[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
COAST,4.L ZONE M-ANAGE.,MfENT PROGR,.,.LV FY "91 PROGRESS REPORT UPDATE or, K'N Ui LA STREAM VALLEY MANAGEMIEN7 and PROTECTION PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION Presewed to.- Prepared by. ,eanic and Charles County Department GB Adminimation; of Planning and Growth 565 Management, Planning M3 S77 t. of Natural Resourres, Depariment FY 1991 ourtes DiviTion, t991 W Management P@ogram. Date: September 30, 1991 c. I Funding for this Program is provided by the Coastal Resources Division, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, through a grant provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, administered by the office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. CHARLES COUNTY GOVERNMENT .Planning and Growth Management ROY E. RANCOCK, Deputy County Administrator Z 16,5b October 8, 1991 Ms. Gwynne Schultz Coastal Resources Division Department of Natural Resources Tidewater Administration Tawes State Office Building Annapolis, MD 21401 US Department of Commerve RE- CONTRACT # C 209-90-002 NOAA Coastal Services Center Library PROGRESS REPORT UPDATE 2234 South Hobson Avenue SC 29405-2413 Dear Gwynne, In response to the terms of this contract period (Oct. '90 - Sept. '91) for the implementation of the Stream Valley Management and Protection Program, five copies of this final report documenting the results of this ear', work effort are being submitted to CRD for review and approval at this time. Final work products for this year's grant period may be broken down into 5 sections: Resource Protection; Watershed Management; Water Quality Monitoring; Land Trust Formation and; Education (see attached Time Frames and Work Products). Program updates will be addressed for each of the final work products in the context of this report. In addition, you will find enclosed copies of the Mattawoman Watershed Soil Survey Report, prepared and submitted by the Soil Conservation Service. This report will also document: 1) An inventory of properties lying within delineated stream valleys, including lists of property owners; 2) A brochure explaining the management plan objectives, protection methods, implementation techniques and a description of land trusts and conservation easements; 3) A description of the activities undertaken to expand the local land trust, cooperative conservation easement program and other formalized measures.to acquire and protect sensitive stream valley habitat areas, 4) Guidelines established for possible inclusion of other stream valleys not included in this program. It was a meaningful endeavor this year, being given the opportunity (through CZM funding) to implement the goals and objectives of the Stream Valley Management and Protection Program - a Program which I feel very positive about for protecting Charles County's sensitive riparian environs. I am certainly looking forward to your comments and feedback with respect to our work products this grant period. Our requested reimbursement for expenditures accrued during this last quarter will be forthcoming. If you should have any questions or require any further clarification regarding this submittal, please don't hesitate to give me a call at 645-0599. Respectfully submitted, @ Kevin J. rby Environmental Planner KJK/ Attachments :-evin r@@ SAY NO TO DRUGS Post Office Box B La Plata, Maryland 20646 (301) 645-06 10 or 670-3935 EOUAL OPPORTUNITY COUNTY STREAM VALLEY MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION PROGR4M IMPLEMENTATION REPORT UPDATE In response to the terms of this contract period (Oct. '90 - Sept. '91) for the implementation of the Stream Valley Management and Protection Program, five copies of this final report documenting the results of this year's work effort are being submitted to CRD for review and approval at this time. Final work products for this year's grant period may be broken down into 5 sections: Resource Protection; Watershed Management; Water Quality Monitoring; Land Trust Formation and; Education (see attached Time Frames and Work Products). Program updates will be addressed for each of the final work products in the context of this report. This report will also document: 1) An inventory of properties lying within delineated stream valleys, including lists of property owners; 2) A brochure explaining the management plan objectives, protection methods, implementation techniques and a description of land trusts and conservation easements; 3) A description of the activities undertaken to expand the local land trust, cooperative conservation easement program and other formalized measures to acquire and protect sensitive stream valley habitat areas, and; 4) Guidelines established for possible inclusion of other stream valleys not included in this program. I PROGRAMVP DATES A. Resource Protection District Overlay Zone Ordinance for the Resource Protection District To protect Charles County's riparian and aquatic ecosystems, an Overlay Zone, termed the Resource Protection District (RPD), has been identified within the adopted 1990 Charles County Comprehensive Plan. The Overlay Zone is normally established to protect a single resource through the creation of a zoning classification that overlays the base zoning district, whether it is residential, commercial, industrial or agricultural. The delineation of the RPD includes all wetlands contiguous to stream valleys, floodplains, and their corresponding buffers. The purpose of this ordinance is to protect stream valley habitat and stream water quality. Ile scope of these regulations shall apply to all proposed development, including: projects for which subdivision, site plan, building and grading permits or approvals are necessary; timber harvesting; and agriculture activities. Given the realities of existing State and Federal regulations, it was realized that Charles County could only require agricultural producers and timber harvesters to abide by 'the most -restrictive regulations -curreatly.in place... This:strategy includes requiring the same compliances for agricultural and timber activities adjacent to stream valleys as are required adjacent to the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area"(CBCA). We would be amiss to not mention that the. RPD regulation affects far more properties than are currently within the jurisdictional boundaries of the CBCA_ To question the effectiveness of the Soil Conservation and Water Quality plans which we are requiring of affected properties (i.e. the 25 ft.,xegetative buffer), is -to question State and Federal guidelines. The political realities of at-tempting to implement a more stringent regulation then State and Federal guidelines would be folly in a county as agricultirally strong as Charles - to propose this would be to compromise the passage of any regulation at all. STREAM VALLEY MAAAGEMENT AND PROTECTION PROGRAM REPORT UPDATE IMPLEMENTATION 3 I PROGRAM UPDATES (cont.) A. Resource Protection District Overlay Zone (cont.) Maximum effort was taken in the drafting of this ordinance to establish guidelines for the inclusion of stream valley tributaries not included in the original inventory. The guidelines include establishing recognition of all tributaries and stream valleys with identified floodplains and/or wetlands. It is our opinion that the guidelines specified in this ordinance for delineation of the RPD is comprehensive in this respect. At this time, the language for the Resource Protection Overlay Zone Ordinance has been included within the recent draft Comprehensive Rezoning Ordinance. A copy of this language is included for your perusal (see Appendix A). The schedule for approval of this ordinance, at this point in the Zoning Ordinance adoption, is: approval by the Planning Commission; conducting a public hearing on whatever changes may have occurred; final recommendations presented to the Charles County Commissioners and lastly; final action by the Commisioners. We are optimistic that we will have an adopted Zoning Ordinance, complete with a Resource Protection District, by the end of this fall, 1991. County-wide Mapping Status At this time, all of Charles County's major stream valleys, including but not be limited to the Zekiah Swamp, Gilbert Swamp, Mattawoman Creek, Nanjemoy Creek, Swanson Creek, Indian Creek, and Port Tobacco River, have had their floodplains, contiguous wetlands and corresponding buffers digitized onto the County's tax-map database. Fine tuning of the map products are currently underway with reviews being conducted by planning staff, Planning Commission members, and County Commissioners. It is worth noting that the criteria for inclusion and delineation of this overlay zone is subject to change at the pleasure of both the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners. To date, we have had very strong support from the majority of Commission members to adopt the Overlay Zone as drafted. Inventory of Properties Within Resource Protection District One of the work products included in implementing the SVMPP is compiling an inventory of properties lying within delineated stream valleys. This includes lists of property owners whose property may lie wholly or partially within the major stream valleys of the County. In compiling this inventory, two factors.have "been considered in order to prioritize the phasing of such a major inventory: Identifying those properties whose stream valley's lie within areas of high natural value such Natural Heritage Areas and Areas of Critical State Concern. This includes the entire Mattawoman, Zekiah, Upper Nanjemoy, and'Port Tobacco stream valleys. At, this time, we-are. submitting to CRD an inventory of those. properties lying wholly.or partially within the, Resource Protection Zone of the Zekiah Swamp and the Mattawoman Creek - both identified as Areas of Critidal State Concern (see Appendix C). These areas are our highest priorities for land acquisition. The Mattawoman Creek watershed corresponds with the County's Development District. The Zekiah Swamp is -well known as one of the most significant natural areas in the Chesapeake Bay region. Because of the sizeable acreage of these areas and the large number of private holdings within them, it is reasonable to focus land acquisition activities exclusively on these areas at this time. STREAM VALLEY MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION PROGRAM REPORT UPDATE IMPLEMENTATION 4 I PROGRAM UPDATES (cont.) B. Mattawoman Watershed Management Plan This document represents an integral part of the adopted Stream Valley Management and Protection Program (SVMPP) as a strategy to protect riparian habitats, protect the quality of stream waters, and conserve the environmental features and functions of Charles County's watersheds. The Mattawoman watershed was selected as a pilot study area in order to respond to the tremendous development pressure anticipated for this development district. The Mattawoman Creek wat ershed offers unique management considerations compared to other watersheds in the County in that this region has been targeted as an area of "directed growth" in the adopted Charles County Comprehensive Plan. The implications of such intense development requires the development of this Watershed Management Plan thereby focusing on controlling further degradation of water quality by assessing current conditions, anticipating what impacts will be associated with urbanization, and adopting urban Best Management Practices (BMPs) for this development district as a means of controlling and regulating stormwater runoff. This plan is further designed to meet the Watershed Management Plan (WMP) considerations as established by the Maryland Water Resources Administration, pursuant to the State's Nontidal Wetlands Protection Act. As such, it is anticipated that this WMP will take several years to develop and implement. Pursuant to the submitted schedule for the development of the Mattawoman WMP, Charles County has begun development of Phases I & 11; Outline of the Concept Document & Issue Identification (see Appendix B). Originally, an outgrowth of this plan was to draft a Watershed Management District Ordinance which would require such components as urban BMPs and the pre-treatment of SW facility discharge before entering wetlands. It has become obvious, with the review of existing ordinances that a much more practical approach is to make these requirements County-wide (rather than watershed specific) and that a more logical vehicle to utilize in implementing such a regulation is in the existing Stormwater Management. Ordinance. The rational behind this is that with the changes slated for this current ordinance (as a result of review and assessment as a part of the WMP process) justifies a comprehensive overhaul of this ordinance in order to maximize inter-ordinance coordination between various goals and objectives. Therefore, Charles County withdraws its commitment to produce a Watershed Management District Ordinance this grant period and will not document expenditures accrued by county staff to produce it. C. Water Quality Monitoring Program Strategy Water quality monitoring in the County's streams has been identified as another major component of Charles County's SVMPP. As such, Charles County planning staff has developed a three-tiered Water Quality Monitoring Program Strategy which was adopted by the Charles County Commissioners on July 30, 1991 (see Appendix E). This program strategy covers the approach, organization, staffing, data interpretation, and costs of the program. STPXAM VAUEYM4AWGEMENTA%T) PROTECTIONPROWUM REPORT UPDATE IMPLEMENTATION 5 I PROGRAM UPDATES (cont.) C. Water Quality Monitoring Program Strategy (cont.) Stream monitoring will establish baseline data for existing water quality, which can be compared with future water quality data to establish trends and aid in tracking water quality problem areas. This three-tiered approach to water quality monitoring includes: 1) A volunteer oriented stream water quality monitoring program documenting the physical, chemical and benthic testing of palustrine stream waters; 2) Laboratory analysis of water quality which includes a more detailed technical and site specific analysis of water quality to be conducted in cases where the results of first tier sampling indicate that the quality of waters tested fall below accepted standards, and; 3) An in-stream computer monitoring station which would allow for water quality testing before, during and after crucial storm events when the true telling of a watershed's environmental health is most evident. D. Charles County Conservancy The formation of a County-wide land trust has been envisioned as a means of acquiring important and sensitive natural areas and of encouraging stream stewardship on the part of those property owners adjacent to stream valleys and, as such, identified as another component of implementing the SVMPP. "Me strategy for land trust formation has been to have the County Commissioners act as the formal land trust incorporators, thereby forming the Charles County Conservancy. At this time, the County Commissioners have selected members for the steering committee (copies of steering committee meetings, solicitations and charge letter are enclosed for your review in Appendix D). The steering committee is charged with nominating the Board of Directors and providing recommendations on land trust bylaws, articles of incorporation, funding and role in the County. E. Education As with any new program whose objective and focus may be admirable if not controversial, its effectiveness is inherently limited by the manner in which the-information is communicated to the people it might effect. "Me SVMPP has striven from its inception to present the programs goals and objectives to the residents of Charles County in a manner which would promote a stewardship on the part of those residents that might be fortunate enough to have a stream valley coursing through their "back 40". At this time, two brochures are being presented to CRD: One on Agricultural BMP's and a second on the Stream Valley Management. and Protection Program. The purpose of the Agricultural BMP's brochure is to describe various state and federal programs which exist that can help defray the costs associated with the design and installation of agricultural BMPs. although their currently exists a host of literature which describe different programs, there is no one source that describes them all. This brochure is intended to do just that, and is