Maryland & Rark Book Room University Of Maryland LiBRARii College Park. Md. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2010 with funding from Lyrasis IVIembers and Sloan Foundation http://www.archive.org/details/wetlandsinmaryla157metz Wetlands in Maryland Map is in map collection with map no.^ i Ches. Bay 21 DEPARTMENT OF STATE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Sincere appreciation is expressed to the members of the Wetlands Technical Advisory Committee for their unfailing interest, support and contributions to the study which made the production of this report possible. During the course of this study other persons too numerous to mention were contacted for information, publication requests, etc. Their cooperation and contributions are acknowledged and appreciated greatly. Credit for major supportive efforts in the actual production of this report is due to George T. Evans for illustrative work and the clerical and editorial assistance of Mmes. Frances Marchlinus, Pat Russell and Sue Schildwachter. Also, the supervision and assis- tance of Dr. Albert R. MiUer, Jr. was a most valuable contribution. Finally, appreciation is due to Miss Ann Szymkowicz for the fine illustration of wetlands and associated biological life which graces the cover of this report, and to Dr. L. Eugene Cronin, Director, Natural Resources Institute, for permission to use it. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF STATE PLANNING 1103STATE OFFICE BUILDING BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201 Publication No. 157 September 1973 STATE OF MARYLAND Marvin Mandel, Governor Department of Natural Resources Department of Community and Economic Development James B. Coulter, Secretary Edmund F. Rovner, Secretary Department of State Planning Vladimir Wahbe, Secretary WETLANDS IN MARYLAND by Roy G. Metzgar Natural Resources Planner Department of State Planning Prepared in cooperation with the member agencies of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Community and Economic Development, and the other members of the Wetlands Technical Advisory Committee. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Department of State Planning (301) 383-2455 HC ■folia maryland Department of State Planning 301 WEST PRESTON STREET VLADIMIR A. WAHBE MARVIN MANDEL BALTIMORE. MAR YLAN D 21201 secretary or state planning TELEPHONE 301.383-2451 EDWIN L. POWELL, JR. GOVERNOR DEPUTY SECRETARY August 31, 1973 The Honorable Marvin Mandel The State House Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Dear Governor Mandel: We are pleased to transmit herevfith the report entitled. Wetlands in Maryland, vriiich was prepared in partial ful-fillment of House Joint Resolution No. 2 (1967) o The Resolution called upon our predecessor agencies to "prepare a detailed long-term plan for the optimum use of wetlands in the State of Maryland." Although wetlands legislation was enacted prior to the formal completion of this report, much of the information it contained was importantly taken into account in the drafting of Maryland's wetlands law. Since passage of the wetlands law and subsequent implementing activities in accordance with it, there have been continuing requests for the earlier draft version of this report which was distributed on a very limited basis. In order to satisfy both professional and public interest and to provide an historical reference on the Department of Natural Resources' ongoing wetlands management program, addressed as it is to providing a detailed long-term plan for optimum use of State and private wetlands, this report has been published for distribution o As will be noted, the report's findings and recommendations reflect to a large degree the resource management situation existing in our State as regards wetlands prior to important steps taken by your administration, the Maryland General Assembly, and the Department of Natural Resources to improve public policy and programs. Consequently, this report does not reflect recent opera- tional experiences in implementing the originally enacted wetlands law (amended in 1972) nor management initiatives now underway to resolve difficulties encountered in attempting to carry out a pioneering resources management program. Such matters are beyond the tasks undertaken originally to produce this document. The operational phases and consequent experiences derived from Maryland's wetlands management program are the appropriate domain of the Permits and Certification Division in the Water Resources Administration. It is anticipated that a follow-up report will be prepared by them at a later date which will amend and up-date the contents of this report as well as deal with the issues attendant to a detailed long-term plan for Maryland's wetlands» /f /*^ , _,,^- Sincerely yours, C y AJ James B. Coulter, Secretary Edmond F. Rovner, Secretary Department of Natural Resources Department of Economic and Community Development 4 Vladimir Wahbe, Secretary Department of State Planning TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 1-1 II. SUMMARY 11-1 III. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS III-1 IV. WHAT ARE WETLANDS? Definition IV-I Classification System IV-1 Interior or Inland Wetlands IV-1 Coastal Wetlands IV-3 Fresh areas IV-4 Saline areas IV-4 Origin IV-5 Natural Succession IV-5 Coastal Submergence IV-6 V. WETLANDS ECOLOGY Definitions V-1 General Principles and Concepts of Wetland Ecosystems V-1 The Role of Wetlands in Estuarine Productivity V-3 Wetlands Dependent Production — Species Ecology V-4 Fisheries V-4 Birds V-7 Other Wildlife V-8 Discussion V-8 VI. WETLANDS HABITAT INVENTORY Previous Wetland Studies in Maryland VI-1 Habitat Inventory Methodology VI-1 Wetlands Vulnerability Characteristics VI-2 Basic Habitat Statistics VI-2 Statewide VI-2 County-by-County VI -9 Allegany VI-10 Anne Arundel VI-10 Baltimore City VI-1 1 Baltimore County VI-1 1 Calvert County VI-12 Caroline County VI-12 Carroll County VI -13 Cecil County VI-13 Charles County VI-14 Dorchester County VI-1 5 Frederick County VI -15 Garrett County VI-1 5 Harford County VI-16 Howard County VI-16 Kent County VI-16 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.) Page Montgomery County VI-17 Prince George's County VI-17 Queen Anne's County VI-19 St. Mary's County VI -20 Sonnerset County VI-21 Talbot County VI-21 Washington County VI -22 Wicomico County VI-22 Worcester County VI -23 Summary and Conclusions VI-24 VII. SURVEY OF WETLANDS ASSOCIATED ECONOMIC VALUES Fishing Commercial Seafood Industry VII-1 Sport or Recreational Fishing VII-2 Boating VII-4 Hunting VII-5 Fur Trapping VII-8 Intangible Values VII-10 Summary of Economic and Other Values VII-12 VIII. WETLANDS - AS REAL ESTATE, RESULTANT PROPERTY TAX CONTRIBUTIONS, SPECULATION AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP ISSUES General Background VIII-1 Real Estate Market Values VIII-1 Speculation VIII-3 Assessed Valuation and Taxes Derived VIII-3 Property Ownership Issues VI 1 1 -6 Summary and Conclusions VIII-9 IX. SURVEY OF USES CHANGING THE NATURAL HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS OF WETLANDS Introduction IX-1 Summary of Acreage Losses IX-1 Housing Development IX-1 Agriculture IX-5 Dredging and Spoil Disposal IX-8 Industrial Development IX-12 Marinas IX-16 Other Uses IX-18 Natural Succession IX-20 Public Works IX-21 Shoreline Erosion IX-22 Summary on Competing Uses and Implications to Wetlands IX-23 X. SURVEY OF WETLANDS AND GROUND WATER HYDROLOGIC RELATIONSHIPS Introduction X-1 Definitions X-1 Summary of Ground Water Hydrology X-1 Occurrence, Source and Movement X-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.) Page Wetlands and Ground Water Hydrology in the Physiographic Provinces X-1 Piedmont-Appalachian X-2 Coastal Plain X-2 Conclusions X-3 XI. WETLANDS AND ESTUARINE POLLUTION Purpose and Scope XI -1 Pollution — A Definition Problem and Relative Term in Estuaries XI -1 Contributions of Wetlands to Water Ouality Protection XI-2 Biological and Chemical Processes XI-2 Shoreline Buffer Function XI-3 Sediment Collection Function XI-3 Hydrologic Function XI-3 Threats to Natural Anti-Pollution Functions XI-3 Examples of Man's Impact on Estuarine Water Quality in IVIaryland XI-4 The Upper Potomac Estuary XI-4 The Patuxent River Basin and Estuary XI-5 Chesapeake Bay — In General XI-5 Summary and Conclusions XI-5 XII. SURVEY OF WETLANDS' ROLE IN ESTUARINE HYDRAULICS Introduction XII-1 Water Storage XII-1 Wave and Current Alteration XII-1 Stabilization of Coastal Land Inundation XII-1 XIII. CONVERSION OF LOW (NORIVIALLY DRY) LANDS TO WETLANDS Introduction XIII- Background XIII- Land Use in the Past XIII- Present Land Conditions XIII- Areas Affected by Tidal Encroachment XIII- County Land and Soil Types Subject to Tidal Influence XI 1 1 -2 Dorchester County XI 1 1 -2 Somerset County XI 1 1 -2 Talbot County XIII-2 Wicomico County XI II -6 Discussion XIII-6 Factors Influencing Conversion XIII-6 Rise in Sea Level XIII-6 Land Subsidence XIII-6 Drainage Ditches, Dikes and Tide Gates XI 1 1-8 Alteration of Lands Fringing Estuaries and Tidal Marshes XI 1 1-8 Discussion and Conclusions XIII-9 XIV. WETLANDS -THE LEGAL CONTEXT Wetlands and Flood Plain Statutes in Other States XIV-1 Rights of Riparian Landowners in Waters Owned by the State of Maryland XIV-9 Extent of the Power of Eminent Domain XIV-10 State's Power to Regulate the Use of Land Through the Police Power XIV-1 1 Legal Approaches Available to Maryland for the Protection of the State's Wetlands XIV-14 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.) Page BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES A. Habitat Inventory Tables for Chapter VI A-1 B. Wetlands Information Retrieval Systenn B-1 C. House Joint Resolution No. 2 (1967) C-1 D. State Planning Department Advisory Letter on Wetlands to Local Governments and List of Addressees D-1 E. Maryland Wetlands Act(s) of 1970 E-1 F. Proposed Order Establishing Private Wetland Boundaries in Calvert County, Maryland, and Proposed Rules and Regulations F-1 G. The Federal "Water Bank Act" - Public Law 91-559 G-1 LIST OF FIGURES PAGE I-l Wetland's Technical Advisory Committee I-l IV- 1 Adkins Mill Pond in Wicomico County an example of Type 5 Wetlands IV-2 IV-2 An example of Type 7 Wetlands (Dorchester County) IV-3 IV-3 An example of Type 8 Wetlands (Garrett County) IV-3 IV-4 An example of Type 12 Wetlands (Kent County) IV-4 IV-5 An example of Type 12 Wetlands (Dorchester County) IV-4 V-1 Ultimate utilization of Smooth Cordgrass (partial food web energized by plants) representative of Lower Eastern Shore Wetlands V-2 VI-1 Wetlands habitat inventory data sheet for specific Maryland Wetland areas (side 1 ) VI-3 VI-2 Wetlands habitat inventory data sheet for specific Maryland Wetland areas (side 2) VM VI-3 Wetlands survey regions — Maryland VI-5 IX-1 FOling of Wetlands with dredge spoil near George's Creek, St. Mary's County IX-9 IX-2 Location of marinas in Maryland (1965) IX-1 5 IX-3 Destruction of Type 16 Wetlands of Kent Narrows for marina development IX-1 6 IX-4 SoUd waste disposal into wetlands IX-1 8 X-I General schematic of the hydrologic cycle X-4 X-2 Location of the Fall Line and physiographic regions utilized in this report for discussion on ground water hydrology and wetland relationships in Maryland X-3 Idealized block diagram illustrating various geologic features related to transmitting water laterally from an aquifer intake (recharge) area in the uplands of the western shore to the eastern shore via formations which lie under Chesapeake Bay X-5 X-4 Geologic cross-section Dlustrating the underlying structure of the coastal plain region in Maryland and the southeast dip of formations which encompass the major artesian aquifers in the State X-6 X-5 Approximate surface outcrop (recharge) areas of the principal aquifers of the western shore and the general locations of certain wetlands in Anne Arundal County X-7 X-6 Approximate location of wetlands in Prince George's County with the potential for saltwater intrusion into underlying ground water aquifers X-8 X-7 Approximate location of wetlands in Calvert County along the Patuxent River with the potential for saltwater intrusion or contamination into underlying ground water aquifers. . . . X-9 X-8 Approximate extent of the buried recharge belt of the Manokin aquifer, including the general locations of overlying wetlands in southern Dorchester County X-10 LIST OF FIGURES (continued) PAGE X-9 Approximate extent of the buried recharge belt of the Pocomoke aquifer, including the general locations of overlying wetlands in Somerset County X-1 1 X-10 Approximate extent of the buried recharge belt of the Manokin and Pocomoke aquifers, including the general locations of overlying wetlands in Wicomico County X-1 2 X-1 1 Approximate extent of the buried recharge belt of the Pocomoke aquifer, including the general locations of overlying wetlands in Worcester County X-1 3 XII-1 A hypothetical illustration of a combination of climatological factors and physical features which have the potential for serious coastal flooding problems XII-2 XIII-1 General locations in Dorchester County, Maryland of soil associations either actually or potentially influenced by tidal action and subject to marsh conversion XIII-3 XIII-2 General locations in Somerset County, Maryland of tidal marsh soil associations either actually or potentially influenced by tidal action XIII-4 XIII-3 General locations in Talbot County, Maryland of tidal marsh soil associations, including Othello silt loam (low), which is subject to conversion to tidal marsh XIII-5 XIII-4 General locations in Wicomico County, Maryland of tidal marsh soil associations, including Othello silt loam (low), which are subject to conversion to tidal marsh XIII-7 LIST OF TABLES PAGE V-1 General orders of magnitude of gross primary productivity in terms of dry weight of organic matter produced annually V-3 V-2 Sample evaluation of wetlands and dependent fishery resources by selected Maryland counties . V-4 V-3 Survey sample of fishery resources usage and abundance in irregularly flooded salt marshes (type 17) or nearby waters of Dorchester County, Maryland V-5 VI- 1 Summary of wetlands habitat inventory by survey regions VI-6 VI-2 Depth versus acreage computed for the open surface waters of Chesapeake Bay and tributaries . VI-7 VI-3 Summary of wetlands habitat inventory by vulnerability category and type of wetlands VI-8 VI-4 Wetlands in public ownership in Maryland in 1969 A-1 VI-5 Inventory of Alleghany County wetlands VI-10 VI-6 Inventory of wetlands in Anne Arundel County including evaluation of present and future vulnerability to change A-6 VI-7 Inventory of uses competing for wetlands in Anne Arundel County showing acerage losses and causes A-7 VI-8 Inventory of wetlands in Baltimore County including evaluation of present and future vulner- ability to change A-8 VI-9 Inventory of uses competing for wetlands in Baltimore County showing acreage losses and causes A-9 VI-10 Inventory of wetlands in Calvert County including evaluation of present and future vulner- ability to change A-10 VI-1 1 Inventory of uses competing for wetlands in Calvert County showing acreage losses and causes . A-1 1 VI- 12 Inventory of wetlands in Caroline County including evaluation of present and future vulner- ability to change A-1 2 VI-1 3 Inventory of uses competing for wetlands in Caroline County showing acreage losses and causes A-1 3 VI-I4 Inventory of Carroll County wetlands VI-1 2 VI-1 5 Inventory of wetlands in Cecil County including evaluation of present and future vulnerability to change A-14 VI-16 Inventory of uses competing for wetlands in Cecil County showing acreage losses and causes . A-15 VI- 17 Inventory of wetlands in Charles County including evaluation of present and future vulner- ability to change A-1 6 VI-18 Inventory of uses competing for wetlands in Charles County showing acreage losses and causes . A-17 VI- 19 Inventory of wetlands in Dorchester County including evaluation of present and future vulnerabihty to change A-1 8 LIST OF TABLES (continued) PAGE VI-20 Inventory of competing uses for wetlands in Dorchester County showing acreage losses with causes A-19 VI-21 Inventory of wetlands in Garrett County A-20 VI-22 Inventory of wetlands in Harford County including evaluation of present and future vulner- ability to change A-21 VI-23 Inventory of uses for wetlands in Harford County showing acreage losses and causes A-22 VI-24 Inventory of wetlands in Kent County including evaluation of present and future vulnerability to change A-23 VI-25 Inventory of uses competing for wetlands in Kent County showing acreage losses and causes . . A-24 VI-26 Inventory of wetlands in Montgomery County A-25 VI-27 Inventory of wetlands in Prince George's including evaluation of present and future vulner- ability to change A-26 VI-28 Inventory of uses competing for wetlands in Prince George's County showing acreage losses and causes A-27 VI-29 Inventory of wetlands in Queen Anne's County including evaluation of present and future vulnerabihty to change A-28 VI-30 Inventory of uses competing for wetlands in Queen Anne's County showing acreage losses and causes A-29 VI-3I Inventory of wetlands in St. Mary's County including evaluation of present and future vulnerability to change A-30 VI-32 Inventory of uses competing for wetlands in St. Mary's County showing acreage losses and causes A-3 1 VI-33 Inventory of wetlands in Somerset County including evaluation of present and future vulner- ability to change A-32 VI-34 Inventory of uses competing for wetlands in Somerset County showing acreage losses and causes A-3 3 VI-35 Inventory of wetlands in Talbot County including evaluation of present and past vulnerability to change A-34 VI-36 Inventory of uses competing for wetlands in Talbot County showing acreage losses and causes . A-35 VI-37 Inventory of Washington County wetlands VI-22 VI-38 Inventory of wetlands in Wicomico County including evaluation of present and future vulner- ability to change A-36 'VI-39 Inventory of uses competing for wetlands in Wicomico County showing acreage losses and causes A-37 LIST OF TABLES (continued) PAGE VI-40 Inventory of wetlands in Worcester County including evaluation of present and future vulner- ability to change A-38 VI-41 Inventory of uses competing for wetlands in Worcester County showing acreage losses and causes A-39 VII-1 Principal kinds offish and shellfish in Maryland landings in 1967 VII-1 VII-2 Output of the Maryland seafood processing industry, 1957-1965 VII-2 VII-3 Percentage of Maryland catch handled by the Baltimore wholesale fish market, 1959-1966 . . . VII-3 VII-4 Estimated total expenditures of sportsmen fishing in the Maryland tidewaters during 1952, and amounts spent in Maryland, by type of expense VII-4 VII-5 Current capital investment of marinas by size, 1965 VII-5 VII-6 Summary of Maryland boat registration 1963-1969 VII-6 VII-7 Numbers of hunting licenses issued in Maryland (summary) VII-7 VII-8 Number and value of duck blind licenses issued in Maryland (1963-1971) VII-9 VII-9 List of the furbearer harvest in 1968-1969 by species and total dollar value of pelts VII-10 VII-1 0 Partial listing of conservation and outdoor recreation organizations and groups in Maryland (with approximate membership) VII-1 1 VII-1 1 List of numbers of wetland areas, acreage and vulnerabihty included in the Catalog of Natural Areas in Maryland VII-1 3 VII-1 2 List of numbers of wetland areas, acreage and vulnerability by county in Maryland that are or have been utilized for natural science research and education VII-1 4 VII-1 3 Estimated current dollar product associated with wetlands in Maryland VII-1 5 VIII-1 Approximate range of market values per acre of wetlands versus tillable land in curtain Maryland counties for the ten-year period 1958-1968 VIII-2 VIII-2 Assessed 1968-1969 valuations in dollar per acre of land categories containing wetlands by county in Maryland VIII-4 VIII-3 Assessed 1968-69 valuations in dollars per acre of marshland versus lands in agricultural production by Maryland county VIII-5 VIII-4 The five leading Maryland counties in terms of largest total tax revenues derived from, wetlands assessments (estimated) VIII-7 VIII-5 Estimated assessed values and consequent tax revenues from wooded and shrub swamps and marshes by county in Maryland (1968-69) VIII-8 IX-1 Statewide summary of the uses changing the natural characteristics of wetlands in Maryland showing acreage losses for each type of wetland IX-2 LIST OF TABLES (continued) PAGE IX-2 Statewide summary of the inventory of uses changing the natural characteristics of wetlands in Maryland showing acreage losses by use and by county IX-3 IX-3 Statewide summary of planned, proposed or potential industrial sites coinciding with wetland areas IX-1 3 IX-4 Wetland areas being used as public or municipal solid waste disposal sites in Maryland IX-1 9 IX-5 Approximate wetland acres ditched for mosquito control as part of the permanent works program in Maryland IX-20 IX-6 Wetlands undergoing active erosion processes as determined by the wetland habitat inventory . IX-24 IX-7 Summary of field inventory data on incidents and acreages of wetlands in a buffer role for uplands, including wetlands that are undergoing erosion IX-25 XI- 1 General summary of survey information on wetlands and estuarine pollution XI-6 XI-2 Surveillance sampling results. May and June, 1968, Statewide water quality investigation .... XI-7 XIII-1 Composite summary of soil types and associations with potential for conversion to tidal marsh. XIII-8 I INTRODUCTION Wetlands management problems are in large measure attributable to our pluralistic society. While some look to natural resources mainly as sources of future income, maintenance of standards of living and tax dollars, others regard the manner in which most developmental activity takes place as being destructive to all life's essential sup- port systems as well as the amenity values frequently associated with undisturbed natural environments. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that the issue as regards wetlands reflects the same division of opinion, namely, wetlands reclamation via drainage and/or filling versus preservation. Fundamentally, agreement must be es- tablished as to what is a "wetland" and what are the economic, biological, and social consequences of all potential wetlands management policy alternatives ranging from complete development of substantial wetlands acreage through minimal disruption of wetlands" ecological systems. The political process often attempts to mediate differing viewpoints and objectives through the traditional device of compromise. What may not be properly understood, however, is that at some point in perhaps the not too distant future the opportunities for compromise will have run out. This is so because wetlands are by no means an inexhaustable resource nor are the processes and amenities inextricably linked to them. Thus, the principal thrust of this report is the com- pilation of essential background information and the for- mulation of carefully devised strategies to guide the future management of this valuable resource. This approach is consistent with the intent of House Joint Resolution Two of 1967 (Appendix C). The Resolu- tion requested "the Department of State Planning, with the cooperation of the Board of Natural Resources and the Department of Economic Development, to prepare a detailed long-term plan for the optimum use of wetlands in the State of Maryland". To insure broad coverage of all problem areas relating to wetlands suggested by the Resolution and to coordinate all potential study inputs, a technical advisory committee was established by the Department of State Planning. Representatives from various State and federal agencies and other organizations concerned with wetlands management planning were included on the committee (Figure 1-1). The information prepared by the Wetlands Technical Advisory Committee in accordance with a study plan outlined initially by the Department of Game and Inland Fish' was utilized in drafting variously proposed wetlands conservation bills. Many of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of this study have been incorporated already into new State laws or agency programs. Figure I-l MEMBERS OF WETLANDS STUDY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Department of State Planning - Chairman Agency Robert M. August* Roy G. Metzgar Department of Chesapeake Bay Affairs John Capper* Nick Carter Thomas Kloster Edgar Mollis Fred Sieling Chesapeake Bay Institute of Johns Hopkins University Richard C. Whaley Department of Forests and Parks Edward I. Heath* William O. Johnson Maryland Geological Survey Harry Hansen Chris Slaughter Department of Natural Resources Anthony Abar Fish and Wildlife Administration James R. Goldsberry Vernon Stotts David Wharton Department of Economic and Community Development James McComas Dr. Robert M. Sparks University of Maryland - Institute of Natural Resources Dr. Richard R. Anderson Department of Water Resources Albert E. Sanderson University of Maryland - Department of Entomology Dr. George S. Langford* Other Contributors U. S. Soil Conservation Service Edward R. Keil* David Bowen Eugene Whitaker U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Patuxent Wildlife Research Center Dr. Ralph Andrews Dr. James Kerwin University of Maryland - Department of Agriculture Dr. Gordon M. Cairns Dr. R. Lamar Green * Affiliations shown are those during the investigatory phase of the study. I-l J^owever, much of the information contained herein has not been available to the public. Because of the inherent short-term and long-range values derivable from improving widespread public comprehension and ap- preciation of the many facets and features as regards wetlands this report is being published. In the time elapsed since the wetlands inventory was completed along with accompanying analytical work and writing, several significant events have occurred regar- ding Maryland wetlands which should be acknowledged in introducing this report. Among them are the news media coverage of wetland development procedures at Ocean City in Worcester County. This resulted in accelerating public concern about wetlands as well as demands for corrective legislative action. Another result of the Worcester County wetlands controversy was a much greater public familiarity with the term "wetlands" and economic and ecologic issues associated with Maryland's valuable shoreline areas. That episode culminated in the passage of two wetlands laws. Chapters 241 and 242, 1970 Acts of the Maryland General Assembly (Appendix E). New legislation and subsequent implementation based upon statutory guidelines are often subject to legal challenges' through the court system. Maryland's wetlands laws have been no exception. The State's right to exert control over any modification to State-owned wetlands (those under navigable waters —meaning sub- ject to ebb and fiow of tide) as well as the right to require compensation to alter such areas was upheld recently by the Maryland Court of Appeals.^ Prior to that a careful examination of the new wetlands laws was presented in the Maryland Law Review.' The initial operational document produced by the State agency assigned the administrative responsibility for the new wetlands laws is also noteworthy. The "Implementation Plan" is the first cut at spelling out the mechanics of the bills and outlines a process by which the Department of Natural Resources might fulfill its responsibilities under them.'' Also, the first set of county rules and regulations for controlling future wetlands management was drafted and distributed by that Depart- ment for Calvert County preliminary to a public hearing (Appendix F). From this chronicle of recent events, it should be clear that the complete story of wetlands management in Maryland cannot be reported at this time since it is changing constantly. Instead, future events to be en- countered by Maryland citizenry, responsible public of- ficials, and State agency personnel will fashion and shape the ultimate patterns of our natural environment consist- ent with what refiects "optimum" choices, especially with regard to wetlands. In that context, the contents of this report should be viewed as a benchmark against which the results of present and future public policies and programs can be measured in terms of protecting and managing the environmental amenities as well as those economic values implicitly associated with or at- tributable to wetlands. 1 The former Department of Game and Inland Fish is now subdivided into Fisheries Administration and Wildlife Administration. That agency undertook the study tasks of the former Board of Natural Resources which was abolished with the creation of the Depart- ment of Natural Resources in 1969. 2 Board of Public Works v. Lamar, 111 A. 2d 427 (Md. 1971). 3 Salsbury, Stuart M., "Maryland's wetlands: The legal quagmire," Maryland Law Review, v. XXX, n. 3, University of Maryland School of Law, Baltimore. Summer 1970. 4 Capper, John R., "Maryland wetlands bills (House Bills 285 and 286): An implementation plan for the Department of Natural Resources," Annapolis. June 24, 1970 (mimeo). 1-2 II SUMMARY Wetlands are land-water edge areas which in Maryland are primarily associated with the estuarine and immediate tributary waters of Chesapeake Bay (Figure Il-l).* There are also wetlands of significant importance bordering the State's inland fresh waterways and its shallow saltwater estuaries on the Atlantic Coast. An abundance of aquatic vegetation species typically characterizes wetlands. Moisture supplied by either permanent, temporary or intermittent submersion or inundation of land by surface runoff, tidal cycles or permanent standing water is supportive of such vegetation. There are two major groups of wetlands in Maryland, namely, inland and coastal, although the demarcation line between them is frequently indistinct, thus actually establishing a third intermediate group. Within these groups there are fourteen different types based upon carefully selected physical and biological features. In natural systems, vegetation occupies a basic position in the inter-connected food webs that eventually reach man. Wetlands, as locales for aquatic vegetation, constitute a habitat that is essential to varied and desirable species of aquatic and terrestrial animals. Wetlands comprise a significant portion of the more important vestiges of Maryland's natural land and seascapes. Because of their shoreline location, wetlands have an important place in the State Scenic Rivers System under Chapter 749, Laws oj' Maryland 1971. In addition to esthetic values, wetlands have beneficial effects on the physical and chemical characteristics of river and estuarine systems. Through biological and chemical processes, sediment collection, and physical in- fluences on hydrology, wetlands provide several functions important to water quality. Certain aquatic plants have the ability to take up and store inorganic materials that, in excessive amounts, cause conditions of aquatic overfertilization. Aquatic plants are also important sources of dissolved oxygen essential to natural processes that assimilate waste discharged in water bodies. Because of their shoaling characteristics and usually abundant vegetation, wetlands function as settling or filtering basins which collect sediment as well as other suspended material. The water absorption and storage capabilities of wetlands temporarily retain water from overland runoff or tidal inundation. Delayed flows that are released at gradual rates by inland freshwater wetlands flush pollutants downstream, dilute them into harmless concentrations or provide additional volumes of water to augment natural assimilative abilities. Besides the above-mentioned intangible values, im- portant quantifiable benefits are also associated with *See inside back cover. Maryland wetlands. These benefits are derived from fishing (commercial and sport), boating, hunting, and fur trapping. In Maryland, the commercial fishing and seafood processing industry as related to wetlands has an annual dollar product of $30.3 million. This industry employs 6,000 fishermen full-time, 3,000 part-time, and 4,300 people in the food processing sector. Additionally between 200,000 and to 300,000 Marylanders annually spend an estimated $20 million on goods and services for saltwater sport angling, exclusive of expenditures on boats and boating equipment. In the boating sector, 42 percent of marina-kept boats are used primarily for fishing. The value of boats and boating equipment used for saltwater angling is presently inestimable due to in- adequate information. Since a very high percentage (60%-90%) of our important commercial and sport fish and shellfish are dependent on estuarine environments, the fundamental role of wetlands in aquatic ecology es- tablishes their significance to the maintenance of desired fishery resources and values associated with their harvest. The mixture of open surface waters and wetlands in Maryland is one of the most important in North America to migrating and wintering waterfowl. Waterfowl hun- ting provides outdoor recreation to 35,000 hunters an- nually in Maryland. It is estimated that these hunters spend between $10.5 and $17.5 annually. To this may be added estimated annual expenditures of $60,000 for rail and snipe hunting and $250,000 for the purchase of furbearer pelts. Altogether, the major quantifiable economic benefits associated with Maryland's wetlands are most conservatively estimated at approximately $65 million annually. Additionally, there are uses of wetlands that alter and destroy their ecologic and amenity values in- cluding: agriculture, housing, industry, marinas, dredging and spoil disposal, public works, solid waste disposal, and mosquito control. Generally, each spe- cific instance of wetland destruction has not been too significant in terms of areal extent. The individual proposing wetlands destruction or alteration views his proposal as an isolated incident which will occur only once to a particular wetland. Consequently, wetland losses in that frame of reference are not often impressive nor important. However, when viewed from a Statewide perspective, the accumulation of acreage losses from all incidents of destruction becomes quite meaningful to natural resources management planning. For the 25-year period 1942-67, wetland losses in Maryland due to the above-mentioned activities exceeded 23,000 acres. When historical reports on wetlands are taken into account, however, total wetland destruction for a 60-year period may approach 200,000 acres. This es- II- 1 timate is based on a 500,000 acre total reported to exist in 1908' as compared with approximately 307,400 acres remaining in Maryland in 1968. The apparent abundance of remaining wetlands is grossly misleading when viewed against historical and present day-to-day destruction. It is difficult, indeed, to comprehend and assess the economic and ecologic implications reflected by such a large-scale alteration of the natural environment. On the other hand, it is not difficult to project the environmen- tally delterious results which will occur from persistent disturbances and destruction to functioning ecosystems. Once certain limiting thresholds are exceeded, correcting or compensating natural forces cease to exist. Consequently, the rich biological variety, productivity, and high amenity values derived from the State's existing terrestrial-aquatic ecosystems are apt to diminish sub- stantially. The apparent abundance of remaining wetlands is also an illusion when evaluating wetlands' vulnerability to future man-initiated destruction. This evaluation is based on known development proposals and plans, current zoning regulations, and other factors such as local attitudes toward wetlands. The results disclose that approximately 80 percent of the remaining wetlands are vulnerable to varying degrees of biologically destructive alteration. The decisions affecting wetlands vulnerability are complicated by a regional dichotomy between the more populated and economically developed ur- ban/metropolitan areas of the western shore region and the wetland, high environmental amenity "laden" but economically depressed eastern shore region of Chesapeake Bay. Approximately 58 percent of the State's remaining wetlands are located in two lower eastern shore counties, Dorchester and Somerset, while the entire eastern shore is the geographic locale of 83 per- cent of the inventoried wetlands. While Dorchester and Somerset counties have extensive wetland tracts they also exhibit numerous indicators of an unsatisfactory economic situation. Consequently, local sentiment sometimes tends to favor the exploitation of shoreline areas (including wetlands) attractive to industry, housing, and other development. This sentiment runs counter to that of many western shore residents who favor restric- tion of such development. There is also an important competitive situation between farming and wetlands preservation. Agriculture is the leading industry on the eastern shore. However, soil conditions, low topographic relief, and consequent poorly defined natural drainage systems when combined with high average rainfall mean excessive amounts of surface water and delayed runoff which interferes with optimum agricultural productivity in that region. Consequently, installing corrective agricultural drainage measures has had u significant impact on inland fresh water wetlands which are inextricably associated with typical eastern shore watersheds. Drainage is an attractive and viable solution to farmers because of State and federal government programs which provide technical and financial assistance (grants plus low interest rates) to defray much of the capital cost of draining land. Finally, governmen- tal price support programs increase the revenues from crops grown on improved or reclaimed land above nor- mal market demand price levels. Man's alteration of wetlands is also encouraged by the low tax revenues that are derived from them. Of all real property, wetlands are assessed at the lowest rates for taxation purposes. While wetlands represent about 4.8 percent, of Maryland's total land area, they con- tribute only 0.2 percent to the State's total assessed land valuation. Wetlands property tax assessments produce an estimated revenue of $121,000 on a total assessed valua- tion of $4.8 million (1968-69). Consequently, extensive wetland holdings are viewed by some as a tax augmenta- tion opportunity through development of areas con- tributing relatively little to the present taxable base. However, this tax situation is actually inconsistent with well-established real estate value patterns in which water- fronting property (including encompassed but lower- valued wetlands) has substantially higher market value than any other kind of land. The real estate market, speculative land investment, and local government financial problems are powerful forces for change in land use, especially wetlands. Unfor- tunately, short-term solutions and consequent gains are more obvious and immediate, and therefore, they are more persuasively attractive than countering long-range gains and losses. Safeguarding wetlands against excessive destruction is not a resource management problem unique to Maryland. Several other states have enacted wetlands protective legislation including Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, North Carolina, Georgia, and recently Virginia. As compared to the other thirteen Atlantic Coast states Maryland's coastal wetland/estuarine com- plex has been rated seventh in percentage of "important" coastal wetlands; ihird in percentage of "important" open shoal habitat; and sixth overall.- A major problem facing future wetlands management planning rests on the efficiency and equity questions attendant with the distribution of economic and en- vironmental benefits and costs by developing and/or II-2 preserving wetlands and associated resources. A con- tradiction exists between private and social values and goals attendant in wetlands since many benefits accrue to the public at large while the burden of habitat maintenance falls to private landowners. Because of this contradiction the market place fails to function as an effective mechanism for allocating wetlands between development (reclamation) and preservation. Consequently too few wetlands are likely to be preserved (with their public or social benefits) in the private sector without governmental intervention in the allocating processes. The free enterprise initiated market system has been further deflected from an effective allocation process through the impact of governmental programs which reduce capital costs for draining wetlands to in- crease agricultural productivity, dredging navigable channels for commerce and recreation, etc. To date, much of the shoreline development that has occurred in Maryland has been of a random, oppor- tunistic nature. Important features in the decisions con- cerning development have been based primarily upon the availability of suitable land and an interest in immediate return on investment capital. The pattern of previous developmental activity reflects these features. The questions that should be raised and evaluated are: Can Maryland afford this type of activity to continue in the future? Or, should such events and consequences be per- mitted to continue? Without careful forethought and weighing of all factors, the unfortunate consequence of unplanned and uncontrolled development can easily cost far more than the anticipated benefits. However, if the State, with the support and cooperation of local governmental units, develops, adopts, and enforces shoreline development policies consistent with carefully considered plans that reflect all of the inherent values and uses in wetlands, the best interests of all citizens will be served and protected. The changing character of our natural environment due to the impact of increasing human populations is becoming increasingly apparent. Development of the State's coastal zone because of economic advantages and environmental amenities has produced frequent en- croachments on wetlands. The economic imperfections regarding the goods and services, both private and public, that are related to wetlands, the real estate market for shoreline property, and local government revenue problems and attitudes toward the environment indicate that a scientifically and economically sound management program must be developed and implemented to assure an optimum combination of protection and utilization of wetlands. The strategies recommended in the next chapter have been devised with that objective in mind. 1 Report of the Conservation Commission of Maryland — for 1908-1909. p. 139. 2 Spinner, George P. A plan for the marine resources of the Atlantic coastal zone. Am. Geographical Socie- ty. 1969. n-3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The central finding of this investigation is that wetlands, as wetlands, are an exceedingly valuable resource asset to the State of Maryland. However, due to the population growth the State and surrounding areas are experiencing, increasing demands are being placed on the resource base. While the foreseeable extent and impact of increasing encroachment upon wetlands are not yet clearly discernible, they certainly will be greater than anything previously experienced. The probable demands upon wetlands will focus heavily on the State's tidewater and land interface area, the coastal zone, where this valuable resource abounds. The significance of the attendant resource management problem is brought all the more sharply into view when it is realized that Maryland's most pronounced physical characteristic is the large proportion of the State in "tidewater" areas. The Chesapeake Bay comprises about one- fifth of the State's surface area. To this must be added other important estuaries such as Isle of Wight, Assawoman, Sinepuxent, and Chincoteague bays on the Atlantic Coast. The existence of these large estuarine bodies of water, especially in the heart of the State, shoud be noted with emphasis because of: 1) inherent biotic and environmental amenity values; 2) growing population; 3) important commercial and industrial marine enterprises; and 4) the very important recreation potential. This territorial concentration in the midst of Maryland is unique among the fifty states. The urgent need for timely planning of the coastal zone, including wetlands, on a multiple-purpose basis within the context of a Statewide generalized land use plan need not, therefore, be labored. Based upon current levels of scientific knowledge and technical information, the following major recommendations constitute a program which will develop a strategy for "optimum" management of wetland resources in Maryland. In examining these recommendations it is stressed thai recent executive actions by the Governor, laws enacted by the Maryland General Assembly, and programs initiated by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources as well as other State agencies are predicated, in part, upon working papers and draft report documents af this study. Consequently, there are instances where State programs consistent with and based on these recommendations are already underway. 1 . Maryland must develop a firm and consistent posture with respect to wetlands in both Stale and private ownership. Carrying out this recommendation depends upon the adoption of a State policy restricting the sale of wetlands in State ownership, as well as developing regulatory control regarding privately owned wetlands. Retention of State wetlands in public ownership would be supportive of ongoing programs for the acquisition of wetlands by the Department of Natural Resources. Incontestible demonstration of the public interest should attend the sale of any State-owned wetlands.' 2. The Department of Natural Resources should develop at once an overall plan and implementing program for the acquisition of wetlands including easements and development rights, based upon recently updated inventory and other data availabilities. This recommendation is made all the more urgent by reason of the fact that market prices for waterfront property with conservation or outdoor recreation values and the riparian rights inherent in wetlands are rising more rapidly than other real property values.' i. The Slate should assume leadership in formulating a management program for all natural resources, including wetlands, that would coordinate the objectives, plans and programs of all levels of government. Part of the State's management problem with regard to wetlands lies in the proliferation of legal, political, and institutional arrangements concerned with natural resources. A multiplicity of governmental agencies at all levels are involved in resource management planning. Many of these agencies were established for special purposes 1 See Chapters 241 and 242, Laws of Maryland 1970 and also "Proposed Order Establishing Private Wetland Boundaries in Calvert County, Maryland, and Proposed Rules and Regulations" in Appendices E and F, respectively. 2 Wetlands are being acquired or are planned for acquisition in conjunction with land purchases for State parks, natural environment, and wildlife management areas. They are being purchased with funds made available by the Outdoor Recreation Land Loan of 1969 (Ch. ). Some recently acquired or intended acquisitions which encompass wetlands are certain areas along the Gunpowder River (Baltimore and Harford Counties); Patuxent River (Howard, Montgomery and Prince George's Counties); Severn Run (Anne Arundel County); Mattawoman Creek (Charles and Prince George's Counties); Fishing Bay and Taylor's Island (Dorchester County); and Deal Island (Somerset County) to mention a few. III-l and to accomplish single-purpose goals. Too frequently, inadequate recognition and attention has been given to the ecological impact of various publicly funded programs, e. g., land drainage, river and harbor, flood control projects.' 4. More effective use should be made of existing statutory authority and agency regulations affecting wetlands. Abundant opportunities for the more effective application of State laws and regulations as related to wetlands management are to be found, particularly in the provisions of Article 96A (Water Resources) dealing with the disposal of solid matter into State waters and obstructing the 50-year flood plain; in the provisions of Article 43 (Health) dealing with county plans for public water supply and sewerage systems; and in the provisions of Article 88C (State Planning) dealing with land-use planning. To carry out this recommendation, adequate funding of State planning and resource management programs is necessary. 5. Maintain an up-to-date resource inventory and information system as a necessary adjunct to resource management. The data processing information retireval system as developed during the course of this investigation should be maintained and up-dated as needed. A very important element of the periodic updating of the resource inventory would be the proper identification of State and private wetlands.'' 6. Stimulate and maintain high quality research on wetlands and related biotic resources. Very broadly, this recommendation envisages a carefully coordinated program of both basic and applied research directed towards a vastly improved knowledge of the State's various ecological systems, including wetlands. Such research is a necessary adjunct of sound resource management plans and programs.' 7. The State should encourage and support demonstration projects where usej'ul in providing for future resource management. In addition to providing guidelines for resource management, the knowledge and experience derived from demonstration projects, such as the Rookery Bay Area Project in Florida described elsewhere in this report, could 3 The Chesapeake Bay Interagency Planning Committee was created in 1969 by Governor Marvin Mandel and charged to undertake a comprehensive resources planning effort for Chesapeake Bay and its related resources. The Committee is composed of the Departments of Planning, Natural Resources, Health and Mental Hygiene, Economic and Community Development, and Transportation. Major coordinative duties are being performed by the Department of State Planning. See: Integrity of the Chesapeake Bay, Pub. No. 184, Md. Dept. of State Planning. August, 1972. 4 See Section 724, Chapter 241 — Laws of Maryland 1970. Also, "Coastal Wetlands Inventory in Maryland" by Lester E. Garvin and Richard H. Wheeler. Conf. Am. Soc. Photogrammetry. Washington, D. C. June 7, 1972. 5 See Chapter 31 — Laws of Maryland 1971, especially Section 764, "Power Plant Environmental Research Program". At St. Michaels, Maryland, The Center for Applied Research in Environmental Sciences affiliated with The Nature Conservancy is embarked on a Conservancy funded project entitled, "Exploration of the Ways and Means of Creating Tidal Marshlands in the Chesapeake Bay." The Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc., composed of the Johns Hopkins University, the University of Maryland, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, and the Smithsonian Institution, received a grant in June, 1972, from the National Science Foundation to carry out one of the Consortium's major programs entitled, "Wetlands, Shorelines, and Shallows." This program along with another received one-year funding of $1.5 million as a part of the Consortium research entitled, "THE CHESAPEAKE BAY: A Proposal for Research Applied to National Needs." Additionally, Maryland Fish and Wildlife Administration biologists have completed research projects entitled, "Ecological Study of the Susquehanna River and Tributaries below Conowingo Dam," and "Stream Improvement Program for Anadromous Fish Management." These projects were assisted financially by the Federal government (50%) under the Anadromous Fish Act (P. L. 89-304). III-2 be directed also towards improved strategies for interagency and intergovernmental coordination with all that this implies for the future management of the State's wetlands and shoreline areas." 