St. Mary’s River Watershed Characterization Spring 2015
Prepared by the St. Mary’s River Watershed Association, Inc. in partnership with St. Mary’s County Government, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, St. Mary’s College of Maryland, and local agencies and businesses.
DRAFT—6/20/15
BLANK PAGE
St. Mary’s River Watershed Characterization
Spring 2015
a supporting document to the Watershed Restoration Action Strategy for the St. Mary’s River
St. Mary’s River Watershed Association, Inc. in partnership with St. Mary’s County Government, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, St. Mary’s College of Maryland, and local agencies and businesses.
For more information, please contact Bob Lewis, St. Mary’s River Watershed Association, 301-737-2903 or [email protected].
BLANK PAGE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CONTRIBUTORS TO THE WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
INTRODUCTION Background Location Purpose of Characterization Additional Characterization Work Identifying Gaps in Information
HERITAGE: History of Human Interactions with the Watershed Prehistoric Peoples Colonial to Present Days (ca. 1630-2008) Human Usage of the St. Mary’s River Drainage in History Vegetation Changes in the St. Mary’s River Drainage Historic Sedimentation Rates in the St. Mary’s River Determining Historical Ecological Change to the River
WATER QUALITY Water Quality Standards and Designated Uses Use Impairments (Non-supporting Uses) Impaired Waters in St. Mary’s River Watershed St. Mary’s River St. Mary’s Lake What Causes Water Quality Impairment? [Text Box] Use Restrictions and Advisories What Are the Effects of Nutrient Over-Enrichment? [Text Box] Antidegradation Water Quality Indicators – Setting Priority for Restoration and Protection Water Quality Monitoring St. Mary's River Project Non-tidal Portion 1. Dissolved Oxygen 2. Nutrients 3. Total Suspended Solids 4. Alkalinity, pH and Dissolved Organic Carbon 5. Temperature Tidal Portion 1. Dissolved Oxygen 2. Nutrients 3. Total Suspended Solids 4. Chlorophyll 5. pH 6. Salinity 7. Temperature Lower Potomac River Tributary Strategy Program
iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED
Lower Potomac River Basin Tributary Team Sources of Pollution 1. Point Sources 2. Nonpoint Sources 3. Shoreline Erosion 4. Impact of the Potomac River
LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT Living Resource Indicators SAV, Status, and Restoration Fish and Crabs Tidal Areas Nontidal Areas Migratory Fish Oysters What are filter feeders? What purpose do they serve? [Text Box] Macroinvertebrates Why look at Benthos in Streams [Text Box] Headwater Streams in Interior Forest . High Quality Habitat for Forest Interior Dwelling Species (FIDS) Bird Breeding Abundances
Sensitive Species Sensitive Area Types Streams and Stream Buffers Wetlands Flood Plains Steep Lands Greenways Natural Heritage Lands Lands with Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species List St. Mary’s River Bottomlands Heritage Area
LANDSCAPE AND LAND USE The Unified Watershed Assessment and the Use of Indicators Landscape Indicators 1. Impervious Surface (KCI Study) 2. Population Density 3. Historic Wetland Loss 4. Unbuffered Streams (Mark Muir) 5. Soil Erodibility Land Use 2008 RPD Task Force Study 2007 Encroachment Study Lands With Significant Natural Resource Value and Large Area 1. Green Infrastructure 2. Large Forest Blocks Mining – need and impacts
iv TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED
Protected Lands 1. Critical Areas 2. State Parklands 3. County Parklands 4. Agricultural and Forested Private Lands Soils of the St. Mary’s River Watershed 1. Interpreting Local Conditions with Natural Soil Groups 2. Soils and Watershed Planning Wetlands 1. Wetland Categories 2. Tracking Wetlands 3. Wetland Distribution Climate Change [Text box] Low Elevation Areas Subject to Sea Level Rise Hurricane and Storm Inundation Lands Targeted for Development 1. Lexington Park Development District 2. Towns, Villages, and Rural Centers
HUMAN NEEDS & SERVICES Housing & Welfare Workforce Housing Study Homelessness Shelters Soup Kitchens Health & Medicine Mental Health Clinics Employment Water-based economies and businesses – impacts and greening Infrastructure Transportation Point Source Discharges—Sewerage and Landfills Water Supply 1. Aquifers and Private Water Supply 2. Municipal Water Supply & Community Supply Emergency Services 1. Hazard Mitigation Plan 2. Emergency Evacuation Plan Agriculture Growing for Local Consumption Home and Backyard Composting Farms and Farmland Animal Operations Equine Facility Needs & Impacts
RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING 2009 Army Corps Reports 1. Upper St. Mary’s River Baseline Watershed Assessment
v TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED
2. St. Mary’s River Watershed and Feasibility Study 3. St. Mary’s River Watershed Stream & Floodplain Condition Assessment 4. Natural Resources Conservation Summary for St. Mary’s County 5. Lower Potomac River Basin Seagrass & Oyster Restoration Study 2007 VIMS Performance of SILs Conservation Programs 1. Agricultural Conservation Programs (Rural Legacy, Ag Dist., Ag Pres, CREP) 2. Energy Conservation 3. Oyster Restoration and Preservation
Smart Growth 1. Priority Funding Areas 2. Transfer of Development Rights 3. Forest Stands and Open Space Green Site Design 1. Adding Green Infrastructure to Developments Green Building 1. Gray Water Reuse 2. Septic System Upgrades and Grant Program 3. Green Schools—Energy Conservation Maryland Department of Natural Resources Programs 1. Fish Blockage Removal Forestation and Wetland Restoration (KCI Study)
PROJECTS RELATED TO THE WRAS PROCESS Watershed Implementation Plans Native and Nonnative Oyster Restoration PEIS Watershed Evaluation for St. Mary’s River Watershed Piney Point Aquiculture Facility 1. Potomac River Eelgrass Restoration 2. Piney Point Blue Crab Nursery St. Mary’s River Watershed Association Oyster Recovery Assessment Study Potomac Riverkeeper River Watchers Potomac Riverkeeper Get The Dirt Out Program Potomac Cleanups and Trash-free Initiative Lexington Park Redevelopment Campaign Transportation 1. Pegg Road Extension 2. Chancellors Run Road Expansion 3. FDR Boulevard SMC Dept. Public Works & Transportation Survey of Storm Water Control Facili- ties Potomac River Association Storm Water Facilities Survey
POTENTIAL BENCHMARKS FOR WRAS GOAL SETTING
REFERENCES
vi TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED
GLOSSARY
[look in the Breton bay plan for a glossary] Watershed WIP WIP2 WIP 3 TMDL Riparian Estuary
vii LIST OF MAPS
Map No. Title Page No.
1 Regional Context 166 2 WRAS Project Area 167 3 Streams and Subwatersheds 168 4 St. Mary’s River Project Subwatersheds 169 5 Designated Use 170 6 Monitoring Sites By Programs 171 7 Monitoring Sites By Volunteers 172 8 MDE Permits 173 9 Water Supply Permits 174 10 Aquia Aquifer 175 11 Generalized 2010 Land Use 176 12 Green Infrastructure 177 13 Forest Interior 178 14 Protected Lands and Smart Growth 179 15 Soils By Natural Soils Groups 180 16 Hydric Soils And Highly Erodible Soils 181 17 Wetlands 182 18 Floodplain and Sea Level Rise 183 19 Oysters 184 20 Sensitive Species 185 21 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 186
viii LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page No.
3-1 Annual sedimentation rates from core samples 3-6 3-2 Oyster Shell Growth in Height 3-8 4-1 Maryland Biological Stream Survey Water Quality Monitoring 4-17 4-2 Index of biological integrity scores 4-20 4-3 Groundwater discharge, surface water discharge, and other permits 4-25 5-1 St. Mary’s River Watershed Synoptic Survey sampling sites 5-5 5-2 Fish sampled in St. Mary’s River Water Quality Assessment 5-11 5-3 Macroinvertebrates sampled in SMR Water Quality Assessment 5-17 5-4 Bird species with increased breeding status 5-21 5-5 Bird species with decreased breeding status 5-22 5-6 Bird species with no change in breeding status 5-23 5-7 Sensitive areas in the watershed 5-24 5-8 Sensitive areas containing rare, threatened, or endangered species 5-28 6-1 Master soil horizons and nomenclature 6-17 7-1 Prescription medicine overdose cases in St. Mary’s County 7-4 7-2 Heroin overdose cases in St. Mary’s County 7-4 7-3 Pump stations in St. Mary’s River watershed 7-10 7-4 Public wells in Lexington Park area 7-15 7-5 St. Mary’s County farmland use and acreage 7-17 7-6 Total number of farms and animals in St. Mary’s County 7-17 8-1 Tier I and Tier II candidate retrofit sites 8-2 8-2 Restoration priority area designations 8-3 8-3 Yearly oyster restoration plantings in St. Mary’s River sanctuary 8-11 8-4 Reef mound types and veneer treatments in Three dimensional reef 8-13 plot
ix LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title Page No.
4-1 Biological Impairment assessment of St. Mary’s River Watershed 4-4 4-2 Eutrophication 4-8 4-3 Tier II waters in St. Mary’s County 4-11 4-4 St. Mary’s River Water Quality, June 2005 4-22 4-5 St. Mary’s River Water Quality, August 2005 4-23 4-6 St. Mary’s River Water Quality, November 2005 4-23 4-7 Pollutant Loads of Lower Potomac River Basin 4-26 4-8 Shoreline stability of the tidal St. Mary’s River 4-27 5-1 Submerged aquatic vegetation acreage in Lower Potomac River 5-2 5-2 SAV in St. Mary’s River 5-3 5-3 Sampling Stations in St. Mary’s River Project 5-6 5-4 Oyster disease prevalence and mortality in St. Mary’s River 5-13 5-5 Annual spat recruitment in St. Mary’s River 5-14 5-6 Combined annual harvest of St. Mary’s River and Smith Creek 5-14 5-7 Natural heritage areas containing RTE species 5-29 6-1 Proportional land use 6-1 6-2 Potential greenways and water trails 6-5 6-3 St. Mary’s State Park boundary 6-8 6-4 Boundaries of Historic St. Mary’s City 6-18 6-6 Sea level rise planning for St. Mary’s River 6-20 6-7 Lexington Park Development District 6-21 6-8 Land uses in the Development District 6-24 7-1 Phases of the Three Notch Trail 7-8 7-2 Cross section of hydrogeological units 7-11 7-3 Hydrographs of surface trends in Lexington Park aquifers 7-12 7-4 Simulated potentiometric surface in Aquia aquifer 7-14 8-1 St. Mary’s River watershed, Bottomland, and Fish management area 8-4 8-2 Recommended SAV restoration sites 8-5 8-3 Recommended oyster restoration sites 8-6 8-4 Mattapany rural legacy area 8-8 8-5 Restorable oyster bottom in St. Mary’s River oyster sanctuary 8-10 8-6 Open space framework proposed in LPDD 8-15
ix LIST OF PHOTOS
Photo Description Photo Credit Page No.
Kayaker at SMRWA River Clean-up (Top Left) St. Mary’s River Watershed Assoc. Cover St. Mary’s River oyster planting (Top Right) St. Mary’s River Watershed Assoc. Cover Columbine (Bottom Left) St. Mary’s River Watershed Assoc. Cover Johnson Pond (Bottom Right) St. Mary’s River Watershed Assoc. Cover Cardinal Pines, St. Mary’s River St. Mary’s River Watershed Assoc. 1-1 Barn St. Mary’s River Watershed Assoc. 1-1 The Maryland Dove Historic St. Mary’s City 1-3 Landscape ?? 1-3 Storm Water Runoff – Pembrook Run St. Mary’s River Watershed Assoc. 1-5 Eastern box turtle St. Mary’s River Watershed Assoc. 1-5 LEAD volunteer oyster planting Leadership Southern Maryland 1-6 Rain Barrel St. Mary’s River Watershed Assoc. 1-6 Committee members St. Mary’s River Watershed Assoc. 2-1 Slave Quarters in Historic St. Mary’s City Historic St. Mary’s City 3-2 Colonist farmer tilling soil Historic St. Mary’s City 3-3 Plow based agriculture Historic St. Mary’s City 3-4 Historic oyster harvest Historic St. Mary’s City 3-4 Sediment Core -- 3-5 Oyster Shells -- 3-7 Fisherman’s Creek, St. Mary’s River Tributary St. Mary’s River Watershed Assoc. 4-1 Macro-invertebrate Sampling St. Mary’s River Watershed Assoc. 4-2 Fishing in the St. Mary’s River St. Mary’s River Watershed Assoc. 4-6 Shellfish dredge St. Mary’s River Watershed Assoc. 4-6 Fish sampled in St. Mary’s River St. Mary’s River Watershed Assoc. 4-12 Dip net monitoring St. Mary’s River Watershed Assoc. 4-15 St. Mary’s Project Surveying Dr. Robert Paul 4-18 St. Mary’s Project Seining Dr. Robert Paul 4-19 Tributary Team -- 4-21 Point Source Discharge St. Mary’s River Watershed Assoc. 4-24 Eelgrass -- 5-3 Juvenile blue crab St. Mary’s River Watershed Assoc. 5-4 American eel St. Mary’s River Watershed Assoc. 5-7 Migratory fish/ Stream Blockage -- 5-12 Oyster flatworm ?? 5-13 Spat cluster on oyster shell ?? 5-15 Dragonfly and Stonefly Larvae St. Mary’s River Watershed Assoc. 5-16 Western Branch of the St. Mary’s River St. Mary’s River Watershed Assoc. 5-18 Clear cutting for Hilton Run development St. Mary’s River Watershed Assoc. 5-19 Osprey in Upper St. Mary’s River St. Mary’s River Watershed Assoc. 5-21 Chipping Sparrow at St. Mary’s College Allison Rugila 5-21 Bird -- 5-22
ix LIST OF PHOTOS continued
Photo Description Photo Credit Page No.
Bird -- 5-22 Bird -- 5-22 Bird -- 5-23 Bird -- 5-23 Middle reaches of Hilton Run tributary St. Mary’s River Watershed Assoc. 5-24 St. Mary’s College of Maryland Wetland Allison Rugila 5-26 Wetlands -- 5-27 Natural heritage lands -- 5-30 St. Mary’s River Bottomlands -- 6-1 Impervious surface -- 6-2 Erosion -- 6-4 Greenway -- 6-7 Critical Area– tidal shoreline -- 6-9 Salem State Forest -- 6-13 Great Mills Canoe& Kayak Launch -- 6-14 Jarboesville Park -- 6-14 John G. Lancaster Park -- 6-19 Emergent, Shrub, Forested wetland -- 6-23 Lexington Park Plan - 6-25 Callaway village center - 7-2 Three Oaks Center - 7-3 New Walden Sierra - 7-4 Soup Kitchen at St. Mary’s Caring - 7-4 St. Mary’s County Health Department - 7-5 Webster field/landfill discharge - 7-9 Farmers market - 7-17 Habitat Restoration LEED - 8-1 Green School 8-1 Green School 8-2 Septic Upgrades 8-7 Fish passages 8-12 Triploid oyster? 8-12 Eelgrass restoration 8-12 Eelgrass restoration 8-16 Chesapeake Biological Lab Mesocosm Study 8-17 River Cleanup 8-18 Chancellors Run Extention 8-19 Elizabeth Hills model home rain garden 8-20 St. Mary’s College of MD rain garden 9-1 Wildwood rain garden 9-2 Living shoreline 9-3 3D Reef Project- Rubble mound 9-4 Reef ball mold 9-5
ix LIST OF PHOTOS continued
Photo Description Photo Credit Page No.
3D Reef Project- Reef Ball mound Septic system Fish passage blockage
ix
BLANK PAGE
x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
As the largest watershed in St. Mary’s County, on land use, storm water, and waste management the St. Mary’s River watershed encompasses 70.6 in ways consistent with the conservation and square miles, or almost a quarter of the county’s protection, and, when needed, enhancement of the land. While having the distinction of lying fully water quality and natural resources of the St. within St. Mary’s County, the watershed is also Mary’s River and her tributaries. part of the larger Lower Potomac River Basin. Towards this end, the Characterization Report Drained by 174.9 miles of streams, this eight- includes information on heritage resources, river digit watershed (02140103, Maryland Department history, landscapes and land use, water quality, of Natural Resources) consists of 10 smaller living resources, restoration, and conservation, subwatersheds with numerous and human needs and creeks and major tributaries services. The data have been that feed into the St. Mary’s collected on a broad-based River. Near St. Mary’s City, state level, as well as at the 22.3 mile-long main stem regional and local levels. of the St. Mary’s River The document incorporates widens into a tidal estuary, summaries of three research which at its 2-mile wide studies produced by Dr. mouth flows into the lower Robert W. Paul of St. Mary’s Potomac River (See Map 1). College of Maryland with the The St. Mary’s River is a assistance of the Watershed “stronghold watershed,” as Assessment Division of the described by the Maryland Maryland Department of Department of Natural Natural Resources (DNR): Resources, and sustains The Synoptic Survey Report, regionally endangered and the St. Mary’s River Stream state threatened species. Corridor Assessment and Although in relatively fair Tidal Shoreline Survey, and health, the river has the Water Quality Assess- remained on the state’s ment. “Impaired Rivers” list Based on field research (303d) and will experience performed in 2008, the considerable population Synoptic Survey Report growth and commercial development in the provides analyses of water chemistry (nutrients, near future as a result of the local military base. temperature, conductivity, and pH), biological surveys of benthic macro invertebrates and fishes, This St. Mary’s River Watershed Characteri- and habitat surveys for 15 freshwater sites and 1 zation Report, produced by the St. Mary’s River tidal site. Watershed Association and partners, summarizes all readily available information concerning the The Stream Corridor Assessment (September watershed’s natural and social resources. Our 2008) summarizes the results from a field study purpose in preparing this document is to provide of 118-miles of non-tidal streams using MDNR's the informational basis for public policy decisions Stream Corridor Assessment Methodology. With SECTION 1—EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW continued permission granted to access 68% of the stream Watershed Association in partnership with the corridors in the watershed, researchers walked Center for Watershed Protection and St. Mary’s streams to assess problems such as pipe outfalls, County government. As consultant and lead erosion sites, lack of buffers, fish passage author, the Center was tasked to do extensive blockages, sewer outfalls, or unusual conditions. surveys, utilize the previously mentioned The research team provides geographically technical information, and to incorporate local referenced information. knowledge through the involvement of a local stakeholder committee made up of government The Water Quality Assessment (September officials, business interests, and community 2008) is a comprehensive scientific compilation members. This strategy includes: of detailed water quality information collected from 1999 through 2008. a well-stated, overarching goal aimed at protecting, preserving, and restoring habitat These three reports can be found at the St. and water quality Mary’s River Watershed Association website: a description of the stakeholder process Synoptic Survey Report — http:// www.stmarysriver.org/pdfdocs/ a detailed, prioritized description of natural report_phase1_SS.pdf resource management objectives Stream Corridor Assessment Report — http:// a prioritized list of feasible stormwater www.stmarysriver.org/pdfdocs/ mitigation and restoration projects and the report_phase1_SCATSS.pdf associated cost estimates Water Quality Assessment — http:// information on funding opportunities for www.stmarysriver.org/pdfdocs/ recommended projects report_phase1_WC.pdf a description of evaluating implemented The St. Mary’s River Watershed Plan, an project efficacy through continued long-term action strategy to promote the health and future of monitoring the river and its surrounding drainage area, was developed in 2012 by the St. Mary’s River
SECTION 1—EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-2 HERITAGE
Significant historic sites abound in the St. opportunities and, in partnership with St. Mary’s Mary’s Watershed. St. Mary’s City, located on College of Maryland, provides a museum studies the banks of the tidal St. Mary’s River, hosted the undergraduate program. Some work has been fourth permanent English settlement in the New done on aquatic archeology. World and served as Despite its rich heritage, Maryland’s capitol until few other historic sites in 1695. Recognized as the the watershed have been birthplace of religious preserved. Only the tolerance, this is also the Drayden Schoolhouse has site where the first African been preserved, interpreted, American descendent and opened to the public. voted in Maryland and The Navy secured land where women launched from the Jesuits in 1942 the fight for voting rights. and today runs a large Today, the state of research facility on the east Maryland has secured St. bank of the tidal river. Mary’s City as a living museum on several hundred acres. It features a Throughout history, the river has provided working plantation, a replica oceanic vessel, and valuable resources to area inhabitants and has a state-of-the-art interpretive center. St. Mary’s been a factor in regional water-based economies. City also boasts extensive archeological
LANDSCAPE AND LAND USE Nearly half of the St. Mary’s County -mile stretch in the St. Mary’s watershed, in the population —46,000 people — live within the St. area known as the Lexington Park Development Mary’s River watershed. As shown in Map 2, the District. Business parks and commercial areas 45,198- acre watershed extends from St. Mary’s are extensive and growing from Hollywood south County Regional Airport in California south to and Route 235 west through Lexington Park. St. George’s Island and Kitt’s Point at the mouth Other business centers occur along Great Mills of Smith creek. Road and Route 5 in Great Mills and Callaway. OTO Land use in the watershed Industrial uses, such as is varied and typical of the mining, are confined to small parcels of less than ving about southern Maryland region. e % impervi- As of 2009, more than half of 250 acres. ce —so St. Mary’s County’s (27,364 Landscape indicators of re? acres) was forested; another environmental health include de more re- quarter (11,269 acres) was the percentage of impervious sentence… devoted to agriculture; and surface area in a watershed, just 7.5% of the watershed population density, historic was urbanized. Impervious wetland loss, streams surfaces made up 5.3% of the watershed. The lacking forested or planted riparian areas, or largest portion of developed land consists of buffers, and soil erodibility. General downward residential areas; however the majority of the trends are evident in all of these indicators. county’s targeted development occurs along a 7.5 SECTION 1—EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-3 LANDSCAPE AND LAND USE continued
OMIT????
ADD MAP _ That shows protected areas and includes the following landmarks Mary’s County Regional Airport, St. George’s Island and Kitt’s Point at the mouth of Smith creek.
-Possibly have another GIS layer for different agriculture and development (especially the Lexington Park Development District boundary, if possible)
Large contiguous protected areas exist in the upper central watershed. They are the St. Mary’s River Wildlands, the St. Mary’s Lake State Park, and the former Bevan properties and the Walton Lumber “Just in the past few years the is- Company — both purchased with open space funds land was inaccessible five times. in 2004 and 2015, respectively, and now known as The bridge has not been closed that Salem State Forest in somewhat the same vicinity is many times in the twenty years prior St. Mary’s Lake State Park. Other protected lands to that.” are scattered throughout the watershed. Vulnerability to storm inundation and sea level —Viki Volk-Russell, resident St. George Island at the Q&A session following a rise is limited to areas immediately adjacent to tidal lecture at St. Mary’s College of Mary- areas. The St. George Island community is land by Rear Admiral Jonathon White; especially vulnerable to sea level rise as access to/ November 2014. from the island becomes blocked by flood waters. In recent years, even minor storm events have flooded streets. Islanders report an increase occurrence of access disruptions over the past three years (2012- 2014) compared to the twenty years prior (1992- 2011) SECTION 1—EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-4 WATER QUALITY
The water quality of the St. Mary’s River and are impaired for aquatic life. The cause of the im- its tributaries has been monitored repeatedly over pairment is unknown. High levels of nutrients in the past 13 years. Overall, the St. Mary’s River storm water runoff have fueled algal blooms and watershed has fair to good water quality; however, low levels of dissolved oxygen in the tidal St. research indicates that increased urbanization and Mary’s river. (When large populations of algae die related pollution poses a po- and decompose, the oxygen tential threat if not managed. available in the water for aquat- A statewide assessment of all ic life is reduced.) Low pH, watersheds identified the St. erosion and sediment deposition Mary’s River watershed as a also have been identified as sensitive watershed in need of problems in some areas of the an extra level of protection. watershed. Even so, the watershed Studies have cited storm events does not support all the desig- as a leading cause of perturba- nated uses assigned to it by tion in St. Mary’s River, as nu- state regulations. Some areas trients and sediments are trans- are restricted for shellfish harvesting, and a fish ported into the tidal main stem from various tribu- consumption advisory exists for all waters. Addi- taries in the watershed and as far away as the de- tionally, some first - through fourth-order streams velopment district.
LIVING RESOURCES
The St. Mary’s River watershed is comprised of tidal of juvenile blue crabs and a depleted striped bass stock. and non-tidal aquatic and terrestrial living resources. Freshwater fish and benthic macro-invertebrates Some of these habitats include wetlands, oyster reefs, have been surveyed in the non-tidal reaches of the St. submerged aquatic vegetation beds, and forests, each Mary’s River by the Maryland Department of Natural providing critical ecosystem services for the native wild- Resources in 1995 and by St. Mary’s College of Mary- life and humans. The monitoring of wildlife that inhabit land between 1999 and 2008. Poor stream heath, associ- these areas enable impacts on the environment to be ated with low species abundance and diversity, was readily identified, facilitating watershed mitigation and identified at a few sites experienc- restoration. In the watershed, living ing considerable urbanization. resources are predominantly influ- enced by development and resource In recent years the St. Mary’s River extraction. has supported thriving oyster bars, with considerable natural recruit- Significant declines in sub- ment, due to recent oyster restora- merged aquatic vegetation have tion and to the establishment of its been observed in the St. Mary’s oyster sanctuary status in October River, with limited success of eel- 2010 for tidal areas north of Church grass restoration efforts. Annual Point. summer diebacks reflect trends experienced throughout the Chesa- Oyster disease prevalence in the St. peake Bay as a result of excess nutrients and high pre- Mary’s River remains low with Dermo persisting at low cipitation and temperature events. levels and MSX absent in recent years. Commercial fisheries in the St. Mary’s River include The St. Mary’s River watershed also supports vari- oysters, perch, menhaden, croaker, spot, striped bass ous forest interior dwelling birds, including migratory (Rockfish), the blue crabs. Total annual catches for two and resident species. Comparative studies suggest that important species, striped bass and blue crabs, have mir- bird breeding abundances for most species in the area rored the trends of the Bay, with low annual recruitment have not been impacted. SECTION 1—EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-5 HUMAN NEEDS AND SERVICES St. Mary’s River watershed has experienced sub- Drug addiction in the county reflects the trends ob- stantial increases in its population, with subsequent served across Maryland, with a recent shift from the need for the revitalization of St. Mary’s County in terms misuse of prescription medicine to increased opioid of its housing and welfare, employment, and infrastruc- abuse and heroin use. ture. In recent years, incidences of homelessness and Employment in the county is predominantly generat- drug addiction have increased, requir- ed by the Naval Air Station Patuxent Riv- ing the development of strategic plans, er, but also includes the following water- county-based prevention programs, and based economies: marinas, recreation, the expansion of shelters and rehabilita- commercial fishing, and seafood sales. tion facilities. Additionally, affordable Environmental impacts have been less- “workforce” housing has become less ened by green initiatives, the development accessible, contributing to the preva- of aquaculture, and large-scale oyster res- lence of homelessness. County plans toration efforts in the St. Mary’s River. recommend that older neighborhoods be revitalized and incentives be provid- Roadway and public transit improvements ed for the creation of diverse housing are ongoing to encourage mixed-use trans- opportunities. it and alleviate traffic congestion. Green- ways that would connect the county by Local shelters and the St. Mary’s biking, hiking, and paddling trails have Caring Soup Kitchen have experienced been proposed. Wastewater systems are currently being increases in the annual number of beds and meals being updated to meet new regulatory quotas for effluent dis- provided. County-based and non-profit organizations charge into the Bay. Septic systems owners are encour- are providing resources and programs to provide emer- aged to upgrade their systems and can seek grant fund- gency care and counseling for those in need. ing to support the cost.
RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION Four reports have identified necessary watershed Septic systems still release nitrogen pollution to the restoration projects, including the Army Corp of Engi- water table, which enter nearby streams. As more than neers (2009), the Upper SMR Baseline Watershed As- 90% of septic systems within the St. Mary’s watershed sessment (2001), the Center for Watershed Protection’s are within 2000 feet of a perennial stream, there is a Watershed Plan (2012), and the county’s ongoing Wa- greater need for systems to be upgraded to nitrogen- tershed Implementation Plan 2 (WIP2), and subsequent reducing BAT systems. Funding by the County’s WIP3 (2017). Additional reports, including the VIMs Health department can at least partially fund these up- Performance of SILS (2007), provide in- grades. sight into effective restoration methodolo- Habitat creation and restoration in the gy. watershed provides benefits as well, es- The St. Mary’s River, much like the pecially the restoration of the oyster bio- Chesapeake Bay, is in need of a variety of mass in the upper St. Mary’s River oyster restorative actions and subsequent ongoing sanctuary. Non-tidal and tidal wetlands conservation in order to achieve greater creation, in addition to forested corridor ecosystem health. Limiting impervious preservation provide natural filtering of surface area is recommended yet difficult pollutants and crucial wildlife habitat. considering that most of the county’s future Other conservation practices can have a growth will be in the watershed. Therefore, positive impact by lessening our impacts it is essential that storm water runoff is con- on the environment. These include ener- trolled to the maximum extent possible gy conservation, smart growth, forest through incorporating retrofits, and new retention, potable water conservation, storm water and best management practic- Leadership in Energy & Environmental es. Design (LEED), and a variety of public school system Agricultural management practices have been effec- programs such as green school and community garden- tive in reducing pollution levels by as much as 80%, but ing. Renewable energy of residential and commercial still contributed considerable pollution loads to the riv- solar and wind systems are becoming popular. er. SECTION 1—EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1-6 FOOTNOTE “St. Mary’s River Watershed Plan,” Center for Watershed Protection, 2012. Website http://www.StMarysRiver.org/pdfdocs/cwpActionPla See section on watershed implementation plan (Page 22) CONTRIBUTORS TO THE WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
WRAS Steering Committee
Project Leaders: Committee Facilitator:
Robert W. Paul—Professor of Biology, St. Bob Lewis—Executive Director, St. Mary’s Mary’s College of Maryland and board River Watershed Association member St. Mary’s River Watershed Association Sue Veith—Senior Environmental Planner, St. Mary’s County Department of Land Use and Growth Management
Committee Members:
Joseph Anderson—President, St. Mary’s Dudley Lindsley—Director, Potomac River River Watershed Association Association Jim Hardin—Citizen volunteer Daniel Branigan—Associate Vice President Daryl Calvano—Environmental Health of Planning and Facilities, St. Mary’s Director, St. Mary’s County Health College of Maryland Department Henry Miller—Historic St. Mary’s City Carrie Decker—Maryland Department of Amy Henderson—Professor of Natural Resources Environmental Economics, St. Mary’s
Robin Finnacom—Acting Director, St. College of Maryland Mary’s County Department of Economic Allison Rugila—Program Coordinator, St. Development Mary’s River Watershed Association Jon Grimm—former county zoning Tom Russell—Southern Maryland Electric administrator, Inc. Cooperative John Groeger—Deputy Director, St. Mary’s Mary Ann Scott—Communications Director, County Department of Public Works and St. Mary’s River Watershed Association Transportation Sheryl Skrabacz—Environmental Health Patricia Cole III—St. Mary’s River Officer, St. Mary’s County Health Watershed Association Department Larry Hartwick, Supervisor of Design and Jacqueline Smith—Patuxent Naval Air Construction, St. Mary’s County Public Station Schools Christopher Tanner—Professor of Biology, Megan Hession—Student Intern, Coordinator St. Mary’s College of Maryland of the Public Process Kenneth Gill—Program Director, St. Mary’s ______—St. Mary’s County River Watershed Association Metropolitan Commission Rebecca Wolf—Citizen Volunteer Daniel Ichniowski—Former Director, St. Bruce Young—St. Mary’s County Soil Mary’s County Metropolitan Conservation District Commission 2—CONTRIBUTORSSECTION THE TO WATERSHEDCHARACTERIZATION
2-1 UPDATE CONTRIBUTORS!!
CONTRIBUTORS TO THE WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
Coordination, staff, and funding needed to create this document was provided by the St. Mary’s River Watershed Association.
Additional funding and support was provided by the Board of County Commissioners for St. Mary’s County: James R. Guy, President; Tom Jarboe; Michael L. Hewitt; John E. O’Conner; and Todd B. Morgan
Additional staff support was provided by the St. Mary’s County Departments of Land Use and Growth Management and Public Works and Transportation, and St. Mary’s College of Maryland.
Technical support and assistance was provided by Science Applications International Company (EMA), Loiederman Soltesz Associates, St. Mary’s College of Maryland.
Financial assistance provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended,
administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). A report of the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program, Department of Natural Resources pursuant to NOAA Award No. A06NOS4190237.
Additional funding provided by the Chesapeake Bay Trust Stewardship Grant program, The Boeing Company, and Liberty Home Builder.
Although this project is funded by a partnership, the opinions expressed are those of the WRAS Steering Committee and the St. Mary’s River Watershed Association.
Print format of this document is on 100% recycled paper. This and other referenced documents can be found online or downloaded from www.StMarysRiver.org. Copies on CD-R can be requested from St. Mary’s River Watershed Association, PO Box 94, St. Mary’s City, MD 20686. 2—CONTRIBUTORSSECTION THE TO WATERSHEDCHARACTERIZATION 100% 2-2 INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
The 1998 Maryland Unified Watershed Assessment identified areas of high priority for restoration and con- servation based on natural resource value and waterway impairment. The Assessment was conducted by the En- vironmental Protection Agency’s Clean Water Action Plan initiative, the Maryland Department of the Environ- ment, Agriculture and Planning, and the University of Maryland. Given the findings of this assessment, local governments have been developing and implementing Watershed Restoration Action Strategies (WRAS) to ad- dress restoration and conservation needs in the high priority watersheds, such as the St. Mary’s River watershed. Activist Bernie Fowler along with other former public officials, fishing organizations, and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation filed a lawsuit in the district court of the District of Columbia, in January 2009, against the EPA claiming that EPA had failed to take adequate measures to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay. [Fowler et al v US Environmental Protection Agency] In May 2010 the parties reach a settlement that would establish a strin- gent Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load (TMDL), putting in place an effective implementation frame- work, expanding its review of Chesapeake Bay watershed permits, and initiating rulemaking for new regulations for concentrated animal feeding operations and urban and suburban stormwater. In May 2010, the EPA an- nounced the federal strategy to clean up the Bay that requires establishment and implementation of a Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load (TMDL) – a comprehensive program for controlling point- and non-point source pollution throughout the watershed. The EPA set up a system of accountability and tracking, established biannual milestones, and required and reviewed state watershed implementation plans (WIPs). Additionally, the EPA pledged to enforce federal consequences for non-compliance. The establishment of the Bay TMDL and subsequent WIPs altered the focus of watershed plans away from the WRAS process to the jurisdictional-based WIPs. Regardless, since the St. Mary’s River watershed lies entire- ly within St. Mary’s County, the local entity charged with local implementation of the Bay TMDL, this Charac- terization and WRAS provides valuable insight and information for development of a county-wide WIP. Imple- mentation requires funding and this WRAS document provides an additional competitive advantage when apply- ing for and securing funding. This Characterization Report of the St. Mary’s River Watershed was prepared by the collaborative efforts of the St. Mary’s River Watershed Association, Inc., in partnership with St. Mary’s County Government, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, St. Mary’s College of Maryland, local government agencies and businesses, and Historic St. Mary’s City. This report was produced through grant funding received in FY 2009 from the Na- tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Chesapeake Bay Trust Stewardship program, in addition to monies pledged by the Boeing Company and Liberty Home Builder in affiliation with the St. Mary’s River Wa- tershed Association.
SECTION 3—INTRODUCTIONSECTION 1-1 LOCATION
The St. Mary’s River Watershed, which is contained significantly along Route 235 in the Lexington Park in the southeastern quarter of St. Mary’s County and Development district. These substantial increases in located in the Potomac River basin, hosts a network of urbanization are reflected in the health of local forests small creeks and tributaries which drain into a tidal and streams in the watershed. estuary, the St. Mary’s River. The St. Mary’s River watershed is comprised of 174 miles (280 km) of streams which feed into the upper reaches of the St. Mary’s River. The St. Mary’s River extends down- St. Mary’s River Watershed stream to St. George’s Island and Kitt’s Point where it Acreage Summary joins the lower Potomac River, which then flows into the Chesapeake Bay. The boundary of the watershed is MDP 2002 Land Use/Land Area shown on Map 1 and 2. Nearly half of St. Mary’s Land Water Total County residents live within the St. Mary’s River water- shed and in recent years this population has increased 35,230 3,220 38,450
PURPOSE OF CHARACTERIZATION
This Characterization report was prepared as part of the St. Mary’s River Watershed Restoration Action Strate- gy (WRAS), identifying the current status of the watershed. This plan presents a snapshot of the watershed in terms of its environmental issues, natural resources, and human development, needs, and impacts. By providing a solid baseline of environmental issues, associated plans and legislation, realistic restoration goals can be estab- lished. Additionally, this plan serves as a comprehensive summary of the watershed for the local government, businesses and residents.