based upon the literature available on each grant program. The purpose of the Stream Valley Management and Protection Program brochure is to explain the management plan objectives, protection methods, implementation techniques, and a description of land trusts and conservation easements. STRE4H VAU_17YM4MGEKFA7 AND PROTECTIONPROGXAM REPORT UPDATE IMPLEMENTATION 6 SIRE" VALLEY AIANAGEMENT and PROTECTION PROGRAM Time Frames and Work Products for 1990 - 1991 TASK WORK PRODUCT TIMELINE TIMELINE FY1991 FY1992 RESOURCE PROTECTION DISTRICT (RPD) Delineation @ 1"=600' Delineated Taxmaps, 03/31/91 ---------- RPD Ordinance Draft Ordinance 12/31/90 ---------- WATERSHED MANAGEMENT Phase I - Concept Document Concept 09/31/91 ---------- Phase 2 - Issue Identification Issues 09/31/91 ---------- Phase 3 - Alternatives Alternatives ---------- 12/31/91 Phase 4 - Scheduling Scheduling ---------- 03/30/92 Phase 5 - Implementation Implementation ---------- 09/30/92 WATER QUALITY Program Strategy Program Strategy 06130/91 ---------- Grant Funding Grant Application 08/15/91 ---------- Citizen Monitoring WQ Data ---------- 10/01/92 LAND TRUST Steering Committee Charge Letter 03/30/91 ---------- Board of Directors Appointment Letter 09/30/91 ---------- Goals and Criteria Goals and Criteria ---------- EDUCATION SVMPP Brochure Educational Brochure 08/30/91 ---------- Agric. BMP Brochure Educational Brochure 08/30/91 ---------- Agric. BMP Promoter Grant Applications 08/15/91 ---------- STPXAM VAUEYMAMCEMENT AND PROTECTIONPROMUM TIME FRAMES IMPLEMENTATION 7 RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY ZONE ORDINANCE APPENDIX A STREAM VALLEY MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION PROGRAM RESOURCE PROTECTION ZONE ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTATION 8 APPENDIX A DRAFT Resource Protection Overlay Zone (RPZ) A. Statement of Purpose 1) The general purpose of this zone is to protect stream valley habitat and stream water quality. in particular, the purposes of this zone are to: a) preserve floodplains in a natural state; b) preserve wetlands associated with floodplains; C) preserve significant habitat areas associated with stream valleys or in other locations; d) prevent soil erosion and sedimentation by protecting steep slopes associated with stream valleys; e) protect persons and property from environmental hazards such as unstable or highly erodible soils and flooding; filter nutrients, toNics, and sediment from stormwater; g) protect scenic values; h) provide recreational opportunities; and i) minimize public investment in floodplain stormwater management. B. Scope 1) These regulations shall apply to all proposed development, including: projects for which subdivision, site plan, building and grading permits or approvals are necessary; timber harvesting; and agricultural activities. C. Application 1) The Resource Protection Zone (RPZ) shall apply to those County streams or those portions of County streams outside of the Critical Area Overlay Zone, including but not limited to: Zekiah Swamp, Gilbert Run, Nanjemoy Creek, Swanson Creek, Indian Creek, Port Tobacco River, Mattawoman Creek, Chicamuxen Creek, Popes Creek, Wards Run, Kerrick Swamp, Null Run, Beaverdam Creek, Hancock Run, Old Woman's Creek, Piney Branch, and tributaries thereof or of the Potomac River. D. Resource Protection Zone Delineation 'Me Resource Protection Zone shall encompass an area based on the -outermost combined limits' of the existing 100-year floodplain if present, non-tidal wetlands contiguous with or within 25' of the stream channel or 100 year floodplain if present, and a buffer. Except as permitted in this ordinance, the land within this zone is to remain in an @undisturbed natural state, and the outer edge of this zone shall constitute the limit of clearing and grading. SrREAm VALLEY M,4mGE&w,%T AmD PRomcrioN PRoGmu RESOURCE PROTECTION ZONE ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTATION 9 APPEADIXA Resource Protection Overlay Zone (cont.) E. Minimum Buffer Widths 1) The minimum buffer standards shall be as follows: a) 100' - for perennial streams b) 50' - for intermittent streams 2) The minimum buffer shall extend outward from the outermost limit of the 100-year floodplain or non-tidal wetlands adjoining the stream channel or floodplain, whichever is greater, or outward from fboth sides of the centerline of the stream channel in the absence of a 100-year floodplain and non- tidal wetlands. The buffer shall be measured horizontally from a floodplain, wetland, or stream channel without regard for the lay of the land. F. Buffer Adiustment for Steep Slopes 1) The minimum buffer shall be increased to account for steep slopes contiguous with or within 25' of the minimum buffer. The buffer width shall be doubled or extend to the top of the slope, whichever is less, where average slopes greater than 15% adjoin the minimum buffer or are within 25' of the minimum buffer. 2) Percentage of average slope shall be determined by plotting a transect from the outer edge of the minimum buffer to the top of the adjoining slope, defined as the point at the top of slope where the percent slope falls below 15%, and calculating an average slope from the slope percentages crossed by the transect. 'Fhe number of transects will vary depending on the uniformity of slopes adjoining a particular reach of a stream. Transects may be spaced up to 100' apart regardless of slope uniformity. However, transect spacing exceeding 100' shall be based on slope uniformity. G. Use Restrictions 'Me following uses shall be prohibited in the RPZ: 1) Mining or excavation, except for existing operations; 2) Dredging except as may be pe rinitted under state law. Deposit or landfilling of fill, refuse, and solid or liquid waste, except manure applied as a crop fertilizer and acceptable fill permitted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for streambank erosion control. 4) Alteration of the stream bed and bank of a waterway, except for best management practices to reduce stream erosion, and construction and maintenance of stream crossings for permitted uses. 5) Clearing of vegetation and grading, except as may be permitted under this ordinance. S'rRFAm VALLff MAmGEmEw AND PRomcrm PRorRAm RESOURCE PROTECTION ZONE ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTATION 10 APPENDIX A Resource Protection Overlay Zone (cont.) H. Permitted Uses 'Me following land uses shall be permitted, provided that the conditions herein are met: 1) - Agriculture Agricultural uses shall be permitted, provided that a soil conservation and water quality plan be approved by the Charles Soil Conservation District. 'Me soil conservation and water quality plan shall include 25' vegetative filter strips adjoining streams. 2) Timber Harvesting Landowner timber harvesting for personal use shall be permitted. Commercial timber harvesting shall be permitted, provided that the timber harvesting is conducted in conformance with Subtitle 16 - Forest Conservation, Annotated Code of Maryland, or a local program pursuant to said subtitle. 3) Utility transmission lines, railroads, roads, stormwater management facilities, recreational non- motorized trails, public environmental education facilities, facilities for recreational access to a stream, and associated clearing shall be permitted, provided that: a) Project location in the RPZ is essential for access or continuity and no reasonable alternatives exist. b) Crossings of the RPZ are as close to 90 degrees as reasonably possible. C) The project complies with the requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and the Floodplain Management Ordinance for Charles County, Maryland. d) 'Me project is designed to minimize disturbance, clearing, and grading. e) Approved sedimentation and erosion control, best management practices, and revegetation plans in accordance With Subtitle 16 - Forest Conservation, Annotated Code of Maryland or local program pursuant to Subtitle 16 Forest Conservation, as applicable, are implemented for the project. f) The habitats of federally or-state listed threatened and endangered species or other critical habitats are fully protected. 1. Open Space Credit 1) Land within the RPZ may be used to meet open space requirements. Extension of RPZ 1) The Planning Commission may extend the RPZ to include adjoining hydric soils, severely erodible soils, entire steep slopes, State designated natural heritage areas and wetlands of special concern,and the habitats of federally or state listed threatened and endangered species or other critical and significant wildlife and plant habitats deserving of protection. SrREAm VALLEY MAuGFmENT AND PRorEcrioNPRoGium RESOURCE PROTECTION ZONE ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTATION 11 APPENDMA Resource Protection Overlay Zone (cont.) K Adiustm nt of District 1) Tle application of this zone to the County zoning maps shall be construed as general in nature and may be adjusted by the Planning Director upon the presentation of engineering data which delineates more precisely the boundaries of this zone. L Plans and Plats Information 1) All plans submitted to Charles County for review shall indicate the boundary of the RPZ and buffer width, as applicable. 2) All plats prepared for recording shall clearly show: a) The extent of the RPZ by metes and bounds; b) A label stating, "Resource Protection Zone" for the area within the RPZ; and C) A note stating: "T'here shall be no clearing, grading, construction or disturbance of vegetation in the Resource Protection Zone as further documented in a recorded conservation easement, except as may be permitted by the Charles County Planning Commission." d) A conservation easement requiring that the RPZ land be perpetually maintained in natural vegetation shall be dedicated to the County or to a County land trust, should one exist. Said easement shall be recorded by deed or plat in the County land records for that portion of the property within the RPZ. M. Construction Stakin 1) The outer edge of the RPZ buffer shall be field staked and clearly delineated as the limit of clearing and grading prior to the commencement of clearing and grading activities within 50' of the RPZ, permitted clearing and grading in the RPZ excepted. The limits of permitted clearing and grading within the RPZ shall likewise be field staked and clearly delineated. N, Enforcement 1) Ile enforcement provisions of the Charles County Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance shall also apply to this zone. 0. Performance Bond 1) A performance bond or other surety in a form and amount established as acceptable to the County shall be executed by the owner or developer to cover possible damage to-RPZ lands during construction. The bond or surety shall remain in full force until the work encompassed by the applicable grading permit has been completed and approved by the County. Accidental or incidental construction damage to the RPZ shall result in a full or partial forfeiture of the performance bond or surety, depending on the severity of the violation and the costs of restoring damaged RPZ land. It shall be the developer's responsibility to restore damaged RPZ land in accordance with County revegetation requirements. STRUM VAUEYMAMGEMENT AND PROTECTION PROGRAM RESOURCE PROTECTION ZONE ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTATION 12 APPENDIXA Resource Protection Overlay Zone (cont.) P. RPZ Variance Provisions 1) The variance provisions of Article XVIII shall apply to this ordinance. Definitions to add to Zoning Ordinance: Intermittent Stream - means a stream in which surface water is absenet during a portion of the year, as shown on the most recent 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle or other topographic maps published by the United States Geological Survey, or as shown on an official map or aerial photograph as chosen by the Charles County Planning Commission. Perennial Stream - means a stream containing surface water throughout an average rainfall year, as shown on the most recent 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle or other topographic maps published by the United States Georlogical Survey, or as shown on an official map or aerial photograph as chosen by the Charles County Planning Commission. STRFAM VAU-1YM4X4GEkMVT AND FROTECTIONPROGR4M RESOURCE PROTECTION ZONE ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTATION 13 APPEIMIX A RESOURCE PROTECTION DISTMCT PROPEMY OWNER INVENTORY APPENDIX B STREAM VAU.EY MAX4GEME%7 ANI) PROTECT-TON PROGR4M RFD PROPERTY INVENTORY IMPLEMENTATION 14 APPENDIX B PROPERTY INVENTORY MATTA WOMAN CREEK PROPERTY OWNER TAX MAP# PARCEL ACREAGE George Rhodes 2 1 Waldorf Restaurant 3 1 4 1 Herbert S. Kidwell 6 69 62.00 Charlotte R. Rogers 6 68 21.0 Rainbow Construction, Inc. 6 8 7.51 N/A 6 89 Cleota Langdon 6 6 43.28 Eunice B. Anderegg 6 4 33.94 C. M. Long Assoc. Inc. 6 206 16.00 N/A 6 23 NIA 6 170 William R. Porter 6 175 16.31 Thadeus J. Swenton 6 208 36.50 N/A 6 70 N/A 6 180 J.E. Bracy 6 2 66.94 Mildred Melton Cover 6 7 Leo Tompkins 6 1 126.68 Waldorf Meth. Episcopal Ch. 7 222 15.00 Richard H. Estevez 7 157 3.45 Carroll T. Grandstaff 7 214 3.88 NIA 7 188 Ashford Joint Venture 7 152 119.06 Rose Marie Borde 7 132 -35.39 CMDC St.Char.Ltd. Part. 7 108 60.15 George Estevez 7 62 42.50 Richard H. Dobson 7 27 221.50 Berry Rd. Stream View Assoc. 7 16 83.41 Larry B. Wilkerson 7 79 46.54 David Edelen 7 250 87.03 Co. Comm. of Charles Co. 7 240 '32.19 FEH Inc. c/o L.K.Farral 111 7 4 79.12 Randy M. Shaban 7 5 Lotl 8-Sec2 Joseph A. Moran 7 205 Lot3l -Sec2 Hillman Cornell 7 242 20.00 Maryland Quality Homes,Inc. 7 170 12.46 Joseph H. Gibson 7 104 Lot32-Sec2 Co. Comm of Charles Co. 7 156 20.73 Waldorf Shopping MaII,Inc. 7 302 36.94 Monel Associates, Inc. 7 1 101.00 STREAM VALLEY MANAGEMENT AND PROTEC77ON PROGRAM RPD PROPER 7Y INVENTORY IMPLEMENTATION 15 APPENDIX B PROPERTY OWNER TAX MAP# PARCEL ACREAGE Walte Wroblewski 7 185 7.50 Eugene C. Radcliff 7 305 2.00 NIA 7 60 Leonard D. Sanford 7 2 2.00 William H. Clifton 7 61 98.71 Robert E. Noonan 7 40 27.31 John M. Edwards 7 340 1.76 Alice Pennington Bell 7 329 0.47 Laurence M. Ullman 7 220 0.47 Scotland Hts. Ltd. Part. 7 221 91.20 Brian N. Helland 7 312 1.00 Joseph A. Pickeral 7 171 2.01 Cleo A. Helland 7 273 1.01 Lewis R. Vest 7 313 1.00 Shirley Ann Proctor 7 137 1.00 N/A 7 327 Elizabeth M. Proctor 7 82 61.79 William Junior Swann 7 81 1.00 Rhoderick R. Dyson 7 28 67.93 Lewis R. Vest 7 272 125.35 Richard Allen 7 232 33.50 Russell E. Knieser 7 126 NIA Karl L. Elders 7 163 1.00 9 80 Henry Travathan' 13 173 23-60 State of Md. D.N.R. 13 189 22.76 State of Md. D.N.R. 13 57 99.66 Hillen Morgan,Jr. 13 146 134.52 N/Al 13 113 Sharon Bolton 13 54 94.10 N/A 13 181 Cafritz Foundation Et AL 13 52-A 248.79 Jesse Meyers 13 -51 269.21 Louis Bell 13 81 188.95 Louis Bell 13 6 231.70 Philip Dwyer-. 13 1 Isabella Cole 21 5 7.50 Vintage Asso. % Cecil Boyle 21 10 .10.00 NIA 21 51 Thomas Marbury 21 59 0.45 Walter Washington 21 64 Earl Thomas 21 65 Jane Datcher 21 66 Harold Hancock 21 60 Billy Dixon 21 6 1.86 George Grieninger 21 7 2.11 Snt,-Am VAu.EYMANAGFidEwAvDPRoTEcrioNPitoGitAm RPD PROPERYY INVENTORY IMPLEMENTATION 16 APPENDIX B PROPERTY OWNER TAX MAP# PARCEL ACREAGE N/A 21 9 N/A 21 52 N/A 21 53 N/A 21 13 Percontee, Inc. 21 14 234.56 Date Mueller 21 26 14.00 Joseph T. Dixon 21 172 75.00 Leo B. Dixon 21 173 75.40 Trimac, Inc. 21 76 204.58 Dept. of Forest & Parks 21 28 754.00 DNR 21 24 56.00 Robert Kravel, Jr. 21 29 Vernon Haas 21 17 32.41 James Corridon 21 61 69.73 N/A 21 113 Norman Irvine 21 23 115.46 N/A 21 116 DNR 21 187 73.40 John Ray 21 164 14.25 DNR 21 114 Benard M. Short Et Al 22 34 134.00 Garland Smythers 22 101 50.07 Henry L. Trevathan 22 143 1S.63 Lanie Gesvero 22 146 10.00 Gunga Lee Dean 22 144 10.00 N/A 22 200 INIA 22 201 Gary Stine 22 174 2.32 Paul Thorne 22 123 31.60 Charles Co. Co mmission' ers 22 505 15.64 N/A 22 304 - Paul Middleton 22 308 23.73 William J. Purvis 22 371 44.30 -Benjamin Weiner 22 305 50.48 Earl Gates, Jr. 22 183 128.00 Lester Hamilton 22 578 .25.00 Holly Station Partnership 22 706 27.64 Charles County Commissioners 22 372 4.26 Embassy Dairy, Inc. 22 588 24.36 Waldorf Restaurant 22 254 32.66 Lots-36,37,38,39,40,41,42 22 622 Under 2ac. Charles County Commissioners 22 668 5.14 Lots lthruS-Block A 22 605 Under2ac Verdie Jefferson 22 457 0.60 Elsie B. Yuters, Trustees 22 457.00 79.69 STRFAM VAU" MAMGEMMweM PAOTEMON PROCUUM - - RPD PROPERYY MYENTORY IMPLEMENTATION 17 APPENDIX B RESOURCE PROTECTION DISTRICT PROPERTY INVENTORY ZEKL4H SW"P PROPERTY OWNER TAX MAP# PARCEL ACREAGE State of Maryland, DNR 74 71 286.41 State of Maryland, DNR 73 70 14.10 Henry S. Bowling, Jr. 73 16 60.88 Levin Family Farms, Inc. 73 34 238.56 William E. Sill, Jr. 73 6 318.10 Charles Bowling 111 65 16 6.90 Bowling's Zekiah Farm Inc. 65 84 294.86 Marion D. Cook, Sr. 65 100 172.54 Frank A. Bowling, Jr. 65 25 103.95 Garth E. Bowling 65 93 99.35 James W. Boarman, I 11 65 71 67.68 Willard A. Boarman 65 22 4SO.00 Brinsfield Farm, Inc. 64 43 338-52 PEPCO 64 36 276.38 Thomas J. Higdon 64 110 317.37 Harry L. Jones, 11 64 158 65.34 Robert E. Cooksey 64 14 330.36 Mary L. Morgan 56 9 226.20 Elmer G. Marchi 56 108 208-11 GEM Investments 56 5 224.75 Norman F. Duehring 56 111111 120.09 Katherine C. Long 56 99 239.22 George N. Schultz 56 1 297.22 J.S. Blacklock,... 