[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
THE CARRYING CAPACITY OF SOUTHERN MARYLAND AN ANALYSIS OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE PERCEPTUAL CARRYING CAPACITY COMPONENTS OF THE TRI-COUNTY REGION COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER Tri-County Council for Southern Maryland P.O. Box 1634 Charlotte Hall, Maryland 20622 February, 1988 HB 3525 M3 M37 1988 c.2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ... ...... ............. i List of Figures ...... ii List of Tables .......... ... 0000 ..... iii Study Methodology... .... 4 Infrastructure Inventory ...... 000 ... .... 000 ..... 0. 9 Perceptual Carrying Capacity--** ... 27 References ... ....... 31 ......... 32 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report was prepared by Lore L. Hantske, Tri-County Council for Southern Maryland. Particular thanks is given to Mr. Steve Magoon and Mr. Ren Serey, Maryland Department of State Planning, and Ms. Doris Frere, Ms. Helen Fassel and Ms. Nancy Babcock, Tri-County Council for Southern Maryland, who assisted in the development and preparation of this report. The funding for this report was provided by the Coastal Resources Division, Tidewater Administration, Department of Natural Resources through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Zone Management Program. H LIST OF FIGURES Figure I Representation of Three Patter 'no of Population Growth and Their Relation to Carrying Capacity...... .... $00 2 Figure 2 Level of Service Descriptions ..... ......... too 6 Figure 3 Perceptual Carrying Capacity Survey ...................... Figure 4 Enrollment Trends of the Southern Maryland Public Schools.... ............... 18 Figure 5 Level of Service Designations for Roadways in St. Mary's County.... .................... 22 Figure 6 Level of Service Designations for Roadways in Charles County for ...... to ......... 24 Figure 7 Level of Service Designations for Roadways in Charles County by 2000.... 00 .... too .... 00.0 ...... 0......... 25 H1 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Population Estimates and Projections for Southern Maryland.... ...... 00 10 Table 2 Inventory of the Residential Water Supply for the Southern Maryland Counties ........ 0*0..* ............... 11 Table 3 Inventory of the Sewerage Service for the Southern Maryland Counties....... ... ....... 13 Table 4 Enrollment Data and Projections for Calvert County Public Schools ......... to ....0 .......... 16 Table 5 Enrollment Data and Projections for Charles County Public Schools.... ........... 0 ... 16 Table 6 Enrollment Data and Projections for St. Mary's County Public Schools ........ o........ , ..... *... *.... o....... o.. 17 Table 7 Public School Facility Capacities,and Enrollment Comparisons for the Southern Maryland Counties ..... 20 iv. INTRODUCTION The concept of carrying capacity has historically been associated with the growth and population dynamics of species in 'relation to their natural environments. The term carrying capacity refers to the maximum number of individuals of a species that can be supported by the resources of a particular ecosystem. In other words, the population growth of a species will ultimately be limited by the availability of resources. If the population density is low in relation to the abundance of resources, then the population can increase. If the population density exceeds the level that the environment can support, then the population growth rate slows and density decreases. The carrying capacity is the equilibrium point where the population neither grows nor decreases. (Ricklefs, 1976) This equilibrium state can vary over time due to fluctuating ecological forces. The equilibrium value, therefore, is not a fixed point, but a range over which the system shifts (Figure 1). As a population approaches the carrying capacity range of the ecosystem, three scenarios are possible: (1) the population, through natural processes or management practices, maintains a steady oscillation around the carrying capacity; (2) the population overshoots the maximum carrying capacity for a period of time with a subsequent population decline as the natural resources are depleted; (3) improved technology or management practices artificially sustain the population indefinitely at a.higher value than its natural carrying capacity. While the concept of carrying capacity has been widely applied to specific ecological systems to analyze population dynamics, it can also be applied as a management tool for human community growth and development. Unlimited growth was once thought of as a.benefit to a community by expanding its economic base. However,,the congestion, pollution and stress placed on communities and the environment by increased growth and development have prompted many cities, states and regions to readdress development patterns occurring within their jurisdictions. These problems can be viewed as resulting from growing populations overutilizing the natural and man-made resources within an area. In other words, the population growth is such that the carrying capacity of the environment is met or is exceeded. As a management tool, the theory of carrying capacity is not intended to be used to halt or restrict growth. Rather, it should serve as a guide to ensure the quality of growth and development. A study of the carrying capacity of an area would assess various interrelated natural and man-made systems to identify growth limiting factors. These include assessments of tue economic, environmental, infrastructure and perceptual carrying capacities of the study area. The economic carrying capacity indicates the potential and feasibility of growth based on economics, which can be measured by production diversification, proximity to employment centers, transportation to these centers, the size of the labor force and the extent of environmental pollution limitations. The environmental carrying capacity connotes the amount of natural resources available to a region, which must be protected from exploitation to assure that the quality and quantity of the resources remain available to the population. The infrastructure carrying capacity is the man- FIGURE I REPRESENTATION OF THREE PATTERNS OF POPULATION GROWTH AND THEIR RELATION TO CARRYING CAPACITY . . ............. . Population Growth Rate Carrying do capacity jp-- Time made limits to growth, including the extent of water and sewer services, .schools, roads and transportation facilities available to the public. The perceptual carrying capacity or "quality of life value" of an area is the public's perception of changes to the environment's character resulting from growth and development. A region may be able to physically sustain additional growth, but it may be at the expense of how it is perceived. For example, a rural region has the ability to absorb extensive amounts of growth, but it will lose its rural character in the process, The need to assess the carrying capacity of Southern Maryland is critical. The metropolitan Washington-Baltimore area is experiencing rapid growth, particularly in the adjoining suburbs. As this growth occurs, it is consuming larger and larger tracts of land to sustain itself. The Southern Maryland region, consisting of Calvert, Charles and St. Mary's counties, will soon be overwhelmed by this growth if it is not planned and managed now. The projected tri-county population is expected to be over a quarter of a million by the year 2000. This would be over a 100% increase since 1970. Between 1970 and 1980, there was a 59% increase in the number of dwelling units in the region (Tri-County Council for Southern Maryland, 1980). The current natural resource base,' along with the region's infrastructure will not. be able to accommodate this growth unless changes in long range planning strategies begin now. An analysis of the region's carrying capacity would identify areas that are and potentially will be stressed, and what growth management policies need to be developed to avoid these problems (Tri-County Council for Southern Maryland, 1986). STUDY METHODOLOGY V Each component of a carrying capacity study (economic, natural resource, infrastructure and perceptual carrying capacities) can be researched separately. This.paper will examine the infrastructure and perceptual carrying capacity components of the Southern Maryland regional study. It is important to remember, however, that the concept of carrying capacity as a planning tool is dependent on the analysis of all the study components. Each component contains specific elements which overlap with the other phases of the study. For