IDENTIFYING GAPS IN INFORMATION
….
SECTION 3—INTRODUCTIONSECTION 1-2 Heritage: History of Human Interactions with the Watershed
The current condition of the St. Mary’s River Despite its predominantly rural nature, few and its tributaries cannot be comprehended aspects of the watershed or the St. Mary’s fully without some understanding of the River can be considered “natural,” or human activities that occurred in the unchanged . This section briefly reviews the watershed over the previous four centuries. history of human habitation and the impacts Human interaction with the environment from of land use on estuarine resources and early colonial times until the present have vegetation. influenced our drainage system greatly.
Prehistoric Peoples (ca. 11,000 B. C. to 1600 A.D.)
Prior to the arrival of European settlers, Native for white tailed deer, and to drive deer in hunting. Americans inhabited the St. Mary’s area for more Data from other areas of the Chesapeake suggest than 12,000 years — from ca. 11,000 that prehistoric peoples began using regular B.C. to 1600 A.D. Archaeological research has burning as a means of forest management as divided this broad time span into three major much as 6000 years ago. Hence, even the forests segments — the Paleo-Indian Period (11,000 encountered by the first Maryland colonists were B.C. to 8000 B.C.), the Archaic Period (8000 not, as they assumed, a reflection of purely B.C. to 1000 B.C.), and the natural conditions. Woodland Period (1000 B.C. Although the early inhabitants With the arrival of agriculture to 1600 A.D.). Each period is and Chesapeake Indians of around 900 A.D., the defined by general cultural Chesapeake Indians began to traits, environmental the St. Mary’s watershed clear land for food production, conditions and key artifacts, employing a sustainable form (primarily stone projectile cleared small forested areas of agriculture based on the use points and ceramics). The for hunting and agriculture, of hoes, slash and burn Archaic and Woodland methods and long fallow periods are divided into a their land-use practices made periods. With this agrarian number of sub-periods no appreciable changes to the method only small land areas thought to reflect changes in were in production at any cultural development. ecosystems.
given time. There was some The most ancient intensification of agriculture in evidence for humans found thus far in this area is the period between ca. 1200 and 1600 A.D., but a Clovis spear point from ca. 11,000 years ago given its small scale and methodology, it had no discovered near the mouth of the St. Mary’s. measurable impact on the overall forested There is abundant evidence of people residing environment. along the river in the subsequent Archaic period We only know the name of the most recent with even more sites during the Woodland group of indigenous people to have lived on the period. During these periods, it is unlikely St. Mary’s, the Yaocomico Indians. It is difficult humans had a significant effect upon the to determine their population at the time of the environment, with one exception — the use of first settlers in the 1630s, but it estimated to have fire to manage the forest understory, facilitate been no more than 500 people. travel, stimulate the growth of browse vegetation SECTION 3—HERITAGESECTION 3-1 Colonial to Present Days (ca. 1630-2008)
The St. Mary’s River — where Lord modest industrial complex did, however, arise at Baltimore’s colony began in 1634 — is one of the a place named Great Mills. most historically significant Poor agricultural practices, the locations in Maryland. Along the The founding site for impact of the American Revolution, river, colonists built Fort St. and destruction by the British in the Maries, the first Governor's house, religious freedom in the War of 1812 affected residents of a Catholic chapel and the homes of nation and Maryland’s the St. Mary’s River, causing some the early settlers. The site became to depart to new land in Kentucky the capital for the colony from its first capital, the St. and elsewhere. Throughout the founding until 1695, when the Mary’s River watershed 1800s and the first three-quarters of government was moved to the 1900s, the river area remained Annapolis. It is where the first remained largely rural rural with little population growth. government policy of religious until the advent of the freedom and non-establishment of The U.S. Census data provides a religion was employed in the New Patuxent River Naval good indication of the county’s World. The St. Mary’s River also stable population. From the first Air Station. saw development of the first census in 1790 until the onset of tobacco plantations in the colony, World War II, the population of St. as settlers gradually moved from Fort St. Mary’s Mary’s County changed little. In 1790, there were in 1636 or 1637. In 1668, the first incorporated 15,544 residents; in 1940, there were 14,626. city in Maryland was established here. Another Over that 150-year period, the lowest population notable historical aspect of occurred in 1820 after the the river is that the first trauma of the War of 1812, industrial activity in the with only 12,794 county colony occurred along it, residents; the peak beginning with a water occurred in 1900 with mill in the 1630s, the first 17,182 residents. large scale brick Dramatic changes to the manufacture, and the county began in 1942 with attempt to make iron in the th the construction of the mid-17 -century. And it Patuxent River Naval Air was on the St. Mary’s
Station. Initially, most River that the craft of impacts were restricted to printing began in all of the newly emerging Lexington Park area, but by English America outside of Boston. the 1960s, population growth, residential Following the departure of the provincial construction, and economic development began government in 1695 and the movement of the to intrude on the St. Mary’s River drainage. One county government to Leonardtown in 1708, element was the expansion of military research urban life ceased along the St. Mary’s River, and and development activities at Webster Field on it became a rural landscape. Large plantations, St. Inigoes Creek. Even more significant was the middling family farms, the quarters of enslaved construction of new housing along the shorelines Africans and later African Americans, and poor of the river, intensive commercial and residential tenant farms dotted a landscape of tobacco, corn, development in the Lexington Park area, and the and wheat fields, pastures and scrub land. A beginning of dramatic growth of St. Mary’s SECTION 3—HERITAGESECTION 3-2 Human usage of the St. Mary River Drainage in History
It is essential to recognize that the current the St. Mary’s River in the past centuries once conditions are a consequence of long-term natural sustained a rich and vibrant benthic community, processes and roughly four centuries of human significantly different from today. actions. What was the river like in past centuries, Because the St. Mary’s river drainage was when did major changes occur in its nature and covered by dense forests for thousands of years, what caused these changes? nutrient inflows were stable and sedimentation When the first settlers arrived, the watershed rates low. The farming methods of Native was covered by forests, except for the areas Americans — shifting and letting fields lie fallow farmed or burned by the and slash-and-burn methods — Yaocomico peoples. During the would have added little to the 17th century, settlement was input of nutrients or sediment into restricted to the lower, tidal the St. Mary’s River. Early portion of the river, while the English colonists adapted these upper drainage area above Great same agrarian methods, using Mills remained forested. As tract hoes for the production of corn maps developed by Historic St. and tobacco. Human impacts on Mary’s City reveal, it was not the river ecosystem were until the 18th century that settlers negligible until farming cleared the inland forests on transitioned to the plow. lands suitable for agriculture. Although plows were present Due to the varied topography of from the early 1600’s, the interior areas, however, it is likely aboriginal method of hoe that many of the slopes and agriculture was still more watercourses remained covered efficient due to the extensive root by vegetation. systems of ancient, massive trees. Archaeological evidence from St. Mary’s The human population grew rapidly after the City shows that the river contained a diversity of mid-1600s, but reliance upon these agricultural wildlife. The most common fish were benthic- method would have created only a modest oriented species, especially the sheepshead, red increases of nutrients and silt into the estuarine drum, and black drum. Other species included environment. The major consequence was a shift white perch, sturgeon, and sea trout. Today, the in the composition of the terrestrial vegetation,
sheepshead and Atlantic sturgeon species are with an increase in successional species, such as nearly extinct in the Chesapeake, while drums are pine and ragweed, in fallow fields at the expense rare in the St. Mary’s. Abundant oyster shell of slower growth oak, hickory and other deposits indicate that Eastern oysters were hardwoods (REFERENCE HERE)1. prevalent in the river. Clam deposits are absent In the late 1700s, especially after the here, indicating that they were never a significant Revolutionary War, economic factors caused species. Attached organisms, or epifauna, on Southern Maryland growers to shift from tobacco oyster shells include various sponges, oyster to more intensive grain production.2 Larger mudworms, and barnacles. In some archeological areas of soil were left exposed each year, samples, oyster spat are common, suggesting that
1 2 Marks, Bayly Ellen. "Skilled Blacks in Antebellum St. Mary's County, Maryland." Journal of Southern History 53 (1987): 537-64. 3—HERITAGESECTION 3-3
Human usage of the St. Mary’s River Drainage in History continued
significantly increasing in the quantities of ments in agriculture and some reforestation in the sediment and nutrients entering the rivers and river area may have reduced the level of creeks of the region. This nutrient enrichment sedimentation slightly in the later 19th century. may have initially enhanced the The move to plow-based biological productivity of the The switch to plow- agriculture around the turn of the estuarine environment. The upper 19th century produced the first courses of streams likely captured a based agriculture significant anthropogenic substantial amount sediment, but with around the 1800s changes in the natural environ- major storm events silt would have resulted in large ment of the St. Mary’s River. been flushed into the main stem of Eutrophication of the river the river. In this regard, the amounts of sediments occurred, increasing primary development of millworks in the and nutrients entering biological productivity. Great Mills area may have helped the river. Then during reduce siltation in the river to some After the Civil War, major the 1800s, over- extent, since the mill ponds would commercial exploitation of have acted as unintentional sediment harvesting of oysters oysters began. This included traps. Nevertheless, severe storm reduced the amount of exploitation of the St. Mary’s River. Late 19th-century oyster events would have inundated the filtration occurring in benthic communities in the river with maps indicate that the river sediment. In some places, such as in the waters. contained a number of Horseshoe Bay at St. Mary’s City, the productive oyster bars and reefs, bottom may have been covered with silt. but over-harvesting in the late 1800s reduced this Archeological evidence from the Tolle-Tabbs vital element of the ecosystem — the filter site, inhabited in the first half of the 19th century, feeders that had helped reduce the negative suggests this. In its food-bone sample, there is consequences of excess nutrients and sediment. for the first time at any St. Mary’s City site an Even so, into the mid to late 20th century, the St. absence of once common benthic species, Mary’s River remained an important area for seed including sheepshead and drum, and the oyster production. dominance of pelagic fish. Gradual improve-
SECTION 3—HERITAGESECTION 3-4 Vegetation Changes in the St. Mary’s River Drainage
Core sampling conducted at two sites in the Over the past 5000 years, there was little St. Mary’s River basin provides historical data change to the forest composition in St. Mary’s about the terrestrial vegetation that previously City, retaining a mixed deciduous forest with occurred here. One site, known as the Aud site, is some conifers species. Oak and hickory were the located just downstream from where Route 5 most abundant trees, with maple, river birch, crosses the St. Mary’s River.3 Based upon beech, ash, and sweet gum as major elements of radiocarbon dating, the Aud core sample extends the forest. Walnut, red cedar, some pine, and, back 6380 years. The second core sampling site , perhaps, chestnut were present in low frequen- which is in St. Johns Pond at St. Mary’s City, cies. Chestnut, a poor pollen producer, was dates back 5339 years.4 probably more common than the pollen samples suggest. At the Aud site the oldest layer contains pollen from Over 4000 years ago, St. John’s hemlock, likely a remnant of Pond had a cattail marsh along vegetation from the much Photo of cores?? its shores. Before approximately colder proceeding era. That 2000 B.C., brackish to salt water sample also contains cedar, had intruded into the pond area, alder, birch and walnut, supported by the presence of indicating that a marsh Mercenaria mollusk fragments. environment did not exist there The greatest change in the pollen 6000 years ago. Higher in the record is associated with the core, however, in layers arrival of Europeans in 1634. deposited after 2500 B.C., there The primary changes were a is clear evidence that a marsh decline in oak and hickory and had developed by the presence increases in pine, ragweed, pigweed of cattail, sedge and other marsh plants. (chenopodium) and grasses. One significant Development of the marsh was likely related to feature of the pollen record at St. Mary’s is that sea-level rise, which occurred with the warming pigweed increased greatly around the time of climate. Archeological evidence confirms that the colonization but declined suddenly in the early Potomac River had estuarine conditions by 3000 19th century. Palynologist Grace Brush suggests B.C., affirming the presence of marsh vegetation that the increase in pigweed was associated with in the lower St. Mary’s River in that period.5 the slash-and-burn and long-fallow agriculture The pollen in the Aud site core from around methods used during the 17th and much of the 18th 500 A. D., revealed that holly was abundant, oak centuries. In contrast, ragweed significantly and black gum were common, and cinnamon fern, increased in the early 19th-century. It can be goldenrod, and arrowwood were present. The associated with broad-scale land disturbance, topmost layers contained large quantities of pine which is consistent with the transition to plow and ragweed, indicating that these were deposited agriculture in the late 1700s or early 1800s. after plow agriculture was underway.
3Brush, Grace S. and Shaomin Yuan. "Pollen Analysis at the Aud Site and Pete’s Bog. Appendix III to Phase III Data Recovery at the Aud Site (Site 18ST634)." St. Mary's County, Maryland. Maryland Routes 5 and 246 Wetlands Mitigation Area. (SHA Report no. 111. John Milner Associates, Inc., 1995). 4 Kraft, J.C and G.S. Brush. "A geological-paleo environmental analysis of sediments on St. John's Pond and the Nearshore Zone near Howard's Ware at St. Mary's City, Maryland. (Department of Geology, University of Dela- SECTION 3—HERITAGESECTION ware, 1981). 5 3-5 (Potter 1992). Historic Sedimentation Rates in the St. Mary’s River
As described above, the historical record Although these data come from marsh or provides strong evidence of changes in land use pond settings, the deposition rates reflect the silt and one can suggest the consequences of this on potentially entering the river itself. At the Aud the estuarine environment. One consequence is site the sedimentation rate before ca 500 A.D. sediment deposition. While sedimentation is a was only 0.005 cm/year. From ca. 500 to 1600, it normal geological process, human activities can rose to 0.03 cm/year. From the 1600s through have a major influence on the extent of 1700s, it was 0.05 cm/year.7,8 At St. Mary’s City deposition. The analysis of the core samples at in the millennia before English colonization, the the Aud and St. Mary’s sites has also provided rate was 0.14 cm/year,10,11 higher than at Aud measurements of the annual deposition rate. during the that time period. The difference is probably explained by the presence of Chesa- The sedimentation rates on the St. Mary’s peake Indian settlements at St. Mary’s City, as River reflect this changing land use, as seen from indicated by archaeology. In the 17th and 18th the core sample data (Table 3-1). Research with centuries, deposition at St. Mary’s was 0.25 cm/ census records has shown that in Southern year. During this period, human occupation was Maryland in the early 1700s, about 1.4% of the more intense at St. Mary’s than near the Aud site. land was used for the annual tobacco crop. By the With the rise of plow agriculture, the rate at St. 1770s, this rose to 3.6% .6 With the shift to grain Mary’s City increased still further, to 0.4 and 0.65 production, the amount of land used annually for cm/year, confirming that the sedimentation rate agriculture increased greatly — to nearly 40% by into the St. Mary’s River changed significantly the 1830s. over time in relation to methods of land use.
Table 3-1. Annual Sedimentation Rates From Core Samples on the St. Mary’s River. The sed- imentation rates on the St. Mary’s River reflect changing land use and changing farming prac- tices. 7,8
Time Period Aud Site St. Mary’s City
Pre 500 A.D. 0.005 cm/yr — Ca. 500-1600 A.D. 0.03 cm/yr 0.14 cm/yr Ca. 1600-1800 A.D. 0.05 cm/yr 0.25 cm/yr
Post 1820s 0.08 cm/yr 0.65 cm/yr
6 Froomer, N.L. "Geomorphic change in some western shore estuaries during the historic times." Unpublished the- sis, p. 225. (Johns Hopkins University, 1978). 7(Brush, 1991) 8 Brush, Grace S. 1996. Pollen Analysis of a Sediment Core from the Vicinity of the Aud Site, St. Mary’s County, Maryland. In Reese, Stuart A., Peter E. Siegel, et al. Phase III Data Recovery at the Aud Site (18ST634), St. Mary’s County, Maryland. Maryland State Highway Administration Archaeological Report 111. 9 Kraft, John C. and Grace S. Brush. 1981. A Geological-Paleoenvironmental Analysis of the Sediments in St. John’s Pond and the Nearshore Zone near Howard’s Wharf at St. Mary’s City, Maryland. Report prepared for Historic St. Mary’s City. Manu- script on File, Research Laboratory. Historic St. Mary’s City. 10 (Kraft and Brush 1989) SECTION 3—HERITAGESECTION 3-6 Determining Historical Ecological Change to the River: An Analysis of Oyster Shells
Given the increased sediment and nutrients regarding land use and harvesting intensity. entering the tributaries and St. Mary’s River, how did the biotic community in the St. Mary’s River These are: respond to these changes? One way to address 1. (ca. 1600 – 1760) Era of Hoe-based these questions is to examine the St. Mary’s River Agriculture, oysters collected from well-dated archaeological contexts. Due to the substantial level of 2. (ca. 1760-1860) Plow Based Agriculture archaeological research in the area, samples of and Limited Oystering shells dating from prehistory up to the present are 3. (ca. 1860-1920s) Era of Intensive available. Oysters can serve as sensors in an Commercial Oystering estuarine environment and reflect the changes that occur within it. Shell shape, growth rates, 4. (ca. 1920s – 2002) Estuarine Degradation isotopic content, and attached epifauna, for example, can provide insights into past We assume that the Chesapeake Bay conditions. remained in a relatively stable condition for Biologist Michael Kirby and Henry Miller centuries due to a forest-covered drainage, and a conducted an analysis of oyster shell samples massive population of filter feeders, especially from 24 St. Mary’s and Patuxent River sites in an oysters, that consumed much of the phytoplank- effort to examine the issues ton, especially diatoms, their of eutrophication and shifts PHOTO OF OYSTER SHELLS preferred food. In such a in the estuarine environ- situation, nutrients were ment.11 Shell growth rates converted into biomass, were one key data set removed from the water column collected by measuring by filter feeders that in turn shell length, shell thickness supported a rich marine fauna. and the surface area Our study hypothesized that covered by the abductor oysters would initially respond muscle, and determining the to the nutrient enrichment age of each oyster from caused by the greater growth ring analysis. sedimentation from plow Samples dating between the agriculture by an increase in early 17th-century and the growth. However, eutrophica- early 21st-century were tion continued to expand as used. Samples from sites commercial fishing began along the lower portion of the Patuxent River removing the majority of the Bay’s shellfish were studied to provide comparative data. population, and growth would begin to decline due to degrading conditions, such as the onset of Shell samples were divided into four damaging algae blooms and hypoxia. temporal phases, based upon historical evidence
11Kirby, M., and Miller, H. “Response of a benthic suspension feeder (Crassostrea virginica Gmelin) to three cen- turies of anthropogenic eutrophication in Chesapeake Bay.” Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science, 62:679-689.
(2005). 3—HERITAGESECTION
3-7 An Analysis of Oyster Shells continued
The shells reveal notable changes (Table This evidence fits with the fact that the St. 3-2). In both the St. Mary’s and the Patuxent, a Mary’s River was still considered an important significant increase in oyster growth occurred source of seed oysters by the Maryland during the initial eutrophication period between Department of Natural Resources into the later the late 18th century and mid 19th century. The 20th century. Shellfish data reveals notable increase was approximately one third greater changes over time related to variations in growth compared to pre-plowing times. In both estuarine conditions that are ultimately linked to drainages, the growth declined in the post-Civil the nature of terrestrial land use. The later 20th- War era. The decline is likely due to a very century shell evidence matches the findings of the substantial increase in nutrient inputs (this is recent monitoring conducted by the St. Mary’s based on analysis of nutrient levels in sediments River project, indicating that excessive eutrophi- from cores taken in the Chesapeake Bay by cation is not as serious a problem here as is found Zimmerman and Canuel (2002), and overharvest- in some other drainages. However, the Dermo ing of filter feeder species. The oyster shell disease has taken a toll, along with continued evidence shows similar responses by oysters in harvesting, leaving only a tiny remnant the St. Mary’s and Patuxent from the time of population of the once abundant oyster in the St. initial colonial settlement until the early 20th- Mary’s River. century. However, in the post-1920 period, the The fact that the oysters responded to Patuxent and St. Mary’s data sets differ. Oyster eutrophication by higher shell and soft tissue growth rates on the Patuxent continue to decline growth rates shows that they were consuming a while they return to early colonial rates on the St. portion of the greater primary biological Mary’s. This may be due to a relatively stable production occurring in the river as a result of human population in the St. Mary’s area until late more nutrient inputs. By removing this organic in the century and reforestation of substantial matter, the oysters helped reduce the negative portions of the St. Mary’s River drainage in the effects of initial eutrophication. They also made 20th-century, with the consequent reduction of this increased biomass available to their predators nutrient and sediment inputs. On the Patuxent, and other species higher in the food chain. The however, ongoing agriculture, the increase of concept that shellfish and other filter feeding residential populations and nutrient inputs from species had a key role in maintaining the sewage and other sources is the likely reason biological stability of the Chesapeake estuary by oyster growth in that river continued a downward preventing the accumulation of excess organic trend. matter is well established.13,14
Table 3-2. Oyster shell growth in height by time on the St. Mary’s and Patuxent from Kirby and Miller (2005). Shell Height (mm/year) by 1600-1760 1760-1860 1860-1920 1920-2002 River St. Mary’s 25.3 37.3 20.0 24.8 Patuxent 23.5 34.3 24.1 16.9
12Zimmerman, Andrew R., and Elizabeth A. Canuel. "Sediment geochemical records of eutrophication in the mesohaline Chesapeake Bay." Limnol, Oceanogr. 47: 1084-1093. (2002). SECTION 3—HERITAGESECTION 3-8 An Analysis of Oyster Shells continued
Throughout prehistory, the colonial period fact that this growth did not continue, despite and the early Federal era (c1800), the Chesapeake continual increases in the amount of nutrients Bay had a biotic system in which the phytoplank- entering the water and thus even more abundant ton suspended in the water column were food, points to other factors, especially the shift consumed in large part by suspension feeding in trophic systems from plankton- and filter species in the benthic environment. This feeder-based to one dominated by bacteria. This prevented the accumulation of unused organic indicates that the health of the Chesapeake is matter and kept bacterial activity at a reduced largely dependent upon the presence of huge level. However, when the oyster populations numbers of filter feeders, especially the oyster. were decimated in the later 19th- and early 20th- Archaeology and history provide a century, this controlling element was severely 15 valuable picture of the St. degraded. Mary’s River in previous Research indicates that this centuries and the amazingly rich led to a change in the basic bounty it once offered. This structure, or trophic system, of summary is a very cursory the Bay to one where bacteria PHOTO review of a large quantity of consumed the accumulated evidence and research. organic material and the It is obvious that the decline environment became dominated of biological productivity in the by microbes.14,16 These algae St. Mary’s River is very recent blooms become more common when compared to this long and potentially harmful to record. Reestablishment of a oysters. The microbial healthy benthic community, decomposition of the unused including SAV, control of organic matter removes oxygen nutrient inputs, intensive from the water column, leading repopulation of filter feeders of to episodes of hypoxia.17 This shift to a bacteria- various species, and a moratorium on harvesting dominated ecology is directly related to are appropriate steps for maintaining and even degradation of estuaries. restoring the St. Mary’s River to some small The St. Mary’s oyster study is the first to reflection of its past abundance. Unlike many demonstrate with data directly from the historic estuaries, the St. Mary’s is not totally degraded period of initial nutrient enrichment that shellfish and has many features that could allow it to were indeed responding by removing a portion of recapture some of this lost productivity, the greater biological production from the water, especially in the form of the vital benthic filter as reflected in their enhanced growth. But the feeders.
13 Newell RIE. "Ecological changes in Chesapeake Bay: are they the result of overharvesting the eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica)?" Chesapeake Research Consortium 129: 536–546 (1988). 14Jackson et al Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293:629–637. (2001). 15Rothschild, B.J. et. al. "Decline in the Chesapeake Bay oyster population: A century of habitat destruction and overfishing." Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 111: 29–39. (1994). 16Jonas, R. "Bacteria, dissolved organics and oxygen consumption in salinity stratified Chesapeake Bay, an anoxia paradigm." Amer. Zool. 37:612-620. (1997). 17Paerl, H.W. et. al. "Ecosystem responses to internal and watershed organic matter loading: Consequences for hypoxia in the eutrophying Neuse River Estuary." Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser. 166: 17–25. (1998). SECTION 3—HERITAGESECTION 3-9 WATER QUALITY
In essence, the preservation and restoration of the water quality and aquatic ecosystems of the St. Mary’s River and its tributaries are the raison d'être for this watershed characterization. In this section we present an in depth review of water quality and the status of stream ecosystems the St. Mary’s River watershed. We begin with an overview of the Clean Water Act of 1972, since this act provides the framework for assessing water quality assessment and for corrective measures when waters do not meet usage standards.
The Federal Clean Water Act, Water Quality Standards, and Designated Uses
The Clean Water Act is the primary federal law bodies in Maryland are assigned a designated use, protecting our nation's lakes, rivers, and coastal which is recorded in the Code of Maryland areas. In establishing a comprehensive framework Regulations, COMAR 26.08.02.08.1 Waters in of standards required of states, municipalities, the St. Mary’s River watershed are categorized as and industries, the Clean Water Act: Use I or Use II: Use I waters must be “swimmable and requires municipalities and major industries fishable,” being designated for water-contact to meet performance standards to ensure recreation and protection of aquatic life. pollution control; Where the St. Mary’s River becomes a tidal charges states and tribes with setting specific estuary, the water also must be safe for Use water quality criteria appropriate for their II, which includes shellfish harvesting. waters and developing pollution control programs to meet them; The Clean Water Act (sections 303(d), 305(b) provides funding to states and communities and 314) requires that states identify waters that to help them meet their clean water do not meet the water quality standards for their infrastructure needs; and designated uses. Accordingly, Maryland submits protects wetlands and other aquatic habitats a biennial report describing the State’s efforts to through a permitting process that ensures monitor, assess, track, and restore its waters. development and other activities are These reports, the latest of which is the 2014 conducted in an environmentally sound Draft Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality manner. in Maryland, identify waters not supporting their designated use. These waters are listed as In accordance with these guidelines, all water impaired under the Clean Water Act section 303 (d)2 and, therefore, are included on the 303(d) list.
1Code of Maryland Regulations: www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/ 2 2012 Draft Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality in Maryland , 2012 Draft Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality in Maryland
SECTION 4—WATERSECTION QUALITY 4-1 Use Impairments (Non-supporting Uses)
Impaired waters are prioritized and, depending upon the severity of the problem, may require a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), which is the maximum amount of pollutant a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards and designated uses. Information considered in prioritizing impaired waters’ restorative actions includes the severity of the problem, the threat to human health and to resources of high value, and the understanding of the causes and remedies.1
Impaired Waters in St. Mary’s River Watershed Nutrients: The tidal St. Mary’s River was
identified as impaired by total nitrogen and St. Mary’s River and tributaries phosphorus on the 1996 303(d) list.4 Due to 2008 changes in segmentation, this listed Biological Impairment: Sections of the first portion of the St. Mary’s River Basin is now through fourth order streams in the non-tidal included under the Lower Potomac River St. Mary’s River watershed have been Mesohaline Chesapeake Bay Tidal Basin.5 identified as impaired for aquatic life and The source of these nutrients was listed as wildlife since 2002. The 2014 Draft agricultural but development of a TMDL is Integrated Report2 lists approximately 29% of still low priority as of 2012. Seasonal deep stream miles as impaired. The sources of water fish and shellfish and seasonal deep impairment are still unknown. These streams channel refuge use subcategories are still are shown in Figure 1. impacted. pH: The tidal St. Mary’s River was first Sediment: The St. Mary’s River was listed as impaired by low pH in the 2014 identified as impaired by sediment on the Draft Integrated Report,21 and requires a 1996 303(d) list.21 The source of total TMDL. Although it is suggested that low pH suspended sediment is unknown. The is a major stressor affecting the biotic designated use subcategory affected is community, it is a low priority for TMDL seasonal shallow-water submerged aquatic development. The source of this acidity has vegetation. It is also a low priority for been attributed to atmospheric deposition. TMDL development. Due to the areas natural soil and geology, the Bacteria Impairment: Three streams ability of streams to neutralize this low designated for shellfish usage (now included acidity is reduced.3
1 Maryland Department of the Environment. TMDL home page. www.mde.state.md.us/tmdl/. Accessed September 2008. 2 Maryland Department of the Environment. The 2014 Draft Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality in Maryland. http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/ TMDL/Integrated303dReports/Pages/2014IR.aspx. Accessed December 2014. 3 Watershed Report for Biological Impairment of Non-Tidal St. Mary’s River Watershed, St. Mary’s County, Maryland Biological Stressor Identification Analysis Results and Interpretation. 2014. MDE. http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/TMDL/Documents/BSID_Reports/St_Marys_BSID_Report_031314.pdf. Accessed December 2014. 4 Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Water Quality Newsletter for the Potomac River Tributaries of St. Mary’s County. April 2008. Pub 12-4142008-300. 5 Rowe, Matthew. Maryland Department of the Environment. Personal communication. December 2008 and January 2009.
SECTION 4—WATERSECTION QUALITY 4-2 Use Impairments (Non-supporting Uses) continued
in the Potomac River Mesohaline Chesapeake Bay tidal segment) have been impaired by St. Mary’s Lake fecal coliforms since 1996 — Locust Grove Mercury: Tissue samples of fish taken from Cove, St. Inigoes Creek and Carthagena St. Mary’s Lake show high levels of methyl Creek.6, 7 mercury due to atmospheric deposition and In 2005, the Environmental Protection bioaccumulation of mercury over time.9 The Agency approved a TMDL for fecal lake remains impaired and has a TMDL coliforms in restricted shellfish harvesting (2012 Integrated Report of Surface Water areas of the St. Mary’s River watershed. In Quality in Maryland). The source of the accordance with the TMDL, Maryland mercury pollution is atmospheric deposition Department of the Environment completed a from the emissions of power plants, Bacterial Source Tracking study, which found municipal waste combustors, medical waste the primary sources were livestock, followed incinerators, cement plants and other by wildlife, pets, failing septic systems and industrial sources from within the watershed, recreational vessels. To reduce fecal coliform as well as from outside Maryland and even levels, the TMDL suggested that Best the United States. The TMDL report lists a Management Practices be implemented in the number of recent and ongoing initiatives watershed. According to the 2012 Draft within Maryland, ranging from voluntary to Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality in regulatory, that involve the phase-out of Maryland, “newer data shows that the mercury usage, industrial handling of shellfish bacteria standard is being met.” In mercury-containing products and wastes, and the 2014 Draft Integrated Report, their was consumer recycling of mercury containing insufficient information in regards to if the products. TMDL was met. Nutrients and Low Dissolve Oxygen: St. PCB: The tidal sub segment of the St. Mary’s Mary’s Lake is listed in the 2012 Integrated River, categorized under the Potomac River Report as impaired for aquatic life and Mesohaline Basin, was listed as impaired for wildlife due to excessive phosphorus (total) fishing due to PCB found in fish tissue in the and low dissolved oxygen. As of the 2014 2012 Integrated Report of Surface Water Draft Integrated report, some of areas in St. Quality in Maryland Report.50 As of the Mary’s Lake have met the TMDL, but overall 2014 Draft Integrated Report, some areas in do not meet the standard. the tidal St. Mary’s River have met the PCB TMDL, but with insufficient information, the St. Mary’s River as a region is still listed as impaired.
6 Maryland Department of the Environment. Total Maximum Daily Loads of Fecal Coliform for Restricted Shellfish Harvesting Areas in the St. Mary's River Basin in St. Mary's County, MD. http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/WaterPrograms/TMDL/ApprovedFinalTMDL/ TMDL_final_stmarysriver_fc.asp Accessed January 2009. 7 Maryland Department of the Environment. The 2008 Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality in Maryland. www.mde.maryland.gov/Programs/ WaterPrograms/TMDL/Maryland/303dlist/ 2008_Final_303d_list Accessed December 2008. 8 2012 Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality in Maryland, Maryland Department of the Environment 9 Environmental Protect Agency. St. Mary’s Lake Mercury TMDL web page. http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/tmdl/MD_TMDLs/ MercuryTMDLs/St.MarysLake/index.htm. Accessed January 2009. SECTION 4—WATERSECTION QUALITY 4-3 Figure 4-1. Biological Impairment assessment of the Non-Tidal St. Mary’s River Watershed, using benthic (BIBI) and fish (FIBI) indices of biotic integrity. SECTION 4—WATERSECTION QUALITY
4-4 50Watershed Report for Biological Impairment of Non-Tidal St. Mary’s River Watershed, St. Mary’s County, Maryland Biological Stressor Identification Analysis Results and Interpretation What Causes Water Quality Impairment? Nutrients In Maryland, most water bodies naturally have low levels of the nutrients nitrogen or phosphorus. These nutrients enter waterways from all types of land and from the atmosphere. Nutrient pollution or over-enrichment problems may arise from numerous sources. Residential land can be an important contributor of nutrients depending on fertilizer use, extent of lawn and the status of septic systems. Many farmers carefully manage nutrients using different approaches, so nutrients entering waterways from crop land varies greatly depending on management techniques. Typically, smaller amounts of nutrients reach surface waters from an acre of forest land than from an acre of other types of land use. The atmosphere can contribute various forms of nitrogen arising from the burning of fossil fuels in power plants and other industries, and from automobiles. Suspended Sediment Most unpolluted streams and tidal waters naturally have limited amounts of sediment moving or suspended in the water. Excessive amounts of suspended sediment in waterways are considered pollution because they can inhibit light penetration, prevent plant growth, smother fish eggs, clog fish gills, etc. Sediment in streams tends to arise from stream bed and bank erosion and from land that is poorly vegetated or disturbed. Suspended sediment pollution may arise from construction sites, crop land, bare ground and exposed soil. The amount of sediment contributed varies greatly site to site depending upon stream stability, hydrology, management controls and other factors. Fecal Coliforms The presence of fecal coliform bacteria indicates that fecal waste and other pathogenic bacteria may be present. Typically found in the digestive tract of warm-blooded animals, fecal coliform bacteria are always found in animal waste and human sewage (unless it is treated to kill them). In unpolluted streams and tidal waters, it is common for water samples to contain very few of these bacteria. Water samples exhibiting significantly larger fecal coliform bacteria populations are indicators of contamination by animal, including human, waste. Depending on local conditions, sources of fecal contamination may include any combination of the following: inadequately treated sewage, failing septic systems, wild or domestic animals, storm water carrying pet waste and similar sources. Toxic Substances A wide array of materials may be considered toxic substances because they exhibit poisonous or lethal effects or otherwise harm aquatic life. These materials are very diverse in their sources and effects. Sometimes toxic substances can occur naturally. However, toxic substances of concern for water quality restoration are those types that are the product of human activity. For regulatory purposes, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maintains a list of substances that are considered to be toxic. Examples include heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos and many other materials.
SOURCE: Breton Bay Characterization; October 2001; Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Chesapeake and Coastal Water- shed Service, in partnership with St. Mary’s County and the Town of Leonardtown; page 7 SECTION 4—WATERSECTION QUALITY 4-5 Use Restrictions and Advisories
Fish Consumption
Many fish are safe to eat; however, some fish contain chemicals that may harm children and adults. The Maryland Department of the Environment is responsible for determining how much of a given species caught in Maryland’s waters can be safely consumed. There are statewide advisories for the consumption of small and largemouth bass from all public waters, as well as an advisory on sunfish, including bluegill, from lakes and other impoundments. St. Mary’s Lake has an additional advisory for small and largemouth bass due to high mercury levels. For more information on state and federal fish consumption advisories, please contact MDE or visit the MDE Fish and Shellfish home page, http:// www.mde.state.md.us/programs/marylander/ citizensinfocenterhome/pages/citizensinfocenter/ fishandshellfish/index.aspx.
