Baltimore County
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 .............................................................................................................................................. -
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 -
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 -
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). -
<:~7~~~~-~ ~ /(;""D~~~:1~~:?- Supervisor
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. -
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 ............................................................................................................ -
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 . -
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. -
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. -
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 -
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 -
“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.