[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
GRANT NO. NA170ZO497-01 TASK 22 FHUNTING CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT 0 CAI.VERT COUNTY, MARYLAND Prepared by: Paul H. DiNunno David C. Brownlee, PhD. April 15, 1993 -Department of Planning & Zoning 176 Main Street Prince Frederick MD 20678 (410) 535-2348 (301) 855-1243 TDD (410) 535-6355 This project was made possible through.the funding of Coastal Zone Management grant C269-92-005 from: Maryland Department of Natural Resources Tidewater Administration Coastal Resources Division Tawes State Office Building 580 Taylor Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21401 CALVERT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 176 Main Street Prince Frederick, Maryland 20678 Phone (410) 535-2348 (301) 855-1243 Director TDD (410) 535-6355 Board of Commissionel Frank A. Jaklitsch Patrick M. Buehler Mary M. Krug HaWr R. Mister Michael I Moore April 15, 1993 Joyce Lyons Terhes This note is provided to the personnel of the various departments and agencies reviewing this document. This version of the Hunting Creek Watershed Management Plan is a draft plan. It is a partially complete document and should be viewed as such. Sections within this document are currently being updated. Uncompleted sections shall be denoted by enclosing the title of the section in brackets. Please submit your comments to our department so that changes may be made to the document prior to finalization. Please note that even this draft remains a draft plan. You will receive updates of the plan and your involvement and participation will be requested in finalizing this draft into an adopted plan. Should you have and questions and/or comments regarding this document, please submit them to either of us in writing or by verbal communication. Thank you for your time and effort in this endeavor. Sincerely, David C. Brownlee, PhD. Paul H. DiNunno Environmental Planner Watershed Management Intern Calvert County Planning and Zoning Calvert County Planning and Zoning PHD/phd ;,nc/ Draft Watershed Management Plan Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1 ENVIRONMENT ........................................ 2 GROWTH MANAGEMENT ............................... 3 HUNTING CREEK WATERSHED ................................. 5 SIZE AND LOCATION ................................... 6 EXTENT OF WETLANDS .................................. 8 [LAND USE] ............................................ 8 HUNTING CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN ............. 11 GOALS AND ISSUES ................................... 12 NATURAL RESOURCE IDENTIFICATION .................. 13 V-1ETLANDS ....................................... 14 FLOODPLAINS ................................... 18 WATER SUPPLY .................................. 18 HABITAT OF SPECIAL CONCERN ................... 22 [FOREST COVER] ................................ 28 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT ..................... 28 ArETLANDS ...................................... 28 WATER SUPPLY .................................. 29 [MONITORING] .................................. 35 SEDIMENT EROSION ............................. 35 PROTECTIVE MEASURES ............................... 37 VIETLANDS ...................................... 37 FLOODPLAINS ........................... * *... * * ,39 WATER SUPPLY .................................. 39 HABITAT OF SPECIAL CONCERN ................... 41 FOREST COVER .................................. 44 FARM PLANNING ................................ 48 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................. 48 ATETLANDS ................ .................... 48 FLOODPLAINS ................................... 49 WATER SUPPLY .................................. 50 HABITAT OF SPECIAL CONCERN ................... 50 FOREST COVER .................................. 50 IMPLEMENTATION .................................... 51 REFERENCES .............................................. 52 PARTICIPANTS ............................................. 54 Draft Watershed Management Plan Page iii I I I I I I I I I I INTRODUCTION I I I I I I I Draft Watershed Management Plan I Page I I Hunting Creek is the largest watershed in the County encompassing approximately 29 square miles of land. Within the watershed lies Prince Frederick Town Center and the location of the County Seat. Prince Frederick is one of the three Major Town Centers recognized in the County's Comprehensive Plan. These Major Town, Centers are expected to be centers of residential and commercial growth. As such, they potentially pose a threat to environmental quality. The Watershed Management Plan for the Hunting Creek watershed which includes about one-half of the Prince Frederick Town Center will identify, manage and protect the most sensitive natural resources in this watershed and would guide development in an environmentally sensitive manner. The Calvert County Comprehensive Plan (CCCP) has been the guiding force behind the planning efforts of the County. The authority for this document is provided by the Annotated Code of Maryland, Article 66B and its adoption by the Board of County Commissioners of Calvert County in 1983. The Comprehensive Plan outlines certain guidelines regarding the environment and growth management that pertain to the efforts in the Hunting Creek watershed. ENVIRONMENT The Comprehensive Plan clearly outlines its objectives regarding the protection of our County's natural resources: 1) Protect those natural environmental features which will ensure continuance of a healthy and pleasant place to live for current residents and future generations. 2) Foster greater public awareness, education, and support of sensitive environmental concerns. 3) Encourage environmental protection and wise use of natural resources. 4) Encourage regeneration of lost and/or damaged natural environmental features ... (CCCP, 1983). The increase in population and the expansion of developed land endangers the environment and threatens the health and safety of Calvert County citizens. Several Itprimary" environmental concerns have been identified. Many of these concerns are to be addressed in the Hunting Creek Watershed Management Plan. The protection and conservation of our ground water resources is critical to maintaining an affordable, pristine water supply. Infiltration of contaminants and excessive consumption will compromise our potable water supply. Surface waters have experienced a degradation in overall quality resulting in the loss of many aquatic species. Losses in wetland habitat has resulted in depriving the County of valuable flood and pollution control, and habitat for aquatic organisms, water fowl, and many other wildlife species (CCCP, 1983). Innovative approaches, such as Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 2 environmental education, waste water disposal techniques, woodland preservation, Critical Natural Area zoning, etc., must be implemented to prevent further degradations and provide for the restoration of damaged resources. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Growth management is an important environmental protection tool. It concentrates growth in designated areas where pollution prevention systems exist or can be provided (e.g. community sewerage systems, stormwater management devices) and can relieve development pressures on farm, forest and environmentally sensitive land outside of the, designated development areas. Roads, public facilities including water and sewer systems may be planned for future growth as opposed to retroactively responding to growth. Infill development of partially developed regions leads toward more efficient use of existing facilities. The location and type of new housing can be directed to satisfy the needs of the County. Finally, the County may direct growth into designated development regions thus alleviating pressure on agricultural and sensitive areas (CCCP, 1983). Measuring the growth of a county can be interpreted many different ways. For this reason, Calvert County has clearly defined their interpretation and reasons for managing growth: 1) Population growth is not a proper measure of the County's progress. Progress should be measured in terms of quality of life. 2) Given a certain population level in a given area and growth rate, public and private services and facilities should be planned accordingly. 3) Growth pressures will probably continue for the planning period of 10 to 20 years and perhaps longer. 4) Growth is due to factors over which the county government can exert some influences. 5) Growth can and should be dirixted and regulated by the County. 6) Increased population growth often results in higher per-capita costs of government and public services. 7) Unmanaged growth may adversely affect the quality of life by causing problems relating to health, safety and general welfare (CCCP, 1983). The County may manage growth through Zoning practices, the Agricultural Preservation Plan, and through Official Mapping. Zoning regulates the placement, category, and density of land use. Current zoning techniques are directed at Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 3 concentrating growth in Town Centers, most notably Prince Frederick. Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance or regional ordinances (i.e. Prince Frederick Zoning Ordinance, Huntingtown Zoning Ordinance, etc.) may be made as deemed necessary by County citizens and local government through the public hearing process. The Agricultural Preservation Plan allows for the transfer of development rights from agricultural land to specified receiving zones. This transfer places an easement on the agricultural land forbidding further development while the receiving zone may increase its density. The use of Official Mapping is used to a limited degree in Calvert County. Its main purpose is to promote orderly development in relation to the County's future plans (CCCP, 1983). Based on the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, the County needs to develop procedures and regulations for planned and balanced growth and provide for the protection of the County's natural resources. The Hunting Creek Watershed Management Plan addresses both of these needs. Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 4 I I I I I I I I I I I HUNTING CREEK WATERSHED I I I I I I I Draft Watershed Management Plan I Page 5 1 SIZE AND LOCATION Hunting Creek is the largest watershed in Calvert County, encompassing nearly 29 square miles of land. It is located in the central portion of the County and extends from its tidal mouth at the Patuxent River on the west to within a mile of the Chesapeake Bay on the east (Figure 1). The watershed topography is relatively flat and low near the mouth of the creek where there are abundant tidal wetlands and some nontidal wetlands. As the watershed rises in elevation to the east the topography develops into a dendritic system of ridges and valleys. The main highway through Calvert County, Rt. 2/4, bisects the watershed about a 1/2 mile to the east of the head of tide. There is one major and one minor town center both of which are approximately half in the watershed. The major town center of Prince Frederick is located on the southeast portion of the watershed and the minor town center of Huntingtown is located on the north-central edge of the watershed. Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 6 ou!4rY BEACH I WSAVIAKE -14 c PRINCE OIRICK 17 dr CHESAPEAKE i RANCH "S"T"ACTNE C, Figure 1 Hunting Creek watershed location and size (AM, 1979). an Draft Watershed Management P) Page 7 EXTENT OF WETLANDS Based on the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Soil Survey of Calvert County and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) National Wetland Inventory (NWI), potential wetlands within the Hunting Creek watershed comprise 6.6% (NWI) to 11.2% (SCS survey) of the land. The discrepancy between these figures is the larger extent of potentially hydric soils than existing identified wetlands. Further details on the wetlands within the watershed may be found in the Hunting Creek Watershed Management Plan. [LAND USE] From colonial times until the mid 1960's the predominant land use in Calvert County was agriculture and forestry. About 1966 significant changes began to occur in land use patterns, and in developments affecting land use. Major highway improvements were started, several major residential subdivisions were opened, in- migration accelerated, bonds were sold for a major program of construction of new school facilities, plans were formulated for a County Industrial Park and other economic developments. During 1966-70 construction of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant was planned and started. In addition, construction of a plant for processing imported liquified natural gas (LNG) was begun. All of these factors contributed to a dramatic change in land use and pressured the County to take action regarding these changing conditions. Current land use, as of 1990, for the Hunting Creek watershed is depicted in Figure 2. The majority of agricultural uses lie to the west of Route 2/4. Large tracts of continuous forested land lies to the east of this trafic corridor. Development seems to be concentrated within the Huntingtown and Prince Frederick Town Centers in addition to sporatic residencial subdevelopments scattered within the watershed. The watershed is comprised of 18,569 acres of land, of which 4,591 acres (25%) is cropland and pasture and 5,618 acres (30%) is forest. The portions of the town centers of Prince Frederick and Huntingtown which are in the watershed account for approximately _ acres (_%) and approximately _ of this is currently developed (_acres, _%). Institutional use within the Watershed which is outside of the Town Centers covers approximately _ acres (_%) and includes: schools @- Calvert High, Calvert Middle, Calvert Elementary, Calvert Country, Calverton; and County facilities - Calvert Pines Senior Center, Calvert County Jail and Treatment Center, County Maintenance Facility, recently completed and capped but unlined County Landfill, County compactor site for trash disposal and pick-up and slow-rate land application sewerage treatment plant. Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 8 The Twenty Year Land Use Plan emphasizes residential growth in towns and directs commercial and multi-family development to Town Centers. Basic considerations in the adoption of this policy were the protection of the natural environment, maintenance of the lifestyle of the area, and the provision of adequate public facilities. The County Comprehensive Plan identifies specific land use categories and addresses ways and means of directing growth in these areas. In general, the Comprehensive Plan proposes that growth should take place in and around existing developed areas and that the Patuxent watershed should be restricted to low density development. The next logical step beyond the County Comprehensive Plan and the Town Center Master Plans is the development of Watershed Management Plans tailored to the individual needs of the communities within the County's watersheds. Work has been initiated on developing Watershed Management Plans for the Hunting and Parker Creek watersheds. Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 9 AL AND &':N .;T CNAL'-; :omQERC,AL AND i-NOUSiRIAL LAND R 0 P P&STURE LAND kNIUAL PRODUCTION FACILITIES 0 T H E R A G R I C U L 7 U R A L F A C I L I T I E S FOREST COVER WETLANDS 3ARREN LAND MINERAL EXTRAC-,ivN AREAS Dr F Land Use in Hunting Creek Watershed (MOP, 1991). Page, 1 2 I I I I I I I I I HUNTING CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN I I I I I I I I Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 11 1 I GOALS AND ISSUES This management plan has been formulated based on the guidelines outlined in "A Guide for Developing Nontidal Wetlands Watershed Management Plans in Maryland," a draft document produced by Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Water Resources Administration (WRA). The following are goals and issues pertaining to the Hunting Creek Watershed Management Plan: 1) Protect natural resources The location of residential and commercial development as well as the location of sewerage and solid waste disposal in the Hunting Creek watershed have been identified and data has been collected on these development issues. Forest and tree preservation, limits to impervious surfaces, regional and site specific stormwater management approaches and sediment erosion control techniques will be addressed in the Plan for the purpose of preventing the deterioration of coastal resources. ne Plan shall identify the issues and concerns of Calvert citizens and government departments. 2) Facilitate economic development in town centers The draft Watershed Management Plan will be reviewed by local, state, and federal agencies as well as public review through the means of the Hunting Creek Watershed Task Force and eventually public hearing. It will thus reflect the diverse interests of the community and the final product should serve as an agreement among the residents of the community to develop the area in an environmentally sensitive manner. By following the guidelines in this watershed plan, developers will be facilitated in obtaining permits from state and federal agencies which should assist economic development. 3) Address wetland loss and mitigation on a watershed scale Field verifications of potential wetlands were conducted by'a private consultant for the region of Hunting Creek that lies within the Prince Frederick Town Center (Appendix B). Calvert County is pursuing the concept of a communication link between the County and wetland permitting agencies regarding the location and extent of wetland filling and mitigation within the Hunting Creek Watershed. This information would enable the County to amend corrections to its mapping efforts and provide data necessary to observing the effectiveness of this Plan. 4) Assure public health and safety Monitoring projects within the watershed will provide early warning signs should septic systems fail, and pollution reach unhealthy limits. A review of existing flood Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 12 hazard problems, and the potential of increased flood hazard due to development (stormwater management, water impoundments) will be addressed should our efforts petitioning the Army Corps of Engineers for a regional hydrological and hydraulic study prove successful. In addition, measures to assure and protect water supply for [fire protection and] human consumption will be included. 5) Public Participation Any form of management effort will fail without the input and support of the public. For this reason the Hunting Creek Watershed Management Task Force was formed. In their initial meetings issues regarding the creek were formulated: 1) The effects of beavers, good or bad? 2) Sediment control 3) Stormwater management (hospital problem area) 4) Education of homeowners Monitoring own backyard Identify and use service groups and TV for access to public Media campaign Lawn care 5) Wetland losses with and without permits 6) The effectiveness of wetland mitigation 7) Farming effects on water quality 8) Water pollution; pesticides, fertilizers (nutrients) 9) Identification of establishment of baseline data (pesticides, toxics, acid rain, nutrients) 10) Nutrient management (livestock on farms, lawn care) 11) Eagle nest sites 12) Other rare or endangered species 13) Septic system failure 14) Forestry operations 15) Future development 16) Underground storage tanks 17) Commercial nurseries, tree farms 18) Building practices 19) Motorboat impacts NATURAL RESOURCE IDENTIFICATION As part of the Watershed Management Plan, Calvert County has undergone a campaign to locate and document its natural resources. In this process, the County has documented and digitally mapped the extent and location of potential wetlands within the watershed. The 'My' hydric soils identified in the Soil Survey of Calvert County, published by the SCS, were placed on the County's flood insurance maps. Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 13 Water supply concerns are being researched and addressed. The extent of forested land within the County has been documented and provisions have been made for its conservation. And finally, rare, threatened and endangered species habitat has been identified and regulations have been established for their protection through the provisions of the Critical Area program. WETLANDS Using the SCS Soil Survey of Calvert County and the DNR National Wetland Inventory, a map was generated identifying potential wetlands within the Hunting Creek watershed (reproduction enclosed, color copies are on display for use at the Department of Planning and Zoning of Calvert County, Maryland). The individual areas of both soil groups and wetlands were tabulated (Appendix A) and interpreted. It was determined that of the land that comprises the watershed, 6.6% was identfied as wetlands by the NWI and 11.2% was identified as potentially hydric by the SCS survey (inclusive of the identified wetlands). Figure 3 illustrates the percentage of land that is catagorized as potential wetlands. Regarding the SCS survey, of the potentailly hydric soils identified, 68.3% were clasified as "My" soils, 15.0% were clasified as "Sx" or "Tino soils, and the remaining 16.7% were "Ek, FsA, FsB, Gp, LmB, OtA, OtB" soil groups. T'he NWI has identified that of the wetlands within the watershed, 27.1% are estuarine, 60.3% are palustrine forested, 5.7% are palustrine open water, 4.4% are palustrine emergent, and 2.5% are palustrine scrub or brush wetlands. These distributions are presented in Figur e*s 4 and 5. Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 14 11.2% Hydric Solis 88.8% 6.6% Wetlands 93..4% lig,,e 3 Percentage of land that Is catagorized as potential wetlanifts.1 Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 15 "Ek, FsA, FsB, Gp, LmB, OtA, OtB" Solis 16.7% 15.0% 68.3% "Sx,Tmu Soils "MY" Soils I% Figure 4 Distribution of Hydric Soils. Draft Wate"hed Management Plan Page 16 5.7% Palustrine Open Water 4.4% Palustrine Emergent 2.5% Palustrine Scrub/ Brush Estuarine 27.1% , 09 9 60.3% Palustrine Forested Figure 5 DIstribution of Wetland Types. Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 17 FLOODPLAINS Flood plain areas which are also wetlands are natural stormwater management devices, are rich in species diversity and often are the habitat of rare, threatened or endangered species. These areas are usually heavily vegetated with forests, scrub shrub plant associations, or emergent plant species and the soils are often hydric. Due to the presence of the hydric soils and vegetation the flood plains are excellent nutrient removal systems and thus reduce pollutants entering our waterways. Thus, the wetland flood plains provide an extremely valuable service to Calvert County citizens. Due to the value of wetland flood plains, development should be directed away from these areas. Development in non-wetland flood plains should also be discouraged as storm events (hurricanes and heavy rainstorms) may cause severe flooding in these areas. Loss of life and property during flooding is the result of improper placement and inadequate protection of structures in flood plain areas. Development in the 100 yr flood plain (area where a flood is likely to occur on the average of once every 100 years) is controlled by the Calvert County Flood Management Ordinance (updated in 1992). In Calvert County, the 100 yr. flood plain is defined as those area depicted on the Calvert County Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), areas indicated by "My" soils in the Calvert County Soil Survey and areas adjacent to flood plains where the elevation is less than that of the 100 Yr. flood. WATER SUPPLY Calvert County is situated over a favorable geological formation of groundwater resources. Four major aquifers (the Piney Point, Nanjemoy, Aquia, and Magothy) supply nearly all of the County's potable water. In the region around Prince Frederick Town Center, these aquifers reside 150-250 (Nanjemoy), 400-500 (Aquia), and 650-700 (Magothy) feet below sea level. The Piney Point aquifer develops further South in the County and around the Calvert Cliffs Facility, it resides at about 150-300 feet below sea level. At this location, the Nanjemoy and Piney Point formations are hydrologically connected and difficult to distinguish (DNR, 1987). The Piney Point aquifer does not seem to be used in the Hunting Creek Watershed and will not be addressed in this Plan. The depths of these formations in relation to specific well test sites, are demonstrated in Figure 6 for further clarification. The outcrop regions for these aquifers reside to the North and West of Calvert County as shown in Figure 7 for the Nanjemoy and Aquia formations, and Figure 8 for the Magothy formation. General groundwater flows of these aquifers are simplified in Figure 9. Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 18 m 0) A wo --------- (D ------------- ---------- V CHI SAPE.Ax f G ofou p P'll r OWAIW,, 400, AGO FORMA Tj 01, 0 A u I a c TOL AOL- I 4 odd, ANI rsEA r FORWAnoft 149 C INCIOUSAND 1.4.7.104d) 7 510, L, A04601,11, 4 otofFIR CD To 0 0.513 L... T,#-m I.., 0 It* T46.4m.w.01 Image, ffA 935 F1.1,14.1 R.W le f.il A T'soMpas'. lot,-S35 is,14.1 Apostyla"ONS To T HW 0.1"k bed /d.1 TOL 1:141 0.01% t-99-0 #hot a MA Nd P3 COWL49ke ---k, is to, Ider mAls. 73"als'dolAl .1010 F@7- I OUTCROP DISTRIBUTION OF THE EOCENE FORMATIONS Of MARYLAND FRom MAIIVLANO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY EOCINF-VOLUmE rem It or cow sit, !Mel tow S F AL. tu oe bwasepeave boom lob k4p go ) I A. R pit"%& Mill Ill *L ATA S ciosew PON" WAS, "D EXPLANATION "Sojamew Formolloo A4vse Formation SCALE a I* Ic Miles Figure noutcrop Regions (Overbeck, 1951). Draft Watershed Manage;le-nt Pla Page 20 MAGOTHY AQUIFER DEPTH TO TOP OF AQUIFER #dr % % % Lines of Equal Depth % A. Below Sea Level Aquifer BOU"ClOrl Outcrop Area Figure 8 Outcrop Regions. Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 21 bi tr n chmmab (D QD Pms MOZ co I Pal.meno R..e, 2L to &.sapuahe -GfO"P(conI,,u-9twd) N, N. Lo N-..Ieov Fo,m 0-ma n nd P"Fv P. Ma,t"o NanjamDx EXPLAWKW clay Fmmal#on sediffianis Arto.8 r"Is &OCIon d grounawate, laquil.') flow. CrelacewS (OOnlining 40:j Pleislocww 30&.-Isk fmwfaf) Sedl pecim."Iely a", 5odI pudoomnalely WN and Clay. SadI gxedumfflaldy cha@l depWills. HABITAT OF SPECIAL CONCERN The Calvert County Comprehensive Plan encourages the preservation and conservation of wildlife habitats. The Critical Area Program has specific requirements for activities in habitat protection areas and the Forest Conservation Program identifies areas of important habitat value for rare, threatened and endangered species as a priority area for retention. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources has not identified any Federal or State threatened or endangered species (plant or wildlife) within the watershed to date. In 1984, a regional survey determining the extent and location of anadromous fish spawning in the Patuxent River and its tributaries was completed. Graphic representation of the findings are located in Figures 10 through 13. The report identified that of the 19 streams sampled on the lower Patuxent, only two were sites exhibiting river herring spawning: Cocktown Creek and Hunting Creek. Gravid white perch were collected nearly six miles upstream in Hunting Creek, the furthest upstream spawning recorded of the 19 streams. Yellow perch eggs and larvae were recorded at the Route 2/4 crossing, only one of two tributaries of the 19 to express this trait (O'Dell and Mower, 1984). The data concerning Hunting Creek has been compiled in Table 1. This Plan will act as an Anadromous Fish Spawning Protection Plan in addition to its other functions. Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 23 .0 R 0 G ES H c lit 0 R u N L TY E & S c INIII & -.r UNT CALVERT y Z; COUNTY A TVs* a" vusk- MMI" b, frojact Afc- W-1 (Uncil 7 1993). "G E@ c H L Figure 10 Anadromous Fish sampling sites (O'Dell & Mower, 19"). Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 24 A H A 0 R U 6 L 7 I I c i Y E S T a aTi qtI .I . Q - F-r y L CALVERT COUNTY 6 IL IM99"= azz" docanswad by F=Iacz ATC-W-3 (H&wA 7-J=ft 3. Figure 11 Herring Spawning areas (O'Dell & Mower, 1984). Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 25 G E S C H Ir 6 A 0 R U L N 06. T Y E to S L C 4 U C=q A T CALVERT COUNTY dGC==aVk& b? P"Seer. AIC- M-3 (how" 7-Jma 3, 1993). E, '@A H R L E Figure 12 White Perch Spawning areas (O'Dell & Mower, Draft Watershed management Plan Page 26 G@s C 0 U TY C=.L2 U 'NTY CALVERT COUNTY 61 % Tau" verch avannum ar"s "c@zed bT ftelect An-ID-3 ima 3, a=. Figure 13 Yellow Perch Spawning areas (O'Dell & Mower, lN4). Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 27 Table I. Compiled Anadromous Fish Survey Data for Calvert County (DNR, 1984). Stream station Stream Stream Type of Salinity Species Sampled Number KIle Character Sampling Range(ppt) Collected Hunting 1 1.6 Tidal Plankton .10-6.S H?,Wpt,ypi Creex 2 3.4 Tidal Plankton IOL-.34 ypt 3 4.6 Tidal Plankton IOL-.28 WP!IYP! 4 6.0 Fluvial Plktn.nez IOL-.IOL WP@IYP@ 5 6.1 Fluvial Plktn.net -1OL-.1OL Hill 1 0.5 Tidal Plankton IOL-.34 WP#1YP1 Creek Sewell 1 2.1 Fluvial Plktn.net -IOL-.10 "ranch Little 1 O.S Tidal Plankton .26-7.50 YPI Lyons Creek L - less than H? - Herring either Alewife or Blueback unidentified due to eqq/larval documentation only. WP - White Perch YP - Yellow Perch Plankton - Towed plankton net Plktn.aet - Stationary Plankton net I - Larvae collected - Adults collected - Eggs collected Data was cempIled directly fr= o'Dell, j. and Mowrer, j.98 (1984) Survey--and, Inventory of Anadremous Fish S13awninct Streams and Barriers In the Patuxent River Drainage report from the maryiand Department of Natural Resources, TLdewatar Administration, Fisheries Division qaqeo 44-51,A2-114, ENO Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 28 [FOREST COVER] The CCCP recognizes the importance of forest cover in reducing runoff, inducing groundwater recharge, minimizing flooding, reducing erosion and sedimentation and in providing shelter and food for numerous species of wildlife. During January of 1993, Calvert County adopted a Forest Conservation Program which was enacted to provide for the retention of existing forest cover while allowing development to occur. The Calvert County Critical Area Program, Calvert County Forest Conservation Program and mandatory cluster provision of the Calvert County Zoning Ordinance all recognize the'importance of large blocks of contiguous forests and riparian forests. These areas are classified as potential Forest Interior Dwelling Bird Habitat. Riparian forest has been defined as forested land, 300 feet in width or greater, adjoining a body of water. Continuous blocks of 100 or more acres are considered large block forests. These same programs also address the importance of maintaining greenways or habitat corridors. Relative to Hunting Creek, the Natural Heritage Program, Department of Natural Resources has expressed in writing the necessity of preserving these types of forested areas. Calvert County is in the process of updating our forest cover maps from the information being provided by the Forest Cover Inventory developed by DNR, Forest, Park and Wildlife Service. CUMULATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT WETLANDS As was stated earlier, Calvert County is pursuing the concept of a communication link between the County and wetland permitting agencies regarding the location and extent of wetland filling and mitigation within the Hunting Creek Watershed. This information would enable the County to amend corrections to its mapping efforts and provide data necessary to observing the effectiveness of this Plan. In 1991, a wetland assessment was conducted in one tributary of the Hunting Creek watershed that lies within the Prince Frederick Town Center (Appendix B). This project is the only official wetland field verification that has been conducted by the County for this watershed outside of wetland studies conducted with road plans in the Town Center (available at the County). Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 29 WATER SUPPLY Ground water usage in Calvert County is confined mainly to residential and small commercial units. Exceptions are the industrial demands of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant and the Cove Point LNG Plant. To date, the water reserve of the various aquifers has been more than sufficient to meet the daily requirements of the County. Specific capacities (gpm/ft) of the two major formations (Nanjemoy and Aquia Greensand) range from 0.6 in the north to 2.0 in the south. In the extreme southern tip of the County, specific capacity may range up to 5.0. Thus based on the successful experience to date with the ground water reserves, Calvert may expect to derive its water supply from ground water resources during at least the design period (up to year 2000) and most likely even further. However, the full extent of the ground water resources will not be known until the studies of the Magothy, Piney Point and Aquia aquifers are completed. For the purposes of this plan, it can reasonably be assumed that there are ample supplies of ground water which are of satisfactory chemical quality for most uses. Water quality in the aquifers lying beneath Calvert County is relatively good and in most cases it is suitable for consumption without treatment (DNR, 1987). Regulations governing the quality of drinking water in the State of Maryland are published as COMAR 10.17.03. The regulations set maximum contamination levels (MCL's); establish the monitoring frequency for certain bacteria, radiation, organic and inorganic chemicals; establish reporting procedures and require public notification in event of MCL violation by water suppliers as prescribed by the Federal Safe Dri nking Water Act (WSP, 1990). Few problems have been encountered in the County with reference to the quantity and quality of potable water available. Ground water is used exclusively for this purpose. There are in scattered instances of traces of H2S odor, iron and other minerals in the water. Removal of these traces is practical and feasible (WSP, 1990). A greater concern exists in the demand placed on these aquifers. Water drawing permits issued by the Water Rights Division of DNR, increase every year. Table II provides the data on water drawing permits issued since 1986. Water is being removed from the aquifers at a rate greater than the aquifers ability to replenish itself. This results in "drawdowns" in the water levels within the aquifer (Chapelle & Drummond, 1983). According to a digital simulation run by DNR, by the year 2000 based on 1980 pumpage, the water levels in the Piney Point/Nanjemoy aquifer in the region of Prince Frederick could drop as much as 10 feet (see Figure 14). Based on that same pumpage, water levels in the Aquia aquifer could drop 15 to 20 feet by the year 2000 (see Figure 15). Even a single user of the Aquia aquifer may cause "drawdowns." Assuming Chalk Point Power Plant pumps 0.5 million gallons per day for 10 years, levels in the Aquia aquifer could drop as much as 30 feet for Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 30 residents in the Hunting Creek region as demonstrated in Figure 16 (Chapelle & Drummond, 1983). The League of Women Voters gathered materials on the County's water supply and petitioned the Commissioners to form a Water Board for Calvert County. This Board, composed of citizens and staff, meets periodically to discuss and outline procedures for the conservation and protection of the County's groundwater resources. The Board has identified several concerns and suggestions: 1) Failing septic systems in some areas pose possible groundwater contamination and health hazards. 2) Need increased public education on use and care of such systems. 3) The County lacks a back-up plan for ground water supply in case of emergency. 4) Maintenance of wells should not be a problem, but there is a need for public eduction. 5) Location and abandonment of old wells on property needs regulation. Should be abandoned in conjunction with demolition permits or construction of new well permits. 6) Need formal performance restrictions on drilling companies. Also, spot check on well grouting. 7) Roll of small public systems in areas of small lots. 8) Establish set policy to determine whether individual or community wells are used where clustering is required. Pros and Cons. 9) All large usage applicants be required to use deeper aquifers, leaving the upper aquifers for residential use only. 10) Should Calvert County establish Well Head Protection areas now? 11) Need increased study of impact by the Planning Department and Developers before projects are begun. 12) Use of recycled water in both public and residential areas. Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 31 Table II. Water Drawing Permits. water DrAW&A9 Permits Hunting Creek Region Calvert County, Maryland N. Grid E. Grid permit g Owner's NanA KO&n GPO High GPD U80411 Acr4ifer Un*t2t Date 261 916 CAS9GOO4 JOHN LORE'S LAUNDROMAT 3000 4000 307 124C 195912 282 910 cA66G007 PATUXE" CHURCH 300 700 104 124C 196602 263 919 CA70GOOS CA 00 BOARD OF EDUCATION 20000 40000 104 12SB 19.'003 280 916 CA73GO03 CA 00 BOARD OF EDUCATION 200 300 104 124C 197209 262 922 CA73GOOS CA co BOARD or EDUCATION 7400 20200 104 1258 197208 260 917 CA73GOOS CA CO BOARD Of EDUCATION 14000 22000 104 1255 197206 286 910 CA74GOOS HUNTINGTOWN VOL FIRE DEPART. 1200 2000 103 1255 401 95 197406 262 915 C"1GO11 BLAMUSHIP-POSR" A. 300 Soo 103 124C 196109 266 918 CA83GOO: VZ59R*CNARL&S Soo 1000 102 124C 19830S 264 91SCA69GOO COX-Z LZROY,KYRTL8 0,6 JAMES L 400 750 103 125B 198404 264 915 CA67GOOS CA CO NURSING CENTER 7SOO 10000 104 1258 307 so 198404 260 917 CA84GOOS KING-BOYD 300 Soo 103 124C 198401 264 914 CAS5GGD3 SOUTHERN XAAYLA" ISLAMIC 300 Soo 104 124C 198S03 286 910 CAASG002 SRXSKAHAN-90WARD Soo 1200 103 124C 198503 265 916 CAOSGO13 CA 00 BOARD Or EDUCATION 4000 5500 104 1258 198sce 263 926 CAOSGO14 CALVERT LIGHTHOUSE TABSRMACLZ 350 450 103 124C 198SO9 273 912 CAS 44001 KOZLOWSKI-THOMM Z. 300 Soo 103 124C ISSS12 273 913 CA75GOOS 0 A S ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. 1100 2200 103 124C 198602 2S7 909 CA75GO02 CA CO BOARD OF EDUCATION 1000 5000 104 1258 196606 272 927 CA860009 TAYLOR-WILLIM 3000 5000 109 124C 198608 284 910 CA86GO10 JZHWJ&M-9 WITNESSES, ITIC. 200 30C 104 1255 198609 268 914 CA86GO13 SUBAN*SILPA Soo Soo 103 124C 196G10 275 912 CA77GO02 RAWIT A RICHARD GRATTAS 1200 2000 103 124C 19S702 276 910 CA59GOOL CALVERT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5000 ISOO 101 124C 196704 276 910 CA590101 CALVERT COUNTY CONK13310NZRS 1SOOO 22500 101 1268 196104 206 910 CAS70004 KUNTINGTOWN VOL TIRE DEPART. 100 iso 104 124C 198706 2eS 910 CA87GOD7 MARYLAND TOBACCO GROWERS 350 Soo 103 124C 196707 285 910 CA77GO01 MARYLAND TOBACCO GROWERS Soo 600 103 124C 198707 26S 915 ChS2GO01 CALVERT MEMMIAL HOSPITAL 44000 7SO00 104 125B 198708 285 926 Ch87GO1O CALV33tT COUWr COMMISSIONERS 200 400 104 124C 190709 265 915 CA770014 WZZXx-GcONcz J. Soo 1200 103 12SB IS6712 284 912 Cx86GOO1 GIBsOn-DZMXIS 300 Soo 103 124C 19@@W 261 910 CABOGOO? SPARROW*DO0Q 3000 6000 109 124C 198910 260 916 CAS8G011 FRZRSTATZ COMMICATIOX3. INC. 300 400 103 124C 196012 275 912 CA67GOOG CALVERT COUNTY DAY 3000 4000 104 124C 198812 273 913 CA890WS HUDSON*JOBN 300 Soo 103 1258 198906 273 912 CAS90010 HXXDRICZSORONALD Soo Soo 103 126C 1989OG 266 913 CA890013 BZAVZRS*DIAKA 1000 1500 104 1258 190906 264 915 CA900002 ALBRIGHT-N.B. 1500 20do 103 124C 199002 263 915 CA900011 RIVRRR*NWZM S. 300. 500 103 124C 190011 268 911CA900WO BOW=-DOOCLRB A. 200 300 103 124C 199012 257 910 CA77GO16 CALVZ" C09MY rMQ ISSIONERS 33009 - 45000 104 12SB 199202 275 91S C&82GO1O CHRISTIAN BIBLB CZMTZjt 300 Soo 104 124C 199109 274 921 CA910011 CAKS9LL-DILLhRD .500 800 107 124C 199109 261 913 CKBIGOIS &RSOT-OSxAx Z. ]GO Soo 101 124C 199110 282 917 CA920009 JAN PROPERTIES, LIMITED 51000 65000 107 125B 199112 259 926 CIL74GOOS CA CO WARD OF EDUCATION 20!000 30000a 102 125B 192112 264 914 CA79000S rRRNKRL*BZIUMTT 000 3400 103 12SR ISS201 267 903 CA82GO02 PADGZW*BASCOKBX a XRRLZ= 61400 - 10200 109 12SB 199202 286 910 CASIG023 AHZRICRM LEGION POST #85 Soo Soo 104 124C 1"203 Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 32 EXPLANADON Une of eauai sirmiated Alf drawaawn.wwarvai is 5 feet. 7 70 -rk" C, Tp 8- 0 T C, 0 --:-4 a > Lc 'A MaG; o'. eel 4f was Figure 14 Drawdowns in Piney Point /NanjewoVw.aqWfw.g,54Gtja"W &I Drummond, 1983). Page n I EXPLANATION V A,, U. Of equas 81"WASIed irderval a 5 feel, 7 13 a4' 1@ @M' .0i ARL@O Bo- 0 T a T A 25 it OLA FL TA -.3 3w r- -d. in 4f Lao"^ 0 L I > j-n 38 rj M WON 4.1.Low" Figure 15 Drawdowns in Aquia aquifer (Chapelle & Drumffw)nd, 19w). Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 34 EXPLANATION A/ -,ne at eauat stmuiateO -r w0own injervai is 10 ,a ef @e 41 C, Z T,, B,@-0 T -ro, fe- C6 i, ,7" . , is 30* -7 DjMv%- rARK -7 1-4 0 11,M11 c Ic" 0 1 -2 MILES "in POW @.-c GROW=" Figure L @"PLANAIK uifer as a remit of Chalk -'ne .1 eLia, st, -,a_ in,_, -ee 16 Drawdowns in Piney Point/Nanjernoy aq gernent Plan Point Power Plant (Chapelle & DrurnMdhXV81ft:5)na Page 35 [MONITORING] A summary of the monitoring projects within the Hunting Creek watershed has been completed by a representative of the Tri-County Council for Southern Maryland (Appendix D). Information regarding the Maryland Department of the Environment's (MDE) water quality and macroinvertebrate sampling site is currently being compiled. SEDIMENT EROSION At the request of the department of Planning and Zoning, Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), Sediment and Stormwater Management collected data on recent sediment pollution cases in the Hunting Creek watershed. Fox Run Shopping Center experienced very severe problems around July 3, 1990. Walmart Shopping Center contended with moderate problems around August 13, 1991. The Dale Bliss Property resulted in moderate problems between February 2 to March 12, 1991. And unfortunately, the Westlake Townhomes experienced moderate to severe sediment problems around June 8, 1990 and September 17, 1991. The locations of these sites may be viewed in Figure 17. MDE has agreed to provide the County with further violations should they occur. Draft Watershed Management Plan Page36 T, ==^4 930 900 910 920 7 V401 290 e B lis s Prope oal 6,( 11 -7,; S, Q 280 Rot 91'"CIL W L 9-%"q Creek C.4 f TAM 3 BrO 3 270 -Westlake TownhomeS A Fox Run Shopping Center creek "qft -Tribu" Walmart Shopping Center 260 XLU Cgs" 0" was reproduced tran t" conpll&tion at the -1-mr- tapoqcsvhLc&L quedraugLee 7.3 at the U.S. Amy covp at znqineezso U.S. 23 Survey at calvert Councy. -1 Figure 17 Sediment pollution cases in the Hunting Creek watershed. Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 37 PROTECTIVE MEASURES WETLANDS Tidal wetlands are all within the Critical Area and require a 100 ft buffer which can be extended for slopes greater than 15%, etc. Other provisions of the Critical Area regulations such as limits to clearing, mitigation for clearing, limits to impervious surface, required reduction in pollutants and stormwater management requirements are also intended to maintain or improve water quality. Blue line streams in the Critical Area receive same 100 ft or extended buffer as for tidal waters. Blue line streams outside of the Critical Area require a 50 ft buffer with extension of the buffer for slopes greater than 25%. Non blue line streams or nontidal wetlands inside or outside of the Critical Area require 50 ft. buffers. Exceptions for crossings and stormwater management are provided. Reduction in these buffers can be granted under certain circumstances but are rarely granted during subdivision of land. Filling or destruction of wetlands may only occur if appropriate federal and State permits are obtained. Concept Plan approval from the Planning Commission for site plans shall be obtained before submitting for these permits for any filling of wetlands not permitted as either a road crossing and stormwater management. These permits will be required before final subdivision or site plan approval. Substantial alterations to subdivision or site plans that result from the federal and state permitting process, will make void existing preliminary approvals and will require resubmittal of the revised site plan or subdivision to the Planning and Zoning office for review by staff and reconsideration by the Planning Commission for preliminary approval. Land will not be subdivided in a manner that requires filling of wetlands for any activities except road crossing and stormwater management. Wetlands that are filled after receiving federal, state and county approval, will no longer be defined as wetlands and will not require wetland buffers. For development activities on existing lots that require federal or state wetland permits and do not require submittal of a site development plan, federal and state wetland permits will be required prior to issuance of'grading or building permits. Filling of wetlands for the construction of single-family detached residential dwellings will not be allowed. In addition, filling of wetlands in the 100 year flood plain as depicted on the FIRM maps or indicated as "My" soils on the Soil Survey Maps, for other than road crossings and stormwater management, will not be allowed. If it is determined prior to final approval, that more wetlands exist on the site than originally submitted, then the subdivision, site plan, building permit or grading permit will be resubmitted to reflect the additional wetlands and appropriate wetland buffers. If filling of these additional wetlands is being proposed, then any preliminary approval given by the Planning Commission will be made void and the revised Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 39 project will be resubmitted to the Planning and Zoning office for review by staff and reconsideration by the Planning Commission for preliminary approval. Wetlands will be defined and delineated by qualified professionals. For all site plans, subdivisions, and grading and building permit applications that pertain to sites that have wetlands on them, the wetlands and appropriate buffers shall be placed on the plats and a wetland report submitted to confirm the delineation. These wetland regulations are rather strong and the major potential for wetland loss, other than as a result of road crossings or stormwater management, would be from the filling of wetlands for the construction of multifamily housing in the Town of Prince Frederick or from site plans in Prince Frederick, Huntingtown or other institutional uses in the watershed. However, it should be noted that filling of wetlands in the 100 yr. flood plain (including "My" soils) is not allowed. Pollution entering the watershed is from both point and non-point sources. There are very few potential point sources of pollution in the watershed. These could include subsurface runoff of leachate of the completed County municipal, capped but unlined landfill in Barstow and the slow rate land application sewerage treatment plant in the same area. The sewerage treatment plant which utilizes spray irrigation should not pollute either surface or groundwaters. Non-point source runoff of sediment and nutrients, acid rain and atmospheric deposition of nitrogen and are the other potential sources of pollutants. The main issues relative to wetlands are loss of wetlands and wetland function through filling or pollution, reduction in wetland buffers by the Planning Commission or Board of Appeals, timber harvesting and farming activities in wetlands and the effectiveness of wetland mitigation. The County has established a strong protection policy for wetlands and waterways. Land application of sewerage is the preferred method of treatment and is used in the treatment of municipal sewerage from Prince Frederick. The plant is located within the Hunting Creek Watershed. In January, 1993 and based on the recommendations of the small-lot subcommittee,* the Board of County Commissioners of Calvert County enacted new regulations that require chambered septic tanks to be used for all new and replacement septic tanks and that all lots must have one primary and two secondary septage recovery areas in order to receive Health Department approval to construct a home. If and when'these chambered tanks fail, the septage backs up into the house rather than spilling into the drainfield and eventually overland to our waterways. Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 39 FLOODPLAINS Regulations governing development in and adjacent to the 100 yr. flood plains are designed to protect the flood plain values described above as well as property and lives of residents. Activities in the flood plain are regulated via the Calvert County Zoning Ordinance, Calvert County Flood Management Ordinance, and the Calvert County Subdivision Regulations. The main issues relative to flood plains are loss of wetland flood plains which is discussed under the section on wetlands above and loss of life and property during flood events. The County has established a successful flood management program which directs most new growth out of the flood plain and where allowed, .requires appropriate construction techniques. The County has participated in the Community Rating System developed by the Federal Emergency Managment Administration (FEMA) to promote better flood management and has recieved a decrease in flood insurance rates for County citizens based on our flood management program. Our regulatory flood plain maps have been revised to show extension of the 100 yr. flood plain beyond the FIRM maps based on the presence of "My" soils. WATER SUPPLY Providing water services to present users and expanding that service to meet the needs of new users involves significant public expenditures. In the long run, costs of planning, designing and constructing new facilities may be reduced by a number of techniques to delay, or lengthen the interval between major water facility expansion. Such techniques include the provision of a reasonable excess capacity to meet later expansion needs, and adoption of policies to limit population growth (WSP, 1990). Another significant technique for reducing expansion costs which has recently received serious attention in this country is demand modification. The gallons of water a system must collect, treat and distribute is deitermined by the number of users and the gallons consumed by each user. Demand modification techniques would include approaches to reduce the number of gallons used by each consuming unit (WSP, 1990). In 1988, Calvert County initiated a Comprehensive, County-wide Water Conservation Program. The program is designed to reduce the per capita consumption of water by initiating a public information/public awareness campaign. In addition, all new development within any sanitary district or in any community system owned and operated by the County must use water conserving devices in accordance with the County Water and Sewer Plan (WSP, 1990). Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 40 Finally, the County approved a County-funded retro fit program for the Prince Frederick Sanitary District to reduce consumption and extend available resources. More efficient water use resulting from this plan would reduce water system expansion costs, reduce costs in related services such as sewerage systems, and be consistent with national policies of resource conservation. While Calvert County does not foresee a shortage of potable water, the potential economic and conservation benefits of demand modification indicate that careful consideration should be given measures to accomplish such modifications in revisions of County building and plumbing codes and related policies and regulations. Per capita consumption is expected to continue to increase as the County makes the rural to urban transition; however, as this transition is accomplished, demand modification may be one method of stabilizing or reducing per capita water consumption in areas served by community water systems (WSP, 1990). It is necessary to obtain a well drilling permit from the Local Health Department (Department of Environmental Health and Hygiene) for individual wells or for multi- use or community water systems of two or more lots. In addition, a groundwater appropriation permit must be secured from the Department of Natural Resources, Water Resources Administration for all extractions of water (including residential, commercial and industrial). Generally, there are two exceptions where an appropriation permit is not required; for farming purposes and domestic uses (residential, not in a subdivision) (WSP, 1990). Application for a permit to drill a well must be submitted by a master well driller or well driver, licensed by the State Board of Well Drillers. Such permit is required for construction of every well and every test hole which the well driller intends to construct. Well construction work can not be started until a permit has been issued (WSP, 1990). With certain exceptions, a permit issued by VVRA is required prior to any appropriation or uses of waters of the State (includes both surface and under ground waters), or before construction of a building, plant, or structure which will appropriate waters of the State. The exceptions not requiring an appropriation permit include: Domestic use; Farm use; Use by any municipality for an approved public water supply system, for those uses of water in effect on July 1, 1969; Use of water in effect on January 1, 1934, if that use has not been abandoned; and Appropriation of water to be used for fighting a fire. For applications for appropriations in excess of 10,000 gallons per day, VVFRA will schedule and conduct a public hearing in the Courthouse, Prince Frederick, to receive comments from interested persons (WSP, 1990). T11e holder of an appropriation or use permit may not transfer the permit without WRA approval. The permittee shall notify the Water Resources Administration of the name and address of the transferee accepts in writing all of the terms and Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 41 conditions of the permit. Details of the requirements for these permits are contained in Water Resources Administration Regulation 08.05.02, Groundwater Rules and Regulations (WSP, 1990). HABITAT OF SPECIAL CONCERN The main issue relative to protection of wildlife habitat, is loss of the habitat through destruction of the habitat, decrease in quality of the habitat or through increased disturbance adjacent to the habitat which prohibits its use. Relative to anadromous fish spawning in the Creek, water quality and temperature are the most important factors. In the Critical Area (outlined in Figure 18), protective measures are provided for habitat districts for 1) threatened, and endangered species and species in need of conservation (includes bald eagles and certain tiger beetles); 2) plant and habitat overlays including natural heritage areas, State-listed species sites, locally significant habitats, and habitats for colonial nesting water birds and forest interior dwelling birds as well as waterfowl staging and concentration areas; and 3) anadromous fish propagation waters. Outside of the Critical Areas, provisions are made to recognized critical natural areas and provide protection for them. Open water areas, around Hunting Creek, have been classified as Historic Waterfowl Staging and Concentration Areas. This restricts the construction of certain water-dependent facilities within these regions (see Figure 19). The County has implemented its Critical Area Program and in January of 1993 the County's Forest Conservation Program, Resource Preservation Overlay and Mandatory Clustering provisions were implemented. Together these regulations provide a very effect tool for the preservation of open space and important wildlife habitat. Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 42 re Figu 18 Delineation of the 1000, Critical Area Line. Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 43 J) Unim A A Pat JC .41 4. 't Inj A Af IV pa"s Point @A ago to Area In Hunting Creek - Mallards and Black Ducks. F igure 19 Waterfowl Staging and Concentration Area. Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 44 FOREST COVER Protective measures for maintaining the County's existing forest cover are based on general conservation issues. Relative to forest conservation these are: the rapid loss of forest in the watershed and Calvert County in general, the disruption of large areas of contiguous forest or riparian forest which is important habitat to forest interior dwelling birds, impacts of forestry activities, loss of champion trees, and loss of mature forests. In the Critical Area, within 1000 ft of tidal waters, tidal wetlands or heads of tide, the Critical Area Program regulates forest conservation and provides the most stringent restrictions on clearing and requirements for reforestation. Within the Critical Area portion of the Hunting Creek Watershed, where there is no intensely developed areas, clearing relative to development is restricted to a maximum of 30% of the lot or parcel area or 6000 sq. ft., whichever is greatest, and at least 100% replacement is required. If the forest area qualifies as a plant and wildlife habitat protection area, then a habitat protection plan must be developed cooperatively between the applicant, the County and the Department of Natural Resources before a development plan can be approved. Wetland buffer areas are also protected. These buffer areas are 100 ft. (which can be extended for slope) from tidal waters, tidal wetlands and tributary streams and 50 ft. from nontidal wetlands. Outside of the Critical Area, the Forest Conservation Program (FCP) regulates forest removal and retention. Based on zoning, certain retention thresholds are set. Depending on the amount of clearing in relation to the threshold, no, 100% or greater than 100% replacement of forest is required. Priorities for forest retention are set forth in the FCP and include forested wetlands and wetland buffers, floodplains, steep slopes, large contiguous forest areas, endangered species habitat, etc. Wetland buffers are 50 from blue line streams with extensions for steep slopes and 50 ft. from non-blue line streams and wetlands. The cluster provisions of the Zoning Ordinance direct development away from buffer areas and large contiguous tracts of forest. These provisions apply inside and outside of the Critical Area. The County has implemented its Critical Area Program and has established a Critical Area Reforestation Evaluation (CARE) Committee to direct reforestation efforts in the Critical Area. In 1992, the County received an award for innovation from the Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory Committee for its Critical Area Reforestation Program. In January of 1993 both the County's Forest Conservation Program and Mandatory Clustering provisions were implemented. Together these regulations provide a very effect tool for forest conservation. Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 45 OPEN SPACE Forests, farms, wetlands, stream valleys, cliffs, wildlife, parks and people all need space in Calvert County and there are only 140,000 acres to share. The trend has been for people. to claim first choice of available space destroying or not providing for the others in the process. But in recent years, a new land ethic has begun to emerge. We have begun to realize that it is not only possible but preferable to protect the natural resources of the water and the land. We do this, not from a sense of heavy moral obligation, but because we know that these resources are among the things we value most and enjoy (LPOSP, 1989). The purpose of the open space plan is to provide a policy framework for the preservation and management of: 1. Unique and sensitive natural areas within Calvert County and in particular within the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area, 2. Productive forest land, 3. Productive agricultural land, and 4. Recreational open space and facilities. There is still a great deal of open space suitable for farming, forestry, wildlife habitat and recreation in Calvert County, but the trend has been for residential development to consume an increasingly larger share of total land area. As this trend continues, the amount of space available for farming, forestry, natural habitat and recreation will continue to decline (LPOSP, 1989). Based on preliminary evaluation of these trends, the citizens of Calvert County are attracted and remain within the County due to the rural character presented by the County's current and past appearences. One of the tasks of this project is to recommend revisions to land use regulations and local governmental activities that would promote the objectives of the plan and facilitate its implementation. Calvert County has been working on a number of regulations that will help protect the environment of Hunting Creek as well as that of the entire County. These regulations, designed to both preserve rurai character and protect the environment, were approved by the Board of County Commissioners and implementation began January 1, 1993. The new regulations include mandatory clustering in rural subdivisions, changes to our Agriculture Preservation Program including changes to the transfer development rights (TDR) regulations, and adding a new overlay zone to our rural zoned land. The overlay consists of three districts: Resource Preservation (RP), Farm Community (FC) and Rural Community (RUC). In the RP and FC districts, during subdivision 80% of the parcel must be preserved in "open space", no transfer zones are allowed and sending of transfer development rights from these areas is Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 46 encouraged. In the RUC district, during subdivision 50% of the parcel must be preserved in "open space" and transfer zones are allowed. These regulations should result in farm land and forest land being preserved due to transfer of development rights out of the RP and FC areas and due to decreased land development (maximum 20% developed in the RP and FC districts; maximum developed 50% in the RUC district) if subdivided. Though density can be increased in the RUC areas, only 50% of the area can be developed. The reduced development area will result in reduced runoff. The increased "open space" will decrease non-point source pollution and preserve farm land, rural character, contiguous forested areas and wildlife habitat. The overlays of the three districts are provided in Figure 20, as they pertain to the Hunting Creek Watershed. Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 47 0000 lo MILURCE XSENAFINDISTRICI 0 FAW COMMUMITY DISTRICT 0 MAL COMMUMITYDISRICT Figure 20 Overlays of new 'zoning districts. Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 49 FARM PLANNING The objective of the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Hunting Creek Watershed Project is to demonstrate the positive results of soil conservation and water quality plans, in addition to Best Management Practices (BMP) installation, on water quality in the Hunting Creek Watershed. This project will result in an accurate representation of the influence of agricultural programs offered through the Calvert Soil Conservation District on non-point source pollution in the overall Patuxent River Watershed. The Hunting Creek Watershed is comprised of 18,569 acres of land, of which 10,209 acres (55%) designated as agricultural and forest lands. There are 4,591 acres of cropland and pasture contained within 182 individual parcels of land. Presently 92 of these agricultural parcels have farm conservation plans but 42 of these parcels need to have updated farm plans because they are greater than ten years old. The other 90 agricultural parcel owners, who have never had a farm conservation plan, need to be approached to explain to them the benefits of a soil conservation and water quality plan and possible cost sharing programs being offered in the installation of BMP's. Their contribution to the whole watershed project is essential in showing that soil conservation plans, which have been in place for the past 40 years, have made a significant impact on reducing the load of non-point source pollutants (sediment, nutrients, etc.). To assist in the implementation and update of new and old farm conservation plans, Calvert Soil Conservation District received an EPA grant through the Maryland Department of Agriculture to hire a farm planner to specifically address the objectives of the project. This planner was hired in January 1993, to work on the SCS Hunting Creek Watershed Project. The funds provided, allow the farm planner to develop soil conservation and water quality plans on 3,663 acres, or about one half of the updated plans and unplanned agricultural land in the Hunting Creek Watershed. Funds are being pursued through the Envirom-nental Protection Agency (EPA) and -other supporting agencies to complete the other half of the project. RECOMMENDATIONS WETLANDS 1. Maintain the existing policy of strong County regulations for the protection of wetlands and waterways. Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 49 2. Conduct an analysis of wetland function to determine which wetlands are the most valuable. 3. Work with the Maryland Office of Planning and their Non-point Source Accounting and Assessment System to estimate the most important sources of non-point source pollution in Hunting Creek and to test the effectiveness of various land use controls and sensitive area protection measures in reducing non-point source pollution. Based on these results and recommendations from the Hunting Creek Watershed Task Force, make appropriate amendments to the Calvert County Zoning Ordinance and Prince Frederick Zoning Ordinance. The Calvert County Water and Sewerage Plan and the Open Space Plan may also have to be amended depending on the forthcoming recommendations. 4. Support the Calvert County Soil Conservation efforts to complete and update Farm Conservation Plans for all farms in the Hunting Creek watershed. 5. Identify from the wetland function model and location of rare, threatened and endangered species what land areas should be preserved and identify possible means for their preservation. 6. Develop a citizen education program to inform public of the value of wetlands and clean water and the individual's role in preserving wetlands and maintaining clean water. FLOODPLAINS 1. Continue to implement and improve our flood management program. 2. Have the revised regulatory flood plain maps entered into our computer mapping system and offiwally adopted. 3. Work with the Army Corp of Engineers to conduct a flood plain study in all or parts of Hunting Creek to update our FIRM maps and regulatory flood plain maps and to provide information on projected flooding potential based on current zoning and full build-out. 4. Identify all structures currently in the 100 yr. flood plain in Hunting Creek and identify all flood plain areas in the watershed that are or will be preserved in open space. 5. Notify owners of structures located in the flood plain of the potential hazards and available protective measures that can be taken. Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 50 6. Identify any road crossings that may be impacted by flooding and plan corrective actions. WATER SUPPLY In the process of revising the Calvert County Water and Sewer Plan, the County is recommending the development of a well-head protection plan. 1. A possible amendment in this plan would require the capping of old or abandoned wells on site should a new well be drilled. 2. The amendments may include provisions increasing the required distances between the well and potential contaminants such as septic fields, impervious surfaces, storage tanks, etc. These policies would prevent intrusions such as salt and pollutants into the confined aquifers and maintain the integrity of these aquifers in supplying quality groundwater. HABITAT OF SPECIAL CONCERN 1. Work with DNR to develop an anddromous fish spawning stream plan for Hunting Creek. This plan would become part of the Hunting Creek Watershed Management Plan. 2. Identify the most functionally valuable wetlands in the watershed and work toward their protection and preservation. 3. Work with DNR to develop a habitat protection plan for the Waterfowl Staging and Concentration Area in Hunting Creek. This plan would become part of the Hunting Creek Watershed Management Plan. 4. Adopt protection measures for FIDs outside the Critical Area. FOREST COVER DNR has expressed the necessity in preserving riparian and large block forested areas in the Hunting Creek watershed. These areas are classified as potential Forest Interior Dwelling Bird Habitat. Riparian forest has been defined as forested land, 300 feet in width or greater, adjoining a body of water. Continuous blocks of 100 or more acres are considered large block forests. DNR also recommends Calvert County to maintain existing contiguous forested land and when development occurs, Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 51 provide for the connection of forested habitat areas. 1. Once the forestry information has been received from DNR in digital format, map the forest area for the watershed, determine its total area, and identify potential forest interior dwelling bird habitat on the map. 2. Expand the protection for FID habitat outside of the Critical Area. 3. Measure the rate of forest loss in the watershed. 4. Determine how much reforestation has occurred in the watershed. 5. Estimate the amount of forest harvest activity in the watershed and its potential environmental impact. 6. Promote reforestation efforts in the watershed. IMPLEMENTATION The basis for the following implementation schedule is the Patuxent Estuary Demonstration Project Phase 11 Planning Grant being supplied by the Maryland Office of Planning (Appendix Q: March 31, 1994 Revised Draft Hunting Creek Watershed Management Plan. June 30, 1994 Draft Prince Frederick Watershed Management Plan with elements of the Hunting and Parker Creek Plans. September, 1994 Wetland functional assessment for watershed. December, 1994 Complete certification as a Wetland Watershed Management Plan by the Maryland Department 'of Natural Resources, Water Resources Administration'. FY 1995 Plan will go to public hearing and to the County Commissioners for adoption Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 52 I I I I I I I I I REFERENCES I I I I I I I I Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 53 1 1 ADC., Calvert County, MD. Street Map. Alexandria Drafting Company, 1979. CCCP., Calvert Counly Comprehensive Plan. Calvert County Department of Planning and Zoning, 1983. Chapelle, F.H. & Drummond, D.D., H Digital Simulation, and .ydrology, Geochemistjy of the Aquia and Piney Point-Nanjemoy Aquifer System in Southern MMland. Report of Investigations No. 38. Maryland Department of Natural Resouces, 1983. LPOSP., Land Presurvation and Open Space Plan. Calvert County Department of Planning and Zoning, 1989. NWI., National Wetland InvepLo-U. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1981. Overbeck, R.M., Water Resources of Calvert Co=. Bulletin 8. Maryland Department of Geology, Mines and Water Resources, 1951. O'Dell, J. & Mower, J., Survey and InventoEy of Anadromous Fish Spawning Streams and Barriers in the Patuxent River Drainage. -Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 1984. SCS., Soil Conservation Service Soil Surva of Calvert Counv. Soil Conservation Service, 1971. WSP., Calvert Count Water and Sewerage Plan. Calvert County Department of Planning and Zoning, 1990. Draft Watershed Management Plan Page54 I I I I I I I I I PARTICIPANTS I I I I I I I I Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 55 1 I GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FEDERAL National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Soil Conservation Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Service STATE Critical Area Commission DNR-Forest, Park and Wildlife Service DNR-TA-Coastal and Watershed Resources Division DNR-WRA-Flood Management Division (dissolved) DNR-WRA-NFIP` Coordination DNR-WRA-Nontidal Wetlands Division DNR-WRA-Tidal Wetlands Division DNR-WRA-Water Rights Division MDE-Sediment and Stormwater Management MDE-Water Quality Certification Maryland Office of Planning REGIONAL Tri-County Council for Southern Maryland LOCAL Department of Economic Development Department of General Services Department of Public Safety Department of Public Works General public, organized citizen associations and citizen advisory groups Hunting Creek Watershed Task Force Draft Watershed Management Plan Page 56 I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX A I I . i I I - I I I . I I POTENTIAL WETLAND AREAS Page 1 of 14 Hunting Creek Watershed WC WN WT Area Area Percent Percent sq. ft. Acres Sub- Tot'al. Watershed Watershed LHS 49 HYSO-3 90221 2.07 0.06 0.01 LHS 17 HYSO-3 205329 4.71 0.14 0.02 LHS 10 HYSO-3 586377 13.46 0.40 0.07 LHS 40 HYSO-3 151369 3.47 0.10 0.02 LHS 58 HYSO-3 16352 0.38 0.01 0.00 LHS 4 HYSO-3 265512 6.10 0.18 0.03 LHS 55 HYSO-3 90635 2.08 0.06 0.01 LHS 36 HYSO-3 113357 2.60 0.08 0.01 LHS 24 HYSO-3 76880 1.76 0.05 0.01 LHS 8 HYSO-3 1425357 32.72 0.98 0.17 LHS 56 HYSO-3 42289 0.97 0.03 0.01 LHS 38 HYSO-3 60214 1.38 0.04 0.01 LHS 15 HYSO-3 2695253 61.87 1.85 0.32 LHS 7 HYSO-3 87493 2.01 0.06 0.01 LHS 5 HYSO-3 168512 3.87 0.12 0.02 LHS 1 HYSO-3 1279801 29.38 0.88 0.15 LHS 21 HYSO-3 313126 7.19 0.21 0.04 LHS TOT HYSO-3 7668077 176.03 5.26 0.91 WC Watershed Code WN - Wetland Number WT - Wetland Type POTENTIAL WETLAND AREAS Page 2 of 14 Hunting Creek Watershed WC WN WT Area Area Percent Percent sq. ft. Acres Sub- Total Watershed Watershed LHS 22 HYSO-4 105406 2.42 0.07 0.01 LHS 31 HYSO-4 1065553 24.46 0.73 0.13 LHS 18 HYSO-4 137721 3.16 0.09 0.02 LHS 50 HYSO-4 104857 2.41 0.07 0.01 LHS 20 HYSO-4 139369 3.20 0.10 0.02 LHS 33 HYSO-4 2263550 51.96 1.55 0.27 LHS 43 HYSO-4 65819 1.51 0.05 0.012 LHS 9 HYSO-4 405537 9.31 0.28 0.05 LHS 13 HYSO-4 370017 8.49 0.25 0.04 LHS 45 HYSO-4 187809 4.31 0.13 0.02 LHS- 26 HYSO-4 1378210 31.64 0.95 0.16 LHS 6 HYSO-4 701806 16.11 0.48 0.08 LHS 28 HYSO-4 128224 2.94 0.09 0.02 LHS 37 HYSO-4 737790 16.94 0.51 0.09 LHS 30 HYSO-4 478606 10.99 0.33 0.06 LHS 57 HYSO-4 413808 9.50 0.28 0.05 LHS 16 HYSO-4 96494 2.22 0.07 0.01 LHS 44 HYSO-4 80384 1.85 0.06 0.01 LHS 25 HYSO-4 242544 5.57 0.17 0.03 LHS 2 HYSO-4 870726 19.99 0.60 0.10 LHS 11 HYSO-4 84848 1.95 0.06 0.01 LHS 41 HYSO-4 219250 5.03 0.15 0.03 LHS 23 HYSO-4 180306 4.14 0.12 0.02 LHS 19 HYSO-4 138291 3.17 0.09 0.02 LHS 12 HYSO-4 84162 1.93 0.06 0.01 LHS 42 HYSO-4 211601 4.86 0.15 0.03 LHS TOT HYSO-4 10892689 250.06 7.48 1.29 wC - Watershed Code WN - Wetland Number WT Wetland Type POTENTIAL WETLAND AREAS Page 3 of 14 Hunting Creek Watershed WC WN WT Area Area Percent Percent sq. ft. Acres Sub- Total Watershed Watershed LHS 29 HYSO-5 216581 4.97 0.15 0.03 LHS 51 HYSO-5 57133 1.31 0.04 0.01 LHS 52 HYSO-5 258073 5.92 0.18 0.03 LHS 35 HYSO-5 323710 7.43 0.22 0.04 LHS 53 HYSO-5 425893 9.78 0.29 0.05 LHS 47 HYSO-5 317792 7.30 0.22 0.04 LHS 54 HYSO-5 142182 3.26 0.10 0.02 LHS 34 HYSO-5 2063338 47.37 1.42 0.24 LHS 27 HYSO-5 14319 0.33 0.01 0.00 LHS 39 HYSO-5 677633 15.56 0.47 0.08 LHS 14 HYSO-5 20391 0.47 0.01 0.00 LHS 48 HYSO-5 2450940 56.27 1.68 0.29 LHS 46 HYSO-5 889696 20.42 0.61 0.11 LHS 32 HYSO-5 46323 1.06 0.03 0.01 LHS 3 HYSO-5 28151 0.65 0.02 0.00 LHS TOT HYSO-5 7932155 182.10 5.45 0.94 LHS TOT TOTAL 18.19 3.15 LHW 42 E10WLx 79879 1.83 0.05 0.01 LHW TOT E1OWLx 79879 1.83 0.05 0.01 LHW 68 E1UB4L6 34429 0.79 0.02 0.00 LHW 67 E1UB4L6 48746 1.12 0.03 0.01 LHW TOT E1UB4L6 83175 1.91 0.06 0.01 WC Watershed Code WN Wetland Number WT - Wetland Type POTENTIAL WETLAND AREAS Page 4 of 14 Hunting Creek Watershed WC WN WT Area Area Percent Percent sq. ft. Acres Sub- Total Watershed Watershed LHW 30 E2EM5P6 256888 5.90 0.18 0.03 LHW 23 E2EM5P6 191730 4.40 0.13 0.02 LHW 41 E2EM5P6 991030 22.75 0.68 0.12 LHW 18 E2EM5P6 165690 3.80 0.11 0.02 LHW 65 E2EM5P6 173063 3.97 0.12 0.02 LHW 40 E2EM5P6 198271 4.55 0.14 0.02 LHW 20 E2EM5P6 421823 9.68 0.29 0.05 LHW 38 E2EM5P6 1205220 27.67 0.83 0.14 LHW 49 E2EM5P6 259384 5.95 0.18 0.03 LHW 37 E2EM5P6 93933 2.16 0.06 0.01 LHW 22 E2EM5P6 146908 3.37 0.10 0.02 LHW 13 E2EM5P6 217548 4.99 0.15 0.03 LHW 58 E2EM5P6 114024 2.62 0.08 0.01 LHW 46 E2EM5P6 2238426 51.39 1.54 0.27 LHW 60 E2EM5P6 93691 2.15 0.06 0.01 LHW 50 E2EM5P6 506986 11.64 0.35 0.06 LHW 25 E2EM5P6 68716 1.58 0.05 0.01 LHW 39 E2EM5P6 552277 12.68 0.38 0.07 LHW 26 E2EM5P6 177740 4.08 0.12 0.02 LHW 64 E2EM5P6 159411 3.66 0.11 0.02 LHW 66 E2EM5P6 428114 9.83 0.29 0.05 LHW 4 E2EM5P6 1985510 45.58 1.36 0.24 LHW 28 E2EM5P6 211646 4.86 0.15 0.03 LHW 10 E2EM5P6 408110 9.37 0.28 0.05 LHW 59 E2EM5P6 31205 0.72 0.02 0.00 LHW 61 E2EM5P6 100162 2.30 0.07 0.01 LHW 62 E2EM5P6 14549 0.33 0.01 0.00 LHW TOT E2EM5P6 11412057 261.98 7.84 1.35 LHW 24 PF01A 276961 6.36 0.19 0.03 LHW 35 PF01A 63753 1.46 0.04 0.01 LHW 56 PF01A 80471 1.85 0.06 0.01 LHW 7 PF01A 722654 16.59 0.50 0.09 LHW 15 PF01A 1020089 23.42 0.70 0.12 LHW 8 PF01A 113817 2.61 0.08 0.01 LHW 55 PF01A 88678 2.04 0.06 0.01 LHW 11 PF01A 343104 7.88 0.24 0.04 LHW TOT PF01A 2709527 62.20 1.86 0.32 LHW 19 PF01C 60554 1.39 0.04 0.01 LHW 16 PF01C 405259 9.30 0.28 0.05 LHW TOT PF01C 465814 10.69 0.32 0.06 WC - Watershed Code WN Wetland Number WT - Wetland Type POTENTIAL WETLAND AREAS Page 5 of 14 Hunting Creek Watershed WC WN WT Area Area Percent Percent sq. ft. Acres Sub- Total Watershed Watershed LHW 1 PF01E 125988 2.89 0.09 0.01 LHW TOT PF01E 125988 2.89 0.09 0.01 LHW 32 PF01R 32109 0.74 0.02 0.00 LHW 33 PF01R 17432 0.40 0.01 0.00 LHW 21 PF01R 200540 4.60 0.14 0.02 LHW 17 PF01R 153413 3.52 0.11 0.02 LHW 36 PF01R 46958 1.08 0.03 0.01 LHW 5 PF01R 53956 1.24 0.04 0.01 LHW 9 PF01R 201266 4.62 0.14 0.02 LHW 2 PF01R 1167718 26.81 0.80 0.14 LHW TOT PF01R 1873393 43.01 1.29 0.22 LHW 29 PF01S 70754 1.62 0.05 0.01 LHW TOT PF01S 70754 1.62 0.05 0.01 LHW 47 POWFh 48822 1.12 0.03 0.01 LHW 53 POWFh 8034 0.18 0.01 0.00 LHW TOT POWFh 56856 1.31 0.04 0.01 LHW 52 POWFx 15151 0.35 0.01 0.00 LHW TOT POWFx 15151 0.35 0.01 0.00 LHW 6 POWZb 3199 0.07 0.00 0.00 LHW TOT POWZb 3199 0.07 0.00 0.00 LHW 51 POWZh 217151 .4.99 0.15 0.03 LHW 34 POWZh 36299 0.83 0.02 0.00 LHW 63 POWZh 117038 2.69 0.08 0.01 LHW 14 POWZh 4898 0.11 0.00 0.00 LHW 43 POWZh 63912 1.47 0.04 0.01 LHW TOT POWZh 439298 10.08 0.30 0.05 LHW 31 POWZx 40965 0.94 0.03 0.00 LHW 57 POWZx 11233 0.26 0.01 0.00 LHW 54 POWZx 10483 0.24 0.01 0.00 LHW TOT POWZx 62681 1.44 0.04 0.01 WC - Watershed Code WN - Wetland Number WT - Wetland Type POTENTIAL WETLAND AREAS Page 6 of 14 Hunting Creek Watershed WC WN WT Area Area Percent Percent sq. ft. Acres Sub- Total Watershed Watershed LHW 27 PSS1R 19837 0.46 0.01 0.00 LHW 3 PSS1R 66031 1.52 0.05 0.01 LHW 45 PSS1R 127842 2.93 0.09 0.02 LHW 48 PSS1R 118458 2.72 0.08 0.01 LHW 44 PSS1R 63147 1.45 0.04 0.01 LHW 12 PSS1R 14740 0.34 0.01 0.00 LHW TOT PSSIR 410056 9.41 0.28 0.05 LHW TOT TOTAL 12.23 2.11 LLS 3 HYSO-3 3392187 77.87 5.38 0.40 LLS 9 HYSO-3 121527 2.79 0.19 0.01 LLS 7 HYSO-3 503471 11.56 0.80 0.06 LLS TOT HYSO-3 4017185 92.22 6.37 0.48 LLS 11 HYSO-4 2237783 51.37 3.55 0.27 LLS 14 HYSO-4 48671 1.12 0.08 0.01 LLS 15 HYSO-4 403547 9.26 0.64 0.05 LLS 12 HYSO-4 319236 7.33 0.51 0.04 LLS 13 HYSO-4 68112 1.56 0.11 0.01 LLS TOT HYSO-4 3077349 70.65 4.88 0.37 LLS 10 HYSO-5 1406718 32.29 2.23 0.17 LLS 2 HYSO-5 32744 0.75 0.05 0.00 LLS 1 HYSO-5 112341 2.58 0.18 0.01 LLS 6 HYSO-5 173914 3.99 0.28 0.02 LLS 4 HYSO-5 286067 6.57 0.45 0.03 LLS 16 HYSO-5 52802 1.21 0.08 0.01 LLS 8 HYSO-5 265145 6.09 0.42 0.03 LLS 5 HYSO-5 811383 18.63 1.29 0.10 LLS TOT HYSO-5 3141113 72.11 4.98 0.37 LLS TOT TOTAL 16.24 1.22 LLW 22 E2EM5P6 16513 0.38 0.03 0.00 LLW 19 E2EM5P6 304337 6.99 0.48 0.04 LLW 18 E2EM5P6 2077328 47.69 3.29 0.25 LLW 21 E2EM5P6 69220 1.59 0.11 0.01 LLW 20 E2EM5P6 420492 9.65 0.67 0.05 LLW TOT E2EM5P6 2887889 66.30 4.58 0.34 WC - Watershed Code WN - Wetland Number WT - Wetland Type POTENTIAL WETLAND AREAS Page 7 of 14 Hunting Creek Watershed WC WN WT Area Area Percent Percent sq. ft. Acres Sub- Total Watershed Watershed LLW 11 PF01A 199580 4.58 0.32 0.02 LLW 3 PF01A 2003818 46.00 3.18 0.24 LLW TOT PF01A 2203398 50.58 3.49 0.26 LLW 6 PF01C 501964 11.52 0.80 0.06 LLW 10 PF01C 50819 1.17 0.08 0.01 LLW TOT PF01C 552784 12.26 .0.88 0.07 LLW 7 PF01R 153243 3.52 0.24 0.02 LLW 17 PF01R 58632 1.35 0.09 0.01 LLW 13 PF01R 361826 8.31 0.57 0.04 LLW 15 PF01R 19014 0.44 0.03 0.00 LLW TOT PF01R 592714 13.61 0.94 0.07 LLW 4 POWZh 56445 1.30 0.09 0.01 LLW 8 POWZh 21530 0.49 0.03 0.00 LLW 5 POWZh 34240 0.79 0.05 0.00 LLW 12 POWZh 43192 0.99 0.07 0.01 LLW 2 POWZh 101873 2.34 0.16 0.01 LLW 9 POWZh 21210 0.49 0.03 0.00 LLW 1 POWZh 22836 0.52 0.04 0.00 LLW 14 POWZh 18586 0.43 0.03 0.00 LLW TOT POWZh 319911 7.34 0.51 0.04 LLW 16 PSS1R 56366 1.29, 0.09 0.01 LLW TOT PSS1R 56366 1.29 0.09 0.01 LLW TOT TOTAL 10.49 0.79 MCS 4.4 HYSO-3 9634 0.22 0.01 0.00 MCS 5.2 HYSO-3 530192 12.17 0.41 0.06 MCS 4.1 HYSO-3 165716 3.80 0.13 0.02 MCS 10 HYSO-3 130620 3.00 0.10 0.02 MCS 4.3 HYSO-3 33364 0.77 0.03 0.00 MCS 5.1 HYSO-3 8446349 193.90 6.46 1.00 MCS 4.2 HYSO-3 17803 0.41 0.01 0.00 MCS TOT HYSO-3 9333679 214.27 7.14 1.11 MCS 15 HYSO-4 47439 .1.09 0.04 0.01 MCS 13 HYSO-4 1063079 24.40 0.81 0.13 MCS 14 HYSO-4 866873 19.90 0.66 0.10 MCS 16 HYSO-4 22230 0.51 0.02 0.00 MCS TOT HYSO-4 1999622 45.90 1.53 0.24 WC - Watershed Code WN - Wetland Number WT - Wetland Type POTENTIAL WETLAND AREAS Page 8 of 14 Hunting Creek Watershed WC WN WT Area Area Percent Percent sq. ft. Acres Sub- Total Watershed Watershed MCS 1.2 HYSO-5 52817 1.21 0.04 0.01 mcs 12 HYSO-5 26252 0.60 0.02 0.00 mcs 3 HYSO-5 58936 1.35 0.05 0.01 mcs 8 HYSO-5 156720 3.60 0.12 0.02 mcs 2 HYSO-5 1254240 28.79 0.96 0.15 mcs 6 HYSO-5 2649461 60.82 2.03 0.31 MCS 1.1 HYSO-5 57980 1.33 0.04 0.01 mcs 7 HYSO-5 30842 0.71 0.02 0.00 mcs 11 HYSO-5 42364 0.97 0.03 0.01 mcs 9 HYSO-5 187022 4.29 0.14 0.02 MCS TOT HYSO-5 4516633 103.69 3.45 0.54 MCS TOT TOTAL 12.12 1.88 mcw 20 E2EM5P6 807582 18.54 0.62 0.10 mcw 22 E2EM5P6 83019 1.91 0.06 0.01 MCW .19 E2EM5P6 792281 18.19 0.61 0.09 MCW TOT E2EM5P6 1682882 38.63 1.29 0.20 mcw 7 PEM5A 73908 1.70 0.06 0.01 MCW TOT PEM5A 73908 1.70 0.06 0.01 mcw 4 PEM5C 97764 2.24 0.07 0.01 MCW TOT PEM5C 97764 2.24 0.07 0.01 mcw 9 PF01A 1688307 38.76 1.29 0.20 mcw 16 PF01A 191063 4.39 0.15 0.02 mcw 6 PF01A 545077 12.51 0.42 0.06 MCW 10.2 PF01A 90937 2.09 0.07 0.01 mcw 12 PF01A 210871 4.84 0.16 0.03 mcw 3 PF01A 1342741 30.83 1.03 0.16 mcw 5 PF01A 40683 0.93 0.03 0.00 mcw 11 PF01A 156071 3.58 0.12 0.02 MCW TOT PF01A 4265751 97.93 3.26 0.51 MCW 10.1 PF01C 380122 8.73 0.29 0.05 MCW TOT PF01C 380122 8.73 0.29 0.05 mcw 18 PF01R 386891 8.88 0.30 0.05 mcw 13 PF01R 380500 8.74 0.29 0.05 MCW TOT PF01R 767391 17.62 0.59 0.09 WC - Watershed Code WN - Wetland Number WT - Wetland Type POTENTIAL WETLAND AREAS Page 9 of 14 Hunting Creek Watershed WC WN WT Area Area Percent Percent sq. ft. Acres Sub- Total Watershed Watershed Mcw 15 PF01S 116867 2.68 0.09 0.01 MCW TOT PF01S 116867 2.68 0.09 0.01 Mcw 21 POWZh 38884 0.89 0.03 0.00 Mcw 2 POWZh 11287 0.26 0.01 0.00 Mcw 1 POWZh 35985 0.83 0.03 0.00 Mcw 8 POWZh 58834 1.35 0.04 0.01 Mcw 17 POWZh 170566 3.92 0.13 0.02 MCW TOT POWZh 315555 7.24 0.24 0.04 Mcw 14 P(SS1/EM5)R 470908 10.81 0.36 0.06 MCW TOT P(SSI/EM5)R 470908 10.81 0.36 0.06 MCW TOT TOTAL 6.25 0.97 RBS 3 HYSO-3 2505354 57.52 4.90 0.30 RBS 4 HYSO-3 2199137 50.49 4.30 0.26 RBS TOT HYSO-3 4704491 108.00 9.21 0.56 RBS 5 HYSO-5 10719 0.25 0.02 0.00 RBS 1 HYSO-5 31915 0.73 0.06 0.00 RBS 2 HYSO-5 115787 2.66 0.23 0.01 RBS TOT HYSO-5 158421 3.64 0.31 0.02 RBS TOT TOTAL 9.52 0.58 RBW 4 PEM5A 89012 2.04 0.17 0.01 RBW TOT PEM5A 89012 2.04 0.17 0.01 RBW 6 PF01A 1611691 37.00 3.15 0.19 RBW 2 PF01A 818341 18.79 1.60 0.10 RBW TOT PF01A 2430032 55.79 4.76 0.29 RBW 7 PF01C 206903 4.75 0.41 0.02 RBW TOT PF01C 206903 4.75 0.41 0.02 RBW 9 PF01R 258485 5.93 0.51 0.03 RBW TOT PF01R 258485 5.93 0.51 0.03 RBW 5 POWFb 21135 0.49 0.04 0.00 RBW TOT POWFb 21135 0.49 0.04 0.00 WC -,Watershed Code WN Wetland Number WT - Wetland Type POTENTIAL WETLAND AREAS Page 10 of 14 Hunting Creek Watershed WC WN WT Area Area Percent Percent sq. ft. Acres Sub- Total Watershed Watershed RBW 8 POWZ 17675 0.41 0.03 0.00 RBW TOT POWZ 17675 0.41 0.03 0.00 RBW 3 POWZh 30457 0.70 0.06 0.00 RBW 1 POWZh 13768 0.32 0.03 0.00 RBW TOT POWZh 44225 1.02 0.09 0.01 RBW TOT TOTAL 6.00 0.36 SBS 12 HYSO-3 7875797 180.80 4.17 0.93 SBS 13 HYSO-3 19642 0.45 0.01 0.00 SBS 11 HYSO-3 12231002 280.79 6.47 1.45 SBS TOT HYSO-3 20126441 462.04 10.65 2.39 SBS 4.1 HYSO-5 255142 5.86 0.13 0.03 SBS 10 HYSO-5 41406 0.95 0.02 0.00 SBS 3 HYSO-5 180121 4.14 0.10 0.02 SBS 2 HYSO-5 36505 0.84 0.02 0.00 SBS 5 HYSO-5 176574 4.05 0.09 0.02 SBS 1 HYSO-5 24432 0.56 0.01 0.00 SBS 7 HYSO-5 101065 2.32 0.05 0.01 SBS 8 HYSO-5 244450 5.61 0.13 0.03 SBS 9 HYSO-5 175067 4.02 0.09 0.02 SBS 4.2 HYSO-5 82266 1.89 0.04 0.01 SBS 14.2 HYSO-5 9669 0.22 0.01 0.00 SBS 6 HYSO-5 410979 9.43 0.22 0.05 SBS 14.1 HYSO-5 69673 1.60 0.04 0.01 SBS TOT HYSO-5 1807350 41.49 0.96 0.21 SBS TOT TOTAL 11.60 2.60 SBW 13 PF01A 1327419 30.47 0.70 0.16 SBW 25 PF01A 418914 9.62 0.22 0.05 SBW 5 PF01A 1066833 24.49 0.56 0.13 SBW 2 PF01A 252863 5.80 0.13 0.03 SBW 9 PF01A 325904 7.48 0.17 0.04 SBW 27 PF01A 329403 7.56 0.17 0.04 SBW 19 PF01A 3574142 82.05 1.89 0.42 SBW TOT PF01A 7295476 167.48 3.86 0.87 WC - Watershed Code WN - Wetland Number WT - Wetland Type POTENTIAL WETLAND AREAS Page 11 of 14 Hunting Creek Watershed