example, the sewer service area (Infrastructure Anal sis) and the suitability of soils for septic tanks (Natural Resource AnalysM are both needed to identify developable land based on sewage criteria, although they are included in different phases of the study. If all the elements are not included in the overall analysis, the information will be insufficient to be used in any planning capacity. Infrastructure Carrying Capacity The infrastructure of the Southern Maryland region was evaluated by inventorying existing and planned facilities provided by the local governments. The following elements of infrastructure were evaluated for each of the Southern Maryland counties; Calvert, Charles and St. Mary's: 1. Population - Using.census data provided by the Maryland Department of State Planning (1985), the current population of each county and the region as a whole was determined. The population projections were also estimated for' each five year span to the year 2000; 2. Water Supply - Water is the most essential of all resources and an adequate supply is needed if development is to occur. Portions of each county will be serviced by public/municipal systems. Other areas will be dependent on private wells. Areas which cannot be served by either of these systenis will not be able to be developed. Using the most recent County Comprehensive Water and Sewerage Plans, the following current (most recent available) and projected data for the year 2000 were collected: (a) County population estimates (b) Population served by all water supply systems (c) Average daily per capita demand (d) Capacity demand (e) System-wide capacity W Percent of the population served (g) Percent of the population that the systems can potentially serve (h) Percent of the systems' capacities available for further use Those areas which would not be included in municipal systems should be cited in relation to the Natural Resource Analysis as to their ability to sustain wells; (3) Sewer Services - The tremendous quantities of waste geniarated by humans as sewage must be handled and treated properly to prevent severe, harmful environmental effects. Populated areas must have adequate Sewer systems and treatment plants to manage these wastes, or have soils that are suitable for septic tanks. Again, the most recent County Water and Sewerage Plans were used to collect data on current and planned wastewater facilities. These included population data, system capacities, average daily per capita and total system demands, percentages of the population that are served and are possible to serve by sewerage facilities and the percentage of the system capacities available.for further use. Those areas that are suitable for septic systems based on soil quality need to be identified in the Naturpl Resource Analysis. Combined with information gathered in this portion of the study, these data can indicate which areas are appropriate for future development and which areas will not be, developable due to sewer and septic tank limitations. (4) Schools - As development of the Southern Maryland region continues, more strain will be placed on'the educational system. The quality of education will be tested by the increased student body and the physical limits of the,schools' capacities. Using Comprehensive and School Facilities Master Plans of the Southern Maryland counties, enrollment data of elementary, junior high and senior high schools were collected. Enrollment trends were analyzed based on population estimates. Data on current and planned capacities of the school facilities were collected and the percentage of the capacities being used was determined. From these findings, school districts which will exceed current or planned capacities were able to be identified. If growth is to continue in these areas, construction of new facilities or expansions of existing facilities will need to occur to accommodate the growing student population. (5) Transports tion - A measurement of the capability of a region's highway network to deliver adequate public service is termed "the level of service (LOSP by the Highway Research Board (1965) (Figure 2). In this element of the study, the major roadways and intersections of each of the counties were evaluated as to the current level of service. Those whose level of service falls in the marginal to critical range and which are in prime development areas were identified. The level of development in such areas will need to be regulated and/or the modification of these roadways will need to occur to accommodate increased traffic activity. Perceptual Carryinp, Capacity In some cages, the carrying capacity of a region may not be determined by a critical factor such as water supply, but by how the region is perceived by its residents. There are distinct points in a continuum of growth at which the residents of a region perceive that a change is occurring in the overall character of the environment. The perceptual carrying capacity is the amount of growth that can occur before the inhabitants of a region perceive the environment to have changed. FIGURE 2 LEVEL OF SERVICE DESC RIPTIONS abblevt4sed 20*148*1 is G tole =4 of 9114 &%Is a a a n6ac. I assists bay salatti6aal dalbys at testrias. sit 14ty of #tam 0 .6044 $too-#& to sG'4jlk4.8V a.,I 661vtGe 64 411614 go 44gAtigg the Asia,.. 4al4nosts nave 46walaposi Lo!_! - The highest level of service which can lie achieved. under this condition, the green t1we avail- *4 Able gor 4ny particular movement Is flavor gully utilislid, and no vehicle waits longer than one rod LnJi4stiua. Typically, the 4pprosch appears quite open, turning WQVO- ments are easily made. and a4acly all drivocs giiij Jib.- doia of operation Itheir only concern beinq the that the signal wLIj be 944 or Luca red w"on they j,jjcu4cjjj Voltuads see generally less then 60 poccent of capacity, Popreeent4tive 09 stable opoestion. An "Casiunai vehicle will be forced to w&it through more than usis &.4 indication, and many acivairs Will Lelia to tool 64,-.1i&L ,0 140' restricted within groups 09 vehicles. volum4a age usoally between 60 percent and 70 percent of capacity. LOIA Although still representative of stable operation. viors drivers acal forced to wait thcuu-jh oQce t144o one &.I indication, slid backups okay daivelop,balkind. turililig v4hi';1*6. host drivers are beginning to tool costrics.&J. but aut, objectionably so. This is the IGVOI typically with ox1jan das&qn pgactice. Tr&gfia voltua** unids; titis 14VGI 09 Service See yGOOCSIly b4LW44n 70 and 00 Pe&COOL of capacity. L,01_2 gncompse4es a sonal of Increasing restriction approaching inst&bLlity. Deliays to sPilcuachitiq vohicl4a M:y be subst&jItisl during alsQct peaks Within the Peak giod, but enough &lack occurs to pd&is&L peciu,isc clesconce of long Lines, thus Preventing excessive backups. Traffic volumes at IDS a are Ijetwddll IQ and io POCL;41fli; Ut capacity. !RS 9 - Reprosents; the capacity of the Intersection where there are likely to be long Iiiiabi of vaniclea waiting upstream ag the Intersection and Jolay4 way be 917449 1drIVOKIN May have to Wait ths'GLA911 Sawatal red indi.G&LIOnsi. TgatfiG W01WA44 In 4NU&NO 09 90 pots;ont of csp#city see indicative of WS 9. j W3 r Represents )&lsmod conditions. Backups tro6A T-ocattons 4Q.naLresm at on the cross street may restrict or Provo" 9 movement Of VehlGled out 09 the OPP904ch under considerations hence. Wolwade carrtdj age not pre4ictable. IjC".,;j,t&raL Land AASIV446 nawd.4ns 1@_&tkan as 114644ces Infiftsalka Ja 44c 1. 