55- 9 138.50 J.S.Blacklock 55 4 328.26 James W. Thompson 55 81 341.12 Donald F. Fey 55 40 170.78 Ann C. Fey 55 198- -38.149 Leo L. Seligson 45 11,12,38 103.91 Richard M. Gummere 45 2 176.98 _W.A. Cooksey- 44 89- 352.24 Edwin R. Fischer 45 3.14.16 1085.00 Mazell Corporation 45 13 288.30 Raymond L. Brown 45 9 234.18 Sheldon L. Contract 45 27 203.47 Allan P. Clagett, Jr. 45 15 356.79 Herman Welch 45 5 148.64 Charles Foley 45 4 400.00 STREAM VAU"MAXAGEMENTAND PROTECTIONPROGRAM RPD PROPERTY rNVENTORY IMPLEMENTATION 18 APPENDLr B PROPERTY OWNER TAX MAP# PARCEL ACREAGE Sunnyside Farm, Inc. 35 171 353.74 Edward W. Wetherald 35 36 225.15 Benjamin M. Edelen 35 107 124.52 Jeffery W. Earnshaw 35 129 62.83 Elhi-M Bowling 35 93 88.00 Edward B. Bowling 35 95 31.54- Francis X. Cooksey 34 77 87.63 J. Frank Cooksey 34 20 146.37 Edward A. Mohler 34 74 30.10 Meredith E. Hendricks 34 19 S2.72 Nell Myers 1 34 42 200.00 J. Stewart Brinsfield 34 79,1_1 5 40+ Lawrence C. Abell 34 11 311.68 Francis L. Stonestreet 34 21 206.50 Dennis J. Anderson 34 96 110.24 Dietrick H. Steffens 34 7 152.77 Juanita A. Young 34 88 38.84 Theresa Y. Banks 34 9 111.90 G. Forbes Bowling 25 23 110.71 Louise Jameson 25 182 93.00 Charles 1. Scatter 25 103 147.00 Alice 1. Jameson 25 16 79.09 Irads Sadeghian 25 98 222.46 Bryantown Joint Venture 25 17 191.19 Dewey E. Dick 25 113 11.86 Charles County Sand & Gravel 25 9,13 283.22 Richard Chaney 25 214 4.83 Thomas Mac Middleton 25 139 247.29 Bernard P. Hemming 25 79 205.22 John A. Boothe - 25 110 22.40 Margaret G. Brown. 25 109 23.28 Nellie E. Chase 25 111- 13.29- Annie C. Wade 25 24,135 142.22 Ronald A. Mandey 16 92 141.03 Hubert F. Robinson 16 241 97.01 Erika M. Blevins 16 240,36 -96.86 Lewis W. Mandcet 16 33 -50.16 George Chapman-Heirs 16 119 186.00 Salah H. Hosny 16 60 142.72 Mudd Farms. Inc. 16 10 201.00 Sarah F. Gardiner- 16 9 121.00 John S. Bayley 16 123 37.92 Andrew E.A.B. Chapman 16 120 166.00 Clarence J. Lucas 16 3 153.72 Howard E. Wall, Jr. 16 83 20.60 Jimmie E. Conley 16 4,40,209,226 73.60 TRFAU VAUZY MAMGEMWT AND PROTEMON PitorPAV RPD PROPERTY mvENToRy IMPLEMENTATION 19 APPENDIX B S PROPERTY OWNER TA)eMAP# PARCEL ACREAGE 16 98 144.00 James A. Doyle 16 15 160.23 Elinor W. Cam 16 117 125.00 Charles Co. Sand & Gravel 16 13 148.18 Gardiner Road Joint Venture 16 216 90.66 Charles Co. Sand & Gravel 16 11 82.94 DNR 16 6 23.27 DNR 9 18 96.35 rRFAM VAUEYMANAGEMENT AND PROrECTIONPROGR4M RPD PROPERTY INVENTORY IMPLEMEAFTATION 20 APPENDIX B S AlATTAWOMAN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX B STRFAM VALLEY M4MGEW.NT AND PROTECTION PROGRAM WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION APPENDM B AL47TAWOMAN WATERSHED MANAGEMEAT PLAN Work Program and Concept Document Outline TABLE OF COATEMS INTRODUCTION Summary Elements PHASE I - PRELIMINARIES I Outline of Concept Document (Task 100) A. Purpose of the Watershed Management Plan B. Scope of Planning Effort C. Planning Objectives D. Expected Results E. Description of the Watershed Planning Process F. Tentative Work Plan G. Coordination with Other Planning Efforts 11 Summary of Existing Conditions (Task 110) A. Watershed Characteristics/Background B. Interested Parties File III Assessment of Current Programs (Task 120) A- Local B. State C. Federal IV Re-examination of Concept Document (Task 130) PHASE II - ISSUE IDENTIFICATION I Comprehensive List of Issues (Task 200) A- Wetlands & Resource Protection B. Water Resources C. Storm Water Management II Screened Issues (Task 210) A. Wetlands & Resource Protection B. Water Resources C. Storm Water Management III Final Issues (Task 220) A. Wetlands & Resource Protection B. Water Resources C. Storm Water Management IV Management Goals (Task 230) V Re-examination of Concept Document (Task 240) Mattawoman Watershed Management Plan 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS MA YTA WOMAN WA TERSHED MANA GEMENT PLAN Work Program and Document Outline IN7RODUCTION This document represents an integral part of the adopted Stream Valley Management and Protection Program (SVMPP) as a strateg to protect riparian habitats, protect the quality of stream waters, and conserve the environmental features and functions of Charles County's wetlands. It also represents a contractual work product to Coastal Zone Management pursuant to implementing the SVMPP for TY199.1. It became apparent in defining the parameters of the Stream Valley Management and Protection Program that a gestalt approach to viewing and dealing with the entire watershed was necessary in order to maximize the effectiveness of protecting sensitive riparian corridors. One cannot expect to propose any kind of comprehensive improvement to the quality of stream waters without considering the watershed as a whole. The cumulative impact of land uses and misuses of the entire watershed are most clearly apparent along Hparian corridors - a stream's water quality offering mute. testimony to land use practices and stewardship. Micro-management of only the stream waters would compromise the program's effectiveness without considering the headwaters, tributaries and uplands whence the streams derive their existence. For these reasons, the need for comprehensive watershed management plans were identified in order to minimize the deleterfous impacts associated with continued urbanization. The Mattawoman Creek watershed has been chosen as the pilot watershed management plan because of the foreseeable development pressures anticipated in this identified County growth area. Elements: This Watershed Management Plan, is comprised of three major components which include: Resource Protection - Including Nontidal Wetlands Water Resources - Including Water Supply & Water Quality Storm Water Management - Including Sedunent and Erosion Control This plan is further designed to meet the watershed management plan requirements as established by the Maryland Water Resources Administration, pursuant to the State's Nontidal Wetlands Protection Act. MAMAWOMAN WATERSHFD MAMGEMENT PL4N 3 INTRODUCTION I OUTILJNE OF CONCEPT DOCUMENT (Task 100) A Purpose of the Watershed Management Plan T'he purpose of the Mattawoman Watershed Management Plan is: to protect the quality of water resources, including surface waters & water supplies; provide increased open-space, recreational and educational opportunities throughout the watershed; and conserve the environmental features and functions of the watershed's natural resources. This will be achieved through: a thorough inventory and assessment of all existing natural resources, including non-tidal wetlands; inventory and assessment of existing storm water management (SWM) facilities; review and assessment of existing regulatory controls; monitoring of water quality, and; implementation of watershed-wide strategies aimed at improving water quality. 'Me Mattawoman Creek watershed offers unique management considerations for it is this region that has been targeted as an area of "directed growth" in the adopted Charles County Comprehensive Plan. The implications of such intense development requires controlling further degradation of water quality by assessing current conditions, anticipating what impacts will be associated with urbanization, and adopting urban Best Management Practices (BMPs) for this development district thereby controlling stormwater runoff. Comparable efforts are also needed to protect wetlands, natural resources, and water supplies. B Scope of Planning effort The scope of the watershed management plan responds to several criteria as r ecommended by the Maryland Water Resources Administration and certain considerations which are specified in the recent Nontidal Wetlands Protection Act. The regulations specify that watershed management plans include a functional assessment of nontidal wetlands in the watershed, a strategy for their protection - including limiting cumulative impacts, and addressing water supply and flood management. These elements constitute the minimum planning effort that will fulfil the legal mandate. C Planning Objectives Tle primary planning objectives of the watershed management plan are to: 1) Improve and protect the quality of stream water resources -in the watershed for the benefit of public health and safety; 2) Improve the quality of storm-water runoff and minimize the potential of flooding in the watershed for the benefit of public health and safety; 3) Conserve and protect the watershed's environmental features and functions including nontidal wetlands and significant wildlife habitat areas; 4) Provide and develop increased open-space, recreational and educational opportunities along stream valleys and -throughout the watershed; 5) Define wellhead protection areas and develop wellhead protection strategies; 6) Develop map and data information bases on the watershed's physical and environmental features. MArmwomAN WAmRsHED MAxAcEmF_NT PLAv 4 PHASE I - PRELIMINARIES I CONCEPT DOCUMENT (cont.) D Expected Results T'he results expected from this watershed management plan (WMP) include having a detailed inventory of existing conditions in the watershed, a comprehensive list of issues to be addressed, and a course of action laid out to implement the objectives of this WMP. T'his will be utilized as a basis by which certain areas may be targeted for protection and/or conservation. The primary result of this effort will be to establish preventative as well as corrective regulations addressing conservation of environmental features and protecting water quality. Examples of a preventative regulatory approach include establishing a Watershed Management District whereby urban BMPs would be mandatory. E Description of the Watershed Planning process Ile planning process includes natural resource inventory mapping and formulation of technical management plans that will address natural resource protection, cumulative environmental impacts, wetlands mitigation, water supply protection, stormwater and flood management. The methodology for developing the watershed management plan involves the following process: 1) Inventory and analysis of the e)dsting stream system and watershed conditions. Elements to be studied include: a. Environmental features including soils, geology, slopes, vegetation, significant plant & animal habitat areas, and the functional assessments of all wetlands; b. Non-point source pollution sources along the Mattawoman Creek; C. Recreation facilities and open space lands; d. Existing land use and zoning. 2) Research and evaluation of State and County plans & policies relevant to the study area: a. Charles County Comprehensive Plan; b. Charles County. Stream Valley Management and Protection Program; C. Charles County Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances; d. Comprehensive- Water and Sewerage Plan; e. County Floodplain Management, Stormwater Management, Grading and Sediment Control Ordinances; f. Maryland Nonti dal Wetland Protection Act;_ 9. Prince George's County Ordinances & Policies. 3) Conduct a community meeting to allow local residents the opportunity to participate in establishing goals, identifying problems and needs, and developing plans for the watershed. 4) Identify specific problem areas including water quality, flooding, erosion, sedimentation, degradation of the natural environment, etc. MAmwomAN WATmHED MAmGEmENT PL4N 5 PHASE I - PRELIMINARIES I CONCEPT DOCUMENT (cont.) E Description of the Watershed Planning process (cont.) 5) Develop a management plan for the watershed. This includes: a. Establishing goals and objectives for alleviating problems in the watershed and plan for the future use of the watershed's future resources; b. Recommend policies and actions that will address the goals and objections of the plan. C. Develop a strategy for the implementation of the plan. F Tentative Work Plan (see next page) G Coordination with other Planning efforts As with any significant planning project, coordination with other planning efforts is essential to ensure the effectiveness of a comprehensive watershed management plan. 7be watershed management plan must be responsive to on-going and future efforts by the federal, state, and local governments. The aforementioned research and evaluation of State and County plans & policies relevant to the study area would be the minimum effort necessary to coordinate the management objectives with other planning efforts. This includes: a. Charles County Comprehensive Plan; b. Charles County Stream Valley Management and Protection Program; C. Charles County Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances; d. Comprehensive Water and Sewerage Plan; e. County Floodplain Management, Stormwater Management, Grading and Sediment Control Ordinances; f. Maryland Nontidal-Wetland Protection Act; 9. Prince George's County -Ordinances & Policies. MAmwomAN WATERsHFD MAmGEmmvTPL4,v 6 PHASE I - PRELIMINARIES TENTATIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT WORK PLAN TASK WORK PRODUCT TIMELINE TIMELINE FY1"1 FY1992 Phase I - Concept Document Concept 09/30/91 ---------- Phase 2 - Issue Identification Issues 09/30/91 ---------- Phase 3 - Alternatives Alternatives ---------- 12/31/91 Phase 4 - Scheduling Scheduling ---------- 03/30/92 Phase 5 - Implementation Implementation ---------- 09/30/92 a) Water Resources � Monitoring Program - Program Strategy Program Adoption 09/30/91 ---------- - Program Coordinator Grant Applications 09/30/91 ---------- � Wellhead Protection Ordinance Draft Ordinance ---------- 06130/92 b) Natural Resources * RPD Ordinance Adopted Ordinance ---------- 12/30/91 * Land Trust Formation Committee Formed ---------- 12/30/91 * Resource Inventory Inventory ---------- 03/30/92 * Resource Assessment Assessment ---------- 06/30/92 c) Stormwater Management Revised SWM Ordinance Revised Ordinance ---------- 10/30/91 d) Education BMP Promoter Grant Applications 09/30/91 ---------- Long Range Strategy for Implementation Integrating the results of this tentative work program into e)dsting and proposed County programs will require nothing less then a focused and concerted effort on all parties involved. This suggests a need to identify this program as a priority initiative in order to carry the goals and objectives through to implementation. How Charles County achi&Ves this challenge will depend, in large, on the availability and procurement of funding. At this time, this makes establishing even a tentative long range strategy for implementation a bit premature. This section will be discussed in more detail in Phases 4 & 5 under Scheduling Implementation. MATTAWOMAN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN 7 PHASE I - PRELIMINARIES 11 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (Task 110) A Watershed Characteristics/Background The Mattawoman Creek watershed is located in south central Maryland and covers about 50,500 acres in Charles and Prince George's Counties (see Figure 1, Location Map). It lies within commuting distance of Washington, D.C. and satellite metropolitan, commercial and business centers. 'Me description of this watershed covers the freshwater part of the watershed above the legal tide limit. The Mattawoman Creek begins in Prince George's County, extends along the Prince George's and Charles County boundary from U.S. Route 301 west to Billingsley Road, turns south between Maryland Airport and Myrtle Grove Wildlife Refuge and empties into the Potomac River. 