WC WN WT Area Area Percent Percent sq. ft. Acres Sub- Total Watershed Watershed SBW 20 PF01C 67553 1.55 0.04 0.01 SBW 24 PF01C 249172 5.72 0.13 0.03 SBW 18 PF01C 252495 5.80 0.13 0.03 SBW 21 PF01C 203522 4.67 0.11 0.02 SBW TOT PFOIC 772742 17.74 0.41 0.09 SBW 26 PF01Eb 494016 11.34 0.26 0.06 SBW 29 PF01Eb 479571 11.01 0.25 0.06 SBW 10 PF01Eb 215351 4.94 0.11 0.03 SBW 14 PF01Eb 78456 1.80 0.04 0.01 SBW TOT PFOlEb 1267394 29.10 0.67 0.15 SBW 28 POWZh 252865 5.80 0.13 0.03 SBW 11 POWZh 44916 1.03 0.02 0.01 SBW 22 POWZh 42151 0.97 0.02 0.01 SBW 17 POWZh 28264 0.65 0.01 0.00 SBW 23 POWZh 40130 0.92 0.02 0.00 SBW 12 POWZh 20105 0.46 0.01 0.00 SBW 3 POWZh 18132 0.42 0.01 0.00 SBW 16 POWZh 61484 1.41 0.03 0.01 SBW 1 POWZh 47517 1.09 0.03 0.01 SBW 15 POWZh 47858 1.10 0.03 0.01 SBW 4 POWZh 235168 5.40 0.12 0.03 SBW TOT POWZh 838590 19.25 0.44 0.10 SBW 8 P(F05/OW)Fb 206365 4.74 0.11 0.02 SBW 6 P(F05/OW)Fb 115561 2.65 0.06 0.01 SBW TOT P(F05/OW)Fb 321926 7.39 0.17 0.04 SBW 7 P(FO/EM)5Fb 137651 3.16 0.07 0.02 SBW TOT P(FO/EM)5Fb 137651 3.16 0.07 0.02 SBW TOT TOTAL 5.63 1.26 T1S 1 HYSO-3 8370544 192.16 8.48 0.99 TlS TOT TOTAL 8370544 192.16 8.48 0.99 T1W 18 PEM5Eb 518652 11.91 0.53 0.06 T1W TOT PEM5Eb 518652 11.91 0.53 0.06 WC - Watershed Code WN - Wetland Nuniber WT - Wetland Type POTENTIAL WETLAND AREAS Page 12 of 14 Hunting Creek Watershed WC WN WT Area Area Percent Percent sq. ft. Acres Sub- Total Watershed Watershed T1W 12 PEM5Fb 167622 3.85 0.17 0.02 T1W TOT PEMSFb 167622 3.85 0.17 0.02 T1W 4 PF01A 638848 14.67 0.65 0.08 T1W TOT PFOIA 638848 14.67 0.65 0.08 T1W 20 PF01C 821133 18.85 0.83 0.10 T1W TOT PF01C 821133 18.85 0.83 0.10 T1W 11 PF01E 150585 3.46 0.15 0.02 T1W TOT PF01E 150585 3.46 0.15 0.02 T1W 10 POWFb 46052 1.06 0.05 0.01 T1W TOT POWFb 46052 1.06 0.05 0.01 T1W 19 POWFh 19328 0.44 0.02 0.00 TlW TOT POWFh 19328 0.44 0.02 0.00 T1W 15 POWZh 42834 0.98 0.04 0.01 T1W 17 POWZh 18164 0.42 0.02 0.00 T1W 2 POWZh 54539 1.25 0.06 0.01 T1W 9 POWZh 13310 0.31 0.01 0.00 T1W 1 POWZh 33452 0.77 0.03 0.00 T1W 3 POWZh 15264 0.35 0.02 0.00 T1W 7 POWZh 44709 1.03 0.05 0.01 T1W 8 POWZh 21261 0.49 0.02 0.00 T1W 13 POWZh 19556 0.45 0.02 0.00 T1W 16 POWZh 5682 0.13 0.01 0.00 TlW TOT POWZh 268770 6.17 0.27 0.03 T1W 6 P(FOl/EM5)C 813389 18.67 0.82 0.10 T1W TOT P(FO1/EM5)C 813389 18.67 0.82 0.10 T1W 14 P(FOl/EM5)Eb 978043 22.45 0.99 0.12 T1W TOT P(FOl/EM5)Eb 978043 22.45 0.99 0.12 T1W 5 P(F05/OW)Fb 23475 0.54 0.02 0.00 T1W 21 P(F05/OW)Fb 76687 1.76 0.08 0.01 T1W TOT P(F05/OW)Fb 100162 2.30 0.10 0.01 T1W TOT TOTAL 4.58 0.54 WC - Watershed Code WN - Wetland Number WT - Wetland Type POTENTIAL WETLAND AREAS Page 13 of 14 Hunting Creek Watershed WC WN WT Area Area Percent Percent sq. ft. Acres Sub- Toial Watershed Watershed UHS 9 HYSO-3 68877 1.58 0.04 0.01 UHS 5 HYSO-3 17885674 410.60 10.90 2.12 UHS 8 HYSO-3 .130907 3.01 0.08 0.02 UHS 7 HYSO-3 171647 3.94 0.10 0.02 UHS TOT, HYSO-3 18257105 419.13 11.13 2.17 UHS 6 HYSO-5 54336 1.25 0.03 0.01 UHS I HYSO-5 65070 1.49 0.04 0.01 UHS 4 HYSO-5 44342 1.02 0.03 0.01 UHS 3 HYSO-5 32814 0.75 0.02 0.00 UHS 2 HYSO-5 146405 3.36 0.09 0.02 UHS TOT HYSO-5 342968 7.87 0.21 0.04 UHS TOT TOTAL 11.34 2.21 UHW 17 PEM5Eb 193901 4.45 0.12 0.02 UHW 25 PEM5Eb 258245 5.93 0.16 0.03 UHW TOT PEM5Eb 452146 10.38 0.28 0.05 UHW 6 PF01A 456125 10.47 0.28 0.05 UHW 19 PF01A 1173802 26.95 0.72 0.14 UHW 22 PF01A 839481 19.27 0.51 0.10 UHW 8 PF01A 608976 13.98 0.37 0.07 UHW TOT PFOIA 3078385 70.67 1.88 0.37 UHW 13 PF01C 801656 18.40 0.49 0.10 UHW TOT PF01C 801656 18.40 0.49 0.10 UHW 29 PF01E 125597 2.88 0.08 0.01 UHW 27 PF01E 427614 9.82 0.26 0.05 URW TOT PFOlE 553211 12.70 0.34 0.07 UHW 10 PFOlEb 551626 12.66 0.34 0.07 UHW 23 PFOlEb 65169 1.50 0.04 0.01 UHW 16 PFOlEb 369796 8.49 0.23 0.04 UHW 24 PFOlEb 1189850 27.32 0.73 0.14 UHW 20 PFOlEb 161954 3.72 0.10 0.02 UHW TOT PFOlEb 2338395 53.68 1.43 0.28 UHW 18 POWFb 32285 0.74 0.02 0.00 UHW TOT POWFb 32285 0.74 0.02 0.00 WC - Watershed Code WN Wetland Number WT - Wetland Type POTENTIAL WETLAND AREAS Page 14 of 14 Hunting Creek Watershed WC WN WT Area Area Percent Percent sq. ft. Acres Sub- Total Watershed Watershed UHW 1 POWFh 63333 1.45 0.04 0.01 UHW TOT POWFh 63333 1.45 0.04 0.01 UHW 3 POWZh 46494 1.07 0.03 0.01 UHW 7 POWZh 62279 1.43 0.04 0.01 UHW 2 POWZh 35567 0.82 0.02 0.00 UHW 28 POWZh 27176 0.62 0.02 0.00 UHW 15 POWZh 43665 1.00 0.03 0.01 UHW 4 POWZh 136233 3.13 0.08 0.02 URW TOT POWZh 351415 8.07 0.21 0.04 UHW 5 PSS1A 107478 2.47 0.07 0.01 UHW 21 PSS1A 702639 16.13 0.43 0.08 UHW TOT PSS1A 810117 18.60 0.49 0.10 UHW 26 P(F05/OW)Fb 167269 3.84 0.10 0.02 UHW 11 P(F05/OW)Fb 82024 1.88 0.05 0.01 UHW 9 P(F05/OW)Fb 106021 2.43 0.06 0.01 UHW 14 P(F05/OW)Fb 86463 1.98 0.05 0.01 UHW . 12 P(F05/OW)Fb 73844 1.70 0.05 0.01 UHW TOT P(F05/OW)Fb 515621 11.84 0.31 0.06 UHW TOT TOTAL 5.48 1.07 WC - Watershed Code WN Wetland Number WT - Wetland Type I I I I . I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX B I I I I I I I I I McCARTHY & ASSOCIATES, INC. REGULATORY and ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Prliminary Wetland Assessment For Portions of the Hunting Creek Watershed Prince Frederick Town Center Calvert County, Maryland Prepared By: Mccarthy and Associates, Inc. October, 1991 14458 Old Mill Road #201 Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 (301) 627-7505 PURPOSE AND INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Hunting Creek watershed wetland ;13sessment is to provide Calvert County planners with a rough "roximation of the extent and location of jurisdiction of @Adal wetlands, on various properties, within the town ce.- .-. This assessment is not intended to replace actual fie. delineation and surveyed locations. An actual delin---;:@-:ion would require the field implementation of the 1987 Corps Manual. This methodology requires that three parameters be satisfied in order for an area to be classified as a jurisdictional wetland. The three parameters include the presence of wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and a dominance, 50% or greater, coverage of hydrophytic vegetation. In making this approximation, the three parameter system was applied in a general form to the various more questionable areas at a number of locations along stream margins and swale bottoms. Soils were sampled and compared to the Munsell Color Chart. Munsell colors of two chroma or 1 chroma with mottles are considered hydric. Vegetation was identified and placed into either tree, sapling/shrubs, herbaceous, and woody vine categories. The three most dominant species in each category have been recorded on the enclosed data sheets with their appropriate indicator status. obvious signs of hydrology were noted, as well. If all three parameters are deemed to be present, then the area in question would be considered wetland. Contiguous wetland areas have been drawn, to the best of the field evaluator's ability, on a topographic map corresponding to the portions of land being evaluated. The properties evaluated were: Property Owner County Comm. of Calvert County, P. 549 Board of Education, P. 4 John William, Jr., P. 566 and P. 5 County Comm. of Calvert County, P. 511 and Section "A" and "B" Gott Realty C., Inc., P. 15 Calvert Village LTD Partnership, P. 236 Calvert Association for Retarded Citizens, P. 66 A copy of the tax map corresponding to the properties is inc!&L@aed in Appendix B'.- along with access consent forms for properties not owned by Calvert County. Calvert County Tax Map Number 24, indicating the properties evaluated, was overlain on a corresponding topographic map. Property lines are approximation based on limited information and will likely vary in reality. For the purposes of the study the lines should be sufficient. The maps were taken into the field and used to locate position and show point corresponding to data sheets. Maps and data sheets are enclosed in Appendix A. The data sheets document the finding at each location and reasons for the determination made. Vegetation is broken into four categories: Trees, sapling/shrub, herbaceous, and woody vines. Within these categories the three most dominant species are listed by scientific name. Besides each of the species identified, the indicator status is listed. The indicator status is listed in Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur In Wetlands: Northeast (Region 1). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biol. Rep. 88 (26.1). 111 pp. This publication cites species tolerance to anaerobic soil conditions found in wetlands. The classification hierarchy is designed to predict the chance of finding a particular species in a wetland. Indicator categories cited in the plant list are: Indicator Categories obligate Wetland (OBL). Occur most always (estimated probability >99%) under natural conditions in wetlands. Facultative Wetland (FACW). Usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability 67%-99%), but occasionally found in non wetlands. Facultative (PAC). Equally likely to occur in wetlands or non wetlands (estimated probability 30-66%). Facultative Upland (FACU). Usually occur in non wetlands (estimated probability 67%-99%), but occasionally found in wetlands (estimated probability 1%-33%). obligate Upland (UPL). Occur in wetlands in another region, but occur almost always (estimated probability > 99%) under natural conditions in non wetlands in the region specified. If a species does not occur in wetlands in any region, it is not listed on the National.List. Under the 1987 Corps Manual (FAC-) or dryer indicators are not considered to be typically adapted to anaerobic soil conditions. Areas need to have 50% or greater dominance of FAC, FACW, and\or OBL species to be considered wetland. Soil evaluations were made using a 2 1/2 inch bucket auger and extracting a sample to 12 inches in depth. The soils were evaluated for color and mottling, as well as other indicators of saturation. Color determinations were made by comparison to the Munsell Color Chart and findings were recorded on the data sheets. A copy of the county soil map has been included in Appendix A.. The maps show the overall rough determinations based on the data gathered in the field. Red areas indicate jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the United States. Yellow areas depict more questionable wetland calls. These areas would knowingly require more field time and a jurisdictional determination by the appropriate agencies. CONCLUSIONS For the most part, the data sheets and maps conclude the findings as they were found in the field. It should be noted that during an actual delineation a mere comprehensive vegetative analysis would be done, and a greater number of soil samples are taken when defining the wetland/upland boundary. This analysis was an overview and much less time was spent at each location. The question was raised, prior to the evaluation, as to the changes in the manuals used to identify and delineate non- tidal wetlands. The 1989 Federal Manual is no longer being used by the Army Corps of Engineers. In its place, the 1987 Corps Manual is now being implemented. A 1991 manual is being reviewed, though its future implementation is unknown at this time. It was determined that in order to make a general determination on the site, the differences between manuals was not a major issue. The evaluation, though, was directed by the 1987 Corps Manual methodology as there needed to be a set of criterion for making a determination. The inherent inaccuracies of a hand drawn line is overriding differences between manuals in most places. References: National List of Plant Species That Occur In Wetlands: Northeast (Region 1), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report, May 1988 I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX A I I I I I I I I I I 0203 A&W or N, ACPAV ^I 040"Ot" 7 rl a. AYOMW O-W A600MV& W -AAf S"d 'woo 00 WN AAMM3 AM d VA -A - I !I -IM -its a Soo got, a at J` I .4an "SW JMP4F folio an, 7 "llwini 040V '.0to 14 .1 014*4 1, Sts-4 LLO'd Wo"I of Li 1,14406mv d".0 1 10084" IF ftt"4 46, Poo gas W so, 41 if,@l ,A, got, d JTjW WMOT up " gap f 94 a" saw v Oil "qW, 60. mid .d . . .................. .... ..... . . I'll5@11.. alwom Awlalm SOV t=gv Tort O'Llefe as Cal it c aol AWP $IBM" T A" .00 1 AWN 10 0 lW& OMAN AM dN a AW NOW Sold oval War Iwo Are V a a law dorwagy, I sea K MIs" New VVrUM3A -V IV It's jaws" Aet 9 low A114 jor T Ott 4 APOSOMPIP AMWUWY dom, W4. qW94 o"10tv vir .4 dVlW "once .8 9394W 0 St"69630. 90, /948"V NWASVJW Allons as W, OU04CA94 OIL. JANKS L. COX "I nri Sol A 48 ASA. 4 115,16 @m Aw .91010-MW P3119 p.-L14 Awoiw . . COUNITT town.elpc&Lvanv Comm jer"d 4" 1@4@ .. I . "..844. io of VA:L%, Aftl** SUNNI SLFAS F. 04 CNIALOO state 1191% 'IN I.." A--' A8114911se Is MA." 4410118 a scum JLS 91014" 60-26 IrAw em we I AN 4" 01 loop a AWWV AIAOS am. V",Ws it oil A4 a 0 P" Q d"F fffV 80.094L Irv 0 ..I L 60-2* por ASEVII/M NAT A 6001911 vp 64% P.344 4 WILL$. 1L. CTPLL CAMOV 3L% $IT, Non JLIS 109#179 IO.rwaww 404=29 .^%@q 4, PASS. Sir 4.44 *.to .i -ftVAT#VV IS 6 ALOINIA C. TOW" 0 ale &"SUNG PATQ Aeffalveal as Oba. 83.114. P. I" r p4r b.,. 30' Rost p gAAvcvr 94WIWrt' P. r6l 5 S., 1% AGA.. 84w am BASS. a fro 0-74 f, Lao as pw u"S 66.10A. Nk 11 rp. w V.39 55944 aw@@ . P. stall, SON. rAw "Tr cv. Palo fame OrIv C CALART SHOP00011 coow*oso*omaaS cam moms ev CALVICAMC0. &KV3/"4 aWil SIGN, Aw A set P.4. lk, dw IDAV--l PAW ... ......... .......... -... Id is Y.S" p DID 14.01,991 21%/F*dL AP DATA FORM 1 WETLAND DETERMINIATION Applicant Appliation Project Name: Calvert County Number: Name: Parcel 549 State: MD County: Calvert Legal Description: Township: Range: Date: Sept. 17, 1991 Plot No.: 1 Section: Vegetation (list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if only 1 or 2 layers)]. Indicate species with observed morphological or known physiological adaptations with an asterick. Indicator Indicator Species Status Species Status Trees Herbs 1. Liquidanbar styraciflua (FAC) 7. Lycopodium complanatum (FACU-) 2. Acer rubman (FAC) 8. Polystichum acrostichoides (FACU-) 3. Liriodendron tulipilara (FACU) 9. Saplings/shrubs Woody vines 4. Viburnum acarafolium (UPL) 10. Mitchella iepons (FACU) 5. Euonymus americanus (FAC) 11.vitis labrusca (FACU) 6. Ilex opaca (FACU) 12.Parthanoaissms quinquefolia (FACU) % of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 20% other indicators: Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes NO x Basis: Not dominant Soil Series and phase: Sr E On hydric soils list? Yes : NO x Mottled: Yes : No x Mottle color: ; Matrix color: 10 YR 4/4 Gleyed: Yes No x Other indicators: Hydric soils: Yes No x Basis: Chrome > 2 Hydrology Inundated: Yes ; No x Depth of standing water: not found Saturated soils: Yes ; No x Depth to saturated soil: not found Other indicators: none Wetland hydrology: Yes ; No x Basis: no field indicators Atypical situation: Yes ; No x NOrmal circumstances? Yes x No Wetland Determination: Wetland ; Nonwetland x Comments: Determined by: B2 DATA FORM 1 WETLAND DETERMINATION Applicant Application Project Name: Calvert County Number: Name: Parcel 549 State: MD County: Calvert Legal Description: Township: Range: Date: Sep. 17, 1991 Plot NO.: 2 Section: Vegetation [list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if only 1 or 2 layers)]. Indicate species with observed morphological or known physiological adaptations with an asterisk. Indicator Indicator Species Status Species Status Trees Herbs 1. Platanus occidentalis (FACW) 7. Pilea fontana (FACWA) 2. Fagus grandifolia (FACU) 8. Cinna arundinacea (FACW) 3. Lignidanbar styraciflua (FAC) 9. Impatiens capensis (FACW) Saplings/shrubs Woody vines 4. Lindera benzoin (FACW-) 10.Smilax rotandifolia 5. Carpinus caroliniana (FAC) 11.Toxicodunderon radicans (FAC) 6. Vaccinium corybosum (FACW) 12. % of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 90% Other indicators: channel Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes x No Basis: dominance Soil Series and phase: My On hydric soils list? Yes x ; No Mottled: Yes x; No Mottle color: 10 YR 4/c; Matrix color: 5Y6/1 Gleyed: Yes x ; No Other indicators: onidized rhizosphers Hydric soils: Yes x No ; Basis: field determination Hydrology Inundated: Yes x; No Depth of standing water: not found Saturated soils: Yes x; No Depth to saturated soil: 10" Other indicators: Alluvial deposits, drift lines, searia Wetland hydrology: Yes x; No Basis: ovservable wetland hydrology Atypical situation: Yes ; No x Normal Circumstances? Yes x No Wetland Determination: Wetland x ; Nonwetland Comments: Determined by: B2 DATA FORM 1 WETLAND DETERMINATION Applicant Application Project Name: Calvert County Number: Name: Parcel 549 State: MD County: Calvert Legal Description: Township: Range: Date: Sep. 17, 1991 Plot No.: 2a Section: Vegetation [list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if only 1 or 2 layers)]. Indicate species with ovserved morphological or known physiological adaptations with an asterisk. Indicator Indicator Species Status Species Status Trees Herbs 1. Liquidambar styraiflua (FAC) 7. chimaphila maculata (uph) 2. Platanus occidentalis (FACW) 8. Plystichum acrostichoides (FACU) 3. Fags grandifolia (FACU) 9. Saplings/shrubs Woody vines 4. cornus flonida (FACU) 10. 5. Asimina triloba (FACUT) 11. 6. Linderc benzoia (FACW-) 12. % of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 45% Other indicators: Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes No x Basis: this is an area of potential regulatory argunent and should reviewed. Soil Series and phase: s.e. On hydric soils list? Yes ; No x Mottled: Yes ; No x Mottle color: ; Matrix color: 10YR4/4 Gleyed: Yes No x Other indicators: none Hydric soils: Yes No x ; Basis: chrona>2 Hydrology Inumdated: Yes ;No x Depth of standing water: none found Saturated soils: Yes ;No x Depth to saturated soil: Other indicator: Same areas show signs of water movement Wetland hydrology: Yes ;No x Basis Atypical situation: Yes ;No x Normal Circumstances? Yes x No Wetland Determination: Wetland ; Nonwetand x Comments: This area should have a closer look when delinartiny wetlands. Determined by: B2 DATA FORM I WETLAND DETERMINATION Applicant Application Project Name: Calvert County Number: Name:Parcel 549 State., County: Legal Description: Township:_Range: Date: Sep. 18, 1991 plot No. 3 Section.* Vegetation (list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if only 1 or 2 layers)). Indicate species with observed morphological or known physiological adaptations with an asterisk. Indicator Indicator Species Status Species Statu Trees Herbs 7. C-: 2. LLl"fts 2r A 8. PO 9. k Lx Saplitigs/shrubs Woody vines 4 . SOL C OL 144-1 4FAcw) 10- A It +111-84 8f- Va 8<0F4@C-) 5.4 11. j<, -A@, 101 6. L;-%c@0qQrrc, 10ap-n 12. 4qV a Z of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC;2q= Other indicators: Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes - No B8818: 72q1A., 6jqQ%21 ir -5 0q40 P&0i-;On 0 f, . 4q4 LAP ra- Soil Series and phase: On hydrLc -soils list? Yes_; NP-2qX - Mottled: Yes. No_. Mottle color: 4- Matrix color:2.S8qY 2qUeyed: Yes_ No Other indicators: 8qVx,-0qd-,k r-&J6qe r - - -C a Hydric soils: Yes >( No Basis: ge Lk L0 I Hydrology inundnted: Yes___.6qX_; No_. Depth of stiniding wnter, 016A Saturated soils: Yes_)<__; No_. Depth to saturated soil: JR Other indicators: Wet0qland hydrology- Yea 52q>q(q, : No Basis.- Atypical situation: Yea-; No Normal Circumstances? Yes 0q)44q@ No Wet4qland Determination: Wetland 48q>88q< Nonwet0qland Comments: 64qpul2qi;*^ 12q4 44q4q@ qr40qL a C6 8qt I J4qL J.A,76q@ j40qa 0q+8q(-Iqer- el Dete t:m6qlned by: -20q148q4-6q:6q@, cet8q-,-32qf- B4q2 DATA FORM I WETLAND DETERMINATION Applicant Application Project Name: Calvert County Number: Name: Parcel 549 State: MD County: Calvert Legal Description: Township: Range: Date: Sep 18, 1991 Plot NO.: 4 Section: Vegetation (list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if only 1 or 2 layers)). Indicate species with observed morphological or known physiological adaptations with an asterisk. Indicator Indicator Species Status Species Status Trees Herbs 1. Liquidambar styraciflua (FAC) 7. Pilea fontana (FACW) 2. Platanus occidentalis (FACW) 8. Ginna arundinncea (FACW) 3. Almus americana (FACW) 9. Boehmeria cylindrica (FACW) Sapplings/shrubs Woody vines 4. Lindera banzoin (FACW) 10. Taxicodendron radieans (FXC) 5. Asimina triloba (FHCU) 11. Loniaera japinica (FAC) 5. Carpinus carolineana 12. Smilar retundifolia (FAC) % of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: >50% Other indicators: Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes No Basis: iominance Soil Series and phase: Mixed allnviat land On hydric soils list? Yes; No Mottled: Yes No Mottle color:10 yr Matrix color:10 yr 4/1 Gleyed: Yes No Other indicators: Hydric soils: Yes No; Basis: law chroma matrix Hydrology Inaundated: Yes No Depth of standing water: Saturated soils: Yes No Depth of saturated soil: Other indicators: Wetland hydrology: Yes No Basis:obvious inundation in places Atypical situation: Yes No Normal Circumstances? Yes No Wetland Determination: Wetland; Nonwetland Comments: Channel: Sandy bottom to 10' wide, 2'-3' deep. Determined by: Kim M McCarty B2 DATA FORM 1 WETLAND DETERMINATION Applicant Application Project Name: Calvert County Number: Name: Parcel 549 State: MD County: Calvert Legal Description: Township: Range: Date: Sep. 18, 1991 Plot No.: 40 Section: Vegetation (list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if only 1 or 2 layers)). Indicate species with observed morphological or known physiological adaptations with an asterisk. Species Indicator Species Indicator Status Status Trees Herbs 1. Liquidambar styrariflua (TAC 7. Pilar fontana (FACW) 2. 