Shellfish Harvesting Restrictions
Portions of the St. Mary’s River watershed greater than one inch in a twenty-four hour period are affected by shellfish harvesting restrictions. as recorded at the Patuxent River NAS, due to the The Maryland Department of Environment is potential for elevated bacteria levels due to responsible for regulating runoff. Harvesting can shellfish harvest. occur at any time in Shellfish, such as oysters areas designated as and clams, are filter- open or approved. feeders, which means they These areas are filter water through their shown in Map 4 gills in order trap their Designated Uses and food. If the water is Use Restrictions. contaminated with disease Please visit the MDE’s -causing bacteria, the Shellfish Harvesting bacteria are also trapped. Areas Web page for This could pose a possible the most up-to-date health risk if contaminat- information (http:// ed shellfish are eaten.47 www.mde.state.md.us/ Restricted areas are those in which no programs/Marylander/CitizensInfoCenterHome/ harvesting is allowed at any time. In conditional- Pages/CitizensInfoCenter/FishandShellfish/ ly approved areas, harvesting can occur except shellfish_advisory/default.aspx). for the three days following a rain event of SECTION 4—WATERSECTION QUALITY 4-6 What Are the Effects of Nutrient Over-Enrichment On Our Water
Figure 4-2. Eutrophication in estuarine systems.
The productivity of many lakes, estuaries, and coastal marine systems is limited by nutrient availability. The addition of nutrients to these systems increases the productivity of phytoplankton communities, which include the following photosynthetic, single celled organisms: algae, diatoms, dinoflagellates, cyanobacteria, and coccolithophores. These organisms are crucial for sustaining food webs as they are prey for various zooplankton, invertebrates, mammals, and fish. In moderation nutrient enrichment can be beneficial in increasing predator populations by directly increasing phytoplankton abundance. However, most often the consequences of nutrient enrichment are detrimental, resulting in eutrophication of the system.
Eutrophication typically begins with a rapid increase (or bloom) in phytoplankton populations. Nutrients levels, which were previously in excess, in addition to the sunlight availability at the water’s surface, are depleted and no longer support the growing population. This exceeding of the carrying capacity results in high phytoplankton mortality. As dead phytoplankton settle to the bottom of the water column they are broken down by bacteria, thus removing dissolved oxygen from the system during the decomposition process. This large reduction in oxygen is what causes dead zones, areas that have little oxygen (hypoxic) to no oxygen (anoxic). Dead zones are particularly devastating for sedentary, benthic organisms (such as shellfish). Crustaceans and fish can also be affected, depending on the scale and duration of the dead zone.
SECTION 4—WATERSECTION QUALITY 4-8 Eutrophication events also increase competition between phytoplankton of the same or different species, as changes in nutrients, sunlight, and dissolved oxygen favoring some species over others. Favored species are able to out-compete less favored species and results in shifts in phytoplankton community structure. This has implications for predator species as the shift in availability prey can alter predator growth, abundance, and distribution. Changes in planktonic communities also can affect human health as some harmful algal blooms, also known as red or mahogany tides, can cause fish and shellfish kills and shellfish poisoning from high concentrations of algae-produced toxins, or even human rashes and illness from contact with affected waters. These factors as a whole contribute to a loss of biodiversity and ecological structure.
Plankton blooms also reduce the light available to submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), as free- floating plankton and epiphytic plankton effectively shade out the leaves, reducing photosynthesis and causing mortality. SAV die offs facilitate further environmental degradation in terms of water quality and clarity and a reduction in essential nursery habitat for juvenile crustaceans and fish.
PHOTO OF ALGAE BLOOM OR MAP ?
10 National Academy of Sciences. Clean Coastal Waters: Understanding and Reducing the Effects of Nutrient Pollution. National Academy Press. 2000. 11 Nutrient Pollution of Coastal Rivers, Bays, and Seas. Ecological Society of America. Issues in Ecology Fall 2000 (7) SECTION 4—WATERSECTION QUALITY 4-9 Antidegradation — High Quality Waters in St. Mary’s Watershed The Clean Water Act also requires that states adopt an anti-degradation policy to ensure that high quality waters are not degraded without proper social and economic justification. Mary- land’s antidegradation policy places waters in several tiers, depending on their quality.57 Tier I waters should at a minimum meet the designated uses and criteria identified in the state’s water quality standards. Tier II waters are high quality waters and Tier III waters are the highest quali- ty waters, such as Outstanding National Resource Waters.
Thus far, Tier II waters are the highest quality identified in the state, and several have been iden- tified in the St. Mary’s River watershed. Figure 4-3 shows the Tier II waters currently identified in the St. Mary’s River watershed. Figure 4-11 shows Tier II waters mapped in 2008. These in- clude: St. Mary’s River 1, St. Mary’s River UT1(2008), St. Mary’s River UT2 (2008), Hilton Run, Johns Creek, and Warehouse Creek.
More info or photo?
12Maryland Department of the Environment. Maryland's High Quality Waters (Tier II). Antidegredation — High Quality Waters in St. Mary’s Watershed. http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/TMDL/Water%20Quality%20Standards/documents/Tier_II_MapsandTables/ TII_Saint_Marys_CO.pdf. Accessed May 2013.
SECTION 4—WATERSECTION QUALITY 4-10 Figure 4-3. Tier II waters identified in St. Mary’s County. (From Maryland Department of the Environment, Maryland’s High Quality Waters (Tier II): Maps depicting Locations of High Quality Waters by County. http://www.mde.state.md.us/ResearchCenter/Data/waterQualityStandards/Antidegradation/index.asp. Ac- cessed. January 2009. SECTION 4—WATERSECTION QUALITY 4-11 Water Quality Indicators – Setting Priority for Restoration and Protection
In 1998, in compliance with the Clean Water The Results: Action Plan, Maryland completed a state-wide It is important to note that these results are watershed assessment and an action plan for its from 16 years ago. “8-digit” watersheds, Maryland Clean Water Action Plan Final 1998 Report on Unified Overall, the St. Mary's Watershed was 13,14 Watershed Assessment. This plan established classified as a Select Category 3, due to the priorities among the state’s 134 8-digit water- presence of the following natural resources: sheds for restoration and protection. (St. Mary’s A migratory fish spawning area River is an 8-digit watershed.) Over 25% of headwater streams Because aquatic occurring in interior organisms are forests sensitive to changes in water quality, 67% of watershed aquatic habitat, and forested the landscape, 1,459 wild land certain indicator acres (St. Mary's species or indices River, St. Mary's that combine River State Park). ecological factors were used in the However, the Unified Watershed watershed also had Assessment. As four failing such they can be used to point to areas that might indicators, which call to attention the need for need further investigation, protection, or possible remedial actions. The failed indicators restorative actions. were: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Based on these indicators, the watersheds Abundance were classified according to the following SAV Habitat categories: Historic wetland loss (a landscape Priority Category 1 -- not meeting clean parameter), and water or natural resource goals and in Three occurrences on the 303(d) list of need of restoration; the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (clean water requirements). Priority Category 2 -- needing preventa- tive actions to sustain water quality and aquatic life; or While it is best to view the findings from the 1998 Watershed Assessment in combination Select Category 3 -- needing protection to with other assessments of local conditions, the maintain pristine or high quality indicators used in the Unified Watershed resources. Assessment are described in further detail in the following section.
13 Clean Water Action Plan Technical Workgroup. Maryland Clean Water Action Plan. December 1998.www.dnr.state.md.us/cwap/ Accessed January 2009. 14 Maryland Clean Water Action Plan Final 1998 Report on Unified Watershed Assessment, Watershed Prioritization and Plans for Restoration Action Strategies. Dec. 31, 1998. http://www.dnr.state.md.us/cwap/cwap.htm Accessed February 9, 2009. SECTION 4—WATERSECTION QUALITY 4-12 Water Quality Indicators – Setting Priority for Restoration and Protection
Unified Watershed Assessment Indicators and small (first- to third-order) non-tidal streams, is Findings based on measures that rate the quantity and quality of physical habitat available for fish and The following factors were scored on a range from benthic macroinvertebrate colonization and the 1 for most degraded to 10 for the best condition. degree of alteration to the stream channel. Watersheds with scores in the lower 25% receive a Category 1 rating. Low or declining Nontidal Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity: scores reflect both natural disturbances and Score: 7.43 human-induced alterations of the stream Insects, insect larvae, crayfish, and other habitat. The indicator as applied to Coastal creatures living on the bottoms of streams are Plain streams includes five characteristics: in- essential to the functioning of aquatic ecosystems. stream habitat structure, velocity-depth Such benthic (bottom dwelling) organisms are diversity, pool quality, riffle quality, and particularly sensitive to changes in water quality aesthetic quality. and physical habitat. The Benthic Index of Biological Integrity (B-IBI) looks at the benthic The score of 4.75 given the St. Mary's River community and considers the number and watershed suggests natural or human-induced diversity of species and the presence of sensitive alteration in the stream habitat, but the 1998 Watershed Assessment does not provide basin- species. specific information; one could surmise that The St. Mary's River watershed had a B-IBI of aspects of these 5 characters may have been 7.43. Watersheds with a score of 6.0 or greater influenced by land use and land-cover patterns were classified as meeting restoration goals. in the watershed, such as the destruction of riparian forests, an increase in impervious land Nontidal Fish Index of Biotic Integrity: Score: 6.0 cover, channelization, encroachment by livestock, and blockages to fish movement. Indexes of Biotic Integrity (IBIs) for fishes Understanding the specific factors could point were developed for small (first- to third-order) towards the appropriate corrective actions. non-tidal streams, as are found in the St. Mary's River watershed. A fish IBI score was calculated for each sampled stream from measured Migratory Fish Spawning Area: Score: 1 characteristics of the fish community -- the numbers of native species, benthic species, and This indicator -- used in the 1998 Watershed tolerant individuals; the percent of tolerant Assessment to identify watersheds that are species, dominant species, generalists, omnivores, candidates for conservation and protection -- and insectivores; the number of individuals per rates watersheds based on the diversity of square meter; biomass in grams per square meter; spawning habitat for American Shad, Hickory percent of lithophilic spawners; and percent Shad, Alewife, Blueback Herring, White Perch, insectivores. Striped Bass, and Yellow Perch. St. Mary’s was given a score of 1, indicating Scores were reported as means for the sites the presence of one migratory fish, the Yellow within each watershed, with scores of less than 6 Perch. This indicator reflects vulnerability to representing a failed indicator. The St. Mary's human-induced damage and the condition of watershed had a passing score of 6. the resource, such as physical blockages from Non-tidal In-stream Habitat: Score: 4.75 dams and road culverts or water quality impairment, or a combinations of these factors. This physical habitat indicator, developed for SECTION 4—WATERSECTION QUALITY 4-13 Water Quality Monitoring
A large amount of water quality and related the spring. Stream Wader volunteers data has been collected in the St. Mary’s River sampled streams in the St. Mary’s River watershed for over a decade. watershed in 2000 and nearly every year since 2003 (See Map 7 for sampling The Maryland locations). Their results Biological Stream Survey have supplemented (MBSS) of the Maryland MBSS surveys in Department of Natural determining the area’s Resources has been water quality. charged with sampling non-tidal wade-able Additionally, in 1999, streams to determine the St. Mary’s River whether freshwater Project began collecting streams are meeting their water quality data from designated uses under the approximately 25 tidal Clean Water Act. Since and non-tidal stations in 1994, the MBSS has the area. A stream collected data on fish and corridor assessment and benthic macro tidal shoreline survey invertebrate populations was conducted in 2008 in streams, both of which by St. Mary’s College of serve as indicators of Maryland with support water quality for aquatic from DNR, NOAA, and life. They also collect SMRWA. The water chemistry and assessment identified physical habitat data. several potential Using this information, problem sites and stream segments are recorded basic habitat rated as good, fair, poor information.15 St. or very poor, with ratings Mary’s College of of poor and very poor Maryland also completed a synoptic survey being impaired (See Table 4-1 for local stream in 2008 which included water quality ratings and Map 6 for site locations). monitoring and nutrient analysis.60 Data In 2000, the Department of Natural collected by the St. Mary’s River Project is Resources also initiated Maryland Stream summarized in another report, St. Mary’s Waders, a program that involved volunteers in River Water Quality Assessment, and collecting benthic macro invertebrate samples in discussed later in this section.
15 Maryland Department of Natural Resources. MBSS Data Search. mddnr.chesapeakebay.net/mbss/search. Accessed January 2009. 16 Paul, Robert W. St. Mary’s River Stream Corridor Assessment and Tidal Shoreline Survey. September 2008. 48 pages. 17 Paul, Robert W. St. Mary’s River Watershed Synoptic Survey. September 2008. 49 pages.
SECTION 4—WATERSECTION QUALITY 4-15 Water Quality Monitoring continued
Three shore stations monitored by citizens the St. Mary’s River watershed, the county were established by the Alliance for the monitors Sanner’s Lake.21 Chesapeake Bay and St. Mary’s College of The following pages provide detailed Maryland in 1997 in the tidal St. Mary’s River to findings from these various studies. determine the feasibility of restoring species of S AV. 17 Several other agencies collect water quality and quantity data. A U.S. Geological Survey gaging station in the St. Mary’s River has collected data annually since 1946, with the exception of 2006.18 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Maryland DNR has conducted studies in the watershed.19 The Maryland Department of the Environment collects fecal coliform and other limited water quality data because of concern over commercial shellfish harvests.20 The St. Mary’s County Health Department performs bacterial water quality monitoring from Memorial Day to Labor Day at various beaches throughout the county. Within
18 Paul, Robert W. St. Mary’s River Watershed Water Quality Assessment. September 2008. 123 pages. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 St. Mary’s County Health Department. St. Mary’s County Water Quality Summary Report web page. http://www.smchd.org/ smchdbeachqualitymonitoringreport.htm. Accessed January 2009.
SECTION 4—WATERSECTION QUALITY 4-16 Table 4-1. Water Quality Monitoring From the Maryland Biological Stream Survey: This data from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources includes spring and summer surveys at sites on streams in the St. Mary’s watershed from 1995-2011. Column 1 gives the year in which the sampling occurred. The water quality score is determined by averaging the scores for the Benthic Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) and the Fish IBI. The water quality rating determined from the final IBI score is used by the Maryland Department of the Envi- ronment to determine whether a water body is meeting its designated use for aquatic life.
Benthic IBI Score Fish IBI Score Final IBI Score Site # ‐Year Sampled Stream (Rounded) (Rounded) (Rounded) Rating STMA‐110‐R‐2000 BROOM CREEK 5 2.6 3.8 FAIR STMA‐119‐R‐2003 BROOM CREEK 3.8 2.3 3.1 FAIR STMA‐108‐R‐2000 CARTHAGENA CREEK 2.7 1 1.8 VERY POOR STMA‐113‐R‐2003 CHURCH CREEK UT1 1.9 2.3 2.1 FAIR STMA‐104‐R‐2009 EASTERN BRANCH UT 3.6 STMA‐113‐A‐2011 FISHERMAN CREEK 4.1 4.3 4.2 GOOD WICO‐301‐A‐2008 FORRES HALL BRANCH 4.4 4 4.2 GOOD SM‐S‐111‐112‐95 JARBOESVILLE RUN 4.4 4.3 4.4 GOOD STMA‐218‐R‐2003 JARBOESVILLE RUN 4.7 4.6 4.7 GOOD
STMA‐106‐R‐2003 RUN UT1 2.7 3 2.9 POOR STMA‐208‐R‐2003 JOHNS CREEK 4.4 4 4.2 GOOD STMA‐104‐R‐2003 MARTIN COVE UT1 3.9 4 3.9 FAIR STMA‐107‐R‐2003 MARTIN COVE UT1 3.9 4 3.9 FAIR
SM‐S‐007‐138‐95 PEMBROOK RUN 3.9 1 2.4 POOR STMA‐102‐R‐2009 PEMBROOK RUN 4.7 4.3 4.5 GOOD
STMA‐116‐R‐2000 ST GEORGE CREEK UT1 2.1 1 1.6 VERY POOR STMA‐111‐R‐2000 ST MARY'S LAKE UT1 3 2.3 2.7 POOR STMA‐105‐R‐2003 ST MARY'S RIVER 2.4 2.6 2.6 POOR STMA‐112‐R‐2003 ST MARY'S RIVER 2.4 2.6 2.6 POOR STMA‐202‐R‐2000 ST MARY'S RIVER 3.9 4.3 4.1 GOOD STMA‐232‐A‐2009 ST MARY'S RIVER 4.7 3.3 4.0 GOOD STMA‐232‐A‐2010 ST MARY'S RIVER 4.1 4 4.1 GOOD STMA‐306‐A‐2009 ST MARY'S RIVER 5 4 4.5 GOOD STMA‐306‐A‐2010 ST MARY'S RIVER 4.7 3.6 4.2 GOOD STMA‐306‐R‐2000 ST MARY'S RIVER 2.7 3 2.9 POOR STMA‐101‐A‐2009 ST MARY'S RIVER UT 3.5 3 3.3 FAIR STMA‐103‐R‐2009 ST MARY'S RIVER UT 4.4 4 4.2 GOOD STMA‐113‐R‐2000 ST MARYS RIVER UT1 3.8 5 4.4 GOOD STMA‐101‐R‐2000 ST MARYS RIVER UT2 3 1 2 POOR STMA‐112‐R‐2000 ST MARYS RIVER UT3 1.8 2. 3 2.1 POOR STMA‐115‐R‐2003 ST MARYS RIVER UT4 2.1 1 1.6 VERY POOR STMA‐104‐A‐2011 WAREHOUSE RUN 4.4 5 4.7 GOOD STMA ‐104‐R‐2000 WAREHOUSE RUN 4.4 4. 7 4.5 GOOD
4-17 St. Mary’s River Project
St. Mary’s College with support from DNR, precipitation plays large role in transporting NOAA and SMRWA prepared a report that nutrients into St. Mary's River tributaries. reviewed the 10 years of data collected in the St. Total Suspended Solids Mary’s River Watershed though the St. Mary’s River Project (1999-2009) A brief summary of Generally, value Total Suspended Solids, a the findings follows.22 measure for sediments and other particles in the water, were relatively low (< 20 mg/L).
Noteworthy findings Non-tidal Portion Results follow. Variability was closely tied to precipitation, and Dissolved Oxygen was most noticeable in Dissolved oxygen Pembrook Run, Fisherman levels below 5 mg/L in Creek, and Church Creek. surface waters indicate The Church Creek site insufficient oxygen to was observed to have poor support aquatic life. stormwater controls and Dissolved oxygen levels in high discharges that lead to the non-tidal portions of erosion. the St. Mary’s River watershed were consistent- High levels of ly high in the last 10 years of data collected. sediment in St. Indigoes Creek have been noted by nearby residents. Nutrients Nutrients were typically low with the Alkalinity, pH and Dissolved Organic Carbon following exceptions, where nutrient levels were Alkalinity and acidity (pH) in the St. Mary’s higher : River watershed are similar to levels in other coastal plain areas. Alkalinity is generally low, The Locust Grove Cove site — data suggest less than 50 mg/L of CaCO , and pH levels are that nutrients are primarily from organic 3 generally between 6.5 and 7 standard units. sources. Overall, dissolved organic carbon levels were The tributary from the St. Andrew's Church low, less than 10 mg/L, with the exception of the Landfill. The surrounding area is experienc- tidally-influenced site at Locust Grove Cove. ing increased urbanization. Nutrient levels are lower further downstream. Temperature Healthy temperature levels for aquatic life are The Hickory Hills tributary — higher nutrient levels could be due to runoff and land typically below 30⁰C. Temperatures of the non- development. It is suspected that heavy tidal sites averaged 25⁰C, and followed a seasonally pattern. Temperatures of St. Mary’s
22 Paul, Robert W. St. Mary’s River Watershed Water Quality Assessment. September 2008. 123 pages. SECTION 4—WATERSECTION QUALITY 4-18 St. Mary's River Project continued
Lake were higher overall due to surface warming, greater than 150 mg/l at any one time, or 50 mg/l and the sample site downstream of the lake as a monthly average. Concentrations of 15 mg/l release also had higher temperatures. In addition, or greater generally inhibit growth of submerged the tidally influenced Locust Grove site had aquatic plants, because light can not penetrate to higher temperature levels. the plants’ leaves. Levels ranged between less than 5 mg/L to nearly 100 mg/L. They were varied between Tidal Portion Results stations and sampling periods Much of the variability in tidal results seems Levels for Total Suspended Solids were to be driven by seasonal weather patterns, highest in the spring and summer and were precipitation, algal growth and decay, and oxygen linked to precipitation. profiles in the water column. Higher levels were sometimes recorded after Dissolved Oxygen storm events. Low oxygen levels have been found at the Chlorophyll deeper sites of St. Mary’s River every summer from 2000-2009. Measurements of the amount of chlorophyll in Tidal creek the water are used to stations also assess the amount of showed low phytoplankton in the oxygen levels, water column. although not as Phytoplankton blooms severe as the main are stimulated by a channel of the combination of factors, river. including high nutrient It is believed that levels and light. They can this low oxygen is be linked to low oxygen related to nutrient levels and fish kills. enrichment in the The chlorophyll threshold is exceeded most spring from runoff, fueling algal blooms. years. Subsequent die offs of algae reduce oxygen levels during decomposition. High chlorophyll and algal concentrations likely contributed to decreased oxygen levels Nutrients in the bottom waters of the St. Mary's River Nitrogen concentrations were quite variable, and its tributaries. but were typically low. pH Tidal stations located furthest upstream, The sites located farthest up-river tended to closest to freshwater sources, generally had display the lowest pH values and the most the highest nitrogen and phosphorus levels. variation. Likely, this is because these sites are Total Suspended Solids more directly effected by activities on land and are farther from the cleansing and stabilizing For Use I waters Maryland water quality forces of oceanic waters. standards state that sediment loads should not be SECTION 4—WATERSECTION QUALITY 4-19 St. Mary's River Project continued
Salinity Temperature Generally, the tidal portion of St. Mary’s Water temperature showed pronounced River is of moderate salinity (a partially-mixed seasonal variation at all tidal stations. For most mesohaline estuary) with salinities between 10 of the year the water column was partially mixed, and 20 ppt. Salinity showed an annual cycle with but distinct temperature and/or salinity layers highest levels in the fall and early winter and were observed, indicating that the river can lowest levels in late spring and summer due to become highly stratified. increased rainfall.
Table 4-2. Index of Biological Integrity Scores for Sampling Stations. IBI scores were computed yearly for all SMRP stations, using the MBSS method. Taken as a whole, they show that more than half of the streams provide good water quality. At the other end of the spectrum, three sites might be in need of remedial attention: Landfill Tributary (NT05) had a score bordering "poor," and Hickory Hills and Church Creek both had "poor" scores. SECTION 4—WATERSECTION QUALITY 4-20 Lower Potomac River Tributary Strategy Program
“In the Early 1990’s, the Chesapeake Bay partners recognized that restoration efforts must extend into the Tributaries of the Bay watershed in order to reach the goal of a restored Bay. Maryland answered this challenge by establishing Tributary Strategy Teams in 1995. The Teams provided a venue for a broader group of stakeholders to participate in restoration efforts and to advocate for solutions especially at the State and local levels. Approximately 300 volunteers were initially appointed to the Teams and many more people participated in the events, programs, trainings and field trips held by the Teams throughout the next 16 years. The mission of the Maryland Tributary Strategy Teams was to build consensus and advocate for policy solutions, to promote stewardship through education, and to coordinate activities and projects necessary to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay’s water quality and assure healthy watersheds with abundant and diverse living resources.” —from Maryland DNR web page: “The Legacy of the Maryland Tributary Strategy Teams,” http://www.dnr.maryland.gov/waters/tribstrat/
Ten tributary teams involving local citizens, farmers, business leaders and government officials focused on policy, legislation, implementation, and education.23 The St. Mary’s River watershed is one of eleven smaller watersheds within the Lower Potomac River The Lower Potomac River tributary team tributary team. reported that the largest sources of excess nutrients in the Lower Potomac River basin are PHOTO nonpoint sources from urban and agriculture runoff and from point sources.24 Although the use of agricultural best management practices (BMPs) and point-source reductions have lowered nutrient loads, nitrogen loading from septic systems increased by 23% from 1985 to 2000. In 2003, the Chesapeake Bay Program developed nutrient caps (nitrogen and phosphorus) for the Lower Potomac River basin. To meet these caps, nutrient reductions are needed.
23 Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Tributary Strategies Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.dnr.state.md.us/ bay/tribstrat/faq.html#1 Accessed January 2009. 24 Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Lower Potomac Basin Overview. November 2003. http://www.dnr.state.md.us/ bay/tribstrat/low_pot/low_pot.pdf. Accessed January 2009. 25 Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Maryland Tributary Strategy Lower Potomac River Basin Summary Report for 1985-2005 Data. August 2007. http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/tribstrat/basin_summaries.html. Accessed January 2009. SECTION 4—WATERSECTION QUALITY 4-21 Lower Potomac River Tributary Team
According to the Maryland Tributary Sediment loadings were down 31,000 tons Strategy Lower Potomac River Basin Summary per year, 54% of Tributary Strategy goal. Report for 1985-2005 Data26 modeled nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loadings have Following 2010, Tributary Strategy Teams in decreased from 1985 to 2005. The report found the Chesapeake Bay were largely replaced by that: local watershed associations, with their Total nitrogen loadings were down 0.14 restoration actions guided by Watershed million pounds per year, 11% of Tributary Implementation Plans (WIPs). WIPs will be Strategy goal. referenced in the Conservation and Restoration Total phosphorus loadings were down 0.12 Targeting section, later in this document. million pounds, 74% of Tributary Strategy goal.
Figure 4-4. St. Mary’s River: June 15, 2005 Water Quality Mapping Highlights (From Maryland Tributary Strategy Lower Potomac River Basin Summary Report for 1985-2005 Data with permission, http:// mddnr.chesapeakebay.net/sim/dataflow_data.cfm#stmary).
SECTION 4—WATERSECTION QUALITY 4-22 Lower Potomac River Tributary Team continued
Figure 4-5. St. Mary’s River: August 24, 2005 Water Quality Mapping Highlights http:// mddnr.chesapeakebay.net/ sim/ dataflow_data.cfm#stmary (Taken from Maryland Tributary Strategy Lower Potomac River Basin Sum- mary Report for 1985- 2005 Data with permis- sion).
Figure 4-6. St. Mary’s River: November 2, 2005 Water Quality Mapping Highlights http:// mddnr.chesapeakebay.net/ sim/ dataflow_data.cfm#stmary (Taken from Maryland Tributary Strategy Lower Potomac River Basin Sum- mary Report for 1985- 2005 Data with permis- sion).
SECTION 4—WATERSECTION QUALITY 4-23 Sources of Pollution
Point Source Discharge Discharges from a single identifiable source, such as a pipe or other discrete conveyances are called point sources. This includes discharges from waste water treatment plants and industrial- ly sources. Point sources may contribute pollu- tion to surface water or to groundwater. Identify- ing point source discharges in a watershed can be useful in potential restoration measures. There are no major wastewater treatment plants with discharges in the watershed. A small wastewater treatment plant operates at the Navy’s Webster Field and it discharges into the St. Mary’s River. In 2013-2014, the Navy upgraded this plant to further reduce nitrogen and phosphorus to current industry levels. There are currently 10 facilities that discharge into the St. Mary’s River watershed permitted under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimina- tion System (NPDES) by the Maryland Depart- ment of the Environment.26 There are 24 general stormwater and groundwater discharge permits in the watershed. A summary of this information is present in Table 4-3 and on Map 8. In addition, MDE permitted approximately 28 stormwater discharge permits associated with construction in St. Mary’s County during 2008 and the beginning of 2009.27 At least three of these are in the St. Mary’s River watershed. In- formation on permits can be obtained from MDE’s Environmental Permits Service Center (EPSC) or Water Management Administration.
26 Gosden, Andrew. Maryland Department of the Environment. Personal Communication. January 2009. 27 Maryland Department of the Environment. NOI Database Search Utility http://www.mde.state.md.us/Permits/ WaterManagementPermits/water_applications/gp_construction.asp Accessed January 2009.
SECTION 4—WATERSECTION QUALITY 4-24 Table 4-3. Groundwater discharge, surface water discharge and other general permits, except those associated with construction, in the St. Mary’s River Watershed. From the Maryland Department of Environment Permit Tracking System (PERTs) database, January 2009.29 SECTION 4—WATERSECTION QUALITY
4-25 Sources of Pollution continued
Nonpoint Sources Nonpoint sources are significant contributors of pollutants, particularly nutrients and sediments. This pollution comes from many diffuse sources. This includes rain water that runs off roofs, streets and parking lots, as well s runoff from farm fields, yards and to a lesser extent forests. Atmospheric deposition and contributions from groundwater, where septic systems are a factor, are also considered nonpoint source pollution. Nonpoint source pollution is a potential problem in the St. Mary's River watershed. Storm events have a major impact on the river and streams by carrying sediments and nutrients downstream and into the tidal river. Several sources of nonpoint source pollution are identified in the Lower Potomac River basin summary and are listed below28:
urban – from industrial, residential, institutional, mining and open urban lands septic – onsite wastewater treatment/disposal agriculture –from row crop, hay, pasture, manure forest –from forested lands mixed open –from non-agricultural grasslands including right-of-ways and some golf courses atmospheric deposition to water – deposited from the atmosphere directly to water
The majority of nutrients and sediments in the Lower Potomac River basin are from agriculture. The percentage of nutrients and sediments entering the basin were identified in the Maryland Tributary Strategy Lower Potomac River Basin Summary Report for 1985-2005 Data and are shown in the graphics to the right. Additional studies have cited increased development as a concern in the St. Mary’s River watershed.
Figure 4-7. The 2005 Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Sediment Contribution to the Lower Potomac River Basin by Source Data from 2005 'Progress' Watershed Model 4.3 Delivered Loads, Chesapeake Bay Program 11-30-06 http:// www.chesapeakebay.net/data/index.htm. (Taken from Mary- land Tributary Strategy Lower Potomac River Basin Summary Report for 1985-2005 Data)
28Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Maryland Tributary Strategy Lower Potomac River Basin Summary Report for 1985-2005 Data August 2007 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/tribstrat/basin_summaries.html Accessed January 2009. SECTION 4—WATERSECTION QUALITY 4-26 Sources of Pollution continued
Shoreline Erosion water and/or loss of land. Erosion of shorelines can contribute significant amounts of nutrients Wherever land and open water meet, change (mostly phosphorus) and sediment (water column in the form of erosion or accretion of land is turbidity, habitat loss). typically the inevitable result of natural processes. Human activity in these areas either tends to Countywide shoreline erosion is summarized inadvertently accentuate these natural processes in the following table.29 or purposefully attempts to control movement of
St. Mary’s County Shore Erosion Rate Summary (Miles to Shoreline) Total Shoreline Total Eroding Erosion Rate Shoreline 0 to 2 0 to 4 4 or more feet / year feet / year feet / year 297 87 (29%) 61 9 17
Maps of historic shoreline change were produced in 1999 by the Maryland Geological Survey (MGS) in a cooperative effort between DNR and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These maps included digitized shorelines for several different years in St. Mary’s County. The maps show the most change to shorelines adjacent to large bodies of open water. Copies of these 1:24000 scale maps are available from the MGS. A tidal shoreline survey was conducted by St. Mary’s College in 2008. Several areas of shoreline erosion were identified are shown in Figure 4-8.
Figure 4-8. Tidal shoreline of the St. Mary’s River with an assessment of shoreline stability. Green markers indicate stable shoreline, red markers show shoreline erosion sites, and yellow markers show shoreline segments without corresponding geo-referenced photographs of the shoreline. (From St. Mary’s River Stream Corridor Assess- ment and Tidal Shoreline Survey.30)
29Maryland Shore Erosion Task Force. Final Report, State of Maryland Shore Erosion Task Force. January 2000. 64 pages. 30Paul, Robert W. St. Mary’s River Stream Corridor Assessment and Tidal Shoreline Survey. September 2008. 48 pages. SECTION 4—WATERSECTION QUALITY 4-27 Sources of Pollution continued
Impact of the Potomac River
The mouth of the St. Mary’s River empties into the Potomac River, a river that is more negatively impacted than the cleaner St. Mary’s. Because of the tidal nature of this system, the Potomac River does have an impact on St. Mary’s River water quality. Policy-makers often cite the Potomac River as the largest contributor to St. Mary’s River’s pollution. In his senior thesis (2011), St. Mary’s College of Maryland student Michael Kushner, set out to determine just how much and to what extent the Potomac River impacted the St. Mary’s River. He set up a box model and took water quality readings from several sites throughout the tidal river. His results indicated that, as far as turbidity and pollutants, the Potomac River had negligible impact on the upper St. Mary’s River above Church Point. Impacts on the middle river above Chancellor’s Point were minimal. And from Chancellor’s Point southward to the mouth the impact gained in significance. While this study lacked scientific rigor necessary to formally document the findings, it did provide enough data to make a strong argument for further study.
Figure
Figure 6.
SECTION 4—WATERSECTION QUALITY 4-28 LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT
Living Resource Indicators
Long-term changes in the relative abundances is widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima) with some and diversity of organisms often reflects changes eelgrass (Zostera marina) on the inside of St. in the health of the ecosystem, with declines Georges Island as the result of SAV restoration typically resulting in reduced productivity and projects. In addition, horned pondweed stability. Monitoring human impacts on water (Zannichellia palustris) can be found in the quality and population dynamics informs the spring and early summer, primarily in the upper implementation of effective preservation and tidal St. Mary’s River. restoration strategies. Species that are addressed in this document are those that have considerable SAV Restoration ecological and/or economic value. The Chesapeake Bay Program’s “Strategy to
Accelerate the Protection and Restoration of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesa- peake Bay” set a goal of increasing the SAV Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) acreage in the Bay to 185,000 acres by 2010. The performs critical ecological functions such as acreage of SAV mapped in the bay in 2010 was providing nursery grounds and habitat for 79,675 acres, 43% of the goal.3 The goal was to numerous species of aquatic animals and food for be met by improving water clarity, protecting waterfowl. Additionally, the presence of SAV existing SAV beds and planting 1,000 acres of meadows improves water quality by trapping SAV. The SAV acreage goal for the lower suspended sediment particles and absorbing mesohaline Potomac River, which the St. Mary’s dissolved nutrients. SAV acreage in the lower River is part of, was set at 10,173 acres. Potomac has been negatively correlated with nitrogen concentration.2 SAV is also an important Although the SAV goal for the St. Mary’s indicator of water quality as populations decline River is not available, there were 1,072 acres of or expand in response to changes in water clarity SAV in the St. Mary’s River in 1952, a year that (suspended particles) and to changes in nutrients was used to determine SAV goals based upon loads. extensive SAV acreage that year. In 2002 and 2003 the SAV acreage exceeded the 1952 SAV Status acreage, but since then it has declined to about 24% of the 1952 level (2011). (Fig. 7; data for SAV increased dramatically in the tidal St. 2012 are not yet available) In 2011, 69% of the Mary’s River from no SAV as recently as 1994 to SAV acreage found in the lower Potomac was a high of 1,332 acres in 2002. (data from located in the St. Mary’s River. quadrangles 80 and 89 Virginia Institute of Marine Science aerial surveys, http:// The lower St. Mary’s River was identified as www.vims.edu/research/topics/sav/index.php) an area that met the habitat conditions suitable for The primary species in the tidal St. Mary’s River SAV4,5 but still lacked in seeds, or propagules, for
1 Maryland Clean Water Action Plan Final 1998 Report on Unified Watershed Assessment, Watershed Prioritization and Plans for Restoration Action Strategies. Dec. 31, 1998. http://www.dnr.state.md.us/cwap/cwap.html. 3 Orth, R. J., M. R. Williams, S. R. Marion, D. J. Wilcox, T. J. B. Carruthers, K. A. Moore, W. M. Kemp, W. C. Dennison, N. Rybicki, P. Bergstrom, and R. A. Batiuk. 2010. Long-term trends in submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) in Chesapeake Bay, USA, related to water quality. Estuaries and Coasts 33:1144–1163 3 http://web.vims.edu/bio/sav/sav10/exec_summary.html SECTION 5—LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT 5-1 Living Resource Indicators continued some species that were historically found in the eelgrass restoration projects based on evaluations river. In particular, eelgrass was once abundant of water quality, sediments characteristics, at the mouth of the St. Mary’s River and in the historic SAV distribution, location of hydraulic lower Potomac.6 The lower St. Mary’s River and clam dredging, and the success of preliminary test the adjacent Piney Point were selected for several plantings.7,8
Figure 5‐1. The area of submerged aqua c vegeta on from 1989 through 2011 in the lower Potomac River. The contribu on of the St. Mary’s River are shown in red (quadrangles 80 and 89, Virginia Ins tute of Ma‐ rine Science aerial surveys, h p://www.vims.edu/research/topics/sav/index.php). Although the SAV goal for the St. Mary’s River is not available, the SAV area in the St. Mary’s River for 1952 (the year that the goals for the lower Potomac are based) was 1,072 acres (do ed line). Data are incomplete for the lower Poto‐ mac in 2003 (*).