8. Action should be initiated by the Department of Natural Resources and cognizant federal agencies to assure widespread public familiarity with opportunities for financial support for wetlands conservation under the -Water Bank Act" (Public Law 91-559). The provisions of this Act apply specifically to fresh water wetland areas of Types 1 through 5. (See Chapter IV and Appendix G.) This is a most important point since Maryland's wetlands laws focus on coastal wetland types only. However, there are approximately 25,000 acres of Types 6, 7 and 8 wetlands which are neither regulated by Maryland wetland laws nor eligible for coverage under the Water Bank Act. Corrective actions at the State and federal levels should be contemplated and initiated to extend some form of protective and/or regulatory mechanisms to shrub swamps (Type 7), wooded swamps (Type 8), and bogs (Type 8). Under the "Stream Improvement Program for Anadromous Fish Management" conducted by the Fish and Wildlife Administration numerous stream blockages were removed. Also, mitigating measures were devised and installed at road crossings over certain streams with the cooperation and assistance of the State Highway Administration. Planning procedures to either protect or enhance anadromous fisheries during the design and development of U. S. Soil Conservation Service watershed projects were developed also. III-3 I IV WHAT ARE WETUNDS? DEFINITION Wetlandfs) is a collective term for land— water edge areas and submerged bottoms wjiich occur in certain areas of the State. These areas usually support exten- sive growths of either submerged or emergent aquatic plants because of permanent, temporary or intermit- tent submersion or inundation. Sources of essential moisture include: natural surface runoff resulting from rainfall, groundwater, diurnal lunar tidal cycles, un- usual tidal conditions due to wind and storms, or seasonal overflows on floodplains. Wetlands often occur as a bordering fringe along shorelines interposed between permanent dry land and open surface water expanses of rivers, sounds, bays, and other estuarine waters in the State. Wetlands also occur as extensive tracts of several hundred acres extent and several miles wide as well as submerged bottom at depths where sunlight penetrates to permit photosynthetic processes. At higher elevations than the predominant coastal plain, wetlands are found in nat- ural topographic depressions and along flowing waters. Wetlands may be known locally as salt marsh, tidal marsh, marshland, tideland, submerged land, swamp, swampland, gut, slough, pothole, bog, mud flats, wet meadow, overflow land or flood plain. Shallow lakes and ponds (mainly having depths less than six feet and supporting emergent vegetation as a conspicuous fea- ture) are included in the definition. Artificial reservoirs and the permanently submerged deep bottoms under broad reaches of certain streams, rivers, and estuaries are not included in the term "wetlands" as used herein because of greater depth of water. The above definition of wetlands is presented only for purposes of information, education and for refining the description of the areas studied in response to House Joint Resolution No. 2 (1967). This definition should not be construed to affect title to any land, submerged land, or other area or to prescribe bound- aries for any specific purpose other than use in public discussion. CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Natural plant communities which are the fun- damental basis for most wetlands' classifications do not fit neatly into any distinctive, man-devised system. Wetlands are infinitely varied, complexly integrated areas of plant and animal communities. Each wetland area is unique, but retains some degree of similarity with its neighbor whether the latter is downstream, upstream, across an estuary, or hundreds of miles away. The classification system presented in this study is the product of combining selected features from sev- eral different sources.'' The system describes briefly each type of wetland inventoried in Maryland and outlines in general the more important physical and ecological characteristics of each. Some gaps in the numerical designations will be detected. This reflects the lack of a particular type of wetland in Maryland although it occurs somewhere else and therefore was incorporated into preceding classification systems. By retaining a widely used system, the results produced here may be more readily understood and compatible with past and future work on the subject. There are two major, distinct wetlands groupings in Maryland; interior (or inland) and coastal. Wetlands in the first group may occur, however, within the second, especially on the landward side of coastal marshes and in the upper reaches of waterways remote from tidal influence. So there is also somewhat of a third, intermediate or transition grouping which is neither distinctly interior nor coastal in character. Interior or Inland Wetlands There are seven types of wetlands in this category which is characterized by non-tidal, fresh water. They are: Type I -Seasonally flooded basins and flats Type 2— Inland fresh meadows Type J— Inland shallow fresh marsh Type J -Inland open freshwater Type (5— Shrub swamp Type 7— Wooded swamp Type 5— Bogs Type 1— Seasonally Flooded Basin, Fiats And Type 2— Meadows Basins and flats (Type 1) are found in upland depressions and along edges of streams in overflow bottom land (flood plain). Meadows (Type 2) occupy shallow upland basins, sags or border deeper marshes on their landward side. Both of these types of wetlands' are quite similar and are often created artifically from drained and cleared shrub and wooded swamp and maintained by intensive grazing and mowing when drainage and water table conditions permit. The soil is usually without standing water throughout the year but is waterlogged within at least a few inches of its surface. There may be a few inches of standing surface water after a heavy rainfall or spring snow melts. Along river courses, flooding occurs in late fall, winter or spring. Water depth can vary from a few inches in uplands to a few feet along rivers during seasonal flooding. Vegetation varies greatly according to the season and the duration of the flooding. Lands that are IV-1 inundated only very temporarily usually develop little or no wetland vegetation. Vegetation includes hard- woods, herbaceous growths, native and cultivated grasses, ironweed, goldenrod, sweetflag, common rush, spikerush, chufa, smartweed, sedges, tearthumb, joe- pyeweed, arrowhead, many-leaved rush, wool-grass, jewelweed and various broad-leaved annual and peren- nial plants. These plant communities provide resting, feeding and shelter to numerous species of resident and migratory songbirds, and are frequented by large numbers of upland game birds, small game animals and furbearers, such as squirrels, rabbits, raccoons, foxes and deer. Type 3— Inland Shallow Fresh Marsh Wetlands of this type are found at the upper reaches of rivers and streams in shallow basins or bordering other types of wetlands on their landward side. This wetland type is also common as seep areas on irrigated land. The soil is usually waterlogged during the growing season. Often the ground is covered with as much as six inches of water. Vegetation includes grasses, bulrushes, spike- rushes, and marsh plants such as arrowhead, pickerel- weed, smartweed, wild millet, wild rice, and cattail in varying amounts, sometimes forming thick extensive beds. These wetlands are capable of supporting high per acre populations of muskrats. They are used by black and wood ducks for nesting and rearing ducklings. The high quality foods produced by the many different plants attract migrating and wintering waterfowl and rails. These areas support opossum, nutria, otter, muskrat, raccoon and rabbit populations. Type 5— Inland Open Freshwater Shallow water in artificial ponds, lakes and open areas interspersed in inland fresh marsh types catego- rize this wetland type. Water depth is variable and this type is usually fringed by a border of emergent vegeta- tion that grades into another type of wetland. Vegetation (mainly at depths under six feet, but scarce or absent in stained or turbid waters) consists of sago pondweed, naiad, spatterdock, water-lily, smartweed, elodea, water-wiUow, water cress, coontail, water milfoO, duckweed, arrowhead, burreed, spike- rush, native and introduced grasses and sedges, and various algal species (Figure IV-1 ). This type functions as resting and feeding areas for migrating waterfowl and other waterbirds and also as nesting and brooding grounds for wood ducks, black ducks and mallards. This habitat provides sustenance Figure IV-1. Adkins Mill Pond in Wicomico County — an example of Type 5 wetlands. for fish, muskrats, turtles, frogs, salamanders and the animals that use the shoreline to prey on these inhabitants. Type 6— Shrub Swamp Shrub swamps can be found often along sluggish streams and occassionally on river flood plains. They are common on the landward side (higher elevations) of coastal type wetlands. The soil is normally waterlogged during the growing season, and is covered with up to six or more inches of water. Vegetation consists of alder, buttonbush, willows, small maples and sweetgums, tearthumb, swamp rose, beggar-ticks, beggar-Uce, jewelweed, joe-pye-weed, loosetrife, native grasses and sedges. This type is moderately used by mallard, black and other puddle ducks during migration and is most important to wood ducks for nesting and nightly roosting. Rabbit, raccoon, opossum, fox, squirrel, otter, muskrat and deer find these areas to be valuable habitat as well as numerous reptiles, anphibians and resident and migratory songbirds. Type 7— Wooded Swamp Wooded swamps often occur in association with shrub swamps and along sluggish streams, on flood plains, on flat, poorly drained uplands, and in very shallow basins. The soil is waterlogged to within a few inches of its surface during the growing season, and is often covered with a few inches in uplands to one foot of water near streams and rivers. Vegetation consists mainly of trees (Figure IV-2). Principal ones are red maple, river birch, sweetgum, pinoak and cypress. Other trees occurring in variable numbers are sycamore, oaks, elms, ash, aspen, poplar, black gum, and maples. Forest floor growth includes nettle, Uzard's tail, spicebush, magnolia, paw-paw, IV-2 winterberry, greenbrier, holly, honeysuckle, black- berry, grapes, beggar-ticks, jewelweed, various grasses, sedges and broad-leaved plants. may occur as well as hemlock, alder, maple and aspen (Figure IV-3). The most important vegetative feature of Maryland bogs is the occurrence of plants that are dominant in the typical bogs of the glaciated portions of northern United States and Canada. Consequently, bogs represent distinctive ecological areas as isolated, extreme southern ranges for certain plant and animal species. Figure IV-2 An example of Type 7 wetlands (Dorchester County). This wetland habitat provides for numerous water- fowl, wildlife, and fishery species. A few examples of each include usage by puddle ducks for resting and feeding, but most importantly for black and wood duck nesting, brood production and nightly roosting. Other birds include migratory stops by mourning doves and woodcock, complete life cycle usage by great blue herons, egrets, ibis, killdeer, sandpipers, and large numbers of resident and migratory songbirds. Also, the bald eagle and osprey utilize this type for nesting sites. Deer, rabbit, squirrel, muskrat, otter, opossum, and fox also utihze this type. In permanently watered areas, there are several resident game fishes such as large mouth bass, pickerel, catfish, white perch, and yellow perch. Type 8— Bog Bogs occur mostly in shallow basins, on flat, poorly drained uplands and along sluggish streams. Maryland's bogs, also known as "glades" are found exclusively in Garrett County. The soil is usually waterlogged and supports a spongy covering of mosses. Other Type 8 wetland vegetation is either woody, herbaceous or both. Typ- ical plants are heath shrubs, sphagnum moss, ferns and sedges. In more northern latitude climates and at higher elevations in Maryland such plants as leather-leaf, Labrador-tea, cranberries, sweet bay pond pine, pitcher plants, carex and cotton grass are often present. Also, scattered, often stunted black spruce and tamarack Figure IV-3. An example of Type 8 wetlands — Garrett County. Animal inhabitants in this wetland type are cot- tontail rabbit, gray squirrel, red squirrel, raccoon, red and gray fox and bobcat, among numerous others. There are also extraordinary lists of reptiles and birds reported by naturalists familiar with these areas in Western Maryland. For example, Mansueti listed 23 different reptiles, 76 different birds and 19 different mammals as inhabitants or visitors of the Cranesville Pine Swamp, a montane bog that straddles the Garrett County, Maryland— Preston County, West Virginia line .2 Coastal Wetlands Nine types of wetlands are encompassed within the coastal wetlands grouping— five fresh and four sahne. Each type is characterized by special differences in shoreline elevation, geographical location, water quality or tidal influence. Because of their close asso- ciation with coastal wetlands in many instances, shrub and wooded swamps are often very difficult to delin- eate from more extensive and dominant coastal wet- lands. Types 6 and 7 wetlands from the inland grouping are also included, therefore, in the fresh water areas subdivision of the coastal grouping. Soil survey reports by the U. S. Soil Conservation Service have variously described the soils underlying coastal wetlands as dark -gray, black, dark brown, drab, blue-tinted, bluish gray silt, silty-clay, clayey-loam material which is mixed with varying quantities of vegetable matter and plant roots in all stages of decay IV-3 and decomposition, or cholced with a mass of peaty fibrous material (the partly decayed remains of pre- ceding generations of plants). Fresh Water Coastal Wetlands Type (5— Shrub swamp Type 7— Wooded swamp Type i2— Coastal shallow fresh marsh Type i J— Coastal deep fresh marsh Type i4-Coastal open fresh marsh Saline Areas Type i 6— Coastal salt meadow Type 7 7— Coastal irregularly flooded salt marsh Type i,S-Coastal regularly flooded salt marsh Type 79-Mud flats Type 12— Coastal Shallow Fresh Marsh These marshes are found on the landward side of coastal deep fresh marsh (Type 13) along tidal rivers, sounds, and estuaries. Type 12 wetlands are tidal and may be covered at average mean high tide by as much as six inches of water. The soil is always waterlogged during the growing season. Figure lV-4. An example of Type 12 wetlands with cattail In the foreground and saltmarsh cordgrass beyond the exposed mudflats in the background — Kent County. Vegetation consists mostly of cattail, reed, big cordgrass, arrow-arum, pickerel-weed, golden club, three square, panic grass, and rose mallow. Other plants are millet, swamp rose, rice cut-grass, water-parsnip, waterhemp, saltmeadow cordgrass, saltmarsh cord- grass, myrtle, hightide bush, and groundsel bush (Figure IV-4 and IV-5). These areas are heavily used for feeding by waterfowl, shorebirds and waders and receive some feeding usage by muskrats, raccoons and nutria. De- Figure IV-5. An example of Type 12 wetlands with 3 square the dominant aquatic vegetation near Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, Dorchester County. tailed wildlife and fisheries production related to this wetland type and the other coastal wetlands will be discussed in Chapter V-Wetlands Ecology. Type 13— Coastal Deep Fresh Marsh This type of wetland occurs along tidal tributaries and wetland meanders leading to bays, sounds and other estuarial areas of Chesapeake Bay. The soil is covered at average mean high tide with one-half to three feet of water. Vegetation consists of wildrice, pickerel-weed, spatterdock, water-lOy, arrow-arum, golden club, cat- tail, smartweed, tearthumb, coontail, pondweed, wild celery and other growths that occur in marsh openings. Type 14 Coastal Open Fresh Water This type includes shallow but variable depth portions of open water along fresh tidal rivers and sounds. This type is sometimes more or less enclosed tidal ponds or pondlike areas. Tidal cycles and natural currents keep sediment and detrital materials in suspension. Vegetation may be scarce or absent because of turbid waters. However, pondweed, naiad, wild celery, coontail, muskgrass, and widgeon-grass are common at depths less than six feet. Border areas are often surrounded by cattail, saltmeadow cordgrass, reed, saltmarsh cordgrass, myrtle, hightide bush, groundsel bush, and three-square. Type 14 wetlands are heavily used by feeding and resting waterfowl and other water birds and fish species. Type 16— Coastal Salt Meadow This type is found along the landward side of salt marshes (Types 17 and 18) or bordering open water. IV-4 The soil is always waterlogged during the growing season but its elevation is such that it is rarely covered by tide waters. However, there may be a few inches of water over the soil at spring or high wind tides. Vegetation consists mainly of saitmeadow cord- grass, saltgrass and blackrush in combination with patches or borders of saltmarsh cordgrass. Type 16 wetland is lightly used by various wildlife, waterfowl and fisheries. Type 17-IrregularIy Flooded Salt Marsh This type is found along the shores of tidal rivers and nearly enclosed bays, sounds and other estuarine waters. The soil is covered by a few inches of water by wind and spring tides at irregular intervals during the growing season. The dominant vegetation is needlerush. Widgeon- grass occurs in ponds and channels within the marsh. Other plants in border areas associated with this type are saltmarsh cordgrass, saitmeadow cordgrass, and high tide bush. This type is used very Httle ordinarily by wildlife and waterfowl, but where broken by ponds, creeks, and meanders it is sometimes moderately used by feeding waterfowl and nesting clapper rails. Type 18-Regularly Flooded Salt Marshes These marshes are located almost exclusively in estuaries in Worcester County where the tidal range is influenced by the Atlantic Ocean. The soil is covered at mean high tide with one-half foot or more of water during the growing season. Vegetation is dominantly saltmarsh cordgrass. Per- manent open water in these marshes may support wigeon-grass, eelgrass, sago pondweed, elodea and coontail. Other closely associated plants are salt- meadow cordgrass, saltgrass, hightide bush, myrtles and glasswort. Locally this type is heavily used by feeding water- fowl, especially where vegetation-filled ponds are present. It is important as nesting areas for gulls and rails, as feeding areas for herons, as habitat for mussels, snails, crabs and use by fish and some shorebirds. Type 19— Submerged Lands This type consists of the submerged lands under the open waters of Chesapeake Bay proper and the wide expanses of its sounds, bays, tidal rivers and mud flats from mean low tide seaward. Also included are the submerged lands under the waters of the bays behind the barrier beach islands on the ocean side of Wor- chester County. Submerged and suspended (floating) aquatic veg- etation may be abundant or scarce due to prevailing water depth, quahty and turbidity. These factors deter- mine environmental conditions and the amount and depth of sunlight penetration with consequent photo- synthetic activity. Submerged bottom areas are of great importance to waterfowl during migrating and wintering seasons. In addition to supply essential plant food, submerged bottom areas are also the substrata for oysters, clams, blue crabs and a myriad of other organisms which are ultimately responsible for Chesapeake Bay's renowned seafood production. While Type 19 wetlands are the largest in terms of inventoried acreage, the focus of this report is on wetland Types 1-18 because of the defini- tion and direction provided by House Joint Resolution No. 2 (1967). Since these wetlands are quite vulnerable to destruction while being relatively scarcer, considera- tion of management problems for Types 1-18 is all the more urgent. ORIGIN Wetlands are formed by natural processes in two ways-natural succession and coastal submergence (or inundation). Both processes are continuously at work. Natural Succession Natural succession is a process whereby wetlands gradually change to fast (dry) land. This process amounts to a filling of open surface waters through a combination of sedimentation and vegetation advance- ment on the sediment deposits. The description pre- sented here is on the origin of coastal wetlands for illustrative purposes, although the process is essentially the same for interior wetlands too . Coastal wetlands develop under three different physiographic conditions: 1) in estuaries, 2) in the shelter of spits, off-shore bars or islands, and 3) in protected bays. Estuaries and protected bays are particularly suit- ed for wetland establishment and development. Trib- utary waters carry large loads of sediment essential to building shallow areas by deposition. When a river reaches the estuary the rate of flow is substantially slowed down by the decreased stream gradient and by tidal influence. Additionally, upstream moving flood tides tend to "back-up" river flows at the head of tide. SaUnity causes suspended material to "salt out" and settle to the bottom. Under these conditions of re- duced flow rates and in increased salinities much of a river's sediment load will be deposited on the bottom. Ultimately through time, with the accumulation of IV-5 enough layers of sediment and conducive environ- mental conditions aquatic vegetation wUl be estab- lished on the bottom. As vegetation grov/s, dies and multiplies, the decaying plant material adds to the growing depths of sediment. Eventually, the filling in process proceeds to where different kinds of plants start to replace the original aquatic species since the wetlands become more and more infrequently wet. Coastal Submergence Coastal submergence refers to gradually rising ocean levels (a rate of six to twelve inches per century) inun- dating low coastal lands. There is abundant botanical, physiographical and historical evidence to support this contention.' Also, certain man-initiated practices have been reported to be locally significant in Maryland in en- couraging t'dal encroachments (Ch. XIII). Durrng the early stages of submergence or in- undation in coastal areas, shoreline erosion may produce an offshore bar which builds above sea level and forms a barrier beach or island given favorable time, tidal and ocean currents. Such islands parallel the shore, separating it and an enclosed bay from the waters of the open ocean or estuary. Along the shores of enclosed bays and estuaries formed by drowned river valleys, such as Chesapeake Bay, certain plant species take root, grow and reproduce themselves in increasing numbers. Each successive generation of grass, sedges, and other aquatic plants inches further into adjacent shallow, open water, growing upon the accumulated root stocks and deposited sediments. Eventually, an intertidal plateau is built of mixed layers of organic material and accumulated sediments from the region of the former shoreline into open water areas. The advancing vegetation ultimately fixes the tidal water courses meandering through the wetlands. The plant progression halts, however, at the edge of these channels because the force and volume of tidal and stream flows maintains its marsh delineated water course. Behind the channels build-up processes continue until the upper reaches or landward side of some marshes are flooded only by high or storm tide waters. Thus different types of wetlands evolve in the same area as some "build-up" while others submerge or extend into open waters. The edges of marshland, the banks of the tidal stream meanders and extremely shallow mud flats are alternately flooded and exposed on twice daily tidal cycles. Some of these marshes receive the discharge of fresh water streams in addition to the overall salinity changes which occur in adjacent estuarine waters. Hence each marsh may have a changing saline environment. The areal extent of flooding that a wetland receives depends upon elevation above mean sea level and the distance and slope from water's edge to the bordering upland or fast land. Consequently, some marshes may be flooded only during high or storm tides. In some coastal areas submergence occurs while at others seaward transport and deposition of inland sediments by rivers may start the formation of new land through natural succession. Also, wetlands in some coastal areas are being eroded away and literally pushed back by the relative local rise in sea level. Two opposing forces such as deposition versus rising sea level might possibly neutralize or cancel each other's independent result with the net effect of creating an apparently stable or stationary coastline. When shoreline shaping forces such as submergence and erosion coincide, such rein- forcing action results in the net loss of land in a rapid and dramatic fashion. The net effect to a particular segment of coastline, either upbuilding or erosion, depends on the combination of alternatives that are in operation. Differences in wetland plant species, abundance, size, and distribution are determined by environmental factors such as air and water temperatures, water salinities and other dissolved chemicals, duration of' inundation, regimen of fresh water flows, level of ground water table, tidal range and relative land and sea level elevations. Thus the vegetation patterns which develop on any specific wetland result from natural selection by environmental conditions. Nicholson, W. R., and R. D. Van Deusen. Marshes of Maryland. Dept. of Research and Education, Resource Study Rept. No. 6, Solomons, Md. December, 1954. Nicholson, W. R., and R. D. Van Deusen. Wetlands of Maryland. Md. Game and Inland Fish Commis- sion. Baltimore. 1956. Shaw, Samuel P., and C. Gordon Fredine. Wetlands of the United States. U. S. Dept. Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service, Circular 39. U.S.G.P.O: Washington, D. C. 1956. Uhler, Francis M., and Neil Hotchkiss. Vegetation and its succession in marshes and estuaries along the South Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. In, Proceedings, Marsh and Estuary Management Symposium. LSU, Baton Rouge, La. 1968. Office of River Basin Studies. Inventory of per- manent water of major significance to waterfowl in the State of Maryland. U. S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. July, 1956. IV-6 Mansueti, Romeo. "The Cranesville Pine Swamp." Atlantic Naturalist, v. 13, n. 2. Audubon Naturalist Society of the Central Atlantic States, Inc. Washington, D. C. April-June 1958. Chapman, V. J. Salt marshes and salt deserts of the world. Interscience Publishers, Inc. New York. 1960. IV-7 WETLANDS ECOLOGY DEFINITIONS Ecology may be defined as the study of relation- ships between organisms and their environment or habitat. The term ecosystem is used to describe a particular habitat type and the intricately interdepen- dent relationship between the living and non-Uving components of the habitat. It is formed by combining two words, ecological-system. Recently, ecologists have preferred to separate the study of ecosystems into two distinct units: (1 ) the structure of the ecosystem, including quantity and distribution of plants and animals and physical characteristics such as tempera- ture, light and salinity and (2) the function of the ecosystem, including the rate and amount of biomass production and the cycling of nutrients within the biotic community. Complete understanding of funda- mental ecological principles coupled with adequate supporting information are essential to formulating sound natural resource management poUcies. GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND CONCEPTS OF WETLAND ECOSYSTEMS Wetland ecosystems vary in character, ranging from western Maryland bogs to Eastern Shore salt marshes. Each has its own characteristic plants and animals. When viewed as a general habitat type, wetlands present an astounding array of biotic communities which are limited to, and survive only when the peculiar nature of the wetland habitat is maintained. The existence of any ecosystem depends upon energy transfers. This is part of a pattern in nature whereby soil, water, air, plants and animals exist together in a system of interdependencies called a food web which is actually a series of interacting food chains commencing with the lowest single-celled organism up to man. (Food chains are the pathways by which energy is transferred from one user to another in a cycle energized by plants (Figure V- Sunlight is the ultimate source of energy for all living things and, therefore, for all ecosystems. Plants possess the unique capability of utilizing solar energy along with carbon dioxide and water to produce food. Because of this unique capability, plants occupy a fundamental position in food chains and are referred to as primary producers. All animal life is bound together by dependency on plants for nourishment. The nutrients produced by plants are stored in them and thus made available for eventual consumption by plant eaters (herbivores), or else upon death, released for re-use by decay and decomposition of the organic detritus. Since wetland organisms form an integral part of the aquatic and terrestial ecosystem food chains, a generalized description of their important biological functions follows. 1 . Algae and bacteria growing on the nutrient-rich wetland muds are capable of fixing at- mospheric nitrogen into proteins and also proc^ucing sugars and vitamins. Marsh grasses and other plant species do produce several ions of organic material per acre per year.' Also, oxygen, another absolute for animal life, is produced as a by-product of the plant food-making process. 2. Marsh algae and higher plants die and through the process of decay important nutrients and vitamins are released from the plants and washed into the water by tides and rainfall (up to 50% of organic material produced). Ex- amples of important compounds contributed to aquatic ecosystems are vitamins such as biotin, cobalanin, niacin and thiamin; sugars; organic acids; amino acids; and polypeptides. The latter three are important in forming complexes with micro-nutrients such as manganese, zinc, copper, iron and phosphate and making them available for use by phytoplankton. 3. Much of the organic matter is washed from a marsh in a partially decayed form and settles to the bottom of rivers and estuaries, where it is available for use by bottom dwelling organisms. Highly diverse, rich bottom com- munities are found in estuarine muds. It is not uncommon to find densities of between 1 1 and 12 million invertebrate animals per square meter concentrated in the top one centimeter of mud where they are readily available for use by higher aquatic animals. 4. The bottom communities, as well as detritus from the marshes, provide food for transient as well as permanent dwelling freshwater and estuarine shellfish and finfish. 5. Man is at the top of the food chain and of course depends on shellfish and finfish for a portion of his food. Submersed rooted aquatic plants also play an im- portant role in an aquatic ecosystem. Besides supplying organic material to bottom animal communities they contribute to oxygen balance in the water. Plant roots and stems or stalks stabilize the bottom. This reduces turbidity; encourages sedimentation; and provides a place of attachment for smaller plants and animals and V-1 >- o o o LiJ if) < CD C/) < O LiJ Q cn < CO o c •a o o •S .S ca ■a c a o -o o E 2. ~ 00 ■£ X .2 5 BO c CD 3 « ^ ca 5^ 3 BO V-2 hiding places for young sport and commercial fishes. Aquatic plants are also an important source of food for many fishes, wildfowl and mammals. Organisms which grow on rooted aquatic plants include algae, bacteria and protozoans. Aquatic plants are also coated with a diatomaceous ooze consisting of attached zooplankton and phytoplankton. All of these organisms serve as food for crustaceans, molluscs, worms and insect larvae on which carnivorous fishes in turn depend. Up to 7.5 percent of the biomass of a rooted aquatic community may be consumed directly, each day. The fruits and seeds of many rooted aquatics constitute the most important food for many types of waterfowl (coots, ducks, geese, and swans) and are eaten also by game birds (grouse, quail and pheasant). THE ROLE OF WETLANDS IN ESTUARINE PRODUCTIVITY The essential function of wetlands in the biological processes of either interior or coastal aquatic en- vironments is basically the same. However, two im- portant fundamental differences exist: I) the presence or absence of sea water (salinity); and 2) the presence or absence of tidal or non-tidal currents. A distinctive feature of sea water is that all basic chemical substances necessary for life are present, although proportions vary somewhat from place to place. Fresh water, on the other hand, shows wide diversity in chemical constitution. No two lakes, ponds or rivers are precisely alike in their content of chemicals in solution. - Estuaries are among the most productive ecosystems known.' Table V-l provides a cursory com- parison of gross primary productivity between estuaries and other ecosystems.* The primary production contribution of wetlands to esluarine fertility occurs within three different com- munity types. These three community types with distinct animal and plant species are marshland, mudfiat (algae and submerged rooted vegetation) and aquatic (phytoplankton). Research on these three distinct production units shows that their order or importance as food makers for estuarine ecosystems is: ( 1 ) vast areas of marsh grasses, especially Spartina species; (2) benthic (bottom) "mud algae" and rooted aquatic vegetation which grow throughout intertidal sediments to a depth of * Rather than present somewhat similar material by discussing the role of wetlands in both types of aquatic ecosystems, one aquatic environment, estuarine, was selected. In doing so. however, this action should not be interpreted as signifying relative differences of im- portance between interior and coastal wetlands ecosystems. Table V-l. General orders of magnitude of gross primary productivity in terms of dry weight of organic matter produced annually. Ecosystems Production (lbs. /acre/year) lOO's Land, deserts, deep oceans Grassland, forests, eutrophic lakes, ordinary agriculture 1,000's Estuaries, river deltas, coral reefs, intensive agriculture (sugar cane, rice) IO,000"s Source: "The Role of Tidal Marshes in Estuarine Production," Eugene P. Odum, N. Y. State Conser- vation Dept. Info, leaflet (undated). approximately six feet; and (3) phytoplankton (microscopic floating plants which live in water).'' Most of the primary production from wetlands, especially marsh grasses, is used in the form of organic detritus — finely sized, partly decomposed plant and animal material. As the grasses die and fall onto wetlands they are fiushed by tides or other currents into an estuary. The abundant decomposer micro-organisms convert the plant material into particles rich in protein, carbohydrates and other nutrients essential to higher forms of life in the aquatic environment. The organically originating detritus is then distributed throughout the estuarine ecosystem as determined by the patterns of "nutrient traps." A nutrient trap refers to a situation wherein vertical currents are created in an estuary by fresh water inflows meeting tidal waters. One result of this circulation pattern is the temporary retention and suspension of valuable nutrient materials carried into an estuary by fresh water inflows or produced in marshes and flushed bayward by tidal action. In addition to circulating nutrients and oxygen, cyclical water motion also serves to remove waste products from producers and distribute them to consumers of such products (decomposers). "The beauty of an estuary is that the rhythmic water movement and mixing create a self-fertilizing and self- adjusting system."' However, changes to the inflow of fresh water from tributary rivers can have serious consequence to cycles essential to estuarine ecology." The annual production of a marsh, or an estuary as a whole, may be double or triple that of ordinary agricultural land simply because it produces two or three times as long. Also, an estuary fertilizes itself, plants, harvests and stores several different crops derived from wetlands without human labor or investment which is needed to produce a crop on agricultural land.' V-3 Another important aspect of wetland ecology is the relatively large ratio of marshland and mudflat acreage to water surface area. The greater the interface between land and water — the entire shoreline of Chesapeake Bay is a prime example — the greater the potential or actual biological productivity.' WETLANDS DEPENDENT PRODUCTION— SPECIES ECOLOGY The wide variety of habitat provided by wetlands is essential to complex life histories of dependant plant and animal species. For example, inherent variety provides protection for free-floating eggs, substratum for adhesive eggs, protection for delicate larval forms, refuge from strong currents, shade from intensive sunlight, and tolerable ranges of environmental conditions required by hundreds of plant and animal species. Their number and variety inhabiting Maryland's aquatic environment vary at any one time due to natural and man-caused phenomena. It has been reported that at least 1991 flora and fauna species (combined) inhabit Maryland's tidewaters.' Included within this total are many species on which virtually no information on taxonomy or life histories exist. While not everything is or need be known about each and every species, considerable information has been collected on some that are highly prized and immediately valuable to man. The following discussion touches very briefly on the role of wetlands in the ecology of some species of finfish, shellfish, waterfowl and other wildlife resources. Fisheries About 200 species of fish have been reported to visit or inhabit Chespeake Bay at some season of the year, and at least 60 of them are taken commercially.'" Although all interactions between Maryland's fisheries resources and wetlands are not known, considerable evidence indicates the dependency of a healthy fishery to wetlands. Several Maryland counties were selected to compare various fish species with different types of wetlands. In addition, species usage and abundance were also in- dicated for a specific type of wetland in the county sampled. Table V-2 shows the counties selected and the number of fish species estimated to be in the various types of wetlands or in nearby waters. For example, 44 species were identified for Type 17 wetlands in Dorchester County, 47 species with Type 12 wetlands in Harford County, and 90 species with Type 18 wetlands in Worcester County. Different fish species utilize wetlands for different purposes at various stages during their life cycles. Usage could be for spawning, or as nursery grounds where juvenile fish reside and feed while avoiding predators or unfavorable water conditions. Adults feed on the abun- dant and variable forage. Also usage may be seasonal depending upon the species, as is the abundance or numbers frequenting specific wetland areas. Table V-3 presents a sample survey of fishery resources in irregular- ly fiooded saltmarshes (Type 17) of Dorchester County. Studies show that 20 species use this type for spawning, 31 species use them as nursery grounds, and 32 adult species utilize irregularly flooded saltmarshes for feeding. Seasonal usage varies from a summer high of 34 species to a winter low of 18 species. Irregularly fiooded saltmarsh is a high valued habitat for fishery resources, based on 21 species including prized commercial and sportfish such as bluefish, striped bass and white perch. Briefcase histories of selected fisheries will be cited Table V-2. Sample evaluation of wetlands and dependent fishery resources, showing the number of fish species estimated or known to be present in the area or in nearby waters by wetland type sampled in certain, selected Maryland counties. Note, the blank spaces do not indicate either lack of this type of wetland or no fishery usage. Rather, numbers indicated are the only sample work conducted for this illustration. County Type of Wetland I 5 6 7 /: 14 16 17 18 Anne Arundel Baltimore Charles Dorchester Harford Worcester 35 40 25 20 51 29 23 38 39 38 47 29 42 44 90 V-4 Table V-3. Survey sample of fishery resource usage and abundance in irregularly flooded saltmarshes (Type 1 7) or nearby waters of Dorchester County, Maryland. Useage Season of Useage Abundance Fish species present Scientific name Common name c c ra a v> >• 1 Z c at c a. « E E 3 lA u. c I 0) n o S 0 -J 1 "Petromyzon marinus sea lamprey X Carcharhinus leucas bull shark X X Carcharhinus milberti sandbar shark X X Sphyrna zygaena hammerhead shark X X Raja eg/an teri'a clearnose skate X X Rhinoptera bonasus cownose ray X X *Acipenser oxyrhynchus Atlantic sturgeon X X X *Alosa aestivalis blueback herring X X X *Alosa mediocris hickory shad X X X *Alosa pseudoharengus alewlfe X X X *Alosa sapidissima American (white) shad X X X Brevoortia tyrannus Atlantic menhaden X X X X X X Dorosoma cepedianum gizzard shad X X X X X Anchoa mitctiilli bay anchovy X X X X X X X X Cyprinus carpio Carp X X X X Notropis hudsonius spottail shiner X X X X Ictalurus catus white catfish X X X Anguilla rostrata American eel X X X X X X X Strongylura marina Atlantic needlefish X X X X X X X X Hyportiamphus unifasciatus halfbeak X X X X X Cyprinodon variegatus sheepshead minnow X X X X X X X X Fundulus heteroclitus mummichog X X X X X X X X Fundulus majalis striped killifish X X X X X X X X Lucania parva rainwater killifish X X X X X X X X Syngnattius fuscus northern pipefish X X X X X X X X *Roccus americanus white perch X X X X X X X X *Roccus saxatilis striped bass X X X X X X X X Bairdiella chrysura mademoiselle X X X X X Cynoscion regalis greytrout (weakfish) X X X X X Cynoscion nebulosus spotted seatrout X X X X X Pomatomus saltatrix bluefish X X X X X Leiostomus xanthurus spot X X X X X Micropogon undulatus Atlantic croaker X X X X X Pogonias cromis black drum X X X X X Sciaenops ocellata channel bass (red drum) X X X X X Chasmodes bosquianus striped blenny X X X X X X X X Peprilus alepidotus butterfish (Southern harvestfish) X X X X X Menidia menidia Atlantic silverside X X X X X X X X Paralichthys dentatus summer flounder X X X Pseudopleuronectes americanus winter flounder X X X X Trinectes maculatus hog choker X X X X X X X X Gobiesox strumosus clingfish (skllletfish) X X X X X X X X Opsanus tau oyster toadf ish X X X X X X X X Spharoides maculatus northern puffer Total X X 20 31 32 24 34 30 18 21 4 12 Adults present during spawning migration, but not used as a spawning ground per se. V-5 next to illustrate the significance of wetlands to their survival and productivity. Striped bass. Striped bass spawn in at least eleven different tidal water areas of the State at points where fresh and saltwater meet. These areas have large volumes of moving water with low salt content. The eggs are carried and agitated by tidal currents, which benefit their survival. After the newly hatched fry finish absorbing the attached egg yolk sac, they are on their own as nearly helpless members of the Bay's plankton (floating) community. The striped bass fry by their own feeble movement, and with the assistance of tides and currents find their way to shoal areas and wetlands which provide food and shelter. The wetlands synthesize the nutrients which produce algae and other plant materials required by the microscopic animals fed upon by striped bass fry. Although many factors operating in the marine en- vironment are critical, finding of the right food, of the right size, and in sufficient quantity limits survival in the early days and weeks for striped bass fry. Limited food or starvation — for even a short period of time — can be lethal in itself, or weakening, allowing the subjected animal to fall prey to disease, to another of its kind, or to another species. The growing young striped bass move into estuarine nursery areas to prey and feed on a multitude of invertebrates and smaller fishes. At fingerling size (3 to 6 inches) they begin feeding on small schooling forage fish and the more abundant crustaceans. Adults eat many kinds of living fish, crabs and other numerous invertebrates. In Chesapeake Bay adult striped bass feed extensively on menhaden, anchovies (shiners), spot, white perch, small blue crabs, and less so on mollusks. During winter they feed actively on young croakers, different kinds of young herring, shrimp, and other organisms found close to the bottom. Menhaden. Menhaden begin life with oceanic spaw- ning. The spawning occurs off the Capes of Virginia during December, January, and February. Here the eggs float near the surface and hatch in about 2 days. The larval fish find their way to the bottom where northward moving, highly saline ocean currents transport the tiny fish into the Bay and disburse them shoreward. By early spring, they are being nurtured in the sluices and muskrat runs of tidal marshes. Menhaden convert planktonic plant and animal organisms produced and found in wetlands into oil rich protein that is a principal food of juvenile striped bass. In terms of poundage, menhaden provide the largest com- mercial catch on the Atlantic Coast. Shellfish. Commercial and non-commercial shellfish species are highly dependent upon the one-celled algal forms that derive their principal nutrients from material produced in marine (coastal) wetlands. This is particularly true for the shellfish that are filter feeders. During their adult life, they remain stationary, or nearly so, and capture food organisms by creating currents so that they can engulf particulate matter that passes in their near vicinity. Coastal wetlands bordering large expanses of shoreline are highly important to the establishment and maintenance of many natural and seeded oyster bars, particularly those that are in tributaries and small bays. Natural grounds are critical for perpetuation of the oyster, soft clam and hard clam fisheries. Wide natural dispersal and protection facilitated by numerous adjacent wetlands ensure that some oyster grounds are protected from damaging natural acts and promote reproduction and harvesting. Maintenance of these shellfish pop- ulations provides the brood stocks whose free fioating microscopic larvae repopulate harvested or naturally devastated areas. Nearness of oyster and other shellfish grounds to wetlands may provide protection from the summer encroachment of oxygen poor bottom layers of water that limit the life of sedentary animals in deeper waters. Wetlands also provide some measure of protection to shellfish and other bottom life against burial from sedimentation, if shoreline areas were otherwise devoid of vegetative cover. Many shellfish such as mussels, barnacles and limpets are not of direct economic importance, but they convert planktonic algae into proteinaceous material which, when consumed by fish and birds, may eventually be consumed by man. Stationary shellfish have a highly important role in the food chain of a great many animals and perhaps have a critical position in the food web of certain communities, because individually they can amass relatively large volumes of proteins directly from unicellular algae. Some shellfish have adaptive mechanisms to protect them from environmental hazards for protracted periods, in some instances for more than two weeks. Consequently, they become sources of food for higher animals at times when other food is not readily available. Blue crabs begin life near the Virginia Capes of Chesapeake Bay. Most spawning occurs in the saltier waters near the mouth of the Bay. Female crabs migrate to this area to deposit their eggs. The eggs hatch in 12 to 15 days and the larval crabs are set free into the water. The early stages are exceedingly small, require salty water, and depend on water currents for movement. With the aid of northward moving, highly saline bottom ocean V-6 waters, small crabs migrate up the Bay and are disbursed into tributary and inland waters. They feed on various materials, grow, and periodically shed their shells from late spring to early fall. The environment of grassy flats, sand bars, oyster bars, and mud flats found within the Bay and its tributaries supports high crab populations. Birds Waterfowl. Wetlands provide ideal habitat for waterfowl reproduction and brood raising purposes. Black duck, blue-winged teal, mallard, wood duck, godwit and hooded merganser are the principal breeding species in Maryland. Black duck nesting sites are good indicators of wetlands' important role in waterfowl reproduction because this species is widely distributed throughout the Chesapeake Bay region, is a year-around State resident, and utilizes a greater variety of habitats within this region than any other waterfowl." Reported locations in Maryland of largest black duck breeding populations are along the margins of shallow brackish open estuaries and estuarine bay marshes. Fairly large breeding populations were also reported for salt estuarine bay marshes, and scattered pairs in coastal salt marshes, fresh estuarine bay marsh, and various areas of estuarine river marsh. '- Black ducks construct their nests in a variety of locational situations. For instance, nests were found in cordgrass bordering tidal creeks, salt meadows, coastal embayed marshes, salt estuarine bay marshes and along the margins of estuaries." The food habits of ducks, geese and swans vary greatly between species and from one habitat to another. The majority of waterfowl species are grazers. Aquatic vegetation comprises a large portion of the diet — up to nearly half of the food consumed by waterfowl as a whole." Aquatic vegetation is important to all waterfowl diets with the possible exception of sea ducks, (scoter, eider and old squaw) and mergansers. Ducks, geese and swans commonly feed on the seeds, tubers, rootstocks and foliage of water plants. Widgeongrass probably is the most important single waterfowl food and claspingleaf pondweed probably is second most important for the majority of waterfowl in Maryland." Other food plants important locally are wild celery, eelgrass, Olney threesquare, and dotted smartweed. The more important animal foods are the bivalve clam (Balthica macoma), the little surf clam, the salt marsh snail, various tiny gastropod mollusks, amphipod crustaceans, mud crabs, midge larvae, and insetcs.'" All of these animals are common in wetlands. Further important evidence on the critical role of wetlands in waterfowl ecology is provided by the refuge system established by the Federal government. This action was based on the knowledge that if annual crops of waterfowl and other migratory birds were to be maintained, then areas ideal for breeding, resting, feeding and refuge must be preserved." Birds Other Than Waterfowl. This arbitrary grouping comprises all of the bird species other than waterfowl. Within this category there are two basic groups of birds that utilize wetlands.'" 1) More characteristic species are birds that breed in wetlands. 2) Less characteristic species are birds that visit wetlands for feeding and resting purposes only. Certain rails such as the clapper (Rallns longirostris), king (R. elegans), Virginia (/?. limicola), sora (Porzaita Carolina), yellow (Colurnicops noveboracensis), and the black (Cresisciis jamaicensis) are more chracteristic birds. The food habits of rails depend on the season and the availability of food. Certain plants and a variety of insects, snails, and small crustaceans form the bulk of their diet. While rails abound in salt marshes, a casual observer might spend considerable time in these areas and never see a rail since they are retiring and elusive birds. Sparrows such as the sharp-tailed {Ammospiza candacuia), seaside (A. maritinia), and close relatives, the Savannah and grasshapper sparrows are also more characteristic wetland bird species. These sparrows feed on insects, spiders, snails, and sand fleas which make up about four-fifths of their diet; the seeds of grasses and other plants constitute the other fifth. Other bird species that breed in the wetlands include the marsh hawk, short-eared owl, red-winged blackbird, meadowlark, boat-tailed grackle, marsh wrens and cer- tain shore birds such as snipes, sandpipers, willets and plovers. Most of the common birds of the eastern United States may be seen from time to time in or about wetlands. The group treated here is the "less characteristic species" although they are perhaps most conspicuous. Many of the wading birds such as the great blue heron, little blue heron, Louisiana heron, green heron, black-crowned night heron, common egret and snowy egret frequent wetlands. These birds feed on numerous types of larger aquatic life commonly in- habiting wetlands, such as frogs, snakes and fish. Gulls and terns breed in wetlands and along beaches, and also feed heavily in wetland areas. Species include herring gull, the ring-billed gull, Bonaparte's gull, the laughing gull, least tern, common tern, Forster's tern, Caspian tern, royal tern, black tern and black skimmer. While many of the birds mentioned here may not be V-7 recognized or familiar to most people, they deserve protection because of their beneficial feeding habits. Depending upon local habitat conditions, shorebird species are highly insectivorous, feeding on grasshoppers, caterpillar pests such as the armyworm and cutworm, and beetles. They also feed on adults and larvae of horseflies and mosquitoes; marine worms which attack oysters; ticks which carry livestock diseases and numerous other insect pests. Other birds that frequent wetlands include vultures, crows, belted kingfishers, and numerous species of songbirds, especially during migration. Most significant- ly, endangered species such as the bald eagle and osprey (fish hawk) utilize and are tied closely to numerous wetlands throughout the State for nesting and feeding purposes. Other Wildlife Permanent residence in a wetland habitat requires specific adaptation. Many of the conspicuous wildlife species are only visitors to wetlands. They are attracted there by the abundant supply of food produced in wetlands, protected or sheltered areas in which to hunt and feed, and an indisturbed environment remote from man. Big game. White tail deer are frequent visitors and inhabitants of wetlands, especially shrub and wooded swamps. Populations vary depending upon habitat con- ditions in surrounding areas. Upland game. The cottontail rabbit, bobwhite quail and the Eastern gray squirrel frequent most wetlands. Populations are generally estimated as moderate. In addition, several Eastern Shore wetland areas are in- habited by the endangered Bryant fox squirrel. Fur animals. Common fur bears such as the racc- oon, striped skunk, red and gray fox, and opossum are abundant throughout the State and are frequent wetland visitors. The river otter, nutria, muskrat and mink provide trapping in wetland areas. The beaver is making a comeback in Maryland. This valuable fur bearer is found in ever-increasing numbers in 17 counties, and is a valuable asset to many other wildlife species associated with wetland areas. Reptiles and amphibians. Little information was obtained on reptiles and amphibians except that water snakes, black snakes, diamond-backed terrapin (rare and protected), and snapping, mud and painted turtles are common to wetlands. Amphibians such as bullfrogs, leopard frogs and salamanders are commonly found because their life cycles are tied to wetlands. DISCUSSION The role of wetlands as habitat and contributors to aquatic productivity is many faceted. Wetlands provide food and shelter not only for organisms naturally inhabiting the wetlands, but also for many organisms which spend all or part of their lives in Maryland's uplands, lakes, rivers, estuaries or shallow ocean. With specific reference to estuaries, "salt marshes are vitally necessary to the maintenance of population of virtually all our major shallow salt water fish and shellfish. Inasmuch as a very high percentage (60-90%) of our important commercial and sports fish and shellfish can be found in these adjacent waters at some time during their lives, it is clear why salt marshes are so important to the total productivity of associated estuarine water."" Wetlands are also important to terrestial animals. Maryland enjoys an abundance of waterfowl, upland and big game, fur animals, shorebirds, songbirds and wading birds due to extensive wetlands habitat. For example, the Chesapeake Bay region is one of the more important areas in North America for migrating and wintering waterfowl. Wintering waterfowl populations in recent years have averaged more than one million birds. This figure represents about four percent of the continental wintering population and about 23 percent of the entire Atlantic Coast waterfowl population.™ Thus the wetland habitat conditions in Maryland affect the welfare of waterfowl in the Atlantic Flyway, and for some species such as the canvasback duck, the welfare of an entire species.-' To a wild creature, habitat means a specific kind of area in which to live, to find food, or to reproduce. It is a place with the right temperature, the right amount and kind of water, and the right kind of plants and other animals. Wildlife are self-sustaining as long as they have a proper place to live and are not so disturbed or so reduced in numbers that they cannot maintain sufficient reproduction. The key is "a proper place to live." Change in habitat is inevitable and a tenet of biology. Man cannot stop all natural changes completely, but can alter its direction, hasten or slow the pace. Most habitat alteration is, for all intents and purposes, irreversible for coastal wetlands and the loss of habitat is a final one for most dependent animals. Any suitable similar area will almost always be already filled to capacity with populations of those species whose habitat was destroyed. In fact, many types of organisms cannot move into another nearby, exactly similar environment. The ecological principle o( carrying capacity states that for a given unit of habitat, all available niches will be filled at all times, and that the density of any given V-8 species is at the maximum supportable by the habitat under normal conditions. This is further reinforced by animal behavior and intra-species competition. An animal resident on a given habitat site has an almost unbeatable superiority over a competitor of the same species newly entering the area. An interloper or transient is harassed at every meeting with the effect of decreasing its health, its ability to compete and reproduce, and ultimately its survival. An animal in poor condition is, according to one Darwinian theory (survival of the fittest [natural selection]), not likely to survive. Thus there is no substitute habitat available for creatures displaced by destroyed habitat. "The destruction of habitat almost inevitably means the proportional destruction of the animals in it.'"- For maintenance of existing wildlife populations dependent on or related to wetlands, adequate wetland habitat in terms of both quality and quantity must be available. If the state of Maryland is to assert and sustain a positive role in wetlands management, the objectives of management policy must be to protect as much of the State's remaining wetlands as possible. However, the future scale of needed natural area protection will probably exceed governmental capabilities for ac- quisition. The state, therefore, must restrict its sales of publicly owned land, especially wetlands. Besides being counter to positive resource manage- ment policy, the sale of publicly owned wetlands has several other undesirable consequences, namely: 1 ) encourages additional plans for non-ecologically conscious development on public property; 2) discourages local and municipal governments from undertaking or initiating protective activities such as conservation zoning ordinances, acquisition of wetlands for open space, conservation and recreation purposes; and 3) undermines public confidence in the ability of State government to handle its responsibility of protec- ting and managing natural resources placed in its trust for the common good of all citizens. 1 Wass, Marvin L., and Thomas D. Wright. Coastal wetlands of Virginia (Interim Report). Va. Inst. Marine Sci. Gloucester, Va. December 1969. 2 Coker, Robert E. Streams, lakes, ponds. Univ. of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill. 1954. 3 Odum, Eugene P. Fundamentals of ecology. 2d. ed., W. R. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 1959. 4 Odum, Eugene P. The role of tidal marshes in es- tuarine production. Information leaflet, N. Y. State Conservation Dept., Div. Cons. Ed., from A'. Y. Slate Conservationist, (reprint). 5 Odum, Eugene P. The urgent need for landscape zoning of the estuarine region according to ecosystem principles. Address presented at Sym- posium of Estuarine Ecology of Coastal Waters of North Carolina. Raleigh, N. C, May 12, 1966. 6 Copeland, B. J. Effects of decreased river flow on estuarine ecology. J. Water Pollution Control Fed. November, 1966. 7 Odum, Eugene P. The role of tidal marshes in es- tuarine production, supra at 4. 8 Schuster, Carl N. The nature of a tidal marsh. Information leaflet, N. Y. State Conservation Dept., Div. Conservation Ed., from The N. Y. State Conservationist, Aug. -Sept., 1966. 9 Information provided by staff of the Department of Chesapeake Bay Affairs. 10 Jackson, Charles E. Chesapeake fisheries, history and outlook. In Symposium, Maryland Conserva- tion Forum, April 12, 1944. Md. Dept. Research and Education, Educational series, no. 4, Solomons, Md. June, 1944. 1 1 Stewart, Robert E. Waterfowl populations in the upper Chesapeake region. U.S.D.I., BSF&W. Spec. Sci. Rept.— Wildlife No. 65. U.S.G.P.O: Washington. July, 1962. 12 Ibid. 13 Op. cit. 14 Martin, A. C, and F. M. Uhler. Food of game ducks in the United States and Canada. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bull. No. 634. 1939. 15 Stewart, Robert E., supra. 16 Ibid. 17 Special Committee on Conservation of Wildlife Resources. Wildlife and the land: a story of regeneration. Committee print. U. S. Senate, 75th Congr., 1st Sess. U.S.G.P.O: Washington. 1937. 18 McAlee, W. L. Wildlife of the Atlantic Coast salt marshes. U.S.D.I., Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Circ. II, U.S.G.P.O: Washington. 1941. 19 Cooper, Arthur W. Salt marsh vegetation of the South Atlantic Coast. Paper presented in sym- posium on Current Research on Vegetation of the Southeastern States at AAAS meetings, Washington, D. C, December 29, 1966. 20 Stewart, Robert E., supra. 21 Stotts, Vernon D. Personal communication (Md. Fish & Wildlife Administration.) May 14, 1970. 22 Conway, William G. "The consumption of wildlife by man." Parks & Recreation, Vol. IV, no. 2, February, 1969. V-9 VI WETLANDS HABITAT INVENTORY I PREVIOUS WETLAND STUDIES IN MARYLAND Initiation of activities in response to House Resolu- tion No. 2 (1967) commenced with an examination of previous wetland studies conducted in the United States. The reports of studies conducted in Maryland prior to 1967 include: Wetlands of I he United Slates, Maryland Marshes, Wetlands of Maryland, Permanent Water Inventory — Maryland, Waterfowl Populations in the Upper Chesapeake Region, and Classification and Inventory of Habitats in Maryland.^ These studies were essentially inventorial in nature and their contents were limited mostly to habitat data. None of them examined other issues or facets of management problems and none were prepared in response to a legislative request. However, each study recommended that wetlands should be preserved. Review of these documents in light of the objectives outlined by the 1967 legislative directive suggested that another inventory should be undertaken, but of much greater extent. Also, the inventory should be ac- companied by detailed studies of other collected data and information. Accordingly, the Director and staff of the Department of Game and Inland Fish* in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife proposed and outlined a group of wetland study projects on behalf of the Maryland Board of Natural Resources.** The inventory and study began in July, 1967. The following discussion describes habitat in- ventory methods and provides a background for in- terpreting and understanding data and discussion presented in this chapter and throughout the entire report. HABITAT INVENTORY METHODOLOGY 1) Two sets of U.S. Geological Survey topographic quadrangle maps (Scale= 1:24,000) were assembled which covered the entire State. 2) All areas classified as wetlands (in Chapter IV) were identified and outlined on these maps and assigned a specific identification number unique to the particular county in which the wetland is located. For practical purposes an acreage limitation of at least five contiguous acres per wetland was imposed for inventorial con- *Not known as the Maryland Fish and Wildlife Administration. **Abolished with the creation of the Department of Natural Resources by Chapter 154, Laws of Maryland 1969 (Article 66C, 1957 Annotated Code of Maryland - 1970 Repl. Vol.) sideration. Individual data sheets were prepared for each wetland area identified. These sheets cover a wide variety of data and information (Figures VI-1 and VI-2). Thus far, 1,557 wetland areas of five acres or larger in size have been identified. It is stressed that there is nothing magical about the five acre limitation chosen for inventorial purposes. Areal extent is not a paramount criterion in evaluating or indicating the importance of a wetland. Therefore, wetlands smaller than five acres should not be downgraded or their values disregarded. 3) Two sets of U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey marine charts were obtained and the acreage of marine depths at 0-6 ft., 6-12 ft., 12-36 ft., and over 36 ft. was computed within each tidewater county. Mud flat acreages were also computed. 4) Acreage measurements were made manually with either a grid (dot system) or a planimeter. Conversion factors of 1.43 acres per grid dot or 91.8 acres per planimetered square inch were utilized for the USGS maps. 5) Wetland acreage losses were obtained by a Statewide aerial reconnaissance which also authenticated cartographically identified wetlands and augmented the inventory with a visual assessment of the wetlands' present physical situation. 6) Habitat inventory information was obtained on each wetland by field surveys and by interviews with natural resource management and enforcement per- sonnel. The information was recorded on wetlands habitat inventory data sheets originated for each specific unit identified during the course of the study (Figures VI- I and VI-2). Additionally, a data processing system was designed and developed to conveniently store and rapidly retrieve this information. (See Appendix B — Wetlands Information and Retrieval System.) Inventory information was also provided by the University of Maryland's Institute of Natural Resources during 1968. Every wetland was again visited. Each wetland's ecological values were described, including present condition due to natural or unnatural changes, and other factors listed on the habitat inventory sheets. 7) A determination was made of each wetland's vulnerability to changes initiated by natural or man- made activities. Wetland vulnerability was subdivided into three categories representing potential, probable, or imminent change to the present and future natural environmental conditions of that particular wetland. As such, these values represent both the objective and subjective value judgements of observers based on pre- sent and future activities affecting each wetland. VI-1 WETLANDS VULNERABILITY CATEGORIES Category /-(highly vulnerable) -classiiits wet- lands experiencing destructive changes or assessed as having that possibility within the next five years. Category II- (moderately vulnerable)— classifies wetlands where destructive changes can be anticipated within the next ten years. Category in-(safe)- classifies wetlands that are highly inaccessible or isolated from societal activities, are in the ownership of wealthy landowners (assumes property ownership stability), are owned and managed for conservation purposes, or are owned by the State or Federal Government. 8) Each wetland identified on a USGS quadrangle map was also plotted on an appropriate Maryland State Roads Commission county highway map (Scale: 1 inch = 1 mile). These county wetlands maps are utilized for resource planning activities and field work. 9) The field inventory data and sets of topographic maps, marine charts and county wetlands work maps are maintained by the Departments of Natural Re- sources and State Planning. These maps are available for reference by interested persons and use by the State and local agencies for resource planning and manage- ment activities. 1 0) By combining selected information generated by Steps (2), (6), and (7) with the county wetlands maps produced in Step (8), it was possible to establish an effective base for communication within the Wet- lands Technical Advisory Committee. This achieve- ment permitted a comprehensive collection and exchange of information linked to specific wetlands and facilitated the coordination of study activities. It should be noted that the habitat inventory and methodology described here do not represent a survey of wetlands of the detail, accuracy, extent or intent of that required by recently enacted legislation. Section 718 in Article 66Cof the Annotated Code of Maryland (Ch. 241 , Laws of Md. 1970) requires a survey in order to background the establishment of wetlands manage- ment rules and regulations. (See Appendix E.) This legal requirement is now being implemented and ful- filled by the Wetlands Division in the Water Resources Administration, an agency of the Maryland Depart- ment of Natural Resources. BASIC HABITAT STATISTICS For purposes of stastical convenience only, the counties of the State were grouped into survey regions based strictly on the coincidence of geographical loca- tion and political boundaires. The survey regions devised to assist assembly and discussion on habitat statistical data include Central and Western, Western Shore, Upper Chesapeake Bay, Eastern Shore, and Lower Eastern Shore regions (Figure VI-3). These survey regions as well as county boundaries reflect few, if any, values meaningful to ecosystems that would in turn be useful to most phases of resource management planning based upon sound ecological principles. In terms of a Statewide perspective, the entire wetlands habitat is important and should be considered and treated as one unit. However, from a local perspective what's happening within local polit- ical boundaries is naturally of foremost interest. There- fore, statistical data, analysis and discussion on basic habitat (acreage) statistics are presented in two ways. First, data is presented on a survey region basis to provide a convenient form for Statewide presentation and discussion. Second, data is presented on a county- by-county basis for local interest and land-use planning decisions. Statewide Table VI-1 records the wetland habitat inventory by type and survey region. A total of 332,000 acres were inventoried. About 308,000 acres of wetlands (Types 1-19) still remain as of mid-1 968. In addition, 1 .6 million acres were computed for variable depth open surface water areas (and bottom) of Chesapeake Bay, its tributaries and the coastal embayments (Table VI-2). Since survey emphasis was on wetlands as defined by House Joint Resolution No. 2 (Appendix C), open surface water areas do not receive any atten- tion beyond basic inventorial work although they comprise a major portion of the State's aquatic habitat. From a regional perspective,^ Plan for the Marine Resources of the A tlantic Coast evaluates Maryland's combined coastal wetlands and estuarine habitat as follows: a) seventh in percentage of "important" coastal wetlands (8.4%); b) third in percentage of "important" open shoal water habitat (12.3%); c) sixth overall ranking out of the 14 Atlantic Coast states. Wetlands in Maryland (Types 1-19) consist largely of coastal salt meadow (25%), coastal shallow fresh marsh (22%), wooded swamp (22%), and irregularly flooded salt marsh (21%). These wetlands also ex- perienced the largest share of acreage losses, a com- bined 19,956 acres or 84 percent of the total acreage loss. Other notable acreage losses in terms of percentage of total acreage inventoried by wetland type include: VI-2 Figure VI-1 HABITAT INVENTORY DATA SHEET FOR SPECIFIC MARYLAND WETLAND AREAS— Side 1 WETLAND HABITAT INVENTORY DATA SHEET FOR SPECIFIC UNIT FOR MARYLAND 1. STATE 2. COUNTV(S) 3. COUNTY WETLAND UNIT NO. 4. ELEC. DIST.CS) 5. QUADRANGLE IS) 6. PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGION 7. NAME OF WETLAND 8. DESCRIP- TION ACREAGE TYPES ACRES DOMINANT VEGETATIVE SPECIES 9. TOTAL 10. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER WETLAND UNITS n. l_AND USE ON WETLAND 12. ON SURROUNDING AREA 13. OWNERSHIP 2 O H < s O U- z LLI li- Ij Q -I GROUP SPECIES, NUMBERS, TYPE OF USE, PERIOD OF USE WATERFOWL OTHER MIG. GAME BIRDS FUJ? ANIMALS BIG GAME UPLAND GAME SHOREBIRDS S, WADERS FINFISH SHELLFISH & CRABS REPTILES& AMPHIBIANS SONGBIRDS 15. SOURCE OF DATA& DATE 16. ADDITIONAL REMARKS W- 4.7/67 VI-3 Figure- VI-2 HABITAT INVENTORY DATA SHEET FOR SPECIFIC MARYLAND WETLAND AREAS— Side 2 I ASSESSMENT OF WETLAND VALUE USE VALUE SPP. OR TYPE REMARKS HUNTING FISHING (SPORT) FISHING (COMM.) TRAPPING (FURS) BIRDWATCHING OTHER RECREATION F. & W. REPROD. UNIQUE HABITAT UNI(3UE WILDLIFE IMPROV. CAPABILITIES OTHFR >- _] IS < LU _1 3 > OVERALL RESUME Z < LU ASSESSMENT OF VULNERABILITY 3 FACTOR VALUE TYPE REMARKS > INDUSTRY HOUSING CHANNELIZING PUBLIC WORKS AGRICULTURE MOSQUITO CONT. POLLUTION EROSION SUCCESSION OTHFR U. o 1- z U] UJ OVERALL RESUME ACTION TAKEN FOR PRESERVE TION VI-4 "»l »». c o 'So T3 3 OS VI-5 q.U8S8j:(l % f^ &\ CM c\j r- H H CJ O OJ cr\ cr\ O VA CM H 0 0\ pircTq.a«. 3dA% jad E8SS01 aS^sJOV ^ f^ J- C^ CJ\ U\ O OO • « • e • OJ XA 101 O J' vO CO r-i 0\ <^ ON a 9§B8aOV ^USSSOd vO On O > e > sasscxi eSsaJOV \A f^ C^ CO \0 -^ <^ -^\e\ O ao [^ O f^ XA S On CD tn On nO CO O CN O CA O C\J S&B9aOB paTjoq.u9AUi CVJ XA CO H ■LA CM -S P- 1-1 OJ XA NO NO On r^ H f^ CO C~ CM -d- nO O <^ CO t~ CO O CM CM XA CM XA O t- H O CO nO -::f On ^-oo cm CO r- H • •V *\ •* Ed "^ t"" fn CM o •a a m a C o ^ •H 0) O h >. >-, a b B > e 3 3 W W e2 j9M- I -:i I I puE iBJ^uao CO On NO CO rH rA XA r^ On CM J' OO r- ! I CN u 0) c o u M ■=1; HU adiC'^ puBXq.9M CM CA XA NO >■ CO CM NO C^ H H VI-6 Table VI-2 Depth versus acreage computed for the open surface waters (Type 19P wetlands) of Chesapeake Bay and tributaries (1967-1968). Computations conducted by the Department of Game and Inland Fish on U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey marine charts. Total Covinty >'iud flats Water I Depths Surface Area 0' thru 6' 6" thru 12' 12' thru 36' 36' + Anne Arundel 28 20,719 15,10U 67,269 39,267 1U8,2U14 BaltimDre ^ 13,610 12,1;06 26,U68 - 56,61iO Calvert _ 11,9U5 6,782 liL,782 5U,56U 115,073 Caroline ^ 1,670 355 1,3U3 - 3,366 Cecil 686 23,663 3U,i;69 10,207 - 69,025 Charles - 28,U9U 25,990 U7,882 6,932 109,298 Dorchester d9 97,lUO 56,521 109,032 35,768 298,550 Harford 10 17,ti5l 19, 311 16,639 - 53, la] Kent - 31,232 19,731 53,375 8,6Ul4 113, UOO Prince Gieorge's - 5,987 959 811 765 8,522 Queen Anne's - U,739 3,167 5,770 1,1U9 15, 332 Somerset 18 60,388 36,786 58,760 17,262 173,211j St. Mary's - 314,678 21,337 120,2 149 117,537 293, 801 Talbot - l4l,72U 26,606 U8,lll 10,935 127,376 Wicomico - 6,298 2,523 l,8i46 - 10,667 'foroester " 66,717 ~ " ~ 66,716. Totals 831 h66,l6h 282,0U7 609, 5Wi 292,823 1,651,699 180 acres of inland fresh meadow (79%), 270 acres of inland shallow fresh marsh (64%), and 2,000 acres of regularly flooded salt marsh (14%). From an historical perspective, previous reporting on State wetlands suggested that there were consider- ably more along with a persistent developmental attitude. For instance, the Report of the Maryland Conservation Commission for 1908-1909 states that: "the eastern and southern counties of the State border- ing Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean have 323,326 acres, of which 1 18,912 acres are fresh-water swamps and 204,416 acres are salt-water marshes. The central and western counties have 5,440 acres of larger swamp tracts, all of which are fresh. In addition to the larger tracts here indicated smaller swamps and marshes scattered over the farm land raises the total to fully 500,000 acres, or about one-twelfth of the total area of the State. It requires little argument to show that this vast area of unproductive land, which might become the richest in the State, should be made available for agricultural purposes at the earliest opportunity." From the field inventory undertaken for this study total wetlands acreage losses are calculated at 23,771 acres or 7.2 percent of the total acreage inventory for Types 1-19 (Table VI-I). This figure was based on the comparison with U.S. Geological Survey maps dating back to 1 942. Most of the recorded acreage losses have occurred, however, in the past decade based on field inventory and aerial surveillance observations. Causes of the losses are housing development, industry, dredging and spoil disposal, public works, marinas, agricultural drainage, pollution, erosion and natural succession (natural fUhng and changing in vegetative types to non-wetlands). Detailed discussion on activities and competing uses responsible for inven- toried acreage losses is presented in Chapter IX. Calculations on the vulnerability of wetlands to change are presented in Table VI-3. Results show that approximately 47 percent of the State's wetlands (Types 1-19) were evaluated as highly vulnerable to changes destructive or substantially reducing existing natural habitat values. Additionally, 35 percent are moderately vulnerable and 17 percent are listed in the safe category. The latter is due primarily to wetlands in State and Federal ownership that are being managed as wildhfe refuges, game management areas, and for outdoor recreation (Table VM).* *Note, most Chapter VI tables (commencing with VM) are located in Appendix A in order to facilitate reading covenience. VI-7 C •a c O 00 x> 3 c B B 3 x> H o r^ 00 05 o CM ^ ^ 05 ^ CM ^ ,_ 00 « "• r^ (D CO CD CO 05 r~ to CN 01 <^ CO S n CN O m P» r^ 05 00 to in >» S 0 ^ in CO 05 1^ to CM r~ OT ^ to to r~ to '" O CO o r^ O 00 m r~ O -* CM CN ,_ CO in r^ CO sieioi-qns CN] CO CO CO in CN "a- CO to CO to CM to CM CM o apjMaieis *" CN s o CM CO CO CO in CO <^ CO ^ CO p^ CO CM 3JOI4S ujaise^ in CD 0) CO m f8 (0 ^ ^ <* J3MOT CN CO r^ CO in CO CO CO CN O is> ,_ en CM 05 CM CO ^ 1^ 05 if 3J014S ujBjseg CO in 5 in 05, in cm' CM CO to C0_ cm' in in oo" p- <3- "3- CO CN CO "3- o CM UJ3»S3ftrt CN CN <* CO CO CO to CN C^J ^^J CN CO in co' Aeg a>|e3d 5 CN in 05 i§ to 1^ -esai43 jaddn cm' co_ CN ujaisaftA o CO CO pue lej^uao o s T- m 5 tn o to CO to in CO r» o r~ S|E»oi-qns >* (D <* in en to *- CO CO in o 00 CO o 00 in CO apjMaieis CO i^ r^ r^ CO CN m CN CM (N o CO (N IN CN ^ CM 1^ in ajoqs ujaiseg ID to 5 CO 1-1 s to lO CM to 1^ 1^ CO o CM 00 CO 05 1^ CM s CO o r^ CO ^ |ead -esai|3 jaddn CO. 00 CO in >* 05 to co" ^ t ujajsa/w f8 s CO 5 o in s pue lenuao CN CO to C), 05 o (0 •* OJ ^ ,_ >lt >» CM to in en ,- leiovqns ^ t CO in 05 ^ CO CM ^ T— T— SS T— to apiMajBis CN <3- cm" 01 CM co' in CO CN r« CO in 05 05 ajoqs u-iai^ses in 10 in 05 CO m 05 00 ^ i~ 00 jaMon r^ CM CO r^ r-« >* m » in in o CN ^ ajoqs uja^se^ C^J V in CO in to 05 CM CO CM CO CM CM CN to ^ t- >- •a- to CM m to r- CO CO aioqs uJaisaftA in to CO to CN CO in U) CO co' Aeg a>iead n s CM i~- CM to CM to -esaq3 jaddp *" p»' p^' ujaisa/\/\ (D tJ) m r~ 5 o 00 pue lenuao "~ in 05 ■o § i lA s. (A 9 S) >■ .5 IB c c n u 3 •s ■g ■D O O E 0} § o 15 a c a a E 1 3 a E CO 1 0) § o V Q. 03 in ID C 0) a o o ■a ra E o ■o a> O _o To 0 ii 3 lA m c s i 3 > i c o ■D ■?-s 0) -o o S^ 2 j: "c5 TO +- (13 CD ™ l5 CO TO 3 E Oi 4- c o '5> 1 53 0) CO £ £E li e/5 g o CD 5e o <2 o £ O 10 O g 8 w CO tr S oc adAi puBiiaftA "- (N CO lO to r^ 00 CN CO ^a- to P» CO VI-8 County-by-County To facilitate cohesiveness, discussion of county wetland inventory data and information generally fol- lows a prescribed format. Points covered for each county include : 1 ) identification of general geographic areas that are the principal location of wetlands; 2) brief discussion on habitat inventory statistics such as acreage, vulnerability, losses and causes, and owner- ship; and 3) survey the future of remaining wetlands by examining relevant sections of county land use policies and plans. Purposefully eliminated are such things as trend projections on acreage losses, acreage needs for wildlife, comparison of statistics between counties or survey regions, and evaluation of county zoning ordin- ances. In short, much of the traditional paraphernalia and methods of standard "master" plans have been deliberately omitted or ignored for the following reasons. 1. Planning of long-range wetlands management policies based solely on statistical extrapolations could be inaccurate and probably ineffective in the face of human and political equations that have emerged pubhcly in Maryland concerning Wetlands. 1. "Wetlands" is a new term to the public and a relatively recent 'problem' in the context of the larger 'quality of the environment' issue. Public recognition and interest in wetland issues has been notably lacking until quite recently. This situation was due in large measure to the relatively small, inconspicuous, isolated incidents of wetlands destruction. However, as large- scale proposals to reclaim wetlands for more 'valuable' purposes commenced to appear, there was improved pubhc perception of what the overall impact might be due to the cumulative effects of lost acreage. 3. The diversity of wetlands in terms of their physical characteristics and the difficulty in perceiving their valuable contributions to society provide obstacles to firm, generally agreed to public concepts on the subject. In fact, there can be much difficulty in merely attempting to define the term "wetlands." 4. County governments exhibited a mixed reac- tion to the State study operations and had a varying degree of understanding and concern about wetlands. Besides calling for a detailed long-term plan for the optimum use of all wetlands in Maryland, House Joint Resolution No. 2 requested the Department of State Planning to "advise the planning and zoning agencies of the State's political subdivisions of the General Assembly's concern for proper wetlands management and the need for adequate provision for wetlands conservation in local zoning ordiances." (See Appendix C.) Accordingly, appropriate correspondence was dis- tributed to local governments (appendix D). Coopera- tive responses were received from all contacted county planning and zoning commissions. Responses were tempered by such factors as the extent of involvement as determined by amount of wetlands acreage in a particular county, size of local planning staff, extent of previous land use planning, extent of zoning ordinances adopted, comprehension of the term "wetlands" and how wetlands relate to other land and shoreline uses and adopted zoning ordinances, and other undeter- mined factors. Consequently , it was clear that an across the board or common understanding of wetlands and attendant issues was essential before proceeding on detailed or Statewide planning activities. Furthermore, land use zoning is the responsibility of local govern- ment through Article 66B of the Laws of Maryland . 5. Planning shoreline use for wetlands is too limited a purpose. It represents a single viewpoint and a single purpose for an area of the State that is multiple- purpose. Data presented here reflect a background of a larger volume of data and information that are now available to be applied in future shoreline and land use planning. Multiple-use planning on a larger and more enlightened scale is required to attain a satisfactory balance between uses that will satisfy the needs of contemporary society. Wetlands data now assembled reflects in a fragmented way increased knowledge about their natural functions which is based upon years of scientific study. The planning process must now proceed to assimilate it. However, to do so effectively other shoreline users must also enlarge their data and information inputs to reflect their current and future needs. A shoreline planning problem that must be resolved is the amount and location of shoreline seg- ments essential to satisfy economic growth attendant with increasing human populations, rising expectations and higher standards of hving while simultaneously protecting, and indeed, enhancing a high quahty environment. 6. Past experience with comprehensive land use plans has shown that such plans are usually outdated before they are completed or adopted because condi- tions change so rapidly. Consequently, information, conditions or premises on which plans were based may no longer exist. ReaUty can change many important fundamental inputs and destroy the most orderly assumptions. Stated another way, the real world fre- quently differs from the assumptions made by plan- ners. Therefore, the only functional purpose for wet- lands' management planning derived from presenting both Statewide and county-by-county data is to pro- vide a situation or status report on wetlands as of 1 967-68. The county data as presented here represent a baseline level of understanding from which to proceed in plan formulation. VI-9 ALLEGANY COUNTY Natural wetlands areas are limited in Allegany County due to the topography and consequent drain- age patterns. A total of only 12 acres of inland fresh meadow (Type 2) were identified at two different locations. However, water acreages and the shoreline of the Potomac River were not included in this inventory. Additionally, several man-made wetland type areas totaling 140 acres of inland open fresh water (Type 5) were inventoried. These wetlands are the result of construction for industrial, agricultural or commercial purposes such as waste settling ponds and remaining vestiges of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. The latter area with an adjoining inland fresh meadow is highly valued for the variety of wildlife found there, and is accessible to hikers using the tow path. All inventoried wetlands in Allegany County are in private ownership and believed to be in either safe or moderate vulnerabil- ity status with regard to potential future change. No wetlands losses were found. Table Vl-5. Inventory of Allegany Coun ty wetlands Vulnerability or Wetland Types Totals Status 2 5* Safe acreage 5 35 40 (No. occurences) (1) (1) (2) Moderate acreage 7 105 112 (No. occurences) (1) (3) (4) High acreage 0 0 0 (No. occurences) Summary totals Acreage inventoried 12 140 152 (No. occurences) (2) (4) (6) *Note; All of the Type 5 (inland open fresh water) acreage is man-made and is not entered in Statewide inventory totals. ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY Wetlands are located principally along the shore- lines of the Patapsco, Magothy, Severn, South, Rhode, West, Patuxent and Little Patuxent Rivers. Approx- imately 7,700 acres were inventoried at 136 different locations of five acres in size or larger (Table VI-6). Wetlands represent about 2.7 percent of the total County land area. About 1,700 acres (22%) are in the "safe" category while 3,160 acres (41%) are "moderately" vulnerable and 2,270 acres (29%) are classed as "high" vulnerability to future destructive changes. Additionally, 523 acres were destroyed or changed so as to be valueless for natural production purposes. The majority of the losses were attributed to industrial development (48.9%) and housing development (35.4%) with several different causes comprising the remainder (Table VI-7). The present wetlands ownership pattern is 1,770 acres (25%) owned publicly between Federal, State, county and municipal governments and 5,390 acres (75%) owned privately. Most of the federally owned wetlands are located within the boundaries of Fort George Meade along the Patuxent and Little Patuxent Rivers (about 1,180 acres). Another 130 acres (approximately) of wetlands are owned by the Smithsonian Institute on the Rhode River. More than ten miles of undeveloped shoreline within this holding are part of one of the largest remaining undeveloped expanses on the western shore of the Bay. The site is being utilized by the Smithsonian to provide facilities for education and research in field biology. Essential to this purpose is an expanse of natural environment suitable for controlled and un- controlled observation and research on plants, animals and their communities. Concerning the future of the remaining 5,390 acres of wetlands in private ownership, reference was made to proposed or contemplated plans and policies for future land and shoreline development in the County. Results of background efforts on future County planning concluded that: 1. One of the County's most important existing and potential economic sectors is waterfront commerce and industry. Waterfront-related activities will include marinas, boatyards, restaurants, sales of fish and related products, some water-related manufacturing products, and often hotels and motels." 2. "Residential growth has occurred primarily near major urban centers and on the shoreline. Housing has been drawn to shoreline locations throughout the County— to the extent, in fact, that very little waterfront remains that is not occupied by or committed to some sort of development." 3. "Urban uses of land are expected to occupy half of the County's total area by year 2000." The principle underlying the County's general development plan proposals is "that the waters of Chesapeake Bay must be available to the people of the Nation, the Region, and the whole County, as well as VI- 10 those who occupy its shores." To fulfill this principle the following policies for waterfront land use were proposed. 1 . "Uses will be encouraged on the waterfront which benefit the largest possible number of people while protecting waterfront occupants from harmful effects." 2. "Uses will be encouraged on the waterfront only when they require or benefit by such location." 3. "Waterfront uses which conflict with residen- tial and recreational waterfront uses will be encouraged in a limited number of locations, where their effects can be minimized." While much of the consultant's effort on County planning deals with the development aspects of the remaining undeveloped shoreline, consideration was also given to open space, recreation and conservation uses. Among the goals and policies sought in providing land for these uses was "to preserve unique irreplace- able resources, stream valleys, and bay and river shore- Unes, and open space should be used to maintain ecological balance. Major areas recommended for protection for open space, recreation and conservation purposes include the Patuxent and Little Patuxent Rivers, Mill Creek Swamp, and the South, Severn and Rhode River stream valleys. These areas encompass at least 14 different wetland areas having about 1 ,800 total acres. Summing up, large and important wetland tracts exist where competition is heavy for undeveloped shoreline. Developmental pressure from competing uses can be expected to intensify. Some wetlands are in public ownership and in one specific instance are dedicated to biological research. An open space and recreational areas plan proposes acquisition of several shoreline areas encompassing significant wetland acre- age, particularly in the Patuxent River watershed. Much depends upon the strategy adopted by the County in controlling future shoreline development. Based on results of marina zoning proposals, it will be challenged severely as development pressures mount.'' ° BALTIMORE CITY Very few wetlands remain in Baltimore City. One privately owned area of 60 acres and another of three acres of coastal shallow fresh marsh exist along the Patapsco River. Both wetlands are highly vulnerable due to a location adjacent to ongoing sanitary landfills. Suspected poor water quality also limits the present and future natural value of the remaining wetlands. Five reservoirs (pubUcly owned) were noted with- in the City's limits which have a total fresh water surface area of 160 acres. These areas provide limited value for wildlife, waterfowl and fisheries, but are not included in the inventory. While the total historical wetlands acreage losses due to shoreline development are not know, 150 acres have been destroyed in recent years for port and industrial development. BALTIMORE COUNTY Wetlands are located principally along the shore- Une of the Gunpowder, Middle and Back Rivers, and other estuarine areas of Baltimore County fronting on Chesapeake Bay. Approximately 3,700 acres were inventoried at 62 different locations of five acres in size or larger (Table VI-8). Wetlands represent about one percent of the total County land area. About 1,320 acres (35%) inventoried as "safe," 1,220 acres (33%) are classified as "moderately" vulnerable and about 500 acres (14%) are in the "high" vulnerabOity category. Additionally, 615 acres or 17 percent were destroyed. Shrub swamp (Type 6) and coastal shallow fresh marshes (Type 12) sustained the acreage losses, primarily due to filling to create waterfrontage property for marine-oriented commerce and industry of the Baltimore port complex (Table VI-9). The present wetlands ownership pattern is 1,200 acres pubhcly owned and 2,400 acres privately owned. The Maryland Department of Forests and Parks owns over 500 acres for recreation, open space and conserva- tion purposes and the Federal Government owns over 600 acres within the boundaries of the Aberdeen Proving Grounds. With regard to the future of the remaining wet- lands, present County land use plans indicate that land along the Back River Neck and Patapsco Neck penin- sulas, including 400 acres of wetlands (Type 12), has potential for deepwater marine transportation acess to serve water-oriented industry."'"' The land parcels in these areas are stated to represent the largest tracts of vacant land with potential for industrial development in the Baltimore regional port area. This port-industry 1 2 is of national significance. Several studies conducted on the land needs for recreation and open space purposes in Baltimore County and the Baltimore metropohtan area advocated acquisition of water-fronting property for water- oriented recreational activities."'^ Frequently, wet- lands are located within the areas proposed for acquisi- tion. These include shoreline areas on Saltpeter and VI- 11 Dundee Creeks and Middle and Bird Rivers having a total wetland acreage over 500 acres of mostly coastal shallow fresh marsh (Type 12). Summing up, competition exists for remaining vacant waterfronting land. Previous appraisals of the growth needs of the Baltimore port-industrial complex, the need for public access to the shoreline for recrea- tional purposes, and the conservation of wetlands essential to the ecology of surrounding estuarine waters suggests that careful planning, augmented by appro- priate zoning, will be required to guide future develop- ment of the County's shoreline. CALVERT COUNTY Wetlands are located primarily along the shores of the Patuxent River and estuary. Approximately 4,400 acres were inventoried at 62 different locations of five acres in size or larger in Calvert County (Table VI-10). Wetlands represent about three percent of the total county land area. Only 25 acres (less than one percent) of the wetlands are classified in the "safe" category while 3,492 acres (79.1%) are in the "mod- erate" category and 742 acres (16.8%) are in the "high" vulnerability category. In addition, 157 acres or 3.6 percent were inven- toried as destroyed. Types 12 and 16 wetlands sus- tained the acreage losses due to a variety of reasons (Table VI-11). Marina development with attendant dredging, spoil disposal and landfill activities was identified as the principal cause. Natural erosion also accounted for some of the destruction. The present wetlands ownership pattern is 59 acres publicly owned and 4,200 acres privately owned. Proposed future land use policies and plans with import to remaining wetlands and recommended in an adopted Comprehensive Master Plan include: encouraging cluster development around that which already exists, encouraging only complete, planned communities outside cluster areas, retaining land along the Patuxent River in its present agricultural use, and preserving the waterways and other areas of the County which because of either a uniqueness or other natural attribute, lend themselves to recrea- tional usage and can serve as the basis for a future county recreation system. Recreation and conservation areas are delineated by the land use plan. A number of sites in these categories have been selected and are either currently being reserved as conservation areas or are being con- sidered. Based on a comparison between the Calvert County land use plan map and wetland work map, some of the most important and valuable wetlands, in terms of biological or ecological values, are within areas being contemplated or planned as recreation or conser- vation areas. However, many significant tracts of wet- lands bordering the estuarial portions of the Patuxent River have not been recognized in present land use plans. The significance of this situation with regard to the future for wetlands becomes readily apparent when past land development is reviewed and compared with the most likely trends of future development. In the ' "the trend has been for more develop- ment to take place along the bay front than along river front. The economics of land development may bring about a change in this trend. At this time, the best land along the bay front is either developed or in the process of development. The cream has been skimmed off and the remaining land is rugged, relatively inaccessible, and has a limited amount of natural beach available. On the other hand, the land along the river (Patuxent) is relatively undeveloped in most cases, and topographically suited to extensive and economical develop- ment."^^ Waterfront residential development has been res- ponsible for the eventual establishment of many existing communities in the County. This develop- ment is usually the result of a planned and publicized land development project. Most of them start out aimed at the Washington metropolitan area market and people seeking a second (seasonal) home with water recreation near at hand. However, over the years such settlements have tended to become more and more permanent in character. As commuting to metropolitan employment becomes easier with each road improvement, this trend toward permanence can be expected to continue. Obviously, with increasing populations, more leisure time, greater incomes, and improved transportation systems from metropolitan areas, there will be an increasing demand for resi- dential waterfront property. There will be more pres- sure to develop wetland to the fullest extent possible, consistent with the demand and county zoning ordi- nances. CAROLINE COUNTY Marshyhope Creek, the Choptank River, and Tuckahoe Creek are the locations of most of the wetlands. Approximately 6,900 acres were inventoried at 87 different locations of five acres in size or larger (Table VI-12). Wetlands represent about three percent of total county land area. About 800 acres (12%) are classified "safe" while 3,200 (46%) are "moderately" vulnerable and 2,000 acres (29%) are believed to be "highly" vulnerable to future destructive change. VI-12 Also, 819 acres were inventoried as destroyed or had experienced changes destructive to formernatural habitat values. These losses represent about 12 percent of the total acreage inventoried in Caroline County. All of the wetland types experienced some acreage losses. The most significant was the destruction of inland shallow fresh marsh (Type 3). This loss represents 64.3 percent of the total Statewide inventory of Type 3 wetlands (Table VI-1). The cause of this loss was agricultural drainage and flood prevention projects (Table VI-1 3). The present wetlands ownership pattern is 80 acres (1%) pubhcly owned and 6,000 acres (99%) owned privately. The wetlands in public ownership are within the Martinak and Tuckahoe State Parks owned and managed by the Maryland Department of Forests and Parks, and Smithville Community Lake and Idylwild WildUfe Demonstration Area owned and managed by the Maryland Fish and Wildlife Administration. Concerning the future of privately owned wet- lands, the recommended land use pattern is to continue or encourage future major development in clusters around already existing population centers. This has the advantage of providing a feasible base to support essential community services and facilities such as water supply and sewerage collection and treatment and also to prevent unwise consumption of valuable agricultural land.^ ^ Two activities with potential impact on wetlands resources merit brief mention. One is that "lands along the lower Choptank River have prime development and reactional potential, but access to the waterfront is limited. To rectify this situation "selected road improvements are aimed at opening up housing and local recreational development opportunities along the county's attractive riverfront areas." The other is the pending or contemplated improve- ment to the navigable waterways of the Choptank and Tuckahoe Rivers for commercial and pleasure craft. The improvement projects include dredging the Choptank River to provide a 12 foot depth channel from Pealiquor Shoals south of Denton to Denton, thereby making it navigable to all probable commer- cial traffic. North of Denton to Greensboro the river will be dredged to six feet, thus opening it to all pleasure boats. The County is also considering dredg- ing a six feet deep channel in the Tuckahoe River to provide access to the landing in Hillsboro and to the Tuckahoe State Park.^° River and harbor projects such as these are administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Local cost-sharing responsibilities are an essential fea- ture. Generally, the major local responsibility consists of providing spoil disposal areas, right-of-way permits, and provisions for Uabihty arising from the project. From an economic standpoint wetlands are prime locations for spoil disposal sites, and they have been so used in the past. Consequently, any future channel maintenance or improvement project will probably utilize wetlands along the shoreline as spoil disposal sites. Summing up, much of the wetland acreage in Caroline County is relatively inaccessible to human usage now. Recommended future land use patterns seem to indicate a policy favorable to wetlands manage- ment. However, two activities, road and navigable waterway improvements, may radically alter this situa- tion. The ultimate impact of these proposed develop- mental activities on wetlands will be determined in large measure by local interest in wetlands. CARROLL COUNTY Very few wetland areas are located in Carroll County. Only two were recorded -one of approx- imately seven acres of inland fresh meadow (Type 2) and the other, six acres of inland open fresh water (Type 5). No wetland acreage losses were recorded for Carroll County and all acreage is evaluated as being either safe or moderately vulnerable to future change (Table VI-1 4). Both of the wetlands inventoried are in private ownership. In addition, two municipal water supply reservoirs, Liberty and Westminister, have creat- ed large open surface water areas where none previously existed. Table VI-14. Inventory of Carroll County wetlands Vulnerability or Wetland Tvpes Totals Slams 2 5 Safe acreage 0 3,125* 3,125* (No. occurences) (2) (2) Moderate acreage 7 6 13 (No. occurences) (1) (1) (2) High acreage 0 0 0 (No. occurences) Siiminary totals Acreage invenloried 7 6 3,138 (No. occurences) (I) (i) (4) *Note: This acreage results from man-made water supply reservoirs, Liberty and Westminster, and is not included in State-wide totals. CECIL COUNTY Cecil County wetlands are located primarily in the southern part along the shores of the Elk, Bohemia and Sassafras Rivers, tributaries of Chesapeake Bay. VI-1 3 Appproximately 3,900 acres were inventoried at 88 different locations of five acres in size or large (Table VI-15). Wetlands represent about two percent of the total County land area. Only 85 acres or two percent are in the "safe" category while 1,806 acres (46 percent) are "moderately" vulnerable and 1,431 acres (36 percent) are in the "high" vulnerability category. Also, 618 acres were destroyed or had experienced changes destructive to natural habitat values. The coastal shallow fresh marshes (Type 12) sustained 94 percent of the wetlands losses inven- toried in the County (Table VI-1 6). Most of the loss occurred along the Elk River and is related to dre- dging and spoil disposal attendant with maintaining navigable channels leading to the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. The destructive incidents to Type 12 wetlands are attributed both to their predominance in terms of total County wetland acreage as well as their location, namely being immediately adjacent to navigable waterways. The latter factor facilitates convenient disposal of dredged materials. Ther present wetlands ownership pattern is 650 acres owned publicly between the State and Federal Government and 2,660 acres owned privately. Much of the Federally owned wetlands (590 acres) have been used specifically as spoil disposal sites for channel dredging operations. Concerning the future of privately owned wet- lands in Cecil County, the recommended land develop- ment pattern calls for preservation of large areas of shoreline and forest for recreation and open space uses.^''^ This recommendation is predicated on the regional and roving character of boating, camping, hunting and fishing which are the predominant forms of recreational activity and require rather large areas relatively free of development. However, large sections of County waterfrontage are now used for summer cottages and private residential purposes, and such usage will grow in the future. Consequently, future planning for Cecil County's remaining undeveloped shoreline presents a dilemma of contradicting pur- poses—how to preserve and enhance desired water- oriented outdoor recreation activities while simulta- neously avoiding the destruction of the natural en- vironmental amenities which attract and encourage over development. One plan suggests that the Elk and Sassafras River shorelines should be developed as summer and year- round residential areas, with marinas and other boating facilities where suitable. Not aU of the shoreline should be developed for private year-round housing, since that would eliminate much of the potential market for visitors.^ These rivers are also where many wetlands are located. Only two areas encompassing wetlands were specifically designated as sites for development of park recreational facilities, Principio Furnace and the Pearce Creek area.^ The future of wetlands in Cecil County depends on the way that the plan is imple- mented and this will be determined largely by the public's understanding of the role wetlands play in the existing natural environment and in supporting water- oriented recreation. The implementation of effective plans for protection and careful utilization of shoreline resources will require appropriate zoning and sub- division regulations 24 CHARLES COUNTY Wetlands are located along the shoreline of primary drainage systems such as the Wicomico River, Potomac River, Nanjemoy Creek, Mattawoman Creek, Gilbert Run and Zekiah Swamp. Approximately 1 1 ,500 acres were inventoried at 85 different locations of five acres in size or larger in Charles County (Table VI-17). Wetlands represent about 3.9 percent of the total County land area. About 1,270 acres (10.9%) are classified in the "safe" category while 8,600 acres (75%) are in the "moderately" vulnerable category, and 1,200 acres (10.7%) are "highly" vulnerable to future destructive changes. In addition, over 380 acres were destroyed or about 3 percent of the total County wetlands acreage. Types 12 and 16 sustained most of the losses (Table VI-1 8). This is attributed to large Type 12 acreages as well as locations immediately adjacent to the open surface waters which are attractive for residential waterfront development. These factors increase the Ukehhood of destructive incidents. The present ownership pattern is 170 acres in public ownership, located principally at the Federal Government's U.S. Naval PropeUant Plant (Indian- head) and the Blossom Point Proving Grounds. Also, the Maryland Fish and WUdUfe Administration has acreage at the Myrtle Grove Wildlife Refuge. The remainder or about 11,000 acres of wetlands are privately owned in Charles County. Concerning future growth and development in Charles County and the implications to wetlands re- sources several major factors exist. Waterfrontage is one of the County's distinguish- ing assets which provides an opportunity or a base for attracting new economic development. Also, the prox- imity to the Washington metropolitan area will have an expanding impact as accessibility improves. Conse- VI- 14 quently, commuter-oriented homes, second or recrea- tional homes and retirement housing will be a major development opportunity encouraged by attractive natural amenities such as abundant waterfrontage property and roUing wooded landscapes. The density of development should be carefully controlled to encourage good quality construction. However, "recreation and the seafood industry are of such importance that any seriously conflicting waterfront uses should be avoided, however great their attractive- ness on other grounds." To properly handle growth the County has under- taken a comprehensive planning effort. Land use plan recommendations will have a major beneficial impact on the future of County wetlands resources, if fully implemented in a timely manner. Proposed parks and conservation areas encompass twenty-two wet- lands of 7,427 acres total or about 67 percent of the wetlands in the County. Several of the most significant wetlands of the County and the State such as Matta- woman Creek, Nanjemoy Creek, Zekiah Swamp Run and Gilbert Swamp would be protected by the County's 1985 land use plan. DORCHESTER COUNTY There are extensive wetlands in this County due to combined features of geography, topography and chmate. Dorchester County, largest in terms of com- bined total land and water area, extends into Chesa- peake Bay as a broad peninsula almost surrounded by the combined waters of Chesapeake Bay and the broad Choptank and Nanticoke rivers. Additionally, an aver- age annual rainfall of 45.5 inches supplies enough water to continually inundate large tracts of low, flat poorly drained land besides those areas subject to tidal in- fluence due to low elevation. Approximately 122,370 acres were inventoried at ninety-four locations of five acres in size or larger (Table VI-19). This acreage represents about 32.7 percent of the total County land area and 39.5 percent of existing State wetland (Types 1-1 9) acreage. About 25,500 acres (20.9%) are considered to be in the "safe" category, 13,100 acres (10.7%) are "moderately" vul- nerable and over 82,600 acres (67.6%) are evaluated as "highly" vulnerable to change. An additional 974 acres of wetlands were destroy- ed by natural causes (erosion) and man's activities (Table VI-20). Most of the losses were to bayshore (coastal) wetlands. Their location exposes them to erosion forces, makes them attractive for residential development, and convenient for spoil disposal. Also, because of the large acreages of Types 12,16 and 17 and since they comprise a significant percentage of the total area, there is greater opportunity for destructive incidents. The present wetlands ownership pattern is 23, 5 00 acres (19.4%) owned publicly between the State and Federal governments and 97,900 acres (80.6% owned privately. Pubhc ownership includes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Blackwater National Wildhfe Refuge and the Maryland Fish and Wildhfe Adiminstration manage- ment areas at Fishing Bay and Taylors Island . Concerning the future of remaining privately owned wetlands, local land-use planning pohcy recom- mendations state that "a pohcy should be followed of minimum development in marsh areas and areas that should be preserved for agriculture. Agricultural areas also include the vast marsh areas in the lower part of the County. Although very Uttle agriculture as such is found here, it should be maintained in its present state as much as possible. The economic value of the area should be preserved as a haven for wildlife and as an attraction for sportsmen."^ ^ FREDERICK COUNTY Approximately 480 acres of inland open surface fresh water wetlands (Type 5) were identified and inventoried in Frederick County. This aquatic habitat is man-created for commercial enterprise or for water supply. The water acreage and shorehne of the Potomac River and other natural watercourses was not included in this inventory because of the five acre size limitation. Most of the impounded water acreage is con- sidered safe from any change although 35 acres have been reconverted to agricultural purposes such as pasturage. Ownership of the impoundments is 422 acres private and 24 acres public. One area, Tick Lake, is owned and managed by the Maryland Fish and Wildlife Administration for conservation purposes. GARRETT COUNTY Wetlands are located at the headwaters of many mountain streams, in open meadow areas or along the banks of the larger waterways. About 2,100 acres were inventoried at 46 different locations of five acres in size or larger (Table VI-21). Wetlands represent one-half of one percent of the County's total land area. About 800 acres (37%) are classed in the "safe" category, 1,200 acres (60%) are "moderately" vulnerable, and 50 acres are "highly" vulnerable to destructive change. There were no iden- VI- 15 tified incidents of destruction or acreage losses. How- ever, strip mining for coal and lumbering are potential threats to even the remotest of these areas. An important feature of Garrett County wetlands is the uniqueness of the bogs (Type 8) which occur only in this part of the State. Plants common to these bogs are dominant in bogs typical of the glaciated portions of the northern United States. Consequently, from a natural science standpoint bogs or "glades" are among the more fascinating and unique natural areas in Maryland. Approximately 500 acres of the wetlands are owned by the Maryland Department of Forest and Parks and the remainder (1,600 acres) is in private ownership. HARFORD COUNTY Wetlands occur primarily along the shoreline of upper Chesapeake Bay. Approximately 9,300 acres were inventoried at 39 different locations of five acres or larger in size (Table VI-22). In addition, 800 acres of Type 12 wetlands were destroyed (Table VI-23). Wetlands represent about 2.2 percent of the County's total land area. Of this figure 6,100 acres (66%) are classed as "safe," 1,465 acres (16%) are "moderately" vulnerable, and 860 acres (9%) are "highly" vulnerable. The latter evaluation is based upon the planned use of certain areas for industrial or housing development. Proposed industrial use totals 370 acres of which 80 acres have already been filled. Housing is planned for 880 acres of which 350 acres have already been developed by dredging and filling operations for waterfront residential property. The present wetland ownership pattern is 6,100 acres (73%) public and 2,300 acres (27%)) private. Most of the publicly owned wetlands are coastal shallow fresh marsh (Type 12) within the Federal Govern- ment's (Department of Defense) Edgewood Arsenal and Aberdeen Proving Ground. While all of the wet- lands are classed as "safe" in these areas, 2 1 0 acres have been destroyed. This experience may continue from time to time due to the nature of operational activities associated with national defense within the govern- mental reservations. However, conservation and man- agement of all natural resources within Edgewood Arsenal and the Aberdeen Proving Grounds is required by certain Department of Defense directives. The primary purpose of these directives is to establish and include plans for the management and conservation of fish and wildlife within military installation master plans. Furthermore, cooperative management plans with State and Federal fish and wildlife conservation agencies are required and have been formulated with the Maryland Fish and Wildlife Administration. Concerning the future of the 2,300 acres in private ownership, proposed or contemplated plans and poUcies for future land development in the County ■ include: "preservation of the County's most valuable natural features, particularly major stream valleys, for their contribution to the landscape generally and for possible public and private recreational use . . ." Also, the Plan for Parks and Open Space^'^ proposes the acquisition and development of certain areas for public recreation uses. Many wetland acres are encom- passed within the proposed public recreational areas. However, nearly every proposal for waterfrontage, including wetlands, contains the following remarks: "Mostly swamp reclamation on north and south sides"; "swamp reclamation at south end;" "Forest conserva- tion with swamp reclamation at estuary;" "Forest conservation, with landfill to reclaim flood plain;" and "Tidal flat reclaimed by sanitary landfill and J J • "32 dredging. Summing up, a large part of County wetlands as well as the shoreline are in Federal ownership. This should insure protection although some destruction has occurred. Because of extensive pubUc ownership, private ownership is restricted to a limited area and there is heavy pressure for development. County plans for parks and open space would acquire waterfrontage. However, plan development as envisioned would destroy encompassed wetlands. HOWARD COUNTY Only one wetland area has been identified and inventoried at the present time in Howard County. This is exclusive of the extensive inland open fresh water habitat (Type 5) associated with the water supply reservoirs constructed on the Patuxent River. There are probably other small wetlands which remain to be identified, primarily in and along the streams which drain the County. The one area inventoried is an inland fresh meadow (Type 2) of approximately 27 acres in size along Deep Run. This privately owned wetland is evaluated as being moderately vulnerable to change within the foreseeable future. KENT COUNTY The hydrological boundaries of Kent County-the Sassafras River on the north, Chesapeake Bay on the west, Chester River on the South, and their tributary waters— are the principal locations of wetlands. Approximately 7,800 acres were inventoried at 90 VI-16 different locations of five acres in size or larger (Table VI-24). Wetlands represent about four percent of the County's total land area. About 1 ,600 acres (20%) are classified "safe" while 3,900 acres (50%) are "moder- ately" vulnerable and 1,800 acres (23%) are "highly" vulnerable to future destructive change. Also, 433 acres were destroyed or had experienced changes destructive to former natural habitat values (Table VI-25). These losses represent about five percent of the total inven- toried acreage. The present wetlands ownership pattern is 880 acres public and 6,500 acres private. The publicly owned wetlands include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Eastern Neck Island National Wildlife Refuge and the Maryland Fish and Wildlife Administration's Urieville Lake. In addition the Remington Arms Com- pany maintains important wildlife and waterfowl man- agement demonstration areas on the west fork of Langford Creek. Concerning the future of privately owned wet- lands, recommended land plans would protect 50 percent under a "Permanent Green Area" classi- fication. Such areas include tracts of marshland, wood- land and miles and miles of wooded stream valleys and shorelines. Since these areas "contribute so much to the over aU desirability of the county environment they should remain essentially unchanged." "As for the marshes, by and large they are undeveloped, and require little atten- tion, but are an interesting part of the total scene and a necessary part of the habitat of waterfowl which are worthy of a great deal attention . . . These marshes need not be purchased by a public agency except when threatened or except as part of a larger puchase. The public should, nevertheless, be interested in keeping them unpolluted and should encourage legitimate planning of food for wildhfe." However, development pressure may be generated by the recreational or commuter home market. Special impetus is provided by suggestions for an upper Bay bridge. Such as undertaking would have a tremendous impact on present development patterns. Summing up, "With development pressures at pre- sent levels, there may seem little need for concern. Happily, past mistakes have been so small as to be barely noticeable. Yet development pressures will increase and crimes against the landscape are difficult to eradicate. However remote the urban ex- amples of such crimes may seem, Kent County has too much at stake to postpone active consideration of the value of its natural features.' ,35 MONTGOMERY COUNTY Several wetlands are located in the southwestern part of Montgomery County on small tributary streams of the Potomac River. There are also some wetlands in the Patuxent River watershed. Eleven wetlands of five acres or larger in size and totaling about 180 acres were identified in Montgomery County (Table VI-26). Wetlands represent a fraction of one percent of the County's total land area. About 150 acres (81%) are considered "safe," 30 acres are "moderately" vulner- able and there are no wetlands either in the "high" or destroyed categories. This situation is due to public ownership of wetlands, proposed public ownership or protection, or appropriate local zoning laws and sub- division regulations. Regarding the latter, Montgomery County Zoning Ordinance Sec. 101-14— "will prevent encroachments on the wetlands of Montgomery County." Also, there are proposals in The Nation 's R iver to establish pubhc parks and access along the Potomac River in Montgomery County as well as preserve and properly manage wetlands. Present ownership of wetlands includes 63 acres (33%) public, 39 acres (21%) private, and 87 acres (46%) are jointly owned by both. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY Most of the wetlands in Prince George's County border the Patuxent River or occur along the major streams such as Western Branch, Charles Branch, Mataponi Branch, Piscataway Creek and Mattawoman Creek. Approximately 8,100 acres were inventoried at 7 1 different locations of five acres or larger in size. Wetlands represent about two percent of the County's total land area. About 380 acres or four percent are classified in the "safe" category, 4,300 acres (52.6%) are "moderately" vulnerable, and 2,800 acres (35%) are "highly" vulnerable. (Table VI-27). In addition, over 600 acres were destroyed or about seven percent of the County's total inventoried wetlands acreage (Table VI-28). The present wetlands ownership pattern is 113 acres (1.4%) by the Federal Government and 7,463 acres (98.6%) owned privately. Concerning the future of remaining wetlands, large numbers are still in a relatively natural state with most of the developmental activity occurring in the densely populated portions of the County. Rezoning petitions were mainly concen- trated along major highways and railroads. Most of them will have no impact on wetlands. "The overall picture of pending rezoning areas reveals that the VI- 17 present development does not impede the work on preservation of the wetlands."^® In fact, wetlands have severe limitations for com- munity development. They were unsuitable for dis- posal of sewage effluent from septic tanks, sewage lagoons, foundations for houses, landscaping and earth movement, streets and parking lots, sanitary landfill, cemeteries or gardens. However, one study proposed five wetland areas within the County for use as waste disposal sites for the Washington metropolitan 40 region. There are certain ongoing activities of a conserva- tion nature in the County. Proposed outdoor recrea- tion programs would require the acquisition of lands along the Patuxent River and several other major streams that encompass large portions of County wet- lands. Large portions of the acquired acreage will be devoted to conservation and preservation of existing natural environment. Where recreational uses are developed, they will be of the type which are com- patible with this environment.* ^ A review of local laws and zoning ordinances showed that there are no statements referring directly to wetlands, but sections of the Ordinance pertaining to site plan approval in certain zones are applicable. Briefly, various existing local laws with potential use for wetlands problems include : 1. The Prince George's County Zoning Ordinance- Sections 15A.0 R-T Zone (Town House), 15 A. 9 Site Plan Approval; 17A.0 R-H Zone (Multi-family and High-Rise Residential), 17A.73 Site Plan Approval 19.0 R-P-C Zone (Development Com- munity), 19.5 Commission Consideration. Under these existing zoning ordinances, site development plans must show the location and site of all buildings and structures and the topography and major vegetation features now existing on the land, etc. In reviewing the applications the Planning Board should consider the standards and all other factors of such zone to achieve a maximum of safety, convenience and amenity for the residents within the development. If the Planning Board finds that a proposed plan of development does not meet the purpose of the regulations or will have an adverse effect on the use of the area for development, it has the power to disapprove the plan in order to prevent such undesirable development. 2. Prince George's County Subdivision Regulations- Section 13 -Subdivision Control of Flood Plan Areas and Unsafe Land. A proposed amendment to the Subdivision Reg- ulations has been made by the Planning Board to add the new section 13 authorizing the Planning Board to exercise subdivision control over flood plain areas and unsafe land. It empowers the Plan- ning Board to restrict subdivision for development of any property which lies within the 50-year flood plain of any stream or drainage course and also to restrict subdivision of any land which is found to be unsafe for development. The regulation requires that in the case of a subdivision of property which includes such a flood plain area along a stream which is to be left open in its natural state, unless such area is to become a pubhc park or a recreation area maintained by a designated responsible authority, the area shall be denoted upon the plat as a flood plain easement across the lots in this portion of the subdivision. The plat shall denote that the flood plain easement may be used by public agencies if necessary for utility lines, etc., but is restricted from any use which would interfere with the purpose of such easement to preserve the flood plain areas from encroachment by any structures and to prevent filling and grading within the easement area. As to unsafe land, restriction may be due to natural conditions, such as flooding, erosive stream action, unstable soil conditons or man-made con- ditions such as unstable fills or slopes. The regula- tion authorizes the Planning Board to have a broad power to restrict subdivision of any unsafe land for the health, safety, comfort and welfare of the county. Since all of the wetlands are in either the flood plain areasor unsafe land category, the provisions of the Subdivision Regulations could be used by the Planning Board to protect wetlands from encroach- ment. 3. Prince George's County Ordinance Providing Tax Credits for Scenic Easements The county is authorized to grant special tax credit to encourage the landowner to carry out a program to assist the preservation of open space through the use of scenic easement. By creating or imposing a servitude upon land, a scenic easement provides the control to maintain scenic views, open space, green area, animal refuges or natural habitat or flora and fauna. Said tax credit could be com- puted up to 50% of the taxes levied upon the value of the land assessment excluding improvements. Through the use of scenic easement, public agencies should have the means to deal effectively with matters involved in the wetland areas if not pubhcally owned, to preser\'e open space or to develop the land for a compatible use. (However, it must be noted that we have not had one applicant since the law went into effect on January 11. 1966.)'*2 4. Prince George's County Building Code-Sections 2100.0, Section 2101.0. subsections 2101. 1, 2101.2 and 2101.3. Although the Building Code does not directly limit the use of land, it does set up restrictions VI-18 governing the construction of buildings and struc- tures within flood plain and storm drainage areas, which may be applied to wetlands to prevent en- croachment from development. The provisions of the Building Code can be used to prohibit spot offenses on wetlands. Summing up, large tracts of wetlands still exist near a growing metropohtan area. A very hmited acreage is considered to be in a "safe" category and very little is in public ownership. A proposed recreation and park program would acquire considerable acreage encom- passing a substantial portion of County wetlands. For the remainder there are several possible local zoning ordinances that have direct bearing on wetlands, depen- ding on how they are implemented at crucial times. The timeliness of the recreational land acquisition program and the actions of local government in carrying out its zoning ordinances will determine to a large extent the intensity of development on wetlands in Prince George's County. QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY The Chester River on the north, Chesapeake Bay to the west, Eastern Bay and the Wye River on the southern boundary are the principal locations of county wetlands. Approximately 10,000 acres were inventoried at 178 different locations of five acres or larger in size (Table VI-29). Wetlands represent about three percent of the County's total land area. About 1,670 acres (16%) are classified "safe" while 3,550 acres (35%) are "moderately" vulnerable and 3,030 acres (30%) are believed to be "highly" vulnerable to future destructive change. In addition, 1,770 acres were destroyed or had experienced changes destructive to former natural habitat values. These losses represent 18 percent of the acreage inventoried in Queen Anne's County, and are distributed among several different types of wetlands. Losses were attributed to a variety of causes or uses such as flood prevention and drainage projects (43%), housing (18%), and marinas (13%) (Table VI-30). The present wetlands ownership pattern is 250 acres (3%) public and 8,000 acres (97%) private. The pubhcly owned areas include the Unicorn and Wye Mills Community Lakes that are managed by the Maryland Fish and Wildlife Administration for con- servation and recreation purposes. Concerning the future of remaining privately owned wetlands, recommended land use policies and plans recognize the importance of wetlands and the appropriate development of all land. "More than 95% of the County is still in farms, forests, marshlands and the like. There is space, indeed, in which to grow without over- crowding or the need to fill in marshes or create more land. "Both sides of Kent Narrows, extending east- ward to Grasonville, are mostly tidal marshes which cannot be utilized satisfactorily without extensive filling and the installation of central sewer systems. Marshes of this type have great importance, how- ever, in the production and conservation of fish and bird life and for some of the smaller animals. They provide an essential habitat for the reproduction, nursing, feeding and preservation of game and commercial fishes, migratory waterfowl, and small marsh animals, the significances of which is hardly ever realized or appreciated. Preservaiton of the wetlands in Queen Anne's County from the mistaken inroads of "reclamation" through drain- age, filling, bulkheading, dredging, and the hke should be a prime objective of the county plan."'* Recommendations have been made to acquire and develop certain areas for public use over a period of years to meet the County's present and future recrea- tional needs. Sixteen wetland areas having a total acreage of about 2,000 acres are encompassed within the recommended areas. This acreage figure repre- sents about 24% of the total existing wetland acreage inventoried in the County. However, two of these areas are already in State ownership, Unicorn and Wye Mills Lakes, and one has been destroyed (at Crumpton). Also a zoning classification of "A-2", Agriculture-Conserva- tion is stated to include "tidal marshlands around Kent Narrows and the larger concentrations of poorly drain- ed or otherwise unsuitable upland soils." Interestingly, before the construction of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge in 1952, there was very little subdivision activity in Queen Anne's County other than in and around the older towns. The completion of the bridge set off a major splurge, however, which continues to the present time. "The greatest amount of subdivision activity has been on Kent Island. Nearly 80% of all the lots created since 1947, have been in this area, while the remainder have been mostly along the Chester River in the stretch between Kings Town and Millington. All but about six of the subdivisions have been along the shoreline, and most of the actual building development in these subdivisions has been on the actual waterfront lots even though the subdivisions were platted in depth. In most cases the interior lots have been popular and have lagged in development. "Much of the subdivision activity, especially on Kent Island, has been aimed at seasonal or weekend use by non-resident owners who may live in the nearby metropolitan areas of Baltimore and Washington. Sales have been intensively promoted through newspaper ads or by mail for a few dollars down, sight unseen in many cases, and small monthly payments. Many lots have been as narrow as 40 or 50 feet, without water systems or sewers, VI- 19 and there have been only a few paved streets or other improvements. In one case a water tank was built to serve a subdivision but no water lines were installed and the tank is still unused. Only one small subdivision has actually installed a water system. Individual wells and septic tanks have created some health problems and the authorities have had to restrict further development in some cases where it was getting too dense. The smaller lots now have to be used in multiples to meet the minimum health requirements. "Despite these difficulties, there are many good subdivision developments in the county and there should be more in the future. Past inadequacies and abuses cannot be repeated so long as the county's present subdivision regulations are in force . . . The regulations are intended to promote good subdivision design and a more substantial kind of development in the future.""'"' Summing up, the construction of the first Chespeake Bay Bridge had a significant impact on developmental activity, particularly of subdivisions along the shoreline. Recommended County acquisitions and development for recreational purposes encompass several wetland areas. However, with rising real estate prices, increasing land speculation, and completion of the second bridge, a significant surge in pressure for development seems certain. The cumulative effect of these forces may determine the pattern of future land use and development in the County. The future of County wetlands is wrapped up in the results of local government decisions on land use plans and development and in supporting local interest and understanding of wetlands" values. The present wetlands ownership pattern is 180 acres public and 4,000 acres private. The Patuxent Naval Air Test Center is the principal location of the publicly owned wetlands with 130 acres enclosed within its boundaries. Concerning the future of County wetlands, much depends on how the County"s Land Use Plan is implemented. In it, waterfront residential development is proposed for specific areas along the Patuxent River- front, the Chesapeake Bay, and the upper stretches of the Potomac and Wicomico Rivers. Certain other areas are proposed for waterfront park and recreational land use, such as Medleys Neck and St. Ignoes Neck." Many acres of wetlands are within the areas designated for residential, park and recreational land use. General guidelines slating how the plan should be implemented include — "In so far as possible new growth needs to be encouraged within and adjacent to communities where services already exist and can be expanded without prohibitive costs. In turn, areas remote from existing service centers should remain undeveloped. "The allocation of land for future growth must be structured so as to take advantage of existing and potential assets and avoid develop- ment which will have a destructive impact on the economy and fiscal resources. "The danger of increasing water pollution and the possible collapse of the seafood industry is another major development drawback. Many soils in the county are unsuited to septic installations as a means of sewage disposal. Central sewerage systems will be required; but attendant high costs will tend to limit the amount of development. '"■" ST, MARY'S COUNTY The Patuxent River on the north, Chesapeake Bay on the east, the Potomac River, and waters tributary to each of these water bodies are the principal location of wetlands in St. Mary's County. Approximately 4,500 acres were inventoried at 132 different locations of five acres or larger in size. (Table VI-31). Wetlands represent about two percent of the Coun- ty's total land area. About 500 acres (11%) are classified in the "safe"" category, another 2,300 acres (51%) are "moderately"" vulnerable and about 1,400 acres (31%) are "highly'" vulnerable. In addition, 286 acres or six percent were destroyed. Type 12 and Type 16 wetlands sustained the heaviest losses (Table VI-32). Summing up. County land use plans recommend waterfrontage development while at the same time recognizing potential hazards of doing so. The proximity to the Washington metropolitan area may have an expanding influence as accessibility improves. Residen- tial housing encouraged by abundant waterfrontage property and scenic landscapes will be a major development opportunity. The challenge will be to develop in a manner that doesn't degrade the environment attracting and supporting the economic opportunity. The manner in which County land use policies and plans are implemented will determine the impact of development on the existing environment. This rests largely with the local citizen's interest in the way the County's natural environment assets are protected during future developmental activity. VI-20 SOMERSET COUNTY Approximately 45 percent of Somerset County's 600 square miles lie below the tidal wash of Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries." Consequently, there are vast ex- panses of wetlands dominating the County's peninsular shoreline jutting into Tangier Sound. Extensive wetlands are also found on South Marsh Island, Smith Island and along the shores of Pocomoke Sound and the Pocomoke River. About 58,600 acres of wetlands were inventoried at 37 different locations of five acres or larger in size (Table VI-33). Wetlands comprise about 27 percent of Somerset County's total land area. This ranks the County second in terms of total land area in wetlands. About 4,100 acres (7%) are classified in the "safe" category while 39,000 acres (66%) are "moderately" vulnerable and 14,800 acres (25%) are "highly" vulnerable. In addition, 709 acres were destroyed or had experienced changes destructive to natural habitat values. The majority of the losses were attributed to dredging and spoil disposal operations (32%), housing developments (24%), erosion (19%), and a combination of causes for the remainder (Table VI-34). The present wetlands ownership pattern is 17,000 acres public and 40,900 acres private. Most of the publicly owned land is managed for preservation and maintenance of wildlife at Deal Island, Fairmount, Cedar Island, Pocomoke Sound, and Wellington Wildlife Management Areas by the Maryland Fish and Wildlife Administration. The Maryland Department of Forests and Parks owns Janes Island for conservation and recreational purposes and the Federal Government has established the Martin National Wildlife Refuge on Smith Island. Concerning the future of privately owned wetlands, a brief review was made of County land use planning activities and reports. With specific reference to land use and wetlands the following comments and recommended policies were noted. "The most desirable and economical form of land use in the County would be that which encourages the expansion of the existing built-up areas with provisions for adequate and desirable waterfront development. A policy should also be followed for a minimum of development in marsh areas . . . Every effort should be made to con- centrate residential, commercial and industrial development in areas that are now or can in the future be served by public sewer and water. In this way, property values and the health of the community will be preserved. "The agricultural area also includes vast marsh areas along the western and southern fringes of the County. Although very little agriculture as such is found here, it should be maintained in its present state as much as possible. The economic value of the area should be preserved as a haven for wildlife and as an attraction for sportsmen."" The future development and/or preservation of privately owned wetlands in Somerset County is linked to the economic needs of the local residents, the public revenues needed for essential governmental services, the local attitude toward the role that wetlands play in the total environmental system, and the potential impacts of State and regional developmental activities and programs. While Somerset County is wetlands blessed, it is a mixed blessing. Too much of one commodity may mean low net incomes to local residents. Consequently, local government cannot be expected to hold a paternal attitude toward wetlands. For future economic growth to occur, it may have to be based on the opportunities presented by developing the natural resource base, including wetlands. TALBOT COUNTY Talbot County is surrounded entirely by water except for I'/i miles on its northern boundary. Eastern Bay, Chesapeake Bay and the Choptank River on the west, Tuckahoe Creek on the northeast, and the Choptank River on the southeast and south form the County's borders. These waters and smaller bays and tributary inlets provide numerous sites for wetlands. About 9,700 acres were inventoried at 145 different locations of five acres in size or larger (Table VI-35). Wetlands comprise about five percent of Talbot County's land area. About 500 acres (5%) are classified in the "safe" category while 6,200 acres (64%) are "moderately" vulnerable and 1,800 acres (18%) are "highly" vulnerable. In addition, 1,169 acres were destroyed or had experienced changes destructive to former natural habitat values. These losses were attributed to a variety of causes, the most important being housing development (28.7%). However, erosion is also an important agent of wetlands destruction (24.8%) (Table VI-36). The present wetlands ownership pattern is 150 acres (1.7%) public and 8,450 acres (98.3?o) private. The majority of the publicly owned wetlands are at a U.S. Coast Guard facility on the shoreline of Chesapeake Bay. Concerning the future of wetlands in Talbot County, a survey of wetlands inventory data shows that 54 wetland areas have experienced some degree of man- caused destruction and 23 areas have experienced acreage losses due to erosion. There is pressure for VI-21 waterfrontage development to create residential real estate and provide recreational and marina facilities due to several factors (Ch. IX). Also, the previous pattern of shoreline erosion will continue. Therefore, wetland acreage losses will continue in Talbot County unless plans are developed to direct and control the pattern of present and future land development in the County. Without plans, the present high quality en- vironmental conditions may not be protected from iU-considered future land use and shoreline develop- ment activities. WASHINGTON COUNTY There are very few instances of naturally occurring wetlands in Washington County. Three wetlands were inventoried with a total of 23 acres (Table VI-37). Also, several man-made impoundments provide over 200 acres of open surface freshwater habitat. No wetland losses were found and nearly every acre both natural and artifically produced is considered to be safe. This is due to public ownership both by Federal and State (Chesapeake and Ohio National Park and State Forest) and by private sportsmans clubs for conservation and outdoor recreation purposes. Table \T-J7. Inventory Count) of wetlands in Washington No. of Wetlands Type Hab ntat Acreage 5 11 7 Vulnerabilily I ' I ^* I ^ Moderate Safe Safe Totals 3 23 *In addition, there are 214 acres of open surface freshwater (Type 5) created by man-made impoundments. WICOMICO COUNTY Wetlands in Wicomico County are located primar- ily along the shores of the Nanticoke, Wicomico and Pocomoke Rivers. There are also important interior wetlands on watercourses tributary to these major rivers. Approximately 22,000 acres of wetlands were inventoried at 57 different locations of five acres or larger in size (Table VI-38). Wetlands comprise about eight percent of the County's total land area. The County ranks fourth in terms of Statewide total wetlands acreage. About 1,900 acres (9%) are classified "safe" while 420 acres (2%) are "moderately" vulnerable and 16,600 acres (75%) are believed to be "highly" vulnerable to future destructive changes. In addition, 3,051 acres were destroyed or had experienced changes destructive to natural habitat values. The losses represent 14 percent of the total County inventoried acreage and were due to housing and industrial development and agricultural use (Table VI-39). Most of the losses occurred near or within SaUsbury and its urbanizing fringes. The present wetlands ownership pattern is 2,070 acres pubUc and 16,850 acres private. Most of the pubhcly owned land (1,900 acres) is at Ellis Bay Wildlife Management Area. Theremainder is owned by the City of Sahsbury for park and recreational use. Municipal ownership and implementation of plans for using stream valleys for outdoor recreation pur- poses has resulted in wetland alteration to provide recreational facOities because they were unsuitable for such use in their natural state. In other stream valley areas, wetlands have been filled for housing. Conse- quently, most wetlands within the city environs have been changed to meeting housing and park facility or recreation needs. Two other activities with potential impact on Wicomico County wetlands merit brief discussion. One is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers navigation project activity on the Wicomico River channel. Salisbury is about 20 miles upstream from the mouth of the river. Maintenance of a navigable channel that permits merchant shipping to reach Sahsbury is of great eco- nomic interest to the local and regional community .^^ This interest is reflected by an appropriate construc- tional response by the Corps. Since 1950 dredging for new channels and maintenance has produced about 925,650 cubic yards of spoil at a total Federal cost of $269,278. Part of the local share of project respon- sibility includes providing spoil disposal areas. Previous spoil disposal has been overboard into stream areas adjacent to the dredged channel and behind low dikes. From an economic standpoint wetlands have been utilized as spoil disposal areas in the past and will be so used in the future. Consequently, present and future channel maintenance projects on the Wicomico River will probably utihze wetlands along the shoreline as spoil disposal sites whenever dictated by engineering or economic limitations. Another Federal program with potential impact on wetlands is the Small Watershed Program (Pubhc Law 83-566) administered by the U.S. Soil Conserva- tion Service for flood control and agricultural land drainage. This program has been utilized on several tributaries of the Pocomoke River and is more exten- sive than former Civilian Conservation Corps, conscien- VI-22 tious objector or private entrepreneurial drainage pro- jects of a similar nature. Consequently, the majority of Wicomico County wetlands inventoried as destroyed were Type 7 (wooded swamp) along the Pocomoke River and its tributaries. There are several more poten- tial flood control and agricultural land drainage pro- jects eligible for PL 566 financial assitance in the Pocomoke River watershed. WORCESTER COUNTY As Maryland's only county on the Atlantic Coast, Worcester County has an unusual mixture of wetlands. Expansive areas of coastal salt meadows and marshes border the Isle of Wight-Assawoman Bay estuarine complex from the Delaware boundary line to the Ocean City Inlet, and south from the Inlet in Sine- puxent and Chincoteague Bays to the Virginia line. Inland the Pocomoke River and its tributaries such as Nassawango Creek and Pusey Branch are the locales for large areas of fresh water swamps. Wetlands comprise about eight percent of the land area in Worcester County. In terms of total wetlands acreage Worcester County ranks third Statewide. Sig- nificantly, 64 percent of Maryland's regularly flooded salt marshes (Type 18) occurs in the estuarine areas behind the coastal barrier beaches. About 37,700 acres were inventoried at 80 differ- ent locations of five acres or larger in size (Table VI-40). About 3,300 acres (9%) are classified in the "safe" category whUe 12,400 acres (33%) are "moder- ately" vulnerable and 1 1 ,300 acres (30%) are "highly" vulnerable. Of the latter figure, 8,000 acres of regularly flooded salt marsh (Type 1 8) are in the high vulnerabil- ity status. This situation is attributed to the geograph- ical location of these wetlands coinciding with the State's hmited oceanic shoreline. These areas are very attractive for recreation home-marina complex devel- opment to meet the high demand for such facilities. Additionally, 10,639 wetland acres were recorded as destroyed or experienced changes destructive to wetland habitat values. Wooded swamp (Type 7) sus- tained 8 1 percent of the County's total wetlands acreage losses (VI-41). Most of this reported loss was due to agricultural drainage and flood prevention projects assisted by Federally financed programs. A series of these projects were completed on water- courses tributary to the upper reaches of the Pocomoke River, and have altered most of the wetlands above Whiton Crossing. Regularly flooded salt marsh losses were due primarily to natural succession. The marshes were filled by a combination of blown sand siltation from beach dunes and an accumulation of decayed vegetation. However, housing and marina development are also significant destructive factors (Table VI-41 ). The present wetlands ownership pattern is 4,580 acres (17%) pubUc and 22,500 acres (83%) private. The wetlands in pubhc ownership are located within the Pocomoke State Forest and Assateague Island State Park (Maryland Department of Forests and Parks), Assateague Island National Seashore (Federal Govern- ment) and the Ernest A. Vaughn Wildlife Management Area (Maryland Fish and Wildlife Administration). The publicly owned areas are primarily managed for conser- vation purposes although some destruction of wetlands has occurred in providing recreational facilities for visitors and tourists. Concerning the future status of privately owned wetlands, reference was made to both County-wide and local planning studies. The following comments merit especial attention. "The open waters must not be filled in, and the tidal marshes that are so vital to the survival and constant replenishment of our fish and game resources must be preserved in their natural 5 4- state."^ "A few residential developments have occur- red in the West Ocean City area and along the St. Martin River or elsewhere, but sanitation pro- blems have arisen because of over -intensive devel- opment and lack of modern sewers. The danger is that the natural charm of these wooded shores will be lost, and the irreplaceable breeding and feeding grounds for valuable fish and waterfowl will be destroyed unnecessarily, by irresponsible and over-zealous types of real estate 'devel- opers.' "As custodian of Maryland's entire ocean shore, only 31 miles long, this county bears a certain obligation to the whole State. Its re- sources are coming into greater and greater demand but the supply is limited and must be used judiciously.^® "The problems of the future clearly include making best use of hmited land area (at Ocean City). While conditions are suitable for expan- sion on the bay side, this expansion must be carefully planned and hmited to preserve the assets of these protected waters. "Of Ocean City's developable land, that is excluding the beach, 61 .5 percent is vacant. "Adding land by filling on the bay side may be expected to increase the total land area of the town by about 20 percent. The potential growth by filhng to the bulkhead hne, as of the summer of 1967, is about 970 acres. However, it is probable that only one-half of this area (485 acres) will actually be filled. VI-23 "The bay front will soon be far more impor- tant to Ocean City than it has been in the past. Its present value for building sites is demonstrated by the filling of the bay in some places and the dredging and pUing to create boat slips in other places. The question of how much fill is permis- sable should be studied. This would relate to the inland waterway channel location among other considerations. As the cost of land rises in Ocean City, the incentive to fill the bay will grow. Presently filled land is used for town houses and apartments, but soon it will be economically justified by the value of single-dwelling sites. "In relatively recent years there have been extensive undertakings in bulkheading, digging new channels, and filling of new land on the bay side. Much more of this lies in store since the bay side offers the only possibilities for substantial enlargment of the town's land area . . . Judged by the bad examples of most of the past works, establishment of standards and careful super- vision of design and construction of land fills and channels on the bay side will form an important objective of the Comprehensive Plans. So far, the "designs" have been based mainly on long, narrow, dead-end channels with little thought to a circulation system necessary to avoid stagnant water. ^^ "The general land use plan (for Ocean City) illustrates the principle that filling of new land should be encouraged, but that extension should be hmited by a bulkhead line which maintains the integrity of the bay, its channels and cur- rents, its views, purity of water and its pleasures of fishing and boating. There appears to be little need for change in the present bulkhead line unless a substantial public purpose can be demonstrated. "A sizeable portion of land on the bay side would be reclaimed by land fills such as pre- viously undertaken for the existing amusement center, and as planned for the new sewage treat- ment plant site. Bay land south of the (new) bridge ramps should hkewise be reclaimed and committed to use as parkland with a pubhc landing dock and related parking facihties." From the above, it is clear that much of the future development in Worcester County, particularly at Ocean City, is predicated on filling or reclaiming wetlands to provide additional land needed to support envisioned growth. At the same time some pre-caution- ary statements were also made regarding policy guid- ance of such activity and possible results if ignored. Besides development, planning guidance was also provided for future activity concerning conservation of important natural resource assets, particularly natural conservation areas. These areas are defined as includ- ing: "coastal marshes, cypress swamps and certain upland swamps and forests, that should be left primar- ily in their natural state for such uses as fish and wildlife management, hunting, boating, fishing, camping, ex- ploring, forest management, and the Uke."^'* One plan recommended that as a goal, over 13,000 acres of forests and natural areas in combination with other existing parks and recreational facilities be ob- tained or set aside by the County. Many significant wetland areas are included in this recommendation such as certain segments of the shoreline on Chinco- teague and Sinepuxent Bays and tributaries and reaches of the Pocomoke River. Considerable State and Federal acitivity on preser- ving, managing and developing Assateague Island for outdoor recreation and conservation have set aside large areas for these purposes. Consequently, neither Ocean City or Worcester County is under pressure to acquire or preserve natural areas and hence the local thrust is logically on development to take advantage of a special resource (unique location) situation. Quite hkely this pattern will continue in response to the pressures dictated by the recreation-based real estate market. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Maryland has significant wetlands in terms of remaining acreage and stature among other states of the Atlantic Coast. Loss of this important habitat has not been nearly as severe as experienced by some other states. However, acreage losses, as well as changes considered degrading to about seven percent of the inventoried acreage during the past decade or more indicate that man's presence is starting to become apparent in these areas of the coastal zone. Also to be considered but not inventoried or documented are losses of small wetland areas (less than five acres) as well as the natural bottom destroyed under open surface waters. The latter destruction or modification occurs through dredging and overboard spoil disposal and by fill such that the former bottom is no longer sub-aqueous. Furthermore, areal extent is not a paramount criteria in evaluating or indicating the ecological significance of an area. In fact, many of the small wetlands are the only such areas within the immediate vicinity of large open surface water acreage and miles of shorehne. The net impact of wetlands' losses is undoubtedly buffered due to the large remaining acreages. Quite hkely, if future encroachments significantly reduce the habitat base, the net impacts will be more dramatically discernible. This will be seen in reduced populations of fish and wildlife, shifts in natural population composi- tion and degraded conditions in the acquatic environ- ment. VI-24 The fact that Maryland has a healthy wetlands resource situation poses a challenging opportunity to future shoreline land-use and estuarine management planning. Maryland's present wetlands complex as is should assure a continual, rich and abundant produc- tion of fisheries, waterfowl and wildlife. However, a favorable inventorial situation may not reduce the vulnerabiUty of wetlands to continued destructive activities. Large existing acreages, vast intact wetland tracts, and small losses (percentagewise) may suggest to decision-makers and the poUtical process that there is either no need for protective management or concern over restriction on the allocation of wetlands to other uses. The apparant abundance of wetlands Statewide may lead to false impressions, unrealistic appraisals and inappropriate actions or inaction. In man's systems devised to govern himself and his surroundings it was necessary to establish, organize and superimpose artificial boundaries on the natural en- vironment. In this process the major responsibility for establishing and enforcing controls over land uses was vested with local government. However, wetlands and their related values do not correspond to political boundaries. The contributions derived from wetlands are local, regional, Statewide, national and even at times international in character. A survey of Maryland county land use policies and plans reveals a varying awareness of important aspects of the wetlands situation. However, there are no mechanisms in the local decision-making processes to reflect or consider the regional significance of certain land use decisions. Political and economic reality (Ch. VIH) suggests that it may be nearly impossible for local decision makers to resolve any conflict in favor of interests other than local. The burden for decisions of greater than local magnitude should not be borne alone by local governments. Neither should local citizens and their governments be deprived of their right to par- ticipate in matters concerning their destiny and their local environment. With problems that are of more than local concern, there should be, in the interest of uniformity and recognizing the integrity of the entire region as a single unit, a device to reflect larger interests than simply local zoning laws. The device in the zoning sphere at the State level could serve as a guideline or umbrella to local shoreline zoning. It could be developed to reflect an overall, statewide perspective within which local zoning can spell out the details. "A device such as this may in some sense indicate a duplicate posture for such zoning, but it is felt that the totality of the Bay picture would dictate some uniformity and consistency with acceptance taking place at the local level."®^ Clearly, what is needed are new forms of regional zoning or zoning review to resolve local-regional resource devel- opment conflicts.®^ Part of the State's management problem with regard to coastal zone resources hes in the proliferation of legal, political and socio-economic institutions con- cerned with resource use and protection. There is a multiplicity of State, Federal and local governmental and non-government agencies— at all levels involved in the processes of planning and decision making— direct- ly related to utilization of resources. Many of these agencies promote single-purpose goals and were estab- Ushed for specialized purposes. Some coordination exists between conflicting agencies, but this coordina- tion needs imporvement. However, before there can be more meaningful and effective State inter-agency co- operation and coordination there has to be a prior mutually conceived and agreed to strategy. Because of the many legitimate but competing uses of the shore- line, a need exists for plans outlining management policies and plans for the land-water interface environ- ment comprising the State's coastal zone 68 1. Shaw, Samuel P., and C. Gordon Fredine. Wetlands of the United States. USDI, Fish & Wildlife Service, Circular 39. USGPO: Washington, 1956. Nicholson, W. R., and R. D. Van Duesen. Maryland marshes. Resource Study Report No. 6, Md. Dept. Research and Educ. Solomons, Md. 1954. Shaw, Samuel P., and C. Gordon Fredine. Wetlands of Maryland. PittmanRobertson Investigation Project No. W-30-R. 1956. Shaw, Samuel P., and C. Gordon Fredine. Permanent water inventory - Maryland. ORBS, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.D.I., Atlanta, Georgia. 1956. Stewart, Robert E. Waterfowl populations in the upper Chesapeake region. Special Sci. Rept. - Wildlife No. 65. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.D.I., Washington, 1962. Maryland State Planning Dept. Classification and inventory of habitats of Maryland. Baltimore. 1965. 2. Spinner, George P. A plan for the marine resources of the Atlantic coastal zone. American Geographical Society. 1969. 3. Furragut, Paul R. Chesapeake Bay: Shoreline utilization in the Baltimore Region. Regional Plan- ning Council. Baltimore, Maryland. April, 1969. Taken from Smithsonian Institution. Proposal to the Old Dominion Foundation. Washington, D. C. March 20, 1967. VI-25 13. 15 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Marcou, O'Leary and Associates. Land use plan, 1980. Anne Arundel County General Development Plan. Tech. Report. No. 4., Washington, D. C. July, 1967. Marcou, O'Leary and Associated. Long-range development guideline. Anne Arundel County General Development Plan. Tech. Report. No. 3., Washington, D. C. March, 1967. Op. cit. Marcou, O'Leary and Associated. Land use plan. Supra. Marcou, O'Leary and Associated. Plan for open space and recreation areas. Anne Arundel County General Development Plan. Tech. Rept. No. 5. Washington, D. C. August, 1967. Ibid. Graves, Aubrey. "Rigid Restrictions on Marinas in Anne Arundel Proposed." ~The Washington Post. July 11, 1969; and "Marina Operations, Zoning Officer Clash." The Washington Post. July 18, 1969. Baltimore County Office of Planning and Zoning. Preliminary 1980 guideplan. 1969. Muncy, Dorothy A. Inventory of port-oriented land: Baltimore region. Maryland Department of Economic Development. 1963. Baltimore County Department of Recreation and Parks and Office of Planning and Zoning. Baltimore County waterfront recreation survey. November, 1959; and Baltimore County Department of Recreation and Parks. Recreation and parks in Baltimore County: A plan of action. 1966; and Farragut, Paul R. Chesapeake Bay: Shoreline utilization in the Baltimore region. Regional Plan- ning Council, Baltimore, Maryland. April, 1969. Maryland Slate Planning Department. Com- prehensive master plan, Calvert County, Maryland. Baltimore. 1967. Werner-Dyer and Associates. Calvert County, Maryland - planning research. December, 1964. Ibid. Harland Bartholomew and Associates. Com- prehensive plan, Caroline County, Maryland. April, 1968. Ibid. Op. cit. Op. cit. Blair and Stein Associates. Proposed master development plan for Cecil County, Maryland. Washington, D. C, October, 1962. Ibid. 23. Marcou, O'Leary and Associates. Community facilities plan for Cecil County, Maryland. Washington, D. C. November, 1964. 24. Op. cii. 25. Harland Bartholomew and Associates. Com- prehensive plan - Charles County, Maryland. Prepared for Charles County Planning Commission. Washington, D. C. August, 1966. rev. February, 1967. 26. Harland Bartholomew and Associates. Comprehen- sive plan - Charles County, Maryland, preliminary report - background for planning. Washington, D. C. May, 1965. 27. Op. cit. 28. Werner-Dyer & Associates. Dorchester County, Maryland - plans and policies. July, 1963. 29. D.O.D. Directive No. 5500.5, May 24, 1965, and D.O.D. Instruction No. 4170.6. June 21, 1965. 30. Harland Bartholomew and Associates. General land use plan, part of the comprehensive plan, Harford County, Marvland. Washington, D. C. June, 1967. 31. Harland Bartholomew and Associates. Community facilities plan, part of the comprehensive plan, Harford County, Maryland. Washington, D. C. March, 1968. 32. Ibid. 33. Harland Bartholomew and Associates. The com- prehensive plan for Kent County, Maryland. August, 1968. 34. Ibid. 35. Op. cit. 36. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. Wetlands in the bi-county area. Research Dept. No. 8. October, 1967. 37. U. S. Department of Interior. The Nation's river. U.S.G.P.O.: Washington. 1968. 38. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. Wetlands in the Bi-County Area. Research Rept. No. 8. October, 1967. From U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey, Prince George's County, Maryland. U.S.G.P.O; Washington. 1967. 39. Ibid. 40. Black and Veatch. Solid waste disposal study for Washington metropolitan region. October, 1967. 41. Op. cit. 42. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, supra. 43. Tarrant, Julian. Comprehensive master plan. Queen Anne's County, Maryland. 1965. 44. Ibid. 45. Op. cit. VI-26 48, 49 50 51 52 46. Op. cit. 47. Harland Bartholomew and Associates. Com- prehensive plan, St. Mary's County. Washington, D. C. September, 1966. Ibid. Werner-Dyer and Associates. Bacicground for plan- ning, Somerset County, Maryland. March, 1963. Werner-Dyer and Associates. Plan and policies, Somerset County, Maryland. Preliminary Report No. 7 (undated). Salisbury Planning Commission and Wicomico County Planning and Zoning Commission. The Salisbury-Wicomico region: comprehensive plan. Tech. Rept. No. 3, July, 1961; and The Salisbury-Wicomico region: existing land use and physical conditions. Tech. Rept. No. I. May, 1960. Report submitted to the United States Army Corps of Engineers on the savings and benefits accrued to the Salisbury-Wicomico community and the Eastern Shore resulting from an improved river channel up the Wicomico River to the City of Salisbury. Prepared by the Salisbury Chamber of Commerce, Salisbury Planning Commission and Wicomico County Planning and Zoning Commission. March 24, 1960. 53. Corps of Engineers. Baltimore district river and harbor project maps, 1968. December 31, 1968. 54. Tarrant, Julian. The Worcester County plan. Rich- mond, Va. 1966. 55. Ibid. Note: Emphasis is by the consultant. 56. Op. cit. 57. Harland Bartholomew and Associates. The com- prehensive plan. Ocean City, Maryland. Prepared for "the Ocean City Planning and Zoning Commission. March, 1969. 58. Ibid. 59. 60, 61. Op. cit. 62. Op. cit. Note: Emphasis is by the consultant. 63. Op. cit. 64. Tarrant, Julian, Op. cit. at 54. 65. Ibid. 66. O'Connell, James J. The role of state government in bay management. In Proceedings, Governor's Conference on Chesapeake Bay Wye Institute, September 12-13, 1968. A useful document for this purpose has been produced by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission entitled, Floodland and Shoreland Development Guide, Planning Guide No. 5, Waukesha, Wise. November, 1968. 67. 68. This is precisely the strategy thrust suggested in legislation introduced before Congress. The Coastal Zone Management Act (S. 582), as proposed, would initiate a comprehensive planning approach in order to develop a long-range master plan for the coastal zone. Development would be based on Federally approved master plans produced by a local coastal authority. VI-27 VII SURVEY OF WETLANDS ASSOCIATED ECONOMIC VALUES FISHING Commercial Seafood Industry The Maryland commercial seafood industry can be subdivided into several different sectors including: 1) harvesting; 2) processing and manufacturing; and 3) marketing. Harvesting. About 9,000 fishermen, of whom some 6,000 have no other employment, harvest Maryland's fisheries resources. Approximately 6,500 boats and vessels are used in harvesting and transporting the catch.' The landed value of Maryland's commercial catch produced by these fishermen reached an all-time high of $16,913,000 in 1967, a recent year of completed fishery statistics. The total value of the 1967 catch was distributed among oysters (66%), crabs (14%), soft clams (9%), fish (9%). hard clams (1%), and other (1%).= Mollusks and crustaceans dominate the commercial fisheries of Maryland. Crabs, oysters and clams made up nearly 61 percent by weight and 91 percent by value of the 1967 harvest (Table VII-I). A variety of fishes is landed in Maryland, but only a few species are of any great importance. In order of importance by weight, the principal species are menhaden, striped bass, puffer, alewife, white perch, shad, and fiounders. By value, the order of importance is striped bass, white perch, fiounders, shad, menhaden, puffer, and alewives.' Oysters. Maryland leads the United States in oyster production. The landed value of the Maryland harvest in 1967 was over SI 1.000,000 or more than one-third of the total value of the national harvest in that year.' Maryland enjoys oyster production advantages unequalled in any other state, including relative freedom from diseases, parasites, predators, pollution, and hurricanes. With an environment favorable to producing high quality oysters in a three to four year period there is one distinct disadvantage — the reproduction rate is very low in most State waters. "In only a few areas of very limited size is spatfall consistently heavy enough to produce seed oysters of 'commercial' quality.'" Blue crabs. Maryland is second only to Virginia in the harvest of blue crabs. Over 26 million pounds were landed in Maryland during 1967. The total Chesapeake Bay catch (Maryland & Virginia combined) comprises about 50 percent of the total U.S. production of this species. Soft shell clams. Maryland leads the nation in the production of soft shell clams. About 400,000 bushels were harvested in 1967. This figure is considerably lower than several preceding years due to unstable market conditions and extensive late summer mortality in 1966. Chesapeake Bay north of the Little Choptank River on the Eastern Shore and from the Potomac River north on the Western Shore is an almost ideal habitat for the soft Table VII-I. Principal kinds offish and shellfish in Maryland landings in 1967. By weight and estimated value, and their rankings. Weight in Estimated Landed Rank by Kind of Fish Millions Value in Rank by Weight or Shellfish of Pounds Millions of Dollars Value 1 Blue Crabs 26.791 $ 2.448 2 2 Oysters 16.568 11.191 1 3 Clams 5.394 1.770 3 4 Menhaden 4.134 0.077 8 5 Striped Bass 4.072 0.665 4 6 Alewives 2.327 0.039 9 7 Swellfish 1.727 0.034 10 8 White Perch 1.199 0.168 5 9 Shad 0.884 . 0.091 7 10 Flounders 0.619 0.142 6 loluls 79.946 S16.9I3 Source: Dr. J. L. McHugh, Fisheries of Chesapeake Bay. In Proceedings, Governor's Conference on Chesapeake Bay, Wye Institute, September 12-13, 1968. VIM shell clam. Growth is extremely rapid and reproduction almost invariably adequate. Finfish. From available but perhaps inadequate statistical information, the volume of the finfish catch has increased during the past five years, but it has not been accompanied by an increase in value. Rather large increases in catch of several low value species such as alewives and menhaden have been offset by decreases in commercial catch of valuable species such as bluefish, flounder, croaker and shad. These decreases are at- tributed to reduced availability, changes in fishing methods, declines in oceanic fishing, and loss of markets due to restrictive legislation. Maryland leads the United States in striped bass production. The striped bass catch usually accounts for about one-third of the total value of Maryland's finfish catch. The catch of this species has averaged 3,500,000 pounds since 1961, an increase of 11 percent over the annual average catch of 3,100,000 pounds during the five- year period preceding 1961.) Baltimore wholesale fish market. In 1964 some 30 wholesale seafood dealers in Baltimore sold about $19.2 million worth of products and employed approximately 300 people. The typical wholesale dealer purchased about 20 to 25 percent of his products from the Chesapeake Bay area." Striped bass is the leading finfish species, while the leading shellfish is blue crab which provides the largest portion of the total value moving through the Baltimore wholesale fish market. Five percent of the total Maryland catch moved through the Baltimore wholesale fish market in 1966 (Table VI 1-2). This represents a decreasing trend from the 1 0 percent levels of 1 96 1 -62, and probably reflects the growth of the Eastern Shore seafood processing and manufacturing industry as well as the growth of chain food stores. The remaining major portion of Maryland's fisheries harvest is either shipped directly to other market areas or processed and consumed locally.' Processing and Manufacturing. Since only a small percentage of the total Maryland catch moves through the Baltimore market, dealership marketing, distrib- uting, processing and manufacturing must be confined largely to tidewater areas of production. For example, nearly all of the clam processing plants are located in Talbot and Queen Anne's counties; crab processing plants are concentrated in Dorchester and Somerset counties; and the oyster processing plants are distrib- uted fairly evenly between six Eastern Shore and three Southern Maryland counties.