[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
THE MORRIS ROAD DRAINAGE STUDY A Final Report to the WORCESTER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER as prepared by Bay Country Consultants HD 1683 The contract was financed in part by the Coastal Resource Division, Maryland Department M2 of Natural Resources through a grant provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 M67 as administered by the Off ice of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, 1989 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. ND W.P. INTRODUCTION The Morris Road Drainage Study was financed by the Worcester County Commissioners through a grant by the Coastal Zone Management Programs of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Office of Coastal Resources Management. Morris Road has been targeted for this funding because of the severe flooding which occurs there on a predictable basis. Surface drainage, as it currently exists, is far from ade- quate. The road itself is often made impassable by stormwater which is trapped by clogged or inadequate ditches. Dwellings become isolated and crops drowned. Another potential hazard is the presence of high tension power lines in an area subject to severe flooding. The intent of this study is to determine, from field study and existing data, the most practical and cost effective methods of reducing to minimal levels the impact of up to a fifty year storm event. It should be noted that environmental parameters are,con- sidered to be of prime importance. These parameters include, but are not limited to, sediment and erosion control, ecosystem development, impact to existing wildlife h@bi- tat and the preservation of interior and nontidal wetlands. Planned improvements developed in this report will ensure that proper and necessary environmental sale- guards are responsibly dealt with. Finally, the last section of this study shall discuss possible funding sources for the implementation of the recommended improvements. Permit applications, as required, will be developed and included here along with operation managment plans. Cost estimates for the suggested construction will be supplied to the county commis- sioners and located in Appendix A. CONTENTS Introduction An Overview of the Study Area Review of Governmental Policies Soils Description IV. Inventories and TR-55 Calculations V. Current Drainage Patterns V1. Proposed Improvements VII. Possible Funding Sources Appendix A Cost Estimates Appendix B Sandy Branch Tax Ditch Association Appendix C Funding.Request Form Letters Appendix D Permit Applications I. An Overview of the Study Area The existing drainage patterns and outlets within the watershed have become blocked and overgrown. Some new ditching has been introduced which ends abruptly and without any functional outlets. They simply flood greater areas of the same watershed. In some instances interior wetlands occur. The Morris Road study area is comprised of approximately 372.2 acres; 75 acres of which are located in Sussex County, Delaware. Of this, 23.5 acres are within the town limits of Selbyville, Delaware. This portion of the contributing watershed is adja- cent to, but not controlled by, the Sandy Branch Tax Ditch Association. Zoning in Selbyville is residential with a strip of business along the highway. County zoning is AR-1 Agriculture and light residential. The remaining 297.2 acres are located within the jurisdictional boundaries of Worcester County, Maryland. Currently there is no Maryland based public ditch asso- ciation or public watershed association regulating the problem watershed. The zoning designation of the Maryland portion of the study area is completely A-1, Agriculture. Though a small corner of adjacent property located along Route 113 and just southof Carey Branch is zoned B-1, Business; it remains outside of the limits of this@ report. Little or no further development is envisioned within the foreseeable future. Exhibit 1.1 is a plat showing the boundaries of the watershed, existing ditching, soil types and locations (as taken from the soil surveys of both Worcester and Sussex Counties), and current land usage. In keeping with the intent of the study to view all environmental parameters as being of prime importance, the Heritage Foundation was contacted and asked to report the presence of any endangered species which might be located within or downstream of the study area. Though a written report has not yet been received, verbal communication with them suggests that there are no endangered species with- in the area. A minutes report (showing approximate location only) does note that in the area of Bishopville the "Spotfin Kilifish" (Fundulus Luciae) has found sufficient habitat to reside. Though this fish is not on the endangered list, it is unusual to the Lower Shore. The improvements as planned to the watershed will not disturb the fish's habitat. A copy of the Heritage Foundation report will be presented to the Worcester County commissioners as an addendum to this study as soon as it is available. Attached is a Tax Map showing the delineation of the properties within the water- shed and labeled Exhibit 1.2. This is followed by a listing of the property owners. GRAPHIC SCALE Delaware Alb F0 Pm Wo 0 Pin 08 Fb 00 Pk PM Pk Pk PO Pk dS Pm K26 limB Pm WdB PA 'A Pe PM LmB KsA po Fe Pfn Pit Fo Pe MORRIS ROAD pk 3, Pk PO aryland pe Pm PM KsA Prn *see 'a W I .................... ........................ ........... . Pq .......... ... ... . ......... TAX MAP 0 0 0 co 0 w to (p w I to to 7 40 14 GRAPHIC S C A L E Delcwcre lb lb (2a I 0 Ir -lip r I! It's go 4.1 144: IL tL- P- IN -3 CL P- -Z-3 M R I OAD --- N"T s MORRI ROAD . ......... r &A r @11 Mary z If I7P4 L 0 '00 0 a Wo a 0 0 0 0 List of Current Property Owners Property Owner Address Acres 127 Norman T Jones Morris Rd., Bishopville 3.3 118 James E. Vachris Morris Rd., Bishopville 1.54 9 Harold J. Townsend Morris Rd., Bishopville 12.35 129-1 Charles W. Anderson Morris Rd., Bishopville 9.21 6 Robert Lee Showell Morris Rd., Bishopville 3.28 7 Robert Lee Showell Morris Rd., Bishopville 3.0 8 Ella Camper Morris Rd., Bishopville 1.0 10 Gladys L. Mitchell Morris Rd., Bishopville' 2.5 II Helen Handy Smith Morris Rd., Bishopville 2.51 12 Trustees of St. Matthews Morris Rd., Bishopville 0.344 112 Wallace L. Showell Morris Rd., Bishopville 0.341 114 Luther Kitt Morris Rd., Bishopville 0.190 54 Raymond T Stevens, Jr. Morris Rd., Whaleysville 13.94 13 Donald Hudson Morris Rd., Bishopville 50.0 6-A Harry L. Bunting Morris Rd., Bishopville 59.12 A-12 Middle States Holding Morris Rd., Whaleysville 61-.84 A-11 Betty Marie Bivens Morris Rd., Bishopville 17.19 1 O-A Catherine Baker Morris Rd., Bishopville 2.57- 9-A James & Norman Baker Morris Rd., Bishopville 1.23 16 Eunice M. Savage Morris Rd., Bishopville 0.548 18 Clarence Hall Morris Rd., Bishopville 0.773 7-A Harry & M. Showell Morris Rd., Bishopville 3.38 8-A Mamie Mitchell Morris Rd., Bishopville 5.5 17 Lester D. Justice Morris Rd., Bishopville 0.387 1 Trustees of Mt. Calvary Morris Rd., Bishopville 2.29 16-A Clifton R. Parker, 11 Morris Rd., Bishopville 15 Paul Burns Rte. 113, Bishopville 0.986 129-4 Elisha Dale Gray Morris Rd., Bishopville 0.25 129-3 William Felton Morris Rd., Bishopville 0.150 129-2 Norman B. Tingle Morris Rd., Bishopville 21.07 128 Joseph A. Lorenzo Rte. 113, Bishopville 1.3 5 Gertrude Evans Bailey Morris Rd., Bishopville 3.28 4 Elisha Dale Gray Morris Rd., Bishopville .250 3 William Felton Morris Rd., Bishopville .150 2 Norman B. Tingle & Geo & Howard Morris Rd., Bishopville 21.07 13 (No further information available from the tax office.) 23 Milton & Helen M. Belote Morris Rd., Bishopville 2.31 11. Review of Governmental Policies FEDERALLEVEL Though this study is primarily concerned with surface drainage of Morris Road and, as has been stated, little or no future development is expected in the area, it should be noted that development of any sort within the limits of the area may have an effect on the character of the watershed and it's discharge. In dealing with surface drainage, the primary federal agency is the Army Corps of Engineers, by authority of the Clean Water Act (among others). A new extension of the act stems from Section 404 and will deal specifically with nontidal wetlands. This will disallow the altering of wetlands without a permit. A copy of the currently used guidelines for application and a copy of an application for permit to alter jurisdicitional wetlands are included as Exhibit 2.1. The following excerpts are taken from the "Federal Manual for Identifying' and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands" and describe the three criteria for determining nontidal wetlands: 2.0 "Wetlands possess three essential characteristics: (1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland hydrology, which is the driving force creating all wetlands." 2.1 ". . hydrophytic vegetation is defined as macrophytic plant life growing in water, soil or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content." 2.6 "Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part... In general, hydric soils are flooded, ponded or saturated for usually one week or more during the period when soil temperatures are above biologic zero (41 * F). . 2.8 "Permanent or periodic inundation, or soil saturation to the surface, at least seasonally, are the driving forces behind wetland formation. The presence of water for a week or more during the growing season typically creates anaerobic conditions in the soil, which affect the types of plants that can grow and the types of soils that develop. Numerous factors influence the wetness of an area ... Of the three technical criteria for wetland identification, wetland hydrology is often the least exact and most difficult to establish in the field, due largely to annual, seasonal and daily fluctuations." Federal Level cont'd 2.10 The technical criteria are mandatory and must be satisfied in making a wetland determination. Areas that meet the NTCHS hydric soil criteria and under normal circumstances support hydrophytic vegetation are wetlands. . "The Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands" was pub- lished as an interagency cooperative publication by the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of the Army, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Soil Conservation Service in January, 1989. MARYLAND STATE LEVEL The Department of Natural Resources is a state regulatory agency whose authority comes from the Annotated Code of Maryland; Natural Resources; Title 9. Subtitle 102 of. Title 9 is a declaration of public policy. An excerpt follows: ."in many areas of the state much of the wetlands have been lost or despoiled by unregula4ted dredging, dumping, filling, and like activities, and the remaining wetlands are in jeop- ardy of being lost or despoiled by these and other like activities. The loss or'despolia- tion will affect adversely, if not eliminate entirely, the value of the wetlands as a source of nutrient to finfish, crustacea and shellfish of significant economic value; the lots or despoliation will destroy the wetlands as a habitat for plants and animals of significant economic value and eliminate or substantially reduce marine commerce, recreation and aesthetic enjoyment . . . " (Annotated Code 1957, Art. 66C, & 718; 1973, 1st Sp. Sess., Ch. 4 & 1.) The State of Maryland is also adopting a nontidal wetlands law which may be reviewed at the Planning and Zoning Office of Worcester County. This regulation accepts the federal guidelines for identifying wetlands and is expected to become effec- tive by December 31, 1990. Note that the provisions of these regulations can be quot- ed as stating: Regulation .05 Exemptions from Permit Requirement 2. Repair and maintenance of existing structures are exempt when conducted so as to minimize impacts to nontidal wetlands and if conducted within certain time limits. 3. Activities in isolated nontidal wetlands of less than one acre having no significant plant or wildlife value are exempt. 4. Activities for which the entire impact is less than 5,000 square feet of nontidal wetlands having no significant plant or wildlife value are exempt. 5. BMPs (best management plans) and other conditions apply to activities being conducted under exempt status. 6. Notice to the department and authorization to proceed is required prior to conducting certain exempted activities. Regulation .13 Agricultural Activities 1 Certain on-going agricultural activities such as repair and maintenance of drainage ditches, subsurface drains and water control structures are exempt. 