7le area of the creek, with associated wetlands and floodplains, has been designated as an area of Critical State Concern by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources: Mattawoman Creek is among the most important of the Potomac Basin spawning waters as its tidal and non-tidal wetlands are essential nursery areas for many species of fish. These wetland areas of the creek also support large numbers of wildlife and provide excellent habitat for diverse types of bird, plant and animal life. The watershed area has a humid continental climate with an average precipitation of 47 inches and a mean temperature of 56 degrees F annually. Maximum rainfalls occur in the summertime, although rain is fairly evenly distributed throughout the year. The growing season averages about 190 days between mid-April and mid-October. Mattawoman Creek lies in the partly dissected uplands of the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province. 'Me major soil types in the area are the Beltsville, Sassafras, and Bibb series. 'Mese unconsolidated sands, gravels, silts and clays are the source material for the soils of the Mattawoman Drainage Basin and are quite erodible when exposed. In 1970, approximately 60 percent of the watershed was wooded and about 30 percent was in agricultural use with the remainder in suburban or urban land use. About 10 percent of the watershed area has been identified as marsh and flood plain. There are 275 farms in the watershed, averaging 125 acres in size, producing corn, tobacco, soybean, and specialty crops. An additional 1500 acres of potential farmland has been identified in this watershed. The Mattawoman 100 year floodplain area covers about 5,000 acres which is about 10% of the watershed. 50 percent of the floodplain is seasonally flooded, 45 percent is occasionally flooded bottomland hardwood and wooded swamp, 5 percent is non-wooded. There are few areas of prime farmland in the floodplain, and those present occur in isolated patches. Wetlands, like floodplains perform numerous natural functions which make-thern ecologically important. 'Mey function as natural settling basins, and purify polluted waters., Wetlands are exceptionally productive wildlife habitats and also induce heavy vegetative cover which moderates temperature extremes and wind velocity. In addition, these areas can provide several recreational, scientific, and educational opportunities. Development Which is incompatible with the functions of wetlands should be strictly limited or prohibited in these areas. Swamps along the Mattawoman are included on the Smithsonian Institution's Significant Natural Areas list. The Maryland Department of State Planning identifies the Mattawoman Creek and it's tributaries as one of the most important of the Potomac Basin's spawning waters (Md. DSP, 1981). Its tidal wetlands are nursery areas for many species of fish. The Maitawoman Creek and its tributaries support moderately high populations of bluegill, largemouth bass, pickerel, catfish, and white perch. The lower reaches of the main stem also support moderate to high populations of striped bass and herring during the spawning runs and provide an important nursery area fbY striped bass. Public lands that protect portions of the Mattawoman watershed include the Myrtle Grove Wildlife Management Area, the Mattawoman Natural Environment Area, and the Cedarville State Forest. The Myrtle Grove Wildlife Management Area covers 834 acres in the southwestern part of the watershed. MATTAWOMAN WATEJ?SHFD MANAGEMENT PL4N 8 PIUSE I - PRELIMINARIES H INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (cont.) A Watershed Characteristics/Background (cont.) Wildlife diversity and habitat are moderate to excellent in numbers and quality. Tle riparian corridor is used as resting and feeding grounds for diving and dabbling ducks, geese, whistling swans, and other migratory game such as mourning dove and woodcock. The riparian zone is also established breeding territory for wood ducks and herons. 'Me relatively wide bottomland contains extensive wetlands, approximately 5,000 acres of seasonally flooded basins or flats which are dominated by hardwoods and wooded swamps. Deer, gray squirrel, cottontail rabbit, and bobwhite quail inhabit the stream valley year round, as do furbearers such as red and gray fox. raccoon, opossum, striped skunk, muskrat, otter mink, and beaver, Shorebirds, waders, songbirds, and raptors (including the osprey) are also present. The Charles County Comprehensive Plan has designated the Mattawoman watershed as a primary Development District which coincides with the Mattawoman Sewer Service Area. Thh major development district is the principle center of population, services and employment for the County, accommodating 70% - 75% of the County's population growth through the year 2010. There is some concern among watershed residents that the proposed Resource Protection District may be usurped by development or damaged by excessive siltation from construction sites. With appropriate zoning and enforcement of a watershed-wide sediment control program it is possible to maintain the Mattawoman Resource Protection District area in a relatively wild and undeveloped state. Informational sources for this study include: The Mattawoman and Tributaries Floodplain Study; the Charles County Comprehensive Plan; the Stream Valley Management and Protection Program of Charles County, and; the National Wetland Inventory compiled by the USFWS. B Interested Parties File 1.) Federal - a) U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service b) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2.) State - a) Md. Department of Natural Resources F Nontidal Wetlands Division ii Coastal Resources Division b) Water Resources Administration i Watershed Management C) Maryland Department of the Environment i Sediment and Erosion Control 3.) County - a) Planning Department b) Developmental Services C) Environmental Resources d) Data Processing M ASSESS LOCAL, STATE, and FEDERAL PROGRAMS (Task 130) [THIS SECTION IS IN DEVELOPMENT] M.4rrAwomw WArFitsHED MAmGEmEw PLAm 9 PHASE I - PRELIMINARIES PHASE 2 - ISSUE IDENTIFIC,4 TION I COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF ISSUES (Task 200) The following section summarizes issues of concern in the watershed. Since this WMP is issue driven, it follows that each of the issues identified here would have a host of recommendations and/or actions aimed at resolving or addressing these issues. 'Me common denominator in the issues presented here focus on solving present and future water quality problems and protecting the environmental features and functions of the watershed's natural resources. For the purpose of organization, these issues may be broken down into the following categories: Natural Resources Issues; Wetlands Issues; Water Resources Issues, and Stormwater Management Issues. NATURAL RESOURCES ISSUES 'Me most paramount issue, in considering the interfacing of urban growth on a pre-existing natural environment, is protecting the environmental features and functions of the watershed's natural resources while accommodating the projected developmental pressures brought on by increased growth. WETLANDS ISSUES With the heightened awareness and mandated considerations given to the protection of non-tidal wetlands @y State and Federal levels, a comprehensive WMP would seem incomplete without addressing the wetlands issue - especially in a watershed where identified wetlands account for fully 10 -15% of the watershed's area. Wetland areas in the watershed occur in the floodplain of Mattawoman Creek, along her major tributaries of Old Woman's Run and Piney Branch, and in low lying seepage areas throughout the headwaters of the stream network. They are especially prevalent where the stream course is wide, shallow and slow moving. Man-made blockages such as dams, train railroad beds, and roadways have also created wetland environments, in some areas where none have existed previously. The continued loss and degradation of wetlands due to the foreseeable development within the watershed's development district indicates a need to inventory and assess all wetlands within the watershed. T'he following list summarizes the issues which need to be addressed in the Mattawoman watershed: 1.) Comprehensive Wetland'In@rentoty@, 2.) Functional Assessment of all Wetlands; 3.) Wetland Mitigation Sites to be Located. Comprehensive Wetland Inventory The existing sources of wetland information in the Mattawoman watershed include the National Wetland Inventory and the State of Maryland Wetland Guidance Maps. It is worth noting that these e)dsting references are limited - indicating, at best, only approximate extents of nontidal wetlands. It is the intent of this comprehensive inventory that all non-tidal wetlands within the watershed be located and delineated as per the most recently adopted State and Federal definitions. AILTTAWOMW WATERSIMD MAMGEMEW PLW 10 PHASE H - ISSUE IDENTIFIC14TION WETLANDS ISSUES (cont.) Functional Assessment of Non-tidal Wetlands Although the majority of wetlands within the watershed have been identified by type, there currently exists no documentation as to what the various functional assessments are of these protected resources. This is an element which the State of Maryland requires under the recent Non-tidal Wetland Act legislation. For thi@ reason, efforts will be focused on developing a systematic assessment technique utilizing the regional manual which the DNR has produced for this purpose - Maryland WET. This suggests a need to develop a methodology utilizing available reference sources, including aerial imagery, soil maps and NWI maps, and a system of ground-truthing developed assessment. 'Me key here is to develop a functional assessments technique whereby time in the field would be minimized. The reality of staffing constraints significantly limit the ability to commit extensive field time in developing functional assessments. Identification of Wetland Mitigation Sites Another requirement of the State of Maryland is the identification of potential wetland mitigation sites within the watershed. In spite of the requirement that all developments "shall take all necessary steps to first avoid adverse impacts and then minimize loses of wetlands", there will continue to be loses of wetlands in the watershed which will require mitigation to be performed - usually at higher ratios - within the same watershed (if feasible). For this reason, a comprehensive inventory of potential mitigation sites should be performed. WATER RESOURCES ISSUES 'Me surface water quality of all rivers is defined by the inter-relationship of chemical, physical, and biological conditions of the water and the manner in which these conditions affect the various components and uses. These water quality parameters indicate whether streams, marshes and bays are generally suitable for aquatic life, human consumption, and recreational use. It comes as no surprise that one of the most viable indicators of stream health is its ability to support aquatic life. Good water quality supports designated uses and, meets water quality goals. Water quality degradation,' on the other hand, has noticeable impacts on the aquatic environment. The principal results of water degradation include bacterial contamination, oxygen depletion, algal blooms, and sediment pollution. Bacterial contamination makes waters. unsafe for swimming and for shellfish harvesting. Oxygen depletion causes fish mortality if too much dissolved oxygen is consumed in the oxidation of organic materials. Algal 'blooms' occur due to -excessive discharges of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Excessive levels of sediment suffocate stream bottoms and reduce sunlight to submerged aquatic vegetation. Water quality enhancemen t is an important priority in the State of Maryland. Water of good quality supports food chains, is necessary for safe. recreational use, and is critical to the maintenance of human health. Furthermore, the biological health of the Mattawoman Creek depends on the water quality of its tributaries. As such, improving water quality has become a major focus in the formulation of this Watershed Management Plan. MArrwwomv WArF-RsHED MAmrmmew PzAN PHASE H - ISSUE IDENTIFIC4TION WATER RESOURCES ISSUES (cont.) One of the most fundamental issues in considering the impacts of urban growth on water quality, is identifying strategies for protecting water quality while accommodating the projected developmental pressures brought on by increased growth. Water quality issues which have been identified and need to be addressed in the Mattawoman Creek watershed include: 1.) Existing and historical water quality information and interpretation inconclusive and inadequate; 2.) Point and Non-Point source pollution remain unchecked; 3.) Identifying and restoring degraded stream sections; 4.) Ensuring that adequate Well-Head Protection exists; 5.) Ensuring that the risk of Salt-Water Intrusion is addressed. Existing and historical water quality information - Existing water quality in Mattawoman Creek has been compiled from several sources. These include; The Maryland Water Quality Inventory (prepared by the Dept of Health and Mental Hygiene in 1984), the Maryland Synoptic Stream Survey (prepared by DNR in 1988), An Evaluation of Stream Liming Effects on Water Quality and Spawning of Migratory Fishes (prepared for DNR in 1989), and General Fisheries data (compiled by DNR's Monitoring and Data Management). Although the scopes of these reports are clearly not limited to the Mattawoman, they do provide a fragmented status report of stream water quality in sections of Mattawoman Creek. This information could be useful in comparing future water quality data. However, it should be noted that the fragmented nature of existing water quality data render the information inconclusive - providing the curious investigator with not much more than a "snapshot picture of selected streams water quality on a given day yesteryear. In order for this, and future water quality information to be useful, a comprehensive baseline of water quality data must be compiled and interpreted. This gives strength to the proposal, adopted by the County Commissioners'in August, 1991, for implementing a water quality monitoring program thereby giving the County a scientific basis for interpreting water quality information and trends. Existing and historical water quality information (coht.) 