:a final report to the Worcester County Commissioners/prepared by James O. Mcintyre, Arthur L. Shockley, JR. Mcintyre, James O. Shockley, Arthur L. Worcester County Commissioners. [Worcester County, Md.:The Commissioners],1990. Drainage Worcester County (Md.) Coastal zone management Worcester County (Md.) UNIONVILLE DRAINAGE STUDY FINAL REPORT TO THE WORCESTER COUNTY COMMISSION DEC 1990 HD 1683 .M2 U56 1990 'A Oe UNIONVILLE DRAINAGE STUDY A Fn4AL IUMXW TO THE MIKES= 00MM CCHMISSICNERS CIOASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER OCEAN CIT BERLIN WORCESTER, ionvi SNOw H ILL -OOF Q. c0tv OKE CITY PREPAMD BY: JAHM 0. MCINME ARMIR L. SMCK=, JR. Deomber 4, 3-990 UNIONVILLE STUDY TABLE OF CCNTENTS TOPIC PAGE Summary of Plan 1 Introduction Purpose of Study 2 Authority for Study 2 Funding for Study 2 Nature of Study 2 Description of Drainage Study Area Physical Data 3-4 Economic Data 4 Fish and Wildlife Resources 5 soils 5-6 Wetlands 6-7 Endangered and Threatened Plants and Animals 7 Cultural Resources 7-8 Drainage Study Area Prcbl Land Treatment 9 Floodwater 9 Erosion and Sediment 9 Drainage Study Elanents Drainage Study Reccmmndation 10-11 Construction Through Forest Land 11-13 Construction Through Crcpland 14-17 Land Treatment 18 Mitigation Features 18 Pemits Required 18 cost 19-20 Funding and Tedudcal Assistance Resources 20-21 Land Rights 22 Relocation. 22 Operation and Maintenance 22-23 -Engineering 24-25 Geologic Investigations 26 Acknowledgements 27 UNIONVILLE STUDY TAME OF CONTENTS COW. TOPIC PAGE Appendix Rdiibit 1 - Watershed Boundary and Chesapeake Bay Critical Area lane 28-29 Exhibit 2- Soil 30-33 Exhibit 3- flydric Soils 34-38 Exhibit 4 - Nontidal Wetlands 39-40 Exhibit 5 - Nontidal. Soil and Wetlands Investigation 41-48 Exhibit 6- land Ownership 49-56 Correspondence Engineering Plan UNICNVILT-E DRAINAGE SI= WaRCEs= anny, MARnAM SUEMARY This study proposes a project for watershed protection, flood prevention and drainage in Worcester County Maryland to improve the living conditions of approximately 40 home sites and to improve the agricultural economy. The project includes approximately 10, 283 linear feet of channel construction, two water control structures and one sediment basin. The project construction cost is estimated at $28,929. Three alternatives were considered during the project study: 1) No action; 2) Channel improvement; and 3) Multiple purpose channel inprovement. The multiple purpose channel inprovement project was selected to insure minimum enviromental disturbance. The multiple purpose channel improvements could be installed by a Public Drainage or Watershed Association. The County Commissioners could organize such an association under the authorities granted by state law. The comnissioners could provide financial and technical assistance to such an association according to established procedures. The final project scope should be approved by the association and ccmTdssioners. The multiple purpose channel should be operated and maintained by the association organized by the cormissioners. Tand treatment measures should be operated and maintained by the owners and/or operators of the farms on which the measures are installed. PURPOSE OF STUDY The purpose of this study is to evaluate the water and related land resources of the Unionville area,to identify problems associated with their use and development and to propose alternatives for the development of these resources. The overall intent of the study is to improve the quality of life and to manage, conserve, preserve, create, restore and improve the quality of natural and cultural resources and ecological system. AUTHOR= FOR STUDY Worcester County Ccamissioners FUNDING FOR STUDY Preparation of this document was (paxtially) funded by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amnded, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric AAministration. NATURE OF STUDY This study reviews water and related land resources to meet present and future needs of the area and presents suggested alternatives for achieving orderly and beneficial utilization, development and conservation of these resources. Specific evaluations were made for flooding, wetlands, land treatment, soil erosion and sedimentation, drainage, water quality and fish and wildlife. -2- OF TM EPAINAIGE STUDY AIMk PHYSICAL DATA The Unionville Drainage area ccnprises an area east of, and adjacent to, the Pocomoke River and just southwest of Pocomke City, Maryland. it is in the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province and is mantled with sediments of Pleistocene and recent geologic ages. The topography is quite flat and sea level elevations range fran 4 feet to 20 feet. The existing drainage channels have an average gradient of .0017 feet per foot and stream flow is generally easterly in direction. Total drainage area is 150 acres of which 63 acres are open land, 47 acres are woodland and 40 acres are hcmestead. The major crops are corn and soybeans. 80ils in the watershed are of coastal plain origin and about 65 percent are poorly drained. The soils are suitable for agriculture when well managed, drained and protected fran flooding. The normal growing season is 200 days and ranges from mid April to late October. Average annual teaperature is about 58 degrees F. February has the lowest monthly average at 39 degrees F. and July has the highest at 78 degrees F. Precipitation averages about 43 inches annually and is fairly evenly distributed through the year with a maximum in August and a minimum in Octcber or February. Heavy rains during the colder half of the year are usually fran low pressure systems moving north or northeasterly along the coast. In sumver, heavy rains occur mostly in thunderstorms, tropical storms or hurricanes. Thunderstorms -3- occur on an average of 30 days a year with 77 percent of these from May to August. Tropical storms or hurricanes affect the area about once a year, usually between July and November. Many of these cause at least minor damage through heavy rainfall, strong winds and high tides. The major water use is for domestic purposes and these requirezents are satisfied by private wells. The 47 acres of forest land are well suited for production of timber products and, with management, improvement of forest hydrologic conditions is expected. ECONOMIC DATA The drainage area is rural in character and is known as Unior.Tville. The total population is estimated at about 150 people. This area is located about two miles southwest of Poccwke City, Maryland. There are six parcels being farmed in the drainage area. The remaining lands are woodland and lots ranging from .2 acres to 10 acres in size. The average lot size is about one acre. Most of the farmland IS rented to, outside