2. Activities conducted in association with public drainage regulations or on land laying fallow as part of a rotational cycle or authorized set-aside are exempt. The general public, as well as, any drainage associations and the county should be aware of these regulations and the need to determine by means of the "Federal Manual" whether or not a planned project is located within a jurisdictional nontidal wet- land or it's associated buffer. The Maryland Department of the Environment receives the authority for their reg- ulatory function from Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and from the Health- Environmental Law of Maryland. Prior to any developmental activities in state wetlands (i.e. dredging, filling, building, watercourse change, etc.) a Water Quality CertifiCation must be obtained from this office. A copy of an application form for this is included as Exhibit 2.2. A Water Quality Certification shows compliance with the state's water qbali- ty standards which are codified in COMAR 10.50.01, Water Pollution, Control Regulations. COUNTY LEVEL The Worcester County commissioners have adopted a Comprehensive Land Use Plan associated with their goals for development. Recommendations of this plan suggest that the area of the Morris Road Drainage Study remain agricultural. Attached is Exhibit 2.3 which is a map copied from the comprehensive plan titled "Worcester County Land Use Plan, Map 2.1". This map exhibits graphically the proposed pattern of development for the county. The official Land Use Map, as well as, a copy of the Full Comprehensive Plan may be reviewed at the Worcester County Office of Planning and Zoning. The Worcester 'District Soil Conservation Board of Supervisors adopted a policy of requiring a fill permit or a release from the Corps of Engineers when a nontidal wet- land was in danger of being despoliated in June of 1987. instruction Booklet for the State of Maryland and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for construction in any floodplain, waterway or wetland area in Maryland January, 1988 APPLICATION JOINT FEDERAL / STATE APPLICATION FOR THE ALTERATION OF ANY FLOODPLAIN, WATERWAY, TIDAL OR NON-TIDAL WETLAND IN MARYLAND 0 All applications must be accompanied by plan drawings which show the location and character of the proposed work. For specific Information on what Is required on the plans, refer to the Instruction package. 81/2" x 11" black & white drawings are required for every application. Full construction plans are required for projects submitted to the Waterway Permits Division. 6 Any application which Is not completed In full or Is accompanied by poor quality drawings may be returned and will result in a time delay to the applicant. 0 If you need help understanding how to fill out the application form, please refer to the Instruction booklet. APPLICATION NUMBER: (To be assigned by the agencies) 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION: Name: Telephone: ------ Address: City: -State: Zip: 2. AGENT ENGINEER INFORMATION: Name: Telephone: Address: City: State: Zip: 3. PRINCIPAL CONTACT, If not the applicant: Name: Telephone: 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: S. PROJECT PURPOSE: 0 Storm Drain/Stormwater Management 0 Shore Erosion Control 0 Erosion/Sediment Control 0 Marina 0 Utility Installation 0 Improve Navigable Access 0 Fill 0 Create Waterfowl Habitat 0 Improve Fish Habitat 0 Bridge 0 Temporary Construction 0 Stream Channelization 0 Dam 0 Beach Nourishment 0 Maintenance/Re pair 0 Road 0 Residential/Commerclat Development 0 Small Pond 0 Culvert 0 Other: (describe) CERTIFICATION: I hereby designate and authorize the agent named above to act on my behalf In the processing of this application and to furnish any Information that Is requested. I certify that the Information on this form and on the attached plans and specifications Is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that any of the agencies Involved In authorizing the proposed works may request Information In addition to that set forth herein as may be deemed appropriate In considering this proposal. I grant per- mission to the agencies responsible for authorization of this work, or their duly authorized representative, to enter the project site for Inspection purposes during working hours. I will abide by the conditions of the permit or license It Issued and will not begin work without the appropriate authorization. I also certify that the proposed works are not Inconsistent with Maryland's Coastal Zone Manage- ment Plan. APPLICANT MUST SIGN: Date PLEASE COMPLETE THE REVERSE SIDE ONMWAACE 434S (IM 6. PROJECT LOCATION: This project is In 0 Tidal 0 Non-Tidal Waters. (Pleove Check On*) County: Name of Waterway: Site Address or Location: Directions from neare st intersection of two state roads: County Book Map (A.D.C.) Coordinates: Page: Letter:- Nurnber: 7. TYPE OF PROJECT' Work Proposed Overall Length Average Width Maximum Distance Channelwar@ From Mean High (in feet) On feet) Water For projects In tidal waters (in feet) 0 Bulkhead 0 Revetment 0 Vegetative Stabilization 0 Gablons 0 Groins or Jetties 0 Boat Ramp 0 Pier 0 Breakwater 0 Road Crossing 0 Utility Line 0 Outfall Construction 0 Dredging 0 New 0 Maintenance 0 Hydraulic 0 Mechanical 0 Other: For other projects, please supply project dimensions Including the area of disturbance (acreage), volume of fill (cubic yards), type of fill, and area (acreage) of wetlands to be Impacted. 8. PROPOSED STARTING DATE: 9. CONTRACTOR'S NAME (if known): 10. LAND USE: Current Use Is: 0 Agriculture 0 Wooded 0 Marsh/Swamp 0 Meadow 0 Developed Present Zoning Is: 0 Residential 0 Commercial 0 Agriculture 0 Other: 11. OTHER PERMITS REQUIRED: 0 Building Permit 0 Soil Conservation District 0 Other: 12. NOTIFICATION OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: The applicanVagent will be Informed by the permitting agencies when notification of adjacent properly owners Is required. IMPOFrTANT. PLEASE MAIL YOUR APPLICATIONS TO THESE AGENCIES Federal Government State Government For Tidal Waters, please submit one For Non-tidal Waters, please submit one copy of the application to: copy of the application to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore District Tidal Wetlands Division Waterway Permits Division PO. Box 1715 Water Resources Administration Water Resources Administration Baltimore, Maryland 21203-1715 Tawas State Office Building D-4 Tawas State Office Building D-2 Attention: NABOP-R Taylor Avenue Taylor Avenue (301) 962-3670 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 (301) 974-3871 (301) 974-2265 @ County 8 7T Y P I' A URBAN SUBURBAN N REsir)kNTIAL OC-A.