Characterization Of The Watershed In Worcester County,

March 2005

In support of Worcester County’s Watershed Restoration Action Strategy for the Chincoteague Bay Watershed

Product of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources Watershed Services In partnership with Worcester County STATE OF MARYLAND Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., Governor Michael S. Steele, Lt. Governor

Maryland Department of Natural Resources C. Ronald Franks, Secretary Watershed Services Tawes State Office Building, 580 Taylor Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21401-2397 Internet Address: http://www.dnr.maryland.gov Telephone Contact Information: Toll free in Maryland: 1-877-620-8DNR x8746, Out of state call: 410-260-8746 TTY users call via Maryland Relay

The facilities and services of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources are available to all without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, national origin or physical or mental disability. This document is available in alternative format upon request from a qualified individual with disability

A publication of the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program, Department of Natural Resources pursuant to NOAA Award No. NA04NOS4190042. Financial as- sistance provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, admin- istered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Chincoteague Bay Watershed Characterization, March 2005 Publications Tracking Number DNR-14-1209-0023 Available for download at http://dnr.maryland.gov/watersheds/surf/proj/wras.html

Printed on Recycled Paper Table of Contents

LIST OF MAPS III

CONTRIBUTORS IV

LIST OF APPENDICES IV

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY V

INTRODUCTION 1 Watershed Planning Background 1 Chincoteague Bay WRAS Project 1 Purpose of the Characterization 2 Moving Beyond The Characterization 2 More Information Sources 3

WATER QUALITY 3 Designated Uses For Streams 3 Use Impairments 4 Bacteria Biological Dissolved Oxygen Nutrients Total Maximum Daily Loads 4 Phosphorus and Sediment TMDLs for Big Millpond Big Millpond TMDL Water Quality In Tidal Areas 5 Overview Salinity Water Clarity Dissolved Oxygen Chlorophyll (Algae) Nitrogen Phosphorus Sediment Contaminants Total Organic Carbon Summary by Monitoring Station Water Quality In Nontidal Areas 8

i Overview Big Millpond Groundwater Quality 9 Point Sources 9 Marinas 9

NATURAL RESOURCES 11 Soils 11 Green Infrastructure 11 Definition Local Findings and Rank Large Forest Blocks 13 Wetlands 14 Wetland Functions Wetland Categories Tracking Wetlands Nontidal Wetlands of Special State Concern Wetland Restoration Floodplains 18 Shoreline and Sea Level Rise 19 Stream Buffers 19 Benefits of Stream Buffers Headwater Streams Land Use Adjacent to Streams Optimizing Stream Buffer Restorations

LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT 21 Blue Crabs 21 Fish 22 Tidal Areas Nontidal Areas Fish Consumption Advisory Harmful Algae Blooms 23 Shellfish 24 Hard Clams Bay Scallops Benthic Organisms 24 Tidal Area Benthos

ii Sensitive Species 26 Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) Wetlands of Special State Concern (WSSC) Natural Heritage Area (NHA) Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 27

LAND USE AND LAND COVER 28 2002 Land Use / Land Cover 28 Protected Lands 29 Public Land Private Lands Rural Legacy

REFERENCES 30

List of Maps

Number Name

1 Location 2 WRAS Project Area 3 Water Monitoring and Marinas 4 Soils Important for Watershed Planning 5 Green Infrastructure 6 Large Block Forest Habitat 7 Wetlands and Floodplains 8 Stream Buffers 9 Fish, Oysters and Benthic Organisms 10 Sensitive Species 11 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 12 Land Use / Land Cover 13 Protected Land

iii List of Appendices

Letter Name

A Glossary B Water Quality Monitoring – Tidal Water C Water Quality Monitoring – Nontidal Streams and Impoundments D Sensitive Species

Contributors

Local

Worcester County Department of Comprehensive Planning Sandy Coyman, Keota Silaphone, Jason Dubow Natural Resource Conservation Service Nelson Brice

State and Federal

Maryland Coastal Bays Program Carol Cain, Roman Jesien Maryland Department of Natural Resources David Bleil, Dan Boward, Christine Conn, Mary Conley, Lynn Davidson, Marty Hurd, Fred Irani, Ron Klauda, Daniel Lucid, Audra Luscher, Paul Miller, John Mullican, Niles Primrose, Catherine Wazniak, Ted Weber, Darlene Wells, Ken Yetman Maryland Department of the Environment Melissa Chatham, Denise Clearwater, Robert Daniels, Jim George, Kelly Neff, Elinor Zetina Maryland Department of Planning Tay Harris, Michael McKinley Emily Clifton, Amy Handen, Wink Hastings, Corita Jones, Ursula Lemanski, Cyndi Szyman- ski, Carl Zimmerman

Primary Author and Editor: Kenneth E. Shanks, Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources

iv Executive Summary

The Chincoteague Bay is the largest body of water in Maryland’s Coastal Bays covering 72.6 square miles (46,483 acres). This bay is polyhaline ranging from 23 to 36 parts per thousand salinity. This embayment is created by , which is a barrier island that covers about 10.8 square miles (6,916 acres) in Maryland. The remaining land that drains to Chin- coteague Bay in Maryland encompasses about 56.1 square miles (35,890 acres).

Worcester County, Maryland is receiving Federal grant funding to prepare a Watershed Resto- ration Action Strategy (WRAS) for the Chincoteague Bay Watershed. As part of the WRAS project, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is providing technical assistance, including preparation of a watershed characterization (compilation of available water quality and natural resources information and identification of issues), a stream corridor assessment (uses field data to catalog issues and rate severity) and a synoptic survey (analyzes benthic macroinver- tebrates, fish and water samples with focus on nutrients). The County will consider the informa- tion generated in these efforts as it drafts the County Watershed Restoration Action Strategy.

Water Quality Big Millpond, Worcester County, Maryland was approved by EPA in 2002. It specifies lim- All water bodies in the Chincoteague Bay its for phosphorus and sediment entering Big watershed have a designated use. All tidal Millpond that, if met, should prevent future waters are designated for shellfish harvesting episodes of low dissolved oxygen and reduce and all nontidal waters are designated to sup- or eliminate other eutrophication-related prob- port water contact recreation and protection of lems in the pond. aquatic life. Water quality impairments that affect these designated uses include dissolved In the open tidal waters of Chincoteague Bay, oxygen, nutrients, biological impairment (poor water quality tends to be good/excellent south or very poor ranking for fish or benthic macro- of Figgs Point and good/fair north of Figgs invertebrates based on in-stream assessments) Point. Where water quality problems exist and bacteria. Maryland’s most recent list of but they are less severe than other Maryland impaired waters (the 303(d) List) recommends coastal bay areas like or St. Mar- that the listing for bacteria impairment in Chin- tin River. Water clarity in Chincoteague Bay coteague Bay be dropped because recent water as measured by secchi disk tends to be less quality monitoring data did not find impair- than 0.5 meters in summer months. Dissolved ment by bacteria. oxygen concentrations tend to be greater than 5.0 mg/l most of the time. However, dissolved As a step toward eliminating impairments as- oxygen levels lower than this are sometimes sociated with nutrients, the Total Maximum found in near-shore areas during summer Daily Loads of Phosphorus and Sediment to months. Algae populations as measured by

v Chlorophyll a in periodic sampling tend to be the bulk of these resources and corridors than less than 30 micrograms per liter. Total nitro- link the hubs together. In the Chincoteague gen concentrations generally average less than Bay watershed, Assateague Island in its en- 1 mg/l range but have been measured as high tirety constitutes the largest Green Infrastruc- as 1.4 mg/l. Total phosphorus concentrations ture hub. Most of the wetlands adjacent to tend to average less than 0.09 mg/l but have Chincoteague Bay along the mainland are part been measured up to 0.14 mg/l. of Green Infrastructure hubs. On the mainland draining to Chincoteague Bay, over 14,000 In nontidal areas, elevated nutrient levels have acres of forest contribute to Green Infrastruc- been found in some streams. Total phosphorus ture hubs. Nearly 7,300 acres of forest are greater than 0.1 mg/l and total nitrogen greater likely to be high quality forest interior habi- than 4 mg/l have been measured. Nitrate con- tat. Several hubs in the Chincoteague Bay centrations averaging greater than 2 mg/l were watershed ranked very high among all hubs in identified in four streams. Maryland’s eastern coastal eco-region.