interests. There are no poultry operations or livestock operations in the drainage area. Present forest stands, which occupy about 31 percent of the area, consist of 60 percent softwood stands, mostly Lablolly Pine, 10 percent bottom land hardwoods and 30 percent mixed stands. Timber resources are a major economic consideration with sawtimber and pulywood. d=nating the stand. Most of the residents are employed in P==ke City, Salisbury and Snow Hill. -4- FISH AND WITIDLTFE RESOURCES Wildlife resources in the study area are comprised of low to moderate populations of a diversity of species incl uding game and nongame representations. Waterfowl use of the area is considered low to moderate. Hunting pressure for these species is moderate. The stands of mixed hardwood and pine located within the area constitute good forest wildlife habitat. Fish resources in the study area are limited to small intermittent and ephaTeral streams and a very small pond. Fish resources in the nearby Pocomoke River are excellent. Drainage ways in the study area are not documented as being utilized by anadromous fish for spawning purposes. However, anadromous fish, including the American eel, are known to have limited use. SOILS The most comnon soils in the watershed are members of the Fallsington, Pocomoke, Woodstown, Sassafras, Fort Mott, ICej, Lakeland, Portsmouth and Plummer Series. The poorly drained Fallsington, Plummer, Pocamoke and Portsmouth soils occur in wooded and lowland areas and in numerous pockets throughout the study area. These soils have high water tables part of the year and are severely limited for many uses. The Woodstown, Sassafras, Fort Mott and ICej are moderately-well and well- drained soils. The water table in Woodstawn soils are within two feet of the ground, surface in winter and spring and create moderate limitations for farmJng and most nonagricultural uses. Sassafras, Fort Mott and Inej soils have lower water tables. -5- The Lakeland series consists of level to steep, deep, excessively drained, sandy soils on interfluvial flats and dunes (Appendix - Exhibit 2 - Soils). Hydric Soils, (Appendix - Exhibit 3 - Hydric Soils) as identified by the Food Security Act of 1985, represent approximately 65 percent of the total area. Highly erodible soils represent 7 percent and prime farm land represents approximately 15 percent. WETTANDS Wetlands physical and legal interpretation is in a constant state of change. Presently, the Fedexal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands is generally the chosen guide. This manual selects three criteria as necessary elements to be investigated in order for a site to be determined as a wetland. These criteria are hydric. soils, hydraphytic vegetation and hydric conditions. In the appendix of this report, Exhibit 2 shows a map of the soils and their location and Exhibit 3 shows the hydric soils. All hydric soils have potential to be wetlands! The hydric condition has not been modified by man to the extent necessary not to be sub3ect to wetland regulations in the woodland or cropland. Hydrcphytic vegetation is present on all sites not considered di -turbed by lot development, filling or presently being farmed. All soils sham as hydric that display hydric conditions and hydrcphytic vegetation are considered wetlands. Cropland hydric soils are also considered wetlands due to their disturbed state and potential for reverting to sites dominated by hydrophytic vegetation. All wetlands will require permits for any activity as determined by current statutes. -6- Exhibit 4 shows wetlands which dL5play the wettest conditions. This ream they are generally considered wetlands of greater value due to the frequency and duration of flooding. . Due to the many ecological values of these wetlands, which include: nutrient traps, nutrient reservoirs, aquifer recharge, an#ubian and insect nursery and vegetative communities, they are enphasized in this report for protection and management to assure their values are enhanced and not degraded. The wetlands shown are farmed wetland, open water, palustrine emergent, palustrine forested and drainage ways. These are the wetlands which we feel will be subjected to greater scrutiny for various permitted activities. ExIubit 5 (Non-tidal Soil and Wetlands Vegetation Notes) describes the soil condition and vegetation at the time of the investigation. ENDANGERED AND THREATENED PLANTS AND ANIMAIES The bald eagle (Haliaeetus Leucocephalus) is included in the federal list of endangered species and is protected under The Endangered Species Act of 1973. Nesting of this species occurs immediately south of the study area adjacent to the Pocomoke River. This area is identified in the Delmarva River Basins Survey, October 1978, Wildlife Biologic Priority Areas, R)ccmke Sub-Basin, Appendix A. No other endangered or threatened species are known to inhabit or use the immediate watershed area. Contact has been made with the State Natural Heritage Foundation for further research. CULTURAL PESCURCES There is archaeological evidence of human occupation of the Delmarva Peninsula from about 10,000 B.C. onward. It is thought that early inhabitants of the area established transient or seasonal canips frcm which they ventured for hunting and -7- foraging. Prehistoric sites tend to be small in size and low in lithic (spear points, grinders and knives) density. most are located on well drained soils with rcderate slopes where relatively high elevations are adjacent to swauTr. or stream confluences. other sites of historic and architectural significance are farm houses of the early nineteenth century. It is evident from early history that archaeological and historical resources are significant. Should any of these resources be discovered fran project activities, the recovery, protection or preservation operations will be handled in accordance with the Archaeological and Historical Preservation Act (PL 93-291). -8- DRAINAGE STUDY AREA PROMM IAND TREATM= The major land treatment problem is excess floodwater and inadequate drainage outlets. on-farm drainage has been installed on one farm. Iack of an adequate outlet, or the limited effectiveness of present outlets, has prevented the application of drainage on other areas. Due to wet field conditions limited acreage can be treated with cover crops. Poor drainage conditions on existing cropland limit management options and prevent farmers from meeting desired planting and harvesting schedules and period-ically cause partial to total crop loss, severe weed problems, limited use of cover and green Panure crops and shallow root development. FLMDWATER Crop losses from flooding are experienced periodically, sometimes occurring several tunes during a growing season. Road and culvert damage occur at