-rIOA SUBURGA TOWN CENTER VILLAGE ESTATE AGRICULTURE PARK LANE, CONSERVATION Ocean", City COMMERCIAL hill ILI C I 'WORCESTER COUNTY LAND USE PLAN MAP 2.1 E XH I eAT 2.3 111. Soils Description The Soil Surveys of Worcester County and Sussex County, as published by the United States Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service, map the study area as having the following soils: Map Soil Hydrologic Designation Classification SoilGroup Pe Plummer loamy sand B-D Pt Portsmouth silt loam b Pm Pocomoke loam C Pk Pocomoke sandy loam C My Mixed alluvial land KsA Klej loamy sand, 0-2% slopes B KsB Loamy Sand,2-5% slopes B KI Klej loamy sand B Os Osier loamy sand B-D.. WO Woodstown sandy loam C WdA Woodstown sandy loam, 0-2% slopes C WdB Woodstown loamy sand C Fa Fallsington sandy loam D LmB Lakeland loamy sand, clayey substratem, A 0-5% slopes NDIe,; (My) Mixed alluvial land has no determined hydrologic soil grouping. For the purposes of performing TR-55 calculations we shall assume it to be Class D. Hydrologic Soil Groups Introduction Each soil is placed into one of four groups according to the rate of surface infil- tration of water; when the entire soil is thoroughly wetted. Infiltration under thoroughly wetted conditions is correlated positively with internal transmission of water, and thus negatively with runoff potential. Infiltration and transmission of water is not the same as permeability. For instance, a rapidly permeable soil, such as plummer, will have a very slow infiltration and transmission rate when thoroughly wetted because of a stagnant water table. Descriptions of the different hydrologic soil groups are as follows: Group A Soils have high infiltration rates even when thoroughly wetted, consisting chiefly of deep, well to excessively drained sands and/or gravels. These soils have a high rate of water transmission and would result in a low runoff potential. Group B Soils have moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted, consisting chiefly of moderately deep to deep, moderately well to well drained toils with moderately fine to moderately coarse textures. These soils have a moderate'', rate of water transmission and a moderate runoff potential. Group C Soils have a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted, consisting chiefly of soils with a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils with moderately fine texture and a slow infiltration rate. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission and a high runoff potential. Group D Soils have very slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted, consisting chiefly of clay soils with a high swelling potential, soils with a high permanent water table, soils with claypan or clay layer near the surface and shallow soils over nearly impervious materials. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission and a very high runoff potential. IV.Inventodes and TR-55 Calculations In June of 1986 the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service issued the second edi- tion of "Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds" Technical Release 55. This release presents the currently accepted procedures for calculating storm runoff volume, time of concentration and time of travel, and peak rate of discharge. This method generated with computers the following calculations. TR-55 CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION VERSION 1.1 Project Morris Road Watershed User-: Chip Date: 12-15-9 County Worchester State- MD Checked: ---- Date ------- Subtitle: Subarea : 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrologic Soil Group COVER DESCRIPTION A B C Acres (CN) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab.) Open space (Lawns,parks etc.) Poor- condition; grass cover- ( 50% 2(86) Fair- condition-, grass covet, 50% to 75% 19.5(79) Good condition; grass covet, ) 75% 9(74) Streets and roads Paved; open ditches (w/right-of-way) 4(92) Dirt (w/right-of-way) 1(87) Residential districts Avg % imperv (by average lot size) 1/8 acre (town houses) 65 12(90) 1/4 acre 38 4.25(83) CULTIVATED AGRICULTURAL LANDS Fallow Crop residue (CR) poor 19. 5(910) Row crops Straight row (SR) good 244(85) OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS Woods fair- 57(73) Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 372. ------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------- SUBAREA: I TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 372.25 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER:83 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- TR-55 Tc and Tt THRU SUBAREA COMPUTATION VERSION 1.1 F't'QJeCL : m-Drris waterslied User: Chip Date: 12-15-9C.) County : Worcester State: MD Checked: ---- Date: -------- Subtitle: -------------------------------- Subarea #1 - I ---------------------------------- Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Tim( rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheet 3. G 300 003 c C.).38( Shallow Concent'd 4(-)o .0o3 u Open Channel 7260 2 1. cw)j Time of Concentration 1.51* Shallow Concent'd 400 0o3 Ij o.12( Open Channel 72GO .2 1. C)Qj Travel Time 1.13* --- Sheet Flow Surface Codes --- A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense --- Shallow Concentrated --- B Fallow (No Res.) G Grass, Burmuda Surface Codes --- C Cultivated 20 % Res. H Woods, Light P Paved D Cultivated 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved E Grass-Range, Short Generated for, use by TABULAR method TR-55 TABULAR DISCHARGE METHOD VERSION 1.11 morris Hoad Watershed User: Chip Date: 12-15-9(.") County Worcester State: MD Checked: ---- Date: -------- Subtitle: years. Total watershed area: 0. 