In Big Millpond during warm-weather months, Nearly 15,600 acres of wetlands are identified dissolved oxygen concentrations less than in the watershed. Chincoteague Bay supports 2 mg/l have been measured. Chlorophyll a over 8,700 acres of estuarine emergent wet- concentrations were found between 20 and 50 lands and over 3,000 acres of unconsolidated micrograms per liter. shore wetlands. In the mainland, the most common wetland type is forested palustrine No point source discharges in the Chin- wetlands, which cover nearly 2,900 acres. coteague Bay watershed are listed in the State’s While large areas of wetland have been con- permit database. The only marina located on verted to other uses historically, tracking of Chincoteague Bay offers pumpout service. wetland permitting indicates that there has been a small net gain in wetland acreage since 1991 (over 13 acres). About 400 acres are des- Natural Resources ignated as Wetlands of Special State Concern, which listed in State regulation to help provide According to SSURGO soil data, more than additional protection for the sensitive species half of the soil in the watershed is prime that these wetlands support. agricultural soil. About one third of this soil (5,200 acres) requires drainage and/or irriga- About 5,100 acres of 100-year floodplain have tion and the other two thirds (11,400 acres) been identified in Chincoteague Bay water- does not require this kind of management. shed. Updated floodplain mapping using Soils with hydric characteristics are found on high-resolution elevation data will be available about 14,400 acres. in 2005.

Green Infrastructure is a network of natural An assessment of stream buffer restoration areas identified by DNR that are ecologically opportunities in Maryland’s portion of the important on a statewide or regional scale. The Chincoteague Bay watershed was conducted Green Infrastructure includes areas like large using computerized GIS. There are about 182 blocks of forest or wetlands, habitat for sensi- miles of streams and ditches, excluding shore- tive species and protected conservation areas. line of Chincoteague Bay and Big Millpond. These areas are grouped into hubs that contain Based on 2002 land use, about 92 miles of

vi stream/ditch buffer are characterized by natural jority of SAV tends to found on the eastern side vegetation. About 88 miles are in some type of of Chincoteague Bay along Assateague Island. agricultural use and remainder is developed (2 Then, in the late 1990s SAV began to reappear miles). Nearly half of the stream/ditch buf- on the western side of the Bay around Miller fers characterized by agricultural use are on Island. By 2002, large areas of Parker Bay hydric soil. Depending on landowner interests and more areas around Miller Island had SAV and field verification of hydric soil conditions, beds. During the same 2002 growing season, these stream/ditch buffers present potential op- SAV also appeared on the south side of Tizzard portunities for restoration of naturally vegetat- Island, the north shore of Rowley Cove and on ed buffers and/or wetland restoration. some of the north shoreline of Brockanorton Bay.

Living Resources and Habitat In nontidal waters, the Maryland Biological Stream Survey reported findings using the Fish In tidal waters of the coastal bays, over 130 Index of Biological Integrity on one nontidal species of fish have been identified in the past stream site in the Chincoteague Bay watershed, 30 years. Sampling by DNR Fisheries Service which was rated as poor. The DNR staff who identified 77 species in 2001 and 80 species in performed these surveys found only three spe- 2002. Among those species identified, most cies of fish at this site: American Eel, Eastern are estuarine-dependent like summer flounder, Mudminnow and Pirate Perch. Using their croaker, weakfish, spot, striped bass and black Benthic Index of Biological Integrity, they sea bass. reported on two sites in which one was rated very poor and the other was rated poor. These Oysters were once an important regional findings are indicative of a relatively limited fishery in Maryland’s Coastal Bays. How- benthic community, which suggests that a com- ever, they have declined drastically during the bination of poor habitat and/or water quality twentieth century due to harvesting, disease were present at that time. and predation. Early in the century there were over 1,600 acres of natural bars but now A Statewide fish consumption advisory regard- there are no legally designated oyster beds in ing fish caught in impoundments anywhere Chincoteague Bay. However, 765 acres of Bay in Maryland recommends limiting meals that bottom are covered by oyster lease areas. would include smallmouth bass, largemouth bass and/or bluegill. The concern is the poten- In the 1930s, a disease nearly eliminated all tial for contamination by methylmercury. submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) in Mary- land’s Coastal Bays. Since monitoring began One blockage to fish movement in the Chin- in 1986, in general there has been a steady in- coteague Bay watershed is identified in the da- crease in area covered by SAV beds increasing tabase maintained by DNR Fisheries Service. from about 3,522 acres in 1987 to about 7,625 This blockage is the impoundment that forms acres in 2002. During the past 20 years, SAV Big Millpond. Additional blockages may be has always been found adjacent to Assateague identified by the stream corridor assessment Island but its presence along the mainland has conducted in 2004. been seen only in recent years. Overall in the Chincoteague Bay watershed, During the period 1987 through 2002, the ma- Maryland tracks sensitive species of 17 ani-

vii mals and 43 plants in the Chincoteague Bay the National Park Service as the Assateague watershed. These species are found in at Island National Seashore. least 30 ecologically significant areas (ESAs) mapped by the DNR Natural Heritage pro- Over 88% of the remaining land in the water- gram. shed is privately owned (31,740 acres). Within these privately owned lands, about 8% (2,601 acres) are protected by conservation easement Land Use / Land Cover and about 3% (1,033 acres) are protected by agricultural easement. In the Chincoteague Bay watershed, wetlands cover nearly one quarter of the entire area that On the mainland, the Maryland Department of is not open water. The remaining watershed Natural Resources manages about 4,059 acres area is 40% forest and brush, 33% agriculture including the Vaughn Wildlife Management and 4% developed land and bare ground. Area and the Chesapeake Forest properties.

On the mainland that drains to Chincoteague The Coastal Bays Rural Legacy Area in the Bay, if only dry land is considered (wetlands southern end of the watershed allows for excluded), forest and brush account for 51% of targeting of State Program Open Space funds the land and agriculture accounts for 47%. The to help protect lands from conversion to de- remainder is developed or bare ground. veloped land use. This Rural Legacy Area is adjacent to the greatest concentration of exist- The entire barrier island within Maryland’s ing protected lands on the mainland area that Chincoteague Bay watershed is managed by drains to Chincoteague Bay.