8. Thalyiptaris noveboracensis (FAC) 3. 9. Arisaama triphyllum (FACW) Saplings/shrubs Woody vines 4. Carpinus carollineana (FAC) 10. 5. Lindera benzoin (FACW) 11. 6. Acer rabrum (FAC) 12. % of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: >50% Other indicators: Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes No Basis: dominance Soil Series and phase: Sassafrass Wastphalid On hydric soils list? Yes No MOttled: Yes No MOttle color: rust Matrix color: 5GY5/1 Gleyed: Yes No Other indicators: ozidized rhizospheres Hydric soils: Yes No Basis : Matrix chrome <2. Hydrology Inundated: Yes No Depth of standing water: in places to surface Saturated soils: Yes No Depth to saturated soil: within root Other indicators: drift lines/absent leaf litter/standing water Wetland hydrology: Yes No Basis: obvious signs Atypical situation: Yes No Normal Circumstances? Yes No Wetland Determination: Wetland Nonwetland Comments:Likely the result of spring Determined by: KIm M McCarty B2 DATA FORM I WETLAND DETERMINATION Applicant Application Project Name: Calvert County Number: Name: Parcel 549 State: MD County: Calvert Legal Description: Township: Range: Date: Sep. 18, 1991 Plot No.: 46 Section: Vegetation (list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if only 1 or 2 layers)). Indicates species with observed morphological or known physiological adaptations with an asterisk. Species Indicator Species Indicator Status Status Trees Herbs 1. Liquidambar styraciflua 7. Trifulium 2. Liriodendron tulipifara (FACW) 8. 3. 9. Saplings/shrubs Woody vines 4. Asimina triloba (FACU) 10. Enonymus obovatus (UPL) 5. Viburaum accerafulium (UPL) 11. 6. Fagus grandifolium 12. % of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 20%. Other indicators: None Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes No Basis Soil Series and phase: Sassafras and vestphalla On hydric soils list? Yes No Mottled: Yes No MOttle color: Matrix color 40YR5/4 Gleyed: Yes No Other indictors: Hydric soils: Yes No Basis Hydrology Lumidated: Yes No Depth of standing water: Saturated soils: Yes No Depth to saturated soil: Other indicators: None Wetland hydrology: Yes No Basis: No visible evidance Atypical situation: Yes No Normal Circumstances? Yes No Wetland Determination: Wetland Nonwetland Comments: Determined by: KIM M MCCARTY B2 kv, Off cz OVI \'I Der 61 ORI cz Ac@ 6-0@ eyl: 0?1 ! Wvl' SY fl zw@ IN tE C3 _w -Irv 5i. t'p /;IrE or ID3 OCB .,A m T Sh Er 5hB2 rE 2 Mu shcl FE Re -k.'f Er E. Mu V_ trE RI !X4 hC3 ;Sbm- ShC3 B -ShDZ srr@ m CF Shi U3. 1E EYE] P 2 %at. a 4 A"dr^"WI4.m @111^0101` OWAW Oriv F.S4 cl#LVW 44400" -WW@w COUNITV CONN.efca any COUNIV AM 4190688 1114.414A. P.121 .24.0 t2711/41111 it &II&IIIIII/M 0.00A. VA A" CII Lee 01060 jLb t1cf6as Pee Riar a owwwr mr*W f""4r. 0 BOL ,OA. 54 0. ARM 0. 1%2rwr V..mV &*PAW .1689 Is low WA.IPmF 746 ^10 39 Jim IrdIv 349 OF psi dwANWARqWVANWNMMW 4F N AW Affl-Olve "LOSS. SIM Ads"Ift.0 .So AM F.111 01 am 04 Pea IP 8 A. 10`3 At. V. b^% 11 v-t F x $Lt$. it. 00 CrAL PLO 1891220 "am .......... ...... ILS On V" 320.04139 1 .4 `,= .7 .466 1 tl@j C.Tou 476 La a szftG 3 1.1.1.2 to I, P. Air .6642 so. 343 U144. I "O'L A V. I., 1.0 r go 70-t Oka" AAM P. M -=a. F. FASO P. 305 a, 0 PAR 0 0 !.160 0 P" At - WILSON 0 To LUXAGIVII A Is JLS 9091 ad 66.,�AL V. sit or ope rFrM 'pea JW.. YAW APTr CV P.9011 Pat pow AW MAP covm".r AILRT 0-056*0.OAS UNTIRM JUMMIN 0, 'COL@CMT'Co. -a =?" oLs aAsis:r 041 A. IdC.Ir it Sof PAW iaercc,ca mu.'elp '% "A So& we v &to Jr, h I C C.-O../", As skwijr*.L - P.%, I%.. .. ... a-ALVal . -vice DATA FORM I WETLAND DETERMINATION Applicant Application Project Name: C., 1Uq Number: Name: 0 State: County: Legal Description: Township:-Range:_ Date: Plot No.: Section: Vegetation [list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if only I or 2 layers)). Indicate species with observed morphological or known physiological adaptations with an asterisk. Indicator Indicator Trees Species Status- Herbs Species Status 7. @3oe I i v.1 2.L; W, 3. 5c, -A C- r,4, 9 Saplings/shrubs Woody vines 4. c--;. P A 10 . L 0 5. L 7- t@d) 1 el r 6. 12. a I of species that are ORL, FACW, and/or FAC:9-0-f/- Other indicators: Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes r-'- No Basis: ,J Soil Series and phase: On hydric soils list? Yes No__i,:--' Mottled: Yes y-; No Mottle color:10V)?iVil Matrix color; :2-CV4,12. Gleyed: Yes- No k-@- Other indicators: 11ydrAc soils: Yes k,"-' N o Basis:,:::LneV1.V Hydrology Inundated: Yes ,--; No_. Depth of standing water: Saturated soils: Yes No_. Depth to saturated *soil: Other indicators: Wetland hydrology: Yes_@@, No Basis: Atypical situation: Yes No Normal Circumstances? Yes No-. Wetland Determination: Wetland Nonwetland Comments, 5,o@ i f 4na Determined by:.:'.,-, B2 DATA FORM I WETLAND DETERMINATION Applicant Application Project game: Number: Name: State: @A T) ounty:(:, Legal Description: Township: Range:_ Date: )qq plot No.:. 13 Section: Vegetation (list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if only t or 2 layers)). Indicate species with observed morphological or known physiological adaptations with an asterisk. Indicator Indicator Trees Species Status Herbs Species Status 1. T)c Ir., erk 7. e@ r @4 2. v@ 8. L.-)toc-211 i 9. L 3. 4- Saplings/shrubs Woody vines 4. 1 -t 17 CA F4-) 10. -,V r n. L r,4 c-- 6. 12. -5S4, , j @. 1.) 2 of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC:' @ ).Cjl Other indicators: Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes No Basis: Soil Series and phase J: e I )e - On hydric soils list? Yes No Mottled: Yes No Mottle color: Matrix color* Gleyed: Yes No Other indicators: '4/@ f 11ydr.ic soils: Yea k--'- N o Basis: Hydrology Inundated: Yes No- Depth of standing water: Saturated soils: Yes p,-; No-. Depth to saturated soil: e,- Other indicators: Wetland hydrology: Yes N o Basis: Atypical situation: Yes No ,-6 Normal Circumstances? Yes P-' No Wetland Determination: Wetland Nonwetland Comments: - e 42 . n., 'r-.* -/)- I Determined by:;;@, B2 DATA FORM I WETLAND DETERMINATION Applicant Application Project Name: C-r- Number: Name: 410 A se-4 V State: 1A r) County: Legal Description: Township: Range-_ Date, Plot No.: 41 - Section: Vegetation [list the Litree dominaiit species in each vegetation layer (5 if only I or 2 layers)]. Indicate species with observed morphological or known physiological adaptations with sit asterisk. litdicator Indicator Species Status Species Status Trees Herbs t - A FA r- 2. -k L!,L e. r 9. 3. @y @, @ e, 17 Saplings/shrubs Woody vines 4 . e, a 1,7 r 10- 1- 5. VA e- I . CD F-4 r 6. ri 0 i 12. of species that nre 0111., FACW, and/or FAC 'o Other indicators: -LI-4 Hydrophytic vegetatioit: Yes ---@o Basis: Soil Series And phose: te. (I.,, on hydric soils list? Yes No Mottled: Yes r- No Mottle color: , - s Matrix color: Gleyed: Yes- No 'Other indicators: Ilydric soils: Yen &-----No Basis: V e_,;, Hydrology Inundated: Y e 9 N o Depth of standing water: Saturated soils: Yes e--; No-. Depth to saturated soil, Other indicators: 1@1- I @--. , - 'L- I - f-. L-',- t Wetland hydrology: Yes -- ',-No Basis: Atypical situation: Yes No Normal Circumstances7- Yes Wetlatid Determination: Wetland Nonwetland Comments: .4 @ I.4L < IfQ @4-c- *- 4. 1 &J 4L Determined by: 6@ B2 DATA FORM I WETLAND DETERMINATION Applicant Application Project Name., Numberv Nzqme-04;,@ Q State: Lk Legal Description: Township: -Rntige:_ Date: .5 Section: C?71 2 7 1/ ['lot No.* . @e&ILLqL Lite three domiainiiL species lit ench vegetatioti layer (5 if Joii (list otily I or 2 Inyers)]. Iiidicate species with observed morphological or known physiological adaptations with an asterisk. Ind Icator Indicator Species Status Species Statu's Trees Herbs I. Ac-q- F A C- 7. It,., 2.@J me, . Cr- kf -0 yst, F:1 3. 9. L "l .1 C-L. (0 6 L >ol Sapliiigs/shrubs Woody vines /4 . C- 0. , /. ;'I V 0 C.'C' ,.> [ " q " , " ,, ( sr 4 C- 10. 6@;, xr to @"n FA C-) 5. A 9---- 1 C- 1-0;n (F A -,) 11. L.-^,' 6- A-,;-;--, 1 9 6a, ( rAe-L-',) 12. Z of species that are 0111., FACW, and/or FAC: Other indicators: Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes No Basis: Soil Series and phase:__ Fy. I c7 on hydric soils list? Yes_; No Mottled: YeR-kf:f;1 No Mottle color, Matrix color::?. Gleyed: Yes- No Other Indicators: Hydr.1c soils: Yes No Basis: 0-71T( Hydrology Itiuntinted: Yes-zf- Hit_. Depth of standing wnter: Saturated noils: Yen No-. Depth to saturated soil:- e Other Iiidicators: Wetland hydrology* Yes wo"; No Basis., Atypical situation: Yes-; No Normal Circumstances? Yes e--- No Wetintid Determination.- Wetland Nonwetland Comments: Determin ed by: B2 DATA FORM 1 WETLAND DETERMINATION Applicant Application Project Name - c@ I, . , I C Number:. Nameg,,s@ _ SLate: Legni Vescriptluw Township: L/ Range: PA 1) County I 1--i- Date- /;Z 7 Z J I Vlot No.: -/o Section: VegetaLloil I list the three domitintit species It% each vegetatiosi layer (5 if oitly I or 2 layers)]. hidicate species with observed morphological or known pilysiological adtiptatiotis with an asterisk. hid Icntor Indicator Species Status- Species Statu's Trees Herbs t. Ll a (F4c ) 7. T1 FA 2. LA I LJ) 3- P1 (I-ACj) 9- SaplDigs/shrubs Woody vines F -A, 'R:cc , LJ ) 10 --T,@> -- , t -, 4 1' c e% 5. Lo-1;raec I V. a, 6. 12. ;@- 6- < 1,.' 1/1; d) - I-A c- 2 of species that nre 0111, FACW, aud/or FAC- 140 Other indicators- Hydrophytic vegetntiott- Yen k-"*-'No Basis- Soil Series atid phase- C-ALI-1 143 4 e Ott hydric roils list? Yes N o Mottled: Yeg_e---,- No Mottle color: )-)YX .@/:z ; Matrix color: 1,w)_tLK_3A- Gleyed: Yes- No Other Indicators: Hydr.1c gq)tls* Yen k-' No RnRis: Hydrology Ditstidated , Yea No Depth 01 aLnIldifig Wnter, fll":-. Saturated noils: Yen No Depth to saturated soll:7@71-, Other Didicators: Wetlaiid hydrology: Yes ; No Basis: Atypical situation: Yes ; No__z=-. Normal Circumstances? Yes No Wetland Determinativii: Wetland Nottwetland Comments: Determliied by: D2 I U AW /W K" 0 -150- /cc", was icl L-a 3.5 NN 413 IE ,,S lb 140 0 '00 IV Y, .19 .157? 83ai YZI VERT COUNTY. MARYLAND - SI I NUMBER 18 W if' I hr Sl C3 I'l-10(Xii) FEEI CIE h03 if 7' k. . K ;It Sir Slin C3 ShC3 Mn 7f it Sit Sit, IMY, Re 41 ma F; Sri PC It % T C2 Us t id u 77 E&*@i gas FIE I RIC Sa SARZ. -, -' I Res RdC2 M RdB Re V; q I z,lly m B2 ShB, EA I' 'I ..-k - , Reg, i hT ShC3 'IF Di It RA 12 Gp RIC he sit 11,17 w W82 T. q Sh rE.1 "7 mini E!j 2 ShC3 @96 a bows" jLb I.W1646 p to hu a" O.'s a ; f- ---------- 0M.."r it' a i I V"Aofr. Us P= II.SQ& ftem -06 D All .50 min, 46s/ Pis R 94, j=T VVINTIONK An Sul 932 41.17 AL V.84 OPIP16 as AMAWrOW10VAIMMMMW ISASID, wwc Vlw 0.51 W I a P.111 Aw -9.4 KI, AW AwW JW PAW IIAAP w,06W No 612.1 0 Ow f Get Diann Ast... A leilesi 0 c 111.004. IGOADA. W. O'S P.344 FAIS P stl- @A\ ALLA^NS. JIL. 110=04.1 2.0 ol I'm tstint koLaft4ss a. rA. G&A P. 5616, vow"$ All P, CAW 0.474 892 A Age 51/219 AP.,"MAWOMMOV7 P.3434' :311AL Palo Dew AP, 9AW.ViggY AM-: r im I A-w/m. P.. I =,Vr a Ift .v Room P. FIT hAmIjims some P-al. ;.91 F- 60 ,w v T Fiat Afro 573 JLA i/ of 77ZNI@, T@, P.806 'off .64 mor A117 Co. R489 W.Aw Prof cow"rr &,P*vw I I , I\ CAULPT L4b-t#9S.O AMISOCA c&L-Agar Got rwvm, j&A ada/z r 10.44A. a Ord 44 T:A@ sacr) "An, A 5r,18 IMP ................. .. DATA FORM 1 WETLAND DETERMINATION Applicant Application Project Parcel 566 Name: Calvert County Number: Name: Williams Prop State: MD County: Calvert Legal Description: Township: -Range: Date: Sep. 27, 1991 Plot No.: 1 Section: Vegetation (list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if only 1 or 2 layers)]. Indicate species with observed morphological or known physiological adaptations with an asterisk. Indicator Indicator Species Status Species Status Trees Herbs 1. Liriodendron tulipifera (FACU) 7. Allium canadense (FACU) 2. Carya tomentosa (UPL) 8. 3. 9. Saplings/shrubs Woody vines 4. Carpinus caroliniana (FAC) 10. Lonicera japonica (FAC-) 5. Cornus florida (FACU) 11. Parthenocissus gninguefolia (FACU) 6. viburnhm acerifolium (UPL) 12. Mitchella repans (FACU) % of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 10% Other indicators: None. Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes Soil Series and phase: Sassafrass and Westphalia On hydric soils list? Yes No Mottled: Yes.. No Mottle color- Matrix color: 10yr4/6. Gleyed: Yes No__ Other indicators: None Hydric soils: Yes No ; Basis: Choma value >2 Hydrology Inundated: Yes_; No ___. Depth of standing water: Saturated soils: Yes No__ Depth to saturated soil: Other indicators: None Wetland hydrology: Yes_; No Basis: Atypical situation: Yes; No___. Normal Circumstances? Yes_ No___. Wetland Determination: Wetland Nonwetland___. Comments: Determined by: B2 DATA FORM I WETLAND DETERMINATION Applicant Application Project parcel 566 Name: Calvert County Number: Name: Williams Prop. State: MD County: Calvert Legal Description: Township: _Range: Date: Sep 27, 1991 Plot No.: 2 Section: Above pend Vegetation (list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if only 1 or 2 layers)]. Indicate species with observed morphological or known physiological adaptations with an asterisk. Indicator Indicator Species Status Species Status Trees Herbs 1. Platanus occidentalis (FACW) 7. 8. 2. Fraxinus pennsylvania (FACW) 9. Impatiens capensis (FACW) 3. Taxodium distichum (OBL) Saplings/shrubs Woody vines 4. Almus serrulata (OBL) 10. 5. Lindera benzoin (FAUW) 11. 6. 12. % of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Other indicators: Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes No Basis: Soil Series and phase: On hydric soils list? Yes No Mottled: No Mottle color: Matrix color: Gleyed: Yes No Other indicators: Hydric soils: Yes No Basis: Hydrology Inundated: Yes No Depth of standing water: surface Saturated soils: Yes ; No . Depth to saturated soil: Other indicators: Wetland hydrology: Yes ; No . Basis: Atypical situation: Yes ; No Normal Circumstances? Yes No. Wetland Determination: Wetland Nonwetland Comments: Bald cypress is a species of special state concern. Determined by: B2 DATA FORM 1 WETLAND DETERMINATION Applicant Application Project Parcel 566 Name: Calvert County Number: Name: Williams prep. State: MD County: Calvert Legal Description: Township: Range: Date: Plot No.: 3 Section: Below Pond Vegetation (list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if only 1 or 2 layers)). Indicate species with observed morphological or known physiological adaptations with an asterisk. Indicator Indicator Species Status Species Status Trees Herbs 1. Platanus occidentalis (FACW) 7. Bochmaria cylindria (FACW) 2. Ulmus amaricana (FACW) 8. Impatiens capensis (FACW) 3. Liquidambar styraciflua (FAC) 9. Saplings/shrubs Woody vines 4. Alnus serrulata (OBL) 10. N/A 11. 12. % of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Other indicators: Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes No Basis: Soil Series and phase: Mixed alluvial On hydric soils list? Yes No-. Mottled: Yes No_. Mottle color: met Matrix color: 2.5y4/2. Gleyed: Yes No Other indicators: Hydric soils: Yes__ No ; Basis: chrema value < 2 with mottles. Hydrology Inundated: Yes ; No . Depth of standing water: Saturated soils: Yes :No Depth to saturated soil: Other indicators: Wetland hydrology: Yes No Basis: obvious signs Atypical situation: Yes No Normal Circumstances? Yes No. Wetland Determination: Wetland Nonwetland Comments: Determined by: B2 ,11@kl@ yj NU --NIT L - ----------- v k k(kt" "IN uQ fj /50- .ib Aj 7j 11Y R(ii xv -.39 Ila oo 43t\N IS /143 COUNTY, MARYLAND - SHEEI NUMBER 18 S110 Wif".1 ShC3 1-0(m FEFI E. T,)7,- So R 'ShC3 R J172; . .' P Nei Sr hum 'Kko MY." Rec. hc3 ReD, RAR@*@' h WaO3 % L met; .'I sh ell 7.v Ror dGZ Rdg Al 't ShB2 trE' - a82- S110 InA Zia < m 4! co R(IR Re[ P@W Reo A ir q E, EJ.- A. SUM M@ ..Srs -4 R V4 RI Me 7,- lox.- -MnBz d I x-Ifti ani Re lie 07 po shc3 ri jeb ON @"L' A N.: fI M182 shtj . ................. ... IAW.V I Y" warm W" oft"NOV -twommos"Goosom"S a Ideal 11311110 Ila Im Abigail A&M"3 Sig ArSO "Woss, Iowa 99 9 owl sun MIS us KilevIni QUV 1001s, ba O.Z' om*d 'VIS's Ap vro am oww -.101M L '-Oolv- Owl, 'Are wr owl it"" -pw- aw- AGA one" w Aj w YANIOVV 4 "goll owd ea. d if Ad vill? STSW off/00 M 1L* am 004"*3 slam "I mrd 111=9 4ALI 690 11111 "=pu- ii-to 41120111,41 'SWVWT"A* .0 losses .ftbog usilrb atall I@ Mor"s ago" I sm was" I -verb, JOP $We am Aw 49 law Joe N*d sod $4111 09009" A%& Vww .1 It's Plasma 18, go" U7o "VIOLA Ime Allow mallm V 14 PMAW It #111,4 Sam Nil wwmwv4m &am Atom Lask" owsw vow; "oil gel -mob DATA FORM I WETLAND DETERMINATION Applicant Application Project Lands South Name: Calvert County Number: Name: of radio drive State: MD County: Calvert Legal Description: Township: Range: Date: 9/29/91 Plot No.: 1 Section: Vegetation (list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if only 1 or 2 layers)]. Indicate species with observed morphological or known physiological adaptations with an asterisk. Vagetation adjacent to a channel Indicator Indicator Species Status Species Status Trees Herbs 1. Fagus grandifolia (FACU) 7. Thalyptaris noveboraccnsis (FAC) 2. Liniodendron talipifara (FACU) 8. Polystichum acrestichoides (FACU) 3. Liquidanbar (FAC) 9. Saplings/shrubs Woody vines 4. Cornus florida (FACU) 10. Similar rotundrfolia (FAC) 5. Ilan opaca (FACU) 11. Mitchellsa repans (FACU) 6. Cupinus caroliniana (FAC) 12. % of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 20% Other indicators: Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes No Basis: Soil Sassafras and Series and phase: Westphalia On hydric soils list? Yes_; No__. Mottled: Yes No Mottle color: Yes ; No . Matrix color: 10yr4/6 Gleyed: Yes No Other indicators: Hydric soils: Yes No Basis: Matrix chroma > 2 Hydrology limited to base of channel: Inundated: Yes No_. Depth to standing water: flowing water Saturated soils: Yes ; No . Depth to saturated soil: Other indicators: Wetland hydrology: Yes ; No . Basis: Atypical situation: Yes; No . Normal Circumstances? Yes No Wetland Determination: Wetland Nonwetland Comments: This would be considered inrisdictional waters of the u.s. though not a wetland in most places. Determined by: B2 DATA FORM L WETLAND DETERMINATION Applicant Application Project Lands south Number: Name: of Radio Drive Name: Calvert County State:MD County:Calvert Legal Description: Township: Range: Date: Plot No: 2 Section: Vegetation [list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if only 1 or 2 layers). Indicate species with observed morphological or known physiological adaptations with an asterisk. Indicator Indicator Species Status Species Status Trees Herbs 1. Accr rubrum (FAC) 7.Cinna arundinarea (FACW) 2. Liquidambar styraciflum (FAC) 8.Aresarma trifyllum(FACW) 3. Ulmus americana (FACW) 9.Bochmaria eylindrice (FACW) Saplings/shrubs Woody vines 4. Lindara benzoin (FACW) 10.Smilax rotundifolia (FAC) 5. Carpinus caroliniana (FACW) 11.Toxicodendron radicans (FAC) 12 6. Vaccinium carymbosum (FACW) 12.Campsis radicans (FAC) % of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC:90%. Other indicators: Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes No Basis: Soil Serie and phase: Sassafras and Westphalia On hydric soils list? Yes No Mottled: Yes : No: . Mottle color:10YR 4/1; Matrix color; 10YR4/2. Gleyed: Yes No Other indicators:organic staining Hydric soils: Yes No; Basis: Hydrology Inundated: Yes, No Depth of standing water: Saturated soils: Yes No Depth to saturated soil:6" Other indicators:scouring/ drift lines/ allurial deposits Wetlands hydrology: Yes No Wetland hydrogy: Yes No Basis: Atypical situation: Yes No Normal Circumstances? Yes No Wetland Determination: Wetland Nonwetland Comments: This area is recieving greater flow rates due to surrounding developed land. Determined by: B2 DATA FORM I WETLAND DETERMINATION Applicant Application Project Lands to the Name: Calvert County Number: Name: South of Radio Road State: MD County: Legal Description: Township: Range: Date: 9/29/91 Plot No: 3 Section: Vegetation (list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if only 1 or 2 layers)). Indicate species with observed morphological or known physiological adaptations with an asterisk. Indicator Indicator Species Status Species Status Trees Herbs 1. Fagus grandifolia (FACW) 7. Polysichum aerostiahoides (FACW) 2. Ahercus alba (FACW) 8. 3. Lirioderdron tulipifera (FACW) 9. Saplings/shrubs Woody vines 4. Albizzia julibrisson (UPL) 10. Lanicera japonica (FAC-) 5. Viburnun prunifolium (FACW) 11. 6. Ilan opaca (FACW) 12. % of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC:20%. Other indicators: Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes No Basis: Soil Series and phase: Matapeake On hydric soils list? Yes No Mottled.: Yes No Mottle color: Matrix color:10YR5/4 Gleyed: Yes No 0ther indicators: Hydric soils: Yes No - Basis: Matrix > cheama 2 Hydrology Inundated: Yes No Depth of standing water: Saturated soils: Yes No Depth to saturated soil: Other indicators:Slight scouring/some exposed roots Wetland hydrology: Yes No Basis:well drained area Atypical situation: Yes No Normal Circumstances? Yes No Wetland Determination: Wetland Nonwetland Comments: This is a close call on inresidential waters of U.S. and should be reviewed by proper regulatory agencies. A Determined by: B2 DATA FORM I WETLAND DETERMINATION Applicant Application Project Lands South Name: Calvert County Number: Name: of Radio Road State: MD County: Calvert Legal Description: Township: Range: Date: 9/29/91 Plot No.: 4 Section: Vegetation (list the three dominant species in each vegetation layer (5 if only 1 or 2 layers). Indicate species with observed morphological or known physiological adaptations with an asterisk. Indicator Indicator Species Status Species Status Trees Herbs 1. None 7. Polygonum Sagittatum (OBL) 2. 