Non-tidal wetlands study of the Patuxent River Watershed report of the Water Resources Administration

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Non...Tidal Wetlands Study
of the
Patuxent River Watershed

@r- 4@,,

GB
626
T3S
M37
1980

March 1980

NON-TIDAL WETLANDS STUDY

OF THE PATUXENT RIVER WATERSHED

12E,

4;@@ 41:

Report of the Water Resources Administration

submitted to the Maryland Legislature

in response to Senate Joint Resolution No. 18 (1979)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Water Resources Administration acknowledges
the assistance of the Coastal Resources Division,
Tidewater Administration in the conduct of the
inventory and development of this report.

The various drafts and the final report were patiently
typed by Virginia Tauber. Cover photograph was taken
by Alan R. Clark, WRA

Preparation of this report was partially funded by the
Office of Coastal Zone Management National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration through a grant to Maryland's
Coastal Zone Management Program.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

II. STUDY PURPOSE.

III. BACKGROUND OF THE RESOLUTION

IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE PATUXENT RIVER WATERSHED

V. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS

A. Methodology

1. Wetland Definition

2. Mapping Methods

a. materials

b. procedure

3. Characteristic Wetland Types

B. Results and Tables

C. Discussion of Results

VI. EXPLANATION OF AVAILABLE REGULATIGNS AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
AFFECTING PROTECTION OF NON-TIDAL WETLANDS OF THE PATUXENT
RIVER WATERSHED

A. Maryland Scenic Rivers Act

B. Soil Conservation District Programs

C. Patuxent River Watershed Act

D. Water Resources Administration - Watershed Permits Program

E. Critical Areas Program

F. Federal Flood Insurance Program

G. Corps of Engineers 404 Permit Program

VII. POTENTIAL NEW REGULATORY PROGRAMS PROVIDING PROTECTION FOR
NON-TIDAL WETLANDS OF THE PATUXENT RIVER WATERSHED

A. Local Jurisdiction Non-Tidal Wetland Permit Program

B. Statewide Non-Tidal Wetland Permit Program

VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROTECTION OF NON-TIDAL 14ETLANDS OF THE
PATUXENT RIVER WATERSHED

IX. REFERENCES

EXECUTIYE SUMMARY

Through concern for the protection of non-tidal wetland
resources in Maryland, and more specifically in the
Patuxent River Watershed, the Legislature passed Senate
Joint Resolution No. 18 (1979). The Resolution mandated
the Water Resources Administration (WRA) of the Department
of Natural Resources 1) to determine the extent and location
of non-tidal wetlands in the Patuxent River Watershed,
2) to provide recommendations and any applicable suggest-
ions for legislation to protect these non-tidal wetlands
and 3) to give consideration to protection of these non-
tidal wetlands through administration of Water Resources
Administration programs.

In response to this mandate, the 14RA in conjunction with
the Coastal Resources Division, Tidewater Administration,
conducted an inventory of non-tidal wetlands in the Patuxent
River Watershed and investigated alternative methods for
protectinq them.

Non-tidal wetlands were defined according to the definition
adopted by the National Wetlands Inventory, an ongoing
mapping effort of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Conduct of the Patuxent Wetland Inventory included inter-
pretation of aerial photographs, field investigations, and
boundary mapping and typing of wetlands on 29 U. S. Geo-
logical Survey quadrangle maps. The predominant non-tidal
wetland types in the Patuxent River Watershed are wooded
swamps and shrub swamps. Approximately 4,990 acres of
non-tidal wetlands were identified and mapped within the
930 square mile Patuxent River Watershed. Non-tidal wetland
resources within the watershed comprise less than 1% of
available land area. The majority lie within Prince George's
and Anne Arundel Counties. About 11% of the 4,990 acres of
non-tidal wetlands are exempt from current regulation due
to their positions outside of the limits of the 100-year
floodplain.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Continued

Seven existing programs were reviewed for their applicability
or capability for regulatory overview of non-tidal wetland
alterations. Of these programs the Watershed Permits Program
of WRA provides the most effective resource management and
regulatory vehicle now available. Said program has an
enforcement capability.

Establishment of a non-tidal wetland permit program, expressly
for the Patuxent River Watershed, is not practical considering
the current extent of regulation through which there is
reasonable assurance that the desired resource protection can
be determined. Establishment of a non-tidal wetland permit
program within the State has merit, especially if administered
from the perspective of State overview. Information useful
for further consideration of a State-wide non-tidal wetland
protection program will be available upon completion of the
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Inventory. Legislation
addressing a State-wide non-tidal wetland protection program
should be deferred at least until the referenced federal
inventory affecting Maryland's wetlands and current flood-
plain mapping by the State are completed.

It is the recommendation of the Water Resources Administration
that the existing Watershed Permit Program be used to accomplish
the objectives of Senate Joint Resolution No. 18 (1979).