4 6 Since a perceptual carrying capacity analysis is based on the beliefs of an areals inhabitants, it must be done through the use of a specific public survey. For this element of the study, a survey was developed to identify the Southern Maryland inhabitants' attitudes toward the character of the region and toward future growth and development. The survey covered the following V topics: - The way residents judge the quality of life of their community is based on a variety of features from public services and education provided by local governments to the quality and quantity of available natural resources. The, survey prioritized a number of these components as to their degree of importance to the residents of Southern Maryland. It also evaluated the residents' overall view of the quality of life in the region. Those factors determined to be of particular importance to the region should be protected or enhanced to ensure the residents' satisfaction with living in Southern Maryland. - The type of growth and development strategies preferred by the residents were determined. Those surveyed were asked to choose the type of economic development they would like to see promoted in Southern Maryland. The results, in turn, would indicate the degree and type of overall development preferred by the residents. For instance, if manufacturing and business development were desired, this would indicate that the residents prefer a more urbanized area. If fishing and agriculture were strongly preferred, the residents would most likely prefer a rural living environment. The residents were also asked to choose between future growth being directed to specific areas or modes within the region, or being allowed to disperse throughout the region. In order to determine citizens' views of these topics, a mail survey form was used (Figure 3). The survey was sent to 18,048 or one-fourth of the Southern Maryland households using random sampling techniques to include Calvert, Charles and St. Mary's counties. In order to increase the rate of return, a short article in the local papers was printed publicizing the survey and inviting citizens who did not receive a survey to obtain one from the Tri- County Council office. Using a program developed by our Systems Analyst, the survey results were correlated and analyzed to determine the citizens' views and preferences concerning growth and development in Southern Maryland. FIGURE 3 PERCEPTUAL CARRYING CAPACITY SURVEY August 10, 1987 Dear Fellow Citizens of Southern Maryland: Southern Maryland Is conducting a study to find out how people feel The Tri-County Council for about population growth and development in Southern Maryland. Your opinions on tile quality of life in the region, and how you think this quality can be maintained or improved in the future are vital to our study. In addition, it is important for county, regional and State officials to know your opinions when making planning decisions. Please take a minute to answer the following questions, and express your opinions regarding future growth in Southern Maryland. Please check the appropriate response: 1. How, would you describe the community that you live in? Urban Suburban Rural 2. How would you like to be able to describe your community in twenty years? Urban Suburban Rural 3. What kind of development would you prefer in the Southern Maryland region during the next twenty years? Urban Suburban Rural 4. There are many factors that determine how we feel about the quality of life of our community. Please evaluate how important EACH of the following is to you. (1-very important, 2=important, 3=no opinion, 4=unimportant, 5=very unimportant) Schools (public/higher education) Cultural/historical sites/museums Public services Transportation (roads, public transp., etc.) Recreational areas Open space, forestland, waterways Entertainment Agricultural land Shopping Natural resources (wetlands, wildlife, etc.) Other 5. How, do you rate the overall quality of life in Southern Maryland? Excellent Good Fair Poor -No Opinion 6. Check the following types of. economic development that you would I like to see in So. Md. Retail Aquaculture (fish farming) High-tech/office development Fishing Manufacturing Defense Tourism Mineral extraction & forestry Agriculture None Other 7. Should future growth be concentrated In areas of existing development or allowed to disperse throughout tile region? Concentrated Allowed to disperse No opinion 8. If you are employed, where do you go to work? Calvert County St. Mary's County Washington, D.C. Charles County Baltimore Other 9. What Is your trade or occupation? Military Farming/forestry/fisheries Managerial/professional Production/craft/repair Homemaker Operator/laborer Technical/ clerical Other Service occupation 10. Do you rent or own your home? Rent Own 11. How long have you lived in Southern Maryland? 12. Please check your age range: 18-25 26-40 Over-55 Over 55 13. What Is your annual household income? Up to $9,999 $20,000 - $29.999 $10,000 to $19,999 $30,000 to $119,999 $50,000 or more THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME 8 INFRASTRUCrURE M ENTORY Population Table 1 provides the population data for each of the Southern Maryland counties and for the region from 1985 to 2000. The population projections predict that each of the counties will exhibit substantial increases in growth during this period, with an overall 35% population growth for the region. Charles County has and is expected to have the greater number of residents in the region, followed by St. Mary's County and Calvert County. The greatest percentage change in population is predicted to be in Calvert County, with a nearly 50% increase by the year 2000. The percentage increase in population is expected to be 36% in Charles County and 27% in St. Mary's County. Water Supply The inventory of the Southern Maryland water supply is shown in Table 2. The inventory takes into account both public/municipal systems and private community systems for each of the Southern Maryland counties. The population data provided by the counties, which differs slightly from those by the Maryland Department of State Planning, were used for calculations in both water and sewerage capacity and demand data. Groundwater is the primary source of potable water in each of the Southern. Maryland counties. Surface water is presently not used as a water source, except in the town of La Plata in Charles County, which contains an impoundment as a standby source. Calvert County has one surface water impoundment that is used for recreational purposes only. St. Mary's County, while not presently using surface water as a water supply source, has identified in its Comprehensive Plan four potential reservoirs to be located near its urban centers. Natural resource studies in each county indicate that groundwater sources should be sufficient to provide private and commercial users with adequate water supply for current demands and those beyond the year 2000, provided reasonable water conservation practices are implemented. In Calvert and St. Mary's counties, the majority of residents depend on individual wells for their water supply. Only 20% of the residents in Calvert County and 30% in St. Mary's County are served by municipal/community water supplies. This is due to the agricultural and rural residential nature of the counties, in which community water systems cannot be economically provided (Calvert County Department of Planning and Zoning, 1986; St. Mary's County Metropolitan Commission, 1982). On the other hand, approximately 59% of the Charles County residents are supplied by public/quasi-public water systems. Charles County Department of Public Works operates 13 of the 57 community systems, the towns of La Plata and Indian Head operate two municipal systems, and the rest of the systems are operated by utilities/homeowners associations and corporations (Nassaux-Hemsley, Inc., 1985). By the year 2000, each county intends to at least double the population that is currently served by community water systems. Calvert County and Charles County plan to increase their residential system capacities accordingly, whereas St. Mary's County expects that the current capacity will be more than sufficient to accommodate the additional system demand. TABLE I POPULATION ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS FOR SOUTHERN MARYLAND % Increase Between 1985 1990 1995 2000 -19@3*to 2000. Calvert Co. W,ooo 46,500 52,700 58,300 46% Charles Co. 82,800 94,500 104,000 112,500 36% St. Mary's Co. 64,700 71,000 76,900 820000 27% So. Md. Region 187,500 212,000 233,600 252,8oo 35% (Mary!and Department of State Planning, 1985) TABLE 2 INVENTORY OF THE RESIDENTIAL WATER SUPPLY FOR THE SOUTHERN MARYLAND COUNTIES CALVERT COUNTY 1986 2000 County Population 40,300 66,loo Population Served 8,167 18,632 Residential System Capacity (MGD) 2.8 3.8 Average Daily Per Capita Demand (GPCD) go 100 System Capacity Used (MGD) o.64 2.0 % Population Served 20.3% 28.2% % Population System Able to Serve 77.2% 57.5% % Capacity Available for Further Use 77.1% 47.4% CHARLES COUNTY 1980 2000 County Population 72,751 105,907 Population Served 42,771 81,749 Residential System Capacity,(MGD) 8.37 11.08 Average Daily Per Capita Demand (GPCD), 90 90 System Capacity Used (MGD) 3.50 7.70 % Population Served 58.8% 77.2% % Population System Able to Serve 130% 116% % Capacity Available for Further Use 58.2% 30.5% ST. MARY'S COUNTY 1981 2000 County Population 61POOO 88,828 Population Served 18,017 36,626 Residential System Capacity (MG 17-79 17-79 Average Daily Per Capita Demand (GPCD) 78 71 System Capacity Use (MGD) 2.94 5.06 % Population Served 29.5% 41.2% % Population System Able to Serve 300% 280% % Capacity Available for Further Use 