582 sq mi Rainfall type: DMV Frequency: 5(. -------------------------- Subareas -------------------------- I Area(sq mi) 0.58* Rainfall(in) 7.3 Curve number 83* R uno f f ( i n) 5.31 Tc (hrs) 1.51* (Used) 1.50 TiriieToOut let 0.00 la/P 0.06 (Used) 0.10 Time Total ------------- Subarea Contribution to Total Flow (cfs) ------------ (hr) Flow 1 11.0 is 19 11.3 25 25 11.6 31 31 11.9 43 43 12.0 53 53 12.1 65 65 12.2 90 90 12.3 124 124 12.4 167 167 12.5 222 222 12.6 281 281 12.7 340 340 12.8 395 395 13.0 466 466 13.2 504P 504P 13.4 470 470 13.6 442 442 13.8 414 414 14.0 386 386 14.3 346 346 14.6 309 309 15.0 269 269 15.5 226 226 16.0 192 192 16.5 164 164 17.0 139 139 17.5 117 117 18.0 loa 102 19.0 77 77 20.o 62 62 22.0 43 43 26.0 15 15 P - Peak Flow value(s) provided from TR-55 system routines V. Current Drainage Patterns As can be seen from the survey, the main ditching patterns which currently exist are logical, but they are not adequate to cover the entire area in stress. They are also limited by their size and cannot convey enough water to minimize the threat of flooding under normal circumstances. Most of these existing ditches are also in serious need of maintenance and some need reconstruction in order for them to function as originally designed. Many existing ditches have banks which are too steep for vegetative cover to stabilize them properly. In all cases the existing culverts are at least partially clogged with sediment and growth, or the headwalls of the associated ditches are eroded dan- gerously close to the roadbeds. Where these ditches run adjacent to fields in use for agricultural activities, there is little or no buffer strip. Exhibit 5. attached, notes these problems graphically. Proper drainage can not occur under these conditions. Adequate ditching must be designed, a proper maintenance schedule put into effect and all necessary e 'nviron- mental safeguards must be employed. Whatever cost is incurred in making'these improvements will be more than offset by the economic gain realized in improved,dgri- cultural production, lower maintenance cost in reference to the road and positive envi- ronmental impact. The cost of maintaining an adequate drainage system is Iess1han the cost of rebuilding a drainage system. Attached is the survey labeled Exhibit 5.2. KI Fo GRAPHIC SCALE Delaware 4b F Pm FILL. 15 Wo a o Pm os Fb of It 0. PM ps Pit Po Pk WdBj prn .. ....... LIMB Pm W ..... P, PM LmB K P& F40 PM pin ft F . .... ... ............. ... .... . ...... Pe PON". MORRIS ROAD Pit &AD ... . ...... .... Pk ps aryland prn .... . .. P& PM KsA Pin Pa ............... .......... ............ .......... .............. .... ... . .... ... .. ... ...... . .... .... . .............. ............. X. 15AMCrY 5vL,%.wr-sA TAX PITC," ;SUR VE Y 0 0 co 0 40 po as two In 40 40 GRAPHIC SCALE Delaware 00 00 00 T6F. 4.6* *? dw 164 Tt 17.00 WP.T%.At4 IL MORRISI OVrLZT 1.60 MORRIS ROAD INY 1*1.65.- W.45 ;000 it a.)c;op Lj 00 0 0000 VI. Planned Improvements The primary purpose of this report is to provide options to alleviate the periodic flooding of Morris Road and adjacent properties. The most severe problems are shown on the survey (Exhibit 5.2) and noted as areas of severe flooding. These areas cause a threat to the health and safety of the residents in the area because of the standing water which is slow to drain or percolate and because it renders the road impassable; therefore making quick access for emergency medical treatment impossible. An addi- tional hazard, as was noted in the introduction, is the presence of high tension power lines in the area. These power lines are within close enough proximity to make contact with ponds created by inadequate surface drainage. Following are different plans designed to alleviate the drainage problems along the road and the severe flooding which occurs immediately adjacent to it, as well as, providing drainage in other areas where access to efficient ditching does not currently exist. Discussed after these plans, but of equal importance, are several measures to provide environmental safeguards. None of the drainage plans should be considered without employing the appropriate environmental measures. Plan #1 Note that there currently exists a Delaware tax ditch which runs west along the state line from Rt. 399. This is part of the Sandy Branch Tax Ditch system. Because of it's proximity to the problem area, it would be advantageous to drain into it. The map labeled Plan 1 shows how this would be possible by constructing a new roadside ditch along the south side of Morris Road with laterals south along the property lines between properties P-13 and P-5, P-1 and P-13, and P-8 and P-1. This water would then be transported by way of a 24" eccentric (squash) pipe north under Morris Road and along the easterly property line of P-9A to outfall into the tax ditch. Another roadside ditch along the north side of Morris would also drain into this outfall ditch. Contact with the chairman of the Sandy Branch Tax Ditch Association has been made and the officers of that Association are inclined to help. The property owner on whose land the tax ditch exists is also willing to allow the new construction on his property. The conditions of both are listed in Appendix B. The total area of the watershed which would drain into the Sandy Branch system would be approximately 8 acres. Plan #2 This plan drains the same 8 acres as Plan 1, but follows Rt. 399 to outfall into Sandy Branch. Though it is a feasible plan it will not be as efficient as Plan 1 because of the extended distance of transportation which will force a less positive grade to the outfall. This plan should be used only if it becomes impossible to obtain an easement from the property owners along the outfall ditch noted in Plan 1. Plan #3 This concerns the areas of severe flooding shown west of the ROW corridor of Delmarva Power and Light. A roadside ditch along the northwesterly side of Morris Road would have a sufficiently positive grade to conduct this stormwater to intercept the existing ditch shown as Ditch A on the accompanying plan. This existing ditch is large enough to accept the added influx of water and only requires improved stabilization and maintenance of the existing culverts. The best method of stabilizing both the inlets and outfalls of these culverts would be the use of stone or concrete, due to the steepness of the banks and the highly erosive effect of the great volumes of runoff that flow through this ditch.The final outfall of this ditch is into Carey Branch. Plan #3A There currently exists a ditch (shown on the accompanying plan as Ditch B) which could be made more effective by reversing its flow back to the roadside ditch dis- cussed in Plan 3 above. This ditch currently connects to a private system of drainage ditching which runs through a very narrow and