Specific recommendations include that the WRA assume the respon-
sibility for 1) holding an informational meeting within each of
the seven affected counties to redefine procedures for coordin-
ation on matters affecting protection of these non-tidal wetlands,
and 2) that affected counties, Soil Conservation Districts and
concerned agencies/organizations be provided with copies of
this report and the Patuxent River Non-tidal Wetland Inventory
Maps in advance of said meeting.

-2-

STUDY PURPOSE

This document contains the Water Resources Administration's
(WRA) response to Senate Joint Resolution No. 18 (1979)
which mandated 1) determination of the extent and location
of non-tidal wetlands in the Patuxent River Watershed, 2)
recommendations for protection of these non-tidal wetlands,
and 3) considerations for protection through administration
of other programs.

III. BACKGROUND OF THE RESOLUTION

At least 23,700 wetland acres were reported as destroyed in Mary-
land during the 25 year period from 1942 to 1967. Losses have
been attributed to agricultural drainage, flood control, housing
development, industrial development, marinas, dredging, spoil
disposal, utility and public works projects, erosion and natural
succession (Metzgar, 1973). Because of the fragile nature of
wetlands, man's activities often inflict irreversible changes
which seriously alter the natural functions of wetlands.

Wetlands and their associated natural resources have played an
important role in Maryland's development and aesthetic and
recreational diversity. Through their diversity and distribution,
wetlands provide essential natural values such as biomass
protection, nursery areas for fish, critical habitat for a
variety of plant and animal species, reservoirs and/or sinks
for nutrients, oxygen production and geochemical cycling,
natural capability for flood control, natural capability for
water filtration and sediment storage, provision of economic
return through fur, fish, wildlife, and timber production, and
associated fees for hunting, fishing and trapping privileges.

Public awareness of the impending threat to and values derived from
wetland resources led the 1970 Maryland Legislature to respond to
the alarming reduction of resources through passage of the Wet-
lands Law - (Natural Resources Article - Title 9 - Annotated
Code of Maryland 1974). The Wetlands Law affects only tidal
wetlands which constitute about 80 percent of Maryland's total
wetland resources (McCormick & Somes, 1979).

Through Senate Joint Resolution No. 18@ the Legislature seeks
information relevant to the remaining 20 percent of the State's
wetland resources. Non-tidal wetlands of the Patuxent River
Watershed were suggested as a microcosm within which to analyse
non-tidal wetland resource characteristics and to provide an
understanding of our existing or needed regulatory capability
for coping with threats upon these remaining non-tidal wetland
resources.

-3-

IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE PATUXENT RIVER WATERSHED

The Patuxent River is one of nine designated Wild and Scenic Rivers
in the State. Its position within both Coastal Plain and Piedmont
Regions and its assemblage of varied land uses and associated
vulnerability to man's activities makes this river system a logical
selection for evaluation.

This 930 square mile watershed lies within Montgomery, Howard,
Prince George's, Anne Arundel, Calvert, Charles, and St. Mary's
Counties. The watershed within Montgomery, Howard and part of
Prince George's Counties features the characteristically rolling
topography and predominately agricultural land use of the Piedmont
Region. The remaining counties are in the Coastal Plain. Coastal Plain
areas in the Patuxent River Watershed of Prince George's and Anne Arundel
Counties are predominately forested with local high residential
densities and less extensive occurrences of interspersed agri-
culture and gravel mining. The watershed in Calvert, Charles
and St. Mary's Counties features low residential densities with
river margin forests and somewhat less intensive agricultural land
use than in the upper portion of the watershed.

Most of the non-tidal wetlands identified in the Patuxent River
wetland inventory are within the confines of the 100-year flood-
plain and occur in proximity to perennial watercourses. Wetland
types are predominately forested, herbaceous, or shrub areas
within forests.

V. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS

A. Methodology

The Water Resources Administration undertook this inventory as a
cooperative effort with the Energy and Coastal Zone Administration.
With assistance provided by the Energy and Coastal Zone Adminis-
tration (now known as the Coastal Resources Division, Tidewater
Administration), WRA was able to complete this inventory through
use of inhouse capabilities and experience. Generally, development
of the inventory procedure entailed investigating previous in-
ventories, (Metzgar, 1973 and St. of Md. 1976), defining the
bounds of the inventory area, and considering methodology and
final product options.