83.5% 71.6% (Calvert County Department of Planning and Zoning, )986) (Nassaux-ilemsfey, Inc., 1985) (St. Mary's County Metropolitan Commission, 1982 Update) With the growing population and increasing reliance on community systems, it will be necessary for the counties to guide development to designated growth areas with available.or planned multi-use systems to ensure that adequate water resources are maintained. Calvert County intends to follow this philosophy by planning water facilities in its designated town centers and directing new growth to these development areas (Calvert County Department of Planning and Zoning, 1986). Charles County plans to develop water systems in areas targeted for future growth, primarily in the north-western and north- central portions of the county. Future residential development is to primarily occur in the urban centers of Lexington Park and Leonardtown and in seven community centers of St. Mary's County. The designated service areas of the county are expected to provide adequate water supply as these development centers grow. Each county has identified its own water supply problems. Calvert County indicated in its 1986 Biennial Update that most community systems provide inadequate water flow, storage capacity or pressure for fire protection. There was also a lack of community water at the designated town center of North Beach. Other problems included limited distribution and capacity in certain growth areas. The county plans to alleviate these problems by developing a water system for North Beach, upgrade the Prince Frederick Sanitary Subdivision, and improve and extend other systems to meet new growth demands. By the year 2005, the Waldorf Service Area alone in Charles County is expected to serve 61,100 residents, as opposed to 30,800 served in 1985. The tremendous growth in the area promises problems in water supply if alternative sources are not provided. The county identified three alternatives to improve the water supply in the area: (1) develop surface water supplies; (2) improve existing wells by increasing the capacity of the present supply'or adding new wells; (3) interconnecting with the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission system. Charles County plans to concentrate on the third alternative by purchasing water from the WSSC as its primary new water source. It is also considering tapping other aquifers to improve existing systems and building impoundments as surface water reserves. The county is also conce rned about possible salt water intrusion caused by overpumping of groundwater for residential, commercial and industrial needs.(Nassaux-Hemsley, Inc., 1985)., St. Mary's County indicated concern about adequate water supplies for fire protection in certain areas and adequate protection of aquifer recharge areas. The county is planning expansions and extensions of facilities to meet the flow needs for fire protection. Studies to determine the effects of development on aquifer recharge areas and recommendations to prevent problems are also to be undertaken. Sewerage Services Table 3 provides the inventory of the sewerageservices of the Southern Maryland region. Presently, less than 35% of the Southern Maryland residents are served by community sewerage systems. In each county, most of the population utilizes on-site subsurface disposal sewerage (septic) systems. Some reliance on outdoor toilets also occurs. 12 4 TABLE 3 INVENTORY OF THE SEWERAGE SERVICE FOR THE SOUTHERN MARYLAND COUNTIES CALVERT COUNTY 1986 2000 County Population 4o,300 66,loo Population Served 7,905 24,722 System Capacity (MGD) 0.925 2.23 Average Daily Per Capita Demand (GPCD) go go System Capacity Used (MGD) 0.519 1.72 % Population Served 19.6% 37.4% % Population System Able to Serve 25.5% 37.5% % Capacity Available for Further Use 43.9% 22.9% CHARLES COUNTY 1980 2000 County Population 72,751 105,907 Population Served 38,722 80,982 System Capacity (MGD) 12.8 28.8 Average Daily Per Capita Demand (GPCD) )Do ]Do System Capacity Used (MGD) 4.81 9.48 % Population Served 53.2% 76.5% % Population System Able to Serve 175% 270% % Capacity Available for Further Use 62.4% 67.1% ST. MARY'S COUNTY 1981 2000 ,County Population 6),ooo, 88,B28 Population Served 12,466 35,438 System Capacity (MGD) 3.66 6.58 Average Daily Per Capita Demand (GPCD) 75 75 System Capacity Used (MGD) 2.21 4.56 % Population Served 20.4% 39.9% % Population System Able to Serve 80.0% 98.8% % Capacity Available for Further Use 39.6% 30.7% (Calvert County Department of Planning and Zoning, 1986) (Nassaux-ileinsley, Inc., 1985) (St. Mary's County Metropolitan Commission, 1982 Update.) 13 In general, the community sewerage systems provide adequate treatment for the population serviced. A few treatment plants have problems meeting their .effluent permit requirements. Poorly treated waters that are released into surface waters contribute to the decline in the Chesapeake Bay. This is especially true in tidal water where waste is dispersed slowly as it is transported upstream and downstream by tidal action. This results in pollution areas above and below waste discharge points, severely limiting use of streams, particularly for commercial fishing and recreation (Nassaux- Hemsley, Inc., 1985). While the counties are presently addressing these problem areas by planning upgrades of treatment plants and considering alternative disposal methods such as land application treatment, much work needs to be done to ensure compliance with permit limits and prevent further decline in the water quality of receiving streams. Another major problem in Southern Maryland is failing septic systems. Failure may be due to lack of system maintenance, high groundwater or poor soil percolation, resulting in septic overflows. Such occurrences contribute to water quality degradation and to potential sewage-related public health hazards. Continued maintenance of septic systems must occur to prevent such failures. Where on-site sewage disposal problems persist due to high water tables and poor soil conditions, alternative treatment of inclusion in public service must be considered. To prevent further problems from failing septic systems, future development must be restricted where public service is not provided or planned for, and where natural conditions preclude on-site disposal of sewage. By the year 2000, each county plans to at least double the population served by community systems, with subsequent demand increases. Most of the residents will still rely on on-site disposal systems in Calvert County and St. Mary's County, with less than 40% of the populations serviced by community systems. Charles County, however, plans to service 77% of its residents with community sewerage systems. The increasing reliance on public sewerage is due to a combination of the growing urban nature in the northern portions of the county and to 85% of the county being identified by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene as unsuitable for on-site sewage disposal. With increasing dependence on community systems, the Southern Maryland counties plan to increase system capacities accordingly. The waste treatment plants to be upgraded and expanded are primarily in the high growth areas. In Calvert County, this includes the Prince Frederick, Twin Beaches and Solomons Island Planning areas. Upgrades and expansions are planned in the north- central and north-western growth areas of Charles County, including the Mattawoman Treatment Plant, Bryans Road Sewer System, Cobb Island and Substation Road Sewer Systems. St. Mary's County has identified future growth to primarily occur in the Leonardtown, Lexington Park, Luckland Run, Dukeharts Creek and Indian Creek Sanitary Districts. Of the ten sanitary districts in the county, seven presently have operating wastewater facilities. With the projected population growth, most of these will call for expansions to meet .growing sewerage demands. The other service areas are zoned for large lots which will only require community service if permitted development densities increase or the number of septic system failures significantly increase (St. Mary's County Metropolitan Commission, 1982). 