circuitous route to eventually outfall-ihto Ditch A. Because this ditching system is so narrow and extended, the flow rate is extremely slow and the adjacent area of severe flooding is not sufficiently relieved. the ditch to be reversed is approximately 450 feet long and cuts through the area of pond- ing which needs to be better drained. It would have to cross Morris Road by way of tin 18" reinforced concrete pipe and join the roadside ditch described in Plan 3. This plan would be less expensive than widening and maintaining the aforementioned private ditching system. Plan #4 This plan covers the area of Morris Road between Rt. 339 and U. S. Rt. 113. There is an existing ditch running along the north side of the road, however, it has become filled-in and overgrown. Due to the fact that the right of way (R.O.W.) of Morris Road is only thirty feet, there is not enough room in the R.O.W. for an adequately sized ditch. Dan Massey, of Delmarva Power & Light, has been contacted in reference to relocating the low voltage transmission lines which are located on the north side of the road, and is looking into the cost of this activity. Also, the owner of property P-16A has expressed interest in better drainage of his land and may be willing to accept a 15' easement along the road. As is shown on the attached plan, there is adequate relief to allow a ditch grade of .38% from Rt. 399 to the existing main outfall ditch into Carey Branch. This ditch crosses property P-129-3 diagonally and an easement would have to follow it as well. The existing culvert under Morris Road is not quite large enough at 30" and should be increased to a 36" eccentric pipe in order to better manage the flow. This plan also requires a short road ditch on the south side of Morris Road, with laterals down the division lines of Properties P-7 and P-8, and P-8 and P-10. This water would be conveyed under Morris by way of an 18" reinforced concrete pipe. Plan #5 This provides shallow ditches to fields which are not otherwise drained and exhibit signs of intermittent flooding. These ditches should be shallow and wide in order to promote good stabilization through vegetation. That vegetative cover would also adequately filter the stormwater runoff prior to it reaching the main trunk lines of the drainage system and Carey Branch. A positive grade of .3% minimum would be required to ensure that the flow is not interrupted. The following are necessary environmental measures. Measure #1 All ditches throughout the drainage system, whether it is new construction or currently existing, require a 15 foot easement. This is to provide legal access for inspections to be scheduled at least once very 2 years and for the purpose of conducting scheduled and emergency maintenance. Measure #2 Periodic maintenance will be sheduled as necessary after every inspection. These maintenance activities will include: a. Clearing, "when no other practical alternate exists". b. Mowing, in order to restrict the growth of woody vegetation and scrub. And to promote the dense growth of herbaceous vegetation. c. Excavation, to maintain the designed grades and cross sections, or to clean existing or construct new sediment traps. d. Herbicide aplication as approved by the soil conservation service. e. Obstruction removal, such as deadfall or trash deposits. Measure #3 Buffer strips at a minimum of 10'feet, in the case of a roadside ditch, and 15 feet throughout the rest of the system are necessary to provide filtration of sediment and nutrients prior to the system. The maintenance by the adjacent property owners of these buffer strips should be strictly enforced. Measure #4 Vegetative stabilization of all ditches should also be mandatory in order to protect the system and ultimately Carey Branch against erosion and sedimentation and the influx of nutrients. The accompanying plan denotes existing ditches whose slopes should be recut in order to be properly stabilized. Measure #5 Sediment traps shall be installed immediately before each major culvert. The attached plan, Measure #5, shows these locations, as well as, their size and depth. Measure #6 Any private ditching that makes use of the drainage system, or other construction for the purpose of stormwater control must adopt Measures 2 through 5 providing such construction occurs within the delineated watershed. The provisions of Plan 5 should also be mandatory design standards for new construction. Measure #7 Possibly the most important improvement of the system would be the construction of sediment basins. These should be shallow (approximately 12" to 3' in depth) and planted with freshwater aquatic vegetation. The attached plans labeled Measure #7A, B & C show the best possible locations for these basins and all should be used if possible. Measure #8 Any future additions to the drainage system will adhere strictly to the provisions of the nontidal wetlands regulations as well as all other applicable laws and regulations. The permits obtained for the imple- mentation of improvements outlined in this report are specifically intended for this design and do not constitute a blanket approval from any authority for the watershed. Measure #9 The soil from both new construction and reconstruction should be good fertile soil for the most part. It should be kept within the watershed if possible. The best location is noted on the accompanying plan. This property is currently lying fallow and would supply a natural sediment control barrier while grading and seeding are taking place. However, if property owners within the watershed choose to auction off the soil as fill material the governing body should arrange to do so. A necessary stipulation should be that no bid will be accepted without a satisfactory sediment-erosion control plan. Any and all proceeds will be applied to the cost of the implementation of planned improvements. Measure #10 As a general rule, the standard guidelines of state uPublic Watershed Association Operations and Maintenance Plan" are an excellent tool and acceptable to this report with the exception of the widths of buffer strips. -TAX AofA P, 0 0 SCALE GRAPHIC Delaware 4b %% 00 SA BRAWN PW dUrFALL. 