-4-

Wetland Definition

Before the mapping of non-tidal wetlands could begin, a non-
tidal wetland definition had to be adopted. The U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) is presently conducting the National
Wetlands Inventory, a nationwide mapping effort of tidal and non-
tidal wetlands. As part of that effort, the FWS has developed
an updated wetland classification system that is all inclusive
and can be applied to the diverse types of wetlands encountered
across the country. The WRA adopted this classification system
in order to maintain consistency between the Patuxent River
inventory and the federal inventory. The product of this study will
be forwarded to the National Wetlands Inventory Team for use in
their efforts in Maryland. The FWS defines a wetland as an area
where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long
enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or to support the
growth of hydrophytes, i.e., moisture-loving plants (Cowardin,
et.al., 1977). However, the above definition is very broad and
includes many areas which support upland, as well as wetland plant
species. Due to time constraints, a more restrictive version of the
wetland definition was used; i.e., mapping of only those non-tidal
wetlands not subjected to the "Temporarily Flooded" and "Inter-
mittently Flooded" water regmes, as defined in Cowardin, et.al., 1977.
A restrictive interpretation of the definition includes all non-tidal
wetlands that are frequently flooded and/or saturated during most of
the year and are therefore easier to detect on infra-red aerial
photography. These non-tidal wetlands are dominated by hydrophytes.
The Patuxent River watershed includes areas of "Temporarily" and
"Intermittently" flooded wetlands. However, these types can
support many upland plant species, and the water table may lie
well below the soil surface during most of the year. Hence,
detection is difficult, and mapping of these areas would be
very time consuming both in terms of technical methodology and
acreage to be inventoried. Such areas are also considered
to be lower priority wetlands by many authorities; for example,
the agreement between the U. S. Soil Conservation Service
and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service excludes detailed review of
small watershed alteration projects that include such "Tempor-
arily Flooded" and "Intermittently Flooded" areas.

2. Mapping Methods

a. Materials

The primary source of aerial photographs for the inventory
was a March 13, 1974 flight of false color infra-red (IR)
photography at a scale of 1:130,000 (Capital Programs Adminis-
tration of the Department of Natural Resources). Also
examined was a spring 1977 flight of like scale IR photo-
graphy (Department of State Planning). These photographs
were used to delineate the wetland boundaries.

-5-

Upon completion of the boundary mapping, larger scale photo-
graphy was examined in order to type the wetlands. For
non-tidal wetlands abutting tidal areas, autumn 1971 natural
color photography at a scale of 1:12,000 (Wetland Permit Divis-
ion, Water Resources Administration) was used. For the rest of
the watershed, autumn 1971 black and white photography at a
scale of 1:20,000 (Agricultural Soil Stabilization and Conser-
vation Service, USDA) was used. To recheck type designations,
spring 1978 U2 imagery, optical bar at a scale of approximately
1:30,000 (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency) was examined.

An Old Delft scanning stereoscope was used to view all
available photography under variable magnification
(1.5x to 4.5x). Pocket stereoscopes (2x) were also used.

All wetland boundaries were mapped on United States
Geological Survey (USGS) 7-@ minute quadrangle (quad)
maps at a scale of 1:24,000. Twenty-nine quads cover the
entire Patuxent Watershed.

b. Procedure

Prior to the examination of aerial photography, the
interpreters conducted extensive field verification to
become familiar with wetland "signature" on the photo-
graphs. Using the scanning stereoscope, the aerial
photography was then systematically examined. As part
of the photographic interpretation effort, problem areas
were field verified. The inventory entailed a ratio of
time expenditure of about 1 to 10 relative to field and
office effort. The minimum size mapping unit was one
acre. This standard was applied because of tree canopy
and photography resolution constraints inherent in the
mapping of smaller areas.

As wetlands were detected on the aerial photographs, the
interpreters traced the boundaries onto mylar sheets which
had been placed over the photographs. During this procedure,
U.S.D.A. Soil Surveys were consulted to more accurately
locate non-tidal wetlands and map the boundaries. Bound-
aries were based not only on "signatures" on aerial photo-
graphs but also on wetland soil distribution as indicated in
the Soil Surveys (U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service). The
mylars were then enlarged to quad scale using a Kargl Re-
flecting Projector (Keuffel and Esser Co.). This enlarge-
ment procedure was done twice due to the discrepancy between
the scale of the photography and the quad sheets and the
.limitations of the projector. During final enlargement,
the boundaries were directly traced onto the quad sheets.
All boundaries were re-checked for size and location after
the transfer.

-6-

Wetland acreages were determined with a Modified Acrea e Grid
(Item #45010, Forestry Suppliers, Inc., Jackson, Miss.@. The
limits of the 100-year floodplain and 400-acre drainage areas
.(see Section VI. D. 2 for explanation of relevance) on all
tributaries were estimated with the inhouse assistance of WRA
Floodplain Management Division personnel.

Once all non-tidal wetlands were mapped, each wetland was
typed according to the classification scheme discussed in
Section V. A. I above. Typing symbols on the quad sheets
are consistent with those being used in the National Wetlands
Inventory. Figure 1 depicts the legend of the National Wet-
lands Inventory. Those wetland types that occur in the WRA
Patuxent Non-Tidal Wetland Inventory are circled.

3. Characteristic Wetland Types

The following is a brief description of the predominant wetland
types of the Patuxent River Watershed. Much of the following
description is from Hotchkiss and Stewart (1947).