viii Introduction

Watershed Planning Background prioritized in the Maryland Clean Water Ac- tion Plan in two ways. Regarding restoration As a foundation for watershed monitoring, needs, the Chincoteague Bay watershed is a analysis and planning, the State of Maryland Category 1 watershed for restoration, which defined over 130 watersheds that cover the en- recognizes the presence of water quality im- tire State in the 1970s. In 1998, the Maryland pairments that need improvement. Regarding Clean Water Action Plan presented an assess- protection of existing natural resources, the ment of water quality conditions in each of Chincoteague Bay watershed is a Selected Cat- these watersheds. Based on these assessments, egory 3 watershed, which is the State’s highest it also established State priorities for watershed priority for protection. restoration and protection. The County is working on a WRAS project In 2000, the Maryland Department of Natural to be completed in 2005. Worcester County’s Resources (DNR) initiated the Watershed Res- project is intended to dovetail with existing toration Action Strategy (WRAS) Program as efforts including Coastal Zone Management, one of several new approaches to implement- the Maryland Coastal Bays Program and oth- ing water quality and habitat restoration and ers. Consistent with the existing plan, Today’s protection. The WRAS Program solicits local Treasures for Tomorrow: Towards a Brighter governments to focus on priority watersheds Future, The Comprehensive Conservation for restoration and protection. Since incep- and Management Plan for Maryland’s Coastal tion of the program, local governments have Bays, Worcester County WRAS will identify received grants and technical assistance from and prioritize local restoration and protec- DNR for 20 WRAS projects in which local tion needs associated with water quality and government, with input from citizens, identi- habitat. To support this effort, the Maryland fies local watershed priorities for restoration, Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has protection and implementation. provided grant funding and technical assis- tance, which includes production of this Water- shed Characterization. Chincoteague Bay WRAS Project Map 2 WRAS Project Area shows the Chin- The Chincoteague Bay Watershed is in the coteague Bay watershed in greater detail and Atlantic Ocean drainage area, which includes the table on the nest page summarizes major the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Bays in Maryland acreage categories. In total, Maryland’s por- and . The Chincoteague Bay water- tion of the watershed is about 48% land coving shed in Worcester County, Maryland as shown about 42,806 acres of dry land and wetlands in Map1 Location is the focus for this WRAS and 52% water, which covers about 46,483 project. The Chincoteague Bay watershed acres.

1 Land Area In Maryland’s Chincoteague Bay Watershed In Acres

Mainland Barrier Island “Dry” Land 30,186 2,795 Wetlands 5,704 4,121 Total Land Area 35,890 6,916 Water 46,483 Total Watershed 89,289

Purpose of the Characterization selected issues. This is also part of the technical assistance offered by DNR In support of the WRAS project, the Watershed - Technical assistance and assessment by part- Characterization helps to meet several objec- ner agencies or contractors tives:

- Summarize immediately available informa- Moving Beyond The Characterization tion and issues that may add to that already gathered by the Maryland Coastal Bays In addition to the information presented in this Program document, it is important to identify gaps in - Provide preliminary findings based on this available watershed knowledge and to gauge information the importance of these gaps. As new informa- - Identify sources for more information or tion becomes available, the Watershed Charac- analysis terization and other components of the WRAS - Suggest opportunities for additional charac- should be updated and enhanced as needed. terization and restoration work. Here are some examples of issues for potential - Provide a common base of knowledge about additional work: the watershed for government, citizens, businesses and other interested groups. - Habitat: physical structure, stream stability, biotic community (incl. the riparian zone) The Watershed Characterization adds to other - Water Quantity: high water–storm flow and efforts that are important for the County’s flooding; low water–baseflow problems WRAS project: from dams, water withdrawals, reduced infiltration - Local investigation by the County - Water Quality: water chemistry; toxics, nutri- - Stream Corridor Assessment, in which DNR ents, sediment, nuisance odors/scums, etc. personnel physically walk the streams and - Cumulative effects associated with habitat, catalogue important issues water quantity and water quality. - Synoptic water quality survey, i.e. a program of water sample analysis, that can be used Restoration and natural resource protection is to focus on local issues like nutrient hot an active evolving process. The information spots, point source discharges or other that supports the Watershed Restoration Action

2 Strategy, including the Watershed Character- index of available electronic copies of WRAS- ization, should be maintained as living docu- related documents that can be downloaded ments within an active evolving restoration free of charge. Available documents include process. These documents will need to be detailed program information, completed updated periodically as new, more relevant in- WRAS strategies, stream corridor assessments, formation becomes available and as the water- synoptic surveys and watershed characteriza- shed response is monitored and reassessed. tions. Please visit the WRAS Home Page at http://www.dnr.state.md.us/watersheds/wras/

More Information Sources Additional information on over 130 watersheds in Maryland is available on DNR’s Internet References are presented in parenthesis page Surf Your Watershed at http://www.dnr. throughout the text that direct the reader to state.md.us/watersheds/surf/index.html endnotes in the Reference Section of the docu- ment. These references provide more detailed The Maryland Clean Water Action Plan is information that is only very briefly summa- available at www.dnr.maryland.gov/cwap/ rized here. Additional information on the Maryland Coast- The WRAS Program Internet home page has al Bays Program is available at http://www. additional information on the program and an mdcoastalbays.org/

Water Quality

Water quality is in many respects the driving Code of Maryland Regulation (COMAR) condition in the health of Maryland’s streams 26.08.02.08, which is associated with a set of and other water bodies. Historically, efforts to water quality criteria necessary to support that protect water quality have focused on chemical use. Together, the designated use and the crite- water quality. More recently, additional factors ria are commonly referred to as “Water Quality are being considered like measurements of se- Standards;” they are established by the Mary- lected biological conditions and physical con- land Department of the Environment (MDE) in ditions that affect habitat quality in streams and regulation. estuaries. This expanded view is reflected in current approaches to monitoring, data gather- In Maryland’s portion of the Chincoteague Bay ing, and regulation of water bodies as reflected watershed, all bodies of water are categorized in this watershed characterization. under one of two designated uses:

- Use 1- Recreation and Aquatic Life applies Designated Uses For Streams to all surface waters except for those desig- nated as Use 2. (This includes all nontidal Streams and other water bodies in Maryland water bodies.) are each assigned a “designated use” in the - Use 2- Shellfish Harvesting encompasses all

3 portions of the territorial seas and estuarine coteague Bay, dissolved oxygen levels are portions of bays and tributaries. known to drop below the State standard. The cause is associated with nutrient enrichment and algae over-population in warm months. Use Impairments This dissolved oxygen data is used to support listing impairment by nutrients. (Prior to 2002, Some streams or other water bodies in the low dissolved oxygen impairment was listed WRAS project area cannot be used to the full separately.) extent envisioned by their designated use in Maryland regulation. These areas, known as Nutrients “impaired waters”, are tracked by the Mary- land Department of the Environment under Big Mill Pond was listed 1998 and Chin- Section 303(d) requirements of the Federal coteague Bay was listed in 1996 for impair- Clean Water Act. The list of impairments for ments associated with nutrients from nonpoint waterbodies in the Chincoteague Bay water- and natural sources. shed are summarized below.

Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Loads

The 1996 303(d) list included Chincoteague In Maryland, the Department of the Environ- Bay for impairment associated with fecal ment (MDE) uses the 303(d) list of impaired coliform bacteria arising from natural sources waters to determine the need for establishing and nonpoint sources. However, the draft 2004 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). A 303(d) list indicates that Chincoteague Bay TMDL is the amount of pollutant that a water meets standards for shellfish waters based on body can assimilate and still meet its desig- 2003 monitoring data and proposes removal of nated use. A water body may have multiple the previous listing for impairment by bacteria. impairments and multiple TMDLs to address them. MDE is responsible for establishing TM- Biological DLs. In general, TMDLs have two key parts:

The draft 2004 303(d) list includes waterbod- 1- Maximum pollutant load that the water can ies in the Chincoteague Bay watershed for accept while still allowing the water body biological impairment based on assessment of to meet its intended use. fish and benthos by the Maryland Biological 2- Allocation of the maximum pollutant load to Stream Survey (MBSS) using their indices of specific pollutant sources. biological integrity: Five Mile Branch, Powell Creek, Waterworks Creek. These streams are As of the of December 2004 in the Chin- listed because Index of Biological Integrity for coteague Bay watershed, one TMDL has either fish or benthos was found to be poor or been approved (summarized below) for Big very poor. (See Benthic Organisms for more Millpond. Additionally, work is in progress information.) to delist Chincoteague Bay for impairment by bacteria. An opportunity for public comment Dissolved Oxygen for the draft Water Quality Assessment for bac- teria in the Chincoteague Bay was conducted In Maryland’s Coastal Bays including Chin- in 2004. (1)