4 Landwehr, J. M., J. T. Reel, N. B. Rybicki, H. A. Ruhl, and V. Carter. 1999. Chesapeake Bay habitat criteria scores and the distribution of submersed aquatic vegetation in the tidal Potomac River and Potomac estuary, 1983-1997. U.S. Geologic Sur- vey Open-File Report 99-219. 5 Kemp, W. M., P. Bergstrom, E. Koch, L. Murray, J. C. Stevenson, R. Bartleson, V. Carter, N. B. Rybicki, J. M. Landwehr, C. Gallegos, L. Karrh, M. Naylor, D. Wilcox, K. A. Moore, and R. Batiuk. 2004. Habitat requirements for submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay: water quality, light regime, and physical-chemical factors. Estuaries 27:363-377. 6 Pfitzenmeyer, H. T., and K. G. Drobeck. 1963. Benthic survey for populations of soft-shelled clams, Mya arenaria, in the Lower Potomac River, Maryland. Chesapeake Science 4:67-74. 7 Golden, R. R., K. E. Busch, L. P. Karrh, M. J. Lewandowski, T. A. Parham, and M. D. Naylor. 2010. Large-scale Zostera marina (eelgrass) restoration in Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, USA. Part II: a comparison of restoration methods in the Patuxent and Potomac Rivers. Restoration Ecology 18:501–513. 8 Tanner, C., S. Hunter*, J. Reel, T. Parham, M. Naylor, L. Karrh, K. Preen, R. R. Golden, M. Lewandowski, N. Rybicki and E. Schenk. 2010. Evaluating a large-scale eelgrass restoration project in the lower Potomac estuary. Restoration Ecology 18: 538- 548. SECTION 5—LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT 5-2 Living Resource Indicators continued
Organizations that have sponsored SAV by MD DNR survived for more than four years. restoration projects in the tidal St. Mary’s include Possible reasons for the limited success in Maryland Department of Natural Resources ( MD restoring eelgrass in the St. Mary’s River DNR; http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/sav/ include years with than higher than average restoration/pot_gen_info.asp), Woodrow Wilson precipitation and/or temperatures. Eelgrass Bridge Project (see Tanner et al. 2010), Alliance becomes stressed at lower salinities (salinity less for the Chesapeake Bay (https:// than 10) and high temperatures (water allianceforthebay.org/), and the St. Mary’s River temperatures greater than 30° C, or 86° F). Low Project (http://smrpweb.smcm.edu/) with over 25 salinities in 2003 and 2004, high temperatures acres planted. combined with low dissolved oxygen in 2005 Eelgrass restoration in the St. Mary’s River and 2006, and high summer epiphyte loads are has had limited success with the plants generally suspected as the cause of eelgrass mortalities at not surviving beyond two years. The best results restoration sites in the lower St. Mary’s (Tanner have been along the northeast side of St. George et al. 2010). Island, within St. George Creek, where plantings
PHOTO of eelgrass
Figure 5-2. SAV in the St. Mary’s River north from Cherry- field Point (Quadrangle 80, VIMS aerial surveys, http:// www.vims.edu/research/topics/sav/index.php). SECTION 5—LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT 5-3 Living Resource Indicators continued
Crabs and Fish 2006 harvests. It is likely the St. Mary's River crab fishery reflects the state of the overall 1. Tidal Areas Chesapeake Bay blue crab population, which has been in a period of low recruitment since 1997- Commercial fisheries harvest information— 1998, and continues to fluctuate annually. considered an indicator of the health of an aquatic The 2014 Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab system—is tracked by Maryland Department of Advisory Report10 is an assessment of blue crab Natural Resources (DNR) Fisheries Service. The stocks, based on the annual Chesapeake Bay following information on crab and striped bass in Winter Dredge Survey and commercial harvest the St. Mary's River watershed was obtained from data, and provides recommendations for the blue the MD DNR Commercial Fisheries Annual crab fishery. Management efforts largely Landing Data Set.9 concentrate on adult female populations in the bay, with a target of 215 million crabs to maintain Crab a sustainable fishery and a threshold of 70 million The commercial crab catch for the St. Mary's to avoid over-exploitation. Stocks are currently River is combined with that from other tidal depleted but have not been listed as overfished, Potomac River tributaries. These data are even though adult female crab abundances were available from 1965 through 2008, with estimated at 68.5 million crabs during the minimums experienced in 1972 at 55,600 pounds beginning of the 2014 crabbing season. of crab harvested and a maximum of 2.82 million Additionally, this report makes recommendations for harvest reductions and continued monitoring of male crab abundance by jurisdiction.
Striped Bass The last year reported for striped bass commercial fishery in the St. Mary's River by the DNR Fisheries web site was 2002, when the harvest had fallen to 15,486 pounds, down from an average of 21,609 for the previous three years. The striped bass stocks, which were depleted in the 1980’s, increased until 2003, and have subsequently experienced a decline to a level just pounds in 1989. above the threshold for over-exploitation. According to DNR data, 1,272,373 pounds of According to the 2013 Update of the Striped Bass hard and soft-shelled crab were harvested in the Stock Assessment11 which used data from 2012, Potomac tributaries in 2008, approximately Atlantic striped bass are not overfished, even 46,000 pounds increase from the previous year, though adult female striped bass have been in but not considerably different from the 2004- decline since 2004.
9 Maryland Department Natural Resource (DNR) Commercial Fisheries web site: http://mddnr.chesapeakebay.net/mdcomfish/ mdcomfishery.html Accessed December 2014. 10 2014 Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Advisory Report Final Draft. June 30, 2014. http://www.chesapeakebay.net/ documents/CBSAC_2014_Blue_Crab_Advisory_Report_Final_7-24-14.pdf 11 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Update of the Striped Bass Stock Assessment using Final 2012 Data. 2013. Prepared by Gary Nelson, ASMFC Striped Bass Technical Committee. http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/ file/AtlStripedBass2013AssessmentUpdate.pdf. SECTION 5—LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT 5-4 Living Resource Indicators continued
2. Nontidal Areas As part of the 2008 the watershed synoptic survey conducted by Dr. Robert Paul of Data has been gathered about nontidal fishes St. Mary's College of Maryland, fish in the St. Mary's River Watershed at 13 to15 sampling was conducted in July 2008 monitoring stations (Table 5-1 and Figure 5-3) following MBSS protocols. since 1999 by the following three monitoring ef- forts: The SMRP and synoptic survey data showed The Maryland Department of Natural Re- that from 1999 to 2008, a total of 4333 individual sources (DNR) surveyed the St. Mary's fish were captured and released -- representing 11 River watershed in 1995-1997 during the families and 41 species (data available in Table 5- Maryland Biological Stream Survey 2). Of this total, 92 fishes were collected in 2008, (MBSS). This data is available through representing 10 families and 26 species. Data the MD DNR interactive maps (http:// from the years 1999 and 2001 (when samples www.dnr.state.md.us/streams/maps.asp). were conducted at most stations) showed that 4 The St. Mary's River Project (SMRP) has species represented nearly 80% of the fish col- sampled for fish during the MBSS Sum- lected. The MBSS study had slightly different mer Index Period since 1999. Although results, showing that 6 species comprised 75% of the number of stations sampled by SMRP the total captured. While differences among the has not been consistent, nearly all stations SMRP and MBSS samples existed, both agreed were collected from in 1999, 2001, and that the dominant species in the watershed were: 2008. Table 7 displays fish species and eastern mudminnow, least brook lamprey, Ameri- numbers collected by year and sampling can eel, and tessellated darter. station.
Table 5-1. St. Mary’s River Watershed Sampling Sites from the Watershed Synoptic Survey. Non‐ dal La tude (DD Longitude (DD Sta ons Sta on ID MM.MMMM) MM.MMMM) SMNT01 Locust Grove Cove N38⁰09.9576' W76⁰30.0867' SMNT02 Warehouse Run N38⁰13.2480' W76⁰29.3880' SMNT03 Below St. Mary's Lake N38⁰15.1338' W76⁰31.9680' SMNT04 In St. Mary's River Lake N38⁰15.1512' W76⁰32.4858' SMNT05 Landfill Tributary N38⁰16.8810' W76⁰31.0362' SMNT06 Hickory Hills N38⁰16.7538' W76⁰30.8016' SMNT07 Norris Road N38⁰16.3614' W76⁰30.7218' SMNT08 Jarboesville Run N38⁰15.1650' W76⁰30.4170' SMNT09 USGS Gaging Sta on N38⁰14.5080' W76⁰30.2184' SMNT10 Johns Creek N38⁰14.2020' W76⁰30.0540' SMNT11 Hilton Run N38⁰13.8456' W76⁰27.9060' SMNT12 Pembrook Run N38⁰13.4604' W76⁰27.3252' SMNT13 Eastern Branch N38⁰13.7658' W76⁰25.7322' SMNT14 Fisherman Creek N38⁰12.1038' W76⁰25.1562'
SMNT15 Church Creek N38⁰09.7512' W76⁰30.0222' SECTION 5—LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT 5-5 Living Resource Indicators continued
Figure 5-3. St. Mary’s River watershed showing the tidal and non-tidal sampling stations used in the St. Mary’s River Project (Courtesy of R. Paul and C. Tanner). SECTION 5—LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT 5-6 Living Resource Indicators continued
The following noteworthy points can be sur- The 2008 survey pointed to problems at mised from the different surveys: Norris Road (NT07) and Hilton Run (NT10). Norris Road has rather poor Fisherman's Creek (NT13) had less fish di- fish habitat, but the results from Hilton versity than other sites, likely due to Run were surprising in that previous poorer habitat conditions. Most sites had samples had good fish diversity, ac- at least 9 fish species and 100 individu- cording to the Index of Biological In- als in 1999, whereas the 75-m section of tegrity (IBI) scores. Fisherman Creek has only 4 species. The number increased to 8 in 2005, then Largemouth bass represented an anomaly: back down to 6 in 2008. For all creeks in 1999, none were col- lected; in 2001, 10 were captured; in Hickory Hills (NT06) and Jarboesville Run 2008, 4 were counted. (NT08) fish communities are declining in numbers and diversity. It is probable A large decrease was seen in the percent- that urbanization in these subwatersheds age of least brook lampreys from the has detrimentally affected the habitat SMRP surveys. In 1999, they repre- and resources. sented 19% of all fish; in 2008, they were only 5.6% of the sample. It is possible, however, that the large de- cline was related to sampling efficien- cy, rather than stream habitat change.
Photo of darter or lamprey SECTION 5—LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT 5-7 s Riv- Corrected from St. Mary’ Corrected 2005, and 2008. 2005, and 000, 2001, 2003, sampled by site in 1999, 2 site in 1999, by sampled Table 5-2. Number of fish of each species fish of each of Number 5-2. Table er WatererQuality Assessment Final Report(2008). SECTION 5—LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT 5-8 Table 5-2. (Continued) 5-2. (Continued) Table SECTION 5—LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT 5-9 Table 5-2. (Continued) 5-2. (Continued) Table SECTION 5—LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT 5-10 Table 5-2. (Continued) 5-2. (Continued) Table SECTION 5—LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT 5-11 Living Resource Indicators continued
Migratory Fish The St. Mary’s River was rated a score of 1 in the 1998 Watershed Assessment due to its low di- versity of spawning habitat for American Shad, Hickory Shad, Alewife, Blueback Herring, White Perch, Striped Bass, and Yellow Perch. Only one migratory fish was present, the Yellow Perch, indi- cating vulnerability to water quality impairment or physical blockages, or a combination of the two.
Yellow Perch inhabit most Chesapeake Bay tributaries, and only migrate into freshwater streams during the early Spring.12 Fish sampling was conducted by Maryland Biological Stream Survey (1995) and the St. Mary’s River Project (1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2008) and has been performed during the Summer in the non- tidal portion of the St. Mary’s River watershed. Yellow Perch were present in two sample sites in 2001, and absent in all other sampling sites and years. However, the American eel, a catadromous fish, was found in all 13 sites and consistently through each sampling year.
12 Yellow Perch, Perca flavescens. Chesapeake Bay Program. Accessed December 20, 2014. http:// www.chesapeakebay.net/fieldguide/critter/yellow_perch 13 Paul, R. St. Mary’s River Watershed Synoptic Survey. 2008. St Mary’s College of Maryland in partnership with the St. Mary’s River Watershed Association. 45 pages. SECTION 5—LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT 5-12 Living Resource Indicators continued
Oysters A.
The 2013 Annual Fall Oyster Survey, conducted 100 and published by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Fisheries Service, is the most 80 recent status report of Maryland oyster populations. Mortality These surveys have been performed annually since 60 1939 and assess the natural strike of spat (juvenile oyster recruitment), oyster mortality, and disease 40 levels at over 40 sites in the Chesapeake Bay. Two Prevalance/ sites, Chicken Cock and Pagan Point, are located in 20 the St. Mary’s River. % As of the 2013 sampling period, oyster spat 0 recruitment was above the 29 year median, with 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014 recruitment primarily in the lower Chesapeake Bay. B. Oyster disease levels throughout the Bay continue to 100 be low, having remained below the long-term average th for the 10 year, after record highs were observed in 80 2002. Dermo disease (caused by the parasite Mortality Perkinsus marinus is still present in all surveyed 60 oyster populations while MSX disease (caused by the parasite Haplosporidium nelsoni) has declined from 40
being present at 90% of sites in 2002 to 9% in 2013. Prevalance/ 20 As a result of low disease prevalence, oyster survival % rates in the Bay has increased, almost reaching those 0 observed in 1985. Over the past 3 years, survival rates 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014 of oysters in the Bay have exceeded 90%. Annual Year changes in disease prevalence and total observed mortality for Chicken Cock and Pagan Point are Dermo Prevalance (%) Total Observed Mortality (%) shown in Figure 5-4 with the data available in the Figure 5-4. Disease prevalence and total observed 2013 MD DNR Oyster Population Survey. Dermo disease prevalence was relatively low in mortality for the St. Mary’s River oyster bars 2013 at Chicken Cock (50%) and was maintained at Chicken Cock (A) and Pagan (B) from 1990-2013. normal levels at Pagan (77%). MSX disease has been absent at Pagan and Chicken Cock since 2010 and 2011, respectively. Total observed oyster mortality was low in 2013 at both Chicken Cock (1%) and Pagan (4%). Spat recruitment on the western shore of MD was highest at Pagan in the St. Mary’s River with 196 spat per bushel oyster shell in 2013. Aside from a few sites on the Eastern shore, Pagan remains one of the sites with the highest recruitment. Chicken Cock, however, continues to have a light recruitment at 15 spat per bushel shell. Annual spat recruitment at Chicken Cock and Pagan is available on Figure 5-5, using data in the 2013 MD DNR Survey. Stylocus ellipticus, the Oyster flatworm, is another local oyster parasite. 14 Maryland Oyster Population Status Report 2013 Fall Survey. Maryland Department of Natural Resources Shellfish Pro- gram and Cooperative Oxford Laboratory. MDDNR Publ. No. 17-8192014-723. August 2011. http://dnr2.maryland.gov/ fisheries/Documents/FSR_2013.pdf. SECTION 5—LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT 5-13 Living Resource Indicators continued
Oyster harvests, shown below, for the St. Mary’s River and Smith creek display a precipitous decline from 1985 through 2004. However increases in oyster harvests occurred in the 2011-12 and 2012-13 seasons, 10,000 bushels greater than in previous years (seen in Figure 5-6).
1400
1200 Chicken Cock Pagan
shell 1000
of
800 bushel 600 per
400 Spat
200
0 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 Year
Figure 5-5. Annual spat recruitment, measured by spat per bushel of shell, for Chicken Cock and Pagan bars from 1985-2013.
90,000 80,000 70,000
harvested 60,000
50,000 40,000 bushels
of
30,000 20,000
Number 10,000 0
Year
Figure 5-6. Combined annual oyster harvest of St. Mary’s River and Smith Creek from 1985- 2013. SECTION 5—LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT 5-14 What are filter feeders and purpose do they serve?
Filter feeders, or suspension feeders, are organisms that strain suspended particles during the process of feeding, simultaneously improving water quality in the process.15 The most crucial filter feeder in the Chesapeake Bay and also the St. Mary’s River is the Eastern Oyster, Crassostrea virginica. As oysters move water across their gills, particles become trapped in the mucus layer and are transported along the gills by cilia towards the oysters mouth. Acting like a sifter, the gills transport particles of a certain size range into the digestive tract of the oyster. All other particles are still retained in the mucus, but are expelled from the oyster as small mucus packages, or pseudofeces.
This process of filtering in which the oysters selectively consume phytoplankton, such as algae, improves water clarity as algae are assimilated into oyster biomass.16 Oysters also remove bacteria, fine particles of silt and clay, and detritus, from the water. These particles drop out of suspension when they become packaged as pseudofeces, allowing them to become available to other benthic organisms as a food source. The reduction in phytoplank- ton reduces the risk of hypoxia from eutrophication. Additionally the increase in water clarity enables the survival of submerged aquatic vegetation as sunlight can permeate down through the water column to benthic communities.
Oysters, which form a reef structure by attaching to one another, also can support a diverse community of benthic and pelagic species, by providing refuge and food source.15 Anemones, flatworms, mud crabs, blue crabs, and various small fish rely on juvenile oysters or oyster larvae as a food source. These reefs also improve coastline stability as they create a solid structure, reducing erosion during storm events. As oysters sequester calcium carbonate to form their shells, they also serve as a sink for carbon. However, the ecosystem services provided by these filter feeders has been significantly reduced due to overharvesting, disease, and decreased habitat availability.
15Oysters. Chesapeake Bay Program. http://www.chesapeakebay.net/issues/issue/oysters#inline. Accessed 12/4/14. 16 Newell, RIE, T.R. Fisher, R.R. Holyoke, J.C. Cornwell. 2005. Influence of Eastern Oyster s on Nitrogen and Phos- phorus Regeneration in Chesapeake Bay, USA. SECTION 5—LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT 5-15 Living Resource Indicators continued
Benthic Macro invertebrates
Macro invertebrates diversity and abundance are Although insect numbers in pollution sensitive orders used to assess the water quality in freshwater streams varied, Pembrook Run lacked Ephemeroptera and and rivers. The absence of pollution sensitive orders, Trichoptera, and Craney Creek lacked Ephemeroptera including mayflies (Ephemeroptera), stoneflies and Plecoptera. At other stations, with the exception (Plecoptera), and caddisflies (Trichoptera) and of Warehouse Run (NT02), had at least 30% pollution dominance of pollution-tolerant orders, such as aquatic sensitive orders. However, in some cases this worms (Oligochaetes) and non-biting midges proportion is misleading due to an overall low number (Chironomids) are indicators of pollution. Methods for of insects collected at those stations. quantifying biological integrity of streams are based on species richness, the number of different species Additionally, a curious anomaly of high insect present, and species abundance, the number of densities occurred at the landfill tributary (NT05) in individuals of each species. Although this can be used 2008, which is historically known for water quality to assess environmental conditions, it may also reflect problems from bank erosion and siltation. The station natural factors that influence species abundance, such as sustained a relatively high insect diversity in 2000 and predation or competition. low densities in 2001 and 2005.
In the St. Mary’s River Water Quality Assessment, benthic macro invertebrates were surveyed at the non- tidal stations (previously mentioned, Fig. 5-3) by the St. Mary’s River Project in the spring of 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2008. However, not all stations were sampled during each sampling year. Additionally, in 2008 three addition stations were sampled. Throughout the SMRP study 57 families of aquatic insects were collected at the non-tidal stations. The 2008 sampling period appeared to be a good representation of historic levels (from the 1998 Lower Potomac River Basin, Environmental Assessment) which comprised of 56 families of insects in the lower Potomac watershed. Of the insects collected in 2008, the most common orders included Diptera (31.6%), Ephemeroptera (29.7%), Odonata (14%), Plecoptera (9.6%), while Trichoptera and Coleoptera were less abundant, and Megaloptera and Hemiptera were relatively rare.
Species abundance and richness generally reflected stream conditions. The Craney Creek station, which was a new station sampled in 2008, had a considerably poor insect community with few insects and low diversity. Hickory Hills (NT 06) and Pembrook Run (NT 11), which were better than Craney Creek, also had low insect numbers in comparison to other stations.
17 Boward, D, D. Randle, P. Kazyak, H. Dail, and J. Christmas. 1998. Lower Potomac River Basin, Environmental Assessment of Stream Conditions. (CBWP-MANTA-EA-96-5). Chesapeake Bay and Watershed Programs, Mary- land Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, Maryland. SECTION 5—LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT 5-16 Living Resource Indicators continued om St. Mary’s River Water Quality Assess- Quality Water River St. Mary’s om family, collected at each site. Adapted fr Adapted site. collected at each family,
Table 5-3. Number of macroinvertebtes, by of macroinvertebtes, Number 5-3. Table (2008). Report Final ment SECTION 5—LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT 5-17 Why Look at Benthos in Streams?
Benthos are sometimes called “stream bugs” though that name overly simplifies the diverse membership of this group of bottom dwellers. Unimpaired natural streams may support a great diversity of species ranging from bacteria and algae to invertebrates like crayfish and insects to fish, amphibians and mammals. Benthic macroinvertebrates, collectively called benthos, are an important component of a stream’s ecosystem. This group includes mayflies, caddisflies, crayfish, etc., that inhabit the stream bottom, its sediments, organic debris and live on plant life (macrophytes) within the stream.
The food web in streams relies significantly on benthos. Benthos are often the most abundant source of food for fish and other small animals. Many benthic macroinvertebrates live on decomposing leaves and other organic materials in the stream. By this activity, these organisms are significant processors of organic materials in the stream. Benthos often provide the primary means that nutrients from organic debris are transformed to other biologically usable forms. These nutrients become available again and are transported downstream where other organisms use them.
Benthos are a valuable tool for stream evaluation. This group of species has been extensively used in water quality assessment, in evaluating biological conditions of streams and in gauging influences on streams by surrounding lands. Benthos serve as good indicators of water resource integrity because they are fairly sedentary in nature and their diversity offers numerous ways to interpret conditions. They have different sensitivities to changing conditions. They have a wide range of functions in the stream. They use different life cycle strategies for survival.
18 19 SECTION 5—LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT 5-18 Living Resource Indicators continued tidal marsh; beach and bare ground; shore line The disappearance of the American Black and open water. Common species associated Duck may reflect continuation of a long-term with human dwellings and towns were not decline of the species in North America (D. W. included in the results: European Starling, Meritt, page 76 in Robbins and Blom 1996). The American Robin, Northern Mockingbird, and Least Tern requires undisturbed beaches with House Sparrow. little or no vegetation, and frequently abandons an area when there is disturbance or overgrowth Thirty-three species (35%) appeared to have of vegetation (J. McKearnan, page 168 in increased between survey periods (Table 5-4.). Robbins and Blom 1996). Thus it is not Some species showed substantial increases, surprising that this bird disappeared from the one including the Mute Swan (invasive), Canada block (Piney Point SE) where it was confirmed to Goose, Pileated Woodpecker, Bald Eagle, White- breed in 1983-87. breasted Nuthatch, Northern Parula Warber, Worm-eating Warbler, and House Finch. Since this study no additional data on bird Decreases in relative species abundance occurred breeding abundance has been collected in the in 9 species (10%, Table 5-5.) with the largest watershed. However, it is likely that there has changes occurring for Northern Bobwhite, lesser been little to no substantial changes in abundance changes in American Black Duck and Least Tern. for most species. Additionally, current FIDs No changes were determined in 52 species (55%, habitat in the watershed is shown in Map 13. Table 5-6).
It is encouraging that 91% of the bird species showed no decrease. An appreciable number increased. It thus appears that there was little or no significant loss of avian habitats during the two decades separating the surveys. However, The big drop in Northern Bobwhite, and the somewhat less drastic drop in American Woodcock deserve comment. Both species nest on the ground, and therefore are vulnerable to predators such as the house cat and domestic dog. As more houses are built in the watershed, even if there is slight effect on habitat, the cats and dogs associated with the households might account for the disappearance of these vulnerable birds.
23Robbins, C. S. and E. A. T. Blom (Editors) 1996. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Maryland and the District of Columbia. Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press. SECTION 5—LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT 5-20 Living Resource Indicators continued
High Quality Habitat for Forest Interior Dwelling Species (FIDS) Bird Breeding Abundances
FIDS include year-round residents and migratory Breeding bird populations in the St. Mary’s bird species that require continuous forested areas 20 River watershed were assessed by the Maryland sustain their populations. These species, having Ornithological Society’s Breeding Bird Atlas inhabited terrestrial ecosystems for thousands of years, Project in 1983-1987 and 2002-2006.22 This remain a crucial component of the local landscape and history. However, as forested areas become developed study compared relative species abundance by and fragmented, populations of some FIDS have the observed breeding activities identified in the declined significantly. Forest fragmentation directly two survey periods. Using a qualitative scale, reduces available habitat for resident and migratory individuals of each species were assigned to the birds to feed and breed. This is particularly of following categories with point values: consequence to migratory birds that are reliant on these areas as either temporary stopovers or final 1. Not Observed (0 pts) destinations in their annual route. Fragmentation also 2. Observed (1 pts)– present but not in breeding influences habitat quality, as high-value areas, that habitat once contained more abundant, diverse, or nutrient- 3. Possible (2 pts) – heard and seen in breeding rich food sources than adjacent regions, could be reduced or eliminated.21 Habitat remaining in these habitat during breeding period but without fragmented areas subsequently experiences edge other indicators of breeding effects, further degradation at the forest edge, 4. Probable (3 pts) – showing various signs of facilitating a reduction in plant diversity, leaf litter, breeding activity, such as mating or territorial and subsequently prey availability.20 Additionally, activity edges increase predation of eggs and juvenile birds. 5. Confirmed (4 pts) – presence or clear sign of an active nest, eggs, nestlings, or recently fledged young
For each study period, median and mean values were calculated by species and study block (11 in total) within the St. Mary’s River watershed. Changes in species median and mean values between study periods corresponded to a change in relative species abundance. Only species that occupied habitats likely to be adversely affected by economic development in the watershed were compared in this study, including mature forest; regenerating forest; brush-lands and forest edge; Clear Cutting for development along Hilton open fields and grasslands; freshwater marsh; Run.
20 Jones, C., J. McCann, and S. McConville. A Guide to the Conservation of Dwelling Birds in the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area. 2000. 21 Deinlein, M. Travel Alert for Migratory Birds: Stopover Sites in Decline. Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center. Fact Sheet No. 6. http://nationalzoo.si.edu/scbi/migratorybirds/fact_sheets/fxsht6.pdf. Accessed December 10, 2014. 22 USGS North American BBA Explorer: or Breeding Bird Atlases in the U.S. and Canada. 2014. Accessed De- cember 2014. http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bba/. SECTION 5—LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT 5-19 Table 5-4. Bird species that appear to have increased in breeding status between 1983-87 and 2002-06, according to the Maryland Ornithological Society Breeding Bird Atlas surveys in the St. Mary’s River watershed. Asterisk notates species that have changes considerably between surveys.
Species Median 1983-87 Median 2002-06 Mean 1983-87 Mean 2002-06 Double-crested Cormorant 0 1 0 0.5 Green Heron 1 2 1.2 1.9 Mute Swan* 0 0 0 1.5 Canada Goose* 0 2 1 2.2 Black Vulture 1 2 0.9 1.5 Turkey Vulture 1 2 1.5 2.2 Osprey 4 4 2.9 3.7 Bald Eagle* 0 1 0.9 2.1 Cooper's Hawk 0 0 0.2 1 Wild Turkey 0 2 0.4 1.7 Killdeer 2 3 2.2 2.8 Barred Owl 0 2 1 1.5 Hairy Woodpecker 0 2 1.2 1.4 Pileated Woodpecker* 0 3 1 2 Eastern Wood Pewee 2 3 2.1 2.7 Acadian Flycatcher 2 3 2.3 2.6 Tufted Titmouse 3 4 2.7 3.5 White-breasted Nuthatch* 0 2 0.2 1.7 Brown-headed Nuthatch 0 0 0.5 1.3 Wood Thrush 2 3 2.1 2.6 Cedar Waxwing 0 2 1.1 1.4 Northern Parula Warbler* 0 2 0.9 1.5 Pine Warbler 2 3 2.5 2.9 Black-and-White Warbler 0 0 0.6 1.2 Worm-eating Warbler* 0 2 0.3 1.6 Ovenbird 2 3 1.5 2.6 Common Yellowthroat 2 3 2.5 3.2 Summer Tanager 2 3 2 2.4 Scarlet Tanager 2 3 1.9 2.5 Eastern Towhee 2 3 2 2.5 Chipping Sparrow 3 4 3.1 3.6 House Finch* 2 4 1.6 3.5 American Goldfinch 2 3 2.5 3.1
Chipping sparrow at St. Mary’s
Osprey in Upper St. Mary’s River SECTION 5—LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT College of Maryland 5-21 Table 5-5. Bird species that appear to have decreased in breeding status between 1983-87 and 2002-06, according to the Maryland Ornithological Society Breeding Bird Atlas surveys in the St. Mary’s River Watershed. Asterisk notates species that have changes considerably between surveys.
median median mean mean Species 1983-87 2002-06 1983-87 2002-06 Mallard 3 2 2.6 2.1 American Black Duck* 0 0 0.4 0 Northern Bobwhite* 4 2 3.5 1.5 American Woodcock 0 0 1.4 0.5 Least Tern* 0 0 0.5 0 Eastern Kingbird 4 3 3.2 2.8 Grey Catbird 3 2 2.5 1.9 Yellow Warbler 0 0 0.6 0 Prothonotary Warbler 0 0 0.5 0
PHOTOS OF BIRDS? PHOTOS OF BIRDS?
PHOTOS OF BIRDS? SECTION 5—LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT 5-22 Table 5-6. Bird Species that do not appear to have changed in breeding status between 1983-87 and 2002-06, according to the Maryland Ornithological Society Breeding Bird Atlas surveys in the St. Mary’s River watershed. median median mean mean Species 1983-87 2002-06 1983-87 2002-06 Great Blue Heron 1 1 1.5 1.3 Great Egret 0 0 0.1 0.1 Blue heron Cattle Egret 0 0 0.1 0.1 Wood Duck 0 0 1.5 1.2 Red-shouldered Hawk 2 2 1.5 2.1 Broad-winged Hawk 0 0 0.4 0.5 Red-tailed Hawk 2 2 1.4 2.2 Yellow-billed Cuckoo 3 3 2.8 2.6 Eastern Screech Owl 0 0 0.6 1.3 Great Horned Owl 2 2 2 1.6 Chuck-will's-widow 2 2 1.5 1.8 Whip-poor-will 0 0 0.5 0.2 Chimney Swift 2 2 1.7 2.5 Ruby-throated Hummingbird 2 2 1.9 2.3 Belted Kingfisher 2 2 1.5 1.2 Red-bellied Woodpecker 3 3 2.7 3.1 Egret, hawk, redwinged blackbird Downy Woodpecker 3 3 2.6 3 Northern Flicker 2 2 2.3 1.5 Eastern Phoebe 2 2 2.1 2.3 Great Crested Flycatcher 3 3 2.4 3 Horned Lark 0 0 0.7 0.7 Purple Martin 4 4 3.3 2.7 Tree Swallow 0 0 0.5 1.2 Barn Swallow 4 4 3.5 3.5 Blue Jay 3 4 3.4 3.3 American Crow 3 3 3.3 3.2 Fish Crow 2 2 2.2 2.1 Carolina Chickadee 4 3 3.2 3.2 Carolina Wren 4 3 3.7 3.5 House Wren 0 0 1.2 1.2 Sedge Wren 0 0 0.2 0 Marsh Wren 0 0 0.3 0.3 Blue-grey Gnatcatcher 2 2 1.6 1.8 Eastern Bluebird 4 4 3.4 3.6 Brown Thrasher 3 4 3.3 3.5 White-eyed Vireo 3 3 2.5 2.5 Yellow-throated Vireo 0 0 0.3 0.5 Red-eyed Vireo 3 3 3 3 American Redstart 0 0 0.3 0.2 Louisiana Waterthrush 0 0 0.6 0.7 Kentucky Warbler 0 0 1 1.5 Hooded Warbler 0 0 1.1 1 Yellow-breasted Chat 2 3 1.9 1.6 Northern Cardinal 4 4 3.6 3.7 Blue Grosbeak 3 3 2.5 3.1 Indigo Bunting 3 3 3.1 3.3 Field Sparrow 3 3 2.5 2.3 Grasshopper Sparrow 2 3 2.2 1.7 Song Sparrow 2 3 2 2.3
Red-winged Blackbird 4 3 3.5 3.4 SECTION 5—LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT Eastern Meadowlark 2 3 2.4 2.4 Orchard Oriole 3 3 2.9 2.7 5-23 Living Resource Indicators continued
Sensitive Areas Sensitive areas are imperative to supplied by groundwater, naturally filtering preserving the ecosystem services of the water for public and agricultural use. These natural environment. These areas contain systems also support a variety of aquatic and socially and economically valuable natural terrestrial organisms that are intrinsically resources that directly influence public health, valuable. community security, and sustainability. In St. Stream buffers, which include wetlands, Mary’s County, sensitive areas make up ___ floodplains, and steep slopes, contribute to (GIS number) acres and influence the health and ecological function of stream development and land usage. habitats. Vegetation that lines stream banks supply detritus, reduce erosion and serve as Streams and Stream Buffers biological filters, by sequestering nutrients St. Mary’s County contains 174.9 miles in storm water runoff. As a result of of perennial and intermittent (seasonal) development, stream buffers have been streams. 24 These streams are slow-flowing, reduced over time and impervious surface meandering systems whose structure provides area has increased in adjacent areas. along its banks for detritus from the terrestrial Sedimentation, nutrient inputs, and water environment to settle and be processed by velocity during storms have increased. organisms. Through processing, these Subsequently, biological productivity in nutrient sources are made available for other these streams is reduced due to changes in organisms downstream in larger tributaries water quality and clarity, flushing of detritus and rivers. Streams also contribute to and are from the system, and stream bank erosion.
Table 5-7. Types of sensitive areas, their acreage in the watershed and buffer area,
Sensitive Areas Total Acre in the St. Mary’s Buffer River Watershed Streams (inside critical area) ____ acres of streams 100ft
Streams (outside critical ar- ___ acres 50ft ea) 100-year Floodplains ___ acres 50ft
Wetlands* ___ acres 25 ft __ tidal wetlands __ non-tidal wetlands Highly erodible soils** __ acres Up to 300ft
Hydric soils** __ acres - Habitat protection area __ acres -
* all non-tidal wetlands are to be preserved ** mandatory protection if within 300ft of water feature/wetland
24 Paul, Robert W. St. Mary’s River Stream Corridor Assessment and Tidal Shoreline Survey. September 2008. 48 pages. 25 Sensitive Areas Plan Element. 1995. Department of Planning and Zoning Draft. 20 pages. SECTION 5—LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT 5-24 Living Resource Indicators continued
Sensitive Areas Continued
Excess nutrient loads in the county have The addition or modification of structures in resulted in eutrophication, hypoxic events, and a the SAOZ is only permitted by the Board of subsequent decrease in aquatic animal health, Appeals for public transportation, sewer, water, abundance, and diversity. and gas if no alternatives exist and if disturbance To reduce human impacts on streams, to the area can be minimized. Modification of perennial and intermittent streams are preexisting sites must result in a 10% incorporated into a improvement in storm Sensitive Area Overlay water runoff from pre- Zone (SOAZ), defined as development levels. 50ft from each side of the New development is bank, or at least 100ft if in required to supplement at the Critical Area.25 When least 15% of forest cover in the zone includes steep the SAOZ. slopes or highly erodible soil, the 50ft distance is Wetlands increased by 4ft for 1% Wetlands occupy the increment above 15%. transitional zone, between Additionally, when the the land and water, which SOAZ adjacent to or is typically contains hydric 25ft from non-tidal soils, sediments that are 26 wetlands or hydric soils, periodically flooded. the SOAZ is expanded to Wetlands serve as a natural include a 25ft buffer from those areas. filter and reservoir by slowing the flow of This zone is protected by limiting activities stormwater, in terms of volume and velocity, and within the area to monitoring, restoration, and allowing for some water to be discharged from, 27 management. Forestry activities performed in and occasionally permeate into, ground water. accordance with the forest management plan are The vegetation in wetlands reduces erosion and permitted 50ft from the stream bank. Trees can functions as a depositional zone for fine be cut for personal use in the SAOZ if replaced sediments in runoff, maintaining water quality in a 3 to 1 ratio for each tree removed. and clarity. Wetlands also serve as a nutrient Agriculture is allowed within 25ft of a forested sinks, transforming and retaining nutrients in or 50ft grassed buffer if permitted by the soil vegetation, and additionally withholding conservation and water quality plan. dissolved chemical pollutants. Stormwater management facilities may be Wetlands also support various species of permitted in the zone if no alternatives are birds, fish, and mammals, by providing critical feasible but are required to manage their own habitats and microhabitats. However, these stormwater and design the site to allow for services can be impacted when wetlands are ground water recharge. drained, filled, or the adjacent land is cleared.