----- Palustrine broad-leaved deciduous forested or
scrub shrub wetlands (map symbols PFOI or PSSI)

These types are the typical wooded and shrub swamps (i.e., wooded
wetlands) usually located in the floodplain of the Patuxent River.
Most of these wetlands are seasonally flooded and their soils are
either saturated or flooded for most of the year. The predomin-
ant tree species in the wooded swamps are red maple, green ash,
sweet gum, black gum, and pin oak. Some wooded swamps contain
large number of dead trees. The predominant shrubs in both
wooded and shrub swamps are spicebush, winterberry holly, arrow
wood, and smooth alder. Well flooded shrub swamps may be domin-
ated by buttonbush and swamp rose. Depending upon the amount of
sunlight that penetrates the canopy of the swamp, the herbaceous
flora may be lush and diverse.

----- Palustrine emergent wetland (map smybol PEM)

This type includes marshes dominated by herbaceous vegetation.
These marshes are usually associated with wooded swamps and are
generally smaller. The Predominant plant species are rice
cut-grass, smartweeds, tear-thumbs, cattail, arrow arum, and
arrowheads.

----- Palustrine open water (map symbol POW)

This type includes the numerous man-made ponds in the watershed.

-7-

NA 1. NY i:@ I i-AIN
INVENTORY NIAP LEGEND FIGUU 1

WETLAND SYSTEM ANTD SUBSYSTEM

Svstein
Subsvstern

Nlarine OL
Subtidal 0 No Subsystem Limnetic
Intertidal Littoral
F91 Riverine
Tidal
Estuarine Lower Perennial Upland
M, Subtidal Upper Perennial
Intertidal Intermittent

WETLAND CLASS tAuNrD S UB IC LA S S

C3 Class E9 Flat Emergent
El Subclass 10 Cobble/Gravel Persistent
Open Water/Unknown Bottoni F11 Sapd Nonpersisterit
03 Mud Narrow-leaved Non persistent
Organic
Rock Bottom Broad-leaved Noriparsistent
Bedrock Vegetated Pioneer Narrow-leaved Persistent
F21 Vegetated Non-pioneer Broad-leaved Persistent
Boulder
0 Rock), Shore E9 Moss/Lichen
Unconsolidated Bottorn Ell Bedrock Moss
Cobble/Gravel 0 Boulder Lichen
Sand E Vegetated Non-pioneer b/Shrub
Mud Broad-leaved Deciduous
Organic Reef Needle-leaved Deciduous
Coral road
B, -1.-,aved Everarccn
Mollusc Needle-leaved Evergreen
Streambed Worm Dead
Cobble/Gravel Deciduous
Sand Aquatic Bed Evergreen
El Mud El Submcment Algal
Organic Submergent Vascular orested
Sub-nerrv,-nt Moss Broad-leaved Deciduous
Floating - Le"wed Needle-leaved Deciduous
El Beach/Bar El Floatin' Broad-leaved E@rergr"n
- 9 4
Cobblc/Gravel Unknowa Subini!r,icnt Needle-leaved Everaretri
Sand UA111OWn Surface Dead
Deciduous
Even:reen

PATUXENT RIVI,'k WATI,@I@SIIED NON-TIDAL WETLAND INVFNTORY

TOTAL TOTAL NOT REGULATED

USGS Quad Sheet ACRES NUMBER ACRES NUMBER

Gaithersburg 1 1 1 1
South River 1 1 0 0
Beltsville 2 2 2 2
Ellicott City 3 3 2 2
Damascus 6 5 1 1
Charlotte Hall 7 6 6 5
Hughesville 16 9 6 4
Brandywine 29 15 14 3
Clarksville 30 26 7 7
North Beach 30 21 13 10
Sandy Spring 30 .17 17 12
Sykesville 30 28 19 16
Hollywood 39 20 12 10
Solomons Island 46 18 11 8
Woodbine 46 20 13 9
Savage 57 21 15 8
Cove Point 86 22 9 5
Deale 92 22 7 7
Mechanicsville 171 71 19 16
Broomes Island 187 69 23 20
Prince Frederick 191 73 19 16
Upper Marlboro 243 65 9 10
Benedict 306 109 27 16
Lanham 339 119 24 14
Lower Marlboro 430 173 35 21
Bowie 433 124 22 15
Bristol 484 180 31 25
Odenton 495 158 37 32
Laurel 1,160 200 161 55

TOTAL 4,990 1,598 562 (11%) 350 (22%)

TAIIIJ: I I Rf-,(;].ONAI, DISTRIH)UTION AND OCCURRHINC11" 01"
NON-TIDAL WETLANDS IN THE PATUXENT RIVER WATERSHED

ACRES PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT

Northern Region
(Rt. 70 to Laurel) 250 5 144 9

Central Region
(Laurel to Rt. 4 at
Upper Marlboro) 2894 58 751 47

Southern Region
(Rt. 4 to Chesapeake Bay)
1846 37 703 44

Total 4990 100 1598 100

TABLE III REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION AND PERCENT OCCURRENCE OF
NON-TIDAL WETLANDS NOT REGULATED IN THE PATUXENT
RIVER WATERSHED