'Me purpose of establishing a baseline of existing water quality is to determine the status of water quality within the watershed. This will be used in order to aid in identifying water quality problem areas, pollutant sources and provide direction for corrective actions or policies. Other possible sources of water quality information include: a. State sources; DNR, WRA, USGS b. Other sources (local, special interest groups) MATTAWOMW WArEMHFD MAMGEMEW PLAN 12 PHASE II - ISSUE IDENTIFICATION WATER RESOURCES ISSUES (cont.) Point and Nonpoint source pollution With more and more emphasis being placed on controlling point and nonpoint source pollution state-wide, it follows that a comprehensive strategy should be developed in order to inventory and address this issue. Of the two, nonpoint source pollution remains the larger and more elusive culprit. Nonpoint source pollution is the by-product of a variety of land use practices, including farming, timber harvesting, mining, and construction runoff caused by urban development. It also results when rain washes pollutants in urban areas into sewer systems and storm drains (urban runoff). Agriculture accounts for the largest share of the nation's nonpoint source pollution, affecting about 50 - 70 percent of waters assessed (evaluated for water quality) through soil erosion from croplands and overgrazing, and runoff of pesticides and fertilizers. Degraded Stream Sections Degraded stream sections throughout the watershed's stream system offer mute testimony as to the impacts that increased urbanization can have on a once healthy riparian environment. Vagrant dumping, unauthorized filling, fish migration barriers, in-stream construction activity and unshaded stream sections are just a few of the more serious elements which contribute to degraded stream sections. This situation could be remedied by involving citizens in the watershed to act as the eyes and ears of the county by reporting violations and assisting with community efforts aimed at stream valley cleanups. In order to address this issue in a comprehensive manner, dump sites and other forms of degradation should be located, inventoried, characterized, prioritized and strategiezed for involving the community and possible grant funding to repair these areas. Well Hea d Protection Well heads require protection from the direct introduction of contaminants and from microbial pollution. Maryland currently has regulations directed toward protection of wells which provide minimum wellhead protection to all public water supply wells. In order to provide this protection to all private wells also, research.should be conducted utilizing the following minimum references: a. State of Maryland Wellhead Protection Program b. Existing Model Ordinances Salt Water Intrusion Long-term ground-water withdrawals have the potential of lowering ground-water levels which may lead to the directional reversing of ground-water flow in the confined aquifer sediments under the adjacent Potomac River. There is existing documentation of these flow conditions having caused river.water to intrude into parts of this confined aquifer system. In order to assess existing problems and protect the aquifer from any future salt water intrusion, existing studies should be included in the WMP. MArrAwom4m WAmKsirED MAmrEmEw PL4N 13 PHASE H - ISSUE IDENTIFIC4TION STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES The purpose of Stormwater Management is to minimize the adverse effects increased land development has on water quality and riparian resources. Land development has the potential to significantly degrade water quality in downstream receiving waters. These impacts also include stream channel erosion, local flooding, sedimentation and pollutant transportation, all of which adversely effect water quality. Adequate stormwater management is achieved through responsible planning, engineering, engineering review, construction inspection, and post-construction maintenance inspection including functional assessments of all existing stormwater management facilities and structures. The cumulative impacts caused by an omission of any of these checks may render an entire stormwater management facility inadequate. In reviewing the status of existing stormwater management planning review, construction, and inspections in Charles County, the following issues have come to light: 1) Existing subdivisions with no SWM controls 2) Existing subdivisions with inadequate SWM controls 3) Shortcomings in current Stormwater Management and Grading & Sediment Control Ordinances 4) Shortcomings in current Inspection programs 5) Inadequate stormwater hydrologic reference studies available 6) Inadequate enforcement of SWM and Sediment & Erosion Control compliance Each of these issues justify the need for a comprehensive assessment and inventory of not only existing stormwater management systems, but, perhaps more importantly, inventorying and assessing those developments which occurred prior to the adoption of the County's Stormwater Management Ordinance. The implications of such an increased work load on current staffing is staggering. Already, current divisions in Planning, Development Services (Engineering), and Inspections are operating beyond staffing capacity. 'Mis points to a definitive need to increase staffing, allocating an engineer/stormwater inspector to do storm water management exclusively. Existing subdivisions with no SWM controls The majority of developments that had proceeded the Charles County Stormwater Management (SWM) Ordinance were constructed with no SWM controls due to no regulatory requirement being in place. For this reason, these developments need to be identified, inventoried, and inspected to assess a potential need to retrofit those developments with stormwater management facilities. 'Mis would include the inventory and establishment of a database for all significant subdivision developments constructed prior to the adoption of the Ordinance. MATMWOMN WATEJtSHFD MAMOEMEW PLW 14 PHASE H - ISSUE IDENTIFIC4TION STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES (cont.) Fidsting subdivisions with inadequate SWM controls Even with the adoption of the SWM ordinance, it has become apparent that relatively few developments have constructed the SWM facilities which were initially designed. Recently, Charles County conducted a preliminary survey of existing SWM facilities and has found that approximately 70% of those SWM facilities inspected differ from those which were originally reviewed and approved by county engineers. As a result, a high number of SWM facilities or controls have proved to be inadequately suited for the development they serve. As a consequence, these facilities suffer problems with the design, construction, and are often plagued with chronic maintenance problems, and in some cases, no longer function as designed. The problem can be summarized as the tendency of development designers to fit the SWM facility to the development - often locating the facility in the residual or unusable portions of the site - rather then fit the development to the site by responding to the most logical and effective placement of the SWM facility. . This issue points to the necessity of establishing a program to inspect all developments and assess the need for creation and/or modification of stormwater management systems (retrofit candidate sites). This includes: a. Preliminary survey of existing SWM facilities through the use of checklists; b. Preliminary functional assessments of problematic SWM facilities by County engineering personnel; C@ Institute a stormwater retrofit program to provide stormwater management in existing developed areas that have inadequate stormwater controls. Evaluate County Ordinances - Stormwater Management Ordinance - Charles County recently underwent a review by the State Sediment and Stormwater Administration (SSA). The purpose of these triennial reviews is to determine whether the County is operating an acceptable stormwater management program. An acceptable program has an SSA approved Stormwater Management (SWM) Ordinance, a plan approval process that provides SWM for every land development subject .to the ordinance, the ability and. information necessary to review SWM plans adequately, and the necessary inspection and enforcement procedures that ensure the proper construction and maintenance of approved SWM measures. County staff is currently revising and updating its SWM ordinance in response to State feedback. Staff is also taking this opportunity to include several of the Watershed Management Plan strategies such as requiring urban BMPs and requiring the pretreatment of SWM facility discharge before entering wetlands, including these in the revised ordinance. A copy of this effort will be forwarded to CRD and WRA as soon as staff completes the revisions. MAruwom@o WArFRsHED MAmcEmEsT PL4N 15 PHASE II - ISSUE IDENTIFICATION STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES (cont.) Evaluate County Ordinances - Grading and Sediment Control Ordinance - Charles County's Grading and Sediment Control Ordinance offers some very well intentioned language in order to control the mounting sedimentation pollution resulting from developmental grading and construction. The ordinance requires an approved Soil and Erosion Control Plan, approved by the Charles Soil Conservation District, for most clearing and/or grading activity within the County. However, current County policy is to not take jurisdictional authority to enforce the approved Sediment & Erosion Control Plan. 77his, in effect, compromises the goals and objectives of the ordinance. To date, the County's policy of passing the burden of enforcement to the State - which is as understaffed as the County - has resulted in numerous violations remaining unchecked. Until the County takes action on this issue, continued disregard for ordinance compliance will occur resulting in further degradation to surface waters. Construction and Maintenance Inspections for SWM facilities - The shortcomings of the County's Stormwater inspection program, as documented by a recent triennial County review by the State of Maryland, is an issue which demands action. An. inventory and maintenance inspection of all private and public SWM facilities is a requirement of the State of Maryland. The Charles County SWM Ordinance which was adopted in July, 1984 requires construction and maintenance inspections of all facilities. Currently, there is no data available related to the functioning condition of existing SWM facilities. This is due to no maintenance inspection program having been implemented in the past. This points to a need for the improvement and/or revision of the County's inspection and enforcement programs which are responsible for regulating and inspecting SWM facilities. The number and/or frequency of unscheduled site inspections should be increased. This would require that manpower needs be met. In conducting and maintaining systematic SWM construction and maintenance inspections, the most limiting problem seems to be the decentralized, fragmented approach to inspecting and assessing SWM facilities. The County could do much to improve its SWM construction and maintenance inspection system by combining the SWM plan review and inspection _process to form a more focused priority program. Other jurisdictions'have combined watershed planning, engineering, inspections, and water quality monitoring in order to better-administer'the goals and objectives of their SW`M ordinance. S tormwater Hydrologic Reference Studies - The ever-increasing development pressures besetting the Mattawoman watershed demands that more attention be placed on accurately delineating the 100-year floodplain. The cur-rent resources available (such as the FEMA and SCS floodplain study) lack the detail necessary to accurately assess the extents of the floodplain on feeder streams and tributaries in this watershed. For this reason, a stormwater hydrologic study of the watershed must be conducted in order to identify potential floodplains, flood-sources and problems, predict impacts of future development, and target areas for future action. MAmwom4x WATEUUFD MAMWEMEW PL4N 16 PHASE II - ISSUE IDENTIFIC4TION II SCREEN ISSUES (Task 210) 'Me following list summarizes issues aimed at solving water quality problems in the watershed. Wetlands - 1.) Comprehensive Wetland Inventory 2.) Functional Assessment of all Wetlands 3.) Wetland Mitigation Sites to be Lzeated Water Resource - 1.) Existing and historical water quality information and interpretation inconclusive and inadequate. 2.) Point and Non-Point source pollution remain unchecked 3.) Degraded stream sections 4.) Well Head Protection 5.) Salt Water Intrusion Stormwater Management - 1) Existing subdivisions with no SWM controls 2) Existing subdivisions with inadequate SWM controls 3) Shortcomings in current Stormwater Management and Grading & Sediment. Control Ordinances- 4) Shortcomings in: current Inspection programs 5) Inadequate stormwater hydrologic reference studies available 6) Inadequate enforcement of SWM and S Iediment & Erosion 6ntrol compliance III SELECT FINAL ISSUES (Task 220) IV SET MANAGEMENT GOALS (Task 230) V RE-EXAMINE CONCEPT DOCUMENT (I7ask 240) MAruwomAN WATEj?sffED MAmGEmEw PL4,v 17 PHASE H - ISSUE IDENTIFIC4TION LAND TRUST STARTwUP D STJWAM VAU-ZY MAX4GEAlE,%7 AND PROTECTION PROGAW L,4ND TRUST START-UP IMPLEMENTATION APPENDLr D INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Mel Bridgett, County Administrator THRU: Roy E. Hancock, Deputy County Administrator, PGM FROM: George J. Maurer, Senior Environmental Planner Department of Planning (PGM) SUBJECT: Land Trust Steering Committee DATE: May 23, 1991 As per the Commissioners' work session on May 21st, I have revised the letter requesting nominees for the steering committee, (attached) and added several groups to the organizations list. I have also* changed the completion date on the steering committee charge letter to November 30, 1991. Please contact me at ext. 688 if you have any questions.about the.a.ttached.materials. 7 GM/ssa. Z. A:Steer.Comm Attachment COMMISSIONERS' LETTERHEAD Land Trust Steering Committee 1991 Charles County, MD RE: Committee Charge of Responsibilities Dear Steering Committee Members: In fulfillment of the adopted County Comprehensive Plan and in compliance with County legal agreements with the U.S. EPA and the @State pursuant to a Coastal Zone Management grant, the County is to establish a land trust and. land acquisition program. . The purpose of the steering committee is to assist the County Commissioners in deciding how and in what form a land trust should be established. -We.intend that the work of the committee provide the Commissioners with.an informed basis for decision making, and that the@outcome be the result of discussions among a group of individuals representing.a.broad cross section of Charles County.. The "steps - the committee is to follow and the issues it, is -..-to address are listed below: Steps 1. Review general information"on land.trusts, and specific material issue by issue-.- 2. Develop alternatives fo r each issue.. 3. Provide recommendations with accompanying ration'ale,for each issue. 4. Produce a report containing sections based on the issues, as well as a set of land trust articles of incorporation and bylaws. 5. Make a presentation and submit the committee report to the Commissioners by--or before November 30, 1991. Steering Committee Page 2 Issues Public vs. private form Voluntary vs. staffed Accountability to County Commissioners Land trust mission, goals, and objectives Role and vis a vis County government Funding needs and sources for start up, for continuing operations and for land acquisition Land trust name E Recommended nominees for land trust board The Charles County Commissioners wish the committee success in carrying out its charge, and thank each of its members for the voluntary service they have agreed to provide to their community * The members of the steering committee can take pride for their role in the formation of a Charles County land trust and the lasting benefits it will provide to the citizens of Charles County. Very truly' COUNTY COMMISSIONERS'OF. CHARLES COUNTY,-MARYLAND _Thomas Mac.Middleton,, President--'---- Robert J. Fuller Nancy J. Sefton Murray D. Levy Dale E. Speake THOMAS MAC MIDDLETON.PRESIDENT MELVIN S. BRIDGETT ROBERT J. FULLER C0UNTY ADMINSTRATOR MURRAY D. LEVY NANCY J. SEFTON DALE E. SPEAKE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CHARLES COUNTY P. 0. BOX B LA PLATA. MARYLAND 20646 (301-645-0550 OR D.C. 870-3000 JULY 1, 1991 Charles County Garden Club P.O. Box 1496 La Plata, Maryland 20646 Attention: Ann Jameson Dear Ms. Jameson: The Commissioners of Charles County are establishing a steering committee to develop recommendations on the creation of a Charles County land trust. A land trust is an organization devoted to the preservation of important natural historical, agricultural, and open space lands. It is capable of preserving such lands by purchase, easement, or donation. We invite your organization to .'submit up- -to three nominees for the steering committee. The attachedcharge letter outlines the tasks and steps that-- the steering committee is to complete.