26 Wetlands. 2012. Chesapeake Bay Program. http://www.chesapeakebay.net/issues/issue/ wetlands#inline. Accessed December 16, 2014. 27 Prioritizing Sites for Wetland Restoration, Mitigation, and Preservation in Maryland, St. Mary’s County. 2006. Maryland Department of the Environment SECTION 5—LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT 5-25 Living Resource Indicators continued
Sensitive Areas Continued experience periodic flooding, particularly during storm events, or contain alluvial These wetlands are also at risk for species soils.27 Development in the 100 year flood displacement by the introduction of non- plain is restricted by the county, while native species. construction in this area should be avoided Historic wetlands were likely present in when possible. However, when development areas that contain hydric soils, soils that are does occur in these areas impervious surface typically saturated with water. Regions with can significantly influence the movement of this soil type and no existing wetlands are stormwater, resulting in erosion and pollution ideal for restoration projects. Wetland from runoff. Mitigation strategies include restoration should also maintaining a buffer be promoted in between the headwater or source floodplain and streams, which typically impervious surface. receive excess nutrients Areas in the St. and sediment, and are Mary’s River optimal at reducing watershed that are these inputs. Similarly, affected by flooding wetland stream buffers include Carthagena support diverse natural Creek, St. George systems, capable of Creek, transporting usable Hilton Run and nutrient sources to Eastern Branch, St. downstream Mary’s River, and communities. Jarboesville Run. According to the Chesapeake Bay 26 Program , over 6,000 acres of wetlands were Steep Lands established, rehabilitated, or reestablished Although most of St. Mary’s County has a between 2010 and 2013 in the Chesapeake flat topography, some areas contain steep Bay watershed. However, the goal of 85,000 slopes. Human disturbances to steep slopes acres of wetlands (83,000 acres on that are adjacent to water bodies can agricultural lands) by 2025 appears to be far significantly impact on aquatic life and from achieved. shoreline vegetation. Steep slopes are capable Wetlands in the St. Mary’s River of supporting diverse communities as watershed, according to DNR (Map 17), environmental conditions can vary spatially occupy 3,977 acres, of which 546 acres are along the slope, forming microhabitats. estuarine and 3244 acres are in freshwater Therefore, these areas (even artificially 27 areas. Non-tidal, freshwater wetlands were created slopes) are managed to maintain tracked by Maryland Department of the biodiversity by avoiding unnecessary human Environment between 1991 and 2004, and disturbance. show a slight increase in these wetland during Development is limited on slopes greater that time. Current acreage (GIS)? (Map 17). than 15% and prohibited on those 25% or greater.25 In the St. Mary's County
Flood Plains Development District, slopes greater than Flood Plains are areas that either 15% and contain highly erodible soils are
25 Sensitive Areas Plan Element. 1995. Department of Planning and Zoning Draft. 20 pages. SECTION 5—LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT 5-26
Living Resource Indicators continued discouraged for development, especially if there Greenways is potential for impacting water quality. Greenway are a defined as corridors that However, these areas may be developed if connect natural, hubs (open space of at least 100 erosion levels do not increase as a result of acres in size), providing a contiguous area for development. Any development on steep slopes wildlife, maintains water quality, and enables 15% or greater is limited to clearing 30% of public use for recreation and environmental vegetation and adding 15% of impervious education. Beginning with the Maryland surface. Greenways Commission in 1990, the protection Slopes that border stream buffers and non- of potential, extensive natural corridors was tidal wetlands are deemed priority protection advocated for at the federal, state, and private areas, to be preserved. However, slope area, levels. In development areas, greenways can contiguity, and distance from wetlands and still be connected through open spaces. stream buffers can greatly affect their priority In St. Mary’s River watershed, a greenway level for preservation. would connect St. Mary’s City to St. Mary’s Development of steep River State Park. slopes is specifically However, the heart of discouraged in the areas this region, Lexington between Three Notch Road Park continues to be and the Patuxent river. developed and therefore Incentives are provided to limits the functionally encourage development of this potential outside of these areas. greenway. However, Additionally, slopes present the protection of in developed areas are sensitive areas in light preserved in open space. of further development Best management practices should still be a priority are also used to permit in order to maintain natural drainage while minimizing erosion on terrestrial and aquatic resources. steep land. On slopes exceeding 25% agriculture, Natural Heritage Lands forestry, mining activities, and roadways are St. Mary’s County, which contains permitted. However, roadways are limited to a wetlands, tidal marshes, and freshwater streams, maximum slope of 30%. This policy, which supports a highly diverse ecosystem. However, advocates for the preservation of steep slopes, over the last 350 years, significant species also allows roadway development in the form of declines have been experienced in Maryland as re-grading. a consequence of habitat loss and degradation. Areas in St. Mary’s River watershed with In order to prevent new extinctions, habitats that steep slopes are shown on Map 7. contain rare, threatened, or endangered species are protected in Natural Heritage Areas. To
28 Brown, K. K. Cappiella, A. Kitchell and T. Brown. Natural Resource Conservation Summary for St. Mary’s County. 2002. Center for Watershed Protection. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore District Planning Division and St. Mary’s Department of Planning and Zoning. SECTION 5—LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT 5-27 Living Resource Indicators continued
qualify under this designation, the area must Six RTE species are found in the St. Mary's contain one listed species, have a distinctive River watershed. Three are rare plants: bent-awn habitat in terms of its geology, hydrology, plumgrass, pale mannagrass, and tobacco weed, climate, or biology, and be the foremost example a highly rare plant. Three are animal species: the of this type of area in the state. If it is not a eastern narrow-mouthed toad; a highly rare fish, significant habitat in respect to the state, these the flier, and the bald eagle. The five locations areas can be protected locally by the Critical Area for these species within the St. Mary's River if the species or habitat in question is uncommon Watershed were described in the Conservation or limited in distribution. Natural Heritage areas Summary for St. Mary's County:28 are otherwise regulated by the Department of Natural Resources. St. Mary's River Bottomland (10) St. Mary's Fish Management Area (11) Lands with Rare, Threatened, & Endangered West California Swamp (15) Species Jarboesville Run (23) St. Mary's River Watershed (24)
Table 5-8. Sensitive areas in the St. Mary's River watershed containing threatened and endangered species. Information sourced from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources Wildlife and Heritage Service.
Map Site Area RTE Species Special Protection Comments Number (acres) 10 St. Mary's River 1488 Eastern narrow- Managed by Washing- steep slopes, buffers, wetlands, Bottomland mouthed toad ton Suburban Sanitary hydric soils, floodplains Commission (WSSC) State parkland 11 St. Mary's River Fish 520 Flier State parkland lake with forest buffer Management Area *Status questionable 15 West California 23 1 state– Managed by WSSC Potentially impacted by past Swamp endangered sedge development. Located in *Status questionable development district.
23 Jarboesville Run unknown Ironcolor shiner None Found in MD Biological Stream Survey in development district.
24 St. Mary's River 5640 Bent-awn Plumegrass WSSC Watershed Pale mannagrass State parkland Tobaccoweed Flier Bald eagle Eastern narrow Mouthed toad
29 Current and Historical Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species of St. Mary’s County, Maryland, Dec. 2008. MDNR, Wildlife and Heritage Service. Website http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/Plants_Wildlife/rte/ rteanimals.asp. Accessed December 12, 2014. SECTION 5—LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT 5-28 Living Resource Indicators continued ion). SECTION 5—LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT
5-29 Protect Watershed of Center the of (Courtesy species endangered and threatened, rare, with areas heritage Natural 5-7. Figure Living Resource Indicators continued
The Eastern narrow-mouthed toad lives St. Mary’s River Bottomlands Heritage Area under the bark of fallen logs and breeds in vernal pools in the St. Mary's River Bottomland, The St. Mary’s River Bottomland, located to which has been designated special protection the west and south of the Lexington Park area. This status is given to areas with high Development District (LPDD), is a 1,500 acre quality or unusually sensitive water resources wooded floodplain. This area contains habitat for and environmental features that would be rare, threatened, and endangered species, and is threatened by land development without special therefore is a Wetland of Special State Concern. water quality protection measures. Located As the majority of the Bottomlands is located primarily within St. Mary's River State Park, the within St. Mary’s River State Park it is relatively Mary's River Bottomland is a heavily wooded protected. floodplain. Because portions are very wet, they The Bottomlands are also a part of green provide breeding sites even in dry years. As infrastructure, forming contiguous ecologically winter approaches, the toads move to high significant lands between LPDD at Jarboesville ground, where they overwinter in burrows. Run and the areas north and south of St. The St. Mary's River Fish Management Andrew’s Church Rd, Route 4. Area also is a special protection area. Comprising of 520 acres, a lake, surrounded by (Henry Miller at Historic for additional info?) forest, provides habit for the flier fish. Table 5-7 lists the RTE animals and plants found in the St. Mary's River Watershed and
their associated locations (see Figure 5-7). Sensitive Species areas are shown in Map 20.
MAP/PHOTO?
30 Lexington Park Development District Master Plan. Adopted 2005. St. Mary’s County, Maryland. SECTION 5—LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT 5-30 LANDSCAPE
Landscape Indicators
Impervious Surfaces Impervious surfaces are defined as artificial struc- tures that reduce infiltration of water, subsequently in- creasing runoff. St. Mary’s River watershed contained 4.7% impervious surfaces in 19981 and as of 2014 ap- proximately contain _ area of impervious surface (__% imperviousness), from its roadways and buildings. A study by the Center for Watershed Protection (1994) states that at 10-15% imperviousness, significant stream degradation occurs, suggesting that development should be limited to that percentage in the watershed. Figure 6-1. Proportion of Land Use in St. Mary’s River Additionally, to reduce the scale of disturbance, devel- Watershed in 2010. Courtesy of BSID Analysis of the opment should be reduced to clusters of high density. Department of the Environment. This, however, may result in poor stream heath near high density areas, while relatively good quality is maintained in the rest of the watershed. Further mitiga- Population Density tion in areas with high imperviousness can be achieved The highest population density in the St. Mary’s with stormwater management facilities. River watershed is in the county’s 9th district, which The locality of headwater streams to high density contains Lexington Park, California, and Great Mills. areas is also crucial in the development of storm water In the Transportation Development Plan Final Report management techniques, as these streams maintain wa- (KFH Group, 2013) , population densities in 2010 ter quality for the water bodies downstream. within the Lexington Park Development District ranged from 501 to over 2001 persons per square PHOTO mile while other areas in the St. Mary’s River water- shed were estimated to have a density of 101-500 persons per square mile. According to the 2010 St Mary’s County Compre- hensive Plan Low-density residential development (< 2 units per acre) has contributed considerably to ur- ban sprawl in the watershed, resulting in the loss of forest and agricultural land. The Maryland Depart- ment of planning has estimated that for every 95 acres of agricultural and forest lands lost, approxi- mately 100 households are created. By implementing Smart Growth strategies, which concentrates growth in development districts, these 100 households can instead be contained in 8 acres.
Historic Wetland Loss
1 Watershed Evaluation for St. Mary’s River and McIntosh Run Watersheds. 1998. KCI (01-98022B). Prepared for the St. Mary’s County Department of Planning and Zoning. KCI Technologies, Inc., Hunt Valley, Maryland. 2 The Importance of Imperviousness. 1994. Center for Watershed Protection. Watershed Protection Techniques. 1(3):100-111. St. Mary’s County Transit Development Plan Final Report. 2013. KFH Group, Inc. Prepared for St. Mary’s County and Mary- land Transit Administration. 3 2010 Comprehensive Plan (cited before) 4 Watershed Report for Biological Impairment of Non-Tidal St. Mary’s River Watershed, St. Mary’s County, Maryland Biolog- ical Stressor Identification Analysis Results and Interpretation. 2014. Maryland Department of the Environment. 5 Wetland Status and Trends in St. Mary’s County, Maryland. 1994. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Accessed Jan- uary 2015. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Documents%5CWetland-Status-and-Trends-in-St-Marys-County- Maryland-1981-82-to-1988-89.pdf SECTION 6—LANDSCAPESECTION 6-1 LANDSCAPE
Landscape Indicators continued
Wetlands in St. Mary’s County were mapped in Highly erodible soils encompass 49,221 acres in two survey periods, 1981-82 and 1988-89, by the U.S. St. Mary’s County. However, only areas within 300 Fish and Wildlife Service to identify areas experienc- feet of water or wetlands are required to be protect- ing losses and gains in acreage.5 St. Mary’s County ed, accounting for 35,262 acres ( __ acres in the was identified to have 16,730 acres of wetlands (7% watershed). total area) in the 1988-1989 survey, with 10,072 acres Soil erodibility is influenced by a combination of of palustrine (freshwater marshes and forested wet- factors, including plant cover, soil types, and the lands) and 6,629 acres were estuarine (salt and brack- topography of the area. Most of St. Mary’s River ish marshes). watershed is moderate to high erodibility (See Map The two sampling periods identified that 143 acres 15). of wetlands has been lost, with 49 acres of (mainly Erosion is a considerable threat to water quality, forested) wetlands being converted to as housing, agri- especially on construction sites, as sediment reduces culture, or commercial development. Pond construc- water clarity, impacting aquatic vegetation and there- tion contributed to an increase in 111 acres of palus- fore reducing oxygen levels for other organisms. trine, non-vegetated wetlands. This study, however, Sedimentation also directly affects benthic species, did not assess the quality of the remaining wetlands, as particularly filter feeders, as sediment reduces their increased sedimentation, ground water usage, and ability to obtain food. pollution is was expected and has occurred since this The Maryland Standard and Specifications for study. Soil Erosion and Sediment Control (2011) detail the According to the Department of (SUE) _ acres methods taken to protecting erodible soils and mini- were palustrine and _ acres estuarine. mizing the potential of erosion during development.
Unbuffered Streams Stream buffers, which are crucial habitat for aquat- ic and terrestrial species, serve as mediators of urban pollution, maintaining water quality by filtering out oils, nutrients, pesticides/herbicides, and other debris that would otherwise enter the stream. Without these buffers, stream water quality becomes degraded from terrestrial inputs of nutrient, chemicals, and sediment. These buffers, which include trees and wetlands, are deemed as sensitive areas, protected by State and Federal laws. In St. Mary’s County, perennial and intermittent stream buffers account for 50,220 acres (__ in the St. Mary’s River watershed), conserved in the 100 foot Critical Area.
Soil Erodibility
6 ibid (2010 Comprehensive plan (cited on previous page)) 7 Maryland Standards and Specifications for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control. 2011. Maryland Department of the Environment Water Management Administration http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/ StormwaterManagementProgram/SoilErosionandSedimentControl/Documents/2011%20MD%20Standard% 20and%20Specifications%20for%20Soil%20Erosion%20and%20Sediment%20Control.pdf SECTION 6—LANDSCAPESECTION 6-2 Land Use
RPD Task Force Report bers, and elected officials to evaluate and make The St. Mary’s County Rural Preservation District recommendations on the encroachment of the De- Task Force was created in 2007 by the Board of Com- partment of Defense facilities to the St. Mary’s 9 missioners to make recommendations in the preserva- County Commissioners. According to this study, tion of agriculturally or environmentally valuable the Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River and land. A report was prepared in 2008 outlining current Webster’s Field support over 19,000 jobs in the county, serving as an integral part of the local efforts at that time and recommended future measures economy. for protecting the Rural Preservation District (RPD). Efforts to mitigate encroachment began in the This committee has been meeting monthly since 2007, 1970’s as the NAS Patuxent River submitted the with its most recent meeting in 2011 with no future Patuxent River Air Installations Compatible Use meetings scheduled. Zone (AICUZ) plan to the County. The AICUZ In 2008 a report was released,8 discussing acreage plan provided policy recommendations for incor- of preserved lands through various efforts. poration into land use regulations to the benefit of Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation the base and public. The expansion of NAS Patux- (MALPF) obtained over 8,500 acres in easements. ent River created a demand for addition residential Rural Legacy program accounted for 2,702 acres in and business development. This required the County to designate areas for future encroachment, land easements or fee estate purchases to protect areas and in the process coordinate with NAS Patuxent in threat of urban sprawl. An additional 159 acres River Navy leadership to evaluate future develop- adjacent to the Mattapany Legacy Area, now called ment. the Fenwick Property, has also been purchased by St. St. Mary’s County Commissioners formally Mary’s County. Transferable Development Rights adopted an AICUZ overlay zone in 1979. In 2002, (TDR) program included 1,656 acres, allowing for the St. Mary’s County Comprehensive Zoning Or- owners of preservation area to sell land rights to their dinance recognized a Clear Zone and APZ-1 in property in exchange for development elsewhere. Ad- which residential development is prohibited, and ditionally, the Maryland Environmental Trust consti- APZ-2 that allows for up to 2 residential dwelling tuted for 2,142 acres of family-owned land while the units per acre. Encroachment into the APZ-2 zone is of high priority and the County has inhibited Maryland Historical Trust has preserved 303 acres of development in areas adjacent to areas in the APZ- historically or culturally significant land. 2. Due to Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) These preservation areas constitute for __ acres of and recent aircraft advancements, the County’s protected land in the St. Mary’s River watershed as of AICUZ and it’s encroachment policy required 2015 (Map 14). amendments. The recommendations made in the 2007 en- For further information about these organizations: croachment study satisfy the following objectives: MALPF — http://www.malpf.info/ Rural Legacy — http://www.stmarysmd.com/ded/RuralLegacy.asp 1. Improve communications between the County TDR— http://www.co.saint-marys.md.us/docs/TDRBrochure.pdf and Navy MD Environmental trust — http://www.dnr.state.md.us/met/ MD historical trust— http://mht.maryland.gov/ Utilizing the NAS Patuxent River Com- plex Encroachment Action plan as a Memorandum 2007 Encroachment Study of Understanding (MOU), the County and Com- The Encroachment Study Committee, formed in 2006 manding Officer of NAS can address anticipated or by the Southern Maryland Navy Alliance (a non-profit that certain encroachment issues. Biannual meetings advocates for the Patuxent River Naval Air Station), was a between the Commanding Officer and County rep- collaborative effort by local business and community mem- resentatives will be held to assess progress and future goals for in addressing these issues.
8St. Mary’s County Rural Preservation Task Force Report. 2008. St. Mary’s County of Maryland. SECTION 6—LANDSCAPESECTION 9Encroachment Study Committee Key Findings and Recommendations. 2007. Southern Maryland Navy Alliance 6-3 Land Use continued Lands with Significant Natural Resource Value and 2. Prohibit new residential development in APZ-2 Large Area Amendments to the AICUZ ordinance do not influence pre-existing development. Accident Potential Green Infrastructure Zones (APZ) are regions that aircraft accidents are most Greenways are recreational trails that can serve as likely to occur. public, alternative pathways, by land or water, for trav- eling throughout the county. These paths would also 3. Establish a buffer zone create an ecological network, connecting large land The boundaries of a buffer zone will defining areas. areas where noise mitigation is required and the density In the St. Mary’s River watershed, these potential of residents is at its maximum. These zones are deter- greenways include paddle or land trails between St. mined by the County government and development Mary’s City to St. Mary’s River State Park (as shown community, with additional consultation from the Navy. in Fig. 6-2).11 This greenway could also be extended to Potomac River Greenways. 4. Address Webster Field encroachment issues Additional greenways were proposed on the Lex- The Webster Field buffer zone will be in ac- ington Park Development District Master Plan 2013 cordance with that of the NAS Patuxent River buffer. Staff draft to include a Three Notch Road hiking and Land for this zone will be purchased or acquired biking trail, connecting from Pegg Road north into through easement and funded by available military con- Charles County, with some sections completed in struction funds, land preservation programs, and the 2013. Current Green Infrastructure is shown in Map DoD. The AICUZ for Webster Field will be extended 12. to include an APZ-1 and APZ-2. PHOTO
5. Assess benefits of a Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) A JLUS has been used in other areas as a means to improve compatible land development policy.
The Encroachment Action Plan (EAP), developed by the Navy, planned to identify other factors of encroach- ment, and develop short and long-term goals for mitiga- tion. In addition to addressing development and noise, this plan would also incorporate other encroachment concerns, including urban growth, airborne noise, ord- nance and munitions, competition for air, land, and sea spaces, light pollution, frequency spectrum Large Forest Blocks (communications), threatened and endangered species, Large forest blocks are contiguous areas of wooded and maritime issues, such as merchant vessels (LNG land, crucial as habitat for forest interior dwelling spe- tankers), ecological concerns, and other factors. cies habitat that are vulnerable to forest fragmentation The United States Department of the Navy did a and degradation of edge habitat. These areas are de- study in 2009, providing additional context and recom- fined as having at least 250 acres of contiguous land mendations for the county.10 The study talks extensive- with a surrounding 300 foot buffer to reduce edge ef- ly of noise levels. fects.12 St. Mary’s River watershed large forest blocks are shown in Map 13.
10 Air Installations Compatible Use Zones Study for Patuxent River, Maryland. 2009. United States Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington, DC. 11 Maryland Atlas of Greenways, Water Trails, and Green Infrastructure: St. Mary’s County. 2000. http:// dnr.maryland.gov/greenways/counties/stmarys.html. Accessed December 17, 2014. 12 Brown, K. K. Cappiella, A. Kitchell and T. Brown. Natural Resource Conservation Summary for St. Mary’s County. 2002. Center for Watershed Protection. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore District
Planning Division and St. Mary’s Department of Planning and Zoning. 6—LANDSCAPESECTION 6-4 Fig 6-2. Potential greenways and water trails in St. Mary’s County, Maryland, USA (Courtesy of the Maryland Atlas of Greenways, Water Trails, and Green Infrastructure 2000 Edition, Mary- land Greenways Commission. http://dnr.maryland.gov/greenways/counties/stmarys.html).
6-5
Land Use continued
Mining Mining in the watershed is limited to open pit extraction of gravel and sand, and the extraction of ground water (See section on aquifers for more in- formation). Mining activities are limited to mini- mize impacts to water and habitat quality. Habitat protection areas that contain mining prospects are to be protected. Industry studies suggest the existence of natural gas resources in St. Mary’s County. At this time there is no indication that industry will pursue this resource in the near future. As of 2013 there were nine mineral mines in the St. Mary’s River watershed (See Map 8).
13 MINING?? SECTION 6—LANDSCAPESECTION 6-6 Protected Lands
Critical Areas, Resource Conservation Area, Limited Development Areas
Lands within 1000 feet of the tidal waters are governed by the Chesapeake Bay Protection Act of 1984—also known as the Critical Areas. Photo Most of the tidal shoreline of the St. Mary’s River is zoned Resource Conservation Area (RCA), areas where development is discouraged. Within the RCA areas, floating overlays allow for additional development and intensity in two categories — Limited Development Areas (LDAs) and Intensely Developed Areas (IDAs). LDAs in the St. Mary’s River watershed include marinas and the St. Mary’s College of Mary- land’s waterfront. There are no IDA lands in the watershed. Generally, development is discour- aged in the critical areas and specific restrictions and limitations are in effect for the 200-foot buffer to the tidal waters.
Figure 19. Critical areas
14
CITATION?? 6—LANDSCAPESECTION 6-7 Protected Lands continued
State-owned Parklands
Situated at the northern end of the St. Mary’s picnic tables, playground, boat launch ramps and River watershed, the St. Mary’s River State Park a large gravel parking lot are provided. Picnicking is comprise of a wide range of habitats, from is permitted but tables are limited. This is a fee wooded acres and fields to swamps and small area ($3 per vehicle or seasonal pass). streams.15 The park is host to many different The area north and east of Indian Bridge types of plant and animal species, and includes Road comprises the second site. It is approxi- several threatened and endangered species such mately 2,200 acres and is primarily undeveloped. as the Narrowmouth Toad. It is a wildlands area and a managed hunting area. St. Mary’s River State Park is separated into There are no formal trails in the wildlands, two areas. The southern area holds the 250-acre although trails abound from illegal motorized all- St. Mary's Lake and hosts a boat launching ramp. terrain vehicles. This area was preserved for the It is located along Maryland Route 5, between purpose of control downstream flooding. This is Leonardtown and Great Mills, at the end of Camp also a fee area, but note that not all access points Cosoma Road. The area has become a popular support fee collection. freshwater fishing spot. Several species of fish are common to the lake including largemouth bass, chain pickerel, crappie, bluegill, and sunfish. The lake has been designated a trophy bass lake and as such, special fishing regulations may be in effect. Fishermen should check bulletin boards or contact park personnel for details. A 7.5 mile trail circles the lake, allowing the area to be fished from shore or by boat. The trail is regularly used for hiking, biking, and horseback riding. Permitted hunters can access designated sites for waterfowl hunting. Modern comfort station, Figure 6-3. St. Mary’s State Park boundary.
15 St. Mary’s River State Park, Maryland Park Service, Maryland Department of Natural Resources; http://www.dnr.state.md.us/ .publiclands/ southern/stmarysriver.html Map located at http://www.dnr.state.md.us/publiclands/southern/stmarysriver.html Accessed January 20, 2009. SECTION 6—LANDSCAPESECTION 6-8 Protected Lands continued
State owned Parkland continued
Salem State Forest adjoins the northern area acquired by Maryland DNR and the Conservation of St. Mary’s State Lake and is bordered by St. Fund from the Walton Lumber company.16 This Andrews Church Road. Salem State Forest and area was allotted for open space, expanding Salem St. Mary’s River State Park contribute to a large State Forest west across route 5, spanning the St. contiguous area of preserved land in the St. Mary’s River and the Breton Bay watersheds. Mary’s River watershed, ideal as a green corridor Development of additional trails, permitting easy for wildlife and public recreation. access to this area, are expected in the near future. The Department of Natural Resources was purchased the Salem property (902 acres) in 2003 from a Pulpwood Company that had largely been harvesting loblolly pines and facilitating the growth of loblolly pine monoculture (plantations).15 At that time, 345 acres of the property had recently been clear-cut (2000), 108 acres had been treated with herbicides to promote succession and colonization of loblolly pine, and 275 acres contained established stands of loblolly. The remaining acreage sustains multi-species stands of pine, oak, and other hard- woods. The Department of Natural efforts have concentrated in diversifying this area through various methods. The Salem State Forest is available for the public uses of hunting, hiking, horseback riding, and biking. The State Forest is also connected, by the Salem Forest Trail to St. Mary’s Lake. Similar to St. Mary’s River State Park, motorized vehicles are not permitted. In January 2015, 854 acres of land adjacent to Salem State Forest was
Figure 21. Salem State Forest with land acquired in 2015.
15Salem State Forest. Maryland Park Service, Maryland Department of Natural Resources Accessed January 2015. Website http://dnr.maryland.gov/forests/StateForests/salemforest.asp 16 State adds 854 acres in St. Mary’s to forest land. Southern Maryland News. January 9, 2015. Accessed January 2015. Website http:// www.somdnews.com/article/20150109/NEWS/150109436&template=southernMaryland.
SECTION 6—SECTION LANDSCAPE 6-9 Protected Lands continued
History of Historic St. Mary’s City Museum17
In the late 16th and early 17th centuries, England began efforts to develop a New World empire in North America. The beginnings were financed by allowing entrepre- neurs, some of them joint stock companies, some of them individual proprietors, to establish colonies along the Atlantic seacoast. In 1632, Cecil Calvert, the second Baron of Baltimore, was granted a charter to what is now the state of Maryland. Cecil’s father, George Calvert, had been King James I’s principal Secretary of State, at a time when conflict between Catholic Europe and Protestant England was seri- ous. Calvert championed a marriage between the King’s son Charles and a Spanish princess but the effort failed. Soon afterward, George Calvert resigned as Secretary and converted—or returned—to Catholicism (he had been Catholic until the age of 12 when he was forced to become Anglican). That the Protestant king granted the colony of Maryland to the Catholic George Calvert was remarkable—and Maryland was Calvert’s second land grant. His first was Avalon in Newfoundland, but after one exceptionally harsh winter, Calvert opted to return to England and lobby for land in a more temperate clime. In the Maryland charter, largely written by Calvert, the king granted the Calverts princely rights, with the power to raise an army, collect taxes, make laws, and give away land. Clearly, the King held George Calvert in high regard, despite his religious convictions. George Calvert had a long-standing interest in colonization. He invested in the Virginia Company and other early efforts. He applied lessons learned in these ventures to plan the Maryland colony. The preponderance of the investors in Maryland were Catholic and the majority of workers the investors transported to build the colony were Protestant, creating potential religious conflict that could destroy Maryland. To avoid this, the Calvert's instituted a progressive policy of liberty of conscience, allowing people of varied faiths to freely worship in Maryland. Related to this was another revolutionary decision that the colony would have no official established religion, neither Catholic nor Protestant. George Calvert did not live to see the founding of the colony. His son, Cecilius, inherited the charter. His second son, Leonard, led the adventurers who set off for the Chesapeake on the Ark and the Dove in November 1633, while Cecilius stayed in England to defend the charter. In 1634, the colonists established the first settlement and new capital of the colony, which they called St. Mary’s City. The Calvert’s hold on the fledgling colony was tenuous at best as Virginians, religious suspicions, the English Civil Wars, and political intrigues threatened or temporarily disrupted their efforts. The second half of the century was St. Mary’s heyday, marked by a strong tobacco
17 History, Historic St. Mary’s City web site: http://www.stmaryscity.org/History.html,. Accessed January 21, 2009.
SECTION 6—LANDSCAPESECTION 6-10 Protected Lands continued
economy and growth in population that warranted construction of public buildings. For a time, the colony offered remarkable opportunities for economic and social advancement to those endowed with the ability to work hard and a bit of luck. But political and religious animosity again arose late in the century and a group of disgruntled Protestants led a revolution against Lord Baltimore in 1689. The crown appointed royal governors and they moved the capital from St. Mary’s City to Annapolis in 1695. The colonial statehouse was turned into a Protestant (Anglican) church in the same year; and in 1704 the principle of liberty of conscience was dramatically overturned when Catholic churches and schools were closed in accordance with “An Act to Prevent the Growth of Popery within this Province.” Abandoned for the most part, St. Mary’s City sank back into the soil from which it had arisen and by the time of the American Revolution, little of Lord Baltimore’s capital was left but memories of its former importance. Today, everything that once stood on the 17th-century town lands has disappeared-at least above ground. Fortunately, there was very little later development to destroy the site of what was once the first capital. Early in the 20th century, interest in the ancient city revived and historical research and archaeological excavations began to uncover the 17th- century settlement. Because the old city had remained relatively undisturbed over the years, the area is one of the finest 17th-century colonial archaeology sites in the nation. St. Mary's City has been recognized as a National Historic Landmark since 1969, Decades of research are the foundation of exhibits at Historic St. Mary's City, the state museum that commemorates the state's founding. The museum’s archaeological collection of over 5 million artifacts is a internationally significant resource for professional archaeologists and other scholars. Dr. Lois Green Carr, staff historian since the inception of the research program in 1967, is broadly considered the dean of early Chesapeake studies. Dr. Carr's work has distilled the human spirit from the archival records and has greatly augmented the discoveries of archaeologists led by Director of Research Garry Wheeler Stone (1971-1986) and Dr. Henry Miller (1987 – pre- sent). From the beginning, the research program at HSMC has been a collaborative effort of historians, architectural historians and archaeologists working to explore the nature of early Maryland. It has served as a model for interdisciplinary research in Early American history. Dr. Carr's books include Maryland's Revolution of Government:1689-1692 (with David Jordan:1971), and Robert Cole's World (with Lorena Walsh and Russell Menard:1991). The results of many of the historical research projects are available here, and the Maryland State Archives, web sites. For archaeological and architectural discoveries, see the Archaeology section of this site.
SECTION 6—LANDSCAPESECTION 6-11 Protected Lands continued
State owned Parkland continued
Historic St. Mary’s City Located on the east bank of the tidal St. Mary’s River, Historic St. Mary’s City museum and park comprises approximately 1200 acres and about 1.8 miles of shoreline. It is a registered National Historic Landmark. The former British settlement has been recreated in the form of an early tobacco plantation on about 165 acres, the State House of 1676, a woodland Indian hamlet, several replica buildings and frames of buildings, and a recreation of the 17th century trans-Atlantic vessel, the Dove. The park is staffed by costumed interpreters who are there to help visitors learn about St. Mary’s City's past. Informative videos and displays enrich the experience. The park is also home to many significant archaeological finds which are interpreted through museum exhibits. Historic St. Mary’s City is open from mid March to late November. Hours of operation vary by season. Visit the official St. Mary’s City web site for operating hours: http://www.stmaryscity.org/ A 3.2 mile hiking trail wonders around the wooded southern portion of the property. Bikes and horses are discouraged and motorized Figure 6-4. Boundaries of the City of St. Mary’s as Incorpo- vehicles are prohibited. Features along the way rated by Lord Baltimore in 1668. These form the basis for include panoramic vistas of the tidal St. Mary’s the National Historic Landmark of St. Mary’s City. River, tidal pond habitat, mature mixed forest habitat, and the historic 1840 Brome Howard Inn and slave quarters. There are another 2 miles of paved trails that wind through the exhibits; this is a ticketed area and no bikes or horses are permitted here. Historic St. Mary’s City museum and park is co-located with St. Mary’s College of Maryland, along Maryland Route 5, in St. Mary’s County.