ACRES PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT

Northern Region
(Rt. 70 to Laurel) 97 17 65 19

Central Region
(Laurel to Rt. 4 at
Upper Marlboro) 267 48 138 39

Southern Region
(Rt. 4 to
Chesapeake Bay) 198 35 147 42

Total 562 100 350 100

Table III clarifies the regional distribution of those non-
tidal wetlands which are not regulated. Of the total
acreage and number of non-tidal wetlands, 11% (562 acres)
and 22% (350), respectively, are not regulated (See Section
VI. (D) of this report for explanation of non-tidal wetland
protection limitations under current regulation.)

A large portion of these non-tidal wetlands, expecially
those in the northern region, are small one or two acre
ponds (Palustrine Open Water); approximately 27% of the
total area and 38% of the total number of the non-tidal
wetlands not regulated are typed as ponds. Those remain-
ing consist of Palustrine forested or scrub-shrub and to
a lesser extent Palustrine emergent wetland types. In
summary, 449 acres (9%) of the total acreage and 217
(14%) of the total number of non-tidal wetlands which
are not small ponds are exempt from current regulatory
programs.

This inventory represents the most accurate and up-to-
date information on non-tidal wetlands within the Patuxent
River Watershed. However, a certain degree of accuracy
had to be sacrificed due to the time limit imposed. As
previously stated, those non-tidal wetlands along the
Patuxent River that are "Temporarily Flooded" and
"Intermittently Flooded" (Cowardin, et.al., 1977) were
not mapped. Since these areas are extremely difficult
to detect on small scale IR aerial photography, exten-
sive field work would be necessary to map such areas.
Therefore, the actual acreage and number of all non-
tidal wetlands as defined by the National Wetlands
Inventory within the Patuxent River Watershed are greater
than that indicated in the accompanying tables.

VI. EXPLANATION OF AVAILABLE REGULATORY AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS AFFECTING
NON-TIDAL WETLANDS IN THE PATUXENT RIVER WATERSHED

There are seven programs with varying degrees of application of
capability for regulatory overview of non-tidal wetland alter-
ations. Some have a contributory function but are not expressly
directed toward wetland protection.

A. Maryland Scenic Rivers Act. (Annotated Code of Maryland
Natural Resources Article �8-401 et seq.)

-12-

As mentioned earlier, the Patuxent River has been declared a
Wild and Scenic River under the provisions of the Maryland
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Consequently, the river itself
is protected since Section 406 of the Act provides that:

"A dam or other structure impeding the natural flow
of a scenic and wild river may not be constructed,
operated, or maintained in a scenic and wild river,
and channelization may not be undertaken unless
the Secretary (of the Department of Natural Resources)
specifically approves."

For activities occurring along the shorelines of a Wild and
Scenic River, the Act provides an advisory role for the State.
Under the State's direction and with assistance from affected
local governments and a land advisory board, a management Plan
is to be developed for each scenic river. The purpose of
the Plan is educational in nature, having as its purpose the
identification of 1) important natural resources along the
river's shoreline, 2) activities which may threaten the
outstanding values of the river, 3) existing land use along
the river, and 4) existing State and local regulations and
conservation programs affecting the river and its shorelines.
The Plan is also to include recommendations regarding appropri-
ate conservation techniques which could be used by local
governments and landowners to ensure the protection and wise
use of the river. These recommendations are generally
advisory in nature; however, in the case of Deer Creek in
Harford County they resulted in the adoption of local regulat-
ions providing setbacks along the creek to protect its values.
In the case of the Patuxent River, development of a management
Plan is presently not scheduled to be undertaken until F.Y. 1982.

B. Soil Conservation District Programs

Soil Conservation Districts are political subdivisions of the
State. Each of the seven counties within the Patuxent River
Watershed has a district organized in accordance with the Soil
Conservation District Act which was passed by the State Legis-
lature in 1937 (Article 66C, Section 89(d)). Soil Conservation
Districts represent local determinations of problems, policies,
and procedures in the conservation of soil, water, and related
natural resources of the State. They are charged with the
job of assisting in the prevention and control of soil erosion
and in the promotion of proper land use. Their efforts result
in the preservation of natural resources, control of floods,
prevention of siltation in dams and reservoirs, preservation

-13-

of wildlife, as well as protection and promotion
of the public health, safety and welfare. Technical assistance
for carrying out a program of soil and water conservation is
made available to land owners by the U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, through the Soil
Conservation Districts.