4 Phosphorus and Sediment TMDLs for Big Millpond demonstrate that control of the nutri- Millpond ent phosphorus can prevent excessive algae growth and thereby eliminate an underlying EPA approved a TMDL for Big Mill Pond in cause of the dissolved oxygen depletion. April 2002 that was submitted by MDE in December 2001. The TMDL is designed to The Big Millpond TMDLs for phosphorus and address water quality problems associated with sediment are related. The phosphorus TMDL nutrients, low dissolved oxygen, algae blooms is designed to eliminate low dissolved oxygen and excessive sedimentation by limiting phos- problems and algae blooms, which will foster phorus entering the pond. (2) the pond’s warm water recreational fishery. In addition, because phosphorus is known to have Big Millpond is a 100-year old recreational a tendency to bind to sediments, the sediment pond owned by Worcester County on Swans TMDL is derived from the phosphorus TMDL. Gut Creek near Welbourne. The pond and its The sediment TMDL is projected to preserve watershed are entirely in Maryland. The pond 58% of the impoundment’s design volume over drains to Swans Gut Creek which flows into a 101-year period. Virginia before reaching the Horntown Bay portion of Chincoteague Bay. The allocation for both of the Big Millpond Water quality problems in this freshwater TMDLs is divided between nonpoint sources impoundment are low dissolved oxygen, algae and the margin of safety because no point blooms and sedimentation. Water quality sources are present within the watershed that monitoring and modeling conducted for Big darins to the impoundment.

Big Millpond TMDL

Phosphorus 880 pounds per year Average 2.4 pounds per day Sediment 931.9 cubic meters per year Average 2.6 cubic meters per day

Water Quality In Tidal Areas Overview

Map 3 Water Monitoring and Marinas shows Overall, water quality in Maryland’s portion the locations of the sampling sites identified in of Chincoteague Bay is better than Maryland’s the watershed. Summaries of findings from the northern Coastal Bays. In the open Bay tidal sampling sites are listed collectively and south of Figgs Landing tends to exhibit good by station. Additional information is available or excellent water quality even though high in several current documents available via the phosphorus concentrations are found in this Internet or in print: area. The open Bay north of Figgs Landing to Waterworks Creek/Newport Bay tends to have - DNR’s Eye’s On The Bay Internet Site. (3) good/fair water quality. From Public Landing - Coastal Bays 2004 report (4) northward, excessive nutrients were measured. - Maryland’s Coastal Bays Ecosystem Health Water quality close to some shoreline areas Assessment 2004 (5) along the shoreline, Johnson Bay and near - Appendix B - Water Quality Monitoring In Public Landing, exhibit more quality problems Tidal Water than open waters. (4-page 20, 5-Section 4)

5 Trend analysis on long-term water quality data Parker Bay vicinity near Vaughn Wildlife Man- collected from National Park Service monitor- agement Area and in Brocknorton Bay near ing sites in Chincoteague Bay indicate that Boxiron Creek. (7) Areas exhibiting lower most areas exhibit no trend or slight improve- DO identified by spatially intensive monitor- ment. (6) However, the Johnson Bay station ing were mostly in coves or along shoreline, exhibited some deterioration. (5-Section 4.1) especially around Figgs Landing and Green Run Bay. (5-Section 4.3) A snap shot of conditions in Chincoteague Bay, summarized by water quality parameter based Chlorophyll (Algae) on recent data from DNR monitoring stations, is presented below in the following subsec- Chlorophyll a is used as a way to measure the tions. size of green and blue-green algae populations. Chlorophyll a concentrations greater than 15 Salinity micrograms per liter (ug/l) negatively affect sea grasses by blocking more and more light Salinity in Chincoteague Bay is always polyha- as concentrations increase. Concentrations line, which is greater than 18 parts per thou- greater than 50 ug/l are associated with algae sand (ppt). The measured salinity is highly populations that are great enough to negatively variable with a range between 23 and 36 ppt. affect dissolved oxygen. Most of the time, monitoring in Chincoteague Bay exhibits less Water Clarity that 15 ug/l Chlorophyll a. However, concen- trations ranging between 15 and 50 ug/l where Water clarity in Chincoteague Bay as mea- common in warm weather months near Public sured by secchi disk tends to vary between one Landing and Taylor Landing, which is next to half and one meter. However, secchi depths Vaughn Wildlife Management Area. Trends less than 0.5 meters are common in summer identified were toward improvement at Public months which tends to limit growth potential Landing and degrading in Johnson Bay (5-Sec- for submerged aquatic vegetation. In general, tion 4.2) water clarity is reduced as more suspended sediment, algae and other plankton occurs in Nitrogen the water. Nitrogen is likely to be the nutrient that limits Dissolved Oxygen algae growth in the saline waters of Chin- coteague Bay. Concentrations greater than Dissolved oxygen (DO) thresholds used for 1 mg/l indicate eutrophic conditions and less Chincoteague Bay are: greater than 5 mil- than 0.64 mg/l are considered best for growth ligram per liter (mg/l) supports aquatic life, 3 of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). Most to 5 mg/l threaten aquatic life and less than 3 of the time, total nitrogen (TN) concentrations mg/l does not meet objectives. Chincoteague are less than 1.0 mg/l. TN concentrations in Bay DO is commonly greater than 5.0 mg/l. some central areas of the bay tend to be in the However, DO less than 5 milligram per li- range between 0.64 to 1.0 mg/l. Toward the ter (mg/l) has been measured during warm southern end of Chincoteage Bay in Maryland, weather months in some open water sites in the TN concentrations tend to be lowest. Low TN Chincoteague Bay ranging from near Virginia concentrations limits algae growth in Chin- to near Newport Bay, in the Johnson Bay and coteague Bay. (5-Section 4.1)

6 Phosphorus Summary by Monitoring Station

Total phosphorus concentrations greater than A different view of tidal water quality in 0.1 mg/l indicate eutrophic conditions and less Chincoteague Bay can be seen by looking at than 0.037 mg/l are considered best for growth selected DNR monitoring stations. Summaries of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). Total of findings start with the north end of Chin- phosphorus (TP) concentrations are typically coteague Bay and conclude at the south end less than 0.1 mg/l. Open water areas in mid near the Maryland/Virginia border. bay from Virginia to Newport Bay tend to have TP concentrations tend to range between 0.037 Station XBM1562 – North Chincoteague Bay and 0.043 mg/l. TP concentrations in Johnson Bay and near Public Landing tend to range - Depth at this site is slightly less than 2 me- between 0.043 and 1.0 mg/l. (5-Section 4.1) ters (just over six feet). - Dissolved Oxygen is usually above 5 mg/l Sediment Contaminants but has reached as low as 4 mg/l in May through June. Sediments frequently retain traces of con- - Water clarity as measured by secchi depth is tamination by metals, pesticides and other highly variable. In spring, secchi depths substances that enter surface water. Contami- vary between one quarter and 1.5 meters. nation can contribute to toxicity of the sedi- In summer, it tends to be around one half ment. In general for sediment sampled from meter. In autumn, secchi depths over one Chincoteague Bay, concentrations of metals meter are common. are within background levels and organic - The pH is slightly alkaline ranging between contaminants are at trace levels or below de- 7.5 and 8.4. tection limits. Overall, sites in Chincoteague Bay generally showed no toxicity. One site Station XBM8149 – Mid Chincoteague Bay tested in 1993 in mid Chincoteague Bay was found to have sandy sediment with high hep- - Depth at this site is about 2 meters (about 6.5 tachlor (herbicide) concentrations. (One site feet). that showed toxicity one year did not yield the - Dissolved oxygen is generally above 5 mg/l same result the following year.) (5-Sections 5.2 (2001 through 2004). However, during and 5.3) June and July concentrations between 3.5 and 5 mg/l have been documented. Total Organic Carbon - Water clarity as measured by secchi depth shows a lot of seasonal variation. In June Total organic carbon (TOC) in sediments is through August, secchi depths between an indicator of pollution and eutrophication. one quarter and one half meter are typical. Higher concentrations suggest a greater ten- However, in October to November secchi dency to eutrophication. In Maryland’s coastal depths around 1.5 meters are common. bays, high TOC is found in the northern bays, - The pH is slightly alkaline ranging between which indicates eutrophication problems. 7.6 and 8.3. However, high TOC is not found in Chin- coteague Bay, which suggests that eutrophica- Station XBM1301 – South Chincoteague Bay tion problems are relatively limited. (5-Section near Maryland/Virginia Border 5.1)