18 The Brome Howard Inn, web site: http://www.bromehowardinn.com/ Accessed January 21, 2008
SECTION 6—LANDSCAPESECTION 6-12 Protected Lands continued
County-owned Lands
The county operates three parks within the St. Mary’s River watershed that have access to the water: Great Mills Canoe and Kayak Launch Piney Point Landing St. George Island Landing Other county-run parks are: Chancellor’s Run Regional Park Great Mills Swimming Pool George B. Cecil Park Point Road (Maryland Route 249) at the bridge to Jarboesville Park St. George Island. The 2.83-acre site has parking John G. Lancaster Park for more than 50 cars and trailers and no bathroom facilities. Two well-equipped boat Nicolet park ramps provide good access for larger boats and St. Andrew’s Estates Park boats on trailers. Two short piers provide access to the boat ramps and limited fishing. Fishing Carver Community Park from the shore is encouraged. The shoreline is Hours of operation of county parks is hardened with large boulders and presents typically sunrise to sunset. Check the county web difficult access for canoes and kayaks. A private site for specific hours: http://www.co.saint- access on the northeast side of the bridge has a marys.md.us/recreate/ sand beach and is ideal for paddlers. Great Mills Canoe and Kayak Launch is located on Maryland Route 5 about 75 yards south of the intersection with Indian Bridge Road. Parking is available for about 30 vehicles and access is from a small dock or steep bank. Generally, water levels in this stretch of the river are insufficient for paddling. A moderate rain in the winter and spring or heavy rains in the summer generate enough flow for paddling. Caution should be exercised when the river is high. There are no bathroom facilities at this 1.7- acre site. Piney Point Landing is located on Piney
19 St. Mary’s County Department of Recreation , Parks and Community Services, http://www.co.saint-marys.md.us/recreate/ Accessed January 21, 2009. SECTION 6—LANDSCAPESECTION 6-13 Protected Lands continued
St. George Island Landing is located at the Dedicated in 1983, the George B. Cecil Park end of Thomas Road on St. George Island. The is located on St. Georges Church Road approxi- 1/2-acre site has a fishing pier and no bathroom mately 1/3 mile west of the intersection with Flat facilities. Iron Road. The park provides baseball/softball fields, tennis courts, fixed playground equipment, Chancellor’s Run Regional Park is located picnic tables, and a pavilion. A concession on Chancellor’s Run Road approximately 2 miles building is on site with modern bathroom east of the intersection with Maryland Route 235. facilities. Dedicated in 1990, the 80-acre site host a variety of ball fields, an activity center, two sand volley The five-acre Jarboesville Park is located at ball courts, and the Softball Hall of Fame the intersection of Thomas Drive and Williams pavilion. Containing the Drive, and behind most amenities of all the Lexington Park parklands in the Elementary School. watershed, Chancellor’s The park was Run Regional Park dedicated in 1975 and facilities are available for provides fixed rental and feature full playground equipment, commercial kitchen tennis courts, and facilities and well as baseball/softball fields. modern bathrooms. There are porta-a- Lighting over ball fields potties on site. provide for evening John G. Lancaster activities. Hiking/walking is encouraged on the Park is located on Willows Road approximately site and there is one partially wooded trail. 1/4 mile south of the intersection with South Access to the park, like all St. Mary’s County Shangri La Drive. The approximately 47-acre parks, is free. Service and facility charges may park, dedicated in 2001 and to be expanded to 80 be required. There is no access to the river. acres in 2010, features a fixed playground area as Great Mills Swimming Pool is located on well as numerous ball fields, a dog-walk, picnic Great Mills Road (Maryland Route 246) tables, pavilion, basketball and tennis courts, and approximately 3/4 mile north of the intersection hiking along the exterior as well as in the former with Maryland Route 5. The 19-acre site is Lexington Manor subdivision. Lighting on some partially wooded and provides some walking. ball fields provide for evening activities. Modern The 25 yard x 25 meter pool includes six lanes bathroom facilities are available. and has a “zero depth” entry for maximum Nicolet Park is located on the north side of accessibility. The pool is covered with an air- the Patuxent Homes subdivision and is accessed inflated “bubble” from September until May to from Bunker Hill Drive and Wasp Road. Fixed allow year round usage. The facility’s bathhouse playground equipment compliment open areas, includes showers, lockers, restrooms and a basketball courts, a softball/baseball field and two lifeguard room; a toddler pool is also part of the pavilions. The only county park with a skateboard aquatic facility and will be open during the facility, Nicolet Park hosts regional skateboarding summer months. Access to the grounds is free. competition annually. Modern bathroom facilities Fees are charged for use of the swimming pool. are available. The 35-acre park is open evenings SECTION 6—LANDSCAPESECTION 6-14 Protected Lands continued
for special events. St. Andrew’s Estates Park is located at the pretation/natural resource protection. However, end of St. Andrew’s Lane. The 4-acre park hosts master planning would need to be done before a 60-foot baseball field, a basketball court, picnic any program is set for this property. tables, and fixed playground equipment. Port-a- potties are provided seasonally. The county purchased the 76-acre Beavan property in December 2008. The wooded site is located on Indian Bridge Road adjacent to the state-owned Salem Track and about 2000 feet south of the intersection with St. Andrew’s Church Road. It is anticipated the property will be used in the future for a combination of active recreation (ball fields, playground, restroom) and nature inter-
Beavan property?
SECTION 6—LANDSCAPESECTION 6-15 Protected Lands continued
Agricultural and Forested Private Lands (Bob L., Donna & Bruce)
Protected agricultural lands are scattered throughout the watershed and are protected under a variety of programs, which are outlined in section 9 of this report, Three significant forested parcels provide for the beginnings of greenway corridors. A 203- acre parcel in the lower Hilton run subwatershed, known as Hunting Quarter is preserved in the Maryland Historic Trust program and provides protection from development for a vital section of marshes. These marshes and accompanying beaver dams help to further mitigate the polluting effects of intense development upstream. Two other adjacent wooded parcels make up a 200+ acre tract in the upper western branch of the river—the area above St. Mary’s Lake. Combined with an additional ???-acre agricultural property currently enrolled in the Agricultural Preservation district program, these three parcels along with the adjacent and downriver St. Mary’s Lake State Park, provide excellent beginnings of a greenways corridor.
20
SECTION 6—LANDSCAPESECTION 6-16 Soils of the St. Mary’s River Watershed
Interpreting Local Conditions with Natural Soil Groups
Soil horizons, or the sequence of different types of soils, can provide information about the climate, vegetation, topography. Additionally, the presence of certain types of soil can be associated with the local conditions that led to their formation. St. Mary’s County, which is located on the low-elevation, Coastal Plain, predominately has gravel, sand, silt, and clay sediments.21 Of the seventy-seven differ- ent soil types in the watershed, all are derived from marine deposits and most contribute to an acidic soil of low fertility. The distribution of these sediments is reflected in the present vegetation, that are generally suited for rapid permeability, erosion, and leaching of nutrients. Soil group nomenclature is used to categorize soils by their features, with master soil horizons de- fined by capital letters, suffix symbols that describe additional important characteristics as lower case letters, and vertical subdivisions of master horizons as defined numerically. 22
Table 5-7. Master Soil Horizons and the Nomenclature (Capital Letters) Used to Designate Them in Soil Profile Descriptions. Adapted from the Illustrated Guide to Soil Taxonomy, USDA (2014).
Horizon Symbol General Description A Surface mineral soil horizon, generally darkened by accumulating humus.
B Subsoil mineral horizon, generally characterized by accumulation, removal, or redistribution of iron, aluminum, silica, clay, humus, calcium carbonate, calcium sulfate, or sesquioxides. C Relatively unaltered mineral soil layer E Subsurface mineral soil horizon characterized by a loss of iron, aluminum, clay, or organic matter.
L Organically derived limnic material deposited in water by chemical precipitation, aquatic organisms, or from plants. M Root-limiting, human-manufactured layer, including layers of asphalt, landfill liner or geotextile fabric. O Soil horizon composed dominantly of organic soil materials (but not limnic materials). R Consolidated hard, continuous bedrock. W Layer of water within or under soil (not at surface), such as floating bogs. Soils and Watershed Planning Soil, which includes the minerals, organic matter, liquid, and gas occupying a given space of land, is a valuable natural resource and directly influences land use. Soil Surveys are performed by the Unit- ed States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service with the most current published manu- script available from 1978, and current data from 2014 available on the Web Soil Survey (http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/soilsurvey/soils/survey/state/). These characteristics can then be used to classify the capacity of the land for certain uses, such as cropland, urban, recreational, wildlife, or woodland. Soil groups are used to categorize soils by their properties in terms of soil productivity, erosion potential, permeability, stoniness, depth to water table, slope, and susceptibility to flooding. Soil groups in the watershed are shown in Map 15.
21 Natural Resources Conservation Service). 1978. Soil Survey of St Mary’s County, Maryland. United States De- partment of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service), in cooper- ation with Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station. 22 Soil Survey Staff. 2014. Illustrated guide to soil taxonomy. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 6—LANDSCAPESECTION Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, Nebraska. 6-17 Wetlands
Wetland Categories Tracking Wetlands Tidal, Estuarine Wetlands These wetlands, which are located in tidal The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) com- areas of streams, creeks, and rivers, experience piled data on established, rehabilitated, and brackish water when flooded by the tide.23 reestablished wetlands to monitor total acreage on agricultural lands in the Chesapeake Bay wa- 24 Non-tidal, Freshwater Wetlands tershed. Since 2010, ChesapeakeStat The majority of wetlands in the Chesapeake (available at http://stat.chesapeakebay.net/) al- Bay watershed are located in non-tidal areas, lows for spatial data, collected annually by CBP partners, to be incorporated into mapping tools. including the floodplains of streams, lake or State data collected through the CBP is submit- pond shorelines, isolated depressions or flat are- ted through the National Environmental Infor- as that can accumulate water. mation Exchange Network (NEIEN) and used to estimate the Bay’s progress in reaching the Wetlands categorized by their vegetation: Bay’s Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). Emergent Wetlands containing grasses, Wetland restoration targets are outlined in the sedges, or non-woody plants Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs). Alt- Shrub Wetlands with low to medium-height, hough increasing wetland acreage in agricultural woody plants areas is the goal, it does not indicate increases in wetland function. Forested Wetlands with trees being the dom- inant species
Emergent , Shrub, forested wetland
23 Wetlands. 2012. Chesapeake Bay Program. http://www.chesapeakebay.net/issues/issue/wetlands#inline. Accessed December 16, 2014. (CITED EARLIER) 24 Restoring Wetlands on Agricultural Lands: Analysis and Methods File. Chesapeake Bay Program. http:// www.chesapeakebay.net/indicators/indicator/restoring_wetlands. Accessed December 16, 2014. SECTION 6—LANDSCAPESECTION 6-18 Figure/ Photo??
Climate Change causing extreme weather events including cyclones, droughts, floods, forest fires. The Earths receives solar radiation from the Carbon dioxide concentrations in the sun on a daily basis, which is either absorbed or atmosphere have increased significantly from the reflected back into space. Most of the solar pre-industrial period (approximately 280 ppm radiation (coming in as visible light) is absorbed from 1000-175026 to over 390 in 201427 , with by the earths surface and atmosphere, with CO2 continuing to accumulate in the atmosphere energy reflected back into space as infrared (40%), the land (30%), and the ocean (30%).25 (heat). The amount of radiation that is absorbed The absorption of excess carbon dioxide in the around the world depends largely on the atmosphere into the oceans has resulted in ocean landscape, clouds, and atmosphere. Earths acidification (decreasing pH of the seas). Since landscape generally absorbs more radiation than the industrial revolution, ocean pH has decreased is reflected due to its expansive dark regions by 0.1. Small changes in pH significantly impact (such as the ocean and forests), while light calcifying organisms, such as oysters and blue regions (ice and snow-covered regions) crabs, by reducing the availability of carbonate predominately reflect light. Clouds (water which forms their shells. vapor) and the atmosphere, which naturally Global average temperature have already contains greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, increased by 0.85 degrees Celsius from 1880 to methane and nitrous oxide), absorb radiation 2012, while climatic models project a 1.5 to 2 from the sun or radiation reflected from the degree increase (from 1850-1900 temperatures) Earths surface, effectively maintaining the Earths for the late 21st century. Global evidence of temperature. climate change is most apparent in the melting of Ice cores have enabled scientists to establish the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets (3.5-4.1 long-term data sets of trends in atmospheric % per decade), continual glacial retreat, and greenhouse gas concentrations throughout decreases in arctic sea ice and spring snow cover. Earth’s history. Although natural fluctuations in As these areas shrink, melting rates are these gases did occur between glacial and accelerated by the solar radiation absorbed by the interglacial periods, recent levels of these gases exposed land or sea. Additionally, as these water (since the industrial revolution) have exceeded sources melt, inputs to the ocean are resulting in those of the past 800,000 years.25 Since the average global sea level rise from 1901 to 2010 beginnings of burning fossil fuels for energy, of 0.19 meters. Projections state that it is likely transportation and use in industrial plants, that the arctic will be “ice-free” by the middle of increased levels of greenhouse gases (especially this century. carbon dioxide) have and continue to contribute Reducing the impacts of climate change to an unprecedented warming of the Earths requires not only strategies for mitigation, but surface (land and sea) and atmosphere. also adaptation as sea levels rise, severe storm Even more concerning is the subsequent events continue, and ecosystems decline. The disruption of weather patterns. Heated air causes most powerful tool available in our toolbox is to a positive feedback of warming as more water considerably reduce carbon emissions, through vapor is held in the atmosphere. This facilitates the implementation of renewable energy further evaporation and precipitation. On a technology, and increased preservation and global scale, this shifts precipitation patterns, restoration of coastal communities.
25 Climate Change Fifth Assessment Synthesis Report. 2014. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 132 pages. 26 Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland. 2007: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 27 Atmospheric CO2. 2015. SCRIPPS CO2 Program. Website Accessed January 2015. http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/ atmospheric_co2.html SECTION 6—LANDSCAPESECTION 6-19 Low Elevation Areas Subject to Sea Level Rise
Sea level rise experienced in the Chesapeake Bay is 1.8ft (0.26-0.55 m). The maximum projected sea level due to natural land subsidence, in addition to global rise, although less probable, is 3.2ft (0.98 m). Includ- climate change. Land subsidence experienced in the ing the effect of land subsidence on the Chesapeake Bay is mainly due the compacting of the surface from Bay region, sea level rise is expected to rise 2.8-6.5ft. groundwater withdrawals, and to a lesser extent due to Coastal areas, that contain large areas at low eleva- the rebounding of the Earths crust in response to gla- tion, are the most vulnerable to flooding and it’s subse- cial melt from the last ice age. Since the mid 1900’s, quent effects from sea level rise.28 Impacts from sea land subsidence has contributed a 1.1-4.8 mm/year level rise include damage to infrastructure and poten- decrease and accounts for at least half of sea level rise tial affects to coastal ecosystems from increased ero- experienced in the Bay area.28 sion and salt water intrusion. Marshes, which rely on The Fifth Assessment Report (2014) by the Interna- tidal action, and wetlands (freshwater or saltwater) are tional Panel on Climate Change states that the likely particularly vulnerable as changes in sea level can alter scenario for projected global sea level rise is 8-16 mm/ nutrient cycling, and sedimentation and salinity levels. year (2081-2100, relative to 1986-2005).29 By 2100, it is likely that mean sea level rise will range from 0.85-
Hurricane and Storm Inundation
Storm events, exacerbated by sea level rise, have become more frequent and their impacts more severe from increased storm surge and coastal flooding. Surges are caused the winds of low pressure areas in the storm system and push water from the Bay into its narrower tributaries. The subsequent flooding causes salt-water intrusion, affecting surface water, aquifers, and coastal vegetation. Surges can also exacerbate shoreline erosion, damaging local infrastructure and crucial natural re- sources. Coastal areas in the watershed that are likely to expe- rience flooding during storm surges are shown in Map 18. Impacts on shoreline communities and potential mitigation strategies are identified in the Phase I of Maryland Comprehen- sive Strategy for Reducing Maryland’s Vulnerability to Cli- mate Change (2008). These include a shift in infrastructure, allowing for the expansion of wetland migration corridors as sea levels continue to rise and an increase in wetland and forest buffers. Phase II (2011), provides strategies to tolerate and adapt to the effect of climate change on natural and human re- sources.
Figure 6-6. Sea level rise planning for St. Mary’s River. Adapted from VIMs County Map (http://ccrm.vims.edu/climate_change/ slr_maps/index.html).
28 Eggleston, J. and J. Pope. 2013. Land Subsidence and Relative Sea-Level Rise in the Southern Chesapeake Bay Region. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1392. 30 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/cir1392. 29 Ibid. (previous page) 30 Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing Maryland’s Vulnerability to Climate Change, Phase I: Sea-level rise and coastal storms. 2008. Mary- land Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and Response Working Group. Website accessed January 2015. .http://www.dnr.state.md.us/ coastsmart/pdfs/comprehensive_strategy.pdf. 31 Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing Maryland’s Vulnerability to Climate Change, Phase II: Building societal, economic, and ecological 6—LANDSCAPESECTION resilience. 2011. Maryland Commission on Climate Change Adaptation6-20 and Response Working Group. Lands Targeted for Development
Lexington Park Development District Master Plan
The Lexington Park Development District is The Lexington Park Development District the larger of the County’s two development extends from just south of Hollywood in the north districts. Land use is dictated by a plan, Lexington to Hermanville Road in the south, and lies in the Park Development District Master Plan, separate St. Mary’s River, Patuxent River, and Chesapeake to and supporting the county’s Comprehensive Bay watersheds. It includes the communities of Plan. The term “development district” refers to Lexington Park, California, and Great Mills. areas of St. Mary’s County designated in the While the county’s Comprehensive Plan contains Comprehensive Plan where the County directs countywide land use policies, this plan details and encourages development as part of its growth how these policies should be implemented in the management strategy.32 Lexington Park Development District.33
Figure 6-7. Lexington Park Development District
32 Lexington Park Development District Concept Plan; St. Mary’s County. Adopted 2005, pES-1. 33 ibid. SECTION 6—LANDSCAPESECTION 6-21 Lands Targeted for Development continued
Snapshot of Lexington Park Development District
26 square miles 17,000 acres or about 7% of the county’s land area approximately 50% land area is developed 5% committed to development 5% parks and protected land 40% remains available for development 70% or about 11,900 acres are within the St. Mary’s River watershed Population 37,832 (2010); projected to increase to 43,994 in year 2022
SOURCE: Lexington Park Development District Master Plan; St. Mary’s County. Adopted November 1, 2010, pES-1,2.
Specifically, the Lexington Park Development Master Plan is intended to address the following questions:34 How can the Lexington Park - California - Great Mills Area become a better place to live, work, and play? Which areas are most suitable for growth? Which areas may be unsuitable? How should the LPDD relate physically and economically to other parts of the county? How should the different parts of the LPDD relate physically to each other? What public facilities such as schools, roads, and parks as well as transportation and public safety services are needed to serve the area? How should environmentally sensitive areas be best protected?
34Lexington Park Development District Master Plan; St. Mary’s County. Adopted 2005, pES-1. SECTION 6—LANDSCAPESECTION 6-22 Lands Targeted for Development continued
Lexington Park Plan—NEED UPDATE FROM JEFF
The first Lexington Park Plan Development PHOTO was adopted in 2000 as part of the update to the St. Mary’s County Comprehensive Plan. This plan was incorporated into the Lexington Park Development District Master Plan, adopted November 1, 2005. Following the county’s Comprehensive Plan update in 2010, county officials began work on an update to the Lexington Park Development District Master Plan, which is in draft in front of the St. Mary’s County Planning Commission. The Lexington Park Plan is the master plan for the revitalization of the core area of Lexington Park—also known in earlier documents as the “wedge.” The revitalization of this area is an ongoing and necessary endeavor to tackle the consequences of aging and eroding infrastructure, deteriorating housing and neighborhoods, commercial blight, and the subsequent increasing incidents of crime. Two projects have been funded to address aging infrastructure. The first project entailed the reconstruction of roads, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and storm water inlets―and the replacement of all sewer and water lines throughout Patuxent Park, located requires five phases and will take approximately north of Great Mills Road between FDR six years to complete. Funding for the replace- Boulevard and Pacific Drive/Pegg Road. The ment of sewer and water line in Patuxent Park is first of five phases began in 2009. As of Spring fully funded in METCOM’s projected budget. 2014, Phase 2 has been completed. Phase 5 is Likewise, roadway reconstruction funding is projected to be underway in 2018. earmarked in the County’s six year Capital Improvement Project’s budget although funding The reconstruction and enhancement of Great must be authorized annually. Sewer and water Mills Road at a cost of $5.5 million was line reconstruction is projected to cost an completed in 2012 and provided upgrades to additional $1.6 million. Roadway reconstruction sidewalks, left-turn lanes, and center medians. in Patuxent Park is projected to cost $6.8 million. Sewer and water line reconstruction throughout Patuxent Park will be completed in four phases and will require approximately three years to complete. Roadway reconstruction SECTION 6—LANDSCAPESECTION 6-23 Lands Targeted for Development continued n Staff Draft Draft Staff n
Figure 6-8 . Land uses in Lexington Park Development District. Map courtesy of Lexington Park Development District Master Pla Master District Development Park Lexington of courtesy Map District. Development Park Lexington in uses . Land 6-8 Figure (http://www.co.saint-marys.md.us/lugm/LPDD.asp). SECTION 6—LANDSCAPESECTION 6-24 Lands Targeted for Development continued
Towns, Villages, and Rural Centers
In addition to the two development districts, Another zoning classification, rural St. Mary’s County also directs development to commercial use, allows for continuation of towns, villages and rural service centers. Town certain commercial uses not located within a centers are the second priority for new development district, town, village, or rural development and are intended for mixed use. service center. At these locations only infill of Permitted uses include residential up to 5 certain vacant properties zoned C-General dwelling units per acre and carefully planned Commercial (per Board of County Commission- commercial (discourages strip centers). Town ers Ordinance Z90-11) where such uses and centers are receiving areas for development rights commercial zoning classifications predate current in the TDR (transfer of development rights) plans and ordinances. Limited increases in the program. Two town center lies partially within size and intensity of existing commercial use is the St. Mary’s River watershed: Hollywood and permitted. These commercial uses generally will Piney Point.35 not alter the area’s historic character.38 An
example of the rural commercial use is Winter’s Village centers are similar to town centers in Sheet Metal Inc. located on Point lookout Road many respects and are receiving areas for approximately 1/2 mile north of Chingville Road, development rights. New development in village and located within the St. Mary’s River centers is intended to be less intense than in town watershed. centers and redevelopment and infill in strongly encouraged.
Village centers within the St. Mary’s River watershed are: Callaway, Valley Lee, and St. PHOTOS Inigoes.36
Rural centers are intended to accommodate existing commercial development in rural areas. Historically, rural commercial properties were deemed as non-conforming uses thereby restricting the businesses ability to grow and prosper. Current zoning allows these businesses to enlarge and for infill development. Rural centers are not receiving areas for development rights. Rural centers within the St. Mary’s River watershed are: Dameron, Park Hall, and St. James.37
35St. Mary’s County Comprehensive Plan, QUALITY OF LIFE IN ST. MARY'S COUNTY – A STRATEGY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY – , Adopted February 19, 2002, Amended March 24, 2003, p37. 36ibid, p38. 37ibid, p39. 38ibid. SECTION 6—LANDSCAPESECTION 6-25 Housing and Welfare
Workforce Housing Study1 3. Increase public awareness and promote The Workforce Housing Study, released in State and Federal housing assistance pro- 2007 by the St. Mary’s County Community Work- grams and increase public awareness force Housing Task Force, was prepared for the Staff “neighborhood organizer” to St. Mary’s County Chamber of Commerce, Gov- coordinate and inform residents of low interest ernmental Affairs Committee, in response to the loans or grants for homeownership or house need for affordable medium income housing. renovation. Federal, state, and private funding Average housing costs in St. Mary’s County for housing initiatives. increased from 2003 to 2007 by over $130,000. These medium income homes ($300,000 mini- 4. Establish a source of funding to maintain mum) have become unaffordable for approximate- workforce housing initiatives ly 50% of St. Mary’s residents, limiting the num- Designate county revenue or develop ber of people able to live or work in the County. a foundation to support housing initiatives.
In 2007, legislation was passed to give commu- Homelessness nities the authority to provide affordable housing, A 3– year plan to address homelessness in by local trust funds, cost restrictions for resale St. Mary’s County was prepared by the St. properties, and require theses housing units be Mary’s County Department of Human Ser- available in subdivisions. The Workforce Hous- vices in 2009, using data from local housing ing Task Force then defined workforce housing as centers.2 Statistics of homeless includes those being within the 45-110% medium household in- living in emergency, transitional or temporary come with a required salary range. shelter for a maximum of 2 years. Chronic homeless, are solitary individuals that may Objectives: have a debilitating illness or have experienced 1. Maintain workforce housing by preserving homelessness for over 1 year or 4 periods of older neighborhoods homelessness within 3 years. Allocate funding for Neighborhood A 2008 survey taken in the county reported Preservation program, improve public utilities in 1,884 sheltered and unsheltered homeless, these neighborhoods. Remove or renovate gov- equaling 883 households with approximately ernment-owned dilapidated properties in neigh- 50 containing dependent children. These indi- borhood. viduals represented over 100 chronically homeless, mentally ill and chronic substance 2. Create incentives for developers to construct abusers. Lesser numbers included veterans diverse housing opportunities for a large range of and victims of domestic violence. incomes Include workforce housing into County’s The strategic plan for the fiscal year of Zoning Ordinance for affordable housing. Work 2010-2013 outlines preventative strategies to with developers to incorporate workforce housing reduce and eliminate homelessness, improve into new or existing subdivisions. emergency services, increase opportunities for transitional and permanent housing, and in-
1 Workforce Housing. 2007. St. Mary’s County Community Workforce Housing Task Force. 14 pages. 2Addressing Homelessness in St. Mary’s County: 3-Year Plan. 2009. St. Mary’s County Department of Human Services. SECTION 7—HUMANSECTION NEEDSSERVICES AND 7-1 Housing and Welfare continued
crease coordination between service providers Three Oaks Center, located in Lexington Park, and departments. is provides emergency, transitional, or permanent housing to men, women, and children from St. What has been accomplished since then? Mary’s County. This is the only shelter in the county that houses men. Partnering with local Shelters non-profit agencies, Three Oaks Center provides counseling and self-improvement opportunities to Angel’s Watch Shelter residents. This shelter is operated and owned by Cath- olic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washing- In 2008, Three Oaks Center provided over ton, DC but provides services 70,000 bed nights to 348 men, 341, for St. Mary’s, Charles, and women, and 430 children. Addi- Calvert County, but is located tionally the Three Oaks Center has in Charles County. This shelter a Child Advocacy Program (CAP) specifically offers aids to wom- that give counseling to families en and children (up to the age with children to combat behavioral, of 17) in need of transitional or school, or family problems associ- emergency shelter, on a first- ated with homelessness come, first-served basis. Alt- hough bed space is limited, do- Leah’s House, Inc. mestic violence cases or during Leah’s House, which began in 2005 times of inclement weather, the in Valley Lee, Maryland, was the shelter provides extra cots. first physical shelter in St. Mary’s Those seeking shelter at An- County, and provided emergency gel’s Watch are permitted a 30 and transitional housing program day Emergency status during for women and children, including which funding is provided for domestic violence cases. Leah’s individuals to demonstrate their House partners with the Tahirih ability to move on into transi- Justice Center and provide opportunities for edu- tional or permanent housing. Transitional cation, counseling, day care, and job search and housing, funded by the Department of Housing preparation. and Urban Development, provides services until the individual is self-sufficient. In 2008, 51 individuals were sheltered for 3,335 bed nights with a sizable percentage either During 2007, approximately 40% of beds gaining permanent or transitional housing, em- were occupied daily by a St. Mary’s County ployment, or gained job training or work skills. resident. In 2008, Angel’s Watch sheltered 160 women and children were provided a bed, equaling to 3,824 “bed nights” in that year. St. Mary’s County Department of Social Services In 2008, the St. Mary’s County Department of Three Oaks Center Social Services sheltered 265 individuals, includ-
3Walden Behavioral Health. 2012. http://www.waldensierra.org/about-walden. Accessed December 19, 2014. 4 Yeatman, J. 2014. Volunteers help WARM winter nights for homeless in St. Mary’s. Website http:// www.somdnews.com/article/20130104/NEWS/701049802/1056/churches-help-warm-homeless-in-st-mary- s&template=southernMaryland. Accessed December 2014.
SECTION 7—HUMANSECTION NEEDSSERVICES AND 7-2 Housing and Welfare continued
ing individuals that were referred to other shel- County WARM (Wrapping Arms ‘Round Many) ters, equaling 8,680 bed nights. The DSS does nights program continues to provide food and shel- not provide on site shelter, but is the major ter to homeless men, women, and children during source in obtaining and funding housing for St. the winter season. Replicating the Safe Nights Mary’s County residents elsewhere, including Program from Calvert and Charles Counties, this local hotels, Three Oaks Center, and Leah’s program operates annually from November House. through March.
Churches that currently participate in this program New Walden Sierra Site include: Walden Sierra is a local, community-based All Saints Episcopal non-profit organization that provides out-patient Church of the Ascension services to St. Mary’s, Charles, Calvert, and Christ Church Episcopal Prince Georges Counties.3 Walden has been in Church of Christ St. Mary’s County, since 1973, and has provid- Cornerstone Presbyterian Church ed treatment for substance abuse, mental health, Bethesda United Methodist Church and recovery services. Located in Lexington Beth Israel Synagogue Park, Walden, also known as the Hope Place of Good Samaritan Lutheran Church Walden and Beacon of Hope Recovery Com- First Missionary Baptist Church munity Center offers counseling, substance pre- First Saints Community Church vention, and educational programs. Hollywood United Methodist Church Holy Angels PHOTO Immaculate Conception Immaculate Heart of Mary Leonardtown Baptist Church Lexington Park United Methodist Church Mount Zion United Methodist Church New Beginnings Christian Worship Oasis of Victory Christian Church International Patuxent Presbyterian Church Real Life Church SAYSF Bible Church St. Andrew's Episcopal Church St. Cecilia Church St. George's Episcopal Church Trinity Lutheran Church Faith– Based Homeless Initiative Unitarian Universalist Congregation of the As of January 2014, after 4 years of service Chesapeake and the participation of over 40 churches and Zion United Methodist Church St. Mary’s County organizations, St. Mary’s
5 Millen, Kristine. St. Mary’s Caring Soup Kitchen. Personal communication, January 7, 2014. SECTION 7—HUMANSECTION NEEDSSERVICES AND 7-3 Housing and Welfare continued
Soup Kitchens St. Mary’s Caring also offers a summer program, St. Mary’s Caring Soup kitchen, located in Feed the Families, which provides 10 week’s Lexington Park, Maryland, is a facility that be- worth of groceries to the 10 neediest families at gan in 1993 as Mary’s Song. This community- Lexington Park Elementary School. based non-profit has been functioning for over 10 years, serving free breakfast and lunch, 6 Health and Medicine days a week to local people in need. Approxi- The St. Mary’s County Health Department, mately 1020 meals were provided monthly, free located in Leonardtown, offers clinical serves to of charge, to men, women, and children during the local community. These include education and the first three quarters safety tools for personal health, of 2008. These citi- including providing contracep- zens include poor, tion, testing and treatment for disabled, elderly, and sexually transmitted infections, mentally or physically administering of vaccines/ challenged individu- immunizations, screening for als. breast and cervical cancer. In- The number of formation about other resources meals served annually provided by the Health Depart- has increased substan- ment is available at http:// tially over the years, www.smchd.org/health-clinic/. with 18,528 meals
provided in 2012, Drug addiction and Treatment 21,814 in 2013, and 24,744 in 2014. 5 During these years, the number of St. Mary’s County offers the families visiting St. Mary’s Prevention Program, which is a Caring has also increased. substance abuse prevention pro- The majority of the food gram whose objective is to re- served at St. Mary’s Caring duce risk factors and behaviors is donated by local church- that result in misuse of over-the- es, day-old food from local counter and prescription drugs. grocery stories (day-old Using a community-based ap- food), and individual dona- tions. Additionally dona- proach, the program has self- tions of left-over food are help resources, educational pam- provided by St. Mary’s Col- phlets, provides training and lege of Maryland, Harry Lundeberg School, and workshops, and can give presentations to commu- on occasion local restaurants. nity groups. These programs include the follow-
6 Maryland Opioid Overdose Prevention Plan. Adopted January 2013. 20 pages
SECTION 7—HUMANSECTION NEEDSSERVICES AND 7-4 Housing and Welfare continued
ing: Table 7-1. Lethal and non-lethal prescription medicine overdose cases reported in St. Mary’s County during 2011-2013. 1. Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alco- hol (CMCA) Non-lethal Non-lethal CMCA is a community program to reduce overdose overdose Lethal teen access to alcohol through influencing com- Years (Adults) (Juveniles) overdose munity policies and practices. 2011 74 5 1 2. Second Step Pre-K 2012 81 10 4 This program, which takes place at the Head 2013 71 5 7 Start facilities in St. Mary’s County, is a pro- gram for children to learn social and emotional Table 7-2. Lethal and non-lethal heroin overdose skills in order to reduce aggressive and disrup- cases reported in St. Mary’s County during 2011-2013. tive behavior. 3. Staying Connected With Your Teen (SCT) Years Non-lethal overdose Lethal overdose SCT is a five part workshop for parents to 2011 0 0 gain the tools to provide their child with the 2012 5 1 means to grow up healthy while being drug and 2013 3 5 violence-free. opioid abuse. Over the past decade drug related 4. Guiding Good Choices (GGC) deaths in Maryland were associated with pharma- GGC is a five-session educational program ceutical opioids and increased over time. As of for parents with children of age 9-14 to learn recent, Maryland has experienced a shift from how best to reduce the risk of their child devel- pharmaceutical opioids to heroine, requiring the oping a drug problem. development of initiatives to assess opioids abuse 5. Opioid Overdose Prevention Workgroup trends and address public health by altering opi- (OOPW) and SMART Medicine Campaign oids availability in communities. The OOPW is a local group that began in Since 2013, heroin overdose and prescription 2013 to develop and implement a plan to reduce drug misuse in St. Mary’s County has increased opioid overdoses by using outreach, education, significantly. In March 2014 a Drug Summit was held in St. Mary’s County for a discussion of local and awareness programs in the community. drug misuse and prevention and treatment strate- The SMART campaign provides information on gies. Information presented during this summit safe usage of prescription medication. (available at http://healthystmarys.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/03/SMC-Drug-Summit-for- A Maryland Opioid Overdose Prevention Parents-2014.pdf) discusses the occurrence of le- Plan was created in response to national in- thal and non-lethal prescription medicine overdose creases in fatal overdoses from pain killers, or
7 Drug Summit for Parents: An Open Discussion on Pills and Heroin in St. Mary’s County. Presentation on March 7, 2014. Accessed December 24, 2014. http://healthystmarys.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/SMC-Drug- Summit-for-Parents-2014.pdf. SECTION 7—HUMANSECTION NEEDSSERVICES AND 7-5 Housing and Welfare continued
cases 2011 to 2013 (See Table 7-1). According to the Department of Mental Health and Hy- PHOTO giene, trends in drug usage reflect those in Mar- yland with pharmaceutical users shifting to her- oin. Heroin cases in St. Mary’s County during the same time period are shown in Table 7-2. According to the Walden Behavioral Health opiate addition in St. Mary’s County is predom- inantly an issue for 18-30 year olds, and has increased significantly (400% according to State of Maryland Automated Record Tracking (SMART)) from 2008 to 2012. Admission for heroin treatment during this time has more than doubled. Other drugs used by the youth in St. Mary’s County have been identified as marijuana, am- bien, lunesta, K2/Spice (a mixture of herbs, spices, and plant material), and Purple Drink (prescription-strength cough syrup mixed with soda). PHOTO Drug treatment and recovery is offered by the Walden Sierra center in St. Mary’s County. More information about Walden facilities can be accessed at http://www.waldensierra.org/ programs-services/addiction-services.
Mental Health Clinics St. Mary’s County offers inpatient and outpatient mental health programs, including residential and psychiatric rehabilitation programs, employment support, youth programs, homeless outreach and support, and various other services. This includes Pathways mental health agency, which is based in the county, offers psychiatric treatment and counsel- ing to adolescents and adults. Further information can be found at http://www.pathwaysinc.org/ Index.htm. Another county facility is Walden Be- havioral, which provides mental health, psychiatric, SECTION 7—HUMANSECTION NEEDSSERVICES AND 7-5 Employment
Water-based Economies and Businesses Sanctuary in September of 2010. Only two small Impacts & Greening lease areas, which were grandfathered in, still remain The Maryland Clean Marina Initiative is an effort in the river. by the Department of Natural Re- Beginning in 2012, the state sources that aids marinas, opened the sanctuary for addi- boatyards, and yacht clubs in pol- tional leasing and several appli- lution prevention. The “Clean cations are currently under re- Marina” awards program recog- view. Oyster bars in the St. nizes marinas that follow these Mary’s River are shown in steps: Map 19. take the Clean Marina Pledge, complete a self-evaluation of their facility using the Clean Marina Marinas Award Checklist and Guidebook, Three marinas are present in the and are certified by a Clean Mari- St. Mary’s River watershed: na staff member. Marinas that initially Dennis Point Marina, Milburn Mari- meet the minimum score and are na, and St. Mary’s College of Mary- deemed a Clean Marina must annually land Waterfront. All function as complete a self-evaluation. To maintain areas for boats to be launched or status, a Clean Marina representative docked. must reevaluate the facility every 3 years. Dennis Point Marina, located in Drayden, Maryland, at the mouth of Marinas that receive a Clean Marina Carthagena Creek, offers 80 deep status are acknowledged by Maryland water slips, boat and kayak rental, Clean Marinas and included in public and has a gasoline dock. Milburn displays and publications. Marina, off of St. Inigoes Creek, is a The Maryland Clean Marina Guide- significantly smaller marina, only book is available digitally at http:// providing docking of approximately dnr.maryland.gov/boating/cleanmarina/ 20 small boats. St. Mary’s College of cmprogram.asp#guidebook. Maryland waterfront, which docks its own skiffs, has a boat launch that is used by the pub- Resource Extraction/Usage lic.