Before any person clears, grades, transports or otherwise
disturbs land, the appropriate Soil Conservation District
must receive, review and approve the proposed earth move-
ment (Natural Resources Article �8-1101 et seq.). The
normal role of the Soil Conservation Districts in re-
viewing plans and issuing grading and soil stabilization
approvals is, to encourage through established standards,
the application of land treatment measures needed to reduce
erosion and sedimentation, to minimize adverse site impacts,
and to protect environmental values. In practice there
exists some variability in the effectiveness of the re-
spective counties' enforcement of Soil Conservation District
requirements at the work site. The Water Resources
Administration maintains an overview of the effectiveness of
the various county enforcement programs. Projects funded
or undertaken by the State covernment are automatically
obligated to direct review, approval and enforcement by
the WRA.

Of relevance to the Soil Conservation District review of
grading and sediment control plans, and projects funded or
undertaken by the Soil Conservation Service, is the Soil
Conservation Service's Planning Memorandum of May 5, 1975,
which sets forth a clear policy regarding the conservation
of wetlands. This national policy directs that the Soil
Conservation Service is not to provide technical or
financial assistance for draining or otherwise altering
wetlands in order to convert them to other land uses. The
memorandum applies to both tidal and non-tidal wetlands
and exempts only seasonally flooded basins and inland
fresh meadows (Shaw and Fredine 1956). These exempted
wetland types are also excluded from the Patuxent River
Non-Tidal Wetland Inventory since they are within "Tempor-
arily Flooded" and Intermittently Flooded" water regimes
(as defined by the National Wetlands Inventory). The
policy further directs the Soil Conservation Service to
assist in restoration of damaged wetlands that are not
irrevocably committed to other uses and in establishing
wetland habitat, where appropriate.

-14-

C. Patuxent River Watershed Act.

Natural Resources Article �8-1301, et seq. creates an inter-
jurisdictional governing body to define the Patuxent River
Watershed and to pursue adoption of a watershed plan subject
to the approval of the Department of Natural Resources. The
effect of this statute is to set up a coordinating body
among the seven involved counties and the Maryland National
Capital Park and Planning Commission to provide effective
management and protection of the watershed, primarily through
an acquisition program. As oriented, this Act does not afford
a useful mechanism by which to effect further protection of
presently unregulated non-tidal wetlands within the watershed.

D. Water Resources Administration - Watershed Permits Program

This program Provides the most effective resource management
and regulation vehicle presently available to provide non-
tidal wetland protection. The program functions in concert
with all previously mentioned regulatory mechanisms.

There are several elements to the program as authorized
under the referenced enabling Natural Resources Articles:
1) A Waterway Construction Permit is required before
construction can begin in or along a non-tidal stream or
any construction that changes the course, current or
cross-section of that stream or its 100-year floodplain
(Natural Resources Article �8-803); 2) Waterway
Obstruction Permit is required before construction can begin
on dams, reservoirs, or small ponds except as the latter
is exempted by Natural Resources Article �8-803B; 3)
Surface Mining Permit is required before the extraction
of minerals other than coal can take place (Natural
Resources Article �7-6A-01 et seq., this has particular
significance for wetland protection in those active
sand and gravel mining areas of Anne Arundel and Prince
George's Counties); 4) As part of a comprehensive flood
control-watershed management program, maps and regulations
are being prepared to assist subdivisions with management
of flood hazard areas (Natural Resources Article �8-9A-01
et seq.); 5) The Water Resources Administration has estab-
lished criteria and review authority by which the counties'
enforcement or local sediment control programs are super-
vised (COMAR 08.05.01.02).

The Water Resources Administration also directly reviews
sediment control plans for projects funded or undertaken
by any unit of State government (Natural Resources Article
98-1105).

_15-

As mentioned in Section V - C, 562 acres and 350 individual
non-tidal wetlands within the watershed are not regulated
through Watershed Permits of the Water Resources Adminis-
tration. This lack of regulation originates in two ways.

1) The location of the non-tidal wetland may not be within
the 100-year floodplain and, therefore, requirements for a
State Waterway Construction or Obstruction Permit(s)
cannot be applied under existing statutory authority
of Natural Resources Article 98-803. The inventory
indicates that 171 acres or 3% of the total non-tidal
wetland acreage falls into this category;
2) Rules and Regulations (COMAR 08.05.03.02.B) governing
construction in non-tidal waters and floodplains
currently exempt agricultural drainage systems
affecting less than 2500 acres; activities affecting
the course, current or cross-section of waters of the
State having 400 acres or less of upstream drainage area;
and activities affecting trout streams with less than
100 acres of upstream drainage area. Modification of
this regulation to authorize review of projects with
smaller contributory drainage areas would appreciably
reduce the acreage and numbers of non-tidal wetlands
presently unprotected tfirough current regulation. This
would provide protection to 387 acres or 8% of the non-
tidal wetlands that are not presently protected.

This coordinated network of review, available through the
above referenced Watershed Permits Program, has the
capability for current regulation of all except 9% or
449 acres of the inventoried non-tidal wetlands in the
Patuxent River Watershed. Contrary to the other described
programs, the Watershed Permits Program has an enforcement
capability.