0 1: IMVLFRrxt Sir 5 00 -4411 irr INV @10 "Lln it To (S"pe P_ P. % AL QL 15 bL IL p- 7.5 I;Iij - -a , R I J- ROAD Iz F 51 MORRI ROAD U . ......... % Ma U oil *see ,TAX ,,MA P 0 0 W 14 GRAPHIC SCALE Delaware 4b 7': $ANvy BRAWN k r isas N 85.7 (10) . . . . . . . . CLWv*,LL, low$ sit. % if F-up A TIP clexpe 00 I QL tL f CL 3 R I 'S OAD r-t*l I F-116 MORRI ROAD I......... P-&A A jo 00 00 000 -1jif I PP4 L 0 00 00 000 0";; ,,xTA-X .,MA P 0 0 0 40 (14, 40 to 4m 40 4D 40 In - 40 Q0 GRAPHIC SCALE Delaware so 00 00 14.3 P. All *I .19liaff m v. 14. 1 1, 40ij CL I W LET CL tL p- 7. OL J- C.MP 1H @.OAD AWLfiT 1114V,@ 82@Ug AS 'Pile MORRI ROAD P.) F1 It V'114 L L 7@ TAX MAP 0 co 0 in 40 W P@ GRAPHIC SCALE Delcwore pr L 00 13, ir [if tit. T F. aurpA&L. 40 11 JWL9-r Y@ % p .1ki P. m Rl % OAD NT p-ns MORRI ROAD . ........ P-&A P-54 00'\ VP4 L 0. 6 0 000 0 0 .,"TAX VA P CD 0 to GRAPHIC SCALE Delcwor,. 64. 1c, 00 10) oval EXIST. OUTIRA"t 14-%S P-upA Ml. t L k P-2-3 OAD r-17 r-F IF ROAD M 0 R R I N I P-lis F-4A P-13 P-54 exisr 6VrF ^LLs VP4 L M 0 15ANCrY 5V.A.WC-R T" PI-re-VA SURVEY 0 0 0 0 0 * W . . GRAPHIC 'S CALE Delaware 00 IMP 0 Imy. IL. *0 T61P 00 12 It!I .. .. fill. OW 1. M to So sill! IsAs IL is 0MI.C1 Ixi OA D -A MORRIS ROAD INV if 010 10 WKC-P .(..o INV 10.10 TAX MAP 0 SCALE GRAPHIC Delaware 10 A P-1 fl-wA lift, fit. 11 P. 40 l"c!" go 1A CL M R I OAD r. -Z I MORRI ROAD . ........ r-&A BASIN VP4 L 0 0* o a 0 0 0 a, 4. 0 11 TAX MAP co 0 40 (" ) :7`04-- to 010 GRAPHIC S C A L E Delaware 40 10 5 P-uoA P-10 f IS 13 CL p- -i IL I I IL M R I OAD I P-11S MORRI ROAD .1 ......... P.( A Mary P-All. Fl. If J-,.jo 17P4 L VII. Possible Funding Sources The greatest difficulty with implementing improvements in any drainage project is in locating funding. Several possible sources have been contacted and the results of that survey follow. Delmarva Power & Light The enginner for R.O.W.s responsible for the Morris. Road area is Mr. Dan Massey. He was approached in reference to moving the low voltage transmission lines running alongside of the road in order to find room to make the necessary improve- merits to the ditch. If given an easement the power company is generally happy to move power lines, but usually at the applicant's expense. He did, however, sound hopefull that in this case an exception might be made and the power company would pay for this action themselves. A copy of the letter in which this request was made can be found in Appendix C. A final decision has not as yet been reached. The Ma[yland Department of the Environment Ms. Kathy Drazek, with this department, has been instrumental in trying to locate funds within various programs administered through the Maryland Department of ihe Environment. One source might be the Maryland Cost Share Program which'would cover up to 75% of the project. A second possiblility may be a program titled MACS (Maryland Agricultural Coast Share Program), which may pay for 87.5% of the improvements. Research on the legislation of this program is continuing. A third possibility, though less likely, is the program of Supplemental Funding. This may be of help through part of the project, but is seldom used except in cases of necessary improvements to utilities. There is also a program titled the State Revolving Fund, which though is not a full funding program, acts as a loan with an interest rate of 5% (currently). Though research is continuing with the Maryland Department of the Environment, they appear to be the most likely to support the project. As information surfaces it will be made available to the commissioners as an addendum to the report. The Malyland Department of Agriculture, Mr. Mark Berry, a program assistant for the Water Quality Cost Share Program, sounded hopeful that his funding could be utilized here. However, this could not be done unless Measure #5 was implemented, then the Morris Road plans would be rated next to the other applicants to the program throughout the state. A decision on this pro- gram's investment in our project could not be expected until the end of May, 1990. Should we be rated high enough to receive monies from them, they are authorized to pay 65% of the project up to a ceiling amount of $10,000.00 per pond and $25,000-00 per project. Local PropeM Owners Though not all the property owners in the area have been contacted, the ones who have been approached with the idea of forming a public watershed association have replied favorably. In view of the severe conditions to be found in the area, it is dif- ficult to percieve that any less than a majority would not respond favorably. Worcester County Once the commissioners have reviewed and accepted this study and the cost 'estimates (Appendix A), application to these various funding programs is possible. However, it is doubtful that the entire cost of the improvements suggested herein will be paid by the government agencies. If a PWA can not be formed or can hot absorb the remaining costs, it would become necessary for the county commissioners to either accept the responsibility themselves, or perhaps to arrange a loan to the PWA. Acknowledge me nts Funding for the DRAINAGE STUDY for THE MORRIS ROAD AREA was made jointly by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources Water Resources Administration and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Coastal Resources Management 'We would like to thank the Worcester County Drainage Steering Committee for their help and guidance in gathering data and the preparation of this document. Appendix A Cost Estimates Plan #1 Right to Outlet into Sandy Branch Tax Ditch- Tax Ditch Association $ 250. ()C) Property Owner of Tax Ditch 5 C) C) . 0 C) Roadside Easements 920 lf-x 11), 9200 sq. ft. @ 2000/acre 422.41 Lateral Easements IC)00 lf x 15, =15000 sq.ft. @2000/acre 688.71 101 of 3o"CMP @ 25.27/ft 252.7C) 251 of 24"CMP @ 19.93/ft 498.25 Excavation 2300 cu yds ID 3.00/cu yd 6900.00 Grading/Shaping 28250 sq ft CD 2800/acre 1815.89 Establish Cover 28250 sq ft @ 500/acre 324.27 Road Patch 100 sq ft I? 3.00/sq ft 30C). 00 Total $ 12138.18 Plan #2 Right to Outlet in Sandy Branch Tax Ditch Tax Ditch Association 250.00 Property Owner of Tax Ditch 500. 00 Roadside Easements 1146 lf x 101 =11460 sq ft - @ 2000/acre 526.17 Lateral Easements 1000 lf x 151 =15000 sq ft @ 2000/acre 688.71 10' of 3()"CMP 25.27/ft 252. 70 251 of 24"CMP @19.93/ft 498.25 Excavation 2140 cu yds @ 3. 0(.-)/cLt yd 6420.00 Grading/Shaping 26460 sq ft @ 2800/acre 1700. 83 Establish Cover 26460 sq ft @ 500/acre 303.72 Road Patch 100 sq ft @ 3. 00/sq f t 300. 