Under Governor O’Malley’s 2010 Oyster Restora- tion and Aquaculture Plan, aquaculture operations are Wholesale fishing docks expected to increase within the St. Mary’s River Water- shed. As this plan aims to shift commercial production 3 on island creek? to aquaculture, while also supporting a scientifically 1 on St. Georges (Golden Eye Seafood) managed wild oyster fishery. EMAILED SKIPJACK on 12/19 Aquaculture existed in the St. Mary’s River decades prior to this plan, but largely ceased when the upper St. Mary’s River, north of Church Point, became a Oyster
8 Steps to Being a Maryland Clean Marina. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. http://dnr.maryland.gov/boating/ cleanmarina/steps.asp. Accessed December 16, 2014. SECTION 7—HUMANSECTION NEEDSSERVICES AND 7-6 Infrastructure
Transportation Three Notch Trail
The Three Notch Trail project, which is a Personal transportation in St. Mary’s County is County-owned Railroad that was paved for use as predominantly based on private automobiles, a non-motorized pedestrian and bicycle trail. This while the transportation of goods is reliant on trail would connect the Patuxent River Naval Air trucks or horse-drawn carriages, both using the Station in Lexington Park north into Hughesville, same public highways and roads. The St. Mary’s Charles County. This trail provides a recreational Transit System, which has also experienced an and transportation corridor, connecting businesses, increase in users, allows for individuals to travel historical sites, parks, senior centers, farmers mar- throughout the county. As the St. Mary’s Coun- kets and libraries. The construction of this trail ty’s population has grown, the highways have be- will be completed in 8 phases, of which I, II, III, come increasingly congested, particularly on IVA, and V have been completed. Phases IVB, Three Notch Road corridor during peak hours. VI, VII, VIII, and IX are planned for construction In 2006 St. Mary’s County Transportation Plan in 2015, permitting funding. See Figure 7-1 for was used to identify improvements that could be areas located in each phase. made to various transportation resources, includ- ing roadways, public transit, bicycle paths, trails, Bike Clubs and sidewalks to sustain the projected demand PAX Velo Bicycle Racing Club until 2025. Improvements made to would result in Patuxent Area Cycling Enthusiasts (PACE) a more accessible transit resource for older adults, Oxon Hill Bicycle and Trail Club people with disabilities, and people with lower incomes. Paddle clubs Additionally, the county adopted a 5-year Southern Maryland Paddlers Transportation Development Plan (TDP) in 2007, to address the transit needs identified in census Kayak/Canoe and Boat Launch Areas data, transit rider surveys, and input from stake- St. Mary’s River watershed offers county holders. This adjusted the fare for transit and ad- owned and operated public landings. These in- justed the stops, divided the Leonardtown- clude: Lexington Park Route into two separate routes, St. Mary’s River State Park, Boat and Soft Launch and increased the frequency of stops in the Great Great Mills Canoe/Kayak Launch Mills Loop. St. George’s Island Landing (pier access only) Piney Point Landing The St. Mary’s County, Maryland Comprehen- sive Plan (2010) proceeded to encouraged mixed- use transportation, by promoting biking and walk- ing through the development of pedestrian infra- structure in high traffic areas, Lexington Park and Leonardtown.
9 St. Mary’s County Transit Development Plan Final Report. 2013. KFH Group, Inc. Prepared for St. Mary’s County and the Maryland Transit Administration. 226 pages. 10 Recreation and Parks: Three Notch Trail. St. Mary’s County Recreate and Parks Department, http:// www.co.saint-marys.md.us/recreate/Threenotchtrail.asp. Accessed December 22, 2014. SECTION 7—HUMANSECTION NEEDSSERVICES AND 7-7
SECTION 7—HUMANSECTION NEEDSSERVICES AND 7-8 Figure 7-8. Completed and future phases of Three Notch Trail, St. Mary’s County, MD. Infrastructure continued
Point Source Discharges—Sewerage and Landfills
Discharges from pipes or other discrete Other large industrial and institutional sites in conveyances are called point source. Point the watershed are: sources may contribute pollution to surface water Valero Petroleum Company’s or to ground water. For example, wastewater transshipment and storage facility. The treatment plant discharges may contribute to facility is of regional importance since it nutrient or microbes that consume oxygen supplies petroleum to the Washington measured as Biochemical Oxygen Demand D.C. area. (BOD). The BOD reduces the oxygen supply available for aquatic life where discharge occur . The Harry Lundeberg School of Industrial point sources may contribute various Seamanship is also located with in the St. forms of pollution. Some understanding of point Mary’s River drainage area. The school source discharges in a watershed can be useful in specializes in providing vocational helping to identify and prioritizing potential training to those persons seeking a career restoration measures. in Merchant Marines. In the St. Mary’s River watershed, there are several permitted point source discharges based on information from the Maryland Department of the Environment (also shown in Map 8). The Webster Field Sewage Treatment Plant is the only treatment plant Can we get two pho- discharging directly into the St. Mary’s tos?? Outfall of Web- River. The plant is permitted for a capacity of 45,000 gallons per day. The ster Field and Landfill? plant handles the domestic waste generated on the Navy’s Webster Field facility. (Permit No. NPDES #MD0020095) The St. Andrews Municipal Landfill is also located in the watershed. The landfill is currently not in operation; however there is an open permit to expand the filling activities in the future if the need arises. (Permit No. 2005-WMF-0138) The Knott Land Clearing Debris Landfill is permitted by the Maryland Department of the Environment and is located ¼ of a mile north of the intersection of Flat Iron Road and Booth Road in Great Mills, MD. (Permit No. 2006-WLC-0134) SECTION 7—HUMANSECTION NEEDSSERVICES AND 7-9 Infrastructure continued
Point Source Discharges—Existing Sewer Systems continued
A large portion of the St. Mary’s River sewage to the Marlay Taylor Water Recovery watershed lies within the St. Mary’s County Facility and after treatment the effluent is Metropolitan Commission’s Sanitary Districts #5 discharged into the Chesapeake Bay. There are 42 (Piney Point) and #8 (Lexington Park). The lower major sewage pumping stations in Sanitary eastern shore of the St. Mary’s River is within the District #8 and four major pump stations in Sanitary District #7 which is not served by public Sanitary District #5. Those pump stations are facilities at this time. The public sewage shown in Table 7-1. collection system in these areas directs the Table 7-3. Pump Stations in St. Mary’s River watershed. Source: St. Mary’s County Metro- politan Commission, 2009. Only 32 in table—text mentions “42” SECTION 7—HUMANSECTION NEEDSSERVICES AND 7-10 Infrastructure continued
Ground Water and Water Supply—Aquifers
Potable water is supplied through three confined aquifers throughout St. Mary’s County. They are the Piney Point, Aquia, and Upper Patapsco. Sporadic use, mostly for agriculture, is supplied by a fourth unconfined aquifer, the surficial aquifer commonly referred to as the water table. This source is generally not reliable in drought years or seasonally. The surficial aquifer may contain contaminants.11 Historically, hand-dug wells into the surficial aquifer were used for potable usage. Over time and through Figure 7-2. Schematic cross section of the extensive Federal water projects in the 1940s, hydrogeological units in southern these wells have been replaced with public water Maryland. Source: Drummond, supplies or modern wells drilled into the Piney 2005, p27. Point or Aquia. It is not known how many, if any, of these wells that supply drinking water are still in existence. Figure 7-2 depicts the aquifers and the Maryland Department of the Environment separating clay layers, which inhibit the regulates water withdrawal from aquifers. When movement of ground water. Shown from highest potentiometric surface levels reach a point 80% to lowest elevation, they are the surficial, Piney below the land surface and the top of the aquifer, Point, Aquia, Upper Patapsco, Lower Patapsco, additional withdrawals are curtailed. Withdrawal and Patuxent. Below the Patuxent is bedrock and below this level may cause land subsidence, it is not considered to be a significant water reduced productivity, and/or brackish water supply.12 The aquifers and confining units are intrusion.13 sloped downward from northwest to southeast, The Piney Point aquifer, known in some thus allowing the northwest end of each aquifer to research reports as the Nanjemoy or Piney Point subcrop (extend to the land surface) and mix with Nanjemoy, subcrops in central Charles and the surficial aquifer. These areas allow surface Calvert counties. It is primarily used for private water to enter each of the confined aquifers and domestic water supply for older homes in the recharging water supplies. Confined aquifers are Lexington Park development district and homes under pressure from the weight of the land and in rural areas of the St. Mary’s River watershed. water causing the water to rise in height within Water supplies from the Piney Point are high wells to a level somewhat above the top of the quality and generally contain only trace amounts, aquifer at each well location. This water level is if any, of arsenic. The Piney Point is available referred to as the potentiometric surface. throughout the St. Mary’s River watershed.
11 Drummond, David D., WATER-SUPPLY POTENTIAL OF THE COASTAL PLAIN AQUIFERS IN CALVERT, CHARLES, AND ST. MARY’S COUNTIES, MARYLAND, WITH EMPHASIS ON THE UPPER PATAPSCO AND LOWER PATAPSCO AQUIFERS; Mary- land Department of Natural Resources Resource Assessment Service; June 2005, p4. 12 ibid, p3. 13 Drummond, D.D., 1988, Hydrogeology, brackish-water occurrence, and simulation of flow and brackish-water movement in the Aquia aqui- fer in the Kent Island area, Maryland: Maryland Geological Survey Report of Investigations No. 51, p31. 73ibid, p5. 7—HUMANSECTION NEEDSSERVICES AND 7-11 Ground Water and Water Supply—Aquifers continued
The Aquia aquifer is separated from the Piney Point by the Marlboro Clay confining layer. This aquifer is used extensively for domestic and major-user supplies in southern Maryland, as well as in Virginia and the Eastern Shore of Maryland (as seen in Map 10). It is also used by commercial, industrial, and military users within the watershed. The Aquia subcrops in northwestern Charles County.14 It is available throughout the St. Mary’s River watershed (it is not productive in southern St. Mary’s County). Water quality in the Aquia is generally good, except naturally occurring arsenic concentrations exceed the new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 10 micrograms per liter (μg/L) (Federal Register, 2001) for public water supplies.15 For this reason, expansion of public water supplies are supplied by the Patapsco. Existing waters supplies in the Aquia not meeting the new MCL are being terminated and replaced by the Patapsco. Lowered potentiometric surface in excess of 220 feet form a deep cone of depression in the Lexington Park area due to heavy withdrawals. (see Figure 33) Levels dropped more than 90 feet in the 1990s.16 The Upper Patapsco and Lower Patapsco aquifers are believe to have some localized exchange of water. Within each aquifer there are complex stratified sandy units separated locally by silty sand and clayey units. These sands appear to be interconnected at a regional scale to form a single aquifer.
Figures 7-3. Hydrographs showing long-term potentiometric surface trends in Lexington Park aquifers. Source: Drummond, 2005, p35.
14 Drummond, David D., WATER-SUPPLY POTENTIAL OF THE COASTAL PLAIN AQUIFERS IN CALVERT, CHARLES, AND ST. MARY’S COUNTIES, MARYLAND, WITH EMPHASIS ON THE UPPER PATAPSCO AND LOWER PATAPSCO AQUIFERS; Mary- land Department of Natural Resources Resource Assessment Service; June 2005, p5. 15 ibid, p5. 16 ibid, p5,7. SECTION 7—HUMANSECTION NEEDSSERVICES AND 7-12 Ground Water and Water Supply—Aquifers continued
Recharge of the Patapsco is at or near to the Within the St. Mary’s River watershed area fall line or along Interstate 95. Salt water the effects of withdrawals and lower intrusion at Indian Head is believed to be due to a potentiometric surface of the Aquia generally cone of depression allowing the interconnection have no effect on the water table.20 A lowered between the subcrop area and the Potomac River. water table may include reduced base flow to Potentiometric surface of the Upper Patapsco in streams, a decrease in water available for plant Lexington Park has dropped 37 feet since 1983.17 transpiration, and altered ecology of wetlands.81 Water quality in the Patapsco is very good and no These processes are complex and localized, and arsenic has been detected. were not addressed in the June 2008 Drummond The Patuxent aquifer lies on bedrock and is study. Additionally, excessive drawdown may the deepest aquifer in southern Maryland. A test invite river water or Bay water intrusions; this well in Lexington Park supplied brackish water, effect noted currently in the Indian Head area for therefore, the Patuxent is not considered a source the Upper Patapsco. of potable water.18 According to the June 2008 Drummond A fourth confined aquifer, the Magothy study, future pumping trends in the St. Mary’s regionally located between the Aquia and the River watershed and the Lexington Park area do Upper Patapsco, does not extend into the St. not anticipate any significant negative effects to Mary’s River watershed area. the three confined aquifers through the year 2030. As the public supply continues to limit additional Effects of falling potentiometric surface can pumpage in the Piney Point and Aquia, negatively affect private wells. Wells have been potentiometric surface lowering should decrease. constructed with 4-inch diameter casings near to Increased use of the Patapsco was studied the land surface to accommodate a submersible according to land use regulations at the time. pump, but reduce to 2-inch diameter below that to Recently, the county adopted new rules for save on construction costs. These are referred to designated growth patterns (Annual Growth as telescoping wells. Drummond writes, “If the Policy, August 19, 2008), which may increase potentiometric level falls below the reduction development pressure in the Lexington Park point (or near to the reduction point due to pump development district and cause further lowering drawdown) in such a well, the pump cannot be of potentiometric surface than Drummond’s lowered further and the well must be replaced. … model projected. Likewise, the Drummond model [this] may cause significant economic impact in did not anticipate any new major users (industrial, 19 areas where telescoping wells are common.” agricultural, military, or extraction).
17Drummond, David D., WATER-SUPPLY POTENTIAL OF THE COASTAL PLAIN AQUIFERS IN CALVERT, CHARLES, AND ST. MARY’S COUNTIES, MARYLAND, WITH EMPHASIS ON THE UPPER PATAPSCO AND LOWER PATAPSCO AQUIFERS; Maryland Department of Natural Resources Resource Assessment Service; June 2005, p7. 18Hansen, H. J., and Wilson, J. M., 1984, Summary of hydrogeologic data from a deep (2,678 ft.) well at Lexington Park, St. Mary’s County, Maryland: Maryland Geological Survey Open-File Report No. 84-02-1, p61. 19Drummond, June 2005, p8. 20ibid, p. 21 2008 Drummond Study 22 Annual Growth policy, 2008 SECTION 7—HUMANSECTION NEEDSSERVICES AND 7-13 OMIT b/c MAP 10
Ground Water and Water Supply—Aquifers continued
Figure 7-4. Simulated potentiometric surface in the Aquia aquifer, 2002. Source: Drummond, 2005, p29. SECTION 7—HUMANSECTION NEEDSSERVICES AND 7-14 Ground Water and Water Supply—Public Water Systems
The public water system is operated by the Presently the St. Mary’s County Metropolitan St. Mary’s County Metropolitan Commission and Commission operates 24 production wells in the utilizes water supplied through confined aquifers. Lexington Park system with a total average The production wells for this system are screened pumping capacity of about 220 gallons per in three unconsolidated confined aquifers. minute per well across a range of 55 to 600 Ranging from shallowest to deepest these are the gallons per minute. Independent of the public Piney Point, Aquia, and Patapsco Aquifers. Most system, more than 35 small community systems of the wells are screened in the Aquia Aquifer (16 (trailer parks, developments, military bases) wells), while the Patapsco (5 wells) and the Piney operate 104 wells to meet the local demand in St. Point (3 wells) aquifers feature a significant fewer Mary’s County. METCOM has removed service number of wells. A similar ratio is exhibited for from wells due to arsenic, replacing that service the well population supporting the small with wells in the Patapsco. community systems. The public wells in the Lexington Park area are shown in Table 7-4.
Table 7-4. Public wells in Lexington Park area, St. Mary’s County, MD. SECTION 7—HUMANSECTION NEEDSSERVICES AND 7-15 Emergency Services
Hazard Mitigation Plan
The St. Mary’s County Board of Commissioners adopted the St. Mary’s County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan in 2011. This plan was re- quired by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, requir- ing a plan to be adopted by state and local govern- ments. This plan, produced by the Department of Public Safety and Information Technology, estab- lished an ongoing hazard mitigation planning program to reduce or eliminate long-term risks to people and property.
Emergency Evacuation Plan
Citizens Are Ready for an Emergency (CARE) is a hazards guide to preparing for emergency events. This guide was prepared by the St. Mary’s County Depart- ment of Public Safety and adopted by the St. Mary’s County Commissioners in 2007. CARE is intended for public use and outlines how to design Family Emergency Plan, assemble an Emergency Supply Kit, and address issues such as power outages, chemical threats, floods, other natural disasters. This guide also contains a compiled list of emergency contact numbers and other sources for information.
23 St. Mary’s County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. 2011. Department of Public Safety. SECTION 7—HUMANSECTION NEEDSSERVICES AND 7-16 Agriculture
Growing for Local Consumers St. Mary's county contains three farmers markets, of which two operate within the watershed. The mar- kets are evenly spread across the population centers: "Home Grown Farm Market" runs out of Lexington Park, California Farmers Market operates in the BAE parking lot, just north of the Naval base, and "North St. Mary's Farmers Market" is located at the Charlotte Hall Library. Farmers markets promote locally available prod- ucts, provide consumers with the option to select an organic, more sustainable product as compared to large -scale food production corporations. Each unique mar- ket attracts farmers and small business owners from the local area, creating an efficient farm-to-table sys- tem. Other gardening initiatives include the local col- lege, Public and Charter Schools, including the Chesa- Farms and Farmland peake Public Charter School. St. Mary’s College of U.S. Department of Agricultural 2012 census Maryland Campus Farm, which began in 2010, sup- identified 632 farms in St. Mary’s County, averag- plies fresh produce to the local homeless shelter and ing 106 acres per farm and accounting for 67,086 the school food service, Bon Appetit. Chesapeake acres of land. Crop production in St. Mary’s Bay Charter School—functioning garden. County primarily consists of corn and wheat. The
follow tables show acreage, number of farms, and Home and Backyard Composting quantity of animals associated with the St. Mary’s Composting is the decomposition of organic mate- County Agricultural sector. rial, typically food waste, through the use of naturally According to the St. Mary’s County Compre- occurring organisms in soil. An average household hensive plan, agriculture in the county has shifted disposes of 474 pounds of food waste every year, largely due to the So. Maryland, So Good program, while businesses throw away up to 90%, approximate- encouraging demand for local produce and goods. ly 26 million tons a year. Backyard composting is a relatively easy method for reducing the amount of waste requiring disposal and cost-effectively use this waste by incorporating this nutrient rich commodity into your soil. To compost food waste, mix food with Animal Operations—comprehensive plan? shredded paper and yard waste. For more information about the do’s and don’t of composting visit the St. Agricultural Bes management practices—Nutrient Mary’s County Recycling Program website http:// management plans and Sediment and Erosion Con- www.co.saint-marys.md.us/dpw/ trol Farm Plans for animal confinement areas . recycleprogramslist.asp. -promote landowner participation in federal and St. Mary’s County also hosts compositing annually at the local landfill.
24 Maryland Farmers Market Directory. 2014. Maryland Department of Agriculture. http://mda.maryland.gov/ maryland_products/Documents/2014_MD_Farmers_Market_Directory.pdf. Accessed January 2015. 25 2012 Census of Agriculture. Maryland State and County Data. Volume 1 Geographic Area Series Part 20. AC- 12-A-20. May 2014. U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/ SECTION 7—HUMANSECTION NEEDSSERVICES AND 7-17 Agriculture state funding programs for fencing, manure manage- ment, and other practices to capture runoff ….
Equine Facility Needs & Impacts?
Equine sector (St. Mary’s County) included 197 farms and 1,286 horses and ponies in 2012. Table 7-5. St. Mary’s County farmland use and acreage from the U.S. Department of Agriculture 2012 Census. Number Land Use of Farms Acres Cropland 532 41,216 Woodland 410 17,340 Permanent Pasture/ Rangeland 284 4,066 Land for buildings, roads, wastelands, etc. 450 4,464 Pastureland 338 6,263 Conserved land 55 1,410
Table 7-6. St. Mary’s County livestock and poultry farms and their relative totals from the U.S. Department of Agriculture 2012 Census.
Livestock/ Number of Poultry Farms Number Cattle/Calves 191 3706 Beef Cows 125 1556 Milk Cows 49 304 Hogs/Pigs 45 854 Sheep/Lambs 52 856 Egg-laying Chicken 129 5882 Meat- birds 18 18012
SECTION 7—HUMANSECTION NEEDSSERVICES AND 7-18 RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING
Army Corps of Engineers 2009 Reports
Several well known programs and tools exist policy implementation and physical on-the- to implement goals for watershed restoration and ground actions. This section will identify by protection. Several of these programs have been study, those policies and physical activities. utilized in and for the St. Mary’s watershed since These are referenced in many cases to either print 2001. These programs have resulted in the or digital GIS resources available at the St. publication of five (5) specific documents as Mary’s County Department of Land Use and detailed below which contain generalized goals Growth Management (LUGM) which identify our and objectives for restoration or conservation as target restoration and conservation efforts. well as more specific actions including public
Upper St. Mary’s River Baseline Watershed Assessment - November 2001
This study resulted in recommendations to limit Actions: Storm Water Management Ret- impervious surfaces and to make storm water rofits: Identify and provide improvements management retrofits. to existing storm water retention, infiltra- Policies: Direct Growth to already de- tion, bioretention and other facilities and graded catchments (>10% impervious conveyance systems. Prioritize the retro- surfaces) while maintaining good condi- fits by catchment quality. (Retrofit loca- tions where they exist in others (<10%). tion GIS maps at LUGM). (Catchment GIS maps at LUGM).
SECTION 8—RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING 8-1 Army Corps of Engineers 2009 Reports continued
St. Mary’s River Watershed and Feasibility Study – Stormwater Retrofit Opportunities – February 2002
This report describes the specific process of locat- and concludes with a detailed recommendation ing, identifying and prioritizing potential storm- for 28 candidate sites and an appendix of retrofit water retrofit sites for the Upper St. Mary’s, Jar- inventory sheets, site detail descriptions and con- boesville, Hilton and Pembrooke Run subwater- ceptual sketches of a likely retrofit option for sheds as advocated in the Baseline Assessment. each. The report further defines “Tier 1, 2 and The report uses a retrofit implementation strategy small scale change” priorities.
Table 8-1. Tier 1 and Tier 2 Candidate Retrofit Sites. Information provided by Feasibility study, Figure 6, Page 10.
SECTION 8—RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING 8-2 Army Corps of Engineers 2009 Reports continued
Final Report – The Upper St. Mary’s River Watershed Stream and Floodplain Condition Assessment – March 2002
This Technical Memorandum follows the study concludes with a three (3) tiered restoration Baseline Assessment to conduct detailed field priority ranking for 15 reaches. Focus again is on assessment of stream channel and floodplain high quality reaches with the greatest potential to conditions along 30 miles of non-tidal streams. succeed given a projected land development The study identifies three (3) parameters (stream scenario. The 15 restoration priority reaches are condition impairment, biological quality and given in Table 8-2, provided by the Technical future land use (catchment impervious surface) to Memorandum. gauge stream reach restoration priorities. The
Table 8-2. Restoration priority based upon reach impairment, biological quality, and future land use. Infor- mation provided by Technical Memorandum, Table E-7.
SECTION 8—RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING 8-3 Army Corps of Engineers 2009 Reports continued
Natural Resources Conservation Summary for St. Mary’s County, Maryland – September 2002
This document presents an inventory of potential plant and animal species and important habitats is conservation resources for 1) Rare, Threatened in the upper St. Mary’s River watershed in the St. and Endangered (RTE) species, 2) Contiguous Mary’s River Bottomland and St. Mary’s River Forest Resources, 3) Wetland areas and 4) other Fish Management Area. While these areas are wildlife and habitats in need of conservation. The predominantly within St. Mary’s River State document is intended for use by planners and Park, additional conservation actions could be development plan reviewers to quickly evaluate directed to those otherwise unprotected areas. potential impacts on or near proposed Figure 8-1 identifies the location within the development sites. watershed of the Bottomland and Fish The inventory concludes that one of two specific Management Area. areas in the county that support a diversity of
Figure 8-1—St. Mary’s River Watershed, Bottomland and Fish Management Area. SECTION 8—RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING 8-4 Army Corps of Engineers 2009 Reports continued
Lower Potomac River Basin Seagrass and Oyster Restoration Feasibility Study – November 2003
This study used a multi-faceted approach to both SAV and oyster restoration projects in analyze the ability of the lower Potomac River designated areas of the St. Mary’s River. basin and its tributaries to support SAV and SAV restoration is recommended in specific oyster restoration projects. GIS analysis of site narrow one meter depth contour areas in the selection criteria from literature reviews, expert upper river. interviews, historic data and water quality and Figure 8-2 from the study identifies the physical data resulted in recommendations for location of recommended SAV restoration sites.
Figure 8-2. Location of Recommended SAV Restoration Sites. SECTION 8—RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING 8-5 Army Corps of Engineers 2009 Reports continued
Oyster restoration is recommended in the lower portion of St. George’s Creek opposite Piney Point and south. Map 8-3 from the study identifies the location of recommended oyster restoration sites.
Figure 8-3. Location of Recommended Oyster Restoration.
Additional policies, programs and restoration actions are detailed in the following sections. SECTION 8—RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING 8-6 RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING
2007 VIMS Performance of SILS
An assessment of living shorelines and firm that erosion can be reduced using “soft sta- their function in erosion mitigation in the bilization techniques” Chesapeake Bay was conducted by the Center Additionally, the study for Coastal Resources found that in the presence Management at the Vir- of artificial erosion preven- ginia Institute of Marine tion structures, such as Science (VIMS) . The bulkheads, negatively im- report, The Stability of pacted the growth and for- Living Shorelines: An mation of tidal marshes. Evaluation, was submit- Living shorelines were also ted to the National Oce- found to be unsuccessful in anic and Atmospheric areas with high energy en- Administration (NOAA) vironments, and therefore in 2007. marshes have limited use in The objective of this this area. study was to use statisti- Using a GIS database, a cal data to statistically spatial model was used to analyze the effect of tid- evaluate what areas may al marshes on the envi- require living shorelines to ronmental conditions of reduce erosion. The model tidal shorelines. The results, identifying site suit- results of this study sup- ability for living shorelines, port living shorelines were compared to field sur- were present more fre- veys. The model showed quently in areas with significant potential, with adequate erosion control
75% of its predictions in while areas without liv- agreement with the field ing shorelines did show survey. This model may significant erosion prob- be a promising tool in de- lems. However, when termining future shoreline erosion rates were calcu- management strategies, per- lated, there was no sig- mitting data in the region in nificant difference be- question is available. tween experimental treatments, there was suf- ficient evidence from the study sites to con-
1 Berman, M., H. Berquist, J. Herman, K. Nunez. The Stability of Living Shorelines: An Evaluation. 2007. Center for Coastal Resources Management, VIMS College of William and Mary.
SECTION 8—RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING 8-7 RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING
Conservation Programs
Agricultural Conservation Programs by Rural Legacy, 8,500 acres are intended to be protected. The Fenwick property was the first The St. Mary’s County Comprehensive plan preserved MRLA, accounting for 155 acres. An has identified a goal of preserving 60,000 acres additional 3 properties adjacent to Fenwick were of farmland by 2020. A minimum of purchased by the end of 2009 (totaling 2,536 80% undeveloped land is to be in the Priority acres). Preservation Area. This goal is to be achieved Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program with state and county funding to provide incen- tives and implement regulations for non-farm Maryland’s CREP, which began in 1997, is development. See Map 14 for lands protected by an environmental incentive program for land- easements. owners to restore and/or preserve sensitive areas on their property, including stream buffers, wet- lands, and erodible soil, thereby reducing nutri- ent inputs and improving habitat quality. Addi- tionally, CREP participants are given a payment in return for 10 to 15 years of preserving the property (i.e. taking it out of production and maintaining vegetation listed in the CREP con- tract).
CREP payment methods include: 1. One -time payment of a maximum of $200 per acre of land listed in the program. 2. Annual rental payment consisting of the soil rental rate in addition to a per acre incentive Figure 8-4. Mattapany Rural Legacy Area. Courtesy (80-200% soil rental rate). of Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
3. Cost-share (up to 87.5% reimbursed) to im- Rural Legacy Area plement best management practice. Mattapany Rural Legacy Area (MRLA) in St. 4. One-time incentive payment (40% cost of Mary’s County was sponsored in 2006 by the installing BMP) in addition to cost-share. Patuxent Tidewater Land Trust, and encom- 5. Annual rental payments and up to $7 per acre passes 13,703 acres of farmland, forests, wet- for land management. lands, historic sites, and wildlife habitat. This
area facilitates the protection of the St. Mary’s River watershed and Chesapeake Bay water As of 20__ , __ acres and __landowners are en- quality, and provides an open space buffer for rolled in this program in St. Mary’s County (Soil the Naval Air Station Patuxent River. Funded Conservation District).
2Maryland’s Rural Legacy Program. Department of Natural Resources. http://www.dnr.state.md.us/ land/rurallegacy/allrurallegacyareas.asp. Accessed December 22, 2014. 3 Maryland’s Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. Maryland Department of Agriculture. Website. http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/Habitat/pdfs/CREP_Brochure.pdf. Accessed January 2015. 4St. Mary’s County Public Schools: Maryland Green Registry Leadership Award. http://mde.maryland.gov/
marylandgreen/Documents/StMarys_County_Public_Schools_Profile.pdf. Accessed December 22, 2014. SECTION 8—RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING 8-8 RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING
Conservation Programs
Energy Conservation Additionally the credit must also be reported on Mar- yland Form 502, 505, or 515.
Solar power Oyster Restoration St. Mary's County Public Schools, through the A Native Oyster Restoration Master Plan was Green Schools Program, committed to renewable ener- completed in September 2012 by the U.S. Army gy by applying and receiving a $500,000 grant from the Corps of Engineers, assessed the current status of oys- 4 Maryland Energy Administration's Project Sunburst. ter populations in the Chesapeake Bay and provided The County Public Schools installed large scale solar recommendations for large-scale restoration efforts to photovoltaics at the George Washington Carver Ele- restore native oyster habitat and populations in 20 mentary School (GWCES), producing 80% of the annu- tributaries/areas in Maryland and Virginia by 2025.6 al electric consumption at the school. As of 2012, Maryland includes 14 tributaries/areas cited for resto- GWCES generated enough energy to completely sup- ration, including the St. Mary’s River. The master port its own energy needs. Over the 15 years the photo- plan also proposes that 20 to 40% of voltaic system is under the power historic habitat be restored and pro- purchase agreement, the County tected as oyster sanctuary. Areas of Public Schools will save approxi- restorable bottom in the St. Mary’s mately $1.4 million, which will in- River oyster sanctuary was identified stead be used to fund other renewa- by MD DNR (see Figure 8-5). ble energy and conservation projects in County schools. In 2010, the St. Mary’s River became an oyster sanctuary encompassing Private, homeowner systems and 1,302 of the total 9,024 acres in the cooperatively-owned systems are river. Historic oyster habitat in the becoming more prominent in St. St. Mary’s River, where watermen Mary’s County. have harvested oysters, accounts for 2,461 acres, while only 1,058 acres Oyster Restoration and Preservation are now identified as oyster habitat. Oyster Floats However, local watermen estimate Oyster floats permit homeown- that oyster habitat is limited to 200 ers to grow oysters in buoyant cages acres or less. The Master Plan rec- either under or adjacent to their docks. Oysters grown ommended 214-423 acre restoration target area for the in floats are designated for personal consumption, and river and surveys identified that 341 acres suitable for serve as a means to improve water quality, while reduc- oyster restoration under all conditions, 1,092 are suit- ing usage of wild oyster stocks. able in some conditions, and 610 acres not suitable under all conditions. Oysters are already doing well Aquaculture oyster floats can be claimed for a maxi- in the St. Mary’s River, partially due to its designation mum allowed tax credit of $500.5 To receive this credit, as a sanctuary. Provided thorough surveying, the St. homeowners are required to complete Part D of Form Mary’s River may indicate that the 200 acre minimum 502CR and attach it to a Maryland income tax return. has already been reached.