7 - Depth at this site is about three meters (just Additional details of water quality findings for under 10 feet). nontidal streams are summarized in Appen- - Dissolved oxygen is consistently above 5 dix C - Water Quality Monitoring In Nontidal mg/l (2001 through 2004) Streams and Impoundments - Water clarity as measured by secchi depth is usually between 0.5 and 1.5 meters. How- Big Millpond ever, it is sometimes as great as 1.5 to 2 meters. It has also been measured at nearly Water quality sampling has been conducted in zero. Big Millpond in June and August of 1993 as - Total nitrogen averages over 0.7 mg/l (range well as October 2000 through August 2001 (to 0.49 to 1.15 mg/l) support TMDL work). Water quality samples - Total phosphorus averages over 0.05 mg/l were collected near the surface once in each (range 0.022 to 0.115 mg/l) month from three stations. “The Maryland - The pH is slightly alkaline ranging between Department of Health and Mental Hygiene 7.6 and 8.4. analyzed samples for total phosphorus, soluble orthophosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total organic solvents and chlorophyll a. Physical Water Quality In Nontidal Areas measurements of depths, water temperatures, PH, conductivity and dissolved oxygen were Overview recorded in the field.” (2)

On Maryland’s lower Eastern Shore, improve- Dissolved oxygen in Big Millpond is typically ment to drainage such as ditching is very less than 5.0 mg/l in warm weather months. common. Many natural streams are modified Some measurements less than 2 mg/l were to speed surface drainage and/or to lower the also collected in the pond. Fish are severely water table. In some places, natural streams stressed and/or eliminated in these very low may not exist. Commonly, the nontidal water oxygen areas. Upstream in Little Mill Run quality information available does not indicate and Payne Ditch DO concentrations tend to if the water body sampled is a natural stream be much higher. Measurements were always or drainage ditch. Therefore, the term stream greater than 5 mg/l and were commonly greater is used here as a generic term for all nontidal than 7 mg/l. These upstream oxygen levels are surface water conveyance. No streams have favorable to most fish species. been identified on Assateague Island. Algae population density as measured by Chlo- Sampling of 10 streams in 1999-2000 found rophyll a found concentrations between 20 and that elevated nitrate levels are common. As 50 micrograms per liter are common in the shown in Map 3 Water Monitoring and Mari- pond. Measurements from the upstream sites nas, three streams averaged less than 0.4 mg/l, in Little Mill Run and Payne Ditch found much which is considered to be a natural level for ni- less algae – typically less than 8 and always trate in local streams. However, seven streams less than 15 micrograms per liter. These find- exhibited elevated nitrate including three that ings indicate eutrophication is occurring in the averaged between 0.4 and 2 mg/l and four that pond but not in the headwaters sampled. averaged over 2 mg/l. (4-page 12, 5-Section 3.1, 8) Total phorphorus concentrations in the down- stream end of the pond averaged 0.04 micro-

8 grams per liter and were commonly over 0.1 in Point Sources the upstream end. These measurements indi- cate eutrophic conditions in the pond. Lakes Discharges from pipes or other “discrete con- that do not exhibit eutrophic conditions tend to veyances” are called “point sources.” Point range between 0.01 and 0.03 mg/l total phos- sources may contribute pollution to surface phorus. In the upstream samples, total phos- water or to groundwater. Many types of point phorus was also consistently greater than 0.1 sources operate under permits issued by the mg/l with concentrations more than twice that Maryland Department of the Environment concentration. (MDE). A search of the MDE permit database conducted in 2004 found no MDE permits in Total nitrogen (TN) concentrations in the 1 to the Chincoteague Bay Watershed. 2 mg/l range were common in Big Millpond. In the upstream sampling, TN concentrations in Payne Ditch were roughly similar to those Marinas in the pond. However, TN concentrations in Little Mill Run were roughly twice as high Discharges of sewage from boats are a con- ranging from 2.4 to 4.4 mg/l. Nitrogen lev- cern for water quality because they release els like these in streams or fresh water ponds nutrients, biochemical oxygen demand and do not adversely affect local nontidal stream pathogens. These discharges are preventable quality but they probably contribute to water if a sufficient number of pumpout facilities quality issues in nearby tidal waters. are locally available and boat operators take advantage of these services. Boat maintenance and operation also can contribute petroleum Groundwater Quality and other noxious materials to the aquatic environment. In the year 2000, the US Geological Survey collected groundwater quality samples from a There are 22 marinas in Worcester County ac- series of wells drilled in the Chincoteague Bay cording to DNR’s Marina database as summa- watershed as shown on Map 3 Water Moni- rized in the table below. One of these marinas toring and Marinas. Based on their overall in located in the Chincoteague Bay watershed findings, US Geological Survey indicates that as shown on Map 3 Water Monitoring and nitrate concentrations between 0 and 1 mg/l Marinas. are prevalent. However, their data identifies several areas with higher concentrations. In July 2004, the marina on the Chincoteague Bay added boat pumpout facilities for the first The map shows which parts of the watershed time. Funding for this installation was pro- where elevated nitrate was found. Each square vided through the federal Clean Vessel Act icon on the map represents a cluster of wells. (75%) and the state Waterway Improvement The color of the icon represents the individual Fund (25%). Installation of this facility was well with the highest average concentration of accomplished through DNR’s programs to nitrate. The highest average nitrate concentra- help protect water quality from boating-related tions (indicated by red squares on the map) impacts. (10) where found in the vicinity of Big Millpond (over 15 mg/l) and near Lower Scarboro Creek For marina owners/operators who are able to (nearly 10 mg/l). (9) implement a more extensive array of envi-

9 ronmental controls and safeguards, the Clean Marinas. (See www.dnr.maryland.gov/boating Marinas Program is a way to obtain funding, for details.) certification and public recognition. The pro- gram involves voluntarily adoption of marina In the table below, an entry of “awarded” in design, operation, and maintenance practices the Clean Marina column means that voluntary intended to properly manage all kinds of ma- Clean Marina requirements have been met. rine products and activities, and to reduce and An entry of “pledge” means that the marina properly manage waste. DNR also funds in- is working toward meeting voluntary Clean stallation and maintenance of marine pumpout Marina requirements. No entry indicates that facilities, including those at certified Clean the marina has not made a pledge.