14 Each county provides or plans to provide public sewerage in high density zones of existing and new development. Concentrations of development can be serviced by community sewerage in the least expensive and most efficient manner. In areas that are scheduled to be provided with sewerage service, scattered or low density development should be discouraged to avoid inefficient servicing. This principle, along with the use of alternative technologies such as land application treatment, help control sewerage development, maintenance and operating costs and protects valuable natural resources (Calvert County Department of Planning and Zoning, 1986). Schools Tables 4-6 provide the Southern Maryland public schools' yearly enrollment data and projections for the elementary, middle and high school levels of the systems. Figure 4 reveals the overall enrollment trends for each of the counties. These data include regular student and special education student enrollment. Specialized schools, such as vocational and technical education centers, are not included in the data. Charles County has the largest student enrollment in Southern Maryland, followed by St. Mary's County and Calvert County,. The greatest change in overall enrollment is expected to be in Calvert County, with a 36% increase by 1996. In Charles County, a 27% increase is expected, and in St. Mary's County, a 23% increase in enrollment is projected., These findings are consistent with the overall population data of the region. Within the region, the greatest increase in enrollment is projected to be in the elementary and middle school levels (31% - 60% change). The high school data reveals relatively little change in enrollment throughout the region, including a 1% decrease in high school enrollment in Charles County. The enrollment changes within-the various levels of the school systems are consistent with the findings for the State of Maryland (Department of State Planning, 1986). A general increase in elementary and middle school enrollment is projected for the State between 1985 and 1995. In Southern Maryland, enrollment at these levels of the public schools is projected to exceed the Statewide average of 15% increase. The enrollment trends at these school levels are attributed to recent and anticipated increases in births within the State. During the second half of the 1980s, Statewide public high school enrollment is projected to decrease from 1985 levels. This has been attributed to smaller elementary school populations of recent years entering high school. After 1990, public high school enrollment is expected to increase, although in 1995, it is still expected to be at or below 1985 enrollment for most of the State. These trends are reflected in the data for the Southern Maryland public schools, except for Calvert County which predicts a 26% increase in high school enrollment by 1996. 15 TABLE 4 ENROLLMENT DATA AND PROJECTIONS FOR CALVERT COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools IZ-r-ades K-5) (Grades 6-8) (6rades 9-12) Total 1986 3,930 1,766 2,619 8,315 1987 4,239 1,915 2,54o 8,694 1988 4,541 1,987 2,633 9,161 1989 4,81jo 2,185 2,681 9,7o6 1990 5,079 2,365 2,760 10, 2 04 1991 5,295 2,558 2,835 10,688 1996 5,186 2,823 3,291 11,300 (Board of Education of Calvert County, 1987) TABLE 5 ENROLLMENT DATA AND PROJECTIONS FOR CHARLES COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Elementary Schools Middle Schoo Is High Schools (Grades K-5) (Grades 6-8) (Grades 9-12) Total 1985 6,956 3,705 6,076 16,737 1986 7,311 3,686 5,956 16,953 1987 7,896 3,538 5,56) 16,995 1988 8,214 3,711 5,216 17,1111 1989 8,580 3,801, 5,005 17,389 1990 80896 4,o82 4,892 17,870 1991 9,222 4P298 5,090 18,610 1992 9,580 4,565 5,229 19,371, 1993 9,849 49829 5,483 20,161 1994 10,168 41877 5,889 20,931, 1995 10,467 50.027 5,905 21,399 (Board of Education of Charles County, 1986) 16 TABLE 6 ENROLLMENT DATA AND PROJECTIONS FOR ST. MARY'S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools T-Grades K-5) (Grades (Grades g-)2) Total 1985 4,888 21411 3,627 10,926 1986 5,225 2,405 3,618 11 248 1987 5,423 2$479 3,541 11 ' 11113 1988 5,557 2,50 3,572 11,633 1989 5,757 2P428 3,517 11,702 1990 5,855 2,659 3,475 11,989 1991 5,915 2,776 3,427 12,H8 1992 6,036 2V842 3,479 12,357 1993 6,120 3,116 3,396 12,632 1994 6,263 3,092 3,669 13,024 1995 6,358 3,136 2,721 13,215 1996 6P419 3,183 3,846 13,11148 (Board of Education of St. Mary's County, 1987) 17 FIGORE 4 ENROLLMENT TRENDS OF THE SOUTHERN MARYLAND PUBLIC SCHOUS 2.@OOD 17POO Ot V I Y00- 0 I jpOcF E I @000 9tool- 71 (DO 0 1985' 1986 1987 1988- 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 igg', 1995 1996 5choo) Year 'KEY X-Catvert Co. Mary's Co. 18 A -rot @ , 1p The overall Statewide public school enrollment is expected to increase by 6.8%. The Southern Maryland public schools anticipate substantially greater increases (23-36%) in total enrollment. A major factor in these differences is the overall in-migration to the region. The tremendous population growth within Southern Maryland will be reflected in'the schools, since most of the migrating pool consists of families with children (Department of State Planning, 1985). The growth trends that are occurring in Southern Maryland often lead to stress of overcrowding on school systems. Comparisons between rated capacities of schools and enrollment data are helpful in measuring the magnitude of this stress. Table 7 compares the rated capacities of each level of the school systems to actual and projected enrollment data for each county. The rated capacity, based on State and federal guidelines, is the number of students that a school should ideally hold so that it is large enough to economically support the needs of the students, but small enough to ensure that each student retains his/her identity and feels free to confer with at least one faculty member for personal guidance (Board of Education of St. Mary's County, 1987). The table also provides the percentage of the capacity that is used in a particular year at each school level. The values were obtained by dividing student enrollment by rated capacity. The difference between these values show the actual number of students by which the systems either exceed or fall below the rated capacities. The 1985/86 findings show thot Calvert County's elementary and high school levels and Charles County's high school levels exceeded the rated capacities. The total enrollment in both counties exceeded the rated capacities of the public schools. In 1985, St. Mary's County schools were all below the rated capacities. By 1996, however, all three counties will be experiencing overcrowding in public schools. An exception is the middle school system in St. Mary's County, which is expected to remain approximately 10% under its capacity. The total St. Mary's County enrollment, however, as well as Calvert and Charles counties, are expected to exceed to rated capacities of the public school system. These findings are also consistent with the population growth data, with Calvert and Charles counties experiencing the greatest stress on the school systems. All three counties, however, will be facing problems of overcrowding by the end of the century, unless steps are taken to alleviate growing school enrollments. These include capital improvements to expand existing school facilities or building additional facilities to accommodate the increasing student population, particularly in the high growth areas of the counties. Transportation The concept of levels of service (LOS) qualitatively describes the operational conditions within a traffic stream in terms such as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuvers, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience and safety. It can be measured by the V/C ratio which compares the volume of traffic actually utilizing a roadway facility to-the capacity of the facility. Capacity is defined as the hourly rate at which vehicles can reasonably traverse a point, uniform section of a lane or roadway during a given time period under prevailing roadway, traffic and control conditions. As the LOS ratio approaches one, the facility is being used near or at its capacity. 