5 Aquaculture Oyster Float Credit. Comptroller of Maryland. http://taxes.marylandtaxes.com/Individual_Taxes/ Individual_Tax_Types/Income_Tax/Filing_Information/Determine_Tax_Credits_and_Deductions/ Aquaculture_Oyster_Float_Credit.shtml. Accessed December 22, 2014. 6 Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery: Native Oyster Restoration Master Plan: Maryland and Virginia. 2012. Prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 256 pages. http://www.nab.usace.army.mil/Portals/63/docs/Environmental/Oysters/ CB_OysterMasterPlan_Oct2012_FINAL.pdf 7Marylanders Grow Oysters: Citizens working to enhance Maryland’s Oyster Reefs. http://oysters.maryland.gov/. Accessed December 22,2014. SECTION 8—RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING 8-9 RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING
Figure8-5.restorable Areas of oysterbottom in the St. Mary’soyster River sanctuary.Courtesy of DNR. Maryland SECTION 8—RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING 8-10 RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING
Conservation Programs continued
In 2013, oyster restoration began Table 8-3. Yearly oyster restoration plantings completed by the St. Mary’s in Harris Creek, and its 300-600 River Watershed Association for the St. Mary’s River oyster sanctuary and acres is on track for completion in their associated programs. 2015. Restoration in the Choptank began in 2014. Programs Oyster Planted Funded Year Oyster MGO Marylanders Grow Oysters (millions) Oyster Nursery Program Plantings The MGO program m is another oyster restoration initiative, managed 2009-2011 3 X by Maryland Department of Natural 2012 4 X Resources, Oyster Recovery Partner- 0.5 X ship, Maryland Center for Environ- mental Science, and other local or- 2013 9.5 X X ganizations. Beginning in 2008, this 0.5 X program has been growing oysters 2014 3.5 X for restoration purposes and involv- ing local homeowners in the pro- 0.5 X cess.7 Homeowners that participate Total 21.5 in the MGO program receive oyster cages of vulnerable, juvenile spat-on-shell and stew- ard them for up to a year. This program is currently active in 30 rivers, creeks, and covers of the Chesa- conduct long-term monitoring of the a 5 acre peake Bay. plot in Horseshoe Bend. The St. Mary’s River and its tributaries (St. This plot contains 2.8 acres of three- Inigoes Creek, St. George Creek, and Carthagena dimensional oyster reef mounds constructed Creek, Smith Creek, and St. Jerome’s Creek) began with reef balls (10-40 reef balls per mound), participating in the MGO program in 2009 with 88 recycled concrete rubble, or oyster shell. Reef piers, hosting 600 cages. The program continues to ball and concrete rubble mounds were either be successful in the St. Mary’s River, with 85 docks treated with veneers of spat-on-shell or left bar- and 607 cages. ren for natural recruitment of wild oyster larvae. Oyster restoration in the St. Mary’s River has Four additional mounds, including two oyster been primarily accomplished by a local non-profit shell piles and two reef ball mounds were con- organization, the St. Mary’s River Watershed Associ- structed through the Maryland Industrial Part- ation. In conjunction with the SMRWA, help from nership (MIPs) grant program, which pairs Mar- volunteers, grant funding, and the Marylanders Grow yland businesses with University of Maryland Oyster program, 21.5 million juvenile oysters have schools. Through the MIPs project these four been planted in the St. Mary’s River so far (Table 8- 3). mounds were seeded using an experimental in- situ method, in which oyster larvae are intro- duced to a closed system on-site. The objective St. Mary’s River Reef Project of this study is to eliminate the labor required to The St. Mary’s Reef Project is an ongoing transport substrate and spat to the restoration small-scale oyster restoration effort in the St. site. The effectiveness of this method is still Mary’s River. The Reef Project is a partnership being assessed. between the St. Mary’s River Watershed Associ- Flat shell bars, otherwise known as two- ation, the Leonardtown Rotary Club, and St. dimensional bars equal 2.2 acres of the plot, oth- Mary’s College of Maryland to construct and SECTION 8—RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING 8-11 RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING
Conservation Programs continued
erwise known as two-dimensional bars, are the tradi- Oyster Restoration: Construction and tional method for oyster restoration, during which Monitoring Final Report, prepared by the restoration area is hardened with 2-6 inches of St. Mary’s College of Maryland shell, and spat-on-shell is planted directly on top. (http://smrwa.org/pdfdocs/ Flat shell reefs, due to its structure and location at projects_reef_paultanner.pdf). the bottom of the water column, influences oyster mortality as these bars are more susceptible to silta- tion and hypoxic events. However, oyster mortality associated with these factors may be reduced through the construction of three-dimensional mounds, a relatively new tech- nique that mimics historic oyster reefs. The three- dimensional structure positions oysters higher in the water column and facilitates increased water velocity over the mounds, directly reducing siltation and ex- posure to hypoxia and increasing food availability.9 Additionally, as oyster shell is becoming more diffi- cult to obtain and costly to purchase for restoration purposes, this use of alternative substrate in the con- struction of mounds may provide insight into the most cost-effective restoration strategies. Addition- ally, this Project should serve as a restoration tech- nique that is easily replicated elsewhere in the Ches- apeake Bay. Since the Projects start in 2012, over 500 reef balls, and 33 three-dimensional reef structures have
been constructed, including 19 reef ball, 2 shell piles, 12 concrete rubble mounds.10 Dozens of vol- unteers, ages ranging from 8-78, have assisted in their construction of reef balls and reef mounds. With their help three more reefs are anticipated to be completed in 2015. The baseline evaluation and on- going monitoring of the St. Mary’s Reef Project has been accomplished through using the reef as an edu- cational tool at St. Mary’s College of Maryland. The reef serves as a classroom for research projects, in- cluding semester class projects in Ecology of Coastal Systems (2013-2014), and six, year-long studies through the completion of senior thesis’s, known as St. Mary’s Projects (2012-2015). Additional infor- mation about the long-term monitoring is available in the St. Mary’s Reef Project is St. Mary’s River
9 Paul, P. and C. Tanner. 2012. St. Mary’s River Oyster Reef Restoration: Construction and Monitor- ing Final Report. St. Mary’s College of Maryland, St. Mary’s City, MD, USA. 10
SMRWA SECTION 8—RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING 8-12
plantings constructedas traditional, flat bars. . Reef mound types and organization constructed through the St. Mary’s Reef Project from 2012-2014. 2012-2014. from Project Reef Mary’s St. the through constructed organization and types mound Reef . __ SECTION 8—RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING Figure Transparent rectanglesdelineate 4oyster separate 2 Reef ball Spat-on-shell Spat-on-shell ball Spat-on-shell 1 Rubble 2 Reef Spat-on-shell ball 3 Rubble ball 4 Rubble 5 Reef 6 Reef ball 7 8 Rubble 9 Reef Shell pile In-situ larvae 10 Reef ball Spat-on-shell Spat-on-shell ball Spat-on-shell ball 10 Reef Spat-on-shell ball Rubble 11 12 Reef 13 Reef shell Rubble 14 ball 15 Oyster 16 Rubble ball Reef 17 Reef ball Spat-on-shell ball 18 Rubble Oyster shell Reef 20 ball Reef 21 Rubble 22 Reef 23 ball 24 Spat-on-shell 25 Rubble ball Reef 26 Reef ball Spat-on-shell 27 Rubble In-situ larvae ball Reef 28 Rubble 29 Spat-on-shell ball Reef 31 ball 32 33 Reef Reef 34 Reef ball 35 In-situ larvae Shell pile In-situ larvae Reef Number Reef Number Reef Type Treatment Veneer * Reef Number 19, 30, and 36 to be completed completed be to 36 and 30, 19, Number * Reef in 2015 Table8-4. Reef mound type and veneer treatments treatments veneer and type mound Reef Table8-4. plot. reef three-dimensional the in
8-13 RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING
Smart Growth
Smart Growth planning is a sustainable PFA’s are existing communities where future means to protect natural resources by avoiding growth is encouraged. In Maryland Smart urban sprawl. This is to be accomplished by Growth legislation requires that residential de- revitalizing preexisting infrastructure or incorpo- velopments have a density greater than 3.5 units rating new development into already developed per acre in PFA’s. Development, redevelop- areas.11 The following Smart Growth laws and ment, and investment in the central subarea are policies were administered by the Maryland De- of high priority. partment of Planning: Transfer of Development Rights 1992 Economic Growth, Resource Protec- The TDR program allows for landowners to tion, and Planning Act transfer the right to build a house from a loca- 1997 Priority Funding Areas Act tion where development is prohibited, or not 2006 Planning Legislation ideal, to one that is encouraged. In the case of 2009 Smart, Green and Growing Legislation St. Mary’s County, TDR’s are used to encourag- 2010 Sustainable Communities Legislation ing growth in the Lexington Park Development 2012 Sustainable Growth & Agricultural district. In the 2013 Master Plan, St. Mary’s Preservation Act County suggests that the TDR program consider allowing green infrastructure to qualify as send- The Lexington Park Development District ing areas, areas whose development rights can Master Plan Staff Draft 2013, in accordance with be transferred to other areas of growth. the Plan Maryland 2011 executive policy plan, identified strategies for preservation, growth, Forest Stands and Open Space and revitalization in St. Mary’s County. Growth As part of green infrastructure conservation, goals for the county are also outlined in the St. the 2013 Lexington Park Master Plan Staff Draft Mary’s County Planning Commission Annual states that existing forest stands and isolated Report (2013), which allocates 70% of residen- areas of green space, including parks, should be tial and non-residential growth to development connected. Their connection would serve as
districts, town centers, and village centers. No protection against habitat fragmentation and more than 30% would be allowed in the rural degradation. The 2010 St. Mary’s County Com- preservation district. Additionally, new develop- prehensive Plan also requires that at least 50% ment in the 2014 fiscal year was limited to a of existing forests (outside of the critical area) 1.9% annual increase of housing units. The fol- be preserved in the rural preservation district lowing topics provide a means to preserve rural and greater than 20% in low-density residential areas, concentrate new development, and retain zoning districts. Clearing of trees is also limited functional open space. such that the preservation of critical areas results in a zero net-loss in forests. Priority Funding Areas Open Space Framework as defined in the
11 Smart Growth Planning Topics. Maryland Department of Planning. Accessed January 2015. http:// planning.maryland.gov/OurWork/smartGrowth.shtml 12 Lexington Park Development District Master Plan Staff Draft. 2013. http://www.co.saint-marys.md.us/docs/ LPDDstaffdraft0713.pdf 13 St. Mary’s County Planning Commission Annual Report. 2013. St. Mary’s County Government Department of Land Use and Growth Management. Accessed December 2014. http://www.stmarysmd.com/docs/2013-Annual- Report-FINAL-062414r.pdf SECTION 8—RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING 8-14 RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING
2013 Lexington Park Master Plan Staff draft connect parks, including the Jarboesville Park, John G. Lancaster Park, Freedom Park, and Nicolet Park, through sidewalks and hiking/biking trails (See Figure 8-6). Public spaces that are located in the downtown area are recommended for use as public greens or pocket parks that will also be connected through sidewalks or trails. These include areas at the Willows Road traffic circle, in St. Mary’s Square, and in the new commercial center by Nicolet Park. Additionally, the 2013 Master Plan suggests that community gardens be incorporated into public land in employment centers.
Figure 8-6. Open Space framework proposed in the Lexington Park Development District Master Plan Staff Draft 2013. SECTION 8—RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING 8-15 RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING
Green Site Design
Adding Green Infrastructure to Developments
Green building practices provide another level of environmental protection in the watershed. Over the last decade, primarily through the imple- mentation of the Leadership in Energy and Envi- ronmental Design (LEED) by the U.S. Green Building Council, building practices throughout the county have been transformed. Greater and greater recognition has been gained on the rela- tionship of the built-environment to human and ecological health. LEED provides a matrix for ways in which developers and owners can max- imize economic and environmental performance in the construction, renovation, and operation of buildings. Reduce the heat gradient and light pollution Both St. Mary’s College of Maryland and St. that results from typical developments; Mary’s County Public Schools have been early Reduce water consumption and demand on advocates of the use of LEED in documenting wastewater treatment facilities; green building practices in their capital improve- Reduce energy consumption and the emis- ments programs. Goodpaster Hall at St. Mary’s sion of greenhouse gases and ozone deplet- College, completed in 2008, was a pilot program ing chemicals; for the State of Maryland in the construction of Efficient use of environmentally preferable green buildings. Evergreen Elementary School materials and minimize waste during con- was among the first forty schools facilities in the struction; nation to be registered under LEED. Both of Reduce the impact from transportation by these facilities are within the St. Mary’s River using local materials; watershed and serve as important beacons for Improve indoor environmental quality by environmentally and fiscally responsible develop- using low-emitting materials; ments. Other organizations such as Habitat for Educate others on how to build and operate Humanity have made a concerted effort to inte- facilities in a more environmentally respon- grate green building practices into the construc- sible manner. tion of affordable housing. The U.S. Green Building Council has ex- LEED uniformly recognizes the following sus- panded LEED to include LEED for Homes and tainable building practices: LEED for Neighborhoods. These programs are Appropriate site selection and use of land; especially applicable to the protection of the St. Protect and restore habitat; Mary’s River watershed, since residential con- Promote open space; struction is far more land intensive and creates Utilize best practices in minimizing storm- far more impervious surfaces annually than water runoff and channelization of streams; commercial or institutional developments. Pro-
14 From Lanny (2009) SECTION 8—RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING 8-16 RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING
Green Building continued
tection of water quality is a fundamental goal struct all new facilities under LEED and to ex- under all LEED programs. LEED encourages ceed mandatory requirements on stormwater performance in excess of regulatory standards, management. including those for stormwater management. St. Mary’s County Public Schools also has a LEED also stresses water conservation and inno- strong history of environmental design and vative wastewater technologies. stewardship. With more than a decade of ener- Many jurisdictions throughout the country gy performance contracts and emphasis on con- have provided incentives for residential con- servation, St. Mary’s County Public Schools’ struction that achieves LEED’s standards. Ar- energy consumption per square foot is among lington County, Virginia was one of the nation’s the lowest in the state. The school system in- first to allow for high density developments if corporated green features such as energy recov- projects earned a LEED Silver certification. ery and daylighting into its modernization ef- Baltimore County provides tax credits for new forts throughout the 1990’s. Evergreen Ele- residential construction that earns a minimum of mentary School, its first new school in over LEED Silver certification. St. Mary’s County twenty-five years, is the school system’s first should be encouraged to consider similar pro- LEED certified facility. Evergreen Elementary grams. At a time when the County is facing fi- is also a prototype for two additional elemen- nancial challenges in providing adequate public tary schools that are anticipated in the next ten facilities, providing incentives for lower impact years. Equity in education and facilities is a developments makes good economic sense. core value of St. Mary’s County Public The St. Mary’s River watershed is fortunate Schools. St. Mary’s County Public Schools has to have within its boundaries exceptional educa- established a “Green Schools” program to take tional institutions. St. Mary’s College of Mary- the lessons and experiences derived from Ever- land has a legacy of environmental and commu- green Elementary School to other schools nity stewardship. The college was one of the throughout the system. A mobile green class- first in the nation to purchase 100% of its energy room will be transported around the County from green sources. The college connected to with demonstrations and lessons on solar ener-
public sanitation in the 1980’s which significant- gy, energy conservation, and local environmen- ly improved the water quality of the St. Mary’s tal challenges. Green Schools Coordinators River. The college also adopted policies to con- have been established at all schools to promote SECTION 8—RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING 8-17 RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING
Green Site Building continued
sustainable practices in the operation of school water treatment techniques have advanced facilities. enough to support both potable and non-potable A robust partnership between educational insti- needs. Grey water reuse alleviates pressure from tutions within the watershed should be encouraged aquifers, and may be ideal in preserving existing and cultivated. St. Mary’s College of Maryland, water resources. St. Mary’s County Public Schools, and the College According to the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, of Southern Maryland should all look for opportu- the St. Mary’s County Commission on the Envi- nities to use the combined talents and resources for ronment was instructed to investigate various wa- environmental education. One of the most promis- ter conservation methods and assess which has a ing is the relationship between the Educational high potential payback both with and without in- Studies Program at St. Mary’s College and St. centives. The County also requested that the Mary’s County Public Schools. Students interest- State Water Resources Management Advisory ed in teaching careers are placed into local schools Committee address water conservation and reuse as student teachers. Graduates from the Educa- options to amend State and local regulations to tional Studies Program are a significant source of legalize and encourage these types of methods. permanent teachers for the school system as well. The county is also currently identifying areas By focusing on environmental themes, the Educa- where water reuse may be feasible. tional Studies Program can become an important Current regulations and guidelines in Mary- resource in the development of environmentally land for water reuse have been published in the related lesson and unit plans. Knowledge and Maryland Register effective May 2010.15 This strategies for the protection of the watershed can include the reclaimed water can be used for irri- be imparted to the local school system through the gation of farmland, gold courses, athletic fields, work of student teachers and graduates of the Edu- turf landscaping any other uses the Department cational Studies Program. deems appropriate. Guidelines for discharge to groundwater was amended to include reuse of Green Site Design treated Class III effluent, in non-restricted public access areas for irrigation given a buffer zone
Grey Water Reuse between potable wells and water intake. Grey water reuse was identified in the 2010 St Mary’s County Comprehensive Plan, as a method Septic System Upgrades and Grant Program to significantly reduce the use aquifer water for Traditional septic systems are not capable of uses other than drinking water. Potable water in removing nitrogen, and therefore systems that are the county has been used for watering lawns, ath- in close proximity to the water, especially within letic fields, landscaping and for industrial uses. the Critical Area (1000 feet of tidal waters), pose Grey water, or effluent water, was suggested to be a significant threat to aquatic systems. However, suitable for these water uses, especially as waste upgraded septic systems called Best Available
15 Comprehensive Water and Sewerage Plan. Adopted 2012. St. Mary’s County, Maryland. 253 pages. MDE Guidelines for Land Application/Reuse of Treated Municipal Wastewaters. Amended April 2010. http:// www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/MDE-WMA-001%20%28land-treatment%20Guidelines%29.pdf. Ac- cessed. December 30, 2014. 16 Maryland’s Nitrogen–Reducing Septic Upgrade Program. MDE. http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/ BayRestorationFund/OnsiteDisposalSystems/Pages/Water/cbwrf/index.aspx
SECTION 8—RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING 8-18 RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING
Maryland Department of Natural Resources Programs
Technology (BAT) are capable of removing ap- Green Schools—Energy Conservation proximately half of its nitrogen load.16 These septic upgrades serve an important tool to reduc- The Green School Program certification is ing nutrient inputs to local waterways and there- awarded through the Maryland Association of fore the Chesapeake Bay. The Maryland De- Environmental and Outdoor Education.18 partment of the environment has been upgrading Schools in this program must promoting energy septic systems in through the Bay Restoration conservation, environmental awareness through Fund (BRF) Onsite Sewer Disposal System education, employment of environmental best (OSDS) grant program. The St. Mary’s County management practices, and community steward- Health Department’s Clean Water Program lo- ship. Schools must be recertified every four cally administers the BRF and prioritizes up- years, and are granted the title of Sustained grades by the following criteria:17 Green School after three successful recertifica- tion’s. 1. Failing septic systems within Critical Areas 2. Failing septic systems outside Critical Areas Green schools in the St. Mary’s River Water- 3. Non-conforming septic systems in Critical shed: Area Chesapeake Public Charter School (2009) 4. Non-conforming septic systems outside Criti- Greenview Knolls Elementary (2010) cal Area Evergreen Elementary (2011) 5. Non-failing septic systems in 1000 foot Criti- George Washington Carver Elementary (2011) cal Areas Buffer Green Holly Elementary (2012) Park Hall Elementary (2013) 6. Non-failing septic systems outside of the
1000 foot Critical Area Buffer
To apply for a BRF grant to upgrade your septic system, follow the steps listed on the St. Mary’s County Health department website
(http://www.smchd.org/bay-restoration-fund- step-by-step-instructions/). As of January 2013, all new construction, including outside of the Critical Area, require nitrogen reducing septic systems. However, fail- ing systems outside of the Critical area are not required to replace septic systems with nitrogen reducing units.
17 Clean Water Program and Bay Restoration Fund. 2015. St. Mary’s County Health Department. http:// www.smchd.org/bay-restoration-grant/. Accessed January 1, 2015. 18 St. Mary’s County Public Schools: Maryland Green School Certification. Website: http://www.smcps.org/news/ maryland-green-school-certification. Accessed December 22, 2014.
SECTION 8—RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING 8-19 RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING
Maryland Department of Natural Resources Programs
Maryland’s Fish Passage Program passage between marine, estuarine, and freshwa- The Chesapeake Bay Agreement, signed in ter areas in order to complete their reproductive 1987 by all states within the Bay Watershed, life cycle and sustain the next generations popu- included commitments each state to "to provide for lation. Therefore, the removal of stream obstruc- fish passage at dams, and remove stream blockages tions enables safe passage of adults or juveniles wherever necessary to restore passage for migratory and the continuation of the species. fish." A goal for Maryland was set to reopen 388.65 miles of stream and has completed 61 projects, ac- counting for 348.9 miles of upstream habitat. The
state plans to meet and exceed the goal through ef- forts by the Maryland Department of Natural Re- sources, State Highway Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service - National Oceanic & At- mospheric Administration, Department of Interior - US Fish & Wildlife, Environmental Protection Agen- cy, Chesapeake Bay Program, Chesapeake Bay Foun- dation, University Maryland and a others private citi- zens, local watershed groups and local governments.
Fish passages in St. Mary’s River Watershed: Gauging wire in St. Mary’s River Stream, (Great Mills at intersection of Indian Bridge Fish passage Road and Western Branch Road) Small dam at St. Mary’s College of Mary- land, Mattapany Road. Dam near Andover Estates Rd., Locust Grove Cove, Tributary St. George Creek
Migratory fish contribute to a flow of nutri- ents between freshwater and marine systems and are valuable species in the marine and coastal food webs. Catadromous fish, such as American eels, spawn in the ocean and their offspring mi- grate through estuaries and into freshwater streams to mature. Anadromous fish, including American shad and Alewife, do the opposite, with adults spawning in freshwater and their off- spring migrating into the saline waters to devel- op. Both types of migratory fish require safe
19 Fish Passage. MD Department of Natural Resources. Website: http://dnr2.maryland.gov/fisheries/Pages/ fishpassage/index.aspx. Accessed December 2014. 20 Maryland iMAP: Marylands Mapping and GIS Data Portal. Maryland Government. Website: http:// data.imap.maryland.gov/datasets/. Accessed December 2014. SECTION 8—RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING 8-20 RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING
Forest and Wetland Restoration
Mitigation sites were proposed in the KCI study (1998) to protect water quality and wildlife and de- termine areas unsuitable for development. Sites were evaluated for their environmental features, in- cluding forests, wetlands, and streams, and their biological resources. Additionally, sites contained habitat of sensitive species, or overlapped or were in close proximity, were assessed to preserve contig- uous areas with a variety of available resources. Proposed sites were selected for their prospective suc- cess.
Forest Mitigation sites These sites were selected for being a transitional zone between farm land and forests or was adjacent to protected lands. Additionally, proposed sites satisfied one or more of the following conditions: Area is adjacent to parkland, FIDS habitat, or contiguous wetlands/forests Area adds or creates riparian buffers Area potentially improves water quality or habitat conditions Area is accessible and feasible
Wetland Mitigation Sites These sites were selected for the presence of hydric soils or by being adjacent to wetlands or hydric soils. Proposed sites have one or more of the following conditions: Area is adjacent to parklands, known breeding area for FID bird species, contiguous wet- lands/forests Area has potential for wetland hydrology Area adds or creates riparian buffers Area potentially improves water quality or habitat conditions Area is accessible and feasible Area would require minimum re-grading or was a disturbed site
21Watershed Evaluation for St. Mary’s River and McIntosh Run Watersheds. 1998. KCI (01-98022B). Prepared for the St. Mary’s County Department of Planning and Zoning. KCI Technologies, Inc., Hunt Valley, Maryland. (CITED PREVIOUSLY) SECTION 8—RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING 8-21 PROJECTS RELATED TO THE WRAS PROCESS
Watershed Implementation Plans Basin, which includes the St. Mary’s River wa- tershed, had nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment After pollution reduction goals were not met target loads of 15.29, 0.94, and 731 million in 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency pounds per year, respectively. These target requested the development of Watershed Imple- loads were further divided by pollution source mentation Plans (WIPs) by the Chesapeake Bay sectors: agriculture, forest, non-tidal atmospher- states to hold each jurisdiction accountable for ic, septic, stormwater, and wastewater. their pollution loads. The Maryland WIPs are to be developed in three phases, with Phase I in Phase III is to be developed by 2017 to ad- 2010, the Phase II in 2011, and Phase III in dress reductions needed, the remaining 30%, in 2017. Maryland from 2018 to 2020 and also provide another opportunity to revise TMDL alloca- WIPs Phase I included the development of tions. final target loads to allocate the allowable loads
of phosphorus, nitrogen, Native & Nonnative Oys- and sediment by each pol- ter Restoration PEIS lution source sector and region in Maryland. By The Programmatic Envi- meeting these target loads, ronmental Impact State- the pollutant levels enter- ment for Oyster Restoration ing the Chesapeake Bay in Chesapeake Bay, includ- can be reduced. Mary- ing the use of a Native and/ land’s WIP Phase I has or nonnative oyster was been completed and indi- finalized in April 2009. cated Maryland’s commit- This EIS was completed by ment to complete final tar- the US Army Corps of En- get loads by 2020, with an gineers, MD Department of intern target load 70% by 2017. Natural Resources, and the Virginia Marine Re- sources Commission. Phase II Plan was developed in 2011 to re- fine the Phase I plan by further specifying the The Oyster Restoration PEIS addresses vari- geographic areas for target loads by coordinat- ous alternatives to restore oyster populations in ing efforts at the Federal, State, and County lev- the Chesapeake Bay. Two of the proposed al- el. WIPs Phase II identifies the pollution con- ternatives includes the nonnative Suminoe Oys- trols that are to be implemented by states and ter (Crassostrea ariakensis, native to China), partners by the end of 2017. The 2011 final including the cultivation of reproductively ster- target load for Maryland were revised to the ile, individuals, or the use of reproducing Sumi- scale of 5 major basins. The Potomac River noe oysters for restoration. After receiving pub-
22 Maryland’s Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. 2012. Prepared by Uni- versity of Maryland, Maryland Department of Planning, Maryland Department of Agriculture, Maryland Depart- ment of the Environment, and Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 84 pages. http:// www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/TMDL/TMDLImplementation/Documents/FINAL_PhaseII_Report_Docs/ Final_Documents_PhaseII/Final_Phase_II_WIP_MAIN_REPORT_102612.pdf. Accessed January 7, 2015.
23 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Evaluating Oyster Restoration Alternatives for the Chesa- peake Bay, Including the Use of Native and Non-Native Oysters Progress Report. 2007. Prepared by Virginia Marine Resources Commission, MD Department of Natural Resources, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. SECTION 9—PROJECTS RELATED TO THE WRAS 9-1 PROJECTS RELATED TO THE WRAS PROCESS
lic input and undergoing review by federal, tion in the Chesapeake Bay, developed by the state, and local agencies, the executive commit- Chesapeake Bay program and its partners iden- tee determined that Approach 8a, a combination tified the need for large-scale SAV restoration of enhanced native oyster restoration, harvest efforts. Traditional techniques for restoring eel- moratorium, and aquaculture, was the ideal grass beds required labor-intensive manual strategy. The ecological risks associated with planting of adult eelgrass, transplanting whole introducing a nonnative oyster were determined plants from healthy preexisting beds into resto- to be too great to offset restoration benefits. ration sites. Recent studies have suggested that seed dispersal may instead be a more efficient The Final Decision can be found at http:// and cost effective method for large-scale resto- www.nao.usace.army.mil/Portals/31/docs/ ration efforts. Additionally, this method would civilworks/oysters/oysterdecision.pdf. The Final not require the removal of adult plants and PEIS Report can be accessed at therefore may reduce impacts on healthy SAV http://www.dnr.state.md.us/irc/ beds. docs/00015764.pdf. Using a SAV Restoration Targeting System,
large-scale restoration sites with environmental Watershed Evaluation for St. Mary’s River conditions ideal for eelgrass were determined. Watershed These conditions included suitable light attenua- The St. Mary’s River Watershed assessment tion (light availability), seston (plankton and plan was prepared for the St. Mary’s County fish), chlorophyll a, nutrients, salinity, and wa- Department of Planning and Zoning by KCI ter depth. In regions that satisfied those criteria, Technologies, Inc. in 1998. This evaluation areas that maintained 0.1-1 meter mean low wa- identified areas in the watershed that were either ter and also once supported populations of his- unsuitable for development, had development toric eelgrass were identified for restoration. limitations, or could serve as forest and wetland Sites were located in the lower mesohaline Po- mitigation sites. These recommendations would tomac River and in the lower mesohaline Patux- serve as supplementary information for the St. Mary’s County Government’s Comprehensive Master Plan to the protection, restoration, and preservation of the County’s natural resources.
Piney Point Aquaculture Facility
1. Potomac River Eelgrass Restoration24 The Strategy to Accelerate the Protection and Restoration of Submerged Aquatic Vegeta-
24 Busch, K., R.R. Golden. Large-scale Restoration of Eelgrass (Zostera marina) in the Patuxent and Potomac Rivers, Maryland. 2009. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Final report to National Oceanic and Atmos- pheric Administration. Accessed December 31,2014. http://www.dnr.state.md.us/irc/docs/00014777.pdf
SECTION 9—PROJECTS RELATED TO THE WRAS 9-2 PROJECTS RELATED TO THE WRAS PROCESS
ent River. Of the 5 sites identified, Cherryfield were observed at Piney point. Long-term sur- Point, Piney Point, St. Georges Island, Sage vival of seedlings was only observed at St. Point, and Kitt’s Point, the former 3 areas are George Island and Cherryfield Point, with a 559 part of the St. Mary’s River Watershed, while and 89% increase in eelgrass density, respec- the later are in the division between the water- tively. This affirms that site selection is vital to shed and the lower Potomac River. Seeds were the restoration of SAV as areas where eelgrass collected from Chincoteague and Tangier Sound were previously observed (St. George) fared and transported to and stored at the Piney Point well, while other sites in which seedlings were Aquaculture Facility for fall dispersal or de- never observed (Piney point) had no long-term ployed in the spring of 2013 at restoration sites success. Cherryfield Point, Sage Point, and in floating mesh bags. Fall dispersal was per- Kitt’s Point had intermediate success. formed in 2013, 2006, 2007 and 2008 with a In 2005 baywide die-offs of eelgrass were mechanical seed sprayer, controlling the aver- observed, with similar declines experienced in age density of seeds being planted per acre. restoration sites as only adult transplants in St. Adult eelgrasses were also transplanted to be George Island survived the low dissolved oxy- compared to seedlings for growth and survival. gen and high temperature summer conditions. Plots were monitored for the growth of eel- These conditions were also found to affect seed- grass seedlings and by the following spring ling and adult transplant survival in 2006. Eel- there was high seedling establishment, relative grass transplanted in 2005 and 2006 had 10% to the other restoration sites, at St. George Is- survival rates after 19 months and 33% survival land (1.4% of total seeds planted). No seedlings after 20 months at Cherryfield Point. St. George Island transplants in 2006 experienced 16% survival at 19 months and by 20 months all planted areas had expanded to cover the entire planting area.
2. Piney Point Blue Crab Nursery The Department of Natural Resources Piney Point Aquaculture Facility managed a blue crab nursery in 2004, as part of a hatchery research project to supplement the Chesapeake Bay blue crab population.25 As the recruitment of juve- nile blue crabs has been at historic low level, hatchery operation may be a cost effective
25 Zohar, Yonathan. 2007. Center of Marine Biotechnology University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute. Presentation given September 2007. Accessed December 28, 2014. http://www.chesbay.us/presentations.html. 25 26 Hatchery spawns hope for crab stock enhancement. Bay Journal. September 1, 2005. http:// www.bayjournal.com/article/hatchery_spawns_hope_for_crab_stock_enhancement. Accessed December 30, 2014.
SECTION 9—PROJECTS RELATED TO THE WRAS 9-3 PROJECTS RELATED TO THE WRAS PROCESS
means to bolster the declining spawning popula- farming selectively bred native oysters in floats. tion.26 Serving as a comparative study to the traditional oyster-reef method, floats were assessed for This project, which was federally funded by their impact on water quality and biodiversity. a consortium of universities and institutions, Three separate studies were performed; includ- required that blue crabs successfully undergo ing a field study at Chesapeake Biological Lab, their larval development and survive to maturi- a laboratory study at St. Mary’s College of Mar- ty. Blue crab hatcheries had been unsuccessful until this project due to the blue crabs having 8 larval stages, each requiring different diets.26 Additionally, once crabs reach their megalopae larval stage and develop claws, they become cannibalistic, reducing survival rates in nursery settings. However, through the efforts of the University of Maryland’s Center of Marine Bio- technology, suitable prey species were identi- fied and techniques for increasing survival were proven successful. At two months of age, juvenile various co- horts of blue crabs grown at Piney Point were tagged and released in the upper and lower yland, and a field study of float biodiversity in Chesapeake Bay between 2002 and 2006.25 The the St. Mary’s River. results from monitoring release sites are promis- The CBL field study used mesocosms, or ing, with 15-30% of hatchery crabs surviving to tanks with a closed system of circulating water maturity, equaling to a doubling or tripling of from St. George Creek to identify the affect of local populations. Additionally, genetic analy- oysters on water quality. These tanks contained sis supports that hatchery crabs will benefit wild either floats with Circle C oysters or control spawning populations as they were not genet- floats containing dead shell and water quality ically different from wild crabs. was monitored hourly for temperature, salinity, Blue crab hatcheries are a promising tool to dissolved oxygen, and suspended solids. Fol- improving crab populations in the Bay, and this lowing the experimental period, oyster survival effort has affirms that these methods can be ef- and the colonization of encrusting organisms on fectively scaled up, with facilities being operat- the shells were assessed. The filtering capabil- ed by local watermen. ity of the organisms that colonized the dead oys- ter shells was considerable relative to the live St. Mary’s River Watershed Association Oys- oysters. Although the live oyster removed sus- ter Recovery Assessment Study27 pended solids at a considerably greater rate, it’s This project aimed to increase biomass and important to also note that the colonizing organ- commercial harvests of oysters and improve isms also have a sizable contribution to filtering water quality in the St. Mary’s River by using water.
27Oyster Restoration in St. Mary’s River. 2006. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Final Report prepared for Sustainable Development Institute. Accessed December 30, 2014. http://smrwa.org/pdfdocs/ pub_OysterFinalReport.pdf SECTION 9—PROJECTS RELATED TO THE WRAS 9-4 PROJECTS RELATED TO THE WRAS PROCESS
The small- scale laboratory study at SMCM, used water from the St. Mary’s River, to com- mation about becoming a volunteer visit at pare the filtering capability of native oysters http://www.shenandoahriverkeeper.org/ from the St. Mary’s River to selectively-bred riverwatcher. oysters from Circle C Oysters. Selectively- bred oysters were able to filter algae and sedi- Potomac Riverkeeper Get The Dirt Out Pro- ments from water at significantly greater rates gram than the native St. Mary’s River oysters. The Get the Dirt Out Program focuses on reporting sediment runoff from construction The St. Mary’s River field study monitored sites into rivers and streams of the watershed.29 the colonization of organisms in oyster floats by During rain events, dirt, oil, and other pollutants deploying floats from homeowner docks can be carried away from construction sites into throughout the river. However, oyster signifi- sewers and in some cases can be transferred cant mortality and vandalism of test floats oc- into potable water supplies. Construction site curred in the winter of 2007, reducing the num- operators that do not maintain proper storm- ber of oysters and floats remaining for analysis. water management and allow for pollution to Colonization of the floats was assessed for the enter sewer system can be reported by the pub- remaining floats, and bags with living oysters lic to local agencies. For more information of and non-living oyster shell hosted similar com- what kind of pollution to look for visit http:// munities of fish and invertebrates, and did not www.shenandoahriverkeeper.org/get-dirt-out. differ in species abundances or diversity. These communities closely reflected those observed in Potomac Cleanups and Trash-Free Initiative natural oyster reefs of the St. Mary’s River, The St. Mary’s River Watershed Association suggesting that floats sufficiently serve as habi- has partnered for seven years in cleanups and tat for other organisms in the river. trash reduction efforts with the Alice Ferguson Foundation including the watershed-wide annu- Potomac Riverkeeper River Watchers al Potomac River Watershed Cleanup. In 2014, the 26th annual cleanup enlisted more than The Potomac River Watchers Network is a group of volunteers, trained by the Potomac Riverkeepers, who report on pollution incidents that occur in the Potomac River Watershed.28 These volunteers provide first-hand accounts and provide evidence, by water samples or pho- tograph, of the incidence. Pollution on the riv- er can be reported by email at keep- [email protected] or by calling 202- 222-0707. This network serves as an extensive monitoring effort in the watershed, catching pollution when it happens and mitigating the impacts of these violations. For more infor- SECTION 9—PROJECTS RELATED TO THE WRAS 28Riverwatcher Program. 2012. Potomac and Shenandoah River Keeper. http://www.shenandoahriverkeeper.org/ riverwatcher. Accessed December 31, 2014. 29Get the Dirt Out Program. 2012. Potomac and Shenandoah River Keeper. http:// www.shenandoahriverkeeper.org/riverwatcher. Accessed December 31, 2014
9-5 PROJECTS RELATED TO THE WRAS PROCESS
14,700 volunteers in removing 288 tons of trash from 670 sites in the basin. Within the St. town. Mary’s, more than 1100 pound of trash is re- moved each year. An offshoot of the cleanup is Proposed Street Connections: the Potomac Watershed Trash Free Initiative, 1. FDR Boulevard which seeks to end litter in the watershed. The development of FDR Boulevard would be completed in a 5 phase pro- Lexington Park Redevelopment Campaign ject, including the completion of miss- As Three Notch Road and Great Mills Road ing segments in the corridor and con- are a heavy traffic area, especially during peak structing connector roads from FDR hours, road projects have been proposed for the Blvd. to 235. Lexington Park Development District to be- 2. Pegg Road Extension come a connected, walkable community. This This proposed expansion would con- includes the completion of FDR Boulevard, nect Pegg road from Chancellor’s Run using a Complete Streets concept, in which bike Road to the intersection of Point Look- lanes, sidewalks, and landscape medians are out Rd. and Piney Point Road. incorporated into road construction and revitali- 3. Chancellors Run Road Expansion zation. This extension included in the de- velopment of FDR Boulevard, and Transportation would connecting Chancellors Run The 2013 Lexington Park Development road to Pegg Road. District Master Plan Staff Draft defines street 4. Shangri la Drive connection projects in three priority classes, This extension from Shangri la with the first priority to begin immediately, the drive to Willows road is also part of the second to be initiated by 2020 and third priority FDR Blvd. extension. However, this is be initiated by 2020-2030, unless developers are a third priority street. driven sooner. Extensions to the following streets will serve to improve the connectivity
within the Lexington Park Core and to Down-
Chancellors run extension?
30 Lexington Park Development District Master Plan Staff Draft. July 2013. SEC- TION 9—PROJECTS RELATED TO THE WRAS 9-6 POTENTIAL BENCHMARKS FOR WRAS GOAL SETTING
POTENTIAL BENCHMARKS FOR WRAS GOAL SETTING
BRENTON BAY WRAS Coastal Zone Management Program Section 309 Strategy
Chesapeake 2000 Agreement
Clean Water Action Plan
Water Quality Improvement act of 1998
SECTION 10—POTENTIAL BENCHMARKS FOR WRAS GOAL SETTING 10-1 REFERENCES
REFERENCES SECTION 11— 12-1
BLANK PAGE
BACK COVER