Marinas In Worcester County, Maryland (11)

Location Name Pumpout Clean Marina Action Marine Advanced Marina Yes Awarded Chincoteauge Bay Riggi’s Marina Yes Ocean City Fishing Center Yes Awarded 54th Street Marina Bahia Marina Inc Yes Awarded Bayside Boatel Inc Yes Isle of White Bay Captain Bill Bunting Harbour Island Marina Yes Ocean Pines Marina Yes Awarded Pines Point Marina Yes Pledge Talbot Street Pier Inc White Marlin Marina Yes Ocean City Inlet Ocean City Fishermans Marina Inc Pocomoke City Marina Yes Pocomoke River State Park-Shad Landing Yes Awarded Port of Snow Hill Yes Pledge Pledge Frontier Town Campground Sunset Marina Yes Awarded Waterways St. Martin River St. Martins by the Bay HOA

10 Natural Resources

Water quality and quantity in surface waters tion. Another 17% (over 5,200 acres) that and groundwater are greatly influenced by requires either drainage or irrigation is also natural resources. Physical factors like geol- potentially prime agricultural soil. ogy and soils largely determine local topog- - Nearly 14,400 acres of the soils in the water- raphy, hydrology and potential for erosion. shed exhibit hydric characteristics. As the Variation of vegetation types in riparian areas map shows, most of these soils are located and throughout the watershed produces ad- on the west side of Chincoteague Bay. On ditional influences that determine potential for the mainland in the Chincoteague Bay wa- stormwater infiltration or runoff and habitat tershed, nearly half of the nonwetland soils quality. This chapter presents immediately are hydric. On Assateague Island, hydric available natural resource information for the soils tend to be located toward the south Chincoteague Bay watershed. end of the island in Maryland. - Hydric soils adjacent to streams or wetlands may offer opportunities for restoration of Soils natural vegetated buffers or wetlands that could intercept nitrogen moving in ground- Soil type and moisture conditions greatly af- water before it reaches surface waters. See fect how land may be used and the potential the Stream Buffer section for details. for vegetation and habitat on the land. Soil conditions are also one determining factor for water quality in streams and rivers. Soils are Green Infrastructure an important factor to incorporate in targeting projects aimed at improving water quality or Forest and wetlands in the Chincoteague Bay habitat. watershed, particularly extensive areas of con- tiguous natural lands, provide valuable water Local soil conditions vary greatly from site quality and habitat benefits. In general, actions to site according to published information taken to assure that forest cover will be main- in SSURGO digital soils data for Worces- tained, to avoid fragmentation of forest, and to ter County. A summary of this information restore forest in areas that have been cleared is shown for the WRAS watershed in Map will contribute significantly to improving the 4 Soils. The map aggregates the SSURGO water quality in this watershed and to conserv- information to help show the distribution of ing the biodiversity of the State. soils important to watershed planning in the watershed: Definition

- Overall, about 38% (over 11,400 acres) of DNR has mapped a network of ecologically the watershed is prime agricultural soil important lands, comprised of hubs and linking that does not require drainage or irriga- corridors, using several of the GIS data layers

11 used to develop other indicators. Hubs contain ents, conserving and generating soils, pollinat- one or more of the following: ing crops and other plants, regulating climate, protecting areas against storm and flood dam- - Areas containing sensitive plant or animal age, and maintaining hydrologic function. For species; more information on the Green Infrastructure - Large blocks of contiguous interior forest (at identification project in Maryland, see least 250 contiguous acres, plus the 300 www.dnr.maryland.gov/greenways/ foot transition zone); - Wetland complexes with at least 250 acres of Local Findings and Rank unmodified wetlands; - Streams or rivers with aquatic species of Map 5 Green Infrastructure shows that, from concern, rare coldwater or blackwater the statewide perspective that guided the analy- ecosystems, or important to anadromous sis, extensive Green Infrastructure features fish, and their associated riparian forest and are found in the Chincoteague Bay watershed. wetlands; and Most of the areas identified as Green Infra- - Conservation areas already protected by pub- structure on the map are hubs that ranked as lic (primarily DNR or the federal govern- important to the eastern coastal plain eco-re- ment) and private organizations like The gion as listed in the table and the next page. Nature Conservancy or Maryland Ornitho- logical Society. - While all areas defined as hubs are important to Maryland’s Green Infrastructure, the This “Green Infrastructure” provides the bulk Eco-Region Percent Rank is presented to of the state’s natural support system. Ecosys- provide one view for comparing hubs and tem services, such as cleaning the air, filtering for considering the potential management and cooling water, storing and cycling nutri- objectives that may be useful for the hubs.

Green Infrastructure Hub Rank For the Chincoteague Bay Area Within The Eastern Coastal Plain Eco-Region Scale from 1 (important larger hubs) to 100 (also important but smaller hubs) Percent Rank Description of Green Infrastructure Hub 3 Assateague Island in its entirety

5.2 Between Snow Hill and Berlin along Chincoteague and Newport Bays From the Stockton area to near Tanhouse Creek including Vaughn Wildlife 5.6 Management Area Tanhouse Creek vicinity (the area of natural vegetation between the two 11.2 higher-ranked mainland hubs) 29.3 Big Millpond hub (natural area in the Big Millpond subwatershed) 31 Purnell Bay hub (around the bay and extending toward Stockton) Six additional small Green Infrastructure hubs are identified in the Other Chincoteague Bay watershed including several areas on the mainland and the islands in the bay

12 - In general, larger hubs are ranked higher and others. Within Program Open Space, the smaller hubs are ranked lower for Eco-Re- Green Print program helps to target funds gion Percent Rank. For large hubs, main- to protect Green Infrastructure areas. taining integrity of the large block natural area already in the hub is an important management objective. For small hubs, Large Forest Blocks enhancing connectivity, i.e. allowing two small hubs to function as one larger hub, Large blocks of forest provide habitat for spe- is an additional management objective. cies that are specialized for conditions with Numerous other measurements of envi- relatively little influence by species from open ronmental integrity also contribute to this areas or humans. For example, forest interior ranking. dwelling birds require forest interior habitat for - Most of Assateague Island is natural vegeta- their survival and they cannot tolerate much tion, which contributes to its high Eco-Re- human presence. Map 6 Forest Interior shows gion Percent Rank. It also provides habi- blocks of contiguous forest that are at least tats that are relatively unique in Maryland. 50 acres in size with at least 10 acres of forest - On the mainland, land associated with Green interior (forest edge is at least 300 feet away) Infrastructure is identified in most parts of that may be important locally within the water- the watershed. About 14,080 acres of for- shed. This size threshold was chosen to help est contribute to the Green Infrastructure ensure that the forest interior is large enough based on 2002 land use / land cover data to likely provide locally significant habitat for developed by the Maryland Department of sensitive forest interior dwelling species. The Planning. About 12% of this forest (1,720 forest interior assessment map differs from the acres) has some form of protection from Green Infrastructure assessment in that forest conversion to development like easements interior areas are more numerous and more or public park ownership. widely distributed because the forest interior - The largest gaps in and around Green Infra- size threshold is lower. Several findings on structure hubs tend to be in agricultural Chincoteague Bay watershed forest interior can use. Other gaps, including development be seen on the map or interpreted in comparing and road corridors, are relatively small and it with the Green Infrastructure and protected scattered. These gaps are frequently used lands maps: in the Green Infrastructure model to define hub boundaries. Therefore, management - All high quality forest interior habitat in the of these gaps can be used to improve or Chincoteague Bay watershed is found on protect an individual Green Infrastruc- the mainland. This includes about 7,269 ture hub and/or the Green Infrastructure acres of large-block forest. These large network in the region. Examples of gap blocks of forest are found in inland areas management include reducing the width in many subwatersheds. of a road corridor or creating/enhancing - High quality forest interior was not identified a naturally vegetated corridor through or on Assateague Island. Therefore, the forest around an agricultural area. habitat in the barrier island is less likely - Protection of Green Infrastructure lands to support forest interior dwelling species. may be addressed through various existing Consequently, protection of high quality programs including Rural Legacy, Program forest interior habitat on the mainland is Open Space, conservation easements and necessary if forest interior habitats/species

13 are to survive in the Chincoteague Bay tributions in Maryland occur on the Lower watershed. Eastern Shore (Dorchester, Somerset, Wic- omico and Worcester Counties). Wetlands are Wetlands very abundant in this region due to the low topographic relief, low elevations, and high As Map 7 Wetlands and Floodplains shows the ground water table. These factors result in the distribution of approximately 15,572 acres of presence of large, broad wetland complexes wetlands in the Chincoteague Bay watershed. extending from tidally influenced waters to the The majority of these wetlands are estuarine, nontidal headwaters. Wetland hydrology may which account for over 75% of the watershed’s be primarily from tidal influence, high ground wetlands as shown in the following table. On water, ponding, overbank flooding, or a com- the mainland, 82% of the wetlands are forested bination of these sources. Although overbank palustrine wetlands (18% of total wetlands in flooding does still occur, an extensive network the Chincoteague Bay watershed). of ditches may have reduced the contribution of overbank flooding to the wetland hydrology. The remainder of the wetland assessment in There are also wide expanses of wetlands on this section was contributed by MDE during drainage divides that are fed primarily by high the drafting of their wetlands report for the ground water, though small streams may also Coastal Bays. The MDE report has since been be present. Despite the narrow width of the released and is available for additional refer- Coastal Bays watershed, many of the wetlands ence. (12, 13) are fairly similar to wetlands throughout the Lower Eastern Shore, with the exception of In general, the most extensive wetland dis- saline marsh unique to Worcester County.