points where they cross channels. Damage to hcmes occurs periodically in the form of flooded yards, muddy and iupassable driveways and roads and malfunctioniM septic system. All of these contribute to reduced property values and increased health. hazards. EROSION SEDIMENT Due to the flat topography, gully and sheet erosion are minor in the study area. Some slight wind erosion occurs seasonally on the few acres of well-drained soils in the study area. Although erosion and the accompanying sediment productions are slight, even small amounts of sediment are significant when they are deposited in farm ditches, outlet channels, culverts and pipes. Where sedimentation occurs, it complicates drainage and floodwater runoff by reducing transmission capacity of channels and structures. -9- EPAINAGE STUDY EMEMM ERAIMGE STUDY RECOMMENDATTON This study reccanends; that approximately 10,.283 linear feet of channel excavation be done and that a land treatment program be alutiated through the local Soil Conservation District. Efforts have been made to minimize the detrimental effects of channel work. Channel work has been planned to follow the aligrmient of existing channels whenever this is practical. Groups of trees which have significant aesthetic, scenic, or ecological value should be left standing within the construction limits where this is technically feasible, and where trees can be expected to survive in disturbed surroundings. At road crossings measures will be taken to make channels more visual plea ing. Where possible a vegetative screen of trees and shrubs should be preserved (or established) to create visual diversity. A permanent sedn-ent trap should be installed at the start of construction in the main channel. Sediment traps provide an area where some fines and heavier materials (such as sand and gravel), carried downstream during construction, can settle out before reaching the Poccmke River. These traps will be cleaned out as necessary during construction and maintained to provide storage for future sediment deposits and for fish and wildlife habitat. Channel sides should be fertilized and seeded upon ccupletion of each day's excavation work. Berms should be limed, fertilized arxi seeded after excavation has been completed and the spoil has been spread and shaped. Channel site conditions will determine the construction method specified, the width of the -10- cleared area and how the spoil material is to be spread. Channel construction technique is divided into two categories: 1) construction through forest land and (2) construction through cropland. CONSTRUCrION THROUGH FOREST IAND Where channels pass through woods the width of the cleared areas will be kept to a minimm. Four options are available for channel construction in wooded areas: (1) clearing and shaping; (2) one-sided construction; (3) off-sided construction; and (4) two-sided construction. These methods differ froin one another on the basis of the relative amounts of clearing and excavation permitted. Selection of a particular method is dependent upon the significance of existing fish and wildlife habitat, the condition of the present channel, and requirements for the new channel. The off-side construction is the recamended option. Channel construction operations are performed from one side, within a 35 foot strip (Figure 1). However, in order to reduce blowdown problems, trees and other vegetation on the off-side bank are removed within 12 feet of the top of the constructed side slope of the channel. The channel bottom is deepened and widened as necessary, and both channel sides are cut to provide 1:1 side slopes. Although most of the spoil material is deposited and spread on the construction side, some is also spread on the off-side to form a low berm. The berm retards averbank flow and provides a suitable surface for seeding. Control inlet pipes are installed on both sides of the channel at appropriate intervals and bath banks are seeded to grass. Maintenance mowing is not performed on the off-side bank so that over a period of years a new _11- stand of trees will become established along the channel. This option will also facilitate construction where the center line of the drainage ditch is the property line. -12- Min. 3 MC It Ratu - I_G_ % No Min. I ra rou n. Linej D--ebr-i T Disposo 1 12' Max. Area Berm 158 J Max. L 35' MOK - -Spoil Disposal Arect Elotto Width L Clearing Limits Disposal Limits 1i;tt W i dot 4h Figure .1 - Off-sided channel construction through wood& CONSIRUCITON THROUGH CMPIAND Channel construction through cropland may involve clearing and shaping, one-sided, off-sided, or two-sided construction methods, depending on the location of existing fish and wildlife habitat, the condition of the present channel and requirements for the new channel. The one-sided construction method (Figure 2) or two-sided construction (Figure 3) are the reconmiended options. one-sided construction through cropland can be performed where: 1) the existing channel is at least 3 feet deep with stable side slopes and very few overhanging or leaning trees; 2) the bottom width of the channel after construction will be 15 feet or less; and 3) insurmountable property line prcbleTns do not exist. Construction work will be performed from the less vegetated bank. In situations where hedgerows occupy both banks and where property lines are involved vegetation should be removed from both sides. one-sided construction through cropland differs slightly from the same method used through woods. Spoil obtained frcm channel excavation is spread into cropland, usually to a depth of about six inches, to minimize interference with normal farming operations. A flat, ten foot berm (instead of a reverse berm) is provided as a buffer between cropland and the channel to control erosion. This berm is seeded to grass and is mowed at appropriate intervals to control woody vegetation. -14- Two-sided construction will be performed from both sides or either side, as necessary, where insurmountable property line problems exist. When two-sided construction is performed through cropland, spoil is deposited on either or both sides of the diannel. and spread to minimize interference with normal farming operations (Figure 6). Grass filter strips, ten feet wide, are established and maintained along both banks. Seeding will be carried out in the constructed areas. -15- Approx. 6" MIM Nalurdl Ground Line 10, 15, Berm Existing Area Undisturbed Max. Width Widt h Seeded 2W Mat- Disposal Limit FIgure 2. One-sided channel construction-- woods and cropland ApprOL 6 Approx. 