^ The output of Maryland's seafood processors has increased steadily over the last decade to a high of Table VI 1-2. Percentage of Maryland catch handled by the Baltimore wholesale fish market 1959-1966. Year Finfish Shell Fish Tulal • • • PCKCi'llt 1959 19 4 9 1960 20 4 9 1961 22 4 10 1962 21 5 10 1963 17 4 9 1964 10 4 6 1965 8 4 5 1966 8 4 5 Source: Based on data from U. S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, selected years. $36.6 million in 1965 (Table VII-3).^ The total output is composed of a large and varied group of highly processed items such as canned soups and chowders and frozen specialty products. At least $ 1 3 .4 million of the total value (in 1965) is derived from Maryland fishery resources production (oysters, clams and crabs) while the rest is based upon species imported for processing only. The seafood processing industry provides employ- ment to many residents of Maryland's tidewater coun- ties. Employment during the past few years has fluc- tuated about a mean of 4,355.^° It should here be noted that the seafood production and processing industry is most heavily concentrated in areas with the largest wetlands acreage. Since wetlands are essential to estuarine fishery resources, they must be considered a fundamental feature of the economy of both the Eastern Shore and Southern Maryland. SPORT OR RECREATIONAL FISHING Sport fisheries species. Striped bass is probably the most popular sport species. Spot, white perch, bluefish, shad, cobia, sea bass, flounders, gray and spotted sea trout, and several other species are popular also and contribute significantly to the sport fishing catch. Accurate records on sport fishing have not been maintained. Estimates range from 10 to 40 percent of the corresponding commercial harvest of the same fishes. In the case of the striped bass, however, it has been estimated that sports fishermen probably catch more than twice those taken by commercial fishermen. It is not always recognized that blue crabs and clams also support recreational fisheries. WhUe no estimates have been made of the sport catch of these VII-2 Table VII-3. Output of the Maryland seafood processing industry, 1957-1965. Shucked Shucked Cooked Olher Year Oysters Clams Crab Meal Products Total 1 Thous and Dollars] 1957 $9,913 $ 896 $5,672 $ 9,005 525,486 1958 7,963 1,123 4,568 11,266 24,920 1959 8,316 1,323 4,332 11,490 25,461 I960 8,086 1,587 3,867 17,399 30,939 1961 7,203 1,777 4,412 21,488 34,880 1962 7,664 1,964 4,794 21,454 35,876 1963 6,544 2,439 4,502 22,574 36,059 1964 5,803 2,653 4,426 22,340 35,222 1965 5,681 2,737 4,963 23,222 36,603 Source: U. S. Department of the Interior , Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. Fishery Statistics ( Df the United States. species in Chesapeake Bay, it is believed to be consider- able.'^^ This is indicated clearly by the results of a survey of the sport crab fishery in the Galveston Bay (Texas) estuarine system which disclosed that the total weight of a summer's month sport catch of crabs was equivalent to 1 5 percent of the reported commercial catch for the same period . Economic Significance of Sport Fishing. One sur- vey conducted on the Patuxent estuary showed that more than 7 1 ,000 sport fishing trips were made to that estuary during 1963. Expenditures associated with this activity approached $500,000, not counting the invest- ment in boats, permanent tackle and similar apperten- ances."'^ These figures indicate an average per day expenditure of $7.00 for sport fishing. Another study concentrated on sport fishing activ- ity in an area 20 miles above to 20 miles below the Bay Bridge (340 square miles of open Bay surface water). A preliminary estimate of angling expenditures in this area (based on 23 1 ,000 fisherman-days multiplied by resident and non-resident average daily expenditures) totalled $1,790,000 for the June through September, 1962 or approximately $7.00 per fisherman-day.''® Current estimates on tidal or saltwater angling participation in Maryland suggest a range of 200,000 to 300,000 fishermen annually.^ ^ The exact number is unknown since no license is required for fishing in the tidal waters of the State. However, these numbers coincide with 30 year old records on sport fishing participation,''® suggesting that present activity is con- servatively estimated. Based on past estimates, the present total aimual expenditure by each sport fisherman is at least $100, which sum does not include boat and boat equipment costs. Taking into account the participation rate, the potential expenditure of Maryland saltwater anglers is at least $20 million annually, excluding major equipment purchase. Earlier studies on sport fishing economics indicate that the $20 million annual estimate may be appro- priate, at least as a minimum figure. For example, total 1952 expenditures were estimated to be $9.6 million of which $7 miUion was spent exclusively in Maryland by 100,500 different tidewater fishermen each making 10 fishing trips per year (Table WWA)?^ These figures exclude the Atlantic Ocean sport fishery expenditures. By doubling the number of tidewater sport fishermen from 100,500 to 201,000 over the 17-year period 1952-69 and applying a per capita annual expenditure of $100, the product is $20.1 mOhon. This estimated growth coincides with the reported five to seven percent annual increases in saltwater angling participa- tion.22" Businesses that are the recipients of sport fishing expenditures are the boat industry, marinas, sporting goods, bait dealers, and a miscellaneous grouping of manufacturers, distributors, retailers and employees of numerous small miscellaneous items purchased by sport fishermen. There are also secondary businesses that receive expenditures related to sport fishing for foods and beverages, lodging, transportation, and miscellaneous items. Finally, it should be noted with emphasis that it is exceedingly difficult to evaluate the total economic value of sport fishing derived from Maryland's tidewaters because of the numerous and diverse businesses which benefit from expenditures associated with this activity and the lack of accurate recent data on sport fishing participation. VII-3 Table VII-4. Estimated total expenditures of sportsmen fish! during 1952. and amounts spent in Maryland ng in the Maryland tidewaters by type of expense.* Expense category Boat rental fees Bait purchases Food and beverages Lodgings Transportation Fishing Tackle Special clothing and equipment Miscellaneous Total Total Spent in Maryland expenditure % of Total Amount $ 445,000 100 $ 445,000 1,219,000 90 1,097,000 1,705,000 80 1,364,000 258,000 100 258,000 1,855,000 60 1,113,000 1,055,000 50 527,000 639,000 50 319,500 2,430,000 80 1,944,000 $9,606,000 73.6% $7,068,100 ♦Source: Tidewater Sport Fishery by R. D. Buzzell and E. T. Research and Education, Resource Study Report No. 4 Walker, Maryland Department , Solomons, Md. March, 1954. The conservatively estimated monetary values pre- sented do not, of course, include the values that accrue to sportsmen from days spent just being outdoors: "There is no way to appraise values that go with angling, such as painstaking preparation, patience, application of cun- ning, knowledge of fish life and habits, adjustment to meteorology conditions, recreation, sportsmanship and, last but not least, the 'proper frame of mind,' and similar points that characterize fishing and fisherman. Even fish stories have their place and value. "^^ BOATING This section deals with certain aspects of boating that are associated either directly or indirectly with wetlands. The most tangible of these are boating use for sport and commercial fishing. A 1965 study, Marinas in Maryland,-^ showed that 93 percent of berthed boats were used for pleasure while seven percent were used for commercial purposes. Of the marina-kept pleasure boats, 51 percent were used primarily for cruising, 36 percent for fishing, and the remaining 13 percent for water skiing, racing and other purposes. Marina-kept commer- cial boats were used almost exclusively for fishing, either commercial or sport. Service Facilities — Marinas In 1965, total investment in Maryland's 308 marinas was $35 million. The amount invested in a single marina ranged from $1,000 to $2.5 million, while the average investment for all marinas was $104,000 (Table Vll-5).-'' A sampling of the average annual revenue per marina was approximately $22,500. Principal revenue sources were slip rentals and fuel and oil sales which averaged $18,400 and $4,300, respectively." The average net revenues are not properly representative, however, because of the disparity in size, operation and ownership characteristics among marinas. Small marinas are organized usually as sole proprietorships and are frequently owner-operated, with the owner living on the property and employing family labor and/or neighbors. They are a part-time business for many small marina owners who work full-time away from home and operate the marina as a source of extra income. Since peak business occurs on weekends and holidays, the owner is able to utilize his free time to tend the marina business. Also, there are many retired or semi-retired proprietors who operate small marinas, in which instance marina revenues provide a supplementary source of income. At the opposite end of the spectrum are the larger marinas which are usually corporations and multi- enterprise complexes. A variety of services and extra attractions are offered on a large volume basis. Such marinas employ about 2,200 persons both full and part- time during the month of maximum employment. Of these, approximately 1,700 are employed full-time with the remaining 500 employed part-time.-' Many of the full-time employees are skilled or semi-skilled, e. g., boat engine mechanics, boat carpenters, painters and finishers, lift operators, dockmasters and dredge operators. Most of the part-time employees are unskilled, e. g., dock personnel who pump gasoline and provide other minor boat care and food services. VIM Table VII-5. Current capital investment to marinas by size, 1965. Current Estimated investment current Number of slips Number oj reporting Investment total and moorings reporting marinas per marina investment ■. 10 - 89 162 •$11,615,700 $ 71,702 $16,204,628 90 - 139 34 5,860,000 172,353 7,755,883 140 - 189 10 2,700,000 270,000 5,400,000 190 - 229 6 1,930,000 321,667 3,216,668 230 and over b b b 2,251,669 Tolal and average 212 $22,105,700 $104,272 $34,828,848 a Estimated investment is the arithmetic mean of responding firms in each size group multiplied by the total number of marinas in each group. /) /.ess than three firms responding, and the estimate is based on the mean of the next smaller si/c group. Source: Lyon, Gale H., el al. Economic analysis of marinas in Maryland. Agric. Expt. Sta., Dept. of Agric. Econ. Contribution No. 4100, Univ. Md. College Park, April, 1969. Economic Relationship of Boating and Wetlands The total number of boats, both registered and unregistered, used primarily for fishing in Maryland is unknown due to a lack of data. Therefore, reliable documentation of the economic values of boating which could legitimately be attached to wetlands either directly or indirectly is a formidable task. However, based upon certain assumptions regarding boating statistics a very tenative evaluation may be made. For example, application of the marina study's boating use percentages to the 1969 boat registration (Table VIl-6) produces a figure of 25, 100 boats that are used primarily for fishing (pleasure and commercial combined). Since all registered boats are not berthed at marinas, the estimate probably understates actual usage figures for fishing for the following reasons: 1) Low minimum horsepower limitation requir- ing registration (7.5 hp) would seem to insure that nearly every motor-powered boat used for fishing is registered. However, many privately owner motor-powered boat are trailer-stored, thus they would not be marina kept boats. 2) Regarding non-motor powered boats, sailboats over 25 feet long must be registered. A sailboat, particularly of larger size, is apt to be very awk- ward to handle for trailer stowage. Consequently, a higher percentage of marina kept boats are probably registered and non-registered sailboats than motor-powered boats. It is clearly conceivable that if appropriate values could be calculated and allocated properly to boats and boat accessories there would be another multi-million dollar value attributable to wetlands. Well planned research regarding the economics of recreational boating in Maryland should be accorded a high priority by interested researchers and academicians. HUNTING The Chesapeake Bay Region is an important area to the migratory waterfowl of the Atlantic Flyway. Detailed documentation of the total value of waterfowl hunting in Maryland has never been successfully com- pOed. Statistics on licenses, numbers of duck bhnds, and user -days present in a prehminary fashion some of the economic value of waterfowl hunting in Maryland. However, intangible, non-market values associated with all outdoor recreation are not easily quantifiable. Hunter Participation Hunter participation values include number of hunters, amount of use (user-days), hunter expen- ditures, and the size of the waterfowl and wildlife harvest. For example, about 35,000 waterfowl hunters (7,000 non-resident) expended 302,000 user-days in the Bay area in 1967. This number of hunters repre- sents about 20 percent of the total licenses issued and about 25 percent (over $200,000) of the total value of hcenses issued in 1 966-67 (Table VII-7).^ In addition, these hunters purchased over 2,600 duck blind licenses which produced a revenue exceeding $13,000 (Table VII -8). From the increase in the number of duck blind VIl-5 Table VII-6 Summary of Maryland boat registration 1963-1969. VII-6 E E O ON T3 c ">> CO C 00 c c e If) o o o o o 0 CSI q p ID ID O ID p CM cm' >* r»' ID oo" CO ^ O) d 05 r^' r-. ^ CD cm' (A r^ CN LD O CO CO ID o 05 r~ CO CO CO (0 CO CD_ 5 CM O T— T— CO r- CO CM_ 05 CO p^_ 4irf o "*" ^— en CD oo" 00 CD 00 T— r~. CO CO d 05" co" id" 1- CD CD CD n p~ r~ 00 CM o (^ 00 O CO "vT 05 0 CO CO 00 P^ P^ s 4-* s ID ^ o o o o o O 0 c "O CM LD LD p ID ID LD 0 o 03 d CD 00 M 00 00 ^ 05 d 1^ d T— >*' O d tfl M r-. CD o ID ^ "^ CD 05 LD 05 CM T— CO CM 0) s "* 01 ^_ *— CM_ CD_ CD_^ CO_ LD_ CM^ CM^ CN P l>_ r — I CSI (D r~. cd" cm" r^ id" r~. cd" oo" cm" co" cm" tn" id" 05" en c ^ CM r^ P~ 00 O O CN CO o ^- CM CSI CM CSI Z s « W s V^ » iA Vi o ^" r— CM LD o LD 0 ^ o r— r~- <* 1^ LD 05 <35 •o o T 1 1 1 1 °l P 00 p^_ C0_ r~^ c cm' 1 oo" r»" d" ^— cm" >*" 3 «« CO CM <* CM "S- w 01 00 £ c to 0 C CO tj 4-* o Lf) LD Ol ID ai LD CO in O o ,— CD p~ CM r^ CM CD 0 3 •o o P~ r> O) CO 05 CO 05 LD o o <* 00 p^ CD to O P, "^, CO o r~ 5 ■* «* r^ CM p P CD 0 1- li < ^ Ifl ID ^- r-«" a>" ld" cd" co" "sC" cm" to" d" r— T— 05" 00" 00 CSI 05 ID (35 Ol o 00 ^— r^ o "* T r~. ^— T— . — . — * * LD » <^ m iB w ^ m o o o o o ? o o 0 d CD CO CD +- p ID LD LD o ID p 0 CJ5 ar C o 00 !-»" <» m V) to 05 i (/I CD 0 0 0 1_ O z 0. ol CO _ _,- _,^ OJ 3 ^ CN CO c ^ ID CD t^ O) C!5 o r— ^^ "^ "^ 3 CO 0) CD 0) CD (U CD n _2 >a- _D LD _2 CO _2 r^ _2 CO _2 C35 ^ d _2 O CD to CO 03 CD CD CD nj CD to CD to CD cu r~ to +^ •a i > Oi > O) > en > C35 > 05 > 05 > r" c T— ^- T~ (U _>■ <0 0 3 3 2 VII-7 licenses issued from 1 966 to 1 970, it is dear that there is significant, continuing interest and participation in waterfowl hunting in Maryland (Table VII-8). The 1965 National Survey of Fishing and Hunting reported that a hunter's expenditures for food, lodging, transportation, equipment, licenses, etc., averaged $82.54 annually. ^° Applying that average expenditure to the 35,000 licensed waterfowl hunters (Md.-1967) will produce a total expenditure exceeding S2.2 mUhon annually. However, much of Maryland waterfowl hunt- ing is done under a club membership or leasing arrange- ment. This increases expenditures considerably. For example, estimates of the total cost to the average Maryland hunter are in a range of $300 to $500 annually. This cost indicates an annual economic value of $10.5 milHon to $17.5 million associated with waterfowl hunting. In addition to waterfowl hunting, rail and jack- snipe hunting totaled about 2,000 user-days, which at approximately $30 per user-day, provides an additional annual economic value totalling $60,000.^^ Hunting Leases Much of the Maryland waterfowl hunting is based upon a lease system due to property and riparian rights and extensive "No Trespassing" land closures backed by vigorous enforcement and prosecution by land owners. The tenure of lease varies. A National Recrea- tion Survey conducted in 1962 as a part of the ORRRC studies reported that most leases for small game and waterfowl (34%) are for periods of less than one month. However, a large proportion (26%) are for periods of 1 to 5 years. ^^ The precise extent of hunting on property obtain- ed through a purchase or lease arrangement is un- known. However, it has been reported that "the Chesa- peake and Delaware Bay regions (Delaware, Maryland, Virginia) are the most intensly hunted part of the Atlantic Fly way. "At times it seems that every spot of water and field of grain is a site for duck or goose hunting. "Very few water areas are managed, but upland areas are often managed with goose hunting in view. "Control of shoreline is a key to evaluating duck-hunting sites more than the marsh that may be associated. "Owner-guest and membership hunting on leased lands dominate the area hunting." A 1 965 survey on about five percent of Maryland's shoreline indicated a minimum of about 2,500 private waterfowl clubs. ^^ These clubs operate with fixed memberships, include guest arrangements or are in- dependent businesses that solicit lease hunter customers. There are no estimates available on the expendi- tures and revenues derived or the extent of wetland related rents developed by this type of enterprise. One recent local advertising brochure on lease hunting quoted rates of $50.00/day for one person, $45 .00/day each for parties of two, $40. 00/day each for parties of three, and $35. 00/day each for parties of four, in- cluding guide, for duck and goose blind leases on the Eastern Shore. Leases were available by day, week or season. Hunter's Harvest Data from a Maryland Hunter Survey conducted by the Maryland Fish and WildUfe Administration indicate that hunters bag about 150,000 ducks and coot, 110,000 geese, and 2,000 rails and jacksnipes annually. The total value derived from this harvest is probably inestimable. The present and future overall economic value of waterfowl is probably greater than imagined by most interested and disinterested persons. For example, an economic study conducted in Missouri calculated that the net benefits derived from a hunting a Canada goose population of 120,000 concentrated by one refuge on the Mississippi Flyway was over $20 million. When this asset was capitalized at only 2.5 perce/if it became $120,497,500! Using a six percent interest rate, the value of future returns was calculated to be $341 ,873,- 908. Interestingly, the Atlantic Flyway Canada goose population of migrating and wintering birds in Maryland during the past few years has been averaging about 500,000 birds as compared with the 120,000 figured cited above. In 1969, about 135,000 Canada geese were harvested in Maryland or several thousand more than the population reported in the Missouri study.^^ Besides attracting these birds into Maryland for hunters to bag, the State's water and wetlands complex also provides essential food and shelter for wintering and migrating waterfowl and wildhfe. Without main- tenance of brood stocks wildlife would become non- renewable resources, no longer available for hunting and sustaining this sector of outdoor recreation. In addition, there are direct but not easOy measurable values that accrue to sportsman from days spent outdoors pursuing waterfowl. FUR TRAPPING Trappers and hunters took a total of over 224,000 furbearer animals during the 1968-69 season, mostly from lower Eastern Shore wetlands. The pelts had a combined value of $43 1 ,665 (Table VII-9). Since much of the furbearer harvest is done for sport rather than as a fuU-time business venture, it is difficult to evaluate completely the economic values derived from this VII-8 r- OS -a c •a 3 s T3 t3 c E 3 z XI o IT) o O o o o o o o o in in in o o in o in o o in o in V r^ 01 in r^ 1^ M- CN in "3- r~ o CM rv CO ^ 01 in CN 3 in 00 in o_ o. CM_ r-j >* CM in 'J CN r^ 'D f; "(5 > *" '" *" co' "" <3-~ CO o 01 S 1 in CO o ■<3- 1 ^ CM CO CM i m 00 1 <3- in to CO 01 o in ^ c 2 r^ O ^ ^ "" 5 in o CM Ol <3- in IN 0) 0 CO CM CM CD IN CO ", U M CO ij o in in in o o in in O o o in o in in in o O o o in o o o 0) CO 01 M- r- 00 -a- O) to CM r^ r- o CN CO 3 CO r^ in 5 01 CO CO CN "3- ^ CO r- 5 o o > *" !N '" M-' in" O) ~ 0) s , 1 i^ Ol s ^ 1 CO [^ 00 CM 1 01 1 CO in ■3- CN <* o in CM CN CO *" c 2 r^ in to Ol 00 CO r^ ir 01 CM r^ tN CM o 8 8 tN *" '" *~ in CN oo co" ID o O o o o o in o o in o in o in o in in in o in o o o o 0) o in in (D CO CO CM Ol in CO 01 ^ -a- CO s 00 ^_ _3 ■- cm' ■a-" "a- m o CO -o (0 lA c 0) a> 1 o o o CM 1 i~~ CO s ,— 1 Ol 1 T— CM CO 1^ 01 CN O) to CM to to ^ c S CO r- ' 2: ro CO r^ <3- r^ CD O CO [^ a V o CM in 00 Ol, D u i; cm" (0 1j > o o o in o in in in o o in o in o in o in in in in in o o £ a O) o CD ■* in o in o CO CM CO to CO CO tN CM CN CO CO U 3 ^, Ol ^ F^ T-^ 1^, CM CO C<1 in 01 •a- V- in o s CO "(5 > r-' ^"' cm" ^" in" o 9 CN to" CN J« (S 12 u 3 a 0) 1 r^ 01 n to 1 in r^ ■a- CN 1 o 1 o CO o ^ a -a- "a- (^ ■a- r^ to CN r~ to o ■a- in ■a- •a- •^ r^ o o CN 8 g CN CN 5 r^ in cm" li o in o o o o o in o o o in o in in in in in o in o in o o o CO o CO to CO CO CN CO CO r^ r* CO CO ^ 3 O) to CO CO CO 01 CN CO CN CO in CO in CN in to 5 '- co' cm" s en 01 S 1 1^ o to (N 1 rM p- CO CN 1 m 1 r^ CO CO r- in ^.in to CO CM cm ^ 8 g -J 01 (N to r^ to CO CO <3- to •y r- r^ o 1^ 01 IN o in o o in o in o in o o o o in o in in in o in o o in- o a 3 en CD in in CO CN FS S3 CO CO CO *" in ^. 5 in CM CO >- CO *" CO 3 > c ■□ c 3 < c 01 o £ oi > o 0 — _ai a; Ql X CJ o 01 QJ 0 1 c > 01 E o Ol c o _5 'oj Ol o 01 O 01 o c 'oi c c < c 3i "> 01 c o Ui c X CD O U 'e o o 01 i < c < "to CQ A CD u 3=5 X u 0 _Q_ CD CD O X O 01 f^ m &^ 5 g o 1- VII-9 activity. The reported income from sale of furbearers pelts by an estimated 1,000 trappers averages $250,000 annually. Table Vll-9. List of the furbearer harvest in 1968-69 by species and total dollar value of pelts. Specie. Beaver Fox Mink Muskrat Nutria Opossum Raccoon Skunk Weasel Suiuhcr ol pells Dollar value* 245 738 143 212,227 269 1,098 10,158 75 42 Totals 224,990 $431,665.44 *Data not available on a species basis. Source: Maryland Fish and Wildlife Administration. INTANGIBLE VALUES There are significant uses of wetlands by humans and animal communities that have important non- pecuniary value. These uses are non-consumptive in the sense that essentially nothing in the resource base is either captured, removed or disturbed. Wetlands are a specific type of area within all other natural communities. There are highly relevant values and uses of natural areas for resource management, scientific study and science education in general. Because of their transitional location between land and water, wetlands have an important esthetic function and serve as an open-space buffer zone between land and water. As such, these areas contain much of the remaining undeveloped, natural shoreline areas in the State. Nature Appreciation This human use of wildlife resources is steadily increasing. Observation, nature walks and photography are among the non-consumptive recreational uses of wildlife and their habitats that provide great enjoy- ment. Substantial numbers of people participate in these activities. A brief survey of conservation and outdoor recreation organizations in Maryland suggests a membership of at least 94,000 members (Table VII-10). Natural Areas Many State wetlands have been classified as unique natural areas. These are "areas where at present natural processes predominate and are not significantly in- fluenced by either deliverate manipulation or acciden- tal interference by man." The varying types of wetlands described in the classification system (Ch. IV) are based on differing vegetation types, typical plant species, levels of tidal inundation and water quality which determine the type of plant community. These differences provide the primary basis for distinction or characterization of each area and their value to re- source management, scientific study and education. Resource Management. Natural areas contribute to resource management by providing a basis for a better understanding of the effects on plants and animals when man influences the natural forces within the environment. Undisturbed (natural) areas serve as monitors (contrasting areas) for measuring the build-up and effects of pesticides, herbicides and other pollut- ants. Thus, natural areas serve as important control sites in providing basic standards against which re- source development programs can be evaluated. Natural areas also serve as research sites for projects which lead to development of managerial alternatives in land and water resources use planning. A protected natural area may ensure the preserva- tion of unusual and valuable natural phenomena, enhance genetic diversity of flora and fauna by pro- tecting gene pools,^° and also may serve in providing valuable foresight into the processes of natural change and development through time. Scientific research and education. The great im- portance of natural areas for fundamental biological research and education has been documented and emphasized elsewhere (as well as in this study). Natural areas are needed not only for research in biologic disciplines such as taxonomy, ecology, and biogeography, but for many physical sciences like meteorology, geology, paleontology, hydrology and soil science. An extensive bibliography compiled by a committee of the American Association for the Ad- vancement of Science indicates that natural areas are being widely used for studies in these sciences. Natural areas can also serve an especially valuable function as focal points for interdisciphnary research by speciaUsts. When scientific specialists and other technical experts blend their efforts in the study of a given natural area with respect to both similar and dissimilar problems, they are likely to produce signifi- cant new understandings of natural and man- influenced systems. Natural areas are often utihzed for science educa- tion because of their natural exhibitions of plants and animals. Such environmental displays are useful for demonstrating the ecological roles of different species VII-10 i Table VII-IO. Partial listing of conservation and outdoor recreation organizations and groups in Maryland (with approximate membership). Organization Approximate membership Audubon Naturalist Society (Cen. Atlantic Sts.) * Baltimore Campers Association * Canoe Cruisers Association * Casual Garden Club * Chesapeake Bay Foundation 900 Chesapeake Environmental Protection Association * Chesapeake Rifle and Pistol Association * Chesapeake Rock Fish Association * Citizens Committee for Soldiers Delight Park * Committee for Maryland Trail Riding * Committee to Preserve Assateague * Cylburn Wildllower Preserve and Garden Center * Deer Creek Watershed Association 330 Ecology Action * Evergreen Garden Club of Harford County * Federated Garden Clubs of Maryland * Frederick County Sportsman's Council * Garrison Rille and Revolver Club * Izaak Walton League of America (Md. State Div.) 3,000 League of Maryland Horsemen * Maryland Fly Anglers * Maryland Ornithological Society 1,300 Maryland Recreation and Parks Society 200 Maryland Wetlands Committee 200 Maryland Wilderness Association * Maryland State and D. C. Rifle and Pistol Assn. * Mountain Club of Maryland * Monocacy Canoe Club * Moyaone Association * National Rifle Association 23,000 National Wildlife Federation (Maryland) 65,000 Natural Area Council 350 Nature Conservancy * Naval Ordnance Laboratory Fishing Club * Potomac Appalachian Trail Club Potomac River Association of St. Mary's County Severn River Watershed Association Sierra Club, Southeast Chapter Soldiers Delight Conservation Western Maryland Wildlife Federation Wilderness Society Wildlands Committee Wildlife Management Institute *■ TOTAL 94,000+ *No data obtained VIM 1 in diverse habitats. These biotic communities afford students the opportunity to learn about natural cycles and the interactions between living organisms. While it is indeed difficult to calculate or impute the economic value(s) of education in general and natural science research, education and field studies in particular, one recent attempt was made in Georgia. The future educational value was estimated at over one million dollars annually for one specific Georgia river swamp ecosystem. ^'^ Such benefits will, of course, vary depending upon the character of the wetland and the size of the student population it serves. The potential educational values attaching to wetlands are by no means inconsequential. Scenic and esthetic values. The natural character- istics of wetlands determine that they occur in a transitional location between uplands and open surface water areas. The land-water interface has always had a magnetic, fasinating attraction for man. In earlier colonial and pioneering days, waterfront locales initially constituted civilized sites because of their convenience to water transportation and ready avail- ability of water both for consumptive use and waste discharge. While living at the water's edge may not be essential to man's survival today, land and water together have one undiminishing value to our society— an especially pleasing environment deriving from open space and exceptional natural beauty. It is thus signif- icant that seventy-five percent of the Nation's popula- tion lives in the coastal zone area— "the margin where land and water meet and interact." The State of Maryland recognized the scenic and esthetic aspects of shorelines with passage of the Scenic Rivers Act, Chapter 85, Laws of Maryland, 1968. The purpose of this Act, stated generally, is to establish a management program that will preserve scenic quality, protect water quality and fulfill vital conservation of land resources adjacent to many of the rivers and estuarine areas of the State. Wetlands are mentioned specifically in Section 761(a) of Article 66C (Natural Resources), Annotated Code of Maryland for possible incorporation in the State's scenic rivers system. In follow-up directives, the Scenic Rivers Review Board reported on the initial rivers to be considered for such designation. The report. Scenic Rivers in Maryland, Summarizes the findings of the Board and outlines recommended policies pertaining to the Patuxent, Pocomoke, Youghiogheny, Wicomico (Charles Coun- ty), and Severn Rivers and their related land resources, including wetlands. As a consequence. Chapter 749 (H. B. 1 303) of the 1 97 1 Laws of Maryland was enacted by the Maryland General Assembly. This Act added new sections to the existing law and designated those rivers and their tributaries as the initial components of the State Scenic Rivers System. It should be further noted that the new law specifically states that "(l)n the exercise of their responsibilities as may be related to a designated scenic river, all State agencies shall recog- nize the intent of the scenic rivers program and shall take whatever action is necessary to protect and en- hance the scenic quaUties of the river so designated" (Sec. 765). Summary on Intangible Values. The major pur- pose of the Catalog of Natural Areas in Maryland ^ was to present basic information on certain natural areas in the State. The areas presented were selected because of their existing natural or unaltered condition, scienic or esthetic value, ecological communities or their unique- ness compared to the remaining or surrounding en- vironment. Of areas that qualified, many encompassed the coastal zone land and water interface because of natural scenic values. Two hundred and forty-five (245) wetlands totalling approximately 159,700 acres were selected as an essential part of the State's impor- tant remaining vestiges of natural landscape. These areas are distributed throughout the entire State, al- though most of them are in the tidewater region (Table Vll-ll). Additionally, 98 wetlands are or have been utihzed for natural science research and education. Many of these areas are coincident with designated natural areas. The greatest concentration is on the Patuxent River where extensive estuarine research and educa- tional programs are conducted by the staff of the •University of Maryland's Chesapeake Biological Laboratory at Solomons, Maryland (Table VII-12). SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC AND OTHER VALUES Significant benefits in terms of both monetary and intangible values are derived from wetlands. The rela- tionship between some benefits and wetlands is not readily discernible, as in the case of marinas. Many boats are used primarily for fishing, but the contribu- tion of wetlands to fisheries resources probably is not fully appreciated by marina owners and boat fishermen because of the complex life histories and intricate food chains of many species. Waterfowl hunting is more obvious since this activity frequently occurs on wetlands and hunters naturally associate waterfowl with wetlands. Thus, wetlands and their importance as a supportive habitat to waterfowl is more readily perceived. Any attempt to quantify the economic contribu- tions of wetlands is severely limited by a lack of data VII-12 Table VII-ll. List of numbers of wetland areas, acreage and vulnerability included in the Catalog of Natural Areas in Maryland. County No. of areas .Acreage and vulnerability Total acres I II III Allegany 0 - - 0 Anne Arundel 19 679 1,395 794 2,868 Baltimore City 0 - - - 0 Baltimore 6 101 151 512 764 Calvert 27 123 1,868 - 1,991 Caroline 18 256 1,394 49 1,699 Carroll 0 - - - 0 Cecil 3 21 85 . 106 Charles 9 - 5,212 642 5,854 Dorchester 20 50,351 8,846 25,565 84,762 Frederick 0 - . . 0 Garrett 6 620 262 - 882 Harford 22 189 1,425 6,099 7,713 Howard 0 - - - 0 Kent 8 166 378 816 1,360 Montgomery 0 - - 98 0 Prince George's 17 74 3,201 - 3,373 Queen Anne's 25 1,276 228 248 1,752 St. Mary's 3 148 - 10 158 Somerset 13 4,179 22,186 2,067 28,432 Talbot 25 336 2,506 526 3,368 Washington 0 - - . 0 Wicomico 6 4,246 104 4,350 Worcester 18 5,723 3,042 1 ,522" 10,287 Totals 245 68,488 52,283 38,948 159,719 and must, therefore depend upon "best" estimates. However, the total of estimated values associated with or related to wetlands is impressive. The total for all of the major identifiable economic benefits associated with Maryland's wetland-estuarine complex is esti- mated conservatively at $64.5 million annually (Table VII-13). This figure does not take into account the indirect benefits which accrue from multiplier effects. Previous attempts at establishing the economic contributions of estuarine areas and wetlands have produced a wide range of values. The following range of estuary and wetland economic values are 'here cited in order to provide some 'yardstick' against which can be measured the above assessment or estimate of economic values associated with Maryland's estuaries and wetlands. I . Maine estuaries. A scientifically managed es- tuarine area produced a per acre harvest of shellfish and bait worms worth $33,563 annually. Where the stocks were unmanaged, however, the annual crop value per acre amounted to only $15,750.'" 2. Massachusetts estuaries. The 1964 minimum net economic value of commercial fisheries and boat rentals and launching fees for sport fishing was $450,145 for the Merrimack River estuary (4,000 acres), or an average contribution of $ 1 1 2 per acre. Additional expenditures by sport fishermen were estimated to be about one million dollars annually. For the North River the estimated total annual income from marine fishery resources was about $60,000 plus another $70,000 spent annually by sport fishermen. Thus this 533-acre estuary averaged a con- tribution of about $111 per acre in 1965. The minimum economic values estimated for Quincy Bay (7,780 acre estuary) include commercial fisheries and boat rentals and launching fees for sport fishing ($93,910) and other expenditures by sport fishermen ($170,190) in 1964 or an average contribution of about $34 per acre.'" 3. New York marshland. Summing up all elements VII-13 Table VIM 2 List of numbers of wetland areas, acreage and vulnerability by county in Maryland that are have been utilized for natural science research and education. County No. of areas Acreage and vuineraoiiity Total acres I II III Allegany 0 0 Anne Arundel 11 I469 87U 768 2,111 Baltimore City 0 - - - 0 Baltimore 3 - 313 12U U37 Calvert 25 169 1,683 - 1,852 Caroline h 521 - 521 Carroll 0 - - - 0 Cecil 0 «• - - 0 Charles 2 36 hk - 80 Dorchester 0 ^m wm m 0 Frederick 0 - - . 0 Garrett 5 • 1U8 228 376 Harford 0 - - - 0 Howard 0 - - - 0 Kent 0 . - . 0 Montgomery 8 - 36 125 161 1 Prince George's 17 696 2,352 90 3,136 Queen ^nne^s 0 «• • - 0 St, Mary's 21 292 UOU 57 753 Somerset 0 « - - 0 Talbot 0 - •» - 0 Washington 0 - - - 0 lA9.comLco 0 » . . 0 Worcester 2 1,122 - 336 1,U58 Totals j 98 3,305 1 1 5,85U i 1,728 1 ! 4 10,867 VII-14 Table VI I- 13. Estimated current dollar product associated with wetlands in Maryland. Item Annual dollar Product Number of employed or participants Commercial fishery landed catch Seafood processing and manufacturing products Saltwater angling expenditures Waterfowl hunting expenditures Fur trapping Total $16,900,000 $13,4000,00 $20,000,000* $14,000,000 $250,000 $64,550,000 6,000 full-time 3,000 part-time 4,355 (average) 105 plants 200,000 sport fishermen 35,000 hunters 1,000 trappers *Additionally, there are marina facilities, boats and boating equipment that relate to use of wetlands dependent production. and their values (very conservatively estimated) for an average acre of inland freshwater marsh in New York provided an annual net value of approximately $20." 4. Georgia river swamp. The combined values provided by 25 miles of continuously wooded river swamp and bottom hardwoods (about 4,000 acres) which fit the Types 1 and 7 classification was estimated to be at least $7.1 million or an average benefit of $1775 per acre.'" 5. Texas' Galveston-Trinity-East Bay Estuary. "The anticipated total future annual value (conservative) that is reasonably derivable from various utilizations of the biological products, dependent in some critical way upon this important Bay-estuarine complex, would amount to an estimated $1 10.4 million." This figure was composed of $38.4 million annual value of then-available commercial fisheries production (requiring increased production) and future "net economic benefits" (at $3 per angler-day for 24 million angler-days) "that are reasonably realizable from Bay-estuarine dependent sport fisheries of $72 million annually."-' Besides the expenditures and resultant economic impacts there are significant non-monetary aspects. The psychic value of pleasures derived from being outdoors in pursuit of fish and game is high. Included in this category also are the non-consumptive uses of natural resources such as nature study and appreciation, scientific research and natural science education and scenic and esthetic values inherent in wetlands. Other important intangible values should not be forgotten such as buffering effects on water pollution incidents and shoreline erosion which are mentioned elsewhere in this report. Wetlands are thus one of Maryland's most valuable natural resources. Manning, Joseph H. Bay fisheries resources. In Proceedings, Governor's Conference on Chesapeake Bay, Wye Institute, Maryland. September 12-13, 1968. Ibid. McHugh, J. L. Fisheries of Chesapeake Bay. In Proceedings, Governor's Conference on Chesapeake Bay, Wye Institute, Maryland. September 12-13, 1968. Op. cit. Manning, Joseph H. Supra. Suttar, R. E., and J. L. Cain. The Maryland seafood industry. Maryland Agri-Economics. College of Agriculture. Univ. of Md., College Park. April, 1968. Ibid. Op. cit. Op. cit. Manning, Joseph H. Supra. McHugh, J. L. Supra. Also, (no author), SFI Bulletin. No. 199, October, 1968. Manning, Joseph H. Supra. Op. cit. SFI Bulletin, No. 202, March, 1969. VII-15 15 Hollis, Edgar H., Fishery resources of the Patuxent River system, In Appendices, The Patuxent River, Maryland's Asset, Maryland's Responsibility. Governor's Patuxent River Watershed Advisory Committee. Md. State Planning Dept. Pub. no. 149a. July, 1968. 16 The Upper Chesapeake Bay Sport Fishing Survey was conducted jointly by the Natural Resources Institute of the University of Maryland (Solomons, Maryland) and the Maryland Department of Tidewater Fisheries from June 1 to September 30, 1962. Information from Mansueti and Hollis at note 17. 17 Mansueti, Romeo J., and Edgar H. Hollis. Striped bass in Maryland. Educ. Ser. No. 61, Nat. Resources Institute, Univ. of Md., Solomons Island. February, 1963. Game and Inland Fish Commission, Report to the General Assembly of 1969, Five-Year Plan. January, 1969. Crossley, S-D Surveys Inc. National survey of hunters and fishermen. Supplemental State Report (Maryland). September, 1956. 18 Truitt, R. V. Sport fishing in Maryland. The Conservation Department of Maryland. 1938. 19 Buzzell, R. D. and E. T. Walker. Tidewater sport fishery. Md. Dept. Research and Educ, Resource Study Report, No. 4, Solomons, Md. March, 1954. 20 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Twen- tieth annual report. Tallahassee, Fla. June, 1962. 21 Op. cii. 22 SFI Bulletin, No. 199, October, 1968. 23 Hollis, Edgar H. Supra at 15. 24 Truitt, R. V, Supra. 25 Lyon, Gale H., el. al. Economic analysis of marinas in Maryland. Agric. Expt. Sta., Dept. Agric. Econ. Contribution no. 4100, Univ. of Md., College Park, April, 1969. 26 Ibid. 11 Op. cit. 28 Op. cit. 29 Personal communication received from the Maryland Fish and Wildlife Administration. 30 Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. National survey of hunting and fishing. U.S. D.I. Fish & Wildlife Service. Resource Pub. 27. 1965. 31 Stotls, Vernon D. Personal communication. Md. Fish and Wildlife Administration. December 12, 1969. 32 Ibid. 33 Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. National recreation survey. ORRRC Study Report 19. U.S.G.P.O: Washington, D. C. 1962. 34 Benson, Dirck. The Atlantic Flyway survey of private waterfowl hunting clubs. Conducted for the Wildlife Management Institute by the Atlantic Waterfowl Council (mimeo) June, 1966. 35 Data produced by Maryland Fish and Wildlife Administration personnel. 36 Vaught, Richard W. Problems and economics of Canada goose management in the Mississippi Flyway. In Canada goose management: current continental problems and programs (symposium), ed. Hine and Schoenfeld. Dembar Ed. Res. Ser- vices, Madison, Wise. 1969. 37 Ibid. 38 Stotts, Vernon D. Personal communication. Md. Fish and Wildlife Administration. September 24, 1970. 39 Maryland State Planning Department. Catalog of natural areas in Maryland. Pub. no. 148, Baltimore. August, 1968. 40 Franklin, Jerry F., and James M. Trappe. "Natural areas: needs, concepts, and criteria." 7. Forestry, V. 66, no. 6, June, 1968. 41 Ibid. 42 American Association for the Advancement of Science. Report by the study committee on natural areas as research facilities. Washington, D. C. 1963. 43 Wharton, Charles H. The Southern River swamp — a multiple-use environment. Bur. Business and Economic Research, School Business Administrat- ion, Ga. State Univ., Atlanta. May, 1970. 44 National Council on Marine Resources and En- gineering Development. Marine science affairs — a year of plans and progress. U.S.G.P.O: Wa- shington. March, 1968. 45 Maryland Department of State Planning. Scenic rivers in Maryland. Report of the Scenic Rivers Review Board. Pub. no. 161. March, 1970. 46 Maryland State Planning Department. Op. cit. 47 (No author). Estuary values. SFI Bulletin, No. 213, April, 1970. 48 Jerome, William .C, Jr., et al. A study of the marine resources of the Merrimack River estuary. Div. Marine Fisheries, Mass. Dept. Natural Resources, Monograph Series No. 1. June, 1965. Jerome, William C, Jr., et al. A study of the marine resources of Quincy Bay. Div. Marine VII-I6 Fisheries, Mass. Dept. Natural Resources, Monograph Series No. 2. March, 1966. Fiske, John D., el al. A study of the marine resources of the North River. Div. Marine Fisheries, Mass. Dept. Natural Resources, Monograph Series No. 3, May, 1966. 49 Benson, Dirck, and Robert F. Perry. An acre of marsh is worth . . . Information Leaflet, Div. Conservation Ed., N. Y. Conservation Dept., Albany. The article appeared in the A'. Y. State Conservationist, June-July, 1965. 50 Wharton, Charles H. Supra. 51 SFI Bulletin at 47. VIM 7 VIII WETLANDS -AS REAL ESTATE, RESULTANT PROPERTY TAX CONTRIBUTIONS, SPECULATION AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP ISSUES GENERAL BACKGROUND All private real property in Maryland is subject to both county and State taxes. Municipal or town taxes are also levied in some instances. Wetlands are no exception and are taxed as all other private real property. Generally, wetlands in Maryland are incident to rural farm property, meaning they border or are contiguous to land in agricultural production. There are exceptions, notably the interior marshes and "guts" found on the lower Eastern Shore, especially in Dorchester County. Farmland is assessed on the basis of its value for agricultural production. Farmland tracts are usually subdivided into distinct parcels based on patterns of current usage which in turn is greatly determined by topography and soil properties. The parcel subdivisions are buildings or homesite, tillable land, woodland, marshes (wetlands), and "waste or barren land." In this classification system wetlands and waste or barren land (e.g., steep rocky slopes) rank lowest and are assessed accordingly.' There are two exceptions to this rule: I) interior wetlands of the lower Eastern Shore are usually assessed at lower rates than wetlands that are incident to the farm tract; and 2) wetlands that are a part of non-farm tracts or in urbanizing areas are usually assessed at slightly higher rates than farm or rural wetlands due to greater, overall land value. Procedures for assessing real estate are standardized throughout the State. However, assessment ratios and tax rates vary between counties. Assessed valuations are based on location of the land, current market values, the amount of acreage in each land category, and prevailing assessment ratios. The actual acreage in each land category is the basis for taxes on a specific tract of land. The acreage in each tract of land and the category is determined from past land title transfer records, deeds and more recently, published results of the soil surveys conducted by the U. S. Soil Conservation Service. Each land category is assessed individually. Total taxation is derived by summing all assessments on the different parcels in each land category and then multiplying the total assessment times the tax rate per $100 of assessed valuation for each type of land. Refinements based on unusual circumstances or land characteristics are often made on the assessment of specific land parcels. REAL ESTATE MARKET VALUES Certain helpful data is not available to assist in interpreting market value. For example, data is lacking on the numbers of land transactions involving wetlands, specifically separating fast (dry) land and wetlands in the same package so as to determine the actual sale price of the wetlands. The size of the land parcel or package in a transaction is important, because acreage has bearing on the economics of any development plan. Also important is the location of wetlands in relation to exogenous factors or future actions that will determine the value of a tract, such as new roads, new channelization projects, and water and sewerage lines. Thus, data in Table VIII-1 represent approximate market values based upon the experience of land appraisers retained by the State for public land acquisition purposes. The locational factor of nearness to densely populated areas and their spreading urban fringes plus ease of accessibility via automobile is generally reflected by higher average market values for wetlands on the western shore and Southern Maryland over those on the Eastern Shore (Table VIII-1). There are notable ex- ceptions, however, in Cecil, Kent, Queen Anne's and Worcester counties. The high market prices for wetlands in these counties reflect good accessibility via improved highway systems from relatively close, large population centers. In Worcester County, there is heavy development pressure to supply vacation residences and tourist facilities generated by ocean beach, water- oriented recreation. This ocean frontage locational factor is unique in Maryland. Land values were reported to be leveling out in certain parts of Maryland while advancing rapidly in other parts of the State. Land values are stable where there is tight control on land development due to county planning commission's, when costly demands are placed on developers, besides extra time required and the number of people to be seen in order to get development approved.- However, there has been a steady upward trend in land values almost everywhere in the Nation and Maryland is no exception. For example, farm land in Maryland has risen from an average value of about $55 per acre in 1935 to $550 per acre in 1968.' Generally, land values are rising at 5 to 10 percent annually under favorable conditions, although 1968 prices in Maryland were reported to be up 15 to 20 percent over the previous year and were predicted to go up again in 1969.^ Prices for lands suited to outdoor recreation are rising at a considerably higher rate. "For waterfront property, 'the sky is the limit' and one 95 acre property with 'a very poor house on it" sold for $225,000."- With these rising rates in prices speculation in land investment is inevitable. VIII-1 Table VIII-1 Approximate range of market values per acre of wetlands versus tillable land in certain Maryland counties for the ten-year period 1958-68. Wetlands M?rket Valr.es Tillable Land Market Values 19^B i:?63 I568 ^1958 1!?63 1%8 Southern Maryland $ $ $ $ $ $ Anne Arundel No data obtained 150-360 200-300 250-350 « Calvert 75-150 100-250 3oo-li5o Charles 150-300 250-UOO 300-500 300-hOO 350-U50 Uoo-500 Prince George's No data obtained 150-250 200-250 225-325 St, Mary's 65-125 100-200 300-I400 Average Value Ikh 216 293 275 358 392 Upper Eastern Shore 100-150 200 250-300 250-300 300-Uoo Cecil l;00-600 Kent 100-200 250 300 250-300 Uoo 500-600 Queen Anne's 100-150 200 200-300 200-300 300-Uoo 350-600 Average Value 133 217 275 267 367 508 Lower Eastern Shore 75-125 100-200 150-250 150-275 200-300 Caroline 250-UOO Dorchester 25-60 Uo-75 60-100 200-300 250-350 300-500 Somerset 20-50 25-60 iiO-80 100-150 150-250 200-350 Talbot 100-150 200 200-300 200-300 300-Uoo 350-600 Wicondco 25-60 Uo-75 liO-90 175-250 225-300 300-Uoo Average Value ^S 77 101 200 228 338 Atlantic Coast Worcester No data obtained VIII-2 SPECULATION One of the difficulties in discussing and analyzing the impact of speculation is the lack of a clear-cut definition of what constitutes speculation. Speculation means different things to different people. There is no recognized legal or administrative definition of the term, and in real estate transactions it often connotes unethical practice. The linkage between wetlands and land specula- tion is usually a series of circumstances or situations wherein there is no pre-determined pattern to the development that is encouraged by rising land prices and market values for waterfront homesites. The in- vestment in wetlands which is categorized here as speculation is closely related to the randomness of its occurence. Such investment "speculation" is encour- aged, abetted and controlled only by the market factors such as frequency and availability of land suitable for residential — recreational waterfront devel- opment. This activity occurs irrespective of land uses in surrounding or adjacent areas as well as the specific importance of the natural values inherent at that particular site. Furthermore, once purchased and devel- oped by installing an acess road, water and sewerage services, lot subdivision, bulkheading, and dredge and filling, the sales promotion is baded on opportunism. Advertisements state that persons purchasing land now may expect to earn large profits between their initial purchase price and future resale prices. "The meeting of land and water can offer the developer and investor a fascinating variety. From luxury shoreline homes to commercial boatyard, from marina to lakeshore development, the potential is enormous. Probably in no other field of real estate is there such an opportunity for satisfaction as well as financial reward. The variety is unlimited. The mature developer can become again the small boy with his sailboat and look back on his dry-land days as dull and uninteresting."