E. Critical Areas Program

The Critical Areas Program was mandated by the State Land
Use Act of 1974 (Article 88C, Section 2(b) (3) ) which gives
the Department of State Planning the responsibility to
identify "...areas of critical State concern, after consul-
tation with and consideration of recommendations submitted
to the Secretary (of the Department of State Planning) by
the local subdivisions." The legislation further states
that "Every county and the City of Baltimore shall make
recommendations to the Department (of State Planning) as to
the areas within their respective jurisdictions which should be
designated as being of critical State concern". The guidelines
established for the program identify three types of areas
suitable for designation:

-16-

I. "Critical Areas Suitable for Preservation are areas where
most forms and levels of alteration resulting from human
activity may create disturbances which have a high prob-
ability of resulting in a significant adverse impact upon
the characteristics of the area, and where strict management
is necessary to retain the area's inherent characteristics
and attributes."

2. "Critical Areas Suitable for Conservation are areas where
alterations through various forms and levels of human
activities can be accomodated without significant adverse
impact upon the inherent characteristics and attributes
of the area, if appropriate management practices are
followed."

3. "Critical Areas Suitable for Utilization are areas where
aTterations through human activity can be accomodated and
encouraged, although there is potential for significant
multi-jurisdictional, environmental, or fiscal impacts,
which should be given consideration. Areas which are
desirable for some predetermined use and should be
maintained in their present state to prevent irreversible
committment of the site or its resources are also included
in this type of area."

The delineation of an area as a State Critical Area is to be
accompanied with the identification of management techniques which
ensure that the future use or development of the area will be
consistent with its attributes. Recommended management techniques
may be carried out by local, state, or federal government, or by
private parties. The sources of authority for managing a designated
critical area include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Local planning and land use regulations: including zoning,
subdivision, related health, sanitation, environmental,
housing and other regulations;

2. Local acquisition, local tax incentives, or management of
property owned by local government;

3. State regulatory programs, such as those for the management
of state wetlands, floodplains, water quality, air quality,
and transportation.

4. State acquisition, state tax incentives, or state management
of state-owned land;

5. Federal acquisition or federal management of federally-owned
land; and

6. Management by private citizens or organizations.

The thrust of the program is to identify a select number of areas
suitable for management under the provisions of the program. There-
fore, the program may provide a mechanism for protecting a few non-
tidal wetlands of high ecological value but could not be used to
provide wide-spread protection for non-tidal wetlands in the Patuxent
River Watershed.

F. Federal Flood Insurance Program

All local governments in the Patuxent River Watershed partici-
pate in the Federal Flood Insurance Program in which local
governments must adopt and administer floodplain management
ordinances in order to obtain guaranteed flood insurance.
While these ordinances are largely aimed at protecting lives
and new construction, they provide some protection to non-
tidal wetlands and other environmentally significant areas
because they restrict development in floodplain areas to a
certain extent. In accordance with the President's Executive
Order 11988 - Floodplain Management and Executive Order 11990 -
Protection of Wetlands, effort is being directed toward requir-
ing greater consideration in local floodplain ordinances of
possible adverse impacts on non-tidal wetlands. Thus, the ordin-
ances enacted under this prugram can complement the protective
measures provided by other programs. However, enactment of
such ordinances is not mandatory until detailed determination of
the boundaries of the 100-year floodplain is completed. Some
of the field work and mapping in the Patuxent River Watershed
has been initiated; however, the complete set of Flood Insurance
Maps will not be available until 1983.

G. Corps of Engineers 404 Permit Program

In 1972 Congress passed amendments to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500). Section 404 of these
amendments authorized the Corps of Engineers to issue permits
for projects involving the discharge or dredged or fill
material into the "Waters of the United States".

Justifications for permit denial under this program could be
adverse effect upon municipal water supply, wildlife,
recreation areas, or fishing areas. In 1977 the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act was again amended with major revisions to
Section 404.

-18-

The Environmental Protection Agency was granted the authority
for delegating to existing State regulatory programs, i.e.,
the WRA Watershed Permits Program, the Corps' permitting
responsibilities in certain State waters which traditionally
have been considered non-navigable; e.g., non-tidal wetlands.
Exemptions from permit requirements are provided for normal
farming and silviculture practices.

Maryland has not sought delegation of the 404 program.
To do so would encumber the State with additional responsib-
ility, funding and staff requirement problems without giving
the State final approval authority which would be retained.
at the Federal level. The 404 permit program, as-presently
administered by the Corps of Engineers, theoretically
provides a level of regulation comparable to that presently
administered through WRA Waterway Construction and Obstruction
Permits.

VII. POTENTIAL NEW REGULATORY PROGRAMS FOR PROVIDING PROTECTION OF
NON-TIDAL WETLANDS IN THE PATUXENT RIVER WATERSHED

A. Local Jurisdiction Non-Tidal Permit program

Any such program would have tu be established by legislation
to protect the non-tidal wetlands. Each affected county
would have to be capable of regulating the wetlands either
independently or through an interjurisdictional governing
body. It should be noted that division of authority without
sufficient overview may lead to inconsistencies as exemplified
by the sediment control programs of the several counties in the
watershed.