- The Commissioners view this as an important undertaking. The steering committee is to be a working group, and its members must-be committed to completing the committee's work. -Please provide us with two nominees within two weeks of the receipt of this letter if-possible, or within four weeks the latest. If this is not possible, contact the Charles County Commissioners at 645-0550. Please include a brief biography for each nominee (form attached). The Commissioners are requesting nominations from a wide variety of groups which' represent 'business,,. farm, recreation, historical, and environmental interests. It -is our intent to establish a broadly based committee. While we would like to select a representative to--the steering committee from each of the many groups, it will not be possible to do so for the reason of keeping the committee to a manageable size. We ask for your understanding SAY NO TO DRUGS EQUAL OPPERTUNITY COUNTY Charles County Garden Club July 1,1991 Page - 2 - if a nominee is not selected from your organization. If you have questions about the land trust or steering committee please contact George Maurer with the Charles County Planning Office at 645-0610. We look forward to receiving your nominations. Very truly, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CHARLES COUNTY, MARYLAND Thomas Mac Middleton, President Murray D. Levy Nancy J. Sefton Dale E., Speake. Attachment(s) ck ORGANIZATIONS WITH CHARLES COUNTY CHAPTERS Joan Bowling, Chair Southern Maryland. Audubon Society Wicomico/Zekiah Advisory Board George Wilmot, President % Neal Welch P.O. Box 181 DNR Capital Programs Administration Bryans Road, MD 20616 2012 Industrial Drive Annapolis, MD 21401 Quail Unlimited Forestry Board Jimmy Farmer, Chairman Bob Eaton, Chairman % Gallery Jamel P.O. Box 2746 630 Old Line Center La Plata, MD 20646 Waldorf, MD 20602 Accokeek Foundation Charles County Board of Education Wilton C. Corkern John Bloom, Superintendent 3400 Bryan Point Road P.O. Box D Accokeek, MD 20607 La Plata, MD 20646 Charles County Farm Bureau lzaak Walton League John Jarrett, President Charles County Chapter Rt. 1, Box 255 - Dudley Gardiner Nanjemoy, MD 20662 Box 248 Hughesville, MD 20637 Economic Development Commission Southern Maryland Bar Association Donald Reinke, Director Charles Bongar, President P.O. Box V P.O.Box 696 La Plata, MD. 20646 Waldorf, MD 20601 Park Board Charles County. Chamber of Commerce. Lynn Lyons Judy E. Rye 6404 Loy Dr. 516 North Highway.301 Waldorf, MD 20601- La Plata, MD '20646-11: Southern Maryland Builders Industry Assoc. Charles County-Historical Society Robert Hoier, Vice President % Charles County Community College % F.S.I. Design Group Mitchell Road, P.O. Box 910 P.O. box 1935 La Plata, MD 20646-0910 La Plata, MD 20646 Southern Maryland Trailriders Potomac Valley Dressage Association Donald Hancock, President (P.V.D.A-) 7 Maryland Trailriders-Club, Inc. 170 Oliver Shop Road P.O. Box 1318 La Plata, MD 20646 White Plains, MD 2069S Southern Maryland Quarterhorse Western Charles County P.O. Box 87 Business Association Hughesville, MD 20657 Joseph Morton, President Attention: Debbie Bussie Rt. 2, Box 197A Bryans Road, Maryland 20616 Charles County Garden Club Farm Bureau P,O. Box 1496 John W. Jarrett, President La Plata, MD 20646 Rt. 1, Box 255 Attention: Ann Jameson Nanjemoy, Maryland 20662 Port Tobacco Historical Society Waterman's Association P.O. Box 302 RR 1, Box 46 Port Tobacco, Maryland 20677 Newburg, Maryland 20664 Attention: Kathleen Blanche Attention: William Rice Southern Maryland Board of Realtors Ducks Unlimited Lyle Sackie %Pat Bowling P.O. Box 400 Bryantown, Maryland 20617 Hughesville, Maryland 20637 ORGANIZATIONS LACKING CHARLES COUNTY CHAPTERS Chesapeake Bay Foundation Potomac Fisheries Commission 162 Prince George Street P.O. Box 9 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Colonial Beach, VA 22443 Sierra Club Dwight Johnsen Potomac Chapter P.O. Box 177 Bryantown, Maryland 20617 St. Mary's City.- MD 20686 CHARLES CO. COMMISSIONERS Z 7 Appointments - Land Trust Steering Committee Motion was made by Mr. Fuller to appoint the following persons to the Charles County Land Trust Steering Committee: Wayne St. Clair James F. Farmer Stephen F. Colton David Cooksey Peggy Schaumburg Dennis Woodruff Steve Cardano Andres R. Sine Joyce Hancock Charles Ellison Gemma Theresa Nelson Rick -Hamilton. Enoch C. Bryant Eli Flam The motion was seconded by Mr. Speake and passed with all commissioners voting in favor. The Commissioners also requested that the NAACP, be contacted regarding a nominee f or the, Land Trust Steering Committee. Thomas C. Hayden, Jr. , County Attorney, and Susan P. Hathaway, Personnel Director, joined the meeting. WATER Q UALI7Y MONITORING PROGRAM STRATEGY "PENDM E SnzF-4m VAu"MANAGEmF,%TAvD PRomcnoNPRornum WATERSBED MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION APPENDJX B WATER Q UALI7Y MONITORING PROGRAM STRATEGY for CHARLES COUNTI; MARYLAND Z@ Presented for ReAew to: Prepared by. COMWISSIONERS OF CHARLES COUNTY Kevin J. Kirby Environmental Planner Thomas "Mac" Middleton Charles County Department of Nancy J. Sefton Robert J. Fuller Planning and Growth Management, Murray D. Levy Dale E. Speake- Department of Planning Editted By: Date: George J. Maurer July 30, 1991 Senior Environmental Planner TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I SUMMARY ---- - - -- - -------------- - -- - - ---- ---------- - - - 3 J1 INTRODUCTION - ---------- - ------ - ---------- - ---- 3 Iff A 711REE-77ERED APPROACH To COMPREHENSIVE MONITORING 5 IV PROGRAM MANAGEMENT - - - - - ------------ - - - - ------------ - - -- ---- _-5 V FIRST-TIER PARAMETERS, PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT ------ - ---- - ----- 7 VI SECOND-77ER PARAMETERS AND PERSONNEL --- ----- 9 V11 7HIRD-77ER PARAMETERS AND FUNCTIONS 9 ----------- ------- - - - VIII COSTANALYSIS FOR WATER QUALITY MONITOR/NG M LJABILITY ISSUES AND VOLUNTEERS ------------ - ---- - ------ -- - ---------- ----13 APPENDIX A Sample Liability Waivers --- - ------------ - ---------- - - -------- - ---- 14 APPENDIX B, Job -Description for Monitoring Coordinator ------ ___15 APPENDIX C Documentation & Resulls-of Initial Stream-Walk ---- - ------- - --- Fundirig for this Program is provided by the Coastal Resources Division, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, through a grant provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 197Z administered by the office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2 A PROPOSED WATER QUAL17Y MONITORING PROGR,4M -SUMMARY Water quality monitoring in the County's streams has been identified as a major component of Charles County's Stream Valley Management and Protection Program (SVMPP), adopted by the County Commissioners in September, 1990. Stream monitoring will establish baseline data for existing water quality, which can be compared with future water quality data to establish trends and aid in tracking water quality problem areas. In keeping with the established goals of Charles County, a three tiered approach to comprehensive stream water quality monitoring is proposed. This includes: 1) A volunteer oriented stream water quality monitoring program documenting the physical, chemical and benthic testing of palustrine stream waters; 2) Laboratory analysis of water quality which includes a more detailed technical and site specific analysis of water quality to be conducted in cases where the results of first tier sampling indicate that the quality of waters tested fall below accepted standards, and; 3) An in-stream computer monitoring station which would allow for water quality testing before, during and after crucial storm events when the true telling of a watershed's environmental health is most evident. INTRODUCTION This report represents a submittal to Coastal Resources Division (CRD) as a portion of the FY1991 grant requirements for implementing the SVMPP. 'ne purpose of the adopted SVMPP is to protect and conserve the environmental features and functions of Charles County's streams, wetlands and floodplains. "Me goal was t6- develop a comprehensive, pyogram for the environmental protection of riparian habitat and stream w*ater quality in Charles County while providing recreational and educational opportunities for its citizens. Under@the terms of the contract, this report addresses the program strategy and 'implementation techniques of the Water'Quality'Monitoring Program. Water Quality and the Aquatic Environment Water quality is an important priority in the State of Maryland.- Water of good quality supports food chains- is necessary for safe. recreational use,- and is critical to the maintenance.of human health. Furthermor;, the biological health of the Chesapeake Bay depends on the water quality of its, tributaries - 100,000 miles of them! As such, improving water quality has become 'a major focus. in the-Chesapeake Bay - initiatives, resulting in the Maryland General Assembly's Critical Area Law, enacted in 1994. The surface water quality of all rivers is defined by the inter-relationship of chemical, physical, and biological conditions of the water and the manner in -which these conditions affect the various components and uses. These water quality parameters indicate whether streams, marshes and bays are generally suitable for aquatic life, human consumption, and recreational use. Other uses defined within the State's stream '. classification system include shellfish harvesting waters, natural trout waters and recreational trout waters. It comes as no surprise that one of the most viable indicators of stream health is its ability to support aquatic life. Good water quality supports designated uses and meets water quality goals. STREAM VALLEY MANAGEmEAT PRoGRAm 3 IVA TER QVALrTY MONTOR/NG PROGR4M Water Quality and the Aquatic Environment cont.) Water quality degradation, on the other hand, has noticeable impacts on the aquatic environment. The principal results of water degradation include bacterial contamination, oxygen depletion, algal blooms, and sediment pollution. Bacterial contamination makes waters unsafe for swimming and for shellfish harvesting. Oxygen depletion causes fish mortality if too much dissolved oxygen is consumed in the oxidation of organic materials. Algal 'blooms' and other excessive growths of aquatic plants occur due to excessive discharges of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Excessive levels of sediment suffocate stream bottoms and red -, uce sunlight to submerged aquatic vegetation. During the late 1970's and early 1980's, the National Urban -Run-off Program documented differences in stormwater quality based upon predominant watershed land uses. The stu(ly showed that there were increases in particulate matter, coliform. bacteria, and oxygen demanding materials in nonpoint source runoff from construction sites, lawns, and largely impermeable surfaces such as parking lots, roof tops, and roadways associated with urbanization (MWCOG, 1983). Subsequently, there developed an increased public awareness of the importance of nonpoint source pollution in contributing to the overall decline of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries (USEPA, 1983). Much of this pollution was being carried out in runoff from agriculture and urban lands to the non-tidal portions of the Bay's tributaries, then to tidal reaches and, eventually, to the Bay itself (USEPA, 1988). Existing Water Quality Information in Charles County Existing water quality in Charles County has been compiled from several sources. These include; 'ne Maryland Water Quality Inventory (prepared by the Dept of Health and Mental Hygiene in 1984), the -Survey of Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas (prepared by DNR in 1975), the Maryland Synoptic Stream Survey (prepared by DNR in 1988), An Evaluation of Stream Liming Effects on Water Quality and Spawning of Migratory Fishes (prepared for DNR in 1989), and General Fisheries data (compiled by DNR's Monitoring and Data Management). Although the scopes of these reports are clearly not limited to Charles County, they do provide a fragmented status report of stream water quality in sections of the County. This information could be useful in comparing future water quality data. However, it should be noted that the fragmented nature of existina water qua'lity data of County streams render the information inconclusive - providing the curious investigator ...-with not much more than. a 'snapshot picture' of selected streams water quality on a given clay yesteryear. In- order. for this and future information to be useful to the _' County, @ a aseline of water quality comprehensive b T data must be-compiled and interpretedi A" 'Th' ovides justification for !S-.,- pr implementing --a comprehensive - water quality monitoring. program. This will give the county a scientific basis for identifying water quality problems and trends. Robot* 012. With environmental awareness growing, in our community, the timing is perfect for proposing an avenue for public ban; participation in water quality monitoring. Monitoring by citizens in our County could be a tremendous asset not jtist in terms of assistance in compiling water quality data, but in acting as the eyes and ears of an environmentally conscience community. STRE,01 I-ALLEY MAAAGEMEAT PROG"AW 4 IIA TER QLAUTY AJONrTORING PROGRAW A TIIREE-TIERED APPROACH TO COMPREHENSIVE MONITORING Water quality monitoring in the County's streams has been identified as a major component of Charles County's Stream Valley Management and Protection Program, adopted by the County Commissioners in September, 1990. Stream monitoring will establish baseline data for existing water quality, which can be compared with future water quality data to establish trends and aid in tracking water quality problem areas. In keeping with the established goals of Charles County, a three tiered approach to comprehensive stream water quality monitoring is proposed. This includes: 1st Tier - Citizen (and Public School) Monitoring Program A two-part volunteer oriented stream water quality monitoring program documenting: Physical, chemical and benthic testing of palustrine stream waters and; Physical & chemical testing of esturine waters. 'Me sampling for benthic organisms will occur on a tri-annual basis; once in early spring, late summer, and again in late fall. The testing of physical and chemical parameters will be done concurrently with the benthic sampling in addition to ongoing monthly testing. This testing will quantify water quality trends and identify stream segments with water quality problems. Key playprs in establishing a viable citizen monitoring program include: 1) a Monitoring Coordinator; 2) core, volunteer Team Leaders (see discussion under Personnel, Parameters and Equipment for First-Tier water quality testing); and 3) public schools including educators in environmental education programs. 2nd Tier - Uboratory Analysis As needs dictate from the results of the First-Tier monitoring, a more detailed technical and site specific analysis of water quality would be in order. In addition to testing all the first-tier parameters, the contractor and/or County may choose to test additional parameters such as heavy metals (see discussion. under Second Tier Parameters). 3rd Tier - In-Stream Computer Monitoring In-stream computer monitoring is one of the most comprehensive methods of testing water quality in order to track probable sources at a specific site over a long period. This allows for water quality testing before, during and after crucial storm events when the true telling of a watershed's environmental. health is most evident. It is during these storm events that the majority of nutrients and sediment enter the watersheds stream system. In addition to testing water quality with the full range of laboratory analysis including heavy metals, information pertaining to peak-discharge flows and corresponding precipitation data would be available. It is worth noting that Anne Arundel County's Instrearn Water Quality Monitoring Program has enjoyed tremendous success and has provided- invaluable -information with regard to non-point source pollution tracking. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT Data Management The data gathered through this program would be computerized and stored according to geographic' location ( i.e. specific locationAvatershed ) on an appropriate soft-ware package such as d-Base. Raw data would be compiled and interpreted by producing descriptive statistics which compare water quality data with adopted standards. Water quality trends and problems would be identified and summarized in an annual statistical report containing tables, charts, and graphs. By adopting acceptable water quality ranges for each of the parameters noted, a red flag would go up when water quality data falls outside these ranges. Monitoring will allow for the identification of water quality trends and- problems as they occur from year to year. STRFLW VAU" AUMGEM&Vr PROGPAM 5 111A TER QUALRY MONIrORING AROG"V PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ( cont.) Base Line Data In order to establish a comprehensive baseline of existing water quality data each sampling station would be tested once monthly during the first year. In addition, parameters should be tested at each station after significant storm events. The data that is collected during this initial year ( and following years ) will be entered into a data management software package, assessed and interpreted to ascertain what the status is of our County's strea ms. The baseline results, after interpretation, will dictate where to place later research emphasis. This will be based on those sampling sites which exhibit on unusual spectrum of water quality data - sites where the tested water quality falls outside of the accepted norms. Usage of Water Quality Monitoring Information This water quality data is to be used to track water quality trends in Charles County. By systematic investigation of water quality, existing conditions can be documented and interpreted, areas requiring more intensive analysis can be identified, and areas requiring restoration can be identified. Local users of the data may include County agencies such as the Department of Health and the Department of Planning. State agencies such as DNR's Fisheries and Habitat Assessment Divisions and MDE's Water Resources Administration have also expressed an interest in utilizing local data on water quality. Citizen monitoring data would also be valuable to the citizens of the County, especially those residents on whose creeks monitoring is taking place in that it would frequently be the only documented water quality information available for those creeks. By analyzing the data and determining the probable causes and sources of water quality degradation, measures can be taken to correct the problem - be it a construction site with inadequate sediment fencing or an existing development that may be a prime candidate site for BMP retro-fitting. Monitoring would provide a means for -the County to assess and address the impacts associated with improper complianct, of State and County developmentregulations- (such as sediment and 'erosion control, stormwater management). This data could be utilized as. a tool to detect problems that,may require the attention of various inspection and enforcement agencies. Monitoring can give regulatory agencies a statistical basis by which to assess. environmental impacts with respect to water quality and further the County's goal of maintaining good water quality. Sampling Stations- The locations of key, benthic, water quality sampling stations should be placed at strategic. points. within the watershed's stream system. Criteria for sampling site selection would be based on accessibility to the site (both parking and stream access), on-site @onditions (i.e., adequate gravel beds for benthic sampling), and geographic positioning within the watershed. The program's initial sampling sites will focus in the county's development district watersheds. For instance, in the Mattawoman Creek watershed, where intense urban development can be expected to occur, sampling stations would most effectively be placed at periodic intervals all along the main stem and at strategic locations along the major tributaries ( Old Woman's Run and Piney Branch ). In a more rural setting, such as the Nanjernoy watershed, perhaps as few as two or three sampling stations along the mainstem would be sufficient. Sampling stations should, wherever possible, be selected with consideration given to such elements as point discharge points, and intense residential development. The locations of ongoing monthly chemical and physical sampling stations may be selected based on the ease and accessibility to the site with respect to the individual stream sampler. Citizens participating may wish to run monthly water quality tests in their backyard streams and docks therSby providing the program with a broader spectrum of existing water quality conditions County-wide. This continuous, monthly sampling by citizen monitors would provide a documented basis for detecting changes in stream water quality after the initial baseline of data is established. STR&W MALI" MMGEMENT PROGRAM 6 IVA TER QVAU" MONMRING PROG"V FIRST-TIER PARAMETERS, PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT First-Tier Sampling Parameters These physical parameters are derived from Standard Methods for the Eranlination of Water and Wastewater, by the American Public Health Association. These parameters have been selected based on volunteer ability, existing Quality Control Assurance literature, and equipment budgeting. Minimum data to be collected in the first-tier monitoring includes: Alkalinity- Alkalinity is a measure of a stream's capacity to neutralize acids. The alkalinity of natural waters is due primarily to the salts of acids, although bases may also contribute. Such substances act as buffers to resist a drop in pli resulting in acid addition (such as acidic soils or "acid rain"). Alkalinity is thus a measure of the streams buffering capacity and in this sense is used to a great extent in the testing of stream waters. Biological There are four groups of insects which should be present in all streams: stone flies, Indicators may flies, caddies flies and true flies. Generally, the stone flies are the most sensitive to pollution, followed by the may flies, then the caddis flies, with the true flies tolerating highly contaminated waters. Seasonal stream surveys of aquatic insects will be conducted on a tri-annual basis in coordination with the public schools, Maryland Save Our Streams, and the citizens monitoring program. Dissolved Dissolved Oxygen (DO) levels in natural waters depend on the physical, Oxygen chemical, and biochemical activities in the water body. The analysis for DO is a key test in water pollution and waste treatment process control. In streams, low DO levels usually signify a heavy loading of decomposing organic matter -which in turn results in high Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD). High BOD in a stream system sets into motion biological and chemical processes which lead to severe oxygen loss, or hypoxia. Depending'_on temperature,, waterflow and other environmental conditions, hypoxia or even anoxia (total absence of oxygen) can result, leaving bottom waters all but uninhabitable by normal fauna. Nutrients Nutrient levels of total Phosphorus and.t.otal Nitrogen will be tested. Nitrogen and Phosphorus are found naturally- in the environment and are also used extensively in chemical fertilizers. When found in excess of natural conditions in streams and estuaries, these nutrients cause the rapid growth of algae - algal blooms - to occur. This reduces light to SAV, and leads to oxygen depletion in the stream system. pH Value pH (hydrogen ion concentration) is one of the most important and frequently used tests in water chemistry. pH is used in alkalinity and carbon dioxide and many other acid-base equilibria. At a given temperature the intensity of the- acidic or basic character of a solution is indicated by hydrogen ion activity. Natural waters usually- have pH values in the range of 4 - 9, and most are slightly basic because of the presence of bicarbonates and alkaline earth metals. The neutral pointis pH.7.5. Temperature - Temperature readings are used in the calculation of various forms of alkalinity, in studies of saturation and stability with respect to calcium carbonate, and in the calculation of salinity.- In stream water studies, water. temperatures as a function of depth are often required. Turbidity - Turbidity is an expression of the optical property that causes light to be scattered and absorbed rather than transmitted in straight lines througlL a water sample. Turbidity in water is caused by suspended matter, such as clay, silt, plankton and other microscopic organisms. The clarity of water is a major determinant of the condition and productivity of the system. Reduced light affects aquatic plants, reducing the plants ability to photosynthesize. Excessive levels of sediment suffocate stream bottoms and spawning areas. STREW VALLEY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 7 IVA TER QUAL17Y MONTTOR11VG PROGRAM FI RST-TIER PARAMETERS, PERSONNEL ANI) EQUIPNIE-NT Personnel Monitoring Coordinator The Monitoring Coordinator is proposed to be a half-time position, working for the Charles County Department of Environmental Resources. Among the Monitoring Coordinator's duties would be to: coordinate the overall program; coordinate team leaders, volunteer recruitment and training; determine sampling locations; maintain and disburse test equipment; receive, compile, and interpret data; check for accuracy of data and conduct quality control checks; and publish an annual report. See appendix A for a proposed Stream Water Quality Monitoring qordinator position description. This half-time position could be combined with a half-time sludge coordinator position that has been under discussion. Both responsibilities involve water testing and data recordation. Volunteer Team Leaders The Volunteer Team Leaders would act as watershed coordinators, organizing volunteer efforts within their respective watersheds. These Team Leaders may originate from County Government, including schools and/or local environmental organizations such as the Izzak Walton League, or anyone that may have the willingness to take on the responsibility and work in conjunction with the County and State in establishing an on-going water quality monitoring program. Non-Tidal Streams Monitoring Parameters & Equipment Physical/Chemical Analysis The testing of water would be done by volunteers on a weekly, or even monthly basis. A procedural manual and data sheets would accompany the test equipment. These parameters have been selected based on volunteer ability, existing Quality Control Assurance literature, and equipment budgeting. Para .meter- - Equipment Unit of Measurement Cost 1.) Alkalinity. LaMotte Alkalinity kit ppm 1-7.15 2.) Dissolved Oxygen; LaMotte. titration kit PPM 26.75 3.) Temperature; LaMotte armored thermometer degrees Celsius 15.00 4.) "Turbidity;. LaMotte turbidity test kit NTU 23.45 5.) Nitrate; LaMoue -nutrient test kit ppm 37.90 .6-) -_pH; -UM.otte test kit .(wide range).-,-. p@i units 21.60 141.85 Aquatic Insect Sampling Among the best indi cators ofwater quality are the b iological organisms (or lack there-of) which inhahit a stream. Seasonal or tri-annual assessment of water quality through biological sampling or insect counts, will give-accurate determinations of stream health and begin to pin-point possible causes of poor water quality. For instance, because chemical spills are of a transitory nature, all evidence of an incident may wash away before a scheduled chemical testing of water quality. With biological testing, although the contaminant may be gone, its effects will be evident in the absence or change in insect populations. Save Our Streams, which is a non-profit organization that provides environmental information to individuals and groups, has an excellent program developed for volunteers which provides accurate assessment of water quality by aquatic insect inventories (referred to as bio-indicators). Parameter Equipment Unit of Measurement Cost 1.) Bio/indicators Kick Seine Insect Diversity/Sq. Meter 25.00 STRFAU VALLff AMNAGEMENr PROGRAM 8 HA TER QUALM MONTORING PROGRAM FIRST-TIER PERSONNEL, PARAMETERS AND EQUIPMENT (Cont.) Tidal Waters Monitoring Parameters & Equipment Physical/Chemical Analysis In order to assess water quality in tidal waters, a different set of chemical and physical parameters is necessary then those utilized in the testing of non-tidal waters. These parameters have been selected b 'ased on volunteer ability, existing Quality Control Assurance literature, and equipment budgeting. Parameter Equipment Unit of MeasurenWnt Cost 1.) Alkalinity LaMotte Alkalinity kit PPM 17.15 2.) Dissolved Oxygen; LaMotte titration kit PPM 26.75 3.) pH; LaMotte test kit (wide range) pH units 21.60 4.) Salinity Fisher Hydrometer ppt 22.35. 5.) Temperature; LaMotte armored thermometer degrees Celsius 15.00 6.) Water Clarity Secchi Disk inches 23.35 $ 126.20 SECOND-TIER PERSONNEL AND PARAMETERS In cases where the results of first tier sampling indicate that the quality of waters tested fall below accepted standards, a more detailed technical and site specific analysis of water quality may be in order.. A number of options exist in determining who will conduct these more rigorous water quality testing parameters. The County could choose to contract the work out to a qualified consultant or expand the existing facilities in-house at the Maitawoman Treatmen It Plant ( see attached cost estimate )..' In-addition to testing all the first-tier parameters, the contractor and/or County may choose to test additional parameters such as: 1.) -Nutrients P-total, P-ortho, ammonia, nitrite, nitrate 2.)-- --Total -Colifbrm@ Bacteria 3.) Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 4.)-. jotal Suspended Solids (TSS) 5.) Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 6.)' Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) THIRD-TIER FUNCTIONS AND PARAMETERS In certain watersheds of the county, continual environmental impacts resulting in water quality degradation may warrant the establishment of a more comprehensive water quality monitoring station. An in-stream computer monitoring program may be established in order to follow water quality as far downstream as possible in the non-tidal portion of County streams. This computerized, remote monitor will conduct both monthly baseflow samples and automated flow and water sampling during individual storm events. Both stream flows and water column concentrations will be measured during* crucial. storm events as well as monthly sampling. When the streams exceed a pre-determined cfs discharge, an automated water sampler would begin pumping pre-programed volumes from the stream into a refrigerated composite sample pontainer. Water sampling would then continue at equal volumes of accumulated flow during a storm, providing flow-weighted results. Sampling would be terminated when the stream stage decreased below a criterion height. STRFAM VALLff AW"GEMENT PROGA4M 9 WA TER QUALM HONTMUNG PROG)UM THIRD-TIER FUNCTIONS AND PARAMETERS (cont.) The station set-up, as illustrated in Figure 1, shows the equipment housed inside a weather-proof fiberglass shelter with a rain gauge mounted on an adjacent pole. The rain gauge and the stream stage measuring device (the pressure transducer) would provide input to a portable microcomputer. The microcomputer would control water sampling during storm events, as well as storing rainfall, stage, flow, and sampling data. Possible funding sources for an in-stream computer monitoring station's purchase, operation and maintenance may be through funds generated in stormwater utility districts. Other funding possibilities include applying for specific grants through MDE, WRA and DNR where water quality monitoring has been identified as a State priority. AUTOMATED MONITORING STATION BA CTLR AC AC-AUTOMATING CURRENT CTLR-CONTROLLER SALEVENT ACCUMULATION PTS 6qL0qJ Stream FIGURE 1 The Automated Stream Monitoring Station 10 COST ANALYSIS FOR WATER QUALITY MONITORING A cost analysis has been performed on the three tiers of the proposed water quality monitoring program. Ist Tier - Citizen (and Public School) Monitoring Program 'Me costs associated with initiating the Citizen Monitoring Program may be broken down to personnel, test equipment, and misc. support (printing) expenditures. Monitoring Coordinator (1/2 time position) ---------------- ------ S12,000 Test Equipment (20 complete sets) ----------------------- S5,600 Misc. support (base-line soft ware, printing) ----------------------- S 30D $17,900 2no Tier - Laboratory Analysis These are two possible scenarios to consider in compiling a quantitative and qualitative laboratory analysis of water quality. 1) Establish an in-house stream water quality division to perform water quality testing at the Charles County central water quality lab; II) Use a consultant to do the water quality testing on a contractual basis; A comparison has been done between scenario 1,establishing an in-house capability, and scenario II, consultant services. The full cost estimate reports submitted by the Mattawoman facility and Chesapeake Analytical Laboratory, Inc. are documented in the following pages., For comparative analysis of thelwo submittals, figures have been computed reflecting relative annual costs. for water quality. analysis, of 50 sites tested on- a monthly- ba sis. Scenario I - In-house YEAR 1 FUTURE YEARS Mattawoman Facility - Capital Outlay (once only) ------ ------- $19,700. Field Servir&s ------------------------------- $24,000. $24,000. Lab Services ---------------------------------- $23,200. S 232W. $66,900. $47,200. Scenario II - Consultant - Chesapeake AnalyticalLaboratory - Field Services -------------------------------- S30,000. S 30,000. Lab Services - ---------------------------------- S32,400. S 32,400. $62,400. 62,400. 3rd Tier - In-Stream Computer Monitoring 'Me in-stream computer monitor,is notably the most costly. But then, you get what you pay for - the most comprehensive analysis of stream water quality available. It should be noted that the most costly component of this tier is that of professional consultant services, instrumental in setting-up the monitoring station and interpreting the generated data. The relative cost for these monitoring stations and consultant services per station are as follows: Consultant Services --------------------------------- S 30,000 Equipment & Structure -------------------------------- S 17,000 $ 47,000 STREAM VALLEY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM WA TER QLULJTY MONrrORING PROGAAM COST ANALYSIS FOR NvATi.