^ Land price escalation attracting speculation occurs most consistently on areas suited for recreation such as wetlands because of their waterfront location. Rising land prices encouraging speculation are primarily the result of:^ 1) a rising trend in land values generally through- out the country; 2) keen competition between individuals, devel- opers and public agencies for prime recreation lands, particularly those which are water-oriented ; 3) the upgrading of lands as a result of change in land use or zoning, i.e., in many cases from agricultural land or wetlands to prime residential-recreation land with frontage on water or easy access thereto. With fast growing population, higher income, more leisure time and increasing scarcity of land for all purposes, the steady and oftentimes spectacular in- crease in the value of land suitable for outdoor recrea- tion can be expected to continue. One more aspect of real estate speculation should be described briefly. That is the tendency speculation has towards self-fulfillment. If a speculative purchase or investment is made, the individual or organization doing so may be active in doing everything possible and exerting as much influence as the public will tolerate to see that hoped for gains or expectations are realized. Such activity will usually take the form of re-zoning petitions, road construction locations or relocations, bridge construction, installation of public services such as water and sewer systems, etc. These actions are understandable and legitimate within our govern- mental processes: however, the net results may be undesirable for the short-run and long-term aspects of both local and regional economic growth patterns. The immediate net gain of speculation is often to a very narrow sector of the general public. ASSESSED VALUATION AND TAXES DERIVED A survey was made of assessment rates for land- use categories assumed to contain wetlands in order to generally ascertain the magnitude of public rev- enues derived from taxation of wetlands. Wooded and shrub swamps were assumed to be in either the wood and timberlands or the waste and brushland categor- ies while the marshland category was obviously wet- lands. Table VII-2 summarizes the State-wide assessed values for these land uses comprising wetlands as assigned by county assessors and reported to the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation. Comparison of the range of assessed values on marsh- land with those of farmland or land in agricultural production (tillable, permanent pasture, orchard) shows that marshland assessments are usually less than any of the rates assigned to all grades of tillable land and other lands in some kind of agricultural land use (Table VIII-S). Wetlands as real property represent a very small proportion of the State's total assessed land valuation (taxable base). The total assessed valuation of all land in Maryland (excluding Baltimore City) was $2,355,519,000 in 1968. This compares with an es- timated wetland assessed valuation of $4,843,600. Wetlands account for about 4.8 percent of the State's total land area while contributing approximately 0.2 percent of the State 's total assessed land valuation. VIII-3 Table VIII-2 Assessed 1968-69 valuations in dollars per acre of land categories containing wetlands by county in Maryland. Data are based on county assessor's reports to the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation. County Wood or Timberland Waste Land Brushland Marshland Good Poor Cutover ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) Allegany 5-6 4-5 4- 1 4 — Anne Arundel 40-60 25-40 25-40 25 25 10-25 Baltimore 75- 40- 20- 15 25 15-25 Calvert 15-25 — — 15 - 5 Caroline — 20-35 10-15 10 20 10 Carroll 25-50 — 20- 20 (minimum) — 20 Cecil 30- 20- 10- 10 - 10 Charles 20 20 20 20 - 8 Dorchester 40-100 2040 10-20 5 10 5-50 Frederick 50-100 1045 10-25 10 20 10-30 Garrett 10-20 8-10 8-15 8 10 4-8 Harford 50-60 3040 25-30 25 30 10-60 Howard — 25- 25-50 25 — 25 Kent 20- 5- — 5 15 10-20 Montgomery 2545 — 15-25 15 25 15-25 Prince George's 35-60 — — 30 50 10-25 Queen Anne's 25- 15- 10-15 10 - 10-50 St. Mary's 25-30 25- 15 15 15 15 Somerset 50-100 10-25 10-25 10 25 3-30 Talbot 75-100 15-25 15-20 15 — 15-25 Washington — 1040 5-15 5 20 - Wicomico 100-50 2540 10-15 10 5 5-12 Worcester 50-75 20-50 10-125 5 10 3-35 VIII4 Table VIII-3. Assessed 1968-69 valuations in dollars per acre of marshland versus lands in agricultural production by Maryland county. (Data are based on county assessor's reports to the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation). County Marshland Tillable Land Permanent Poor Average Good Pasture Orchard ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) Allegany - 10-30 40-60 60-100 20-40 50-100 Anne Arundel 10-25 40-50 50-75 75-100 40-60 100 Baltimore 15-25 75 140 180 75-180 75-180 Calvert 5 - 40 60 30 - Caroline 10 35-45 50-60 70-100 70 - Carroll 20 60-70 80-100 115-125 50-100 250-350 Cecil 10 65 75-85 95-100 40-50 120 Charles 8 60 60 60 25 - Dorchester 5-50 60-70 70-80 80-125 60-80 80-100 Frederick 10-30 35-55 60-85 90-135 60-100 100 Garrett 4-8 10-25 25-50 25-250 9-20 - Harford 10-60 75 85 100 50-75 - Howard 25 - 75 100 75-100 125-150 Kent 10-20 30-50 50-70 85-100 30-40 - Montgomery 25 60-70 75-95 110-125 25-45 60-125 Prince George's 50 - 60-65 85-100 85-100 85-100 Queen Anne's 10-50 25-50 60-75 65-90 40 - St. Mary's 15 35 40-45 70 40 70 Somerset 3-30 20-40 40-60 50-100 20-40 100 Talbot 15-25 40-45 65-80 80-100 - 60-100 Washington - 30-50 45-100 70-175 30-50 70-100 Wicomico 5-12 40-60 75-90 100-120 50-60 90-100 Worcester 3-35 25-40 40-65 65-80 20-50 45-60 VIII-5 Based upon the wetlands acreage inventory con- ducted by the Maryland Department of Game and Inland Fish and using an averaged assessment figure for wetlands in land categories, an attempt was made to approximate the public revenues derived from wet- lands. There are several constraints inherent in this exercise. First, there is no absolute inventory on wetlands acreage. The wetlands acreage inventory is derived from an inventory of wetlands of five acres in size or larger only. Second, it is impossible to verify or correlate actual acreages of wooded and shrub swamp within the timberland, "waste", or brushland catego- ries. Therefore, the calculations showing the taxes derived from wetlands must be considered as estimates only. The total 1968-69 estimated tax contribution to the State and counties from wooded and shrub swamps and marshland is $121,200 (Table VIIM). Of this total, approximately $8,230 is realized by the State (at a rate of $0.17 per $100 of assessed valuation) and $1 12,834 by the counties. Regardless of the accuracy of these estimates, it is obvious that tax revenues derived from wetlands are not large. Based on these low tax revenue estimates, wetlands are either a bargain or a burden depending upon differing values and benefits derived or expected from the same natural resource. The five leading counties of estimated wetlands tax revenues are: Dorchester ($49,000); Somerset ($20,000); Worcester ($9,000); Prince George's ($6,300); and Anne Arundel ($5,600). While the five leading counties based on total wetlands acreage are: Dorchester (1); Somerset (2); Worcester (3); Prince George's (9); and Anne Arundel (11). Higher tax rates per $100 of assessed value ($3.05 and $3.06, respec- tively) account for the ranking of Prince George's and Anne Arundel ahead of several other counties with more wetlands in terms of total tax revenues derived from wetlands. The assessed valuation of wetlands as a percent of total county land assessments for the five counties deriving the largest wetlands based tax rev- enues is shown in Table VIII-5 . PROPERTY OWNERSHIP ISSUES Read or implied changes in legislative or judicial orientation towards wetlands ownership could have an impact on the tax revenue structure of both the counties and State. The net impact at the local level of any changes would probably be directly proportional to the total tax base represented by wetland acreage, and the percentage of county waterfrontage in wet- lands. Ownership of the shoreline fringe area between mean low water (MLW) and mean high water (MHW) is an area of uncertain or disputed ownership. Assuming that private ownership extended to the MLW line from the MHW line, this distance encompasses an estimated 10 linear feet (based on average prevailing shoreline slopes) between MLW and MHW marks for about 4,500 miles of tidal shoreline in the State. This estimate produces about 545 acres of wetlands that would be removed from county tax roles if the State ownership to MHTW concept were validated as based upon statu- tory law. The law states that: 1 ) the State owns all lands lying below the navigable waters of the State (with certain exceptions) ; and 2) navigable waters are defined as those subject to the ebb and flow of tides. (See Chapter XIV.) The 545 acre figure represents an insignificant part of the State's total inventoried wet- land acreage but a very significant and important portion in terms of resource management and wetland configuration, e.g., it is the "shoreline." There are also other important implications such as riparian owner- ship claims and benefits derived therefrom. The effect of stricter State control over wetlands ownership and property rights, including the right to make alterations to the shoreline, could have impacts on regular land values. However, the prevailing attitude behind present patterns of shoreline property owner- ship discounts the potential opportunity to alter the shoreline except as necessary to provide for a boating facility such as a mooring pier with adequate water depth for safe navigation, erection of a duck blind to exercise waterfowl hunting privileges, and protective or preventative action against loss of shoreline due to erosion forces. Much of the future shoreline use and orientation on Maryland's shores by riparian land- owners will probably focus on esthetic or recreational features. Such usage does not imply any intention or need to radically alter the shoreline. This is supported by results of the field inventory where many land- owners stated that they wanted the "status quo" as far as their shoreline (encompassing wetlands) was con- cerned, implying retention of the natural setting. The assessment rates on shoreline acreage encom- passing wetlands are low compared to other land use categories. Any downward shifts in land or property values resulting from stricter control over shoreline use and /or alteration of wetlands might have some tem- porary impact on the tax base and resultant tax rev- enues. This decrease, if any, would be minor because of prevailing low assessment rates. Any decreases in mar- ket value of land under stricter control would probably affect short-term real estate speculation only. With increasing demands for recreational or residential waterfrontage and a fixed resource base to meet the increasing demand, real estate prices will continue to rise for this type of property. In fact, recreational land values are rising in an increasing rate. Therefore, in- VIII-6 Table VIIM. The five leading Maryland counties in terms of largest total tax revenues derived from wetlands assessments (estimated). County Total Assessed Valuation Wetland Assessed Valuation Real tax revenue Percentage of total real tax revenues Dorchester $ 23,612,000 $1,930,400 $49,000 8.0 Somerset 11,033,000 879,270 $20,000 8.0 Worcester 34,359,000 421,360 $9,000 1.0 Prince George's 482,217,000 206,800 $6,300 0.4 Anne Arundel 196,256,000 185,500 $5,600 0.9 creasing assessment values whicli follow increasing property values would negate a temporarily depressed taxable base. Consequently, the heaviest impact of stricter control on shoreline development need not be to the domiciled property owner but to the speculative land development operation where significant shore- line alterations are required to immediately achieve short-term economic gains. The adoption of such strategy to control short-term speculation does not intend to imply nor advocate a complete anti- development policy. Rather it can provide a pause for all interests to re-evaluate the cause and effects of such action and perhaps make necessary adjustments to the established poUcy. The development, adoption and enforcement of land use policies favoring long-run values over short-term gains would protect the values that are attracting speculative development, as well as providing high present and future real estate values to present shoreline residents and property owners. Local governmental units would also profit by eventually realizing larger tax revenues from a higher assessed tax base due to higher real estate values. Wetlands' natural productivity has no reference or significance to property Unes or man-made geo-polit- ical boundaries. Therefore, the benefits derived from wetlands are often difficult to capture by an individual property owner, and usually must be shared with others. In fact, all naturally produced wildlife, water- fowl and fisheries are in common or pubhc ownership. Yet simultaneously the property owner provides rev- enues to the government via property taxes. Thus, an individual property owner's perspective is likely to be that he is supporting or subsidizing public benefits through tax payments on property providing public goods and services. This is not exactly the situation because there are many tangible benefits both economic and non-economic which accrue to property owners of waterfrontage or shoreline. If they do not, what explains the higher market prices of waterfront property versus inland or non-shore frontage property? Common sense dictates that no one is going to pay a considerable higher price for something possessing relatively lesser values. Therefore, waterfront property owners are compensated for property tax payments on lands contributing to the health, safety and welfare of the general pubhc. While wetlands' property values are usually lower, the value of the encompassing dry land is compensatingly higher because of the valuable riparian rights attached to such property by wetlands. Also, due to lower assessed property values of wetlands, lower taxes are paid on a valuable asset — shoreline frontage, which further compensates a riparian property owner. One possible strategy dealing with the wetland ownership issue — private versus pubhc - and the attendant problem of local tax revenues based on prop- erty taxes might be to reduce taxes on private lands or areas important to the natural resource base and which generate pubhc goods and services. At the same time a compensating source of revenue and transfer mech- anism would be developed, most hkely between the State and cooperating local government units (coun- ties) involved. The "reward" or incentive for lowering property taxes on wetlands would be to the private owner agreeing to maintain or manage wetlands in their present, "natural" state. At the same time additional VIII-7 3 T3 O O E o On 3 M3 on 00 C ON O 1—1 o c C3 C3 >i cd 3 ^ m > e T3 >-. -t-> r: n> 3 o >, T3 _o m aj S 4= -w ca W b > ea H tal ands sage o O 0 0 0 0 ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t/J UJ O O) 0 05 Q r^ >* 0 CN CO CN 1^ (J) CJ) in CO 0 T— T— O) CNJ rv_ cq_ 00 CN 01 CD 1 °- ^ CJ) >- ^, >— "" CJ)_ CD in °l in 3 .° ♦= S co" CN ^^ Ln ro" o" d" ' CNJ OQ- CQ- r-»- co- ^- p^- ca" co- CD- co- LU H o 0 CN 0 ^ in 0 'S- >* CJl CD 0 'S- 0 in 0 CD "* 00 co 00 r-» X < "D 3 ^ ^ f - ° 1 CD cm' CO CD CN r~.' CO r>.' CJ> CM in CNl 00 CN CD CN CD Cn! CO r~" CD d d CO d CD CO d CO CO 1- r^ in CN >* 00 r~. 1 f — ^ rNj CNJ 0 0 CD Ln 01 LD 00 "S- < — CD_^ CD_ r^ CO CJ) CO- >* ■^ °l C0_ CO CD_^ o_ co^ T— O) T— CNJ Q UJ X CQ v) {£ csT cm" CO"" !£ CN CN CD- CO- CNJ- d" co" •*- 01" T-- Z rf CnJ CN < e/) HI D -1 CO r— >^ < > Z Ln CO ^ CN CN r^ in r^ CD CN ro r^ 1^ CN ID LD 1^ CN Cn] "* CO r~ CD o n' to. <* csi csi CN CN CD CN in CN 1 '^. CN CO CN CN CO cm' CO Cni" 0 co" csi csi CO CN CN CO CnI CnJ cn" 111 CO LU o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 in 0 0 ID ^ o o 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 in in in 0 Cn] 0 r^ 1^ t^ 0 CD 0 Ln o_ 0 CN ro o_ •^^ CN CO_ 1^ p_ CD 00 l~~ p_ CN ^ *" ^ CO r~.^ 00 irT ro" 0' cd" in \a o" 1 r^' CO- 00" co- cd" cjT co- d 0 ■a- * — r~- 00 00 r^ CO CJ) CO "sf CO IN 05 0 "^ co r^ CO CO CN S < ai- -> en CM 00 CN 'T CO. o Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 in 0 0 in •p o Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 in in in 0 0 0 in in r^ 0 0 CnJ — a; m in_ 00' in co_ CN CN <* ^"" CD CO- "3- 1 CO- CO co" r~- in co" CN CO O)- CD_ oo" CD_ ro_ co- CD- CN CO- CD- Ln CD CN CN p~ ID CN 00 T— in CnI co t— CnI CO T- CO CO 00 CN M < CO- LU I ro * >* 0 CN n r~ 10 01 CO CO (J) «— t— in CD CO CN 1 — "st- 'd- ^_ ^ 1 CO ^ r^_ °l >* CO >* CN CD * — ^ — 0) 1 Jt csT (N CO CN * CJ)_ 0^ *" p^ '"■„ in < 1 o" >* "^r CN 1 ,— 0" co" 1 6" 1 1 T— CN r~- r— LD T— r~.- co- CO *— ro r^ ^— r~- [^ ^ — ^ CN T— CD cn 0 CD 1- " > in CO ID v> < r-- CQ I ro a) oj J3 00 2 « = < < < Q. 1 CJ) 0 Ln c— 1 IT) 0 05 1 05 1 1 0 0 ID CNJ 0 CO 00 0 0 ■a- O < CN CO CN CN CNJ CO CNJ CN CN CN UJ OJ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ID 0 0 in Q o in CD CD CO CO 0 0 ID CN 0 CD 1^ "3- S 0 "d- in O 1 Ln Ol ■a- 1 r^ in CM 1 - c 0) O) < ■3 ■D c < c c < OJ (U 0 E CO CO _> 03 0 cu c "5 ro 0 0 to 0 0 Si ro SI CJ CD (/) 0 0 Q 0 — 4_( u. a ■D 0 ro X ■2 CO 0 X C 0) >• 0) E 0 ai ■w C 0 § I/) -(u u> 0 0) 0 0) 0 c a. y -Q) C C < c 3 0 -> ro to 0) E 0 C/3 ■4-' 0 ro H C 0 4-' C31 C ro 8 E 8 2 0 _i < 1- 0 t- VIII-8 revenue would be provided to the local government from the State for revenues lost due to lower property tax revenues in wetlands in an agreed to preservation or custodial management status. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Wetlands are assessed at lower rates for property taxation purposes than several other land-use categories, including lands in agricultural production. Market values of wetlands also reflect this situation because tillable lands sell at higher prices. Location is an important factor in the real estate market. Wetlands close to populated areas, near installed public services or facilities, or easily accessible have higher market value than others. However, the market or real estate value of wetlands is not based entirely on their in situ use but the opportunities or rights that shoreline (riparian) ownership grants to the owner of such property. Real estate interest in wetlands is generated by shoreline access for water-oriented uses such as boating facilities, hunting privileges, a recreational or vacation homesite, open space and an esthetically pleasing atmosphere. Because more people are now interested and have the time to participate in these types of activities wetlands real estate prices are trending steadily upward. Prices for lands especially suited to outdoor recreation are rising at considerably higher than average rates with the "sky being the limit on certain waterfront property." Such rises in land value inevitably encourage speculative investment and development which disregard planned growth patterns for concerned local communities. In Maryland, wetlands contribute only a small proportion of the total taxable base. However, in certain Eastern Shore counties with extensive wetlands acreage, wetlands derived tax revenues are considerably higher than for more urbanized counties. One method of estimating the total property tax revenues derived from wetlands in the State indicates about $ 1 2 1 ,200 based on a total assessed valuation of $4.8 million in 1968-69. The small tax revenues derived from prevailing low assessment ratios suggest that validation of State ownership to all lands lying below navigable or stricter State control over shoreline development would not have a significant impact on current local government revenues. Local government's viewpoint tends to be exactly the opposite in counties with extensive tracts of wetlands. Stricter State control or ownership of wetlands represents a threat to potential sources of future and larger tax revenues by preventing uncontrolled shoreline development that produces rapid augmentation to the assessible tax base. This situation presents a problem to local governments faced with a need for larger tax revenues from real estate taxes to finance increasing and costlier services. The local revenue/real estate tax squeeze is an aggravating problem to local governments because there is public resistance against substantial increases in other major taxes to supplement property taxes, and many counties are near or at the maximum authorized local piggy-back personal income tax of half the State's rates. Consequently, some local government's tend to view wetlands as an opportunity for tax relief through development. For instance, "in order to main- tain the current level of [Somerset] County services without increasing the [real estate tax] rate, it will be necessary to increase the assessible base."' A similar opinion is expressed by local officials in Worcester County to support development of wetlands.'" To avoid raising local real property assessments on most lands, a change of land use by development moves formerly low revenue producing land (wetlands) into higher assessment brackets, thereby providing needed additional tax revenues. Human desires are powerful forces for change in land use, especially wetlands. Land use changes are often hastened by the real estate market, speculative land investors, and pressures on local governments for in- creased tax revenues. Total gains and losses from developing wetlands are not easily quantifiable. Short- term solutions and consequent gains are more obvious and, therefore, more persuasively attractive than countering long-term losses. Without careful forethought and weighing of all factors the net results of unplanned, uncontrolled development can easily cost more than anticipated benefits. However, if the State with the support and cooperation of local governmental units develop, adopt and enforce shoreline development policies consistent with carefully considered plans that refiect a/I of the inherent values and uses of land, including wetlands, the best interests of all citizens will be served and protected. 1 Walker, Wm. Paul. Improving farm property assessments. Agric. Expt. Sta. Bull. No. A36. University of Maryland, College Park. January, 1945. 2 Jones, Carlton. Land values slowed in county stalemate. The Sun, Baltimore, Maryland. October 13, 1969. 'VlII-9 3 Stevens, G. A. (ed.) "Land Resources," in Agriculture '76, Section III, Resources and Ser- vices in Production. Agric. Div., Univ. Maryland, College Park. 1970. 4 Op. cii. 5 Jones, Carlton. Supra. 6 Rick, William B. Planning and developing waterfront property. Urban Land Institute, Tech. Bull. 49, Washington, D. C. June, 1964. 7 U. S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. A report on recreation land price escalation. U. S. Dept. Interior. U.S.G.P.O: Washington, D. C. 1967. 8 David, E. J. L. The exploding demand for recreational property. Land Economics, Vol. XLV, No. 2, May, 1969. 9 Werner-Dyer & Associates. Background for planning, Somerset County. March, 1963. 10 Harrison, Joseph G. A letter "To Whom it May Concern" re: Wetlands development at Ocean City, Md. June 25, 1969. I VIII- 10 IX SURVEY OF USES CHANGING THE NATURAL HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS OF WETLANDS INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the results of the wetlands habitat inventory compiled by the Maryland Department of Game and Inland Fish (now Maryland Fish and Wildlife Administration) on the impact of man's ac- tivities which have or are changing the natural character of many wetlands as a habitat or environment suitable for dependent biota. Several approaches were used in analyzing the inventory statistics in order to ascertain relationships between wetlands and man's uses. Those undertaken here include: 1 ) inspect acreage changes in terms of impact on the total wetlands habitat and on each particular type of wetland; 2) determine the relationships (if any) between specific uses, specific types of wetlands and locale; and 3) determine the implications to wetlands planning and managing processes. SUMMARY OF ACREAGE LOSSES At least 23,700 wetland acres were reported as destroyed in Maryland for the 25-year period 1942-67. This loss figure represents the difference between the U. S. Geological Survey 1942-1944 topographic map wetland acreages and the 1967-1968 inventory (Table IX- 1). The losses represent about 7.2 percent of the total 331,000 acres inventoried. The losses occurred rather uniformily throughout the State except for counties in the central and western region (Figure VI-3) which had no recorded wetland acreage losses. This result was due to very limited wetland acreage and a high percentage of the few wetlands in the region are in public ownership. Highest reported losses were due to water resource management programs for agricultural land drainage and flood con- trol (Table lX-2). Major acreage losses were attributed to agricultural drainage (52%), housing development (13%), industrial development (6%), marinas (4%), and dredging and spoil disposal (5%) (Table IX- 1). Natural processes such as erosion and natural succession also have an impact on wetlands, as well as mosquito control drainage activities. All of these factors are discussed in the following sections of this chapter. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT Background Residential development near water bodies has strong historical roots. Colonial settlements started at the water's edge and pushed inland. Frontier settlements grew up next to streams to provide assured water supplies, convenient transportation routes into the un- explored interior, and waste disposal systems. Residential development is still attracted to the shores of any water body where shoreline remains open and unoccupied. The attractions now are recreational opportunities, an esthetically pleasing atmosphere, and real estate market factors (see Ch. VIII). Consequently, housing development occurs more and more frequently on wetlands than in the past since they are some of the last remaming major undeveloped shoreline areas. Acreage Losses The construction of residential and vacation homes on waterfront property has resulted in the loss of 3,200 acres of wetlands (Table IX- 1). These losses occur throughout tidewater Maryland (Table IX-2). Notable losses due to housing construction include Worcester (590 acres). Prince George's (390 acres), Harford (350 acres), Talbot (330 acres). Queen Anne's (320 acres), Cecil (230 acres), Wicomico (210 acres) and Anne Arundel (180 acres). Additionally, numerous, separate destructive incidents of less than five acres in size were noted, which if combined might approach the inventoried losses. Wetlands lost to housing development result from bulkheading, dredging and filling. A bulkhead is con- structed in desired configurations around the wetland or other shoreline area to be reclaimed. A dredge excavates bottom materials from the bay-side of the bulkhead and deposits the material in the fill area. Materials such as sand, gravel, and shell are used as fill. The bulkhead acts as a retainer and stilling basin, keeping the initially fluid fill material from flowing back into the waterway. As the heavier sedimentary materials settle out behind the bulkhead, the water (which was used as an entraining agent) runs off or is drained off through sluiceways going over the top of the bulkhead. In some cases, the fill material is obtained from canals and boat access channels cut into the shoreline under development. The extent of dredging is determined by the size of the fill area, the height needed to obtain a desired elevation above sea level, and the design configuration of the waterways and canals associated with the development. One popular shoreline development design is the "Venetian" or marina-housing complex. The bulkhead layout provides a system of waterways serving individual subdivision lots and connects with channels leading to the surrounding bodies of water. The homeowner can "park" his boat at his doorstep. This type of development produces more attractive lots because of water frontage IX- 1 Table IX-1. Statewide summary of the uses changing the natural characteristics of wetlands in Maryland, showing acreage losses for each type of wetland. Type of Wetland s E 0> Q. .E o O 0) Z Q c 0) si ■o S 2 B " Dredging and Spoil Disposal w. o a. 2.1 3 2 ■ft o 2 111 c .2 CO V) 3 O 1 = 0) *•> o = 1 OS ss-i 1-Seasonally flooded basins or flats 0 0.0 2-lnland Fresh meadow 675 675 2.8 3-lnland shallow fresh meadow 483 483 2.0 5-lnland open fresh water 20 15 26 3 49 113 0.5 6-Shrub swamp 103 204 9 6 13 11 28 374 1.6 7-Wooded swamp 591 759 10,958 33 51 65 ,48 12,505 52.6 8- Bogs 0 0.0 12-Coastal shallow fresh marsh 1,032 341 88 361 495 453 310 14 404 3,498 14.7 13-Coastal deep fresh marsh 27 1 11 39 - 14-Coastal open fresh water 4 10 31 13 37 3 98 0.4 16-Coastal salt meadow 673 267 226 363 443 263 461 22 145 2,863 12.0 17-lrregularly flooded salt marsh 196 5 58 136 166 114 411 4 1,090 4.6 18-Regularly flooded salt marsh 570 17 200 81 59 17 1,032 57 2,033 8.5 Totals 3,216 1,591 12,550 1,133 1,263 1,002 1,213 1,068 735 23,777 99.7 Percent of total 13.5 6.7 52.8 4.8 5.3 4.2 5.1 4.5 3.1 100.0 IX-2 Table IX-2. Statewide summary of the inventory of uses changing the natural characteristics of wetlands in Maryland showing acreage losses by use and by county. County c 0) E Ol Q. = o i > O 9) I Q *-< c l| 11 = Q> u c IE (D Dredging and Spoil Disposal Public Works 2i ra 2 Zui c 2 CO 5 >• c - Allegany 0 Anne Arundel 185 256 31 24 13 14 523 Baltimore 48 220 19 66 4 9 249 615 Baltimore City 36 118 154 Calvert 14 3 42 32 7 38 21 157 Caroline 22 107 520 33 64 18 6 49 819 Carroll 0 Cecil 233 18 36 250 34 44 3 618 Charles 55 66 20 138 55 27 21 382 Dorchester 114 112 64 105 156 118 290 10 4 974 Frederick 3 26 29 Garrett 0 Harford 359 20 32 47 125 154 70 807 Kent 113 111 18 68 4 11 83 25 433 Montgomery 0 Prince George's 394 112 46 1 64 16 633 Queen Anne's 328 72 791 244 94 124 108 12 1,773 St. Mary's 37 10 12 55 41 10 121 286 Somerset 171 18 3 45 230 40 136 66 709 Talbot 337 15 142 92 118 175 290 1,169 Washington 0 Wicomico 213 408 2,351 39 40 3,051 Worcester 590 17 8,559 197 67 83 4 1,032 90 10,639 Totals 3,216 1,591 12,550 1,133 1,263 1,002 1,213 1,068 735 23,771 IX-3 which in turn brings higher prices on the real estate maricet. Interrelationships Between Shoreline Housing and Wetlands A large proportion of housing development on wetlands (78%) occurs on coastal, estuarine-related wetlands. Ownership of such property provides several real and psychic values over non-waterfronting property. Waterfront property provides estheticaliy appealing water landscapes, assured open space, riparian ownership assuring access to the Bay, hunting and fishing privileges, and social status, i.e., owning a piece of the "shore." Also, there is a finite limitation on actual shoreline available for any use. Consequently, waterfronting real estate values are expected to rise between purchase and resale. Waterfront housing development also fits highly successful sales promotion campaigns. Sales advertising suggests investment angles such as a "land bank" or "hedge" against infiation, as well as the opportunity to enjoy the "good life" or have a "world of fun." It is also often suggested that there will soon be no more of this type of opportunity to further entice prospective buyers. However, many of the advantages and values stressed to lure the buyer will be consumed or diminished in developing such property. Open space is consumed. Continuing development will eventually present the same image as a city suburb. The wildlife and fishery resources which would have provided hunting and fishing require the natural habitat now lying buried under the foundations of waterfront homes resting on filled wetlands. Future Trends in Housing Development Present housing development on the tidewater shoreline has been governed largely by factors such as location in relation to population centers, accessibility, size of population, level of personal incomes, and the presence or absence of local zoning ordinances. These factors will continue to influence the demand for waterfront residential or recreational property. However, as more people desire to own part of the State's finite shoreline, pressure will increase to develop remaining and available undeveloped shoreline areas for housing. Shoreline residential development was spurred by completion of the first Chesapeake Bay Bridge in 1952. Completion of the second parallel span could fulfill one predicted housing development pattern on the Eastern Shore. "The emergence of the 'Bay Bridge' counties (Talbot, Kent, Queen Anne's and possibly parts of Dorchester) as a real factor in the Baltimore- Washington commuter picture."' In addition, there is an upper Bay bridge authorized between Baltimore and Kent counties, as well as a proposal for a lower Bay crossing between Calvert and Dorchester counties. Much of the future housing development in tidewater Maryland may occur on waterfront sites as indicated by the following collection of news items. "A syndicate of Baltimore and Washington businessmen has initiated plans to develop an 800-acre residential community on St. Martin's Neck in Worcester County across the Assawoman Bay from Ocean City. The land including six miles of shoreline could be enlarged by nearly 200 acres if the adjacent salt- water marshland is dredged and filled according to the developers." The Ballimore Sun, 1/26/69. "The undeveloped portion of Cape Isles of Wight will be sold at public auction. The sale will include ... 55 acres of unfilled bay front and Herring Creek frontage." The Ballimore Sun, 6/29/69. "Developers plan $4 million dollar community on a 452-acre site on the Miles River two miles south of St. Michaels in Talbot County." The Baltimore Sun, 10/27/69. "A similar project was proposed in nearby Queen Anne's County for the famous 1,700 acre Pioneer Estate between the Chester and Corsica rivers." The Baltimore Sun, 10/27/69. "A developer proposes to build a 'Bay County Village' on the Great Marsh - 16 acre waterfront properly along the Great Choptank River." The Ballimore Sun, I 1/2/69. The combined wetland acreage within these and other recently proposed, announced or planned shoreline housing developments already exceeds previously inven- toried acreage losses for housing. In addition to potential wetland destruction, discussion on public works (Ch. IX) and water quality (Ch. XI) indicates the scope of resource management problems that could result if accelerated, uncoordinated, and poorly planned housing development is permitted to occur along the shores of the Bay and elsewhere. Discussion on Housing Development Future extensive and intensive residential shoreline development in Maryland poses a resource management problem of a scale and scope not encountered before by State and local governments. Effective institutional arrangements are needed to properly guide such future 1 IX-4 development. In providing guidance, the capabilities of all levels of government will be required. At the present time, government may not be structured to produce desired results or meet the criteria stated above. Mechanisms and experience demonstrating how the State can improve its management capabilities and exert better guidance of future shoreline development are needed. One way to improve resource management systems might be through a demonstration model approach to one specific activity — residential shoreline development. This suggestion does not mean disregarding multiple-use concepts or advocating single-purpose resource planning and management. Rather the selection of shoreline housing as a sample problem area reflects the fact that this use requires variable management inputs and capabilities from several different State agencies, and it is and will be a major use competing for remaining undeveloped tidewater shoreline space. Something similar to the Rookery Bay Area Project produced by the Conservation Foundation is envisaged here. That project was a demonstration study in conservation and development at Naples, Florida to determine if profit- oriented development surrounding a valuable wildlife, waterfowl and fishery sanctuary could be compatible with maintaining the resource values present.' The purpose of initiating such a project in Maryland would be to achieve similar objectives and to develop a system of inter-agency and intergovernmental assistance and cooperation essential to future management of wetlands and other shoreline areas in the State. Another purpose would be to provide a visible example of how it might be possible to attain the objectives of development and conservation in a manner acceptable to both interests while using the same naturaF resource base. AGRICULTURE General Agriculture is still an important Maryland industry. The fertility of the soil and the abundance of water make this one of the best agricultural areas of the eastern United States. According to the 1964 U. S. Census of Agriculture, the monetary value of farm products raised and sold in the nine counties lying east of Chesapeake Bay amounted to 51.5 percent of the State total. In fact, it has been reported that some Eastern Shore counties are of national stature in terms of their agricultural production.' High agricultural productivity depends on good land use and adequate surface and sub-surface drainage. Excessive water on some lands in agricultural production causes substantial losses of food, fiber and forest production. Economic losses from poor drainage result from temporary flooding or high ground water table levels and occur as direct damages and reduced productivitN . Due to the low elevations of land on the Eastern Shore, natural draining capabilities of the soils and land are poorly developed. Consequently, projects designed to improve cropland drainage are an important facet of maintaining and increasing agricultural produc- tion on the Eastern Shore. The purpose of this section is to examine and discuss briefly certain relationships between agricultural drainage and wetlands. There are three areas requiring attention. Two of them deal with agricultural land drainage programs under Maryland Drainage Laws. The other is the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (Public Law 83-566) known as the Small Watershed Program. Projects under this act, sponsored b> local governmental units and other organized groups, are financed in part with federal funds administered by the U. S. Soil Conservation Service. Maryland Agricultural Drainage Program and Laws The Maryland drainage program has been both active and effective on the Eastern Shore. The success of the program is attributed to excellent cooperation and support from local landowners and local, state and fed- eral agencies. For more than thirty years the Maryland Agricultural Extension Service and State Department of Drainage have provided educational guidance for organization and operation of "tax ditches."" County commissioners and soil conservation district supervisors have provided local leadership and support. The Soil Conservation Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture has provided technical assistance to soil conservation districts for surveys, engineering design and supervision of construction. The State Roads Commission has cooperated where highway structures might have blocked channels.'' Since 1941 a total of 105 public drainage associations have been organized which service 1,511 farms and 92,450 acres. When 28 associations now in process of organization are formed, totals will be 210,513 acres on 2,630 farms. The organizational process re- quires from one to two years depending upon the size of the project and availability of engineering services. Modern equipment and a successful program, together with some cost-sharing under Public Law 566, have led to larger associations in recent years.' IX-5 The Maryland drainage laws relevant to wetlands are Article 25, Public Drainage Associations (Sec. 52- 95), and Drainage Districts (Sec. 96-122).' These laws were enacted to promote the ditching, draining, leveeing and reclamation of wet and overflowed lands which may be made available for agriculture, and to encourage the starting of such enterprises (Sec. 122). Furthermore, the draining of wet, swampy or overflowed lands or lands subject to overflow "shall be considered a public benefit and conducive to the public health, convenience and welfare" (Sec. 52). And also, "it is hereby declared that the drainage of swamps and the drainage of the surface water from agricultural lands and the reclamation of tidal marshes shall be considered a public benefit and conducive to the public health, convenience, utility and welfare" (Sec. 96). The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act - Public Law 566 The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, more commonly referred to as Public Law 566, established a national policy for Federal assistance to state and local agencies such as soil conservation districts, counties, public watershed associations and public drainage associations, for planning and con- structing land and water resources development and conservation projects on a watershed basis. Public Law 566 assisted projects are usually a combination of soil and water conservation measures on farm land, other rural land, and public land and consist ol land treatment measures and structural measures (dams, levees, fiood gates, drainage channels). The projects are planned and carried out jointly by local, state and federal agencies with the cooperation and support of a majority of landowners and citizens within the affected watershed. PL 566, as amended, authorizes the U. S. Secretary of Agriculture to administer the program, who in turn has designated the Administrator, Soil Conser- vation Service, to fulfill assigned responsibilities. Acreage Losses The total extent of wetlands altered by agricultural drainage projects was calculated by the Maryland Fish and Wildlife Administration to be 12,550 acres. This figure represents 53 percent of the total acreage losses compiled by the State survey. Major losses occurred to inland wetland types such as: fresh meadow (Type 2), 675 acres; shallow fresh meadow (Type 3), 483 acres; and wooded swamp (Type 7), 10,958 acres. Less than 400 acres of coastal wetland losses were attributed to agricultural drainage (Table IX- 1). The results of the wetlands survey are consistent with past and current U. S. Soil Conservation Service soil surveys and their appraisals of the potential agricultural value of coastal wetlands. "Tidal marsh and swamps in their present (natural) condition have no agricultural value," although tidal marsh may provide pasturage if conditions are favorable. "It is conceivable that some areas may be reclaimed for agriculture in the future, but such a time is not in sight at present. Extreme acidity and toxic sulphur compounds will always be a problem with reclaimed acreage, and may preclude their use (tidal marshes) for commercial plant production. For the foreseeable future tidal marshes will be limited in use to wildlife, some kinds of recreational purposes or for esthetic purposes."' Another Soil Conservation Service soil classification/land use, (wet) meadows, was frequently identified as suitable for reclamation by deepening stream channels, tiling and ditching. After installing these measures, such lands could be placed in agricultural production. The soil surveys" definition(s) of (wet) meadows describe wetland areas classified as inland fresh meadow (Type 2), inland shallow fresh meadow (Type 3), shrub swamp (Type 6), wooded swamp (Type 7), and coastal salt meadow (Type 16). Results of the wetlands habitat inventory indicate that these types of wetlands are highly susceptible to reclamation by agricultural land drainage projects. Future Trends of Agricultural Drainage Prior to passage of PL566, assistance to local governments and private landowners for agricultural drainage was primarily through Maryland Drainage Laws, Article 25, Sections 52-122, Annotated Code of Maryland (1957). Since 1958, however, the PL 566 program has provided an important share of the financial support necessary to solve rural fiooding and agricultural drainage problems. The U. S. Soil Conservation Service has been surveying and evaluating local, regional and national watershed management problems for several years. Information collected and analyzed by the SCS covers various aspects of fiood prevention, drainage, fish and wildlife, recreation, water supply and water quality control. The results of this work have been compiled as a "Conservation Needs Inventory." A "Summary 'of Conservation Needs Inventory of Maryland Watersheds" suggests that 69 watersheds or drainage areas on the entire Eastern Shore, encompassing 83 percent of the State's wetlands, have drainage conditions IX-6 requiring some level of corrective action.* It should be noted with emphasis that the new State wetlands laws do not apply to fresh water types such as those with already large acreage losses due to agricultural drainage measures (Table Vl-I) and en- compassed within the above projections. Also, "drainage systems designed exclusively for the purpose of collect- ion, conveyance, or disposal of storm water" are excluded from the Department of Water Resources permit system required by Section 12(a) of Article 96A (Water Resources) of the Laws of Maryland. To encourage and support the application of "conservation" measures the U. S. Department of Agriculture has the Agricultural Conservation Program to provide payments to farmers for carrying out such measures on farms. This program was intended originally to encourage farmers to maintain the produc- tive capacity of their farms. However, preservation of capacity soon shades into building additional capacity. The practices for which payments are made include drainage. While soil-conserving, it is also an output- increasing measure. "Public subsidy for such practices cannot be justified at a time when agriculture is trying to reduce excessive capacity."' As a result of this situation the President's National Advisory Commission on Food and Fiber recommended that "public funds for agricultural reclaniaiion. irrigat- ion, drainage and development projects should be justijied on the basis of whether they represent the cheapest methods of getting additional farm production — // needed." The Commission more succintly recommended also that "public subsidies for capacity- increasing farm practices should be discontinued."'" If wetland resource misallocations induced by subsidies through certain agricultural programs are judged to be socially undesirable then some counter programs should be devised to protect remaining wetlands. Much of the reclamation would cease if subsidies were not provided to the agricultural sector and if competitive prices existed in the market for agricultural commodities. With price supports in effect, however, drainage becomes privately profitable despite the fact that it is socially inefficient. Discussion To dale, the Soil Conservation Service has not been able to provide planning and technical assistance for all PL 566 project applications due to limited funds and staff. These problems were somewhat alleviated through recent action by the Maryland General Assembly em- powering the Department of Water Resources to apply technical services and public funds to various water resource development programs. The Maryland Department of Water Resources cooperates in all waiter resource projects or programs affecting the waters of the State. The Department also administers such financial assistance for PL 566 projects as may be made available to the Department. Recent State legislation establishes a State contribution up to fifty percent of the non-Federal (local) share of approved projects under PL 566." Under this legislation, ad- ditional funding has been made available to the Soil Conservation Service for PL 566 project planning purpo.ses. In planning any PL 566 project, consideration must be given to fish and wildlife resource management problems related to any proposed developmental activity. Project features that would have detrimental impacts are resolved or compensated for during project planning before final work plans are submitted for authorization and approval. In the past, wetlands have been dried up. Now, special steps or activities are incorporated within each project to provide compensating or "improved" habitat for wildlife wherever feasible. This policy when it is actually applied often results in destruction of certain types of existing habitat and established ecosystems while creating new or improving other types of habitat for other species. The Soil Conservation Service is not insensitive to the implications of its PL 566 program to the alteration of significant natural habitat and the implications to the ecology of affected natural communities and systems (ecosystems). Before any project is finalized, approved, and developed, it must be reviewed and approved by all cognizant State resource management agencies, and obtain the final approval of the Governor. In addition, the Service believes that there is a large untapped potential under Public Law 566 for permanent protection and improvement of wetlands. Any development that enhances land for wildlife can be cost-shared under the program if a non-federal financial source is available too. On certain types of development PL 566 funding can also pay for half the cost of acquiring the land for a public agency. '- The Maryland drainage laws, the small watershed program under PL-566 and the Agricultural Conser- vation Program all have major implications to future wetlands management planning. Certain measures under PL-566 and ACP coverage as well as Article 25 (Sections 52-122) of Maryland Laws support and encourage drainage of wetlands, particularly fresh water types. As policy matters now stand public funds — local. State and Federal — are being expended for draining wetlands of IX-7 varying types and values. Simultaneously, growing public awareness and concern about the economic and ecoiogic significance of wetlands generate a demand for increased protection and preservation of such areas. Much of the wetlands management problem in the agricultural sector (as well as all others) is due to a divergence between private and social values and goals attendant in wetlands with the benefits derivable accruing to the public at large while much of the burden of habitat maintenance being borne by private landowners. Because of this divergency the market place fails to function as an effective mechanism for allocating wetlands between development (reclamation) and preservation, and conse- quently too few wetlands are likely to be preserved in the private sector without governmental intervention in the allocating processes. The market system has been further dellected from an effective allocation process through the impact of federal technical and financial assistance in certain agricultural programs which reduce capital costs for draining wetlands to increase agricultural produc- tivity while simultaneously insuring cash returns for production which exceeds demand and consequent market price levels. Terminating price supports would correct much of the problem, but the price support program is well entrenched and has withstood more compelling attacks in the past. However, it might be possible to eliminate payments that encourage socially inefficient drainage with substitute payments to farmers for maintaining wetlands that are judged to be important wildlife habitat. The source of the habitat easements or maintenance payments could be the beneficiaries of protecting wetlands such as waterfowl hunters, fishermen, trappers, naturalists, etc., who obtain direct tangible and in- tangible benefits from wetlands. Such a broad-based beneficiary taxing system is, however, likely to be full of administrative difficulties. Consequently, it is probably most equitable and socially efficient to finance an easements payment program (for wetlands maintenance or preservation) out of general revenue funds if the payments were viewed as income maintenance payments (in the same sense that price supports are) as well as a means of promoting allocative efficiency." In recognition of the important contributions of wetlands and the apparent disproportionate incentive to drain them for agricultural purposes with federal finan- cial subsidies. Congress enacted the Water Bank Act (Public Law 91-559) in 1970. The thrust of this Act is to pay landowners to retain natural wetlands by offering them contractual agreements for long-term (10 yr.) payments against drainage, filling and burning. Pay- ments are to be at a rate to encourage owner participation in the program. The wetlands covered by the Water Bank Act include inland fresh areas (Types 1 through 5) as described in Wetlands of the United Slates," and artificially developed wetlands which meet the same descriptions. (See Appendix G.) Since the program initiated under that Act is so new, however, a time lapse of some significance must be anticipated until it becomes fully operational and its consequent balancing impact (versus drainage) can be observed and evaluated. Under the above circumstances, the continued agricultural land drainage program in Maryland under the aegis of the U. S. Soil Conservation Service requires careful public examination and reconciliation of divergent resource management goals. DREDGING AND SPOIL DISPOSAL Definitions Dredging is the physical act of excavating land or bottom materials. This is often done to create or enlarge a waterway for safe navigability. Dredging is also done to obtain fiuvial deposits of sand, gravel and shells for use as construction materials or for fill in reclamational efforts. Spoil is bottom material removed by dredging operations that must be disposed of somewhere else. It usually consists of sand, clay, mud, muck (accumulated layers of decayed organic matter produced in wetlands) and other material produced by the dredging operations. Spoil disposal can be accomplished in three ways: 1) pumping or dumping spoil back into the water (frequently adjacent to the excavation site); 2) depositing spoil on land or wetlands which may or may not have dikes installed to prevent the spoil from returning to the waterway; and 3) dumping into deep water sites at locations distant from the dredging site. Acreage Losses The impact of dredging and spoil disposal on high natural environmental values results from the physical destruction of existing bottom materials or wetlands and/or their burial under dredged material (Figure IX- 1). Dredging and/or spoil disposal operations are reported to have destroyed 1,260 acres of wetlands. This figure, while not including the permanently submerged bottoms of estuaries, rivers, sounds or bays, represents 5.3 percent of the total inventoried acreage losses (Table IX- 1). Most of the destruction occurred to coastal wetlands such as shallow fresh march (Type 12), 490 acres, coastal salt meadow (Type 16), 440 acres, and irregularly flooded salt marsh (Type 17), 160 acres. IX-8 Figure IX-I Filling of wetlands with dredge spoil near George's Creek, St. Mary's County. Losses were evenly distributed among several tide- water counties (Table IX-2). Much of the acreage loss in Cecil County was due to construction and maintenance of marine shipping channels connecting the Bay with the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. Wetlands were used there as spoil disposal sites. An intelligent perspective on the extent of dredg- ing and spoil disposal activity in Maryland waters is not readily apparent to casual observers. Also, records on the resultant economic and ecologic impacts of this activity are not easily obtainable. The following historical footnote is presented to demonstrate how easily the impacts of dredging and filling may be over- looked and unappreciated. "In recent years large areas of marsh and shallow water have been filled with material dredged from the channels and converted into land. Extensive tidal marshes at the south end of Analostan Island (now officially named Theodore Roosevelt Island) were modified by the cutting of a channel to form the mouth of Little River and by the construction of Columbia Island, which sep- arates Boundary Channel from Georgetown Channel. Potomac Park is based on tidal marshes that have been covered by artificial fill dredged from Georgetown and Washington Channels. Much of Anacostia Park, also is reclaimed marshland." "A large part of the National Airport was built of dredgings from the river. Tiber Creek, which was formerly flowed past the site of the City Post Office and along Constitution Avenue to a wide mouth near the Lincoln Memorial, has been completely filled in." 15 Besides observable destruction to habitat some other disadvantages of dredging include segmentation of bays which promotes shoaling; increased saltwater intrusion; altered tidal exchange, mixing and circula- tion patterns. These effects are notable because the spatial and temporal distribution of salinity profound- ly affects the activities of many estuarine species in tidal estuaries. Care must be exercised in the approval of engineering projects or industrial processes that will alter sahnity regimes in tidal estuaries and lagoons and in their associated wetlands. If deep holes are left in the wake of extractive activity such as sand and gravel mining, the holes will tend to concentrate the normal bottom detritus pro- duced or carried into the area by water movements. A lack of water circulation in the excavation area would result in anaerobic decomposition of the accumulated detrital material with the production of hydrogen sul- fide. Under such conditions the area is uninhabitable for most hfe forms. Also, silt suspended during the dredging process increases the turbidity of surrounding waters and thus reduces photosynthetic activity. As the silt slowly settles it covers adjacent areas and becomes a new substrate which may not be conducive to rapid recolonization of benthic hfe smothered by accelerated sedimentation from nearby dredging. In cases where the bottom is actually removed or covered with spoil it has been reported that it frequently takes at least a year or two for benthic Ufe to re-establish itself in destroyed or disrupted areas. "None of these changes, however, are as significant as the direct physical loss of habitat."" Some advantages may be derived from dredging and spoil disposal depending upon the circumstances. These include: connection of isolated waters and marshes to make them available as fish nursery areas, provisions of routes of escape or refuge for fish during cold periods, improvement of water exchange and cir- culation, and release of nutrients trapped in bottom sediments. Additionally, it may be possible under proper conditions to create new marshes by innovative disposal of spoil. The natural circumstances and final altered conditions determine whether or not there are net advantages or disadvantages from dredging, dis- regarding the loss of previous habitat. Dredging Economics Dredging is an essential component of the marine shipping industry. In Maryland, extensive dredging activity is associated with Baltimore Harbor, the Chesa- peake and Delaware Canal and certain other areas of the Chesapeake Bay. The spoil material generated by dredging Baltimore Harbor, its approach channels, and elsewhere in the Bay amounted to about 38 million cubic yards of material for the period 1957-1968. The total amount of material to be removed from IX-9 Baltimore Harbor and its approach channels during the 20-year period 1969-1989 is estimated at 99 million cubic yards. ^"^ Besides Baltimore Harbor, other navigation im- provement projects are undertaken throughout the Chesapeake Bay tidewater area. These projects, admin- istered by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, have been undertaken to provide channels for commercial shipping, commercial fishing boats and recreational boating within the Bay and between the Bay and tide- water communities located on tributary waters. Up- wards of 16 mOlion cubic yards of spoil material have had to be disposed of in constructing and maintaining these navigation improvements between 1939-1969. An estimated 41 percent of the spoU material (6.5 milhon cubic yards) was deposited on land, primarily wetlands. Most navigation improvement projects require some assistance from local benefiting interests in order to obtain Federal financial assistance. Generally, the local assistance consists of providing all lands, ease- ments and rights-of-way required for construction and subsequent maintenance of the project including areas suitable for initial and subsequent disposal of spoil. Local responsibility for providing spoil disposal sites for navigation improvement projects may result in use of wetlands for two fundamental reasons. First, a spoil disposal site may require land acquisi- tion or an easement at local expense. (Some sites may be acquired by the Corps of Engineers, depending upon the project and assigned financial responsibilities.) Wet- lands are consistently the lowest priced waterfront real estate (Chapter VHI). This economic situation when combined with the common social perception that wetlands are worthless, or useless in comparison to other land may strengthen the local tendency to provide wetlands for spoil disposal sites. Second, local pre-occupation with increasing the taxable base and tax revenues encourages an attitude that wetlands as wetlands aren't worth as much as productive farmland or other types of land. If wetlands are not perceived to be valuable in a natural state, then there is logic in believing that reclaiming wetlands by draining or filUng will create valuable land from worth- less land. Also, wetlands may be volunteered freely to serve as disposal sites, so as to gain free fill and "im- prove" the land for the owner at no personal private expense. Future Trends of Dredging and Implications to Wetlands Large dredging projects are planned for Baltimore Harbor and connecting waterways. However, because designated spoil disposal sites in the Bay are nearly filled, and due to the poor chemical quality and physical characteristics of the sediments to be dredged, special disposal sites are required. A tentative solution to this problem was provided by State legislative action which authorized $13,000,000 for developing needed spoil disposal sites in certain open water areas of the Bay." Future navigable waterway improvement projects in other areas of the Bay are of potentially greater importance and consequence to wetlands than Balti- more Harbor projects. Ever-increasing numbers of recreational boats will require improved channels and essential support facilities. Local economies tied to commercial fishing and marine shipments will require simOar considerations. If past experiences with locally supported and cost-shared dredging and spoil disposal siting projects are reUable forecasters, wetlands will be used as spoil disposal sites. Discussion on Dredging and Spoil Disposal The Chesapeake Bay and tributarial waters have experienced considerable dredging, particularly Balti- more Harbor, Patapsco River, Elk River, the Chesa- peake and Delaware Canal, Nanticoke River, Wicomico River (Wicomico Co.), Potomac River, and Assa- woman, Isle of Wight and Sinepuxtent Bays. This dis- ruption to the aquatic environment has resulted also in a large volume of spoO material requiring disposal sites. Wetlands have frequently been such sites. Because of the importance of marine shipping, recreational boating, and commercial fishing to Mary- land's economy, dredging projects in Baltimore Har- bor, connecting waterways and other areas of the Bay are an indefinite fact of hfe. Since dredging is an indefinite reality in certain areas of the State's waters, the other component of dredging, spoil disposal, is the factor of this activity with potential flexibiUty con- cerning its impact on the aquatic environment. The Bay is a multiple use resource of differing values to Maryland, surrounding regions and the Nation. It has been noted before, that far from being a limited matter, dredging and spoil disposal practices have direct and indirect effects upon most segments of our population.