19 TABLE 7 PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITY CAPACITIES AND ENROLLMENT COMPARISONS FOR THE SOUTHERN MARYLAND COUNTIES Elementary Schools Middle Schools 111 11 Schools CALVERT COUNTY K-5) (-6--8T- 99-12) Total Rated Capacity 3,565 1,943 2,430 7,938 1986 Enrollment 3,930 1,766 2,619 8,315 % Capacity Used 1986 110.2% 90.9% 107.8% lo4.8% Excess (shortage) 1986 365 (177) 189 377 1996 Enrollment 5,186 2,823 3,291 11,300 % Capacity Used 1996 145.5% 145.2% 135.4% 142.4% Excess (shortage) 1996 1,621 88o 861 3,362 CHARLES COUNTY Rated Capacity 7,105 4,591 4,996 16,692 1985 Enrollment 6,956 3,705 .6,076 16,737 % Capacit Used 1985 - 80 71 121.6% 100.3% Excess (sKortage) 1985 711.991 (W 1,080 45 1995 Enrollment lo,467 5,027 5,905 21,399 % Capacity Used 1995 147.3% 109.5% 118.2% 128.2% Excess (shortage) 1995 3,362 .436 909 4,707 ST. MARY'S COUNTY Rated Capacity 5,355 3,519 3,770 12,644 1985 Enrollment 4,888 21411 3,627 10,926 % Capacity Used 1985 91.3% 68.5% 96.2% 86.4% Excess (shortage) 1985 (467) 0,108) (143) (1,718) 1996 Enrollment 6)419 3,183 3,846 13,448 % Capacity Used 1996 119.9% 90.5% 102% 106.4% Excess (shortage) 1996 l,o64 (336) 75 80 20 Traffic facilities are rarely designed to operate at capacity and do so poorly near this range. Six levels of service, designated letters A to F are defined for each type of facility (Figure 2). LOS,A represents facilities with the best operating conditions and lowest V/C ratio, and LOS F represents the worst conditions and V/C ratios greater than 1.0 (Transportation Research Board, 1985). Figure 5 provides the level of service designations of the key road links and intersections in St. Mary's County (Kellerco, 1987b). Most of the roads are operating at LOS A, indicating free flow of traffic in which the operation of a vehicle is essentially unaffected by the presence of other vehicles. Ability to maneuver and to select desired speeds are excellent, as well as comfort and convenience for the motorist. Several areas of St. Mary's County experience reduced operational conditions from the LOS A rating. The highest average daily traffic occurs on MD 235, just South of St. Andrews Church Road. With this volume of traffic and the designed roadway capacity, the expanse between St. Andrews Church Road and Chancellor's Run Road on MD 235 has been designated LOS B. At this operational level, traffic flow is still stable but the presence of other users becomes noticeable. Maneuverability from LOS A declines slightly, but the ability to select desired speed remains unatfected. Individual behavior of others somewhat affects the comfort and convenience of driving within a traffic stream. The level-of-service in this section of MD 235, however, is considered to still operate under good conditions. A level-of-service C designation has been assigned to MD 5 in the vicinity of Great Mills Road and St. Mary's City, where traffic density begins to have a marked effect on operations. Traffic remains within the stable range of flow, but most drivers experience restrictions in maneuvering and selecting speeds due to interactions with other users. Disruptions to flow, such as occurs during peak hours between Great Mills Road and Park Hall, result in deterioration of service to LOS E or F. These indicate poor op erating conditions, in which queuing causes extensive backups and waves of stop-and-go tratfic, particularly in areas of flow-breakdown such as intersections. Other areas of unstable traffic flow occur on MD 5 west of Leonardtown to Compton Road, designated LOS D, and between New Market and Charlotte Hall, designated LOS E. Traffic congestion severely restricts speeds and ability to maneuver. While speeds are generally uniform, minor disruptions in flow result in deterioration of operations to LOS F. During peak hours in mornings and afternoons, certain roadways experience deterioration of service from normal operating conditions. Near Lexington Park, such traffic congestion from the Patuxent Naval Air Test Center result in LOS D conditions on Route 235 at Peggs Lane, FDR Boulevard, Route 4 and Chancellor's Run Road. However, these operating conditions near the Naval Center are expected for "rush hour" traffic. Along Route 5 through Leonardtown, traffic problems exist and are expected to deteriorate as development increases 50% within the next twenty years. Increased development will also cause more congestion and delays along Route 246 near Chancellor's Run Road, Tosca, Mattingly Village and Patuxent Park West. St. Mary's County has a number of improvements planned to alleviate problems 21 > ul 00 40a 14 E-4 1; FA u 'Al m r4 0 0 0 E-4 + + 9.1 0 > k >4 E-i z 0 ak Air En >4 0 C4 0 44 a/ IL z 0 F-1 xx "X IQ It + it it 0 Ln um x AAqn 22 on stressed roadways. A Leonardtown Bypass is planned, which is to improve peak hour conditions. MD 246 is to be upgraded to a multi-lane roadway from 14D 5 to Saratoga Drive in Lexington Park. Traffic lights are to be installed at Great Mills Road and Chancellor's Run Road and at Town Creek Drive and MD 235 where delays and conflicts presently occur. Although not yet funded, plans for new roads in Lexington Park are proposed to alleviate stress near the Naval Center. A number of safety and resurfacing projects are also scheduled for 1987-88 to improve operating conditions (Kellerco, 1987b). In 1981, a study of the northern Charles County transportation system was undertaken to identify traffic problems, predict future traffic conditions and recommend improvements to alleviate problems. The tremendous growth that is occurring in Charles County is predominantly located in the northern portion of the county. Historical pattern of traffic based on agricultural travel has been replaced by heavy commuter travel to the Washington Metropolitan area and by typical suburban residential travel. These changes in traffic patterns have resulted in congestion due to high volumes of traffic in excess of the roadways' capacities (Maryland Department of Transportation, 1981). The main roadway serving Charles County is US 301 (Figure 6). A variety of traffic types use this highway from interstate and commuter traffic to local, short distance trips. Due to the volume of traffic, the diversity of uses and the designed capacity, US 301 presently operates at a level-of-service D. Congestion severely restricts maneuverability and speed selection. Disruptions in traffic often result in deterioration of service to LOS F. At the US.301/MD 5/MD 228 intersection in Waldorf, operating conditions are at LOS E. This type of congestion is rarely encountered outside of heavily developed metropolitan areas. Congestion is further intensified along US 301 during peak hours. Other problem areas due to inadequate highway capacity, pa rticularly during peak hours, occur at MD 5/MD 925, US 301/Mattawoman-Beantown Road MD-5/Md 382 and US 301/Smallwood Drive. These areas are rated LOS C and D. ;eterioration I to LOS E and F often occurs during "rush hour. As reported earlier, future growth is primarily planned for this north- central, north-western portion of Charles County. Increases in residential and commuter traffic will greatly magnify-the current problems (Figure 7). If no improvements are made, traffic will greatly exceed the capacities of major roadways and intersections. US 301 will operate at LOS F with severe breakdown flow and congestion. Possibilities for improvements of operational conditions on or near MD 5 through Waldorf are not foreseen due to the nature of traffic and development in this area. The improvements that are currently being made along Mattawoman-Beantown Road are not expected to increase the capacity of the roadway sufficiently to accommodate the traffic bypassing the congestion at the MD 5/US 301 intersection. Smallwood Drive, the main access road of St. Charles City compounds operational problems by directing traffic into the already stressed US 301 and MD 5 roadways. This road will also be unable to serve the growing 23 FIGURE 6 LEV@L OF SERVICE DRSTaNATToN-S FOR RAADWAYS IN CHARLES COUNTY FOR 197P Fort 301 Forest Zi T. B. -7@ ine Bran VIP 2;4 9-,j y SC4 r-R Piscataway 0 UVAN 'k- Marsh M F3 773 3nville Hall F2"27/@ RD. 373 CC Ashbox ccokeek A 5harp ill Townshend. OP Berry % attawoman F2 278 "4' r; F2281 uIx 's, yans :z CA 1@ > Roa 0\0 z S'LLIN Waldo =5 0 Benville ey 301 Beantow -omonk n Middletow V, St. harle Ci IZZ4[@- G OAD LULR RD. 28 hite Pla* s R . ............ ma5u 12271 plo . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... Pomfret z '-7 RD. F4 878 q izos- K #D Brice 4 NLv- r5 - RD. Ri F2 275 Pisgah LEVEL OF SERVICE AJAI A& B NOT SHOWN F4881 VK .-C EXISTING NETWORK. D q YEAR 4.,@@ata 1978 F NOT A PFLI CABLE NORTHERN CHARLES COUNTY HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION STUDY k M 4ji, m c "41 @t V 4 (tTIP4, NAI@ 0 J." L7 - 5 d i. 1; 6, DIN MEN. w -eo r 9x ai c R E c 0 0 Z: C4 ID vi.ff. i.@ r, , m ititi-:j (D C> IM, rl @. .." . , < @; P., 'j, i': Z NvWomvjjVW C) tu LU 'i;,, 1, c;,, ; *,.-. C) LU 1Y. E-4 V) CL C: @C). 0.41 N0111WY11 0 m 1 0 C) C.Xi tX* Om ce. C, C) m co m UL z CIL IT L. d) w 41 U) 0 t -0 0 LL. c LL. ac 0 0 d Ck TOO 13 1 .- 0 00 -4; IV' 914 X`ti P 1 W 3111AN30 aly 311, N-38 z > 0 c 0 4) C, .1 E-4 4 - )L/, 83NN UJ z %1 4) 0 wx U) 41@ MARS c 0 soft 0 z V:@ 0 A, 0- RD C, A @,A Nil v IN rill WET., 1-vv up Q ll'' I -V E@O u !A, ul >z 'm3: tU 0 -v YN A't , 1;41 E; t .,, I k 1-1. .. - TV@ -fl,, 11, ` 2 0, >W Cd V Q AM 144 ui, un ftv..4., -;; 4:-, q@, . 