Wetland Acreage Summary for the Chincoteague Bay Watershed

Wetland Categories Acres Percent Estuarine Emergent 8,720 56 Unconsolidated Shore 3,055 20 Other 279 2 Palustrine Forested 2,884 18 Other 557 4 Marine All Types 77 -- Total Wetlands 15,572 100

Wetland Functions that wetlands along the bay and streams have the potential to provide the most nutrient Wetlands in Chincoteague Bay have the po- cycling and sediment retention6. Wetlands fur- tential to provide functions for water quality ther up in the watershed may also be important improvement, due to nutrient retention/cycling for nutrient and sediment retention where they and sediment removal. It has been estimated are adjacent to agriculture. The dense vegeta-

14 tion and flat topography of these wetlands also cordgrass) along the shoreline and saline high may provide some attenuation of floodwaters. marsh further up in the mainland. (15) Although ditches in this watershed are not as extensive as in the northern Coastal Bays, Palustrine wetlands are freshwater wetlands of- ditches have reduced the connectivity of the ten associated with high water tables or inter- floodwater to the wetlands, possibly reducing mittent ponding on land. Forested wetlands are the natural potential of the wetlands to store the most abundant type and widely distributed floodwater and improve water quality in the palustrine wetland type on the Coastal Plain. In floodwater. Ditching also lowers the water these areas, wetlands are found on floodplains table, thus reducing the ability of plant roots along the freshwater tidal and nontidal portions to intercept nutrients in groundwater. Wild- of rivers and streams, in uplands depressions, life habitat would continue to be an important and in broad flat areas between otherwise wetland function, though changes in hydrol- distinct watersheds. Tidal freshwater swamps ogy may affect species that rely on seasonal occur along coastal rivers in areas subject to ponding, such as amphibians. Wetland wildlife tidal influence. Scrub-shrub swamps are repre- habitat may be contiguous between wetlands sented in the Newport Bay and Sinepuxent Bay of the Coastal Bays and Pocomoke watersheds watersheds. Emergent wetlands on the Coastal since there are few major barriers to wildlife Plain are characterized by a wide range of movement. vegetation depending on water regime. Palus- trine wetlands in Chincoteague Bay watershed Wetland Categories follow many stream corridors and are also common in the headwaters. Tiner and Burke (1995) describe the Coastal Bays tidal wetlands as gradually grading into Tracking Wetlands tidal fresh marshes, then to palustrine forested wetlands or areas that end abruptly at the up- Oversight of activities affecting wetlands land. (14) involves several regulatory jurisdictions. The Maryland Department of the Environment Estuarine wetlands consist of salt and brackish (MDE) is the lead agency for the State and tidal waters and contiguous wetlands where cooperates with DNR, the Army Corps of En- ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by gineers and other Federal and local agencies. freshwater runoff from the land. These wet- As part of its responsibility, MDE tracks State lands may extend upstream in tidal rivers to permitting and the net gain or loss of wet- freshwater areas. Differences in salinity and lands over time. As the table on the next page tidal flooding within estuaries have a signifi- shows, the State regulatory program has mea- cant effect on the distribution of these wetland sured a net increase of wetland acreage in the systems. Salt marshes occur on the intertidal Chincoteague Bay Watershed since 1991. In shores of tidal waters in areas of high salinity. addition to the regulated wetland change sum- Salt marshes typically have low plant species marized in the table, there have been at least diversity due largely to the high salinity levels, 1,142 acres of non-regulated wetland restora- with plant diversity often increasing with de- tion/enhancement within this watershed. Some creased salinity levels. An extensive estuarine of the groups performing this work include wetland corridor exists along either side of the the Natural Resources Conservation Service, bay and extends up into the tidal rivers. There Ducks Unlimited, US Fish and Wildlife Ser- are large areas of saline low marsh (smooth vice, and DNR.

15 Tracking Nontidal Wetland Change Chincoteague Bay Watershed In Maryland 1/1/1991 through 12/31/2003 Tracking MDE In Acres Permanent Permittee Programmatic Gains Other Gains Net Impacts Mitigation -2.04 0 11.40 3.92 13.29

Notes for table: 1) Regulatory tracking for authorized nontidal wetland losses began in 1991. Comprehensive tracking of voluntary wetland gains began in 1998. 2) “Permanent Impacts” refers to acres altered (filled, drained) under permit from MDE. 3) “Permittee Mitigation” refers to acres restored by a permit holder as required by terms of the permit from MDE. 4) “Programmatic Gains” refers to acres restored by MDE using fees paid into a compensation fund by a permit holder in lieu of undertaking mitigation himself. 5) “Other Gains” refers to acres of wetlands restored when not required as mitigation for permit- ted losses.

Nontidal Wetlands of Special State Concern - PawPaw Creek - This wetland/stream com- plex is unusual for the lower coastal plain, Nontidal wetlands containing rare, threatened, having a relatively steep bluff and topog- endangered species or unique habitat are iden- raphy more similar to the Piedmont in one tified as nontidal wetlands of special state con- section. The lower section is low open cern (NTWSSC) in MDE regulations. Ten sites forest. This site contains two threatened were designated as nontidal wetlands of special species (one which is globally rare), and a state concern in this watershed. Site descrip- state “Watch List” plant species. tions, as found in MNDR Natural Heritage - Pikes Creek - One of the habitats at this site, documents for rare, threatened and endangered mature bottomland hardwood forests is (RTE) species are as follows: (16, 17, 18) fairly rare for the region. Some areas have been recently clear-cut. Plant species at - Hancock Creek Swamp - This site is a this site are more common in the Piedmont mature deciduous swamp surrounded by than the Eastern Shore. This site contains a steep forested slopes. It contains a state- state-threatened species and the surround- threatened species (also globally rare), a ing habitat contains other threatened or state-endangered plant species, and a state endangered species. “Watch List” plant species. - Stockton Powerlines - This is a bog-like - Little Mill Run - This site is a diverse wet- wetland that was once fairly common to land complex of bottomland forest, seep- the region, but is now unusual. This site is age wetland, and aquatic habitat including located in the headwaters of Chincoteague open water at Big Millpond. This site Bay, so is important for the bay’s water contains three threatened or endangered quality. It contains seven state-RTE spe- plant species, a vulnerable threatened spe- cies and two state “Watch List” species. cies, and a vulnerable species “In Need - Powell Creek - This mature deciduous for- of Conservation”. Recently, canopy gaps ested wetland is surrounded by steep for- created during tornadoes have allowed ested slopes. It has a state threatened (also oriental stilt grass to invade the site. considered to be globally rare) species