^ ^ Mounting scientific evidence indicates the valuable contributions of wetlands and estuaries to our environ- ment. In the future, it will be more undesirable to disrupt or destroy remaining key segments of a dimin- ishing natural environment by dredging or spoil dis- posal. If so, problems will arise concerning socio- economically and ecologically acceptable parameters for spoil disposal sites. IX- 10 Sites satisfying all parameters are becoming in- creasingly scarce. In fact, they are becoming almost non-existent except at both higher economic and en- vironmental costs. For example, spoil disposal costs about $1.50/cubic yard for spoil dredged in the Balti- more Harbor area and disposed of in the dumping ground near Kent Island. Ocean disposal of future spoO from the same area necessitated by undesirable chem- ical quality and physical characteristics would raise the cost to about $6.00/cubic yard.^^ The solution, men- tioned earlier, was passage of State legislation which authorized future State cost-shared dredging by finan- cing the construction of suitable spoil disposal sites near the project area. The selection of spoil disposal sites that satisfy all management policy parameters remains unresolved for other navigation improvement projects besides Balti- more Harbor. One solution, dumping spoil overboard into waters adjacent to the dredged area can have ecologically undesirable effects from the resulting tur- bidity and siltation. Wetlands are not satisfactory spoil disposal sites for several ecological reasons. If both overboard areas and wetlands should become unacceptable spoil disposal sites in the future because of damages to other Bay uses, alternative methods of spoil disposal or choices of site location will be neces- sary. One such alternative site(s) might be abandoned sand and gravel borrow pits located in shoreline situa- tions, if the spoil could be contained and prevented from encroaching on or despoihng surrounding waters and submerged bottom areas. Also, shoreline areas that are definitely planned and dedicated for development for housing or industrial use might be utilized for disposing of spoil materials suitable for supporting such construction purposes. The Commission on Submerged Public Lands (1960) explored some of these problems. Concerning disposal of materials dredged for local cost-sharing navigation improvement projects— "It is the responsibihty of the U.S. Army Engi- neers to perform such channel development and main- tenance works as are authorized by the Congress of the United States, for the benefit of local public interests, where the benefit-cost ratio of such works can be shown to be a favorable one. It is the local community, and not the Corps of Engineers, that initiates the re- quest to Congress for the navigation works. It is actually the responsibihty of the local community, and not the Corps of Engineers, to find suitable areas for spoil disposal. Since the State benefits from the devel- opment and maintenance of navigation projects in the tidal waters, it is the State responsibihty to find suit- able areas and methods for spoil disposal. "Maryland has not, in general, found it necessary in the past to meet this responsibility. Over the years the Engineers generally have attempted to develop plans in cooperation with local interests which would facihtate channel development and maintenance, and designate marine areas _^where the dredged material could be deposited . . ,2 7 The Commission also attempted to ascertain the scope of the disposal problem in tidewater Maryland and the anticipated disposal needs in the forseeable future. With regard to deep water disposal sites as an alternative, the Commission concluded that: "[I]t has been increasingly apparent to all of us (Commission) that the State's interest can be served best by a comprehensive policy. Deep water disposal of dredged material appears to have been in the best interest of the State. In some instances such deep water disposal will remain in the best interests of the State in the future. However, it is evident that alternate disposal methods must be found for part of the spoil material which will result from future channel development and maintenance projects. The deep waters of the Bay remain an important ecological environment which should remain free from encroachment whenever possible."^ ^ Effective long-term solutions must be found to reduce the adverse environmental impacts from dis- posal of dredged materials in the waters and on the wetlands of the State. Tentative steps have been taken by the Corps of Engineers in this direction by the initiation of studies on "the relationships of the engi- neering works of the Corps to the ecology of coastal waters. The primary objective is to develop criteria, standards and guidehnes for including ecological effects in planning for water resource development." Further suggestions as to how the Corps might take environmental considerations into account have been provided by the House Committee on Government Operations in "Our Waters and Wetlands: How the Corps of Engineers Can Help Prevent Their Destruction and Pollution. "^° With further regard to guidelines and criteria on dredging and spoil disposal practices which will serve to ameliorate adverse environmental impacts, the fol- lowing ones are presented for information purposes. 1. Channels should not cross nor should spoil be placed on high-value natural habitat. High- value habitat in most estuaries includes, but is not limited to, brackish marshes, vegetated shoreline zones, beds of submerged aquatic vegetation, pro- tected shallow waters near shore, oyster reefs, and small meandering tributaries (guts) in the tidal zone. Opportunities for enhancing or protecting natural habitat should be sought always with dredging and spoil disposal activities. IX- 11 2. To provide for maximum water exchange and circulation, spoil should be placed in mounds at least 1,000 feet apart on alternating sides of a channel. At places where feasible, the mounds should be developed to elevations above mean high water to create islands. Under certain circum- stances and depending upon wildhfe management goals, creation of a continuous spoil bank may be a more desirable method of spoil disposal. 3. Spoil should not be placed in the water closer than 500 feet from the shoreline of shallow, protected bays. However, opportunities to 'im- prove' or protect waterfront land areas should not be overlooked via "filling" with spoil depending upon the environmental impacts. 4. Natural drainage channels and waterways should not be blocked by spoil. Isolation of an area should be avoided. The weighing and application of this criteria is heavily dependent, however, upon the natural conditions of the specific area in question as well as management goals for it. 5. The integrity of natural waterways should be maintained. This principle is applicable especially to dead-end access channels and canals. 6. Spoil should be placed on uplands and not back into the water. Constructive uses should be sought for the spoil such as fertilizing agricul- tural land (if high in organic material). Otherwise it should be confined to as small an area as practical. When spoil is confined behind levees or other containment devices, care should be exercised in preventing the pooling of stagnant water which will promote mosquito breeding. 7. Spoil deposition sites should be retained for future maintenance spoil. The selection and creation of spoil disposal sites should be done with a look toward the eventual uses of potentialities of such sites once they are filled completely, and hence, no longer suitable for receiving additional spoil materials. 8. "For the protection of estuarine organ- isms, no changes in channels, in the basin geometry of the area, or in fresh water inflow should be made that would cause permanent changes in isohaline patterns of more than ± 1 0 percent of the natural variation." These guidelines and criteria are not all inclusive nor are they minimum or maximum standards that must be adhered to absolutely. Rather as presented originally^^ (except for No. 8), they were intended to assist and be applied and modified by trained biologists familiar with areas for which dredging and spoil dis- posal activities are proposed. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT General Industrial development includes port-industry complexes such as marine shipping terminals, docks and other support facilities, port-oriented manufac- turing industries, electrical power generating plants, and sand and gravel extraction. Much of the shorehne industrial development has been governed by a need for access to water. Water is needed in large quantities for manufacturing processes, cooling, waste discharge and dispersal, and transportation. One result has been en- croachment onto wetlands because of their location at the land-water interface. Acreage Losses The wetlands habitat inventory Usts 1,590 acres destroyed by industrial development . This figure repre- sents 6.7 percent of the total Statewide losses (Table IX-1). These losses were distributed among several counties with the largest being Wicomico (400 acres), Anne Arundel (250 acres), and Baltimore (220 acres) (Table IX-2). Future Trends in Industrial Development and Implications to Wetlands Industries requiring land fronting on navigable waters are important to the economy of Maryland. Consistent with the economic significance of water- front industrial development, a survey was conducted during this study to identify future potential indus- trial land use sites which involved wetlands. Criteria used in that survey included: geographical location, availabiUty of transportation services (raOroad and highway network), deepwater access, waterfront access, surrounding land uses, and nearness to popula- tion centers. Results show that at least 41 wetlands with a total of 1 ,488 acres met the criteria established for the first cut of the survey (Table IX-3). Most of the wetlands within potential industrial development sites are found in the following coun- ties: Baltimore (540 acres); Somerset (275 acres); Harford (200 acres); Anne Arundel (130 acres); and Kent (120 acres). Development, if it does occur on the surveyed wetlands, wiU be primarily on coastal shallow fresh marsh (Type 12). The potential future physical damage due or re- lated to industrial development is small in terms of the residual inventoried wetland acreage. However, there are other important considerations that need to IX-1 2 Table IX-3. Statewide summary of planned, proposed or potential industrial sites coinciding with wetland areas. County Total No. of Wetlands Acreage total per number of wetlands by type County Sub- Totals 5 6 7 12 16 Anne Arundel 3 2 109 21 130 5 Baltimore 1 2 14* 17 61 3 479 543 Baltimore City 1* 3 3 Caroline 1* 31 31 Cecil 1 2 13 41 54 3 Dorchester 2 24 24 Harford 3 200 200 Kent 1 127 127 Prince George's 1 3 17 39 56 4 Queen Anne's 1 15 15 St. IVIary's 1 10 10 Somerset r 275 275 Wicomico 1 20 20 Totals 41 98 3 177 910 300 1,488 *IVIore than one wetland type in the same area. IX-13 be taken into account concerning such use of wet- lands and other waterfront lands. In the past, the shoreline available and ideally-suited for industrial use was assumed to be plentiful enough to satisfy en- visioned growth needs. That situation may not hold true much longer against increasing pressure and com- petition between all potential users for remaining areas of undeveloped shoreline. This is due in part to growing human populations and attendant shorehne development in certain favored locations or else vacant land is allocated to other uses through pubUc programs and zoning. It has been noted elsewhere that land with deep- water access for marine shipping and possessing potentials suitable for future port-oriented industrial growth is already scarce in the Baltimore regional port area. ^^ Consequently, long-range economic development based on waterfront industry may re- quire locating in other than the Baltimore regional port area. Land that might be economically suitable and socially acceptable for waterfront industrial development outside the Baltimore region in the future could be in short supply. Since wetlands occur naturally at the land-water interface and because they represent sizeable tracts of undeveloped, low tax revenue generating lands to local governments (Ch. VIII), wetlands will be looked at and analyzed critically for industrial development in any shoreline development squeeze situation. Sand and gravel extraction. Within the industrial development category there is one use of coastal zone resources that merits specific attention because of its interrelationship with wetlands — mineral extraction, especially sand and gravel. The reason for its signif- icance is based upon the fact that onshore aggregate supplies for building and highway construction are reported to be approaching exhaustion in many urbanizing areas. This situation is due to depletion of available reserves, denial of deposits because of being built over or restrictive zoning regulations and environmental protection reasons. The National Sand and Gravel Association pre- dicts a generally critical supply situation near most urban areas within the decade. ^^ Locally in the Balti- more region, one comparison of future demand and projected availability (exclusive of zoning restrictions) indicates a "critical situation developing in 1985 or sooner with respect to sand and gravel, . . . However, zoning trends and current planning attitudes are likely to precipitate a regional natural resources availability problem even sooner." Also, the farther the source from demand the greater the need for very inexpensive bulk transportation, because a significant part of the cost of aggregate is in its transportation. In order to minimize this cost either supply must be located near demand or economic bulk movement must be feasible. These factors combined with findings of large deposits of sand and gravel in or near coastal waters have made the following two alternatives increasingly attractive. 1) For urban areas: dredging to barges and barge movement to demand centers. Sand and gravel movements are already second only to petroleum products in annual tonnage for most of the small ports near urban centers, such as those along the Chesapeake Bay.^^ 2) For beach nourishment: dredging and pumping directly onto beaches from either a back- bay or ocean site. Obviously, both of these alternatives for coastal sand and gravel deposits could have potentially adverse impacts on wetlands. Many activities in the coastal zone are affected by the extraction of sand and gravel, both positively and negatively. Foremost among the beneficiaries of an extensive supply of aggregate is the construction indus- try which seeks to serve the demands for facilities by a diversity of interest. Via this route, all residents of the coastal are affected in one way or another. Many of the diverse interests which can benefit from an inexpensive and ready source of aggregate can also be adversely affected if the environmental abuses cited earher (under dredging) are allowed . Recent proposals to extract significant quantities of sand and gravel from Maryland's coastal waters and near shore land areas have become very controversial because of perceived damages to wetlands and other environmental values. These include the Potomac River, Piscataway Creek, and Stillpond Creek proposals to mention a few. Since there is slight probability of developing economical substitutes or sources for aggregate in the metropolitan and urbanizing areas of Maryland, pro- posals for dredging extraction of subaqueous aggregate deposits can be expected to mount in the future. Resolution of coastal zone resource use conflicts, therefore, will have to be oriented toward mitigating or minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of ex- tracting available aggregate deposits. Summary on industrial development trends. Even- tually, development competition for remaining un- developed shoreline and inappropriate, unplanned allocations of shoreline for different uses may produce chaotic and unmanageable coastal zone land use pat- terns. To insure optimum allocations among all users of shoreline areas and adjacent waters, establishment of a Statewide priority system may be required. IX-14 c C o u e o d o o 1 o\ cm < ^ ^ Q. a. < Q -d •a c CI. cd 0) bO >. 0) a S O u _c TS" a uo on cfl VO oj ON S ■& '»-< Cfl S 03 U-t ^«-i O o '>. >. Vi w +-» 'S < ^ .S o o" S3 E o E o ^ o 8 d c w 2; o < IX- 15 For example, there are several different shoreline needs categories that might be established within in- dustrial development. These categories would aid evaluating site needs and the potential adequacy of certain locations to fulfill identified development re- quirements. Envisioned industrial waterfront cate- gories might consist of the following: 1 ) deep-water sites for ports and industries requiring use of deep draft vessels; 2) shallow-draft sites for ports and industries requiring or able to use shallow-draft vessels, e.g., barges; 3) contiguous uplands for industries that are linked by process, by product, or critical service to basic shoreline industries; and 4) sites for industries requiring water for process purposes only. ^^ '^^ Without some determinations on land and water needs for future industries development, management plans and allocations for other uses of the shoreUne and water resources of the State are incomplete. Matching or companion study and planning efforts on Statewide management plans for industrial development, even of a preliminary nature, are an essential input into shore- line land use planning activities. MARINAS Background A marina is a place on waterfront property that provides launching, mooring, docking, repair and ser- vice facilities for pleasure and commercial boats. For a marina to be functional, it must be on or accessible to navigable waterways. It must also provide or be a safe place for boats from storms. All but a few of the 308 marinas in Maryland are on Chesapeake Bay or bodies of water with easy access to the Bay. The 308 marinas had 19,559 shps and 1,909 moorings for a total of 21,468 berths. The majority of the marinas, 173, were in Anne Arundel, Baltimore and Cecil Counties (Figure IX-2).^° Originally, the marina industry started as boat- yards to support commercial fishermen. However, the majority of the marinas today cater to the pleasure boat owner, and only a few serve the commercial fishing industry. The industry's composition is that of relatively small business operating largely free of regulations in most areas. Acreage Losses The growth and development of marinas has had an impact on wetlands. Resultsof the wetlands habitat survey show that 1 ,100 acres were destroyed or signif- icantly altered for use as marinas. This loss figure represents 4.8 percent of the Statewide losses (Table IX-1). Most of the losses occurred to coastal types of wetlands (Figure IX-3). Their waterfront or shoreline locations, the economics of marina development, plus the ease with which they facilitate engineering altera- tion into land and water marina configurations explain the location and destructive use relationship. The marina facilities created by wetland reclamation in- clude dredging of navigable channels, boat slips, moor- ings and berths, and filling to provide convenient park- ing lots, roadways and land for repair and service faciUties, boat storage, and trash disposal. Much of this construction is by the bulkhead and dredge and fill methods. The material removed by dredging to provide channels and berthing spaces is often used to fill adjacent areas creating additional waterfront land. Figure IX-3 Destruction of Type 16 Wetlands of Kent Narrows for marina development. Future Marina Growth Trends Growth of marinas has been spurred by increasing numbers of recreational boaters. The growth of boating is due to more people with greater mobility, higher incomes and more leisure time to enjoy expenditures for outdoor recreational activities. Of the marinas in existence in 1965, about 65 percent were opened for business following World War II, and 38 percent began operating between 1956and 1965. Indications show an upward trend in boat buying and a consequent in- creased demand for boat facilities. Altogether, marina owners reported that they needed 30 percent more sUps than they had in 1965. IX-1 6 In addition to satisfying greater demand, other business reasons have dictated a trend toward larger marina facilities over original development stages. An important point is that the size of a marina determines land cost, and an increase in the size of physical holdings means higher total land costs. The investment in land for a marina varies because of at least three factors: 1) the size of the marina, 2) the location of the marina, and 3) the improvements to the land that will be needed. Concerning size, one recommended land/water ratio for marinas is that land holdings should be 1.25 times the water area.''- When this requirement is coupled with the trend toward larger marinas for economic reasons, the initial development costs due to land value become an important criteria in site selection. Since wetlands generally have lower market value than other lands with water frontage and are easier to dredge (less development costs), it seems likely that they will continue to receive consideration as prime sites for marinas. Location is a significant factor in marina development because it determines the value of the land in terms of investment costs and the desirability and utility of a site as a marina. Close proximity to population centers provides convenience to boat owners or renters. Marina clientele convenience translates into a desire to minimize travel and time costs between residence and marina. Consequently, marinas closer to population centers tend to have more use than outlying ones.'" However, shoreline available for marina development or any other purpose which meets the travel and time cost criteria is becoming scarce. As expected, land and shoreline located in or nearer populated areas sells for more than land in remoter areas (Table VIII-1) There is intensive shoreline development on the Western Shore due to closer proximity to dense population centers. Large numbers of recreational boaters have prompted and supported a heavy concen- tration of marina development. Proposed expansions of marina facilities to satisfy needs have resulted in public zoning and re-zoning issues, particularly in Anne Arundel County." However, construction of the second Bay bridge will probably provide a solution and a shift of problems elsewhere. Improved and immediate access will be provided to miles of undeveloped shoreline with comparatively uncrowded waterways offering a lightly tapped supply to meet the recreation boating demand for marina facilities. Improvement costs to sites selected for marina development often include bulkheading when wetlands are used. Where bulkheading was necessary it was often a major part of total marina investment. Bulkheading costs within total investment costs ranged from 10.4 percent for a 200 slip marina to 18 percent for a 50 slip marina. ''' Considering past and anticipated growth in boating, there will be a continuing demand for marina facilities and services. To meet the demand, it is apparent that new or additional marina development will take place in the next few years. Wetlands are likely to be marina sites because: 1) greater inducement for marina development on the Eastern Shore due to iniproved accessibility; 2) lower market prices for waterfront property due to less intensive shoreline development competition; 3) greater incidence of wetlands as shoreline features of the Eastern Shore than on the Western Shore; and 4) more attractive recreation areas due to less boating congestion and developed shoreline. Discussion on the Interrelationship Between Marinas and Wetlands Three salient points should be considered concerning future marina development that utilizes wetlands. 1 ) While the economics of marina development may dictate selecting wetlands as prime sites, one of the net results is destruction of the ultimate source of a primary attraction for marina kept boats. Sport and commercial fishing boats constitute 42.4 percent of marina kept boats. ^" Nearly one-half of marina business is tangibly linked to fishing. The fisheries resources supporting this business are in turn dependent on wetlands for part of their life cycles. 2) Marina development may result in undesirable spill-over effects. For example, dredge and fill operations often create heavy water turbidity and silting to ininiediately adjacent wetlands and submerged bottoms. The result may be partial or total loss of more aquatic habitat than that at the development site. 3) Once encroachment on a wetland has occurred, development tends to encourage further destructive incidents to immediately adjacent wetlands by various activities. For example, wetlands are convenient trash and other solid waste disposal sites. Seepage from septic tanks or spilled petroleum products may filter into nearby wetlands. Gradually, unintentional destruction creeps over greater areas of wetlands fostered by the initial development activity. Future development of the marina industry faces a paradoxical situation. Wetlands are attractive sites for marinas. However, such utilization of wetlands reduces a key elenient in the life cycle of many fish species, and IX-17 fishing is the primary purpose of a significant portion of marina boating business. OTHER USES General The other uses category includes public dumps and solid waste disposal sites, recreation (campgrounds and golf courses), and mosquito control work. Each specific use has not accounted for significant wetland acreage losses as yet. Each occurrence does, however, contribute to the net impact on wetlands and dependent biota. When viewed from a broader, Statewide perspective, the ac- cumulation of acreage losses from all uses becomes meaningful to natural resources management planning. Acreage Losses Losses from other uses totaled 735 acres or 3.1 percent of all acreage losses (Table IX- 1). Most of the losses were recorded for coastal wetlands such as coastal shallow fresh marsh (Type 12) and coastal salt meadow (Type 16). Losses are distributed uniformly throughout the State with the largest being Baltimore County sanitary land fill projects (240 acres), mosquito control work in St. Mary's County (120 acres), recreational use in Worcester County (90 acres) and Harford County public dumps or fills and construction on military reservations (70 acres) (Table IX-2). Thousands of additional acres have been worked on by the mosquito control program, but while altered, they are not considered to be destroyed biologically. Discussion Solid waste disposal. Disposal of solid wastes is a major problem. Traditionally, the most expedient and cheapest method is sought and adopted. Land fills and incineration are the principal refuse disposal methods currently available and utilized. Wetlands have been and continue to be used as refuse disposal sites (Figure IX-4). Such use is encouraged by the fact that they are not of direct benefit to the owner, their convenience and adaptability for filling, their location in rural areas, and a tendency to regard wetlands as "waste" land until reclaimed.^' A recent study of solid waste disposal problems in the Washington (D. C.) Metropolitan Region suggested several wetland areas in Maryland and Virginia as potentially satisfactory for solid waste disposal sites. Among those in Maryland were sites on Mattawoman Figure IX-4 Solid waste disposal into wetlands. Creek and White Marsh Branch in Prince George's County and Cedar Point Neck in Charles County.''" Unfortunately, such use would not be inconsistent with on-going solid waste disposal activities elsewhere in Maryland. One Statewide study'" showed that 14 wetland areas were being used as public or municipal solid waste disposal sites (Table IX-4). Improper solid waste disposal practices can also be the source of surface and ground water pollution if water enters a sanitary landfill in sufficient quantity to cause supersaturation of the refuse. Consequently, a highly polluted and malodorous fiuid may leach from the fill. This discharge can pollute ground water in the immediate vicinity or surface waters into which it fiows. "The continuous leaching of an acre-foot of sanitary landfill will result in a minimum extraction of approximately 1.5 tons of sodium plus potassium, 1.0 tons of calcium plus magnesium, 0.91 tons of chloride, 0.23 tons of sulfate and 3.9 tons of bicarbonate. Removals of these quantities would take place in less than one year. Removals would continue with subsequent years, but at a very slow rate. It is unlikely that all ions ever would be removed."*" Also, erosion of soil from landfill sites can be a major source of sediment in nearby surface waters. Land suitable for solid waste disposal through sanitary landfill methods near urban centers is limited. At the same time growing populations and higher standards of living are resulting in increasing volumes of solid waste. Consequently, solid waste disposal problems will intensify because some of the most logical disposal sites are planned for or already used by other uses. Since refuse landfills are not aesthetically pleasing, reasonable isolation is essential to minimize nuisance and public opposition. A site should be in a relatively undeveloped area with a minimum number of residences having a view of the operation or being affected by refuse IX- 18 Table IX-4. Wetland areas being used as public or municipal solid waste disposal sites in Maryland. Source: Collection and Disposal of Solid Wastes — A Maryland Program, Maryland State Department of Health, August I, 1966. County Report location numbers and abbreviated remarks Anne Arundel Site No. 4 - Furnace Creek - pollution and solid fill Baltimore Site No. 3 - Reliable sanitary landfill, 100 acres, swamp on the Patapsco Flats Cecil Site No. I -Town of Elkton, 10 acres, swamp on Elk Creek Frederick Site No. 1 - City of Frederick, 2 acres, pond St. Mary's Site No. 4, m a marsh Somerset Site No. 2 - Deal Island, marsh reclaiming operation Site No. 3 - 5 acres, pond Site No. 4 - 5 acres, pond Site No. 5 - Crisfield, marshland on Jersey Island Site No. 6 - marsh Site No. 7 - Dames QuarterMarsh Talbot Site No. 6- Tilghman"s Island Wicomico Site No. 3 - swamp Worcester Site No. 9 - swamp adjacent to Bunting Branch Allegany, Baltimore City, Calvert, Caroline Carroll, Charles, Dorchester, Garretl, Harford, Howard, Kent, Montgomery, Prince George's, Queen Anne's, Washington - None Summary 14 pond, swamp or marsh sites truck traffic. Exposure to view from major highways is often objectionable also. The necessity for isolation and high land values in developing areas usually limits landfill sites to rural locations and marginal lands. Since many wetlands meet these criteria such areas are often considered logical refuse landfill sites." Mosquito Control Program. The mosquito control program, administered by the Maryland State Board of Agriculture, is in its fourteenth year of operation. Currently, there are more than 800 communities in the Stale participating in mosquito control programs." Participation is entirely on a voluntary basis and predicated on community need and local financial assistance. The budgetary law underwriting the work provides for both temporary and permanent control, and requires the local taxing area requesting such work to cost share expenses." Temporary measures include larviciding and spraying or fogging for adult insects. Mosquito control operations in Maryland follow the guidelines provided by the Communicable Disease Center of the U. S. Public Health Service and the Federal Committee on Pest Control. The three chemicals normally used in mosquito control in Maryland are malathion, naled and abate. These chemicals are among those recognized by cognizant authorities as most safe when appropriately used and have label approval under Federal law for mosquito control." The use of pesticides in temporary mosquito control work in Maryland is widespread. This program is of high value to many citizens, however, in some quarters concern has been expressed about possible detrimental ellecls. Concerning this program, it was the opinion of the Commission on Pesticides that no additional regulatory legislation was required over the temporary program because of (1) apparent effective control of the public program by the State Entomologist; (2) the long- lasting chlorinated hydrocarbons have been excluded and replaced completely by short-lived materials with IX- 19 minimal toxic residues; and (3) the acreage receiving treatment applications is "small" in relation to the total acreage of the State. ■' Permanent measures of mosquito population control include: marsh ditching, upland ditching and filling, tide gate installations and related operations to eliminate, change or regulate the water in a breeding area to make it unsuitable for mosquito development.'' The permanent works program is concentrated on the Eastern Shore due to the nature of the topography and the wetlands acreages present. The data in Table IX-5 on wetlands acreage ditched for mosquito control is based on the ditch footage constructed and does not mean necessarily wetland destruction. However, significant alteration to wetland ecology has been reported previously under certain circumstances." Table IX-5. Approximate wetland acres ditched for mosquito control as part of the permanent works program in Maryland. Couniv Acres Ditched Dorchester 425 Si. Mary's 981 Somerset 10,563 Talbot 128 Wicomico 4,508 Worcester 14,681 Total 31,286 The policy governing both temporary and permanent measures in Maryland's mosquito control program is to provide or improve control but not to the detriment of fish and wildlife. The Slate Entomologist has stated that "mosquito control interests in Maryland are vitally concerned about Maryland wetlands and are attempting to follow procedures in the interest of their maintenance."'" Accordingly, in the implementation of the temporary program the practice has been to avoid applying any pesticides to areas that are predominantly wetland in character. Instead, ditching has been favored for at least two reasons. 1) Ditching permits the re-cycling of waters through tidal action, which allows rapid runoff of water accumulated following a high tide or heavy rain and prevents stagnate water conditions suitable for mosquito larvae development: and 2) Ditching permits the entrance and free movement of minnows which, as natural predators, eliminate the larvae. The permanent control program which may involve water impoundment as well as ditching has impacts on wetlands ecology which are not completely understood by the scientific community. The preference of State natural resource management agencies is to maintain the ecological base in as natural a condition as possible. However, the health and welfare of citizens affected by mosquitoes merits serious consideration and appropriate action by the mosquito control program whenever warranted. The problem is to attempt to balance the protection afforded by the mosquito control program against any unjavorable impacts on the ecology in areas where the program is applied. To resolve problems that may arise from time to time between the policies of the Department of Natural Resources and those of the State Board of Agriculture and the State Entomologist, closest cooperation and coordination will be necessary between the interested parties. NATURAL SUCCESSION Definition Natural succession is an orderly, sequential process of change in plant and animal communities. In essence, former wetlands are filled in by accumulated sediment and onsite deposited decaying organic material. As the wetlands fill in, they become less wetland-like in character and more like drier uplands. Gradually different plant communities replace former aquatic plant residents and different animal species inhabit the changed environment.'" (See also Ch. IV on the origin of wetlands). Acreage Losses Results of the wetlands habitat inventory show that about 1,060 acres were recorded as having naturally converted from wetland to upland or fast land. This natural process was responsible for about five percent of the total acreage losses (Table IX-1). All losses recorded were to coastal wetland types. Regularly flooded salt marsh (Type 18) experienced the heaviest losses (97% of the total) due to wind blown sand filling in the marshes on the inland side of Assateague Island. Discussion on Natural Succession In some instances organisms which man most desires to perpetuate are members of earlier rather than later plant communities. Many of the most desired game and fisheries resources thrive best in what are actually IX-20 transition communities. Since a particular organism cannot be maintained in nature without maintaining at least the essential parts of its community, in this case wetlands, the challenge is to learn how to halt succes- sion and keep the desired community permanently in existence. An alternative would be to allow succession to proceed normally, but arrange sufficient numbers of areas to be continually coming into the desired stage. PUBLIC WORKS General Public works include county roads, State high- ways, bridges, power lines, v/ater and sewerage lines, bulkheading and other engineering works to prevent or control shoreline erosion, and public boat launching ramps and parking areas. Public and private sohd waste disposal sites (dumps and fills) are discussed elsewhere in this chapter as are navigation improvement projects. Acreage Losses Public works were identified as the cause of destruction to 1,000 acres of wetlands (Table IX-1). This loss, constituting 4.2 percent of total recorded losses, was distributed rather evenly among all tide- water Maryland counties (Table IX-2). The large amounts of sediment generated by many public works projects also had damaging (but difficult to detect) effects on wetlands and their ecology . Future Trends and Implications of Public Works Projects to Wetlands Of all activities listed under pubhc works, road construction and the installation of water and sewerage lines may have the most significant future conse- quences to wetlands. The impact would not be large in terms of direct acreage losses from these activities, but indirect from other developmental activities en- couraged by public works. Road Construction. Roads are one of the most important factors leading to eventual man-induced ecological changes in any area. Much of the State's shoreline is inaccessible except by water transportation or is remote from heavily populated areas because of limited existing land transportation networks. How- ever, road construction would alter this situation and make presently remote and inaccessible areas suitable and attractive for development. For example in Caroline County, "lands along the lower Choptank River have prime development and recreational potential, but access to the waterfront is limited. However, selected road improvements are aimed at opening up housing and local recreational development opportunities along the county's attrac- tive riverfront areas." Construction of the first Chesapeake Bay bridge in 1952 was a major improvement in land transportation accessibility to the Eastern Shore. Among other results were notable increases in shorehne residential develop- ment in Queen Anne's County, particularly on Kent Island. ^^ Work on a second bridge, paralleling the first, commenced in 1969 and is due for completion 1973. In addition, proposals have been made for two other bridge crossings of the Bay in Maryland. One would be between Calvert and Dorchester counties and the other between Baltimore and Kent counties. If either or both bridges were constructed, much of the Eastern Shore would be within commuting distance to the Baltimore- Washington metropolitan area. Water and sewerage system installation. Many of the Eastern Shore soil types are unsuited for septic tank drainage field usage because of high water tables. These soil types often underlie wetlands or are in close to proximity to them. As a general rule, soils that are best for agricultural purposes are also suitable for building sites and other non-agricultural uses. Homesites plan- ned for poorly drained soil areas will need a centralized sewage collection and treatment system or special means of waste disposal, if the quality of surface and ground water in the immediate vicinity is to be pro- tected. The installation of a central sewerage collection and disposal system will promote and permit the devel- opment of wetlands and other areas previously un- developable because of soil conditions unsuitable for septic tank drainage. For instance, "the initiation of sewer facilities, coupled with the extension of the water system (run by the city) in 1963, opens North Ocean City to virtually unlimited development. Many of the system's new clients are new subdivisions, such as the controversial Caine Harbor Mile and Caine Keys 11 developments." A State program for county water supply and sewerage system planning®'* may facilitate the develop- ment of previously undevelopable areas where soil con- ditions would not meet satisfactory percolation rate tests for sewage disposal via septic tanks. Certain reg- ulations formulated by the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene for use in implementing the Statewide county water and sewerage planning pro- gram have special significance to future shoreline use allocations. For example, one such regulation is that which deals with the minimum requirements in the county planning program. IX-21 "Show how existing and programmed water sup- ply and sewerage facihties will conform to water quality criteria and stream classifications established by the State of Maryland." "Study uses of water for purposes other than water supply and waste disposal and shall show how and where opportunities for such uses will be provided. These uses include recreation, commercial and sport fisheries, agriculture, navigation, and esthetic enjoy- ment." "Take into consideration and coordinate the per- tinent objectives and planning of other counties, the State of Maryland, and the Federal Government."®^ "The Health Department shall assist in the re- quired coordination. Section 0405 — Prior to approval by the Department, all county plans, revisions, or amendments shall be submitted to the Department of Water Resources by the Department of Health for advice and information on matters pertaining to water allocations, adequacy of industrial waste treatment and the effect of proposed withdrawals and waste dis- charges on waters of the State.' .66 Discussion on Water and Sewerage Systems' Implications to Wetlands Comprehensive land use planning undertaken for local governments in Maryland has pointed out that development should center at established communities and rural centers. The net effect of this action would produce urban clusters and avoid ribbon development, preserve open space, and conserve important cultural, esthetic and natural environmental values. Cluster development also facilitates optimal ultilization of community services at minimal ccosts. The potential impact of improved road networks and greater acces- sibility to the Eastern Shore threatens the recom- mended long-range development pattern. The attractiveness of shoreline areas makes them prime for development and recreational use if acces- sibility were improved. This situation will create additional pressure for local and State road programs to improve accessibility to areas with development poten- tial. There are, however, Hmitations on sound residen- tial development without central sewerage collection and treatment systems due to unsuitability of soil for septic tank usage. When new pubhc policies on sewerage system plan- ning, shoreline areas not previously suitable for septic tank installation could be susceptible to development. With this factor is combined with improved acces- sibility through better road systems, present develop- ment patterns and consequent implications to natural environmental values could be radically altered in a short time. SHORELINE EROSION General Erosion of the shoreline on Chespeake Bay and tributary estuaries is a process which results from the combined action of waves, tides and stream flows acting upon reaches of the shoreline exposed to these forces. The erosion process results in the detachment and transportation of soil particles' from the existing shoreline. Waves generated by wind blowing over large areas of open water (fetch) are the greatest erosion hazard. Although waves generated by passing ships are also a source of eroding wave action in certain locations. An important consideration in assessing losses due to erosion is the rate at which it is taking place . The rate may be highly variable depending upon the configura- tion of the shoreline, the direction and force of wind and waves, the frequency and intensity of storms, the movement of sediment along the shore by currents, and the composition and structure of the coastal materials. In some Maryland shoreline areas several thousand feet of erosion has taken place in a period of approximately 100 years while in others the amount is perhaps 25 to 50 feet or less in the same period of time. ®^ The purpose of this section is to briefly survey and assess relationships between wetlands and shoreline erosion. Extensive study and work has already been done on the mechanics of shoreline erosion. Maryland's problems, and possible solutions, primarily by the Maryland Geological Survey.®^ 70 7i Acreage Losses As a result of shoreline erosion activity 1,200 wetland acres have been lost. Coastal wetlands have experienced almost the entire loss (Table IX-1). High- est acreage losses were in Dorchester and Talbot coun- ties (Table IX-2). For a 25 year span based upon the difference between U.S. Geological Survey maps of 1942-44 and the year of the wetlands field inventory (1967-68), Maryland's average wetland lossratedue to erosion was 40 to 50 acres per year. The actual, even- tual net result was the conversion of certain types of wetlands into another type - submerged bottom areas. About 100 individual wetland areas are currently undergoing active erosion (Table IX-6). Nearly all of these areas are on the Eastern Shore and coincide with reaches of the Bay shoreline noted for high shoreline 7 2 erosion rates and acreage losses. IX-22 Wetlands listed in Table IX-6 do not represent either an inclusive or exclusive group. The information gathered on this subject was incidental to habitat in- ventory work. Consequently, it is not certain that all wetlands experiencing erosion were identified because no specific request was made for such information during formulation of habitat inventory data sheets. Also, wetland erosion data does not mean that all of the indicated acreage is undergoing erosion. If it were true, then erosion losses would probably be much higher than shown. Wetlands Providing Protection To Upland Areas The physical characteristics of wetlands some- times lend themselves to providing a natural form of protection against shoreline erosion. The low-lying pro- file of seaward wetlands are less susceptible to destruc- tive wave action than shoreline uplands. Consequently, wetlands offer much less soil material compliant to wave action. Shallow waters common to wetlands cause a reduction in wave energy prior to reaching shore. Abundant wetland plant root growth serves to stabilize the soil by holding the bottom material in place. Submersed plant growths also reduce wave and current action which may cause deposition of sus- pended sediments thus adding to the growth and stabihty of the area. Plant communities may establish themselves on shallow offshore shoal areas or bars built up of material eroded and carried from elsewhere by the currents until diminishing velocity causes deposition. Once wetlands are firmly established and stablized, a wetland 's inter- posed position on the former shoreline may prevent or buffer erosive wave action on the former shoreline. "One interesting change is on the north side of the Great Choptank River near its mouth, where there was once a pond or small lake which con- tained a vigorous growth of a water-grass common to many shores of the tributaries. When the land surrounding washed away, this vegetable growth not only remained intact but held the dirst and other material that swept upon it, until it became dry land entirely surrounded by water, and is now officially known as Nelson's Island. The shore that is fortunate enough to have along its water's-edge a vigorous growth of the grass I have just mentioned has the assurance of remaining terra firma about as long as if set with a thick growth of deep-rooted forestry. In many of the estuaries the grass, combined with the sedi- ment and flotsam, has defied the tides, and by a slow accumulating process has extended farther out into the water, instead of wasting away, as the earth, with greater specific gravity, would have done."^^ Results of the field survey show that 360 wetland units are buffering upland areas from active or poten- tial erosion. Largest numbers of wetlands and acreage are located on the Eastern Shore (Table IX-7). Discussion on Shoreline Erosion and Wetlands Future shoreline development may create or im- pose different erosion forces on remaining areas of natural shoreline. This may or may not cause greater difficulty in protecting against or preventing erosion of natural shorelines. However, experience has shown that construction of man-made works must be closely re- lated to the dynamics of the natural shoreline processes if such works are to be effective. Consequently , it is essential that any structure (protective or otherwise) must be designed specifically for the individual shore- line environment on which it will be located . Past experiences with the impact of erosion on shoreline development, the potential impacts of devel- opment on the forces of erosion, and examples of the results of man-induced alterations on the forces of erosion have perhaps not received enough public recog- nition. The State has recognized some of the problems of shoreline erosion and established programs for con- trol and prevention. Certain erosion control activities are authorized to receive pubhc financial assistance. Since numerous expanses of the State's shoreline are subject to the forces of erosion, including wetlands, any developmental activity in this area may be subject to those forces. With a public policy commitment to financial assistance for erosion control and prevention, the State should have thorough beforehand knowledge of all proposed activities that may become eligible for those funds or which ones through their construction might alter the forces of erosion so as to create situa- tions requiring the expenditure of public funds for corrective or preventive actions. SUMMARY ON COMPETING USES, THEIR TRENDS AND IMPLICATIONS TO WETLANDS Individually examining each use or activity respon- sible for wetland losses only illuminates small features of a larger picture. If every activity were to continue as an isolated demand competing with wetlands for space, IX-23 a JS ■a o c a •a c 3 •a X =1^ =;< =!= 0 bD ON C^ lA O - OJ O CN_=f ■LA cd ON r^ C—\AO CM O-J'CTNrH CO 5 CO U •* •\ •^ w^ •x •x -P r-i o lA H \0 CO "LA O C CtJ •=!j CM r^ CO O 4J O O O +J • o 00 C^ ("Aco r— o f-c^-d-CTN -d- s CM CM H o H CD bfl Cfl CM O C\J CO CD 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 XA 1 CA CO r-i a CA - r-i 1— 1 CD < CM fA -P & e-i • o s r-t OD .d" CTn C^ NO fA CO fA O. O- J- OsNO -=i NO XA 03 On r^ NO rH vO 1 -=f 1 I fA CM CD i-l - 0 O Eh < • O rH r-i r-i CO CM C-- s CD CD ^ U CO o O •- co x: £1 U CD rH 00 cn CD C f^ CD -P q +3 O CD q W -5 CD O -P 03 -P >i a -p -a G O +3 j-i ^ ^ u ■ H CD CO -P -H CO ■p c CD CD o CD rH x: q Sh o e CD 3 -P !> «w -p 00+3CDCDX100 CD O CO H in CO UUG(De.r-iOU ^ o CD cS 03 03 03OCD3O03vHO s CJ ffi H OQtrfCycOEnSS EH CO T! C 03 H -P CD CO q O! H -P CD XA C^ CD 0 EH EH fM C(H O O CO 0 o 03 CO 0 O 03 C?\ >- O CO -d- CO 0 ■n 3 H o q HH CO 0 -D rH O q $ IX-24 3 ca .S •a « en ta (1) Vh CJ tfl c •o o c r/1 o CJ nil c ■n e c 0 3 C C > — ;^ 60 T3 3 5 3 E ^ 3 O. IZl 3 ca H to ra 0) o t^ C^ r-l r^ XM UN rH H f^H O OO r-l f^ l-l *v ^ *» »\ r-4 M lA c-^ o m -J rH rH ■LAMDMDcO t~-\Ar^^LACN -CtOOOslMCOOOfArH O^LAt^t^AJ-O"^ l^O r^ CO o~u- _3- .J rA J- SO ■LA rH H CO o CO (A CO fA CM ■LA P- rH ^i • o r~- (^ r- c— o\ \0 OT-AfAO-JfA-J'AJ rHVO'^OCM'LArHCM 1 — I Cvj CA CA Q) - to fA -3 H CO <1) 1 1 1 1 1 o 1 1 1 VO r- III ^^ ■LA rH fA CA CA • o :2 --^s -3- rH rH CM 1-1 0) to (U in O < On J- T-Ti !