6 now "*@Noturai %,,No Min.,-, no Id Id Berm Berm -Width L. Width Uided 250 Max. Disposal Limit 25d Max. Disposal Limit Figure 3. Two-sided channel construction through cropland IAND TPEATMENT Use the local Soil Conservation District to assist landowners and operators with the installation of on-farm drainage systems, tile drainage, land smootl@, hedgerow planting, wildlife wetland habitat management and forest land management practice. M=GATTON FEATURES Water control structures are planned on the main channel at Station 13+65 and Station 44+32. With adequate rainfall and proper operation, the structure at Station 13+65 on the Main will maintain water in the channel for approximately 2,250 feet and 905 feet of Prong 1. The structure at Station 44+32 on Main will maintain water in the channel for approximately 1,650 feet and 1,430 feet on Prong 2. These structures will help maintain water table levels during dry seasons and have favorable affect for wildlife. The sediment trap at the beginning of construction will also provide for wildlife habitat. PERMITS Permits will have to be acquired for construction, operation and maintenance through the Maryland Department of Agriculture, which is the lead agency for all other Maryland agencies who may be interested in the project. Permits or notifications are required to change course, current or cross-section of a nontidal stream. Permits or notifications ray be required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determines need on a case- by-case basis. other state and federal agencies may require review or permits, therefore, it is suggested that the local office of the Soil Conservation District be contacted to determine these needs. -18- COST The study area, as originally defined, involved three separate hydrologic units (Area I, Area II, and Area III) each having their own outlet. A cost analysis was computed for each unit having severe drainage prcblems. Alternative Name cost No Action $ 0.00 2 Channel Improvement Area I a. Excavation and Disposal 11,524.00 b. Clearing 6,900.00 c. Seeding 3,400.0 Total Estimated Cost $ 21,824.00 Area II a. Excavation and Disposal 150.00 b. Clearing 156.00 c. Seeding 90.00 Total Estimated Cost $ 396.00 Area III a. Excavation and Disposal 2,210.00 b. Clearing 984.00 c. seeding 615.00 Thtal Estimated Cost $ 3,809.00 The no action alternative has high cost to existing land uses. These costs include: road failure; septic tank failure; increasing advancement of saturated or fl. ooded conditions and associated crop loss; and the inability to maintain roads and hcmes including degeneration of foundation stability. -19- Alternative Name cost 3 Multiple-Purpose Channels Area I a. Excavation and Disposal 11,524.00 b. Clearing 6,900.00 c. Seeding 3,400.00 d. Water Control Structures 2,900.00 Total Estimated Cost $ 24,724.00 Area II a. Excavation and Disposal $ 150.00 b. Clearing 156.00 c. Seeding 90.00 Total Estimated Cost $ 396.00 Area III a. Excavation and Disposal 2,210.00 b. Clearing 984.00 c. Seeding 615.00 Total Estimated Cost $ 3,809.00 Cost does not include administrative costs, engineering services and pipe modifications either public or private. FUNDING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE RESOURCES Under Maryland law, Public Drainage or Watershed Association could tax beneficiaries for the cost of installation and operation and maintenance. The local County Caamissioners could contribute to the cost of construction. The Farmers Home Administration could make financial assistance available to eligible landowners under the provisions of the Soil and Water Conservation Loan Program- -20- Various state agencies have programs that ray apply to this project. Below is a listing of possible participating agencies. 1. Maryland Department of the Envirorment 2. Maryland Department of Natural Resources 3. Maryland Department of Agriculture 4. Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development The Soil Conservation Service will'provide technical assistance in the preparation and application of conservation farm plans. Such assistance will be provided through the on-going program of the district and will be accelerated as needed to meet the project schedule. The Forest Park and Wildlife Service through the Maryland Department of Natural Resources is available to provide services to distxict cooperators with technical forestry assistance in the project area for the preparation and carrying out of nanagement plans. The county Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Ccmittee could provide cost-sharing assistance to farmers of the watershed in accordance with the provisions of the program in effect at the time assistance is requested. State fish and game agencies and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could provide technical assistance under on-going programs for the improvement of fish and wildlife habitat on the farms in the watershed. Special emphasis will be given to the use of adapted seeds and plants on spoil banks, berms of field ditches and sediment traps and to the treatment of odd areas created by realignment of drainage systems. -21- 1AND RIMTS If a Public Drainage or Watershed Association is formed then land rights would be obtained under state law organizing the association. County road culverts inproverents would be considered land rights and be the responsibility of the association to resolve. Private channel crossings could be considered private convenience crossings and be the responsibility of the landowner or become the responsibility of the association if formed. The two water control structures would be the association's responsibility. The association should give consideration to establishing a permanent maintenance easement so that any type of structure could not be built that would obstruct future maintenance operation. This maintenance easement should be 50 feet fran the top of the bank on each side. RELOCATIONS No relocations are anticipated. Should the need for relocations arise, they will be accomplished by the association. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE After construction the channels and structure should be operated and maintained by- the local people. If a Public Drainage or Watershed Association is the selected means to complete the project then funds could be acquired through taxation of the benefited landowners. The estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance is $500.00. Typical maintenance activities are: mowing; brush control; stabilizing; fertilizing and reseeding critical areas; sand bar rw=al; debris removal; structure inalntenance; -22- and maintenance of vegetated filter strips along the channels in both cropland and forest land. Presently, legal organized systems are eligible for maintenance cost share up to 50 percent of cost of maintenance from the Maryland Department of Agriculture. When requested the local Soi-l Conservation District could participate in.the maintenance program to the extent of furnishing the following: technical assistance to aid in inspection; technical design information necessary for maintenance program; and technical assistance to aid in the development and revision of operation and maintenance program. -23- Surveys for the multiple-purpose channels consisted of a third order bench level net, horizontal control channels and valley cross-sections and spat elevations to determine hydraulic gradients. Datum used was based on sea level elevations. Property lines were obtained from the Worcester County Tax Assessment Office (Appendix - Exhibit 6). Using the state wetlands map, the critical area line was drawn on the aerial photo (Appendix - Exhibit 1). Channel alignment was established based on property lines, natural flow, soils, elevations, and in locations with minimal impact on the environment. Water surface profiles were computed on the two year and 100 year storm events to establish the starting point of construction. The hydraulic gradient was set by profiles and control elevations. A minimum freeboard of one foot was used in this design. The discharges were computed by the formula Q = CK 5/6, C is based on the nmoff for various soil types and cover, M is the drainage area in square miles. This project was designed on the two year storm event which is 3.6 indies in 24 hours. All channels and culverts were designed using Manning's Formula. All quantities were computed by the Soil Conservation Service method using field observations for various calculations. Unit cost is based on current prices. TWo water control structures were designed to store water on the main diamel. Structure No. 1 is located at Station 13+65 and will back water upstream 2,250 linear feet with an average depth of three feet. Structure No. 2 is located at -24- Station 44+32 and will back water 1,650 linear feet on the main and 1,430 linear feet on prong No. 2 with an average depth of 2.2 feet. These structures can be used in times of droughts and during noncrop seasons to restore wetland conditions. A sediment pond was designed at Station 10+00 to 10+64 on the main. The pond was designed three feet below channel design grade and will store annual contributions up to 1.8 tons of sediment per acre of drainage area. The total storage capacity is 5,360 cubic feet. -25- GEIDIanc There were 22 test holes (Appendix - Exhibit 5) put down by hand auger at various locations for channel stability and hydric soil determinations.. The unified soil classification system was used to detenTLine their engineering properties. The soils were predominately sand (about 80 percent). Some silts and clays were found. The following criteria was used in the classification: SP Sand, Poorly graded 0- 5% Fines SM Sandy-Si-It 5-25% Fines SC Sandy-Clay 25-50% Fines ML Silt with low plasticity CL Clay with low plasticity Soil investigations indicate no prcblems in channel stabilization. -26- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service Worcester County Drainage Committee Maryland Department of Agriculture, Snow Hill Office Worcester Soil Conservation District -27- . 0 APPENMX .0 0 0 RM IF= qVD11M ANU ZNNGNVSZM CKV AMNnoa coEsamm T JIUIBXH 0 L4 03 %A' f-0 A (3 w " i 5-1-8 211 IArwO i i4tl d1ft as F4 11 pit ism op -Owl irk evil p 0.14.1 1@ log wass Aw 116 bla" 77. IL jr Xj@ nu EXEE03JLT 2 -SOIL Soil 5 Re- Af. Ks A L013 Fct Q A KA Fq Pro frq P-M, A 5,54-A Fq WdA A UN I ONv I L_L Exhibi+ .4 7. 4A ZIA,- .44C 1, . iN dw 1Z --APM UNIONVILLE SOILS HYDROLOGIC SOILS SYMBOL SOIL NAME SOIL GROUP Fa Fallsington Sandy Loam D Fg Fallsington Loam D FmA Fort Mott Loamy Sand, 0 to 2% slopes B FmB Fort Matt Loamy Sand, 2 to 5% slopes B KsA Klej Loamy Sand, 0 to 2% slopes B LmB Lakeland Loamy Sand A LoB Lakeland - Fort Mott Loamy Sand, 2 to 5% slopes A LOC Lakeland - Fort Mott Loamy Sand, 5 to 10% slopes A MpA Mattapex Loam, 0 to 2% slopes C Pe Plumner Loamy Sand D Pk Pocomoke Sandy Loam D Pm Pocomoke Loam D Pt Portsmouth Silt Loam D SaA Sassafras Sandy loam, 0 to 2% slopes B SaB2 Sassafras Sandy loam, 2 to 5% slopes B WdA Woodstown Sandy Loam, 0 to 2% slopes C WdB Woodstown Sandy Loam, 2 to 5% slopes c -32- A=C SOIL GROUPS Each soil is placed into one of four groups according to the rate of surface infiltration 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 having 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 having modexate infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted, consisting duefly of moderately- well to well-drained soils with moderately fine to moderately coarse textures. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission and a moderate runoff potential. Group C Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted, consisting chiefly of (1) soils with a layer that impedes the downward movement of water, or (2) soils with moderately fine to fine texture and a slow infiltration rate. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission and a high runoff potential.. Group D Soils having very slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted, consisting chiefly of (1) clay soils with a high swelling potential, (2) soils with a high permanent water table, (3) soils with claypan or clay layer near the surface, and (4) shallow soils over nearly impervious materials. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission and a very high runoff potential. -33- . 9 EXH1131T 3 BM3RIC SOEIS 0 .I* .......... .......... .......... .......... ........ .... .. UNIONVILL.R cc- 50i is d E-xhibi+ $4-t jo 44 orb f,J 7' ;ks jot -4@ 7; Q -AIVO e, I'd Of i. -2a, At % @ 07,,7'jtf UNIONVILLE Soils AREA I HYDRIC SOILS SOIL NAME ACRES Fa Fallsington Sandy Loam 50.8 Fg Fallsington Loam 1.2 Pe Plummer Loamy Sand 9.2 Pk Pocomoke Sandy Loam 8.4 PM Pocomoke Loam 10.8 Pt Portsmouth Silt Loam 4.8 SOILS WITH HYDRIC INCLUSIONS SOIL NAME ACRES KsA Klej Loamy Sand, 0 to 2% slopes 2.4 WdA Woodstown Sandy Loam, 0 to 2% slcpes 13.2 WdB Woodstown Sandy Loam, 2 to 5% slopes 3.6 HIGHLY ERODIBIE SOILS SOIL NAME ACRES FMB Fort Mott Loamy Sand, 2 to 5% slopes 9.2 LOC Lakeland - Fort Mott Loamy Sand, 5 to 10% slopes 0.8 PRIME FARM LAND SOIL NAME ACRES SaA Sassafras Sandy Loam, 0 to 2% slopes 1.2 SaB2 Sassafras Sandy Loam, 2 to 5% slopes 5.2 WdA Woodstown Sandy Loam, 0 to 2% slopes 13.2 WdB Woodstown Sandy Loam, 2 to 5% slopes 3.6 CTHER SOIL NAME ACRES LOB Lakeland - Fort Mott Loamy Sand, 2 to 5% slopes 13.2 -36- UNIONVILLE SOILS AREA II HYDROLOGIC SOILS SYMBOL SOIL NAME SOIL GROUP Pe Plumer loamy Sand D Fa Fallsington Sandy Loam D LoB Lakeland - Fort Mott Loamy Sand, 2 to 5% slopes A FmB Fort Mott Loamy Sand, 2 to 5% slopes B HYDRIC SOILS SOIL NAME ACRES Pe Plummer Loamy Sand 1.2 Fa Fallsington Sandy loam 0.4 HIGHLY ERODIBLE SOIL SOIL NAME ACRES FmB Fort Mott loamy Sand, 2 to 5% slopes 0.4 OTHER SOIL NAME ACRES LoB Lakeland Fort Mott loamy Sand, 2 to 5% slopes 2.0 -37- UNIONVILLE SOILS AREA III HYDROLOGIC SOILS SYMBOL SOIL NAME SOIL GROUP FMB Fort Mott Loamy Sand, 2 to 5% slopes B Fa Fallsington. Sandy loam D WdA Woodstown Sandy Loam, 0 to 2% slopes C pin Pocomoke Loam D HYDRIC SOILS SOIL NAME ACRES Fa. Fallsington Sandy Loam 9.6 Pm Pocomocke Loam 0.2 SOILS WITH POSSIBLE INCLUSIONS SOIL NAME ACRES WdA Woodstown Sandy Loam, 0 to 2% slopes 1.2 HIGHLY ERODIBLE SOIL SOIL NAME ACRES FMB Fort Mott loamy Sand, 0 to 2% slopes 1.0 PRIME FARM LAND SOIL NAME ACRES WdA Woodstown Sandy Loam, 0 to 2% slopes 1.2 -38- 0 EXEMBIT 4 - NCNTIDAL NETIANDS 0 0 WETLANDS Wn. Lac3ein.