'Y i Ag M 4" A :D J74;" LO J.11 @4, em N L'tt! ,ji 54 residential traffic from St. Charles without additional access roads being built. Without changes to MD 210, Indian Read Highway, increasing traffic would result in deteriorating conditions to LOS F in Charles,County. However, the dualization of the roadway is expected to relieve the congestion along MD 210. A number of recommendations have been set forth to resolve some of the traffic problems in northern Charles County. Short-term recommendations include improving the US 301/Md 5/Md 228 intersection to increase capacity, constructing a new park 'n ride lot on US 301 at Smallwood Drive to reduce peak hour commuting traffic, and new traffic signals at various stressed intersections for minor improvements. Long-term recommendations to improve present conditions and accommodate future traffic growth have also been made. These include widening MD 5 from US 301 to Post Office Road to relieve congestion through Waldorf, and reconstruction of the US 301/Smallwood Drive intersection to relieve congestion from St. Charles City, particularly from turning traffic. A Waldorf Bypass is being considered to relieve the growing stress along US 301/MD 5. A study of Prince George's and Charles counties is also recommended to establish "a master plan for access and traffic controls along US 301" to coordinate land use needs and traffic capacity with improvements to reduce congestion (Maryland Department of Transportation, 1981). Formal studies of Calvert'county's roadways level-of-service designations have not been undertaken at the present time. Local roads have been rated LOS C due to speed and road design constraints. Operational conditions are stable, although backups occasionally occur behind turning vehicles. Some restrictions in maneuverability and speed selection are felt by drivers to the presence of other vehicles. Presently, the intersections in Calvert County's town centers along Route 2/4 are operating at levels-of-service A and B. These are the most desirable operating conditions in terms of maneuverability, comfort and convenience. However, in response to the growing population in the county, these intersections are projected to so'on reach levels-of-service D and E, with LOS F conditions likely to occur during peak hours. The Department of Planning and Zoning is planning more detailed studies of the county's roadways to identify problem areas and recommend alternatives to alleviate and prevent traffic problems. 26 PERCEPTUAL CARRYING CAPACITY The Carrying Capacity Survey (Figure 3), designed to determine citizens' views toward the character of the region and toward.future growth and development, was mailed to a quarter (18,048) of the Southern Maryland households. Within three.months, 2,689 completed surveys were returned, which is a 15% return rate. The number of responses, along with additional written comments and telephone inquiries regarding the survey, indicate that the residents of Southern Maryland are very interested in these issues and are willing to participate in such study. In an initial analysis of the survey, a tabulation of the results was performed (see Appendix). A summary of the findings is reported in the following section. This preliminary examination of the survey responses revealed various flaws which must be addressed before final interpretations and conclusions can be drawn. As a supplement to this report, a more detailed and comprehensive analysis will be undertaken, including cross-tabulation between responses. While some bias or confusion between questions were discovered, the initial analysis indicates that citizens' attitudes will be revealed concerning the issues addressed by the survey. From these findings, general conclusions can be drawn identifying how residents view the quality of life and future growth, or what they perceive the carrying capacity of Southern Maryland to be. Survey Results 1. How would you describe the community that you'live in? Urban Suburban Rural Total Totals 78 753 1809 2640 Percentage 3.0 28.5 68.5 100 2. How would you like to. be able to describe your community in twenty years? Urban Suburban Rural Total Totals 104 915 1608 2627 Percentage 4.0 34.8 61.2 100 3. What kind of development would you prefer in the Southern Maryland region during the next twenty years? Urban Suburban Rural Total Totals 160 910 1422 2492 Percentage 6.4 36.5 57.1 100 27 4. There are many factors that determine how we feel about the quality of life of our community. Please evaluate how each of the following is to you (1 = very important, 2 = important, 3 = no opinion, 4 = unimportant, 5 very unimportant). Percentage V. Imp. Unimp. V. Unimp. No Op. Schools 70.3 16.7 2.9 2.9 4.9 Public Services 34.3 46.4 5.7 2.2 8.6 Recreational Areas 18.3 51.3 11.5 4.2 10.9 Entertainment 8.4 34.3 25.1 11.1 17.4 Shopping 22.7 43.2 15.9 5.7 9.9 Cultural/Hist. Sites/Museums 16.9 41.8 14.0 4.9 18.6 Transportation 48.0 37.1 5.4 2.3 5.0 Open Space/Forests/Waterways 65.0 25.4 1.8 1.3 4.3 Agricultural Land 46.5 31.9 4.5 2.2 11.7 Natural Resources 59.1 26.9 2.5 1.5 7.4 Other 10.1 0.8 0 0.5 0.4 5. How do you rate the overall quality of life in Southern Maryland? Totals Percentage Excellent 539 20.1 Good 1610 60.1 Fair 452 16.9 Poor 66 2.5 No Opinion 11 0.4 Total 2678 100.0 6. Check the following types of economic development that you would like to see in Southern Maryland. Totals Percentage Retail 1109 41.2 High-tech/Office Dev. 852 31.7 Manufacturing 431 16.0 Tourism 838 31.2 Agriculture 1577 58.6 Aquaculture (fish farming) 1251 46.5 Fishing 1225 45.6 Defense .443 16.5 Mineral Extraction & Forestry 239 8.9 None 196 7.3 Other 158 5.9 28 7. Should future growth be concentrated in areas of existing development or allowed to disperse throughout the region? Totals Percentage Concentrated 1732 66.4 Allowed to Disperse 713 27.3 No Opinion 163 6.3 Total 2608 100.0 8. If you are employed, where do you go to work? Total Percentage Calvert County 226 8.5 Charles County 528 20.0 St. Mary's County 478 18.0 Baltimore 27 1.0 Washington, D.C. 575 21.7 Other 817 30.8 .9. What is your trade or occupation? Totals Percentage Military 138 5.1 Managerial/Professional 1117 41.5 Homemaker 177 6.6 Technical/Clerical 401 14.9 Service Occupation 252 9.4 Farming/Forestry/Fisheries 89 3.3 Production/Craft/Repair 127 4.7 Operator/Laborer 61 2.3 Other 557 20.7 10. Do you rent or own your home? Totals Percentage Rent 241 9.0 Own 2430 91.0 Total 2671 100.0 11. How long have you lived in Southern Maryland? Years Totals Percentage 1-5 623 23.7 6-10 445 17.0 11-20 723 27.5 21-88 834 31.8 29, 12. Please check your age range. Age Totals Percentage 18-25 113 4.2 26-40 1058 39.8 41-44 899 33.8 Over 55 590 22.2 Total 2660 100.0 13. What is your annual household income? Income Totals Percentage Up to $9,999 51 2.0 $10,000-$19,999 236 9.2 $20,000-$29,999 390 15.1 $30,000-$49,999 991 38.5 $50,000 or more 905 35.2 30 REFERENCES Board of Education of Calvert County. 1987. School Facilities Master Plan for Fiscal Year 1989. Board of Education of Charles County. 1986. Comprehensive Plan for School Facilities. Board of Education of St. Mary's County. 1987. School Facilities Master Plan. Calvert County Department of Planning and Zoning. 1986. Calvert County Comprehensive Water and Sewerage Plan, 1986 Biennial Update. Highway Research Board. 1965. Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 87. Highway Research Board. 1985. Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209. Kellerco. 1987 (a). *St. Mary Is County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan, Existing Conditions - Transportation. Kellerco. 1987 (b). St.'Mary's County Short and Long Term (2000) Transportation Plan. Maryland Department of State Planning. 1985. Population Projections for Maryland Subdivisions. Maryland Department of State Planning. 1986. Public School Enrollment Projections 1986-1995. Maryland Department of Transportation (SRA). 1981. Northern Charles County Highway Transportation Study 1981. Nassaux-Hemsley, Incorporated. 1985. Charles County Comprehensive Water and Sewerage Plan Update - 1983. Ricklefs, Robert E. 1976. The Economy of Nature. Chiron Press, Inc., Mew York. pp. 245-249. St. Mary's County Metropolitan Commission. 1982. St. Mary's County Comprehensive Water and Sewerage Plan - 1982 Update. Tri-County Council for Southern Maryland. 1980. Managing Change in the 80's: A Challenge for Teamwork. Staff Paper No. 14. Tri-County Council for Southern Maryland. 1986. Carrying Capacity Design for the Southern Maryland Region. 31 APPENDIX 32 TABLE OF SLJBLJR-.- I (ROWS) BY RURAL.