-IR QUALITY MONITORING (cont.) Conclusions The First Tier, while exhibiting the most attractive cost to the county by using volunteers, would require coordination of efforts between the County, the Community College's environmental training center, the public school's environmental education center, and established volunteer organizations such as Save Our Streams. There are a number of useful roles that may be played by adult volunteers and motivated students in our community. These include doing analysis in the field with portable test equipment, collecting and managing data for subsequent input into the County's water quality data bank, and collecting field samples for delivery to a lab as a possible assistance to Tier II monitoring. These are all potentially attractive roles for public spirited, and environmentally conscious citizens. The disadvantages and/or challenges of utilizing volunteer groups for sample collection is that of assuring quality control. If -the sampling collection is done improperly, the data integrity would be compromised. In comparing the Second Tier Scenarios I & II in laboratory water quality testing, it is worth noting that the capital outlay for needed equipment ( vehicle, test equipment, etc. ) reflected in the Mattawoman Facility figures will only occur at the onset of the program. An annual cost of approximately $47,200. can be expected in subsequent years after the initial start-up costs. Tier III, while exhibiting the most cost to the County also offers the most comprehensive analysis of water, quality.. Possible funding sources for an in-stream computer monitoring station's purchase, operation and maintenance may be through revinue generated by a stormwater utility district tax. Other funding possibilities include applying for specific grants through MDE, WRA and DNR where water quality monitoring has been identified as a State priority. SrRF-4U VALLEY M4MGEMF.Vr PROG)UM 12 11A TER Q UALITY A10Nn-oju,%,G PRoG"v LIABILI'IY ISSUES AND VOLUNTEERS As with any program involving volunteers, the issues regarding liability and compensation must be examined. While participating in an event, a volunteer could become injured and require medical treatment. A volunteer also could be sued for damages by a property owncr as a result of carrying out their duties on behalf of a government entity. Finally, a volunteer could sue the County for damages in connection with volunteer activities. In Maryland, broad based protection for volunteers was embodied in the Local Government Tort Claims Act (LGTC) for actions arising from events on or after July 1, 1987. The LGTC applies to local government employees which are defined to include "a volunteer who, at the request of the local government, and under its control and direction, was providing services or performing dpties". The statute requires that, as a local government volunteer, they will be provided with legal defense in any actions that alleges damages resulting from tortious acts or omissions committed within the scope of volunteer work with the local government. Unless a valid claim can be made under the Maryland Tort Claims Act, volunteers will not be allowed to file a suit against the State (County) because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. There exist, however, other possible means for volunteers to be compensated for injuries received during the course of their services for the County. One possibility may be an "umbrella" coverage extended to volunteers under the County's liability insurance. Another strategy may be to obtain coverage specifically for volunteers participating in this program. A third possibility is to draft a waiver of liability, absolving the County from any risks and liability (see Appendix A, sample liability waiver). This last strategy is the least desireable due to the general legal transparency of a liability waiver. A recommended strategy in lessening the potential for an injury is to insure that adequate training is provided to volunteers prior to "getting,their feet wet". Most of these proposed sampling parameters will require. technical training, particularly where test instrumentation, sample preservation, and data analysis are concerned. A generous. offer. has been extended -to the County by the Director of the Maryland Center for.Environmental Training (MCET) whereby the water quality monitoring program may co tint oh utilizing the MCET,facilities as a training s ite for v61 unte ers, and as a stagin g area for use on days of benthic water testing/sampling. Possibilities to include in the training program include a mini- series focusing on all aspects of the volunteer water quality monitoring effort. Liabilit y Insurance- Coverage for Volunteers. Through the Volunteer Insurance Service (VIS) Association, it is possible to obtain insurance for -injuries or d6a-t -h resulting from accidents occurring as a result of volunteer services. Details may be obtained from. VIS, a national nonprofit organization (Source: Volunteers and the Law in Maryland). Maryland's- Workers' Compensation Act As a general matter, volunteers are not covered under the Workers' Compensation Act. To be covered by the Act, one must be an "employee" which is defined generally as someone receiving remuneration or payment for his or her services (Source: Volunteers and the Law in Maryland). SrRFAH;1ALLEYht4MGEMENTPR0G&4M 13 WATER QUtLM MOSM0JUNG PROGJUM APPENDIX A IMPORTANT LIABILITY NOTE - The Charles County Department of Planning and Growth Management (PGM) intends that citizen volunteers participating in this program are not acting on behalf of PGM in any official capacity. As such, it is the Department's intent that citizen volunteers are not authorized to be considered agents, employees, or representatives of the Department for any purpose, and that citizen volunteers are not entitled to the same benefits enjoyed by Department employees. Citizen volunteers must recognize the potential for injury to themselves and their real and personal property, and to other persons and their real and personal property, which may 'Tesult from citizen volunteer activities conducted under the Citizens Stream Water Quality Monitoring Program. The Department intends that citizen volunteers expressly assume all risks and liability for any injuries to, or caused by, citizen volunteers under this program. Citizen volunteers will be instructed in proper sampling techniques and handling of sampling chemicals. They will also be cautioned that if there is ever any doubt, they should give safety priority over sampling. Every participant will also receive a copy of the water quality monitoring strategy and sampling procedures. SAMPLE LANGUAGE FOR LIABILITY WAIVE, R In consideration of the foregoing, 1, myself, my heirs and executors do hereby release and discharge all Charles County Citizen Water Quality Monitoring Program supporting organizations for all claims, damages demands, actions, and whatsoever in any.manner arising or growing out of my'participation in said monitoring program SAMPLE LANGUAGE TO ACKNOWLEDGE TRAINING AND ORIENTATION 1, the undersigned, having received an orientational training in the proper use and procedures of ''water quality -dat a. collection techniques, do hereby acknowledge the potential hazards involved with reckless or unsafe handling of chemical reagents involved.with the testing of water quality. Signaturd:7 Date: Parent or Guardian: (If a volunteer is under 18 years of age, a parent or guardian must sign the waiver) SrRFAM VALLEY MAWGEMEJVr PROGJUM 14 WA TER QUALITY MOSTrONNG PROGMU APPENDIX 11 CHARLES COUNTY GOVERNMENT JOB DESCRIPTION (Proposed) JOB TITLE: Stream Water Quality Monitoring Coordinator DEPARTMENT: Planning and Growth Management DIVISION: Environmental Resources SUPERVISORY RELATIONSHIP: Reports To: Environmental Resources Director PRIMARY PURPOSE OF JOB: Performs a variety of administrative and technical duties relative to a county-wide stream water quality monitoring program. REQUIRED KNOWLEDGE, EDUCATION, SKILL: 1. Bachelors degree in Biology, Ecology, Marine Science or related field or an equivalent combination o f experience and training which provides the required knowledge, skills and abilities. 2. -Class "D" drivers license Maryland.., 3. Knowledge of various State and Federal water quality regulations. 4. Knowledge ofthe use of standard office equipment/machines. 5. Interpersonal skills.and public relations. DUTIES: 30% 1. Coordinates team leaders, volunteer recruitment and training. 20% 2. Receives, compiles, and interprets water quality-data. 15% 3. Disseminates information to the public, other County, State and Federal agencies. 15% 4. Conducts quality control checks.' 5% 5. Checks for accuracy of water.quality data. 5% 6. Determines. sampling locations. 5% 7. Maintains and dispenses test equipment. 5% 1* Performs other related duties as assigned. ACCOUNTABILITY: Is accountable for the complete, prompt and effective performance of all assigned duties and the compliance with County policies and procedures. STREAM VALLEY H&UGEHENr PROGRAM 15 IMM QUALM MOV1TORXG PROGRAM CHARLES COUNTY AND MARYLAND SAVE OUR STREAMS NEED YOUR HELP IN MONITORING MATTAWOMAN CREEK Sunday, May 12, 10:00 am to 3:30 pm Charles County citizens will begin ongoing stream valley monitoring of Mattawoman Creek. This monitoring project will commence a citizen/government watch of the Mattawoman to establish a data baseline of existing water quality. Once established, the data can be compared with future water trends in order to keep track of the Mattawoman's stream health. **Training will be held at Charles County Community College in the Environmental Training Center **Learn how to determine water quality by collecting aquatic insects using kick-seining techniques. **Learn how you can Adopt-A-Stream in your neighborhood! "Join Charles County citizens along with Maryland Save Our Streams in helping to restore and preserve our waterways. This event is free and open to the public. To pre-register please contact Kevin Kirby at 645-0610 ADOPT-A-STREAM 1658 STREAM VALLEY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 16 WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM APPENDIX C WATER QUALITY MONITORING FIELD DATA SHEET Please complete a separate data form for each assessment and at each site. Assessment Date: Sampling Station Number: Name(s) of Assessor(s): Stream Name: Stream Location (use map coordinates if possible): Organizational Affiliation: Number of: Stoneflies Mayflies Caddisflies Other organisms Total Number of Organisms Describe other organisms: How would you rate the quality of the stream at this point? Please circle one: a. Excellent, b. Good. c. Fair d. Poor If you rated the stream fair or poor, what do you think is the cause of the pollution? Water Color: Please Circle One:. a. medium brown b. dark brown c. reddish brown d. green brown e. yellow brown f. green g. other (describe) Water Odor: Please Circle One: a. sewage b. oily c. musky d. fishy e. rotten eggs f. none g. chlorine h. other(describe) Black color on deeply imbedded stones? YES NO Major land use visible from your sampling station: Please Circle One: a. forest b. residential c. commercial d. institutional e. industrial f. pasture g. other STREAM VALLEY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 17 WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM APPENDIX C WATER QUALITY A10NITORING FIELD DATA SHEET Data compiled by: V-J Date collected: I t-7 K,@- Air Temp: Watershed. f-7/i,-T @k e,l er,- /I Win d Direction: Station: PARAM1ETERS UNJT MEASUREMENTS Alkalinity PPM Dissolved Oxygen PPM Temperature., -C- Turbidity---., NTU Nitrate' PPM. d b,. pH pH Conclusions Overall water quality at this location appears good based on the preliminary inventory of aquatic insects present. Although we were unable Z> to test the entire host of first tier parameters (due to unavailable equipment) the chemical parameters tested indicate acceptable levels. STRFAM VALLEY MMGEMENT PROGJUM 18 11A TER QUAU77 MONUMUNG PROGRAM CH ES COUNTY GOVERNMENT Plan 'g and Growth Management ROY E. HANCOCK, Deputy County Administrator 1656 September 30, 1991 Mr. Gary 11odge Tri-County Council P.O. Box 1634 Charlotte Hall, Md. 20622 Dear Mr. Hodge, 'Mis letter is a follow-up to a letter you have received from the Charles County Commissioners seeking your endorsement for grant funding for use in association with water quality programs as authorized. under section 2050) and 604(B) of the Clean Water Act (copy of letter attached). 'Me County wishes to obtain grant funds for the creation of a position to staff the County's water quality monitoring program. To help the County obtain grant funds we would like an endorsement letter from Tri-County Council to submit with our application. The Federal Clean Water Act stipulates that at least 40% of 2050) funds allotted to each State be used by "substate" agencies for water quality planning and assessment. The Act further clarifies that activities such as.water quality investigations, water quality planning and water quality monitoring would qualify for these planning grant funds. The Maryland Department of the Environment, having taken a lead role in administering these.funds state-wide, has indicated a priority in.terest-in "...assessments of point and non- point source p9llutaIntj including nutrient loads.to -the ChesapeakeBay or its tributaries". Discussions with contacts'at th6.federal funding level (EPA) have indicated that in order for "substate" (county) agencies to apply for.these gTapts, they must be. sponsored by a State or Re ional agency. This includes Tri-County .9 Council. Tlis program isIn keeping with other established priorities in MDE's specific Areas of interest in utilizing these ftinds:._'.._These include:. assessment of small creek and estuary reclarnation ne@ds; and efforts to improve the targeting and tracking of non-point source "best management techniques". 'Me requested funding of S32,500 covers the salary and fringe costs of a new full-time position for managing the Water -Quality Monitoring Program. A proposal sheet and a copy of the program strategy is attached for your information. We intend to formally. sub imt a pre-proposal to Mr. J. L. Hearn, Director, Water -ManagementAdmin.istration at- 2500 Broening Highway, Baltimore, Md 21224, with your letter of endorsement, for consideration of 2050) funding during the FY1992 cycle. 'Mank you for your assistance in this matter. Please feel free to contact Kevin Kirby of my staff at 645-0610 if you have any questions regarding the program strategy or this request. Sincerely, 0 ly -0 q u ri@S@Zh a I Director of Planning Attachments Water Quality Program Strategy KJKI SAY NO TO DRUGS Post Office Box B ba Plata, Maryland 20646 (301) 645-06 10 or 870-3935 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COUNTY PROPOSAL STATEMENT SHEET Purpose in Seeking Grant Funding - Charles County wishes to establish a water quality monitoring program in order to establish a data base of existing stream water quality and to track trends in water quality, especially in those areas identified within the County's development district. Grant Source - As authorized under section 2050) and 604(B) of the Clean Water Act; administered federally by the Environmental Protection Agency; administered state-wide by the Water Management Administration, Maryland Department of the Environment. Grant Request - Charles County's purpose in obtaining grant funding is for the creation of a full-time position in Charles County Government which would manage the adopted Water Quality Monitoring Program (see Monitoring Coordinator position description on page'15 of the attached program strategy)..' Total cost for funding this position (including salary and fringe) is S32,500. Among the Monitoring Coordinator's. Zuties th fi' would be to: coordinate. the .overall program including-, e rst. year coordinating team leaders, volunteer recruitment and training; determine sampling locations; maintain and..disburse test equipment; receive, compile, and interpret data; check for accuracy of, data as well is conduct quality control checks; and'p@blish an annual report. ill I I -I - 3 6668 14103 L I I I I I I I I I I i -1 I I I I i I I