B. State-wide Non-tidal Wetland Permit Program

Establishment of a permitting program administered at the
state level for protection of only those non-tidal wetlands
located in the Patuxent River Watershed is not practical,
especially since over 90% of the watersheds non-tidal
wetland acreage is currently regulated with reasonable
assurance of protection. If it is important to totally
protect non-tidal wetlands in the Patuxent River Watershed,
then protection should be provided to non-tidal wetlands
elsewhere, since the non-tidal wetlands of other river systems
in the State may predictably have equal or greater values.
Specific legislation to protect the non-tidal wetlands in
the State would generate sufficient additional work to warrant

_19-

establishment of a separate permit program, similar to that
presently administered Statewide for tidal wetland protection.
The Water Resources Administration's experience with the
existing tidal Wetlands Law strongly suggests that a State-
wide non-tidal Wetland Law would have to be carefully drafted.
The information regarding other states' efforts to legislate
protection of non-tidal wetlands has not indicated the degree
of success that Maryland and other states have experienced
with regard to tidal wetland protection. Legal entanglements
and regulatory program effectiveness variably affect the
level of protection afforded when programs are administered
at the local level (Montanari and Kusler, 1978; U. S. Dept. of
Interior, 1976.)

Establishment of a non-tidal wetland permit program within
the state has merit, especially if administered from the
perspective of state level overview. Information which would
be useful for further consideration of a state-wide non-tidal
wetland protection program will be available upon completion
of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service inventory. Until
that basic inventory information, along with the mapping of
floodplains, has been completed, development of legislation
addressing a state-wide non-tild:! wetland protection program
should be deferred.

VIII. RECOMMENDATION FOR PROTECTION OF NON-TIDAL WETLANDS OF THE
PATUXENT RIVER WATERSHED

It is the recommendation of the Water Resources Administration that
the Watershed Permit Program continue to be used to accomplish
the objectives of Senate Joint Resolution #18 (1979). Under this
existing statutory authority the Department of Natural Resources -
Water Resources Administration has the regulatory and enforcement
capability by way of permit procedures to protect over 90% of
the inventoried non-tidal wetlands in the Patuxent River Water-
shed. Since August, 1978 the Watershed Permit Program has included
explicit criteria regarding review of environmental impacts upon
aquatic and terrestrial habitat within the 100-year floodplain.
The intended purpose of the Resolution can be achieved with minimal
if any, additional biologically-trained staff or funds. All
affected counties, Soil Conservation Districts, and concerned
agencies and organizations should be provided with copies of the
Patuxent River Non-Tidal Wetland Inventory maps. The Water
Resources Administration should conduct informational meetings
within each county at the time of delivery of the maps to re-
define procedures for coordination on matters affecting protection
of these non-tidal wetlands. These meetings will offer opportunity
for an exchange between relevant State and county programs.

-20-

IX. REFERENCES

Annotated Code of Maryand - Natural Resources Article Titles 7, 8 and 9

Cowardin, L. M., Virginia Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1977
Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United
States (an operational draft). Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S.
Department of Interior.

Hotchkiss, N. and R. E. Stewart. 1947. Vegetation of the Patuxent
Research Refuge, Maryland. Am. Midland Nat. 38(l):1-75

McCormick, Jack and Horace A. Somes, Jr. 1979. Coastal Wetlands
in Maryland. Md. Dept. of Nat. Resources. C-oastal-To-ne
agement Program (In publication).

Metzgar, Roy G. 1973. Wetlands in Maryland. Department of State
Planning.

Montanari, John H. and Jon A. Kusler. 1978 Proceedings of the
National Wetland Protection Symposium June 6-8, 1977. Fish
and Wildlife Service, U. S. Department of the Interior.

Shaw, Samuel P. and C. Gordon Fredine. 1956. Wetlands of the
United States. Circular 39: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

State of Maryland. Dept. of Nat. Res. 1978. Rules and Regulations
governing construction on non-tidal waters and floodplains.
COMAR 08.05.03

State of Maryland. 1976. Upland Natural Areas Study: Anne Arundel
Co. and Calvert Co., computer printout. Coastal Zone Unit,
Dept. of Natural Resources.

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1978. Soil Survey: St. Mary's County, Maryland.

1975. Soil Survey: Calvert County, Maryland.

1974. Soil Survey: Charles County, Maryland.

1973. Soil Survey: Anne Arundel County, Maryland.

1968. Soil Survey: Howard County, Maryland.

1967. Soil Survey: Prince George's County, Maryland.

1961. Survey: Montgomery County, Maryland.

U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 1976.
Existing State and Local Wetlands Surveys (1965-1975) Volume II
Narrative.

-21-

1118111111101111111311111
3 6668 li 109 8907