- I (CCA I..Jll N A-] FOR THE FC.JL-[ OWI NG VALIJES: u R L." A N 1 0 FREQUENC I ES 0 0 @5 1809 i 1 4 1 7 22 1 775 TOTAL 7,7 H 1 1 2 6 0 9 I-ABLE OF SUBUR@ I (ROWS) BY RURAL-- I (C-10I.Aii'vit-4s) FOR THIE f"UHAAAWING VALUE'S.- FREOUENC I ES 0 78 0 7 8 1 0 i 2 TOTAL Ejo 0 60 TABLE OF 2 (ROWS) BY RURAL 2 (COLU11NS) FOR THE FCX LOWING VALUES. A-2 L.J R 91\1..- 2 0 FREQUENC I ES 0 'I"OTAL 0 "36 1.600 1 1644 i 5 21 so 9.-.-."'6 TOTAL 9 It'i 1 16'4*'-" 9 25f:30 TABLE OF SUBUR 2 (ROWS) BY RUI::ML 2 ff.1101-1MV11,14S) FOR rl--IE F0t LOWING VOLUE:S: URBAINI-.2 I FREQUENCIES 0 1 0 104 1 i 105 i I Z[ 0 TOT A L 108 1 109 TABLE OF SUBLJR-3 (ROWS) BY RURAL- (JI"IN(S) FOR THE FOL.A OWING VOLUE-S. A- 3 U R 0 A N 0 FREQUENCIES 0 1 T (34 A L 0 i 1 '-".4 1422 1 1556 I i 9.11.0 49 959 TOTAL 10114 1471 2515 TABLE OF SUBUR (ROWS) BY Rt..)RAL- FOR THE FOLLCMING VALUE'S: URDAN-3 1 FREQUENCIES 0 "H]J'AL ------------- 0 i 1610 i 162 9 TOJ'AL 169 5 1.711. CUll A- 4 C 0 LJ N -1" E"t.A.All, H'." "I" F"c"I'l, 64 6,'1. 2.4 2. 1. 1891 l 9 7 0 . *72. 449 '42404 139.4 133 2,S.*'.!" 4.9 94. 74 6) 1. 1 2. E-3 97.1 4 78 2 6.) E3 92.9 100. 0 5 CLltl CLIM COUNT ("IfALAIT F'('-'-[' L) F`L- I D E)" E: F 77. 77 2. 9 2. 9 0 923 1000 3:37. 1240 2'@2 4 8 46.4 0 6 231 6.6 W21. '12 3 152 2631 5.7 97 " 8 4 58 2689 2.2 100.V 5 COUNT COLINT PC7, FCT (J R E CA R 87- 0 7 3.2 2 505 f.-592 1 B. 8 22,V 1-3180 1972 51 . -'...15 7 2 293 222 6 5 10.9 Oil.. 2 .308 2`57'.`5 11.5 9'5. 7 11. 114 26t-17 4. 12', 99.9 5 1 26E-3f-3 .0 100.0 6 M39 V) 100.0 a C','UM C."Lim COUNT (""OLIN]" PCT LJ F'.". N T EF""I" 104 104 93.9 225 "..9 8. ZI. 12. 921 1.250 .--"14. 46.5 2 467 1717 17. A. 63.9 674 2 --!; 9 125 1 08.9 4 298 69 lj.:l 100. V) 5 CUM CUM COUNT FIC1, F:,c;'r '70 70 2.6 2.6 0 610 680 2222. 7 25. 73-' 1 1161 1. Ei 4 14 -'. -.1; . 2 68. 5 2 267 21VJB 9.9 78. 4 427 94. 4 154 5.7 100.0 5 CUM CARI COUNT 98 98 35. 6 3.6 0 454 5 5 "':2 16.9 20.5 1 1125 1677 41.8 62.4 2- 501 21W-3 1.8.6 0 1 . 0 376 2554 14.0 95.0 1 `21* 3 2607 4.9 99. "? 5 1 4*",6E3t-i . Q.) :100. 0 6 1 2689 .0 1010. 0 7 CUM CUM COUN1 COUN'T, F'C'T' P(:' T UISTRAiNSP 61 61 3 2 5 0 1351 48'. 0 50.2 1 'A- 5 (998 2349 -.37. 1 87.4 2 1:3 4 2483 5.0 9 2. 145 -4628 5.4 97.7 4 61 2689 2.3 100.0 5 Cull CUI11 T -"C*I*' P C; T 0L)OPEW31" COUNT COLIN F 59 11J9 2.2 2.2 a) 1748 1007 65.0 67.2 1 6 O',-T 2490 25.4 92.6 2 115 2605 4.3 96.9 46 2 6) 5: 3 1.8 98.7 4 2688 1 . 100.0 5 2689 .0 100.0 E3 (Xill Will COUNT COUNT FICT Pc,,*r QUABI-AND 82 02 --,:.o 3.0 0 1251 1333 46.5 49.6 1 859 2192 31.9 81.5 2 3 15 2507 1.1.7 9",". 2 3 121 2628 4.5 97.7 4 60 2688 2.2 100.0 5 1 2689 .0 100.0 6 CILIIII GUll COUNT COUNT PC'F F-"(",'I* C-1UNPWRES '72 '72 2.7 0 1589 1661 (--?. 1 1 26.9 08. 6 2 190 2581 7.4 96.0 3 60 2,1.A9 2.5 90.5 4 39 2688 1.5 100.0 5 1 2 6, 119 .0 J.00,10 7 CLAY! GUM COUN-r COLM" PCIT OLIOTI-11ERS 2367 130.0 (31-3.0 0 271 26-38 1.0.1 96. 1 1 21 '-?659 @3 913.9 2 1.2 26*71 .4 99. 3 3 1 21672 .0 99.4 4 17 2689 .6 100.0 5 Cul"I CUI1I COUNT COUNT FICT PUY RQUEM.. 2150 2150 60.0 80.0 0 5 9 2689 20.0 100.0 1 Cull Cull COUNT COUNT PUT PCT ROUGOD 1079 1079 40.1 40.1 0 1610 2689 59.9 100.0 1 CUM COUNT COLIN Y PCT PC*r RcRif"AR 2237 2237 83.2 '12 0 452 2689 16). B 100.0 1 CUM Cull COUNT CIOUNT pr-I, FT."T R(.-MJP(-3R 2623 2623 97.5 97.5 0 66 "2609 5 1. 00. 0 t nL]NT-"-P .'CT ROUN01" 2678 267D 99. 6 99. 6 0 A-6 2689 .4 1.00.0 CIM-11111 '0( - -T "Cl' ImE 1) 1---Z E--TA I I COUNT C@ -1 N'I PC f 1580 1580 58.8 58.0 0 1109 2689 41.2 100.0 1 CUM CNJM COUNT COUNT FIC V EIN-HOTE"(1 1637 18 68.3 613. 0 W5 2 '2' 6 8 9 1 . 7 1.00.0 COUNT COUNT FICT F'C T EDIvIANUFl- 2258 2`2" 513 84.0 84.0 431 2669 16.0 100.0 CAmJM COUNT COUNT PCT FCJ I-ED-l"OLIR'Slyl 1651 1 L-35 I 6B. 8 60. S 0 H:sa 26 H (--? 31.2 100.0 1 C."UM CUM COUNT C C)UNT I.DCT PCT E.-- D (li 6 R I C, U 11121 1112 41.4 41.4 0 157 7 2689 50. 6 100.0 1 CILJM CUM COUNT COUNT FICT PC-f 1.*.'-DA(m'-,N.m)()ClL.J 1472'. 8 1438 53.5 5-m.1% 5 0 1251 2689 46. 5 100.0 1. CLill CUIll COUN-r CIOUN-1, F `C, T F'(-,'*T' E"DF-ISHNG 1464 1464 54.4 54.4 0 122? 5 2689 -1-5.6 1.00.0 1 CLIN CUIVI COUNT PCT K"'I" E D D E FT.: I 133 1:) 246 8:3. 5 8 0 2246 4 4`--l.' 2689 16.5 100.0 1. COUNT COUNT PC*Y Pcmr EDMI.NERL 2450 @.-450 91.1 91.1 0 239 '26 89 8.9 ioo.o 1 COUNT COUNT PCT FIC, I'm ED N C) 1\1 [7 2493 -12 4 9 --,: 92.7 92". 7 0 1.96 m 2689 7.3 100.0 1 CUM COUNT COLIN"I" PCmT* PUY 94.1 94.1 0 2531 158 2689 5. 9 100-0 1 TADLE OF* F'G1`%lCO1\I (ROWS) BY FGRDT E.3 (C.. FOR THE FTILLOWING VALUES: .1 --Gl"'NOP 0 FREQUENC 1 E'S 0 I"Ol"AL A-7 0 -17 713 1 790 1 1732 3 i 17 TOTAL 1809 716 2525 TABLE OF FGRCOIA (ROWS) DY FGfRDIIS (COLUMNS) FOR THE FIX LOWINB VALUES. I FREQUENCIES 0 1 TOTAL 0 t 163 0 i 16 0 TOTAL 164 0 164 CUM CUM COUNT COUNT PCT FCA" WRK(._.lAL 2463 24.63 91.6 91.6 0 226 2689 0. 4 100.0 1 CUM CUM COUNT COUNT PCT F::'Cl*f* wf`@T*.'CHR 2161 2161 BO.4 80.4 0 528 2689 19.6 100.0 1 CUM ("UM COLIN'r (30UNT PCT fm:Tll'I" 2211 2211 82.2 82.2 0 478 2 6 1-19 17. 0 100.0 1 CUM COUNT COUNI" PCT PUY WRf;::BAL 2662 2662 99.0 99.0 0 27 2689 1.0 100.0 1 Ct.-Im CUM COUNT couNT PC'I- PCT WRI;.*,W(-;sI 2114 21.14 70.6 78..6 0 575 2689 21.4 100.0 1. CUM CUM COUNT COUNT PCT FT'J wf:4::'.oTH 1072 1872 6V.6 69.6 0 BI7 26139 -50. 4 100.0 1 CUM CUM COUNT C0I..JN'T f."(111" f-"C'l TRADIIII LT 2".Ril 255 1 94.9 94.9 0 1313 2689 5.1 10010 1 (.,'LJM CUM COUNT COUNT PCT F:'(",*T 'I"RADMAN6 1572 1572 5EI.5 50.5 0 1117 2609 ( t I . ' `5 100. 0 1 CUM CUM COUNT C(']LJN"f PCT F" GT TRADHOME:. 21512 2512 93.4 9 --5 - 4- 0 A-8 177 2689 6.6 100.0 1 CUM CUM COUNT (.30UNT FTIT PC'I- TRADI ECH 2288 2288 85.1 85.1 0 401 268L? 14.9 1.00. 0 1 CUM CLJM COUNT COUNT FCT TR(-)DSE:'RV 24,.',-7 2 4:.--.f 7 90.6 90.6 0 252 2689 9.4 100 - 0 1 CUM CUM -RADF*'ARM COUNT COUNT PCT FT T I 2600 2600 96.7 "-?6.7 0 89 2689 3. 3 100.0 CUM cum COUNT COUNT PCI- FIC-l" TRADCFI,(-)F* 2562 2562 95.3 95.' '.5 0 2689 4.7 100.0 1 CUM COUNT COUNT PCT PCT TRADOPE'..R 2628 2628 97.7 97.7 0 6 1 2689 2.3 100-0 1 cum CUM TRADOTFIF@ COUNT COUNT Pc*r PCT 2 1:-"2 2 13 2 '79. 3 '79. 3 0 557 2689 20.7 100.0 1 TABLE OF" F-10IIIERIENT (ROWS) 1-.'(Y- H0111D]WINI FREQUENCIES 0 TOTAL 0 17 2430 1 2447 1 241 1 242 TOTAL 258 2431 2689 CUM CUM COUNT coui\rr PC`V F`CT RESI-EN 64 64 2.4 2.4 0 172 236 6.4 8.8 1 129 365 4.8 1 --5.. 6 2 115 480 4.3 17. "i 3, 105 t.585 .3.9 21. E3 4 102 687 3.8 25.5 5 60 747 2'. 2 2*7. 8 6 76 E123 2.B 30.6 7 815 908 3.2 3 73'. B 8 60 976 2.5 36.3 9 156 1132 5.8 42.1 10 94 1226 3.5 45.6 11 9,7; 1 -1,; 19 3.5 41-7.1 1.2 51 1370 1.9 50. 9 13 57 1427 2.1 5:3. 1 14 110 1531, 7 4.1 57. 2 15 6 -3 1600 2.3 59.5 66 1666 2.5 62.0 53 1719 2.0 63.9 Ic-l 32 1751 1.2 65.1 19 104 1855 3.9 69.0 @,o 22 1877 .8 69.8 21 24 1901 .9 '70.7 22 26 1927 1.0 71.7 19 1946 .7 '72. 4. A-9 54 2000 2.0 74.4 25 29 2029 1 . :1. 7 5. k.j 26 3'5 2064 1 . 76.8 27 21 2085 .8 77. 5 28 14 2099 .5 70. 1 29 56 21-551 2.1 E30. I cl IB 2 173 .7 00. 0 31. 27 2200 1.0 0 1 . CI X-T 25 22225 .9 82.7 la 224-3 .7 0-3. 4 36 2279 1.3 1-":) It . 8 12 2291 4 05. 2 6 20, 2'-.'.* 11 .7 85. 9 3? 20 2 3"..-F, 1 .7 H6.7 11 234-2 .4 87.1 39 61 2 4 0 2. 09.4 40 .E3 24A. 1 1. 4 90.E: 19 2460 .7 91.15 42 9 2469 .3 91.8 4:-..". 9 2478 92.2 44 20 22 4 9 8 .7 92.9 4',".5 10 2508 .4 9-3. :-T 46 6 2`5 14 9.-.,.5 47 17 25:31 .6 94.1 4E3 3 25*-.1:4 .1 94.2 49 12 2546 . /t 9,4.7 50 6 2` 5 5 2 .2 94.9 51 10 2562 .4 95. *.'-r 5 2 4 2566 .1 95.4 3 2569 .1 95.5 511. 29 259B I.J. 96.6 55 19 26 17 .7 97. 56 7 .4-624 73, 97. 6 57 5 2629 .2 97.8 5 H 6 26.-.'..5 .2 98.0 59 5 2640 .2 98.22 60 .5 2645 .2 98.4 61 2 2647 .1 98.4 62 4 2651 .1 98.6 6:':" 2 265:` .1 98. 7 64 5 2658 .2 9(3. 8 65 2 2660 .1 98.9 66 2 2662 .1 99.0 67 4 2" 6 6 6 .1 99. 1 68 2 266B .1 91-'?.2 69 .7 2675 .3 99.5 70 1 2676 .0 99.5 '71 2 2678 .1 99.6 72 2 2680 .1 99.7 '73 1 2@:)Bl .0 99.17 75 1 2682 .0 99.7 76 2 :.684 .1 99.8 T7 2 2686 .1 99.9 "71? 1 2687 .0 99. 9 CII (11 1 2688 .0 100.0 012) 1 2689 .0 100.0 88 CUM CUM COUNT COUNT PCT PCT AG 1 B25 2576 2, 5 7 6 95.0 95. 8 0 113 26139 4.2 100'. 0 1 A COUNT CIOUNT pc'T' PC, AG264-0 1631 1631 60.7 60.7 0 1058 2689 39.3 100.0 CUM CUM COUNT COLINT PCT FICIT AG4155 1790 1790 66.6 66.6 0 899 2609 3 4 100.0 1 CUM curl COUNT COUNT PcT PC.I"f ACR55UP 2099 2099 78.1 78.1 0 590 12 61 E 19, 12 1 . 9 100. 0 1 Clum CUM COUNT COUNT pcT PCT I NCLTI 0 26:38 14, 6 3, a 98.1 96.1 0 51 2689 1.9 100.0 1 CUM GUM COUNT COUNT PCT PCT I N(.' 1020 2453 2453 91.2 91.2 0 236 2699 0. S 100.0 1 CUM CUM COUNT COUNT F'CT I N C , 2 0 0 2 2? 9 9 22V9 85. 5 85.5 0 3190 2689 14.5 100.0 1 clivi U m COUNT COUNT PCT PC"f' I N C VJ I - 0 1698 1698 6.3. 1 6-3. 1 0 991 2689 6 . 9 100.0 1 GUM cum COUNT COUNT P C, T PCT I I'4C50LJP 1784 1784 6 6. 66.3 0 905 @609 33.7 100.0 1 @oj .0 7 4 I V- - -- @ - ---I @. 1118111111111111 1 @ )2 9225 @