16 and other uncommon plant species. Forest The most common type of human-induced interior birds are also present. wetland impacts continuing to occur in this - Riley Creek Swamp - This deciduous for- watershed are from the development of indi- ested wetland contained a state-threatened vidual homes and piers, including some long (also considered globally rare) species dur- piers that are greater than 100 feet in length. ing earlier surveys. Most of the swamp is There is concern that these piers fragment the in good condition. marsh system, thereby changing the marsh - Scarboro Creek Woods - This area is a ma- environment. Marsh loss is also occurring due ture deciduous forest and swamp within the to erosion and sea level rise. headwaters of Scarboro Creek. It contains a state-threatened (also considered globally Additionally, the majority of large tidal wet- rare) species and two state “Watch List” land complexes have mosquito ditching, plant species. which alters the wetland hydrology by creating - Scotts Landing Pond - This 1-acre herba- deepwater habitats in the channels and placing ceous Delmarva Bay, or seasonal depres- this sediment in the surrounding marsh. These sion wetland, is in good condition. It is ditches change the hydrology of the system one of the few naturally occurring open and also some of the resulting functions. For freshwater wetlands in this region and is instance, these ditches may decrease the filter- more unusual because it is rarely dry. It ing capacity of the marsh and change the ac- contains two state “Watch List” plant spe- cessibility of the marsh to fish. There has been cies and provides good amphibian habitat. growing interest to restore the hydrology back - Tanhouse Creek - This swamp forest is un- to these systems. usual for the lower coastal plain, having a relatively steep topography. There is a In order to have the most cost-effective wet- diverse sedge community present and two land projects, it is ideal to restore sites where RTE species (one also considered glob- little effort is required to promote wetland con- ally rare). This wetland is surrounded by ditions by restoring the hydrology. To restore diverse forest. the hydrology on drained hydric soils, wetland drains can be plugged or the wetland can be MDNR Natural Heritage Program also identi- built adjacent to the ditch by using a low-level fied four additional wetland areas for possible berm. future designation as NTWSSC. These wet- lands are associated with Waterworks Creek, MDE anticipates releasing an extensive as- Spencer Pond, Brockatonorton Bay, and Pikes sessment of wetland restoration priorities in Creek. a report entitled “Priority Areas for Wetland Restoration, Preservation, and Mitigation in Wetland Restoration Maryland’s Coastal Bays”. (21)

Historic wetland loss in Chincoteague Bay wa- The document compiles information from tershed is estimated to be 28,820 acres. (19) numerous resource inventories and manage- ment plans in a comprehensive document Much of this wetland loss has been due to on the wetlands, their surrounding environ- artificial drainage for agriculture, forest, and ment and its conditions, and management and development. There have also been some wet- restoration recommendations. The document lands lost through fill and impoundment. (20) will set priorities for restoration and identify

17 sites and practices that will be most suitable As mentioned previously, this watershed still for voluntary restoration/mitigation projects. has extensive wetlands, so wetland protec- Since nearly half of the soil in this watershed tion should also be a high priority. Protection on the mainland is hydric and the water table is should focus on: so close to the surface, wetland restoration in many locations will successfully create wet- - Nontidal wetlands of special state concern lands. The intent of the MDE prioritization and their supporting systems. project is to focus on the areas that may pro- - Proposed nontidal wetlands of special state vide the best functionality described below: concern. - Tidal wetlands identified by the Emergency - Hydric, very poorly drained soils with high Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (Big Bay organic matter were the most desirable Marshes, Mills Island, and Tizzard Island). sites (e.g., Berryland, Indiantown, Ken- - Other areas of high ecological importance. tuck). - Areas designated rural legacy, green infra- - Areas of poor water quality. structure network, or adjacent to protected - Sites that contribute to the green infrastruc- land. ture network, rural legacy area, and/or con- - Extensive wetland complexes. nected to other natural systems. - Sites on open land within 150 feet of a stream, especially if it is a source of pollu- Floodplains tion. - Farmed wetlands. Map 7 Wetlands and Floodplains shows that - Forested lands were considered (although as the 100-year floodplains cover about 5,100 a slightly lower priority), especially when acres in the Chincoteague Bay watershed. they were within the green infrastructure They extend along all coastal areas of the network. mainland. In some parts of the mainland, the - In order to preserve the most productive 100-year floodplain encompasses large areas farmland, prime agricultural soils currently well inland from the shore of the Bay. in agriculture use were excluded. Floodplains, particularly those that contain hy- To improve the chances of finding an interested dric soils, tend to present conditions that limit property-owner, we also considered: intensive use. These conditions also present opportunities for maintenance or restoration - Property owners with large lots having of natural vegetation, habitat and water qual- development restrictions, since they may ity. Targeting of water quality-related projects, have more interest in large wetland resto- like stream buffers, or habitat-related projects ration projects (Zoning classifications of like Green Infrastructure enhancement, should Resource Conservation, Agriculture, or consider local floodplain conditions. Estate). - Protected land having hydric soil that is not Updating of floodplain maps utilizing high-res- currently wetland. olution elevation data (LIDAR) is anticipated through the MDE Floodplain Mapping Pro- Resulting sites are often located in the headwa- gram in coordination with FEMA. Worcester ters, including around Big Millpond, on large County is highest on the State priority list lots currently in agriculture. among counties where LIDAR coverage exists.

18 The flood hazards shown on National Flood In- the inventory was completed in Summer 2004. surance Program (NFIP) maps will soon begin Data and maps will be available in 2005. (22) to be updated utilizing LIDAR as most maps were developed utilizing the best information Information for counties where the inven- available at the time the maps were prepared. tory has been completed (Dorchester and St. In many areas, hydraulic and hydrologic stud- Mary’s) is posted on the Internet at http://ccrm. ies were conducted to reflect the long-term pro- vims.edu/gis/gisdata.html. jection of flood risk. However, the availability of highly resolution Digital Elevation Models Along the Chincoteague Bay shoreline, low el- (DEMs) will more accurately identify the evation areas on both the mainland and barrier area at risk for flood events. DEMs are also island, have the potential to be affected by sea relevant to the quantification of TMDL esti- level rise according to a report DNR Coastal mates and stormwater runoff modeling. MDE Zone Management report issued in October has expressed a priority in not only utilizing 2000. (23) LIDAR to delineate flood hazards, but also ap- plying it to non-point source management and The DNR Coastal Zone Management Division regulation. New floodplain information and (CZM) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps is anticipated in 2005. (22) are negotiating the development of a sea level rise inundation model for Worcester County. Given the availability of LIDAR for the Coun- Shoreline and Sea Level Rise ty and the identified need for enhanced sea level rise planning stated in the Coastal Bays About 99% of Chincoteague Bay’s shoreline is Comprehensive Conservation and Manage- in natural condition, which is primarily veg- ment Plan, the County is a priority for piloting etated or beach. Very little shoreline here is an inundation model on a countywide scale. protected (bulkhead and riprap) or disturbed in The modeling is intended to quantify the range other ways. (5-Section 6.5) of potential inundation scenarios resulting from sea level rise in the next 100 years us- In 2004, Worcester County data was collected ing the current and global warming trend rate. to support a comprehensive inventory of shore- This effort will provide the opportunity to line conditions that is part of a Maryland effort understand wetland migration patterns, predict that covers 16 coastal counties. The data to be future shoreline position, and identify threats used is a compilation of information pertaining to public infrastructure. The development of to riparian land use, bank condition, and shore- the model is contingent on the development line features. The product of the inventory will of a Memorandum of Understanding between be a snap shot of the shoreline condition at one USGS and CZM. Anticipated completion of moment in time. The inventory can be used for the sea level inundation model for Worcester multiple management and planning objectives, County is 2005. (22) including the opportunity for cumulative im- pact assessments, local/regional planning and permitting activities, and restoration targeting. Stream Buffers The protocol for the inventory utilizes on the ground G