8. Cinna arundinacea (FACW) 3. 9. Impations capansis (FACW) 10. Mikenia scandens (FACW) Saplings/shrubs 11. 4.Liquidambar styraciflua (FAC) 12. 5.Platanus occidentalis (FACW) 6. % of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Other indicators: Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes No Basis: Soil Series and phase: Erodedland On hydric soils list? Yes No . Mottled: Yes No MOttle color: Matrix color: Black Gleyed: Yes No Other indicators: Muck Hydric soils: Yes No; Basis: Hydrology Inundated Yes; No. Depth of standing water: Surface Saturated soil Yes No Depth to saturated soil: Other indicators: Wetland hydrology: Yes; No. Basis: Permanent saturation Atypical situation: Yes; No. Normal Circumstances? Yes; No. Wetland Determination: Wetland Nonwetland Comments: Determined by: B2 9@ eo J dr NI ,76-0 x vA A I NN Is f/ iA@ U.c nwn 'A AN Q I A Is T Uo f Ct CALVERT COUNTY, MARYLAND - SHEEI NUMBER 18 M103. hC3 W.10 Ell 51,C3 Evc DE she "t, fiaD qhn ErE 'ShC3 .2 ShC3 SfE SiE my Ell 7, SH DI. I Kea I ReB WaD3 ec 7!J de e tft SfI .: .@J, - @Z. M82 sa B2 RdB: 5ft 4*_-. Rel sho LFE' Shu t J. S1 h9 t XK@ STE - RdB RdS &E r@n e ;r c-5 ReC U3 shc3 Rp t:i D shc3 Re e. aft ; . f F /i Ip ReC IN o I. Re SfF 7F ReB SIE 'ReC v 2r. NWI@-.., n vpn I I I I I I I I APPENDIX B .I I I I I .I I I I I .I I CONSENT FORM FOR ACCESS I/we give my/our consent to allow access of the Calvert County Department of Planning and Zoning's environmental consultant onto our property identified below for the purpose of conducting a gross wetland delineation. I/we understand that vegetation will not be cut or flagging left on the site and that all k will be completed by the end of September, 1. Date Pro'erry@_b-wner or A46'Ei@,'S-Slgnature Date Co-owner's signature PROPERTY OWNERS NAME AND ADDRESS: Calvert Association for Retarted Citizens 355 W. Dares Beach Road Prince Frederick, MD 20678 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: TAX MAP NO. 24 PARCEL NO.66 Fold this form into thirds, staple or tape secure and return to Planning & Zoning (postage provided). If consent is denied, please return blank form without signatures. CONSENT FORM FOR ACCESS I/we give my/our consent to allow access of the Calvert County Department of Planning and Zoning's environmental consultant onto our property identified below for the purpose of conducting a gross wetland delineation. I/we understand that vegetation will not be cut or flagging left on the site and that all work will be completed by the end of September, 1991. 1911 Date Property Owner or Agent's Signature Date Co-owner's signature PROPERTY OWNERS NAME AND ADDRESS: The Gott Company Rte 2/4 Prince Frederick, MD 2067.8 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: TAX MAP NO. 24 PARCEL NO.14 & 15 F-, -` -his form into thirds, staple or tape secure and return to & Zoning (postage provided). If consent is denied, please return blank form without signatures. '#Prope@@ ._a 1-9i R E C Z i V, E: B S EE F *1 ' 'a CONSENT FORM FOR ACCESS I/we give my/our consent to allow access of the Calvert County Department of Planning and Zoning's environmental consultant onto our property identified below for the purpose of conducting a gross wetland delineation. I/we understand that vegetation will not be cut or flagging left on the site and that all work will be completed by the.end of September, 1991. Date property owner or Agent@ s Signature Date Co-owner's signature PROPERTY OWNERS NAME AND ADDRESS: Mr. John Williams, Jr. 2715 Hollowing Point Rd. Prince Frederick, MD 20678 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: TAX MAP NO. 24 PARCEL NO. 566 & 5 CONSENT FORM FOR ACCESS I./we give my/our consent to allow access of the Calvert County Department of Planning and Zoning's environmental consultant onto our property identified below for the purpose of conducting a gross wetland delineation. I/we understand that vegetation will not be cut or flagging left on the site and that all work will be completed by the end of September, 1991. -7, V 7- . )-)/ 7 c'L Date Property,@Owner or Agent's Signature Date Co-owner's signature PROPERTY OWNERS NAME AND ADDRESS: Calvert Village LTD Partnership 5550 Friendship Blvd Chevy Chase, MD 20815 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: TAX MAP NO. 24 PARCEL NO.236 Fold this form into thirds, staple or tape secure and return to Planning & Zoning (postage provided) . If consent is denied, please return blank form without signatures. I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX C .I I i I I I I I I PATUXENT ESTUARY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT PHASE If PLANNING GRANT FOR CALVERT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING CALVERT COUNTY PREPARED BY: DAVID C. BROWNLEE, Phl). AND PAUL H. DiNUNNO FEBRUARY 12,1993 PHASE II PLANNING GRANT CALVERT COUNTY I. PROJECT OBJECTIVE The objective of this project is to establish a nonpoint source nutrient management strategy for Calvert County. This strategy will be specific to the needs of Calvert County and be consistent with Calvert County's Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the strategy will be consistent with the Final Guidance Document produced by planning efforts of Phase II of the Patuxent Estuary Demonstration Project. The nutrient reduction goals of the "Maryland's Tributary Strategies" program will also be considered in the preparation of this strategy. Calvert County will also proceed to amend its Comprehensive Plan as required by the State of Maryland Economic Growth, Resources Protection, and Planning Act of 1992 including sensitive area protection components. Compliance with this act will assure reduced impacts of nutrient pollution on the waters and wetlands of Calvert County. II. WORK APPROACH The approach will be to identify the most effective ways to manage nonpoint source nutrient pollution in Calvert County and then to implement these management strategies as far as politically and economically feasible. Stream monitoring will be used to identify problem areas and to establish or continue baseline water quali ty data. A. IDENTIFICATION OF MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES The results from the States modeling and assessment analyses of the Patuxent Estuary and from a detailed assessment analysis of a target watershed for Calvert County (i.e. Hunting Creek), will be used to identify the most efficient and effective management strategies for controlling nonpoint source nutrient pollution in Calvert County. The County will work in conjunction with the Maryland Office of Planning to evaluate the nutrient run-off characteristics in the Hunting Creek watershed using the State's Nonpoint Source Assessment and Accounting System (AAS). Calvert County will provide MOP with many of the environmental feature maps, and zoning maps of the Hunting Creek watershed for them to use in their GIS system and with their A-AS. Calvert County is proposing to purchasing a GIS system and will work with 1 PHASE II PLANNING GRANT CALVERT COUNTY MOP to achieve a technology transfer of their mapping and analysis capabilities. During Phase I of the Patuxent Estuary Demonstration Project, Calvert County adopted (January 1, 1993) a number of growth management measures. These measures include mandatory clustering, overlay zoning of Resource Preservation Areas and Farm Community Areas and amendments to our Agriculture Preservation Program. The AAS analysis on Hunting Creek will investigate nutrient loading based on conditions before the adoption-of these growth management measures, after the adoption of these measures, and then with these measures and additional sensitive area components. These sensitive area components would include such approaches as increasing the extent of buffers, impervious surface limitations, mapping and protecting rare, threatened and endangered species habitat, etc. The results of these analyses will indicate how effective our growth management program might be at reducing nutrient loading from future development and which additional sensitive area elements should be considered. If the results are favorable, then our growth management program could be used as an example for other rural jurisdictions. Stream monitoring will continue in Calvert County. The County will support the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory's Solomons Harbor Study, 1993. In addition, stream monitoring on Hunting Creek and Hall's creek will continue and a volunteer monitoring program will be initiated in these watersheds. B. IMPLEMENTATION Having identified the most efficient and effective methods of nonpoint source nutrient management using the analyses discussed above, the citizens of Calvert County and the Calvert County Government will begin to plan the implementation of the County's nonpoint source nutrient management strategy. Several planning approaches will be used. 1. PATUXENT ESTUARY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT PLANNING Calvert County Staff will continue to serve on the Patuxent Estuary Demonstration Project "Planning Committee". Participation in the committee will include working on the refinement of the "Patuxent Estuary Demonstration Project Guidance Document". 2 PHASE II PLANNING GRANT CALVERT COUNTY 2. CALVERT COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING During the grant period, the Calvert County Comprehensive Plan will be amended to be consistent with the State of Maryland's Economic Growth, Resources Protection, and Planning Act of 1992 including sensitive area protection components. Compliance with this act will assure reduced impacts of nutrient pollution on the waters and wetlands of Calvert County. Watershed management planning will also added to the Comprehensive Plan as a useful environmental planning tool. 3. CALVERT COUNTY WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANNING Calvert County is in the process of developing (with support from the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program) draft watershed management plans for two of its watersheds, Hunting Creek (tributary of the Patuxent River; draft completion, March 31, 1993) and Parker Creek (tributary to the Chesapeake Bay; draft completion, September 30, 1993). These two creeks make up the entire watershed for the Major Town Center of Prince Frederick, the Calvert County Seat. A proposal has been submitted to the Maryland Coastal Zone Management program to compile the two plans into a single Prince Frederick Watershed Management Plan with Parker Creek and Hunting Creek components and to continue the watershed planning efforts on Parker Creek (see Attachment "A"). The goals of this plan will be to protect and preserve the environments of these watersheds, allow economic development and controlled growth and address the watershed concerns and issues raised by Calvert County citizens. It is proposed as part of this grant to continue the watershed planning efforts on Hunting Creek. Calvert County will work with MOP and the Hunting Creek Watershed Management Task Force (established in the Fall of 1992) to determine the most prudent and effective methods of solving the problems identified by the MOP evaluation discussed in II.A above and in achieving the goals of the Hunting Creek Watershed Management Plan. These measures will become part of the Prince Frederick Watershed Management Plan. The plan will be written to be certifiable by the Water Resources Administration (WRA) in the-Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Consultation will als o be made with all Federal, State and Local regulatory agencies to insure that the Watershed Management Plan is supported by them. At this stage the Plan, which will include proposed changes to other County plans and ordinances, will be 3 PHASE II PLANNING GRANT CALVERT COUNTY taken to the public for comment through public meetings, newspaper articles, and distribution of the plan. It is anticipated that some of the measures proposed will have only watershed-wide application while others would apply County-wide. It is expected that during the federal FY95 that the plan will go to public hearing before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioner for adoption. III. THE EXPECTED WORK PRODUCTS FIRST QUARTER A list of the maps and regulations provided to MOP for their GIS mapping and analysis. The agendas and minutes of the Hunting Creek Watershed Management Task Force meetings. Compilation of comments received from State, Federal and local agencies on the draft Hunting Creek Watershed Task Force. SECOND QUARTER Submit proposed changes to the Comprehensive plan to bring it into compliance with the State of Maryland Economic Growth, Resources Protection, and Planning Act of 1992. THIRD QUARTER Written report on the results of the AAS analysis. Proof of the technology transfer of GIS mapping and analysis methods to Calvert County. FOURTH QUARTER The results of the AAS analysis will be analyzed relative to the Calvert County Comprehensive Plan, the Calvert County Water and Sewerage Plan, the Prince Frederick Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance and the developing Prince Frederick Watershed Management Plan. This analysis will be presented in written form and will include an analysis of the estimated effectiveness of Calvert County's recent growth management measures and-improvements that may be made by amending these or adding additional sensitive area measures. Report on the water quality monitoring efforts. FIFTH QUARTER Revised Draft of the Hunting Creek Component of the Prince Frederick Watershed Management Plan. 4 PHASE II PLANNING GRANT CALVERT COUNTY Proposed changes to the Calvert County Comprehensive Plan, the Calvert County Water and Sewerage Plan, the Calvert County Zoning ordinance, the Calvert County Subdivision regulations and the Prince Frederick Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance which would be required to add any sensitive area elements identified in the AAS analysis. SIXTH QUARTER A draft Prince Frederick Watershed Management Plan (PFWMP) with Hunting Creek and Parker Creek elements will be presented (4th quarter). This Plan will identify which County Plans, Ordinances and regulations must be amended and how they should be amended to meet the goals of the PFWMP. A compilation of all comments submitted from the general public and Federal, State and local agencies on any proposed changes to County Plans and regulations. SEVENTH QUARTER The agendas and minutes of the Hunting Creek Watershed Management Task Force meetings and for any public meeting held on proposed changes to County plans and ordinances. A compilation of all comments submitted from the general public and Federal, State and local agencies on any proposed changes to County Plans and regulations. EIGHT QUARTER Final Report IV. RELATION TO OTHER ON-GOING EFFORTS? A. Coastal Zone Management Grants to Calvert County are being used to develop Draft Watershed Management Plans for Hunting Creek (grant completion, March 31, 1993) and Parker Creek (grant completion, September 30, 1993). This proposal would follow-up on the Hunting Creek efforts. B. This proposal would be a continuation of Calvert County participation in the Patuxent Estuary Demonstration Project, Phase I. Phase I funding has supported planning, data compilation on water quality and existing best management stormwater practices, stream monitoring (Hunting Creek and Halls Creek),- and nonpoint source assessment in the County. 5 PHASE II PLANNING GRANT CALVERT COUNTY C. Calvert County has submitted to the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program for a Section 309 Grant to draft a Prince Frederick Watershed management Plan with Parker Creek and Hunting Creek components. 6 PHASE II PLANNING GRANT CALVERT COUNTY BUDGET REQUEST PATUXENT ESTUARY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT PHASE II PLANNING GRANT Local Jurisdiction: Calvert county Project Title: Patuxent Estuary Demonstration Project Phase ii Planning Grant Project Coordinator:David C. Brownlee, PhD. Phone: (410)535-2348 Proposed Budget: Funding Requested Match salaries and Fringe Title and Hourly Rate a. Director (36. 5/hr) 2,170 b. De uty director (26.53) 3,184 c. Project Planner (23.54) 706 d. Environmental Planner (23.10/hr) 7,510 e. Intern (10.50/hr) 17mo. half time 13,598 f. Drafting Supervisor (18.98/hr) 3,322 g. Rural Planner (20.15) 2,418 h. Assoc. Environmental Planner (16.99) 2,039 i. Zoning Technician (17.61) 616 g. Temp. Secr. for Task Force (8.75/hr) 400 Total 13,998 21,965 Percentage Fringe Benefits 28% 3,919 6,150 Type of Benefits Health, Retirement, Workman's Compensation, Unemployment, FICA Salaries and Fringe Total i7,9.17 28,115 Supplies and Materials 800 165 Equipment (GIS system, hardware 18,000 and software) Monitoring Equipment 500 Travel, Meetings, Training 283 200 Contracted Services Tri-County Council 12,500 12,500 Solomons Harbor Study, 1993 5,520 Zoning Maps Prep. with New Overlays - -3,500 TOTAL 50,000 50,000 7 PHASE II PLANNING GRANT CALVERT COUNTY AWACHMENT"A" DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING CALVERT COUNTY PREPARED BY: DAVID C. BROWNLEE, PhD. AND PAUL H. DiNUNNO FEBRUARY 4, 1993 PHASE II PLANNING GRANT CALVERT COUNTY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The objectives of this study are to proceed with the watershed management planning efforts on Parker Creek and to combine both the Parker Creek and Hunting Creek Watershed Management Plans into a single Prince Frederick Watershed Management Plan. These two creeks make up the entire watershed for the Major Town Center of Prince Frederick, the Calvert County Seat. The goals of this plan will be to protect and preserve the environments of these watersheds, allow economic development and controlled growth and address the watershed concerns and issues raised by Calvert County citizens. The combined plan will be written to be certifiable by the Water Resources Administration (WRA) in the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and to be consistent with the State of Maryland Economic Growth, Resources Protection, and Planning Act of 1992 including sensitive area protection components. The nutrient reduction goals of the "Maryland's Tributary Strategies" program will also be considered in the preparation of this plan. Calvert County has recently implemented a number of County-wide growth management measures. Jointly with the Maryland Office of Planning (MOP) we will evaluate the nutrient run-off characteristics in the Parker Creek watershed based on conditions before adoption of the growth management measures, with these measures, and then with additional sensitive area components. In addition, the County will work with DNR to identify and map any additional habitats of rare, threatened or endangered species in the watershed. Calvert County will work with MOP and the Parker Creek Watershed Management Task Force to determine the most prudent and effective methods of solving the problems identified by the MOP evaluation and in achieving the goals of this project. These measures will become part of the Prince Frederick Watershed Management Plan. Consultation will also be made with all Federal, State and Local regulatory agencies to insure that the Watershed Management Plan is supported by them. At this stage the Plan, which will include proposed changes to other County plans and ordinances, will be taken to the public for comment through public meetings, newspaper articles, and distribution of the plan. It is expected that during the federal FY95 that the plan will go to public hearing before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioner for adoption. 