= Fc-xwr-naA Weztbari,-is u r-A r o, N, v i VLE mw Gavilo-1 - c -.1; 6 * r. n Ice C mm e 4 p pe Wo- . . . . . ..... 4r it, V-1 IT .g4; 90AS OF OR- If. '7, LE EXFH= 5 NCHTIDAL SOIL AND VaMMANDIS INVESTIGATION 0 0 NOV%- f idcg I 50i I cl hd %-4* ldnd% I n vestig G+ i on L e-qe.--,Aei U N, 10 -TV I %r -e scc 41 5 4f rao 4i 14CNTIDAL SOIL AND VOrIANDS VEXM=CN 3NVESTTGATICN Na= August 3, 1990 SOIL AUGER HOLE NUMBER DESCRIPITON 0.0 Fr. - 2.0 FT. Grayish Brown Sand 20% Fines SM 2.0 FT. - 3.5 FT. Grayish Sand 10-15% Fines SM Water at 3.5 Fr. Vegetation: Sedges Bullrushe Burgrass Sweet Pepper Bush Woods: Sweet GLun Scattered Lcblolly Pine Heath/Blueber.ry Swamp Azalea 2 0.0 Ft. - 1.3 FT. Grayish Brown Sand 10-20% Fines SM 1.3 FT. - 2.0 ]FT. Grayish Fine Sand 20-25% Fines SM mottling at 1. 3 FT. Vegetation: Upper Canopy a) 85% Ibblolly Pine 15% Red Maple Sub-Cancpy b) Blueberry, Heath, Holy 3 0.0 Fr. - 1. 0 FT. Black, Silt, Fine Sand ML 1.0 FT. - 1.5 FT. Gray Sand 20% Fines Mottling at 1.5 FT. Water at 2.3 FT. Vegetation: Upper Canopy a) 50% Sweet Gum 40% 'Maple 10% Ibblolly Pine Sub-.Cancpy a) Cinnamon Fern & Green Briar Cpen forest floor (flooded at times) Ink Berry - Spagnum 4 0.0 FT. - 1.5 FT. Grayish Brown Sand 15% Fines 1.5 FT. - 2.5 FT. Yellowish Brown Sand 15% Fines 2.5 FT. - Yellowish Brown Sand 5% Fines SP Well-Drained Soil vegetation: Upper Canopy a) 80% Loblolly Pine 20% Sweet Gum Sub-Canopy a) Dogwood Wild Cherry -43- SOIL AUGER HOTIE NUMBER DESCRIPrION 5 0.0 FT. - 1.0 FT. Grayish Rtvwn Sand 15% Fines 1.0 FT. - mottling at 1.0 FT. Water at 2.0 Fr. 50-50 Inclusion Vegetation: Upper Canopy a) 50% Water Oak 20% Loblolly Pine 10% Sweet Gtzn 10% Red Maple Sub-Canopy a) Devoid of Vegetation (Surface Flooding) 6 0.0 FT. - 1.5 FT. Grayish Brown Sand 25% Fines SM Mottling at 0.7 FT. 1.5 FT. - Grayish Sand 35% Fines SC Vegetation: Upper Canopy a) 80% Red Maple 15% Sweet Gum 5% Icblolly Surface flooding up to 1. 0 FT. in depth Sub-Cancpy a) Trunpeter Vine Magnolia Heath Bush Site is getting wetter Sucession - trees dying out - increasingly wetter Two Adjacent Small Fields: Vegetation: Surface Spike Rush Water persline Sedges Cockle Berry Sof t ]Rush 7 0.0 FT. - 1.5 FT. Dark Brown Sand 20% Fines SM 1.5 FT. - Grayish Sand 20-25% Fines Mottling at 1. 5 FT. Water at 2.5 FT. Vegetation: Upper Canopy a) 90% icblolly Pine 10% Sweet Gum -44- SOIL AUGER HOTIE NUMBER DESCRIPITON 7 (cont. Sub-,Cancpy a) 50% Red Maple 50% Sweet Gum Ground Cover a) 90% Poison Ivy 10% Trumpeter Vine 8 0.0 Fr. - 1.2 FT. Grayish Brown Sand 20% Fines SM 1. 2 FT. - Sand (Heavy Mottling) 40% Fines Mottling at 1. 0 FT. Vegetation: Upper Canopy a) 95% Loblolly Pine Sub-,Cancpy a) Cherry Dogwood Maple Sweet Gum Holly White Nalberry 9 0.0 FT. - 2.5 FT. Sand 10-15% Fines 2.5 FT. - 3.5 FT. Sand (Mottling) 10-15% Fines Vegetation: Upper Canopy a) 50% White Oak 30% Red Oak 20% Pine Sub-,Cancpy a) Red Maple Holly Black Gum Sweet Gum Shrub - Sweet Pepper Bush 10 0. 0 FT. - 0. 6 FT. Dark Brown Silt ML 0.6 FT. - Grayish Brown Sand 30% Fines SC Water at 1. 2 FT. vegetation: Upper Canopy a) 90% Red Maple 10% White Oak Sub-Cancpy a) 90% Holly 10% Red Maple Floor Cover a) Sweet Pepper Bush -45- SOIL AUGER HOTIE NUMBER DESCRIPrION 11 0.0 FT. - 1.2 FT. Grayish Brown Sand 20% Fines Mottling at 1. 2 FT. Vegetation: Upper Canopy a) 80% Pine 10% Maple 10% Assorted Oak, Willow Sub-Cancpy a) Red Maple Sweet Gum Black Gtzft Holly Floor a) Sweet Pepper Bush 12 0.0 FT. - 1.0 FT. Dark Brown Silt Iod Plasticity ML 1.0 FT. - Grayish Brvwn Sand 45% Fines SC Vegetation: Upper Canopy a) 10% Pine 80% Red Maple 10% Willow Oak, Water Oak Sub-Canopy a) 80% Black Gum 20% Red Maple Floor a) Sedges Lizard Tail Spagnum Magnolia Old Ditch Bottcxft 611 Depth 13 0.0 FT. - 1.0 FT. Reddish Brown Sand 15-20% Fines SM 1. 0 FT. - Mottling at 1. 0 FT. Vegetation: Upper Canopy a) 100% Loblolly Pine Sub-Canopy a) Black Gum Floor a) Dogwood Red Maple Holly Pine Mulch -46- SOIL AUGER HOLE NUMBER DESCP=ON 30 0.0 FT. - 0.7 FT. Grayish Brown Sand 20% Fines SM 0.7 FT. - 2.0 FT. Yellowish Brown Sand 20% Fines 2.0 FT. - Mottling Vegetation: Farmed Land Ragweed, Stickweed/Horseweed, Wild Daisies, Dandelion, Oster, Field Bind Weed, Paspalum, Marigold, Foxtail, Broorn Sedge (1) Secessional Field Looks as if first year of not being tilled 31 0.0 FT. - 0.6 Fr. Grayish Brown Sand 15-20% Fines SM 0.6 FT. - Yellowish Brown Sand 15-20% Fines SM Mottling at 2.3 FT. No Aquatic Vegetation: Maple, Sweet Gum, Loblolly Pine Mowed: Less than 611 Amuals: Foxtail, Ragweed, Field Bind Weed, Potanogeation Sorrel Pre Annual: Broczn Sedge, Osters, Queen Azme T-ace 32 0 - 0 FT. - 1. 0 FT. Dark Broum Sand 15-20% Fines. SM Mottling at 411 1.0 FT. - Gray Sand 20-25% Fines SM Heavy Mottling Water at 2. 0 FT. Farmed Wetland/or Trying Dominant Vegetation: Fall PanicLun, air@reed, Ragweed, Barnyard Grass, Foxtail, Smartweed, (Penisylvanic=) sub-vegetation: Spike Rush, Soft Rush, Bull Rush, Sy@rus, St. Johns Wart 33 0.0 Fr. - 0.7 FT. Grayish Brown Sand 20% Fines SM 0.7 FT. - 4.0 Fr. Yellowish Brown Sand 20% Fines SM 4.0 Fr. - Clay 40% Fine Sand CL Mottling at 2. 6 Fr. (Perched Water) Ground Cover: Soybeans 34 0.0 FT. - 1.0 FT. Dark Gray Sand 15% Fines SM 1.0 FT. - 2.0 FT. Gray Sand (Mottlirxg) 20% Fines SM 2. 0 FT. - 2.5 FT. Gray Clay 30% Fine Sand CL 2.5 FT. - Gray Clay (Mottling) CL -47- SOIL AUGER HOTIE NUMBER DESCR=ON 35 0.0 FT. - 1.0 FT. Dark Gray Sand 15% Fines SM 1.0 FT. - 1.3 FT. Hard, Dry Layer Sm 1.3 FT. - 1.8 FT. Reddish Brown Sand 15% Fines SM 1.8 FT. - Gray Sand 15% Fines Wet Ground Cover: Soybeans 36 0.0 FT. - 1.8 FT. Dark Black-Gray Sand 20% Fines SM 1.8 FT. - 2.0 FT. Dark Gray Silt ML 2.0 Fr. - Gray Sand 15% Fines SM Water at 2. 0 FT. (Shurb Swarp) Wetlands: Button Bush, Hibiscus, Barnyard Grass, Swaup Rose 37 0.0 FT. - 1.0 FT. Grayish Brown Sand 20% Fines SM 1.0 FT. - 3.0 FT. Yellowish Brown Sand (Mottling) 20% Fines SM 3.0 FT. - 4.0 FT. Reddish Brown Sand 5% Fines SP 4.0 Fr. - 4.3 FT. Grayish Brown Sand 25% Fines SM 4.3 FT. 4.6 FT. Clay CL 38 0.0 FT. 1.0 FT. Grayish Brown Sand Vexy Fine Sand 20% Fines SM 1.0 FT. 1.8 FT. Grayish Brown Sand (Mottling) Sm 1. 