00 Total 11440.38 Plan #3 Roadside Easements 1200 lf x 101 @ 2000/acre 550.96 Excavation 570 cu yds @ 3. 00/cu yd 1710. 0(-.) Grading/Shaping sq ft 2800/acre 771.35 Establish Cover 12'000 sq ft @ 500/acre 137.75 Total 3170.06 Plan #3A Lateral Easement 450 lf x 151 @ 2000/acre 309.92 Excavation 45 cu yds @ 3.00/acre 135.00 Grading/Shaping 6750 sq ft I? 2800/acre 433.89 Establish Cover 6750 sq ft @ 500/acre 77.48 Road Patch 100 sq ft @ 3. 00/sq ft 300. 00 Total 1634.54 Plan #4 Roadside Easements 1850 if x 101 = 18500 sq ft I? 2000/acre 849. 40 Lateral Easements 92o if x 151 13800 sq ft @ 2000/acre 633.61 Outlet Easement 306 1 f x 151 =459C) sq ft @ 2C)OO/acre 210. 75 Excavation 680 cu yds @ 3.00/cu yd 2040.0o Site Prep (clear brush) 306 if Cd 0. 6C) / ft 185. 00 Grading/Shapeing 36890 sq ft @ 2800/cacre 1694. 00' Establish Cover- 36890 sq ft @ 500/acre 424.0o 251 of 18"CIYIP @ 15.13/ft 378.25 251 of 36" eccentric @ 45.06/ft 1126.50 Road Patching 225 sq ft @ 3. 00/ f t 675. 00 Total 7794.75 Elan #5 Easements 1275 If x 151 = 19125 sq ft 878.10 Excavation 71 cu yds @ 3.0(-_)1cu yd 213. 00 Grading/Shaping 19125 sq ft @ 2800/sq ft 1229.34 Establish Covet, 19125 sq ft 500/acre 219.53 Total $ 2539-97 Measure #1 Easements 1875o If x 151 ;?8125(:) sq ft @ 2000/acre 12913.22 Measures #3 & 4 Grading/Shaping 6.46 acres @ 2800/acre 18088. 00 Stabilization Netting 62000 sq ft @ 0.14/sq ft 8680.00 Establish Cover- 6.46 acres @ 500/acre 3230.00 Total $ 29998.0(--) Oggsure #5 Excavation 18 cu yds @ 3. 00/yd $ 54.oO Measure #7 A) 20000 square foot pond Excavation 5000 cu yds @ 3.50/cu yd 17500. 00 301 of 24"CMP @ 18.85/lf 565.50 36" Riser Gd 9 6. 3 1 96.31 Clearing 1200o sq ft 2000/acre 551. 00 Establish Buffet, 1000 sq ft @ 500/acre 12.00 Rip-Rap Outfall 4 to n s - 30/ton 120. 00 Total $ 18844.81 8) 10000 square foot pond Excavation 18C.)O cu yds 3.50/cu yd 6300. 00 30, of 18"CMP 14.72 441.60 24" Riser 85.68 85.68 Cl ear i rig 120oo sq ft o 2000/acre 515 1. 00 Establish Buffer, 1000 sq ft 500/acre 12.oO Rip-Rap Outfall 4 tons fP 30/ton 120. 00 Total $ 7510.28 C) 10000 square foot pond Excavat ion 2400 cu yds @ 3. 50/cu yd 8 4 0 C-) 0 301 of 18"CMP @ 14. 72 441.60 24" Riser @ 85.68 85.68 Establish Buffet- I C) 0 C) s qft @ 500/acre 12. 00 Rip-Rap Outfall 4 tons Cd 30/ton 120. 00 Total $ W59.28 Appendix B The Sandy Branch Tax Ditch Association controls an area which is over 1,788 acres. As noted in the report under Section VI, they have agreed to allow the Morris Road watershed to drain into their system. They do, however, require certain stipula- tions to be included within any final agreement: 1 . They agree only to accept the stormwater runoff collected from the area outlined in Plan 1 (approximately 8 acres). Any extension of this must be negotiated seperately and they withold the right to final veto. 2. Whether Plan I or Plan 2 are employed, a corrugated 'Metal pipe a minimum of 10 feet in length must be placed at the outfall. 3. The invert of the outfall may not be lower than the invert of the tax ditch at the point intersection. 4. As compensation, the Sandy Branch Tax Ditch Association will require a one time payment of $250.00. 5. The tax ditch in question lies completely within the property lines of Clifton R. Parker, Jr. He also requires a one time payment of $500.00 as compensation for crossing his property The officers of the Sandy Branch Tax Ditch Association are: 1 . Mr. Clifton R. Parker, Jr. 3024362128 R.R. 3, Box 184-A Frankford, DE 19945 Chairman 2. Mr. Gerald W. Evans 3024368035 R.R. 2, Box 195-A Selbyville, DE 19975 Manager 3. Mr. Emory D. McCabe 302 436 5438 R.R. 2, Box 201 3026291830 Selbyville, DE 19975 Secretary/Treasurer Dat e The Commissioners of Worcester County Room 116, Courthouse Snow Hill, Maryland 21863 Re: Public Watershed Association for the area of Morris Road Property Owner, Recently the county has had a drainage study completed for the watershed centered around Morr i s Road. A plan has been developed which would relieve the flooding along the *road. The implementation of this plan depends t.-An the participation of the property owners within the watershed. This would be in the form of a Public Watershed Association. In order to f orm a PWA, a majority of the property owners concerned must vote favorably at a public hearing. There will be ample opportunity to study the plan and make comment prior to this vote. Attached please find a copy of the MORRIS ROAD DRAINAGE STUDY, and copy of YOUR PUBLIC WATERSHED ASSOCIATION - OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN. A public meeting will be held at (location, date, time) to discuss the formation of a PWA. No vote will be held at this date, but your presence and comments will be appreciated. The Worcester County Commissioners Date: The Worcester County Commissioners Room 116, Courthouse Snow Hill, Maryland 21863 Re., Power lines in the area of Morris Road, Worcester- County, Maryland Mr. Dan Massey Delmarva Power & Light Co. P.O. Box 1739 Salisbury, Maryland 21802-1739 Mr. Massey, As you are aware, there is a drainage problem occurring in the area of Morris Road which the Commissioners are attempting to alleviate. One of the major concerns is the presence of high tension power lines running directly across the portion of the road with the greatest problem of flooding. This flooding not only inundates the road, but runs into the yards and under the houses in the vicinity. This can certainly be recognized as a great safety hazard. We are counting on the help of Delmarva Power & Light Co. in resolving this p roblem .A plan has been developed to supply drainage to this area, but in order for, it to be implemented the low transmission lines running along the North side of the road between U.S. Rte 113 and DE Rte 399 must be relocated Northwards a distance of 8' to 10'. With this accomplished by your company, adequate drainage can be of f ered to the problerm area. Please contact Hal Morris, Worcester County Planning Director at 632- 1200 for any further information you may require. Thank you, The Worcester County Commissioners Appendix D This can not be completed untill the Commissioners have made a decision on which of the alternative plans are to be implemented. Bay County Consultants remains available to help in the preparation of these applications. INRE4CEIVED FEB 23 1990 OOASTAL RESOUkESMVISMO TIDEWATER ADMINISTlignS oom -A 00 (0m;