belt Woods Hunting.Pdf
    To: City Council From: John L. Fitzwater Acting City Manager Subject: Belt Woods Hunting Date: November 16, 2016 City Council has received concerns about hunting activities on the Belt Woods property located in the northwest quadrant of Church Road and Route 214. In October 2016, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) opened Belt Woods to public hunting for the first time. The following e-mail was sent by DNR to hunters describing this opportunity. “There is a new public hunting opportunity available in Prince George’s County. As of October 20, 2016 the 625 acre Belt Woods Natural Environment Area (NEA) will be available for regulated deer hunting which will take place during the archery, muzzle loader, and firearms seasons. The program will follow established season dates and bag limits found in the 2016-2017 Guide to Hunting and Trapping in Maryland. Hunter access to Belt Woods NEA will require possession of a free Southern Region Public Hunting Permit and daily reservations available from the Myrtle Grove WMA office. Hunters must park in the designated parking area only. This property can accommodate up to 8 hunters per day. This program is designed to provide managed public hunting access to the site (Belt Woods NEA). After a comprehensive analysis and review of existing activities and practices on the property, park managers, in consultation with wildlife biologists and experts, decided to continue the limited and managed deer hunt program as a vital tool in ongoing efforts to manage the local population of white-tailed deer.” As indicated above the property is open to eight hunters per day by permit and reservation.
    [Show full text]