9 I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX D I I i I I I I I I I DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLi HUNTING CREEK STREAM SURVEY March 30, 1993 Brenda Sandberg,. Environmental Specialist Tri-County Council for Southern Maryland For Planning and Zoning I?epar tment Calvert County, Maryland Acknowledgements Roxanna Homer, Eddie Dichter of Dept - of P & Z, Calvert County for help with creek sampling and surveying in often forbidding weather - Bonnie Mattingly of Solomons Wastewater Treatment Laboratory (and the Wastewater treatment dept. overall) for her high quality water analyses Table of Contents Acknowledgements Page i Table of Contents Introduction Previous Water Quality Data 2 Current Stream Conditions 7 Citizen Monitoring Options 13 Conclusion 16 Appendices A: Regional Stream Survey Project, 1989 B: ChesPax Data and Forms C: Stream Survey Forms (Habitat and Invertebrate Count) D: Bibliography Introduction The Hunting Creek watershed is a typical tributary of the Patuxent River in Calvert County that includes many diverse land uses. Its 29 square miles encompass about half of the Prince Frederick town center, as well as many square miles of rural residential housing, agricultural areas, and f orest. Hunting Creek was selected for study as part of the Patuxent River Demonstration Project because it is a good representation of the many land uses in the county. In addition to this stream survey, a detailed watershed management plan is being drafted to identify the natural resources in the watershed and provide for good management practices to protect those resources - One important element of any watershed management plan is to know the quality of the waters in the creek and its tributaries. This stream survey was undertaken to gather the necessary water quality information for the watershed management effort. A further goal is that the information contained in this report will prove useful to governing officials and the general public for efforts to improve water quality in backyard streams, the Patuxent, and ultimately the Cheseapeake Bay. A stream survey was completed on Hunting Creek in 1989 by the Tri-County Council, and much of this current study will build upon the work done in that survey (see Appendix A). That survey collected in one report data on soils, land uses, and sensitive areas in the watershed, and habitat and water quality information for twelve selected sampling sites. This report will attempt to add current water quality and habitat information for eight sampling sites. Previous Water Quality Data Three major sources of Hunting Creek data are available at this time. The most important is the comprehensive stream survey that was completed in 1989 by Michael Kakuska of the Tri-County Council for Southern Maryland. This study collected data on land use, erosion potential, sedimentation, buffers and stream substrate, in addition to water quality data on twelve sampling sites. Water quality data included nitrates and macroinvertebrate sampling, a good indicator of water quality over the long term. A summary of that data is presented in Table 1, while the rest of the report is attached in Appendix A. The TCC survey was comprehensive in its scope to aid in locating specific problem areas in addition to assessing the overall quality of the stream. In general, this study found a variety of land uses and buffers immediately surrounding the stream, with mostly stable banks showing some natural erosion. Most of the stream beds showed sedimentation, with large amounts of sand and silt in the substrate covering any natural gravel bottoms. Algae and bacterial coatings on the streambed did not appear to be a problem in 1989. Only traces of nitrates were detected at most sites, and macroinvertebrates were generally present at levels that indicated good to fair water quality. The second source of water quality and habitat data is the information collected through the county's environmental education program, ChesPax. High school students in environmental science classes study watershed management and water quality issues, and then spend a full day in the field filling out habitat assessment forms, testing water for chemical parameters, and sampling for macroinvertebrates in several stretches of stream. The data collected by these high school students is tabulated at the end of the day to provide them with a picture of the creek they sampled. The project coordinators have been saving this data for the last two years, yielding Hunting Creek data from the fall of 1991 and the spring and fall of 1992. Reliability is not high with this data, but they are useful as background information for many of the stream sites this study will examine. Table 2 summarizes the habitat scores and macroinvertebrates count ratings for ChesPax sites that correspond to this survey's sampling sites. Table 3 shows data for additional sites in the Hunting Creek watershed that do not directly correspond to any of this survey's locations. Habitat scores ranged from poor to excellent, with most sites in the good and fair categories. Invertebrate index ratings were not as high, most being poor and only some fair. ChesPax students also use LaMotte Company chemical test kits to test for dissolved oxygen, pH, phosphates and nitrates in the stream waters. These kits are colorimetric tests that utilize reagents to give a color to the sample which is then compared to standards to determine the measure. The students' results were fairly consistent with these test kits, showing good dissolved oxygen levels (usually 8-11 ppm), even pH readings (usually 6.0-7.0), and almost no traces of nitrates or phosphates at any Hunting Creek site. 2 I I I [Insert Table 1 from Kakuskal s paper here. ) I I I I I I I I I I I - I I I I 1 3 1 Table 2. Habitat Assessment and Macroin-vertebrate Ratings and Water Quality Tests Collected by the ChesPax Program for Comparable Hunting Creek Sites Site Habitat Invert- I N03-N P04 pH Dissolved Number Ratings ebrate (mg/1) (mg/1) Oxygen Ratings "Pprn I 1 Fair Poor 0 0 6 9 Fair Poor 0 0 9 Good Poor 0 0 6 7 2 Fair Poor 0 0 7 6,5 Fadr-poor Fair 0 0 7 7 Fair Poor 0 0 6 2 Fair Poor 0 0 7 8 4 Good Poor NA NA NA NA Good Poor NA NA NA NA 5 Fair-good NA NA NA NA NA Good NA NA NA NA NA Good Fair 0 0 7 8 Good Fair 0 0 7 9.4 6 Good NA NA NA NA NA Fair Poor 0 0 7 NA Good Poor 0.25 0.35 7 10 Excellent Fair 0 0 7 13 4 Table 3. Habitat Assessment and Macroinvertebrate Ratings and Water Quality Tests Collected by the ChesPax Program for Different Hunting Creek Sites Location Habitat Invert- N03-N P04/1) pH Dissolved Ratings ebrate (mg / 1) (mg Oxygen I Ratings I (Ppm) Mill Creek at Fair-good Poor 0.1 0.02 6 8 Dove Lane '11 Creek at Good NA NA NA NA NA Willow Way Good Poor 0.25 0 7 7 Reits Branch Fair at Bowie Shop Good Fair 0 0 6.5 8.5 Road Good Poor 0 0 7 13 v,ewell Branch Good- Poor at Cox Road excellent Excellent Fair 0 0 6 10 ributary at Fair Poor 0 7.5 9.6 Fox Run Fair Poor 0 0 7 10 Shopjji@ng Ctr. Fair-good Poor 0.25 0 7 11 [;ainstem at Good Fair 0 0 6 Plum Pt. Road Good Fair 0 0 7.8 NA The third source of information about Hunting Creek is the USGS monitoring station on the mainstem of the creek right 1@efore its confluence with the Sewell Branch. [Waiting on data... Current Stream Conditions Methods Water quality and habitat assessment's were accomplished using three different techniques to collect data on 8 selected sampling sites throughout the Hunting Creek watershed. Only non-tidal, freshwater streams were sampled in this project to limit the range of parameters needing analysis. The three main techniques were a habitat assessment form, a macroinvertebrate assessment, and chemical tests for water quality. The habitat assessment form was developed in 1991 specifically for coastal plain streams by a working group of USEPA Region III and distributed by MDE's Project Heartbeat (see Appendix C). The form requires the user to make educated judgements about factors such as sinuosity, instream habitat, pool variety, sedimentation, bank stabUity and vegetation, shading, and buffer zones. This form is slightly different than the form used by ChesPax, so habitat assessments are not directly comparable between the two data sources. Also, the completion of this survey by one primary individual means the scores for each sampling site are more directly comparable than if different individuals did each site. In addition to the assessment form, a one page form was used to collect information on water appearance, bed composition, odors, algae, and streambed stability. The macroinvertebrate count form used in this study was created by the Save Our Streams program of the Izaak Walton League (see Appendix C). This form is identical to the one used by ChesPax, so macroinvertebrate ratings are directly comparable between these two sources. The basic theory behind this assessment is that certain large insect larvae and other invertebrates are very sensitive to pollution and thus are good indicator species. These creatures will take long periods to recover from short-term pollution events,, so- their presence or absence can tell us much about the long-term health of the creek, not just the water quality on the day of the sampling. Mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies are considered the best indicators of high quality water and habitat. This form weights the presence of these species more heavily than other species that can exist in fair to poor quality water, resulting in a total numeric index that reflects long-term water and habitat quality. The third category of information collected was a set of chemical parameters measured from water samples taken at each site. The Calvert County Water & Sewage Division provided EPA-standard lab analysis on samples for the following parameters: nitrate nitrogen, total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN, measuring mainly ammonia), total phosphates, pH, and fecal coliform. Clean sample bottles from the Solomons Wastewater Treatment Facility laboratory were used to collect the water for most of the chemical tests, and separate sterilized bottles were used to collect and fix samples for the fecal coliform tests. In addition to the laboratory analyses, dissolved oxygen (DO) was tested in the field at some sampling stations. A LaMotte brand direct reading titrator test kit was used with a process based on the Winkler reagent method. This test kit would not meet EPA standards for water analysis, but provides a fairly reliable result for watershed management decision-making. Nutrient sampling (nitrates, TKN, phosphates) are critical measures that can detect pollution sources such as failed septic systems, contaminated stormwater runoff , and agricultural overfertilization from crops and animal wastes. Water characteristics such as PH and DO can also be indicators of pollution problems, PH of acid precipitation and DO of nutrient contamination or other Results Hunting Creek is a fairly healthy network of streams with generally good water quality and habitats, but poor macroinvertebrate counts show that some problems are impacting the living resources in the creek. Some factors varied little from site to site. For example, virtually no phosphates were discovered at any location, and PH was a consistent 6.8-7.2. Varying individual results of assessment and testing are discussed below for each sampling site. Table 4 that follows summarizes the macroinvertebrate and habitat assessment ratings along with the chemical analyses. Table 5 lists habitat factors in more detail for each site. Site 1: The first site sampled was in the county-owned lands behind the Calvert Pines Senior Center near the headwaters of Mill Creek, a southern tributary to Hunting Creek. The swampy, organic soils in the floodplain area were well vegetated with forest and some shrub undergrowth. The habitat assessment gave this site a good rating, but no prime indicator macroinvertebrates were found at all (stoneflies, mayflies or caddisflies). The bed composition was mostly sand, which could be partly responsible for the lack of insects. This site had the highest nitrate -nitro gen and TKN levels found, but still only trace amounts were found. Fecal coliform counts were within reasonable levels for a wpoded stream. Site 2: The unnamed tributary that flows behind Calvert Memorial Hospital has some of the most developed drainage areas in the Hunting Creek watershed. This stream runs immediately behind several large commercial developments before reaching the back side of the hospital. Erosion damage and pollution from stormwater runoff from impervious parking surfaces was obvious throughout this stretch of the stream. The stormwater management structures built to prevent such damaging runoff have not been maintained properly for all the parking lots, leading to large amounts of erosion just above the stream and many pollutants in the stormwater entering directly into the stream. The habitat assessment still arrived at a good score because of the well- forested buffer area on the county-ow-ned lands behind the hospital, but the very poor macroinvertebrate sampling indicates the level of sedimentation and pollution at the site. Much of the stream bottom was silt and sand, likely from erosion at the hospital and recent upstream commercial development. Chemical indicators were no worse at this site than any other, with only a trace of nitrates and TKN and a low fecal coliform count. However, the water itself was slightly brown with an oily sheen and a slight musky smell, and most streambed surfaces were covered with algae. Site 3: The Sewell Branch is a fairly large tributary that joins Hunting Creek from the north just before passing under Routes 2-4. This was the one site sampled that found large numbers and variety of insects, leading to a good invertebrate rating. The habitat assessment turned in a good/excellent rating because of the relatively untouched habitat in the flood plain with stable banks and good vegetation. The stream bottom here was almost entirely silt however, partly a result of years of agriculture and residential development upstream. The good macroinvertebrate rating is because of the large numbers of insects found within leaf packs and other organic matter masses, not because of a good gravel-sand substrate. Perhaps this result indicates that the sedimentation is not as big a problem for the insect larvae as other chemical pollution, factors for which this survey did not sample. Nitrate and TKN levels do not seem to be causing a problem, and fecal coliform levels are within the expected range. Site 4: Mill Creek was sampled further downstream at the Stoakley Road crossing. The area was dammed by beavers just prior to the sampling date, so the invertebrate sampling and habitat assessment was not completed in the fall. [Will finish this paragraph upon completion of those two forms next weekend. I This site had the highest fecal coliform count of any site sampled, 109 MPN 1100 ml. This level could indicate a minor problem with a failed septic nearby, but it could just as easily be from one or two farm animals or even a deer population nearby. Site 5: Reits Branch, another tributary from the northern half of the watershed, was sampled just south of Walton Road in a wooded ravine with several nearby farms and some residential. The stream was heavily sedimented and very unstable, with no gravel. visible at all. The habitat assessment gave a good rating while the macroinvetebrate count was poor. The water itself was carrying a good amount of sediment, with some foam near a culvert exit. Nutrient. measurements were again very low, as was the fecal coliform count. Site 6: The sampling site in the middle of the Hunting Creek Farms development is downstream from the hospital on the same unnamed tributary. Habitat and macroinvert. sampling forthcoming. Nutrient levels were very low, as were the fecal coliform counts. Site 7: The mainstem of Hunting Creek was sampled near the middle of the freshwater section south of Plum Point Road near the Plum Point Elementary School. The habitat assessment gave a good I excellent rating, indicative of the large expanses of forest surrounding the creek and extending all the way up the 100-foot steep stream valley sides. Some crop fields and residential houses were scattered on the highlands above this stream valley, but the mostly original forest is barely disturbed. The macroinvertebrate count is only fair, despite the good general habitat, perhaps because the streambed is entirely silt and very soft. Dissolved oxygen was tested in the field at 10 ppm, an expected value for a smaU tumbling stream. Nutrient tests revealed little of concern, and fecal coliforms registered their lowest count at this site, perhaps a reflection of the great distance between the stream and any human activities. Site 8 -The upper reaches of the mainstem were sampled behind Emmanuuel Court. Considerable residential development has occurred near the stream, but most places have maintained a minimum 20-30 yard buffer of woods and shrubs. The habitat assessment still showed good/excellent for the stream itself, but the macroinvertebrate count was very poor. The stream bottom was entirely silt, perhaps a function of the geology of the area instead of just sedimentation, however. Fecal coliform. counts were slightly high (79 MPNJIOO ml), but the other nutrient tests were very low. Dissolved oxygen was also an-expected 11 ppm. Table 4. Summary of Selected Water Quality Data for Eight Sampling Sites on Hunting Creek. Site Habitat Invert- N03-N I TKN P04 pH Fecal Number Rating ebrate mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 COE- IRating I Iform .11 -1 Good I Poor 10.35 1 0.5 1 <0.2 1 7.1 146 2 Good Poor 0.17- 0.1 1 <0. 2 1 7.1 22 3 Excellent J <0. 2 1 6.9 46 1 Goodl Good 0.15 0.4 4 0.17 0.3 <0. 2_ 7.2 109 5 Good Poor 0.2 0.3 <0. 2 7.0 23 6 LO.18 0.2 <0. 2 7.2 23 7 Goodl Fair 0.09 0.5 <0. 2 6.8 13 Excellent I I- 8 Good/ Poor 0.12 0.4 <0. 2 7.1 79 Excellent Discussion Despite fairly low nutrient contamination levels and good habitats, macroinvertebrate ratings were consistently low across all eight sampling sites. Sedimentation, substrate problems, and toxic ehemicals are all potential causes for the low invertebrate ratings, but it is not. possible to isolate the cause without significant additional research. A literature search for studies of similar streams could provide direction to which causes to focus on, but detailed, expensive chemical anaylsis for toxic chemicals and other pollutants might be necessary. Sedimentation seems to be the easiest culprit to blame for the lack of a healthy insect community in the stream. However, the correlation is not necessarily strong in this small sampling between the strongest invertebrate communities (Sites 3 and 7, Table 4) and the least sedimented sites (3 and 8, Table 5). The composition of the substrate (silt, sand and gravel percentages on the stream bed) can also have a major impact on the living resources, but, again, the best substrate with high gravel levels (at sites 1 and 2) does not seem to correlate to the best insect communities (3 and 7). Another related factor is the availability of instream habitat for small invertebrates, such as undercut banks, logs, leaf packs, and other unmoving items that trap pieces of detritus from the stream flow. This factor was assessed as one element of the overall habitat assessment. This factor does correlate most closely with the strength of the macroinvertebrate community of all the factors measured by this survey, with sites 3, 7, and 8 having the best instream habitat for organisms (Table 5). The question remains, however, what factors outside the streambed have resulted in the better habitat inside the stream banks Table 5. Stream Habitat Quality Assessment and Other Factors for Eight Sampling Sites on Hunting Creek Site Habitat Habitat Bed Land Uses Water Sediment No. Score Rating Compo- Color/ Deposition/ sition Odor Instream Habitat 81 Good 95% sand Commercial, Oily/ Good/ 5% ' vel woods none Fair 74 Good 20% silt Commercial, Brown, Fair/ 60% sand woods Oily/ Fair 200-6 vel musky 89 Good/ 800-0 Silt Woods, Milky/ Excellent/ Excellent 20% sand stores, none Good highway f4 I I I I I 1 1 81 Good 900-0 Silt Crops, Muddy, Fair/ 10% sand homes, scum/ Fair I I --- woods musky F6 I 87 Goodl 100% Silt Crops, rown, Good/ Excellent homes, milky/ Good woods none 94 Good/ 1000-0 Silt Meadow, Foamy, Excellent/ Excellent homes, milky/ Excellent Vvo6ds naLky_ Citizen Monitoring Options Elements of Citizen Monitoring Outline: I Discuss general Volunteer monitoring requirements 1 . Clear goals for program and purpose for data: should it be to collect data, or simply to educate the citizen monitors to be more environmentally aware? 2. Decide what quality data needed, therefore what kind of testing (quantitative vs. qualitative) and how to supervise, etc. 3. Create budget for testing equipment, staff time for organizing program, and balance costs with benefits. 4. Develop program to train and monitor the work of the volunteers. Make sure to provide for feedback for volunteers so they can see the use of the data they collect. 5. Applicability to Hunting Creek Discuss number of sites, number of volunteers potentially necessary, methods of organizing and contacting, potential timetables if decide to pursue in coming year, etc. 12 Conclusion - According to simple chemical measures, Hunting Creek is a very clean stream. However, the relatively low presence of the best indicator macroinvertebrates shows that at least some features of the natural stream are being negatively affected by human development. Further research should locate information on historic levels of macroinvertebrates on streams of this kind in the coastal plain, even though data on Hunting Creek itself may not be available. This data would give a better perspective on how unusual such insect communities are for this part of the country. - Instream habitat and sedimentation seem to be most important factors that correlate to healthy macroinvertebrate communities. Need to examine what other causes are affecting those two factors to be able to improve instream. habitat. Generally, increased sedimentation from urban development and improper agricultural practices, even from short-term events, can create large sedimentation and related erosion problems far downstream. This sedimentation and erosion also destroys or moves the stable instream elements (banks, logs) that catch detritus and create a good environment for the insects and other life forms. The magnitude of wooded buffer zones around a stream is also a likely factor that affects the amount of organic detritus that enters the stream to create this good habitat. 13 I I I BibHography I I I I I I I I i ..I I I I I I 14 I I I I I I APPENDICES I I I - I I I I I I I - I I I I is I , JOAA COAIAL SERVICES CTO LIBRARY I - 3 6668 14111733 5 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I