8 FT. 3. 0 FT. Yellowish Brown Sand (Mottling) 25-30% Fines SC 39 0.0 FT. 2.5 FT. Yellowish Brown Sand 20% Fines SM Mottling at 1. 5 Fr. 2.5 FT. 5.0 FT. Slight diange fran above -48- EXHIBIT 6 LAND OWNERSHIP Land Oumershi 69 '6001 1,9 zo 10 21 22 '23 32- 34. 33 50 44. 45 54.- 41 46 57 UNIOUVILLE 49@ Exhi bit ro 7!7 6A ip. AW 411 UNIONVILIE DRAINAGE SIUDY LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS TAX MAP N0.83 MAP NO. MAP PARCEL NO. NAME AND ADDRESS ACREAGE P. 81 Jordan, Gaines A. & Thelm 2.3 Rt. 1, Box 364 Poccmoke, MD 21851 2 P. 82 Bishop, Ambrose & Bessie M. 1.8 Rt. 2, Box 121 Princess Anne, MD 21853 3 P. 206 Williams, Violet B. 0.7 Rt. 1, Box 362 Poccmke, MD 21851 4 P. 83 Hardy, Alonzo & Anna 1.0 Rt. 1, Box 361 Pocomoke, MD 21851 5 P. 84 Robins, Richard Larry & Barbara A. 1.0 Rt. 1, Box 360 Pocomoke, MD 21851 6 P. 85 Hall, Sylvester L. & Shirley M. 1.0 Rt. 1, Box 359 Poccwke, MD 21851 7 P. 86 Mason Masonic Lodge # 45 1.0 c/o Paul Evans P. 0. Box 112 Marion, MD 21838 8 P. 25 Cropper, Clarence & Mary 1.0 Rt. 1, Box 358A Poccmoke, MD 21851' 9 P/0 26 Merrill, William E. & Willie A. lar Rt. 1, Box 369 Poccmoke, MD 21851 10 P. 222 Merrill, Armand. E. 0.9 Rt. 1, Box 371 Pocomoke, MD 21851 -51- TAX MAP N0.83 MAP NO. MAP PARCEL NO. NAME AND ADDRESS ACREAGE 11 P. 26 Merrill, William E. & Willie A. 6.8 Rt. 1, Box 369 Pocomoke, MD 21851 12 P. 41 Smith, Elmer J. & Elsie M. 1.1 429 Bank Street Pocomoke, MD 21851 13 P. 34 Smith, Elmer J. & Elsie M. 0.7 429 Bank Street Pocomoke, MD 21851 14 P. 207 Ames, James & Zeola Smith 0.4 Rt. 1, Box 373 Pocomoke, MD 21851 15 P. 1 Smith, Lula P. & Elmer 0.6 429 Bank Street Pocomoke, MD 21851 16 P. 42 Hill, Charles E. & Martha F. LOT c/o Madeline Robinson Rt. 1, Box 13 Westover, MD 21871 17 P. 43 Ames, James T. & Zeola V. 1.0 Rt. 1, Box 373 Pocomoke, MD, 21851 18 P. 112 Blount, Allen B., Jr. & Mirian B. Golden 0.25 626 Cedar Street Pocomoke, MD 21851 19 P. 111 Norma Lenell Evans LOT P.O. Box 244 New Church, VA 23415 20 P. 87 Waters, Leroy Thomas 0.2 Rt. 1, Box 353 Pocomoke, MD 21851 21 P. 122 Wilson, Sara 1.0 Rt. 1, Box 370 Pocomoke, MD 21851 22 P. 88 Sidney, Robert L. & Helen P. 2.0 1430 Unionville Road Pocomoke, MD 21851 -52- TAX MAP NO. 83 MAP NO. MAP PARCEL NO. NAME AND ADDRESS ACREAGE 23 P. 89 Waters, Gladstone, Jr. & Elnora 2.0 Rt. 1, Box 350 Pocomoke, MD 21851 24 P. 90 Dix, Luther L. & Lillian M. 1.0 P.O. Box 136 Hamilton Grange Station New York, NY 10031 25 P. 91 Brinkley, Lorra-ine 1.0 6912 Ibis Place Philadelphia, PA 19142 26 P. 92 Brinkley, Lorraine 2.0 6912 Ibis Place Philadelphia, PA 19142 27 P. 30 Dix, Luther L., Jr. 2.0 P.O. Box 136 Hamilton Grange Station New York, NY 10031 28 P. 99 Harmon, Wardell T. & Gladys Waters 2.0 Rt. 1, Box 334 Pocomoke, MD 21851 29 P. 98 Waters, Bertie, Rueben & Samuel Etal 1.0 Rt. 1, Box 334 Pocomoke, MD 21851 30 P. 101 Smith, Jerry B. & Bonnie S. 2.0 Hart & Rickey S. Smith 2333 Old Snow Hill Road Pocomoke, MD 21851 31 LOT 32 P. 121 Justis, George A. 2.0 Rt. 1, Box 372 Poccmke, MD 21851 33 P. 120 Fields, Cecil R. & Amanda Jean Allen Etal 1.7 Rt. 1, Box 372A Pocomoke, MD 21851 34 P. 28 Coulbourne, John M. 8.9 Rt. 1, Box 336 Pocomoke, MD 21851 -53- TAX MAP NO. 83 MAP NO. MAP PARCEL NO. NAME AND ADDRESS ACPEAGE 35 P. 237 Wanamaker, Lawrence & Brenda V. 1.0 P.O. Box 327 Pocomoke, MD 21851 36 P. 31 Coulbourne, John M. 1.0 Rt. 1, Box 336 Pocamoke, MD 21851 37 P. 32 Alms, Barnett & Albert 1.0 Rt. 1, Box 333 Pocomoke, MD 21851 38 P. 97 Harmon, Willie R. & Mary Ann 1.0 Rt. 1, Box 331 Pocomoke, MD 21851 39 P. 95 Smith, Preston N. & Bessie L. 2.0 2047 Groton Road Poccmke, MD 21851 40 P. 94 Savage, Annie Mae 1.0 P.O. Box 371 Pocomoke, MD 21851 41 P. 93 Smith, Preston & Bessie L. 2.0 Rt. 2, Box 433 Pocomoke, MD 21851 42 P. 96 Harmon, Willie R. & Mary Axm 2.0 Rt. 1, Box 331 Pocomoke, MD 21851 43 P. 118 Merrill, Lora 5.0 6211 Jefferson Street Philadelphia, PA 19151 44 P. 119 Merrill, Lora 5.0 6211 Jefferson Street RAladelphia, PA 19151 45 P. 100 Smith, Jerry B. & Bonnie S. 10.0 Hart & Rickey S. Smith 2333 Old Snow Hill Road Pocomoke, MD 21851 46 P. 35 Waters! Alonzo, Jr. & Agnes 10.0 4242 Pennsgrcbe Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 -54- TAX MAP N0.83 MAP NO. MAP PARCEL NO. NAME AND ADDRESS ACREAGE 7 47 P. 115 Williams, Carroll S. 3.5 1738 Cypress Road Poccmoke, MD 21851 48 P. 116 Cropper, William Green & Mary Ellen 3.5 Rt. 1, Box 77 Newark, MD 21841 49 P. 117 Cropper, William Green & Mary Ellen 1.5 Rt. 1, Box 77 Newark, MD 21841 50 P. 102 Jackson, Daniel L. & Carrie F. 98.0 Box 85 New Church, VA 23415 51 P. 253 Marshall, Cheryl 2.76 Rt. 2, Box 69 Pocomoke, MD 21851 52 P. 240 Jones, Richard A. 21.49 Rt. 2, Box 294 Pocamoke, MD 21851 53 P. 80 0-Istis, William J. & Margaret F. 17.07 1754 Sand Pit Road Poomicke, MD 21851 54 P. 113 Downing, William 8.5 307 Gwynn Avenue Baltimore, MD 21229 55 P. 248 Wallace, Ervin & Faith T. 1.0 1812 Cypress Road Pocanoke, MD 21851 56 P. 230 Singleton, Louis & Delois 1.0 P.O. Box 331 Pocamoke, MD 21851 57 P. 231 Wise, Lawrence & Julia A. 1.0 Rt. 1, Box 365A Pocamoke, MD 21851 58 P. 216 Byrd, C. Aims & Donna. M. LOT Lot 2 -B & William R., Jr. & Audrey K. 6th East Market Street Poomioke, MD 21851 -55- TAX MAP NO.83 MAP NO. NAP PARCEL NO. NAME AND ADERESS ACREAGE 59 P. 216 Fosque, William & Cormie J. Lar Lot 1-B Rt. 1, Box 349 Poccmoke, MD 21851 60 P. 216 Dawming, Garnet A., Jr. & Dolores C. LOT lot 1-A 1519 Unionville Road Poccmcke, MD 21851 TAX MAP NO.91 MAP PARCEL NO. 61 p 1 M=i.11, William E. & Willie Anna 16.0 Rt. 1, Box 369 Pocmoke, MD 21851 -56- November 9, 1990 James 0. McIntyre Rt. 1, Box 7E30 Mardela Springs, MD 21= Mr. Tan Tapley Water Pollution Cost Share Program Maryland Department of the Environment 2500 Broening Highway Baltimore, Maryland 21224 Dear Mr. Tapley: I am presently working on a drainage evaluation for the Worcester Counry. Commissioners of an area in the southern part of WDrcester County, in particular, the Unionville area. The evaluation Id recommend the re-excavation of previously-excavated ditches, that were not maintained, in order to alleviate their present drainage problem. The area of consideration is a low income community of which approximately =/. is woodland, =/. is cropland and =/. is residential. I am contacting you to inquire if your organization may have funding available to aid with this project if it were to become a reality. Pny information you could provide pertaining to eligibility of this project for financial assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank You, James 0. McIntyre Ntrvember 9, 1990 James 0. McIntyre, Rt. 1, Box 780 Mardela Springs, MD 21S37 Mr. Woody Francis U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ball-JUnore Distric .6 P.O. Box 1715 Baltimore, Maryland 21.-2-Y)Z Dear Mr. Francis: I am presently working on a drainage evaluation for the Worcester Counry Commissioners of an area in the southem part of Worcester County, in particular, the Unionville area. (Map Attached) The wetland investigation reveals that some areas within the drainage area would be considered non-tidal wetlands (Palustrine forested, palustrine emergent and approximately 6Cr/. hydric soils). The area of consideration is a low inc community of which approximately =/. is woodland, =/. is cropland and =/. is residential., The area is very poorly drained which adversely affects farm crops and hinn sites. Corps pervdts may be necessary. This letter is to alert you to the possibility of a project- and for any information that you could relate to me pertaining to the changing status of wetlands (farn wetlands anyway). Further information can be obtained from Bruce Nichols, District Conservationist, Soil Conservation Service, Snow Hill, Maryland 21863. Thank You, Janes 0. McIntyre November 9, 1990 James 0. Mr-Intyre Rt. 1, Box 780 Mardela Springs, MD 21EKY7 Mr. Donald MacLauchlan Assistant Secretary Maryland Forest, Parks and Wildlife Service lawes State Office Building Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Dear Mr. Maclau hlan.- I am presently working an a drainage evaluation for the Worcester CxY-nry Commissioners of an area in the southern part of Worcester County, in particular, the Unionville area. Part of the evaluation necessitates information pertaining to rare, threatened and endangered species. Enclosed is a map delineating the area of inter-est. I would greatly appreciate if you could provide a list of the rare.. threatened or endangered species that may occur in the deline-ated area. Thank You, James 0. Mr-Intyre November 9, 1990 James 0. Mr-Intyre Rt. 1, Box 780 Mardela Springs, MD 21837 Mr. Mike Haire Chesapeake Bay and Special Projects Prngram Maryland Department of the Environment 2500 Broening Highway Baltimore, Maryland 21224 Dear Mr. Flaire: I am presently working an a drainage evalkiation for the Worcester Czxmry Commissioners of an area in the southern part of: Worcester CzXMty, in particular, the Unionville area. The evaluation would recommend the re-excavatIon of previously excavated ditches, that were not maintained, in ' order to alleviate their present drainage problem. The area of consideration is a low inc cmmmity of which approximately is woodland, 3YI. is cropland and =/. is residential. I am contacting you to inquire if your organization may have funding available to aid with thisi project if it were to become a reality. Pny information you could provide.. pertaining to eligibility of this project for financial assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank You, James 0. McIntyre November 9, 1990 James 0. McIntyre Rt. 1, Box 780 Mardela Springs, MD 21837 Mr. Ken Pensyl Program Administrator Sediment and Storm Water Division Water Quality Financing Administration Maryland Department of the Environment 250O Broening HIghway Baltimore, Maryland 21224 DeAr Mr. Pensyl: I am presently working an a drainage evaluation for the Worcester Counry Commissioners of an area in the southern part of Worcester County, in particular, the Unionville area. The evaluation would recommend the re-excavation of previously excavated ditches that were not maintained, in order to alleviate their present drainage problem. The area of consideration is a low income community of which approximately 33%. is woodland, is cropland and 33%.is residential. I am contacting you to inquire if your organization may have funding available to aid with this project if it were to become a reality. Any information you could provide pertaining to eligibility of this project for financial assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank You, James 0. McIntyre ENGINEERING PLAN UNIONVILLE DRAINAGE @57- W D Y WORCESTF-R Couwry ARY L A N,:) Wo-RCP-57F-Fl\ COUNTY-COMMIS510NER5 Pi,=in View Shfee+s 5@r V> -Sq -S+ovm Shee+S'7-9 Shce+- 10 wd+er, C-mn+rC:l1- S--truc-+ure -rVpi c-c"I Cror- Se c4, o v) Co,-er Sbeei- untortivilic Dv-Q'1v-1c=1C3,e Siocij Date Apprmed by -------------------------- Designed. -------------------------- -------- Drawn ----------------- ------------ -------- ------------------------------------- Title --------------------------------- Traced MgtT!4@- m -------- qbb- Sheet Drawing No. Checked ------------------------------------ No f I -0, f --- i; 10+0,0 4- 10 'KA C3 IS; F6 NA(a S+akfic) 4 GO. NI i !SzFa+i o V% M A I U1 1 It it lWil It it r 1 !it @i:! t j.11 Tr it It HIM ii f j+j 'tT it t I it it it T T Fl liT1 it Ht F11 T T I itI r 'T T j 7 rf r 1 tr it i 4 4' ji I'! j it it lilt t it 'ITT it Ij -1 a it J,j I it -Ile it it, ail 14, t t It I @Ilvll @, Tilt 44 HIW 4.st if III I H1111 111111111 !iqi it ilk it I; -- -------- Tr @rce, ^@w It t Mill, , I I INIT! ll@@ Hil j it It if @r T I 4 If t it It il i @Ti 14 . T I` oil 4 lit it @I if I:; iTl + ZO TI, il't if F - @T JJ t: 71 j! it fl, it ijI: tt! I fill id :1!; W, if, ji If 1 ri f I . . . . . . . fill [IT it WIN,! if if It e9rI 1 e1;1 l, 1 it t i fli !!Will I if t. It if if ,it 1j: 14-i TI 111 T trill; 'Q1 UAW t till it it DIA 41-Ill, I.t I; 1; it, I 1j, @ rl" It it It It J] ij ii lie im -if I< I t1l 11@- i"KT-T IT I -iN I LI m-p Willi,: it t, it it It V 1 114@6:; l; V:'7VP -144 IT It .1 j-ji ILI :I If rill fit if If i it ifillill HI I T 1!;,, 1 1 f.i@j ,I I LI fi id i.7 iTi :Iii-i J- AiL hk I-IJ if Ij I] t t Ii! it 1, it r! lilt it W.] J. I 11J.1j] till i it It AI J. it IL 1-4 IJ jj] 4. L9 ILiI :11 it iTIL p! it j- 1 JI.! t 1 i Ll 4! It T17 :A1 1J rill jLL it 1, LJ.@ fit !5 AH.) 4. J J A--- if it I LIT it IN Ux R-121 H !I IT 6ij 1:! tol@@i-il it d H"A I Tl 4. 11. I itI If if L ij 4 1 1 r IJ it I' i 4 @41 -71 1: IT L L L 1- .4-1 a All 1.1 if All 15@ 00 H11'. H . . I . . . . . . . JA I ao ,NN L 14 L 1@j I I i. I I if 1 7! 1 -14-7 4 if 5 Ll L f. 1. If If,, If j!1 4p, iiMiM , L:;Ilo 4 -F ?ffu z oz IN H di IN11W it it jj@! Hli 1; H it lit IF iA. J, i p H l4i ti IF it) Mi 1. iA. JIL!'iI JI :A I 1w !IT Fit N-1 A it MY;, .-L I -t4l F 13 if F 11 I;) t F IF -IA!. I.l.i!. J it 1,111 -J`.- @ 'I-, L UO It IT if @@, LI Tj it III ilk I J ki Ll I..1I HIM I I ;,I R11, I@Fl @ Oikl Will I I I 4j _K, IFFM rr@l L T_. il tilil Li I's Null 71 It I I I tit I I j I I jiI i,111; T1 _IA T + 1. T11 It Tj 4 idilil ill! 1 TIT Tl It T fit Hk rr Al it! lit 41 TTj I T-1 It if it it it Ill ;ih fit 11 it T, Jill ITI. I tj7 ITT r - T 'T" 1i it J'! Pr J 4 It '14 1 'FI T IT 7 i %4 t R, W. L Ilk j j IT! it JI' lit f IT ji::; IT t 1 ti I 11 11171111!!!:@ 1@, (CE -,HT D )EC 12 19,go COASTAL RESOURICIES DillfiSlIffli TIDEWATER 11111101111111M 3 6668 14100 9813