•- C^ 0\ O i"0 t^ CM OD CO CJN fAlA ■LA CM CM o XA 3 HJ-MDfAOrHAJP- 1 r-C--OsO CA^LACACO C3\fA-:JHXA-a-'LA(A ■LA rH cJ" ON »\ rH rH vO O CM CM • O 3 r— r-^ J- c^ On o CA XA(JNOs'LA-3CM_:jr^ EH to 0) Sh o < _a 1 vO 1 lA VN CO rH ^A TA J- 1 CM OO rvj 1 _:J XACO c , 0) (Tl X) e -p j2 £h o O •H 5 g to m -P H •H (11 c -P 3 C O ■n N S •H rH C3 H-> x: m p: t^ 1>> nj tfl B a f-1 H Ul () x; C) H to nJ ■H -P £ O •p HJ c 0) •H x: +5 lO (1) •V iLl Q) n O h! C id (U IX-25 A the destructive impact on wetlands migiit be absorbed without significant loss of environmental amenities and ecological values. Instead, several of the activities are interrelated and as they proceed apace there is the distinct possibility of magnifying their impact beyond small-scale localized incidents into regional problems. As pointed out earlier, there are several undesir- able cause and effect relationships between public works, industrial and residential development, dredging and wetlands. The future locations of roads and sewerage collection systems will determine the pattern of development along stream valleys and other important areas of the State's shoreline. Introduction and promotion of development through expenditure of pubhc funds in previously remote or inaccessible areas represents a significant threat to wetlands. Inadequate recognition and attention has been given to the influence of public fund expenditures on certain State resource management programs such as wetlands, water quality protection, open space and outdoor recreation. In fact, unperceptive public pro- grams may counter other public programs and en- courage private opportunism at public expense. For example, "The capital investment necessary to make waterfront property usable ranges from high to very high . . . The net result is that most recreation- al waterfront development is assisted or under- written by government, and in large part by the federal government . . . "River and harbor development is generally viewed from a broad benefit to cost ratio; . . . Fortunately, it is possible for joint use of federal, state, local and private money. The Corps of Engineers has control of navigable waterways, and, where a favorable benefit/cost ratio is evident, can recommend federal funds for flood and river control, breakwater, and commercial waterways. The State and local agencies can, through bond issues and capital outlays, provide funds for recrea- tional harbor and shoreline development. Private enterprise can then proceed to develop waterfront facilities. "Private investment can, of course, run the gamut from leasing and operating on prepared public-owned waterfront to dredging and devel- oping water and land communities."^ New roads and sewerage systems will have a pro- found impact on future patterns of land development in Maryland, and they will encourage the destruction of wetlands. Especially troublesome in the future to the goal of preserving coastal wetlands will be waterfront housing developments and aggregate extraction activ- ities. Agricultural land drainage programs also threaten considerable inland (freshwater) wetland acreage for the following reasons. 1) According to Maryland law, the improvement of drainage on poorly drained cropland (some of it classed as wetlands) is considered a "pubhc benefit and conducive to the pubhc health, convenience and wel- fare." Consequently, there are organizations and activ- ities legally authorized for land drainage purposes. Activities pursuant to this purpose may purposely or sometimes inadvertently drain private wetlands. 2) Because agricultural drainage is an activity with pubhc benefits, pubhc funds are available to support and sustain agricultural drainage work. Therefore, land drainage projects are not of a temporary nature. 3) On-going projects, planned projects, and potential projects for agricultural drainage are in water- sheds containing most of the State's wetlands. A close surveillance must be kept on these projects by all concerned to prevent unnecessary damage to wetlands. The problem posed by each activity proposing to utilize wetlands is that ecological questions are asked last, if at all. Rather they should be first, and since many answers remains to be obtained through further research, the planning (and management) decision should always be conservative. Each new road, each new suburb, each new shore- line subdivision, and each sanitary system buOt in ignorance and neglect of the geology, hydrology and ecology will result in seemingly small locaUzed distur- bances to the natural environment. However, the sum of many small, local environmental disturbances may be a regional catastrophe. The coastal zone of Maryland , the areas where land and water meet, offers attractive opportunities for economic development and growth. Wetlands as a part of the coastal zone, are a fundamental feature of poten- tial development opportunities. Future management problems will not center on "whether development" but "what kind of develop- ment and how?" This is an important question in tidewater counties traditionally oriented to an agricul- ture and seafood industry economy. Gradually, much of Maryland's traditional agricul- tural-marine-rural character will shift to a non-farm and even suburban way of hfe. Such change is evident on Western Shore areas closest to the large and growing population centers of Baltimore and Washington and at Ocean City on the Eastern Shore. In future years the changes in land and shoreline use, such as already observed on the Western Shore and Maryland's Atlantic Coast may involved tidewater regions of Southern Maryland and the Eastern Shore. IX-26 It is useful to identify the fundamental goals of regional development and the challenges posed to re- source management to aid in understanding the issues at hand. Regional development goals should be to stablize human population; genuinely stimulate the local economy; broaden the economic base; pro vide jobs for the resident labor force; reduce reliance on the existing dominant forms of employment; and provide an ex- panded and growing tax base to shoulder the burden of increasing costs for more essential community services attendant with development. In attempting to achieve those goals, resource management problems will arise such as accommodat- ing development in a manner that will maintain, en- hance or be least destructive to the existing natural environment, and ensuring that economic development is an asset rather than a liability to the region in which it is to occur. Important efficiency and equity issues regarding the distribution of both economic and environmental benefits and costs by developing and /or preserving wetlands and associated resources must be satisfactorily resolved. These issues as regards wetlands and other coastal zone resources are becoming well recognized and documented.^* The divergency that exists between private and public values and goals and market system inefficiences must be resolved too if a truly balanced development program is to devised and implemented for coastal zone resources. The balancing act represented by and inherent in coastal zone re- sources planning and managing involves thorough con- sideration of the tradeoffs between economic growth and unavoidable destruction of environmental amenities on the one hand, while in the other devising those strategies which wiU best serve our society via the way we govern ourselves to achieve desired but fre- quently divergent, contradictory social goals. 5 I hid. 1 Jones, Carieton. Growth and problems continue (housing prospects for the i970's). The Sun, Baltimore, Md, November 9, 1969. p. 2, Section F. 2 The Conservation Foundation. Rookery Bay Area Project, Washington, D. C. 1968. 3 Maryland State Planning Dept. Counties of Maryland and Baltimore City: their origin, growth and development 1634-1967. Pub. no. 146. June, 1968. 4 Green, R. L., and C. P. Merrick. Drainage law of Maryland. Dept. of Drainage, Univ. of Md. Coop. Ext. Service, Extension Bull. 196, College Park. October, 1962. 14 15 16 19 20 21 The Michie Co. Annotated Code of the public general laws of Maryland. (1970 Supp.) CharloltesviJIe, Va. 1966. U. S. Soil Conservation Service. Written communication to the Md. Dept. State Planning from the Maryland Stale Conservationist (SCS). April 29, 1970. U. S. Soil Conservation Service. Summary of conservation needs inventory of Maryland watersheds, (mimeo). USDA, College Park, Md. rev. January, 1968. National Advisory Commission on Food and Fiber. Food & Fiber for the future. Report of the President's Commission. USGPO: Washington, July 1967. Ibid. Laws of Maryland, 1969, Ch. 692 (House Bill 801), repeal and re-enact with amendments. Sec. 52 of Article 96A of the Annotated Code of Maryland. U. S. Soil Conservation Service. Supra at 7. Resources for the Future, Inc. Resources, n. 38, September 1971. Adapted from Competition for Wetlands in the Midwest: An Economic Analysis by Jon H. Goldstein, published by RFF, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore. 1971. Shaw, Samuel P., and C. Gordon Fredine. Wetlands of the United States. US Dept. Interior. Fish & Wildlife Service, Circular 39, USGPO: Washington. 1956. Cooke, C. Wythe. Sedimentary deposits of Prince George's County and the District of Columbia. In, Geology and Water Resources of Prince George's County. Md. Dept. Geology, Mines and Water Resources. Bulletin 10, 1952. Sherk, J. Albert, Jr. and L. Eugene Cronin. The effects of suspended and deposited sediments on estuarine organisms. An annotated bibliography of selected references. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D. C. April, 1970. Ibid. Chapman, Charles. Channelization and spoiling in Gulf Coast & South Atlantic estuaries. In, Proceedings, Marsh and Estuary Management Symposium. (Ed. John Newsom) LSU, Baton Rouge, La. 1968. Ibid. Corps of Engineers. River and Harbor project maps, 1968. U. S. Dept. Army, Baltimore District. December, 1968. Biggs, R, B. The magnitude of the spoil disposal problem. FWPCA public hearing, Annapolis, Md. IX-27 October 30, 1968. Univ. of Md. Chespeake Biological Lab. Rel'. No. 68-90. 22 Op.cii. 23 Chapter 468 (Senate Bill No. 623), Laws of Maryland passed by the General Assembly in 1969. The Act authorized the creation of a State debt in the aggregate amount of $13,000,000 for the design and construction of one or more dike disposal areas and other appurtenant facilities to receive dredging spoil from the harbor and the approach channels in the water and adjacent areas known generally as the harbor of Baltimore City; and for acquiring lands, properties, facilities, structures, and options for these purposes and in connection therewith. 24 Maryland Board of Natural Resources. Report of the Commission on Submerged Public Lands. Appen- dix B, 18th Annual Report. Annapolis, 1961. 25 Statement by Walter C. Boyer, Deputy Director, Maryland Port Authority, at a public hearing on estuarine pollution, Annapolis, Md. October 30, 1968. Proceedings, Maryland-District of Columbia Public Meeting, Vol. H, National Estuarine Pollution Study, FWPCA, Charlottesville, Va. 26 Hollis, Edgar H. A critique of "A report to the District Engineer on the effects of the disposal of spoil from the inland waterway, Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, in upper Chesapeake Bay. (un- dated), (mimeo). And, Hollis, Edgar H., et al. A literature review of the effects of turbidity and siltation on aquatic life. Dept. of Chespeake Bay Affairs. Staff report. Annapolis, Md. December, 1964 (mimeo). 27 Maryland Board of Natural Resources, Supra at 24. 28 Ibid. 29 Cronin, L. Eugene, et al. Effects of engineering activities on coastal ecology (interim report). Corps of Engineers, Office of the Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army. September, 1969. 30 Committee on Government Operations. Our waters and wetlands: how the Corps of Engineers can help prevent their destruction and pollution. House Report 91-917. 91 Congr. 2d Sess. USGPO: Washington, 1970. 31 National Technical Advisory Committee. Water quality criteria. FWPCA. Washington, D. C. April 1, 1968. 32 Chapman, Charles. Supra at 18. 33 Baltimore County Office of Planning and Zoning. Preliminary 1980 Guideplan. 1969. 34 The Back River Neck and Patapsco Neck Peninsulas are rated nationally significant by one study. Muncy, Dorothy A. Inventory of port-oriented land: Baltimore region. Md. Dept. of Economic Development. 1963. 35 Center for the Environment and Man, Inc. Coastal and estuarine areas: Appendix U — North Atlan- tic Regional Water Resources Study Coordinating Committee. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. New York. (First draft). January, 1971. 36 McCarl, Henry N. The mineral aggregate industry in the vicinity of Baltimore, Maryland. Unpublished doctoral dissertation — Pennsylvania State Univer- sity, State College. December, 1969. 37 Op.cit. 38 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Waterfront industry. San Francisco, California. February, 1968. 39 Muncy, Dorothy. Waterfront industry around San Francisco Bay. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. San Francisco, Calif February, 1968. 40 Lyon, Gale H., Dean F. Tuthill and Wm. B. Matthews. Economic analysis of marinas in Maryland. Md. Agric. Exp. Sta., Dept. Agric. Econ., Contribution No. 4100. Univ. of Md., College Park, April, 1969. 41 Ibid. 42 Chaney, Charles A. Marinas, 2d. ed. Nat'l. Ass'n. Engine and Boat Manufacturers, Inc., New York, N. Y. 1961. 43 Op.cit. 44 Graves, Aubrey. "Rigid Restrictions on Marinas in Anne Arundel County Proposed" The Washington Post. July 11, 1969; and "Marina Operations, Zoning Officer Clash." The Washington Post. July 18, 1969. 45. Lyon, Gale H., et al. Supra at 40. 46 Ibid. 47 Black and Veatch Consulting Engineers. Solid waste disposal study for Washington metropolitan region. Northern Virginia Regional Planning Commission, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, and The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. October 1, 1967. 48 Ibid. 49 Maryland State Department of Health. Collection and disposal of solid wastes — a Maryland program. August I, 1966. 50 Black and Veatch, op. cii. 51 Ibid. 52 Letter from the State Entomologist to Prince George's Board of County Commissioners, March 13, 1968, in Report of the Governor's Commission on Pesticides, September, 1968. IX-28 53 Laws of Maryland, Ch. 42, 1956; Ch. 454, 1957; Ch. 40, 1958, Ch. 585, 1959; Ch. 40, 1962; Ch. 598, 1961; Ch. 69, 1962; Ch. 845, 1963; Ch. 68, 1964; Ch. 298, 1965; Ch. 138, 1966; Ch. 199, 1967; and Ch. 418, 1968, 54 Letter of the State Entomologist, op. cit. 55 Report of the Governor's Commission on Pesticides, September, 1968. 56 Mallack, Jerry, et al. Mosquito control in Maryland. Md. State Board of Agriculture. Bull. No. 1 (revised), September, 1966. 57 Bourn, Warren S., and Clarence Cottam. Some biological effects of ditching tidewater marshes. USDL Fish and Wildlife Service, Research Report 19. USGPO: Washington. 1950. 58 Personal communication to the Department of State Planning from the State Entomologist, November 11, 1969. 59 Odum, Eugene P. Fundamentals of ecology. W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia. 1957. 60 Niering, William A. The life of the marsh. McGraw- Hill Book Company, New York. 1966. 61 Harland Bartholomew and Associates. Comprehensive plan, Caroline County, Maryland. April, 1968. 62 Tarrant, Julian. Comprehensive master plan, Queen Anne's County, Maryland. 1965. 63 Basham, Thomas. "Ocean City sewer system hailed: $5.6 million dollar project near completion." The News American. July 31, 1969. p. 4-C. 64 General Laws of Maryland, Article 43, Section 387C. 65 Maryland State Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Departmental regulations formulated to implement Article 43, Section 387C, Laws of Maryland. (43L0I — Regulations for planning Water Supply and Sewerage Systems, Section 04 — Requirements Applicable to County Plans.). Adopted: September 23, 1966. Effective: October 15, 1966. 66 /6/rf., but Subsection 0405. 67 Governor's Special Committee to Study Shore Erosion. Shore erosion policy for Maryland, A. Rept. December, 1961. 68 Wolman, M. Gordon. The Chesapeake Bay: geology and geography. In, Proceedings, Governor's Conference on Chesapeake Bay. September 12-13, 1968. 69 Singewald, J. T., Jr., and T. H. Slaughter. Shore erosion in tidewater Maryland. Md. Dept. Geology, Mines and Water Resources, Bull. No. 6. 1949. 70 Slaughter, T. H. Shore erosion control in tidewater Maryland. J. Washington Acad. Sci. 57, 1967. 71 Maryland Dept. Geology, Mines and Water Resources. Proposed shore erosion program. Educational Ser., (pamphlet 1) 1964. 72 Singewald and Slaughter, op. cit. 73 Wright, Charles W. Chesapeake Bay — "Mother of Waters." Address before The Eastern Shore Society of Baltimore City. March 25, 1919. (mimeo). 74 Slaughter, T. H., op. c;7. 75 Maryland Dept. Geology, Mines and Water Resources, op. cit. 76 General Laws of Maryland, Article 25 (Sections 161- I67E), Article 66C (Sections 756-758A) and Chapter 563 (House Bill 39 of 1969). 77 Rick, William B. Planning and developing waterfront property. Urban Land Institute, Tech. Bull. 49. Washington, D. C. June, 1964 78 Goldstein, Jon H. Competition for wetlands in the midwest: an economic analysis. Resources for the Future, Inc. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore. 1971. and Craine, Lyle E. Institutions for managing lakes and bays. Nai. Res. J., v. 11, n. 3, U. New Mexico School of Law. July 1971. IX-29 SURVEY OF WETLANDS AND GROUND WATER HYDROLOGIC RELATIONSHIPS INTRODUCTION The purpose of this survey is to present results of a review of hydrologic relationships between wetlands and ground water resources in Maryland. The principal sources of information were previous studies undertaken by the U. S. and Maryland Geological Surveys. DEFINITIONS For discussion purposes, several of the commonly used terms are defined here: Hydrology is a science that deals with the processes governing the depletion and replenishment of the water resources of the earth's land areas. Hydrologic cycle refers to the system of continuous circulation of water from the land and sea to the atmosphere and from the atmosphere to the land and sea. Because the system (and its processes) has no beginning or ending, it is known as a cycle. Ground water is water that is contained in the zone of saturation — saturated voids in the rocks of the earth's crust and the saturated mantle rock and soil. Water table is the upper surface of the zone of saturation. Jt is not a flat or constant level, but fluctuates according to amounts of water supplied and withdrawn as well as surface topography and geological structure. Unconfined water occurs under water table conditions and only partially fills a permeable bed. The surface of the water is free to rise and fall since it is in direct contact with the atmosphere through soil and weathered rock. Aquifer is a geologic formation, part of a formation, or group of formations in the zone of saturation that is permeable enough to transmit water in useable quantities to wells or springs. Aquiclude is a bed or layer of soil or rock that is either semipervious or relatively impervious to water movement. Confined water completely fills a permeable bed that is overlain by an aquiclude or occurs between aquicludes. Consequently, its surface is not free to rise or fall, and the water is said to be under artesian conditions. Artesian conditions refer to confined water under sufficient hydraulic pressure to cause the water to rise above the top of the bed in which it occurs when tapped by a well, though not necessarily to the land surface above. Recharge to aquifers means water replenishment by precipitation in the outcrop area of the aquifer, or by leakage from adjacent soils or rock. SUMMARY ON GROUND WATER HYDROLOGY Occurrence, Source and Movement Ground water occurs in aquifers under unconfined (water table) or confined (artesian) conditions. Water table conditions occur where the top of the zone of saturation is in direct contact with the atmosphere through the porous soil and weathered mantle rock. Under artesian conditions the water in an aquifer occurs beneath a confining bed. When the aquifer is tapped by a well the water rises to a level determined by the hydraulic head in the recharge area less frictional losses resulting from transmission through the aquifer. Ground water is replenished chiefiy by precipitation that filters through the soil zone in the outcrop area of the water-bearing formation (aquifer). Only a small part of the total amount of rainfall becomes ground water. The majority of precipitation becomes part of other phases of the hydrologic cycle (Figure X-1). Water stored in the ground is moving slowly from one place to another in response to differences in hydraulic head under confined and unconfined con- ditions. Movement of unconfined ground water in water table conditions is controlled in part by the configuration of the land surface (relieQ and the permeability of the deposits the water is moving through, Unconfined water discharges occur or emerge in low places such as seeps, swamps, springs, and stream beds. During periods when there is no surface or overland runoff from precipitation, ground water seepage or discharge may maintain stream fiows. The movement of ground water in artesian aquifers is controlled by the regional geologic structure, the hydraulic gradients, and by differences in permeability. The direction of artesian ground water movement is from points of high elevation ( or hydraulic head) to points of lower elevation (or hydraulic head). Wetlands and Ground Water Hydrology in the Physiographic Regions. For survey purposes, Maryland was divided into two physiographic regions along the Fall Line. The Fall Line is denoted by a series of falls and rapids in stream valleys between the Piedmont-Appalachian to the west, and the Coastal Plain to the east of this line (Figure X-2). These regions serve as subdivisions for discussion on ground water hydrology and wetlands relationships. It should be clearly understood, however, that specific instances concerning ground water anomalies can be expected to be X-1 at variance with the general overview discussion that follows. Piedmont-Appalachian. Understanding of ground water occurrences, availability and movement in this region is governed by several complex factors such as the degree to which rocks are jointed, fractured, and faulted; the relationship between an aquifer and overlying topography; the amount of precipitation and evapotran- spiration in a locality; regional geologic structure; and aquifer characteristics such as porosity, permeability and thickness. In the Piedmont-Appalachian region ground water recharge is provided by precipitation. Because of a predominance of gently sloping to rugged terrain, rapid surface runoff is facilitated for most rainfall. Conse- quently, the net percentage of precipitation that becomes ground water is relatively low. Precipitation that does become ground water generally moves downward and laterally from upland to lowland areas. Natural discharges occur at springs or in stream beds where the land surface intersects the water table. Examining the geographic and topographic locations of inventoried and mapped wetlands in this region shows that they occur along or coincide with surface drainage patterns in places of lowest relative elevation. Since wetlands are found along streams whose flows depend in part upon ground water discharges, wetlands are probably not recharge areas for aquifers in the Piedmont-Appalachian region. Coastal Plain. The underlying geological structure of this region consists of a homocline dipping to the southeast which is comprised of a huge mass of unconsolidated sediments resting on a sloping surface of crystalline rocks (Figure X-3). The Coastal Plain aquifers occur as a series of irregularly shaped wedges that gently dip to the south and east in conformity with the regional geologic structure. The recharge areas for these formations outcrop as a series of concentric bands in upland areas near the Fall Line.' From west to east on the Western Shore (Fall Line toward the Bay) the Coastal Plain aquifers are the Patuxent Formation, Patapsco-Raritan (undivided) Formation, Magothy For- mation, Aquia Greensand, and Piney Point Formation. Except in their outcrop areas, all of these formations function as artesian aquifers. Water table conditions prevail at the outcrop areas. Under natural conditions the outcrop belts function as recharge areas in upland localities and discharge areas in lowland localities.- Since all of the above-mentioned major confined aquifers outcrop on the Western Shore, they are several hundreds of feet beneath the surface when they reach the Eastern Shore (Figure X-4). Few possibilities exist for interaction between wetlands and Coastal Plain confined (artesian) aquifer hydrology. The most probable occurs in the aquifer outcrop areas on the Western Shore when and where water table conditions prevail. Wetlands commonly occur in lowland (shoreline) localities which are aquifer discharge areas due to the hydraulic head resulting from recharge in inland outcrop areas of higher elevation. There is some limited potential for brackish water intrusion into aquifers in certain wetland areas, but it is not believed to be of great significance. The following specific localities detail where this wetland-aquifer hydrological relationship might exist. 1 ) Anne .Arundel County. "Well logs in the vicinity of the Patuxent River south of Laurel suggest that a hydrologic connection may exist between the river and the basal sand in the Patuxent Formation, in which case the river would function as a recharge source."' Wetland unit No. 4 of Anne Arundel County is in the immediate vicinity along the north bank of the Patuxent River. Heavy pumping from the Aquia Greensand aquifer might induce salt water to move into it from numerous brackish water estuaries in the Shady Side-Deal vicinity (Anne Arundel County Wetland units nos. 18-31 and 35- 41) shown in Figure X-5. The magnitude and immediacy of this hazard is governed partly by the thickness and uniformity of the silt or clay layer commonly present on the bottom of the estuaries. Where clays or silts form an extensive, impervious cover over the underlying aquifer the entrance rate of brackish water will be substantially retarded or reduced. ■" 2) Southeastern Prince George's County. Aquifer contamination is reported to be a possibility by inducing water from adjacent saltwater bodies through heavy pumpage. This situation exists for 10 to 12 miles along the Patuxent River (Prince George's County Wetland unit nos. 13-21) shown in Figure X-6. "However, the silt on the bottom of the Patuxent River may form an effective seal to prevent leakage of brackish water into producing aquifers."' 3) Eastern Calvert County. Overdraft of aquifers might induce brackish water contamination in certain areas along the Patuxent River. These areas are across the river from ones identified in Prince George's County. The area where this potential exists in Calvert County encompasses several wetlands (Calvert County Nos. 1- 13) shown in Figure X-7. As noted previously, the silt bottom of the Patuxent River may form an effective seal to prevent the leakage of brackish water into producing aquifers if the potential does exist.'' Eastern Shore. Two important Coastal Plain aquifers, the Manokin and Pocomoke, outcrop on the X-2 Eastern Shore. The Manokin aquifer receives recharge from overlying sands and gravels of the Pleistocene and Pliocene series.' Water table conditions prevail in this aquifer at depths ranging from 5 to 15 feet below land surface. The recharge area or intake belt for this aquifer ranges from 2.5 to 6 miles wide and lies beneath many wetland areas along the Nanticoke River, at Elliott Island, Bishops Head, Bloodsworth Island, and South Marsh Island in various parts of Dorchester, Somerset, and Wicomico counties (Figures X-8, 9, and 10). Here the brackish waters of the Bay and marsh areas have access to the aquifer. However, so long as the fresh water potential from the inland area remains high and pumping rates from the aquifer do not become excessive, possible encroachment of brackish water is remote." The Pocomoke aquifer is an extensive water-bearing sand underlying certain parti of Somerset, Wicomico and Worcester counties. The intake belt or recharge area of the aquifer is 1.5 to 4 miles wide and strikes northeasterly from the Crisfield area, through Marion, Westover, Nassawango forest and Willards to the southeastern corner of Delaware. The intake belt is buried beneath the Pleistocene and Pliocene mantle and receives recharge from it.' Its location passes beneath a number of wetlands in Somerset, Wicomico and Worcester counties (Figures X-9, 10 and 1 1). However, there is believed to be little, if any, direct hydraulic connection between either the Manokin or Pocomoke aquifers and wetlands. In most instances, the soils of wetlands or soils underlying wetlands are poorly drained or impermeable, a prime reason for extensive wetlands on the Eastern Shore. Consequently, it is quite unlikely that these wetlands could be functioning as recharge areas to underlying aquifers, since their existence is due in part to the impermeability of their soils. Another reason is that although there is slight topographic relief in many of theEastern Shore wetland areas, there are discrete drainage basins. Therefore, each basin functions as a semi-independent hydrologic unit. In ground water aquifers beneath the surface drainage area, there is lateral movement of water from the high points of the water table at almost imperceptible basin divides, to lowest points being creeks or marginal marshes. Thus, the wetlands are in areas of ground water discharge. CONCLUSIONS Ground water supplies to aquifers in the Piedmont- Appalachian and Coastal Plain regions are replenished primarily by precipitation. Wetlands do not have a signitlcanl recharge function with the State's major confined (artesian) aquifers. These aquifers are overlain by aquicludes that prevent potential recharge from wetlands. The most common wetland-aquifer hydrologic relationship is on the basis of aquifer discharge or rejected recharge because of the hydraulic head produced by recharge in upland (non-wetland) areas. The hydraulic head in the aquifer prevents any recharge from wetlands when they may coincide with an aquifer, which is generally in lowland (shoreline) localities where the land surface has intersected the unconfined water table and not the deeper lying confined aquifers. The same situation exists for the extensive unconfined aquifers and near surface water table condit- ions on the Eastern Shore. As long as the fresh water potential from inland areas of slightly greater elevation than wetlands remains high. Coastal Plain wetlands will remain aquifer discharge or rejected recharge areas. The only occasion when wetlands might function as aquifer recharge areas would be under conditions of reversed hydraulic head caused by heavy pumping of shallow aquifers adjacent to estuarine water. However, such conditions probably would not develop because in many wetland and shoreline areas shallow aquifers are often already brackish. Where this potential does exist, the sediments deposited on the bottom (a process encouraged by wetlands) probably form effective seals to prevent intrusion of brackish water into the producing aquifer. 1 Maryland State Planning Dept. Ground-water aquifers and mineral commodities of Maryland. Pub. no. 152. Baltimore. May, 1969. 2 Ibid. 3 Mack, Frederick K. Ground-water supplies for industrial and urban development in Anne Arundel County. Dept. Geology, Mines and Water Resources, Bull. 26, 1962. 4 Ibid. 5 Mack, Frederick K. Ground water resources in Prince George's County. Maryland Geological Survey, Bull. 29, Baltimore. 1966. 6 Ibid. 7 Rasmussen, William C, and T. H. Slaughter. The ground-water resources in Somerset, Wicomico and Worcester Counties. Dept. Geology, Mines and Water Resources, Bull. 16, 1955. 8 Ibid. 9 Op. cit. X-3 'y ........ -il- ■.,-■ Figure X-1 General schematic of the hydrologic cycle. X-4 Figure X-2 Location of the Fall Line and physiographic regions utilized in this report for discussion on ground water hydrology and wetland relationships in Maryland. X-5 NTAKE AREA -AQUICLUDE '-AQUIFER "AQUiCLUDE Figure X-3 Idealized block diagram illustrating various geologic features related to transmitting water laterally from an aquifer intake (recharge) area in the uplands of the western shore to the eastern shore via formations which lie under Chesapeake Bay. X-6 Ava a>ivadvsaH3 SnOdVNNV •a a m >. 3 Vi }-4 V3 0. 60 c 6 0 >, 0 c u •a JS c t3 3 2 D =: J3 c UJ n C en t-< B 3 a •^ '*~ 0 C 0 a ■^ •n r ) U M u r; 3 0 CJ Vi 'nh ^ vOvO O -~^ Eh •^ •\ •N O iH !-\ CA 1 tA &^ iH lA lAvO OO CJ\ J--^ CEIJ- jo" O ^-^ CN CM ro •>_• iH CvJ -3- H (A J- C\J CM O — J ■LA^^ CM lA r- v_^ rH •\ •s •\ »\ l-l i-H (A 1 CM o'i^ ^— V ^--. , — ' ^~>y O- vO --^ r- rH O O o o t-O [>- CM VO vO--' CO Cd >-— ^ vO lA l>-3 rH CTn rH rH oo" P-, MS r^ rH -d---- CM ^-^ o -^ CO O CO H 1:: ^^-^ r-i iH rH 1 •»— ^ o § hj EH ^ O C- O lA rH CM y~^ rH rH-Ct lA v\-~^ r- v^ vO ^^ o o OO O iH OO M rH--^ CM CA r-) TArH oo" o o" CO O 00 CM ^^ w ^^ ,-^ o w '-^ , — ^ (0 to t% to CO (!) 0) (!) (!) O o « w W CO t^ o O C c CO o « O ta C C CD 0) l<^ < o M 0 1) U Sh H S ^ 5^ ^ Si W (U 3 O @ Q e M M !-i W !h 3 ^@ (U 3 Eh ffi w ca o M Q) O M nj o gs° >H O O Eh O M fe 0) O C5 Q) ^gg S O S ■a; tj . Q ti . M U ' CO o . a O ^ CO o o O O O woo W •=« O 5 ^ w S . p) =>; S5 s -a: S •a; S Q S ^ ^ "" S s; Q CO M 1 « o 0-, s rH a §^ (0 0) -p cfl :3 U +J (1) f-r > OJ (U 43 CO -H c U Q) -p (ti 13 m Si t>a to -P (U +3 Sh 0 i^H h Dh G) O -> nJ c tM d) fH !> 3 cfl to K E si 0) o P, O O kI O rH rH to Cfl 0) O, -::t ^^ -ct i>1 ■p (1) c u 3 cfl o C) 0) (h (1) 0) xi r. -p -p c •s •H c o to •H u ■P ■ri ■H O •n l> T) ^1 cfl a) to c 0) M u A-8 !>, -P U 3 O O Q) U O H •H ■P H ffl m n •H to TJ C 0) i-l +> (1) • 13 to n) t^ in O 1 tin trt o M C TJ •H C +J (fl (U a UJ H > (fl u o till -p a c (1) t > o c si M to 0\ I > i-t .a ctl Eh I-l +> qj to C -P 0) -3 v£> O 4) a (u 1 1 CJs 1 0\ 1 1 C^ 1 r^ o OD -P •H (D vO \A C\J • 0) U Q H CM XA a. -P (-^ s m o 3 CJ T3 G M o 1A t— CM T5 to ■P G CO r-t C CO CO a> n) a) cu ^g: CM lA "O C^ OJ 1 ■P O Ch to r-i o fn O 3 a) -p 6H , n1 -P J2 B t) 3 O O O +J -P !>j ;h -p 0} •rl > H r-l •H (fl 4J CJ 01 Ss c W crt 0) i-H u -p 3 a) -P 3 3 » (8 ^4 O +J -P S SZ (U 0) m > 0> H P 01 EH H^ S &^ 1A 1-1 CO vO O M3 -^ M o • • • « • • o O Eh O CA vO r^ O r^ VO 3 fc P- rH O rH 1 ON d^ o CO t^ ■LA CM CM C^ CM lA C- ON \0 l>- ON CM -— • CJnvO J-iH lA r-H i-H LA lA Eh -J—' r iH -^ J- iH CM o •\ •\ •\ Eh r^ -J 1 -:? ^^^ ■LA O O m VO MD rH^O lA rr\ vO o o o-\ rr\ J-^-' VO ^-' J-VO C^ CA rH CO ^^ ON 1 CO J- o o" c^'m oo" o'o r^ O tA rH fH -^^-^ J- J - — ^ CM CM ■laG" ^-^ f^ rH CM o" CO l/N CM CM rH r--v_^ rH CN iH 0\ CM CM rH CM — ' r-H lA C7\^^ rA ^ r CM CM CM CO w PL, r: ^^, CM CO vO r^ o o CO o CO r-l r— O O r^ rH iH v^ -a -3- CNJ o OS^^ CN C3n ^-^ EH ^^-v ^O o o >- rH O O o o r- O r^ rH 1-1 -— ' r-H rH ^— V lA o'o CAIA i-H r-\ o o j-o J CO -J—' i-H >_- i-H -LA rH \A r-i H ^-^ ,_-^ ,— ^ ^^„^ O M to m IQ CO ?^ S2 (D (D 0) 0 w < H CO O o o o CO Cd H ■3 2 ^ c (D d^ H o a; 2^9 a 3 & W ^ c; fc n & Eh -si: o a o 1^3 M Q) 3 Eh 03 3 M 3 H 0) 3 EH K ca < m M O ■a; bfl O CE CS o >H M O CD < W cd o cc nj o CJ 0) O o cd o S o "^ Eh o @ [i] CD O a OJ O H !h O g s ° S W o o CO o • O O • « • CO o • s 3 •=<; o S < O o w <=; o S Q CO • 5 3 s ^ a s 5 > w cs o CO z a t-i 1 0-, s A-10 -p 1-1 G ts m 1 0) -P 0) o o m o o o o t< E-i CO o o O C33 o OJ o P- =H hJ 1-Pl -J o H o 0) to r-l W) <1> nj n) 03 o -p 0) CO O fs o Eh O i-^l o O r-t CJs O NO < u -p O I ' 1 r-i • (^ r-1 CM -J- • O r^ H -J- CO CT) C >- w 0) •H n1 t ' 1 o I CM r-i CM -3 NO CNJ S o o c 0 s -=f OnI NO & C O 3 o o o •H CO o , — a t t 1 l-r\ i-l I CM OO en CM !h O (-1 s o CM CM -3 • 0) "-I ^* ^ P > F s O CD ■H O 1 1 1 1 t 1 O o s fn XI < o s (0 CO O ^ ra •H t< H O 1 1 1 r- 1 1 t— lA CO J3 S- • o 3 P-, -J o (1) CO -J 2 1-1 H a) ^^ ^H •ri o M O CO •H 0 CO o ' 1 ' ' tn I-l O CO 3 X o o s -P 0) CO a I I 1 (^ 1 1 c-\ 3 1-1 TD H o r-i I-l T3 ■p C CO td (D ■LTv so t^ C\J ^f NO CO C CO s C -P OJ R 4:: 3 O O O O -P (D ■H -P r-t T< O i-H f^ -H «1 ^ o ta C (U •H C r-i CO 3 •O > B 0) 0) H ^< -P 3 0) -P S 3 4-1 Vl O "O ^ B >a CD O -P B ^■J 3 f-i rH -J^ c^ CO 0 00 CM w 0 s 0 • • • ■ 0 6-1 CM v£) 0\ r-l 0 H OO □s r-{ ^ CM rH 0 H GO W ClH r-l 1 CL, 0 CO ^ m CM m (^ CO 00 CJSMD <^ On -d- m r"^ CM rH ta l-Pv r-\ rH CM CM rH 0 rH Eh CO —^ CM v_^ 0^ CO - — OS CO rH H 0 -s •s •1 •\ ^ ^ EH m C^J MD 1 VO r^ c^ H rn t— -cf 0 1>- f^ r^ ^— >* vO CM ON^^ VO rH CM \0 XA t^ C\] On 1-h 0^^ t-i rH -~^ \r\r-{ 0^ ^^ rH CJS rH CM C\J 1 CM -d- r~ CM r-l 0\'fn •Ll^CO 0 XA XA rH v£) -^ J CM CM CM rH -^ XA r-l r^ XA C— VO 0\— ' rH -3 H r^ 1 a CJ ,-— .* ■LAl-A [^ CM XA CM r— TA CM l>- ^ 0 0 0 0^' rH r-{-^ CM r-l 1 OJ rH ^-^ a s a1 1^ C-- rr-i c^-d 0 \A CJN rH CJs ON 0 CM \f\ l/N-^ — \r\^-^ -3^-^ CM I rH CM rH r^ r-l > N r-l lA r^ rH r- (^ -^ 0 r^ rH ^-^ 0 0 C^v_- CO v_. \D CO 1 CO ,— ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^.^ Cd [0 tn CO m 0 W (D w Q) 0 3: 0 0 0 0 0 Cd < M 1-:) c: S C c CO K W 3 CO 0 § hJ 0 K ^ < CJ Eh < cr, 6-1 H 0 3 0 n CJ W ^ M 0 KJ ClJ 0 P3 nS 0 m cfl 0 0 (1) 0 0 QO cj cd oJ 0 Eh 0 0 CO %■ . ^S§ < g g ^ S ° Q t^ . 0 0 S > w CO Z Q 0' 3 A-12 a g Xi m o o •H 0) 1 1 \A -^ CO p^ u e c^ CM O ■p i-l H CO « 5 rA T3 H c M o OJ -3- CJ CO 13 -P C CD CO c n CS T3 tUJ 3 C rH cri O si a o •H (> !>5-P -p G >. 3 -p O •H o rH ■H f-1 ^ •H cri C) u Q) Q) C3 a r-l n 3 •H > to Q) T) ^ c 3 cri -P H 3 -p Cm 0) s -o u Cm cri o -p >» c u (u o to -p 0) c f-i 0) O. f» s Cm M O • ■lA H ( M > 0) H ,Q crt EH SH^ s ^ iH ao OA OO O CO CM tcj O • • • • • • « o en CM i-a MD "LA O -LA -^ @ fr* -^ CA H O H H 1 CO Ph o en ^ ,-— ^ VO CO r-t^ CO CA MD CO n r^ ■LA On o c- rr\ CM rH f^ J- rH AJ o fn OD — - CO - — -J---' VO--' CJ\vO CArH O •N •* •^ •\ '•*--' EH r^ iH CA 1 r^ CO C7\ C3\ CA CO OO CO CO o3 ■LA CA O rH r^ CM c«- c— O tA y— ^ rH ^-^ CM ^ — ■LA--^ CKIA -Ct— ' 00 (^ CM •\ •\ •\ •^ rH f^v_. H rH CM 1 CM CO w y— ^ lA H {^■LA •-^ O l>- CA C— H tH -J- CM Os^-' C---J- CN C-A UA CM ^ t~- rH -^ -^ ^-- iH OA-^ vO 1 \0 •— - Q § h-P •^~^ Eh ^ V y N "■ ^■ 0\ rA \D CM -Cf iH r~- On T-n CM '■ > CM CM r-t § sO rH ^-^ CO -~^ CM -— - CAiH rH 1 iH — ' vO '— fA 3? I^-IA H 0\ -"•"^ y-^ -=t O ir\ CM — ' r-\ -~- o o o o rH rH v^ W ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ y — ^ y— ^ __ 53 C3 1^ CO (D o CD CD s Eh 0) K O c CD (D ^ o RY TOTALS RIED ACREi TED ACREA ACREAGE FENCES S txO 3 ^ ^ s 9 M 1 (U s A-14 4^' a 3 O o H •H O » CO ^ c> hi) -p M (1) •g > o C ^ ^ (D r-i E-t r^ +3 cs to P -ff 0) VN OS VO O O (D O CO a • • « • O +i CO O O XA (^ o O !^ O ON o o 0) Ch H^ r-i r-i a. o 0) H CiD CO n) ciJ 0! C^ CO CO -p CD to O ri-i f^ r~- rH O Sh CO ■LA VO E-l O O nj ^q (JJ 0) o H a rH (D U -H 1 r^ 1 1 (^ UN f^ a) Cc f> J^ x; — o 3 o -p o • o O iH o s rH o CO ci C-- NO ao fn K 1 1 0\ CNJ r^ • (D ■H UN £1 s fH cfl o 2^ o c - iH -:? UN C H CS O J- -^ o ■H 1 1 1 _cr -J- to CO CO to O fci r/l M o CO CO o s 1— I t-- NO r^ CO T5 •H 0) I 1 i-H rH r^ • C CO O CM CO [^ IS 3 CA CO O a: • 0) o CO ^ CM lA r— 3 bfl rH c cfl •H •H -P ^^ > CO CO On OJ -P (D 1 1 1 r-i H • Ph to a CO £ 3 o 13 o c M • o CO CO s •o CO a -P 0) cfl 0) CO G CO ^ & CO H CD 3 UN VO C-- r-H tfl O tfl 0) -p ■P Sh O :3 o EH (U ^=8 A-15 «M O a <> •H -P m 3 H ^ 0) tin s •H T7 3 rH O • C :, 05 -P x: C o D O o o -p CO !>» 0) -p rH ■H U rH 01 ■H J^ X3 ri cri U c OJ •H t; rH m ^ X! ^ c ni ID c u M u. • r- H 1 M > 0 i-« M a E-t EH^ S o o\ H c~- CA O -\A OsO CM On CM -LA H CM On Q ►-1 SO cv so IfN r^ rH CO OJ -J- CO ITN o ai CO ^-^ so ^^ CM — ' fAv^ •LA fA rH H &H •\ •» •k •\ •\ N.^^- O H CO rH rH rH 6h rH 1 ^ ^^ l>- rH iH lA rA On rH fA 00 Co •o o o ■LTN iH NO ^-^ O ^-^ CM O H H rH CM -— ' H rH lA rH -3 On iH r— rr\ NO CO "LA J C--1A CM CM CO CO iH - rH C3N (^ CM -J rH -=t-^ 0\— ' ■LA CM v_- CM CM o ^~-' cn T-r> >- 1 t^ w Pm /-"^ ^"■"^ y^~S. -^-^ ^ ^^v vO On TAnO -:a^ CM ■LA-=f rH CNJ O c- c^rH C^^ CM CM fA r- rH v_^ f^^_- -J- ■LA lA ■»^^ Q C— *\ '. 1 j_] CM H dO O w n; o a:) s Q (i. 3 H • A-16 hn c •H 5 O J3 03 >J -P Jj Q CJ 0] (1) H ^ Si o c •H to T3 C ol H +J -a a) m 13 01 tn h S O m h m O UJ o o H (n 0) (1) m till D oj (1) Cm t. O § !>» S-( o -p c 0) 0 c CO r-l Irl > M +S CIl (0 C +^ 0) 0) o m o E-H m o O o O o O tH o e e 9 o 0 =M hJ r-i CNJ r- O PL, O t^ CM O r-l (U en ^^ &0 (U rt nj 10 o o -^ 1^ r^ CM +J 0 10 t^ O CO O !-, O CM 1-1 rs Eh O i-J ■=>; 1 1 m CO 1-1 ^4 rH CM 0 ■LA X^ CO 0) o c ■p O 1-A o CM CvJ -3- g CO 3 o u 1 1 r~ 1 C^ o '-' 5 CO CvJ rH o H 3^ • o ^ r— d • tH a, o H iH o s o (D bD > 43 C 0 1 f^ -a- CO Xr\ s H ol Qi ~i 0 ! 1 -J- MD O O o H CM CvJ • CO 0 •H lA f^ • CO &r o CM r-i CA 3 CO o < s H M-H -d C O 1 H On lA lA c •H ft J- ^^^ -d- nj M W • CO 73 ^ -3 0 ^ 0 J^ o H vO i-l CO CO O s H • CiT CD > C ■r1 0 1 1 O vO NO •H Sh O c-\ f"^ NO +^ P 0 CO r^ P- :=i • E -a O c O M o s OJ 1-1 r~\ T) +3 CO m a 0 nj 0 r-> 0 en ■P Pa CM vO -P Im O n) UN ^ f- I-l H o 0 o t5: E-l o. A-17 a <) •rl -P cri T rH Ol > (U bl) H ■H •n 3 r-i n • a 0) •H bl) t», {J -P si c o 3 O o u 4-> !w >1 fl) -P -P •H to iH fl) •H d ^ CJ 0) fM ^ t) <1) « C r-l U 3 •H !> [Q 0) ■n ^ c 3 (rt -P 1-1 3 -P >» c ^1 0) s f-1 (l> o. l> c <*-l M o • a\ i-l M > 0) iH U (It tH ^^ S EH o. c^ vO CO O CO CM M O • a • • • m • O El O o C^ o o o CTN S^ CM r-t vO o rH 1 ON O, O w ■LA t-- O. r^ CM ^ JNO O J- NO rH ^ sO ^^ tr^ r^ On CO C~-1A I>- [-- On CM \A M^-' vO ^^ 0\^— ^ fA CTN lA H H «^ *k •i — ^ o XA r^ CM CM 1 fH tH CM tH CO CM H CM rH ^_^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^~v CM r-l CM fA CA CM H ■LA .'-^ OnJ- CO CvJ On ca ^- 0\ CO -^ i>- o o On cm Ov x-- \A^-' -Cf -LA CO >— ^ i-i CO --^ CO CM r^ 1 CA NO -— CM ■-- r-i 1-1 On^-' tA CNJ — ' CTv 0\ -J- ^ ^ CNJ 1 •^ •\ 1>- 1 r-- H CM CM fH CM CM -^, iH r-! w p , s ^ ^ ^ ON O On CO '"x ^ V CJn r^ O I-l CO On On CM a [^ n^ r^ CM -d" CM CK^-' CA CM § - -_' •. r~ ■u\ »\ CO 1 cc" 3 •\ CvJ CM CM E-i ■lA CM M 3 ^-x ^-^ ^— ^ -— ^ NO O NO ^J J- r^ CM r^ o o r-l 1-1 .^-^ — t X ' C~- — ' On C5N -O o o rH ^ 1 rH r-l ,'— X CO ro -:J vc CAM \A tA CM CN ir\ o o r^-_^ 1 — ' x~^ I-l v_^ \£> rH ■LTv ■ ■ -a- r^ C-- 1 C^ G I-H M -"^ ^_^ ^^^ O C3 W CO w m O CJ s: CO =i O a) o o 3 .-^ — V J Ci3 . ^ r-l 0) § o a K M , W P r-' M I-H Q o i 1 W ni - W ta 3 O ej 3 T? rt Oj +3 M ^i"! O < Em w o ^ (D o a o o =-P U s < Cd >i 8-< O bQ LO o O O O O •a; O O J-i o o o S o 3 ^o- ==^C. a !^ ca t +^ a O a CO CO o f— * s s s w ;2 CT a • ^ © ti — ^ > a cs o a o ^ 1 0- z A-I8 bO C ■H % O Xi m ^ C g o u 0} +J IQ a> xi o u o R c •H X! K C CB nj to H 3 ■p aj 0) o ^^ ;^ -p O -H Q) Q) m m ? 10 o bfl H c •H -P M o CM Eh -P H c ca 0) -P o o CO CO -d- o CVJ vO o CO O O U E-1 CO « O i-H p Ov • 0 0\ o O O o J 1-1 VO o 1-1 o <-l w CO -:3- 05 rt 3 CD CO r^ o O rs vO OJ CN to H CJs 0\ CO CK O Sh O <-> lA VA CO Eh C hJ •=i; NO s- 1 1 1 1 CvJ J \D 9 1-1 H H X c o CVI i-l -^ "" CO ■LTl \n • ) 1 1 1 1 1 O O o H 1-1 1-1 4 « 3 O r^ ^j g : s i-l I-l ?-. , ;3 o o r O c } 1 1 1 0\ f- J- o CO • f^ o -cf o\ On o c 0 1-1 r-1 CM CM H O CD :i 2 H -3- CM r-l 1-1 E 3 r- ^ J* S 1 J > xJ : -1 H XA MD o rt - 4 3 m CD • m Cfl J 30 o cn J- o < a; s 1-1 a> CO O [>- H CO c-l o CM QJ - i2. - 1 1 CvJ C^, 1-1 H O i <5 r^ H rr\ t— < c 1h S m •v c M C H 1 ■~o NO o 1 I ON 1-1 O lA NO 1-1 -p ' 0 'is M r-l r^ r-l H H Sh O 3 s -a- -^ 1-1 H CM u c o to CD • M > C (D 1 . ' -^ OJ CO 7? H • H H g O H rr\ O -:J 0) PC s H r-l -t • O to > ri d) C^ 1 o 1 -J lA CM ■LA to -P o\ r-l 1-1 Q) to to 3. 0 as O c o MS 1-1 H 1-1 CM \A to 4^ CO ^ 1 M3 l>- CM r-l 1-1 H IB -P O O CO t< O nJ (U o li. FH. Q. — ' A-19 ^ o o -p -p CM I :^ ni 0) M Cm n) O 0) 4^ O c — o r^ o o §-^ >- o o • o o O >i <^ sC U -P rH 0) C Oh 3 o o to On CO [^ ON °o CJ 1 CVJ +3 r— CM CM rH ^— ^ r-i rH o E-i •\^ — •' rH Cvl CM ao \AO\ °s o H r C7N 1^ H ON to m d) (U o o nJ CJ 0) M a M Ih D tH 3 >= •rl T3 ttJ u 4J 3 E-i Ji 0) O O Q) O U f-l (U 3 •H (D o «i; B) o cc to o M C tr! bo o a o >i -p O H M O K m o 6h 0) o g ■p o § O ■H W « O W nJ o o to CD • U WOO fe. o o <; s X S c 0 %^ o _J A-20 ^^ rr\ CO CM f- O r- cr\ w o m vO • e CJ\ • CO • • O oo • rH • O Eh vO H o CA •H S fc rH 1 ^ a o •H •p 03 PU O (D CO 3 1 Q) „_^ ^^,^ § CO CO vO c\J lA CN voG" l>- CT\ -cf r^ >- t— c Eh O "UA Cv] VO •--- lA^ — ' O rH co o C^ CA •H J- r-t CO OO v^ CM CO On I CO ^ ^ 3 Q) EH -P H bO O c f^ G rt CD •H XJ -P 5 d Count lity to CO CN O f^ •o 0\ I>- C3\ •-\ o- -=t rH x: CM rH CM H r-H — ' SO J- CO O rH CO N^ Q CO r^ ^„^ ,_^ ,-^ OO o ob 0^ c CQ CD Lr\ CM V— ' o o o o o o CM CM -~^ 0 t3 fn s ' — ' — ' ^-^ & C 3 1-4 cd -P Eh Q wetl id fu ^ CO 0 Cm CO O -p xr\ c^ _^,^ ^_^ lA O •LA 0^ O C\J oo" CM — o o o o CM CM ^^ cd O M ;H -p CU C i^ rH cd C o •H Cd s CD CU M O • CM CO 1 M § W > CO CD CD CO CD CD CO CD B CD CO CD W CD & CO O Qi >-^ ■< O ■ H W O CO x: Eh S S Q Pi O CO M 1 Ph S * A-21 Table VI - 23. Inventory of uses competing for wetlands in Harford County showing acreage losses and causes. Competing use or cause of change Wetland Types Total/ use or cause Percent of total losses 2 5 12 Industrial develop. - - 20 20 2.5 Housing development - - 359 359 Uii.U Dredging & spoil disposal - - U7 ii7 5.8 Public Works - - 125 125 15.5 Erosion - - 15U 15U 19.1 Dumps & Fills - - 23 23 2.9 Marinas - - 32 32 U.o Other -military - - hi U7 5.8 Total losses/Type 0 0 807 1 807 100.0 A-22 s:; o •H -P cil 3 1-4 qt !> a> hi) • c 0) • H no •n c -1 en r-i x: V o a •H o -p S ■P >, a -P 3 •H o H tJ •r-l XI -p n) n Ih 0) 0) « c 1— 1 c 3 •H t» CO (U TJ u c D n) •P H 3 -p ch (i> S T) C i c ^ (U o m +J a) c Sh 0) Ph > c tH M o • -=l CO 1 H > d) 1-1 XI crt bn •LA ■LA XA LA O LA LA M O • • • • • o ^ O O PA LA O ■LA J f^p. C\J ■LA cy O CN r-{ 1 eu o ^ ^ ^ ^ CO XA^ OJ CO iH f- --Ct CA rH E-< •\ •\ w s ^ O h" fA H 1^ 1 C-^ E-H vO H CM CA ^^ o'P r-vo rH I^ -rt "o r-i r-^-- OO iH O.^' CM rH C~- CM -ct CM Os CO ^^ CM rH '-^ CM 1 r-l CM J- ■LA eg o o' H AJ LA CM rHLA VO 3 iH OO ^- <-Av_- CM r-i 1 rH rH C\J OO SO r-t H M O mH^^ s M OS u Cti ni o O CD O D (fl O Eh o g fc (L> O M 0) o t-i U O Cd, Pi] ce; O > ^ CO S O M 1 Oh s A-23 bD c % b 43 m >> +> c 3 O o -p c 0) « c • ■H to C) m m Tl 3 c Cll n) n H -P ■d (B c s ttl Sh CO O (1) 01 (11 M a cit H 0) O tn o o 01 (Q (U en 3 (H o !>> u u -p c <1) > c M • ITv CJ (D H E-1 -p 1-1 c Gi m 0) -P Q) ^O >- C\J CM r^ O o o to o o o • • o ^H E-i to O o OS O OS 1-1 C3S O QJ O P^ 'M »-q r-\ -3- CM s o (U CQ HMO) cd nj CO ■P 0) CO o o VTN n~v ra \A t-- r~\ o t, o C» 1-1 CJ r-N Eh O ^ CSI i-l -3" < f-. 1 1 1 vO 1 Ov u\ © r^ CM CO s: • • -P o O S3 " ■LA r^ ^ SO CO t^ 01 • c 1 I (^ c~- H t~- CO 1A •H ^ cn CM M3 H CiJ O s 3 i-l vO iH tn iH I-l c CM o I 1-1 i o I CM r^ • •H H CM ■LIS CO C3S to H t) O CM \A CO •u\ to w 3 1-1 (D O 0) • (1) !h > ^ 3 01 t 1 1 CO 1 1 CO / -P O r-< r-J CM 3 H • o 3 ^ o O o •H tl -»- Ch M O f^ f«~l o «;s CO (U J.; XI t< 1 1 I CM r Os 1-1 E o o H p •H S 1 1A c-l CM 42 • T3 C <£ ^ CM c^ ■LIS CO r-l 0) •H to O to P. o Men 1-1 •H o3 1 ' 1 1 1-1 ' r^ -S w M C3S T3 01 O • (D f-i O H I-l CM O o s ■=i; • to M > ■D C 0) 1 1 1 1 CM -=t [^ O^ c •H O CO CM 1-1 CO I-l H P o O so ^ X 3 CO 1-1 [^ SO CSI S: r-l H. tH tt) o ■H • U > to -P Q) I I -3 1 p- r 1 H 0) CO Q C^ cn r-i so m P rH • s T3 ■lA C CM o M g r-l CM en x( H P c to CO ;3 in rt Q) H ai Q) :;^& nj J i Sh i o -p c XI ■p o p c > CM > H 0) E-- CO --V ON <^ o • O O •H H •H (U G CU O c (B !i 0) O M O M tti O woo CO o s 3 (D o &D O X nJ O M in • WOO •a! S m ti) o C (1) s ^ >^ d f. a) o PC, tn; o F-1 n! o r/1 (1) |iJ Jh • H c> o «; ^ o o H CO , CO --- j---^ -^-3 J-3 J3 o •H :s ;^ •H o > (U m <0 fn C o ft (1) p * crt m (1) 1-' >-. d o -P 1 o rB ■p t^ 0) p tH n) O -P ro eri fi> u U o o nj ■^ ^ c n CT\ •H tin (1) » ^H -p a) J3 '-{ -P o •'-I -, -p T) ■d 0 ct) H O c c M-H A-25 Q) bl) S •H ■n D rH O u • •H a) bl) to c m n) a M () J-i O o a> -M n t>. 0) ■^ o •H c l-l •H •H in ^ tL, (It ^^ s 0) •H LJ H tn a •n > t; 01 U) r-l f-i -P T OJ -P s 3 ■iH !i-l U -n c >> en u o -p -p c c 0) a) m > 0) u Itn M a 2 ^^ a F^ a o C~- ^o o o- o f- CA O &H • • • • • • e S fa -J- CM XA r^ o t- CM lA or, o C7\ D-, O c-l 1 W J t-- p^ r^\0 VO ■LA CA CN OS rA vO -d a; CO CM rH m [^ CM rA rH O fA r~ oo Eh r^— ^ c^ — ^ 03 v_. \0--' CM SO XA »_> O •» •^ •V » E-f -a CM CO 1 r- t^ oo" o'o CA CM OsAj" CM 0\ fA CM i-H CM -~^ r-i CA^^ SO CA r-t 1 CM r-l > V CM \0 ^ — V ^ — ^ t^ CM XA r^ C\J o o C^rH fA r-\ C\J XA O 1>- CA H rH CO CM t^-— ' C3N », t CM CO CM ^-x VO J OSIA VO rA r-t VO XA rH r- m CJ f^ rH CK rH On r-l CM CJV CM PA ^ CO ^-^ -^ •~' ■LA^^ -3--' VO_3 rH — ^ H ■\ •\ Eh rH CM -^ ' -3 Q 5 ^^ ^^ ^-^ .^-^ , — ^ vO o o ^O r-\ C^ CA \0 tA CM vO vO -Tt kJ v™^ > — ^ CO --^ CM rH CM CO 1 r-\ 1 •;?^ -Cf CM -3-3 O O CM O CM P- m O CM rH ^— \0 x-' CO CA CO PA CM n-\ o o" ITv CM o "o o'o XA O XA CM ^"^ iH -~^ ■ ' r-l r-l H o o" o'P oo" o o" o o O H ' ^ rH --' — ■ r^ r-l W r-, a w ,^^ ^ s CO w to m Q) 0) w < W CO (D (D O CO ct; M g W ^ g ;RaTE age rrenc J'„ s H O K 3 ■< o w g M 33 CB C i 0) & Eh < O Q o M M O 0) 3 >H WJ 3 &^ W Q ^ ^ § W CS D W H Cc: >H Eh o g O O O s «< o M « o > "~^ ^-^ CO 2 Q M 1 D-, s A-26 >, •p H D O O n 0) til) !-< () (1) O 0) o (-; •H ^H U-, C •H to T) (-.' IT( r-t J-> m • :2 (0 (1) i-i CO (3 3 ch ert c> M t; T) •H « -P cn 0) Q. CO R 0) O en C) CO n (0 H fl) en (1) 3 tui en tH 0 f> ^1 C) >> en ^^ o bO -p c K CI) l< > () C s: M CO • CO CM r-H iH -P cfl CO c -p cu iH c^ -a- CM O CI) O CO o o o • e • « O 4-> CO -J^ CD rH VD o n^ o l>- rH o 0) CM rH rH Ph O 0) M CO r-l nJ CD n3 0) CO o o o vo VO CM C3N r^ -P ^ CO C>J ON l>- f^ r^ o o o J vO H ctJ i-l r-< r-l •H Cu 1 1 ! 1 VO O 1 xO i-r\ O- rH rH • 1 E CM 3 ^^ Q CP -p -.- o o rH r^ CM s Q) • CO fn > a) 3 0) ! 1 1 1 VO 1 1 VO en o -P Q -a J- c r^ r^ (U 3 ^ o ^ •H o f-i M 9 o < o H rH o a 1 o CO 1 t, !m 1 1 I 1 CM rH rH -^ rH 1 0) o o CM C^ pH VO XI •H :3 o rH rH c XI 3 • fl. o CM (M rH ■LA ■n s c CD 1-1 CO =a -H 0) O 1 1 1 1 1 1 rH rH CM CO M P. • CO C C/1 O o -H r-1 6D 0 CD t< • cfl Q o rH r-i 0) s b o cfl W > CO C CD 1 1 1 CK C-- rH t^ -a- CM "D •H a rH r-\ cn CM CJN Q CO r^ r^ CM CO 3 MD O • -P tc o CM C\J rH 1 1 1 r- T-r\ 1 1 CVJ r- •H CD o rH • CO u a iH iH i>- 0) p rH CO CO 3 3 cfl o T3 C A M _o iH rH CM •o CO -P G CO cfl 0) rH a CO CO CD (U ^S H c^ T-Pv \0 r— CM o^ P> O CM to rH rH O Jh O 3 M 4J Eh © Cfl S Ph O A-27 o •H -P > Q) c •H H O o c o •ri +3 ■P -P C -H 3 i-t O -H CO u ~ 1 (^ o •p c cvi > 13 G n) ■P c (D Cfl (!) O t-- -^ OJ c^ O r^ CO -:■' e o « • • ■ C rj vO lr\ o t-- O f- OJ cfl V) -P r-l m m H O r-{ 1-1 1 oo U o o Q) E-1 a. O G" -d- c^ CO r^ en <3s msCI fA I>- r^ lA -^o" m t^v_^ ■Lr\^ tn^^ c--- — CA t~- so 0\ I-l MD ■UN O c^ o t- OJ rH n) •t r\ •\ m. •. "N •»N.^ -P r-4 O-N m H O iH OO o I-l 1 E-i ^'-^ o r^ t-- O H roiA JZ^-^f JiH CO J J-O H CVJ -~^ tn- — CO ' cr\-^^ sO CA CA rH ^ I-l r-l J^p-l CA^-' ^ ^_^ ^ ^ vO J- UN O On OvJ O C^OD o~\ t^ so3 rH •LA^-' o\-a- c^ m ^- (A CN r^ H«a CVI On^-' ■LAV-' sO ^— ' -a- so S ts »\ n t •w-'- r-l H -3 CA -J 1-1 oo" ■Lf\V\ h'P >- OJ (A C— SO OJ ■^— ^ 00 ■— On^ — •J3 V— CO so r-l i-J r-l CM -Cf I -CJ— - ^ ^ _ r^i -an ^r^r^ cnh" o o" so O SO CTN r-l CVJv_ rH^-' -CJ -:J— ' ^^ ^_^ ^_^ CvJ OS H i-H -^ OJ VOT^ 1J^r-^ -J ■LA CJssO r-l H ^— - cn^-^ O v-' o --^ SO O ■LPv ci-\ OS CO r-l CO I-l •^ 1 CO 0) r-4 r-l e .'-^ fw ^ CJ lA 0\ CMvO "LA CA cA'Lrs CO OJ E-i t^ oo H O -^^ MD^ H-- ' SO H .Jv-- r-l ^-- m H r-l t^H sO T3 *» 1 •\ cfl H H 1-1 H -p ^ ^— ^ * — ^ „f-^ y , ^ \o vO t-1 OO \A r-H o o I-l O H t~- H^-' -^^^ f- t^^— - ,_, _ r^ V\ "^3 1A^ oo" caO CA C^ lA O — r-l r-l r-l H m -a-cj" oo" oo" oo" JO J- CJ r-\- — ■ CA CAv^ OJ r^ -3 OJ ^-^ ^-^ so O I>- C^sO OJ^^ CD bfl (D x-^ X s ^— V ^'•^ (8 bo m CO CO CO Q) tfl u X) u CD 0) M -P -o O Q) TU 9'n ^^ cfl tfl 3 3 bo 3 E-I -H CD o -p c c o to 0) n) Eh — H -p as w c -P > 3 Er vO o O CM J -p ! 1 1 1 I-l 1 ! XA 1 C-- I-l J to • = Bt— -J- T3 " H C O H 1-1 rH 1 1 1 1 1 t^ 1 1 CM vO CM lA c c D vO ?i rri • -^ fcji — « • D r-l H CM 0] o -p to ■a TO c a c in rH (U nJ fli U nJ g " ^ >: CM o^ ■LA -o f- CO tn _3- vO t~- -p O CU liH .a E •H <-{ H rH H H Eh A4 O ^ I L . A-29 a o as 3 r-l CT) !> (D M n •H o • □ 0) •rl 50 ^ a >> nl -p x: c o 3 o o O -P - -p ?-i rH cd -H ni • ^ -P 0) CO R H a 3 •H > (0 tu 3 +:> H 3 -P ch 0) 3 T) c Cm ttJ O U Q) O to 0) ft M O CO I M > 0) en E.^ ^ E-i ro J 0 n-\ 0 Cr r- H o • e • c • i • o e-< H rH r-l VO 0 VO CA K iH TA l -^1 &H CM r-l -Cf 1 -3 .'^^ C^O" rnCo >- (A lA P- 00 rH vO O XA ^-^ 0_cf vO rH vO vO CK On rH \A>— ' 0 -^ 0\^' rH -^^ rH rH n 1 Cvl On H ^a- r- c\j CO "LA .^-^ , — ^ ^^ cH LAW VO --- 0 0 VO — ■ CM --^ ■LA CM oy ^_^ CO <-A 1 (A w Ph , — ^ ^ -■—V >^ ^— ^ -— ^ CM VO VO 00 CM C-- CM CO 0 CO \o vO Ovi r-f 0- m f-\ i-( VO — CM i-l CO 0-^^ 0 CJv Q -a^^ -^ •V 1 § ^ J , Eh , — ^ , — ^ ^ — ^ ^-^ ^ ^ CM lA CJN CA -^sO J- rH On -J LA _3- C-- H hfl 3 0 @ a 0 m M 3 K n) 0 EC nJ 0 0 nJ 0 EH d; s << M CD o W H 0 0 Eh 0 0 3 CO 0 . < 0 ^■^0 0 Q 0 gg i/D 0 p) s S S S § gia W • i> — ^ N^—' V ^ ^ ' i^ Qi 0 CO g? ^1 s A-30 a •H § m a o o S e w •H to ■a a n) ^< • o to ^H 0) to C ni •H O -P Q) n p, c B rt o o to tt) to to 0) to CO o =1 rH *H CD O M ttl CO a) EH H +> n> c -P CO 0)0 0) IJN -3- vO H J- o O Eh to • c • » • a U to J- ^^ MD 0\ CO o

J rA td CO' (D CD « CO to Sa t 1 o 1 O o r-i r-l H^ •LA 0) O • tl£ •H CA S^ • CD tlO o r^ H f^ < s o < to o u OA T) •rt o 1 r^ 1 CO H • c ttJ H S; C\J r-< J r-l rQ *" H 3 o -p p. 2 i-l ^ •LA tlDi-l tM C -H CM o •H O 1 -J- 1 r^ OO tA • tlfl ft rH rA ■LA CJ\ CO ■n o^ r-l Q) 0 *iL CO U « 3 a o H H •LA C^ s • C3\ XI M > o 1 1 r- l>- • c C CD H C\J tn CM t« ■H (=1 r-l to CO 3 ■ 0) o o CO K s H 1 tu. c •H +3 CD a E o o TJ 4S CO c to C! 0) nj CD H. tD CO ;^ g ■LTi r- 00 -d- so CD -P O t*H 3 ;m o ttj ^ ^ r-i H 1-1 O Oh A-31 s o •H -P CD 3 rH > 0) UD S •H -a 3 o s 0) &D (13 x; O l>a +3 -H m 0) C 3 n) -P H 3 ■P Cm 0) S -a o iH EH EH^ s ^ O vO CM CO O CO CO W O 'J • • • o • a O EH C~- VO ■LA H O H OO M fo VO CO O rH 1 C3N CL, O CO ■LTvI? O OS •-i 1A CTv O ■LA CJ\ vO CD '^ Os^-' VO H rH CO O CM !--0 VO -3 o O •— ' CO — - t--^-' vO I>- CJs i-t •* *\ »i O s Ov J OO 1 t^ Eh t^ iH ■LA ■LA t^-LA rA CM CA 1-H r- cA -J ao 00 --^ vO -^ CO •— ' CO CM O N_^ 1>- ■u^r^ r- CO 1-A ■LA H CA^-- *\ n 1 »i CO CN rH lA VO CM VO CO C\J CVJ \r\ao vO CJv fAJ^ CACA O CN \0 vO >-' \r\^-^ r-~-^ O rH C^O r^ r-i rH C3\ c~- ■LA vo^-' CO VO CO •» •V •\ *t CNJ S ■LA [^ 1 CO CO ^-^ lA CM r-- CO cAh" ■LACA CM 3 CO CO o o C— ~— - CA--^ r-t H EH Q rH ^-^ -3 CM t^ 1 p- 1 y---V ^—^ y— V ^■^ ^-^ VO rH rA CO CO rr\ ■LA g t] CO r-i rH CM CO fH r— - — O [>- CA s C~- C^ CM [- rH ^^ XA •> 1 3 CA CA CA \o oo" oo" 0\ rH r-- r-l vO [^ 0\ rH •^•^-^ H 1 XA o o' vO CVJ oo" o'o vO O vO CM r^ — ' ^-^ fA CA ^-^ ^^^ , ^ ^,^ M m to CO to O M 1 bo o -=S UO O m 0) cj O ct! O EH M Q < Q^ 0 0 0 C3 0 O H fH O E O te 0 o Eh t, O CO O cd o o ei o o s CO o • < o O o • O c o III CO o p ^ S 3 ^ w ■ ^ ^*-^ V— ^ ^— «' CO S o « o Ph s M 1 A-32 ^ -p c o CJ ■p a> to ^1 o E O CO c m •H a) 0) on '^ T) crt c n m r-l ■n -P a 0) nl IS (/) ;^ o> o m tM en f> bD H c •H (11 +> M (1> n) p. (1) E ^4 o O o n! m M a> C •n •H 0 !2 n 'M ,c o (0 !>» ^^ (1 -p c 0) > c M • -=t rr\ I ^ to M o ■H tU ' 1 to 1 8 1 CO r-l CO •p Q) to XA to 3 3 • CSI -a ctf c 0 r-l 1 H CJ M s 13 +» to C ra ra c tu rt gj r-l (U . to p-i ft ct) 0 'H 0 -p K ■Lr\ vo r- CM so c~ -P fn 0 nJ 0) W r^ r-l H 0 Q) 0 1^ H ft A-33 o o n) a H C8 f> i-l -P -P (U to a Oh O t3 ^ C >5 to f-i O -P -P C c a 0) Kl > 0) C !h M a ■la > 0) I-l x> ni h5^ ^ E-i §8 -J- e o • • as O On • • r-i • @ fe ■LA -J- CO rH rH O rH O r-\ CO CO o^ o r^ w ^ vO \o o "o r-.j OS CA O Cf\ r-i o C\J — ^ ■LA rH AJ J- MD CO f— vO O SO Eh \A CM rH CO rH ^-^ r^ r-i VO H 8 •\ r\ ^ •I VO r-< rH ON r-\ 1 CO y-^ ^ — ^ CO o o' O "cm [^ CM iH J- CO r-t o- J H iH ^-' r-l 1A-— • CO ^-^ CA 1 sO CM •— ^ ^— > C^ o o' CAMD O AJ H P- ^J r-l CA OO i-H CM v_^ CA rH AJ rH C~ CM ■LA rH CA CA^-' CA^-' OS CA 1 SO ^■^ -d-^0 rH Ca \0 CA cy\vO CA rH ^-^ -J- ■LA O rH ^o J- O VO J- r- vO o o vO ^-- ■LA-_- ■LA^ C— ■LA r-{ •^.^ en H •v »\ *•• w CM CA 1 CA o^ 1^ 9 ^,_^ . ^ ,_ ^-, ^-v O CM AJ CA J r- C7S.3 U> OS 3 CM rA-3 CO CA rH rH 0\ r-i CM CN CA J H J-v_» CO v_^ CO ^^ rH --^ CA H r-{ f-l J- •\ •\ ^ § CM -=t 1 J- CA CM 0\ H C^ CM r- CM \0 >~ 0\ iK C-- OO ^ -3- rH CM v^ CM — - SO CA 1 ■LA CA H VO o"© -J CA oo' o o" -^O J CA -cr^^ -^ -3 M ra m bq fa CO w o c ra (D o c M C3 W CO Cd c=3 ^q o 2 5 < o ^ ^ ^ 1 CO 1 M 0) 3 tH 0 3 a> 3 H © 3 O Q o a ClO CJ <5 M o M O >H bfl O EH W Q ■=i; ffi w n) o cc n) o ta nJ o O « O M W 5 ffi E oj o W (U o CD o o gS° >H « >H 6h o W ■5 tn Q fw M U g o CO O • o o • m t> . CO o • ■^ PH |T^ o 3 M CO S Q M 1 o s A-34 -p u 3 O o ■p o ^ H nt bH a •rt to T) U til r-l -P 0) • S to (jj !h to O -l «H tri t) tjn R •n ■H u -P 01 Q) a w > ta u (1 w p c r; •H Q) :3 !> u M to > H E-i rH P a; to C P m VO vO -^ -J ON O (D O to o « • • • o P m O vO tc r- NO o u o rH -d- cv o tU ch iH r-i CU O (U bO to r-l Cti 0) nj Qj to O C^ -3" ^0 rH rH On P> f-i to C3S vo CM CO NO o o o rH ■LTv rr\ r-t 6-1 tt) H rH to tt! -a- r^ ao [~- CM On c 1 1 o-\ r^ r-l ON • •H C«- ?- nl • a O cr\ O- CM H C^ rH o 1 1 r-l co CO rr\ O CO •H u-v r-i r-i On • to CM CM J- o CM i^ . w o rH rH -J- CM CO ta o s i-H rH CM to \A rH r^ NO ■LPl o c fn 1 1 t\J C>J CM r- • 0) O O rH H 1^ t. •H :s r^ ^^ rH 3 43 3 • o P-. o (^ On <-r\ H NO o s H o i3 S u o 1 -^ 1 On J- H CO H 0) ^& r~ rH 0^ r-i r-i • O s ■H rH 3 M C T3 T! tD !^ • to Q o s rH vO rH CM s m Q> to U to 3 CO r- c- CM r-i o -P 1 1 C\J O ! -^ • r-l H 3 rH r-i CVJ r-i CD o tlO •H ni Jh M » ^1 < o t^ r-1 r-i \S\ o s r-l rH to * ■a tlO > vO rr\ CO f~ r- >- K a V\ U\ cr\ (D •H 0 1 1 1 r-l 1 1 r^ • to u a r-i 3 p nJ to o 3 13 C • M o CM CM 'O P H to to C CO n! o rH (tJ o ch to rH rH rH H ■P !H O 3 (U P O ID nJ 3 Eh a. c A-35 a> § •H -P nJ s H (D bO S •H T3 D r-l O >» o -p c o 3 -P O "^ O -H O 1-1 ■H -H i^ o u 3 c •H > to (U C 3 :« -P rH 3 -P tn (U 3 T3 tM ro o -p t>» c Sh 0) o to -p m C fn M O CO > H EH^ gg VO OS so C3S O OS H • CO • 1-1 • * c^ • • so [-- i-H O H CO a, o 1 CO O r-l iH -O- \P\ o- rH CM l>- H so rsi ^ o — CSJ v_. O so U-\ CM r~-us CM 1>- C3S -J so -^ O^-' (A O OS ^«--' s-J *v •» •» *% ^ •\ o r-l SO CO H c^ CO y iH r^ 1 f-l CM \r\ o m" CM o CSI T-A ,^~^ .^->^ r— v_- CM ^^ OS rsj >- v_^ r- o o ° 2. OJ CM CM rH CM CM 1 CM _ O H oo" XnsO SO UN r-l SO ■LPv r- O---- N— ^ -3 - — r^^ — CO c^ J ■^-.^ vO ON o r^ CM t^ OS H CJs rH 1 O r-l ^^^ — ^ f-^ m csi lA c^ CN (^ r^ Os CO '"^ OJ o o o ^^ Os^-- CM v_- CSJ CM OS \r\ H (^ J- 1 (^ ^*-' CO W _, _ -^-N Q ^— V SO J- JiH -Ct J O \s\ ,— V -d- H CO CM CSI r-l CM C\J O CM ^ c^ o o iH s^ O^' so-^ r— SO r-l ^— ' ga ^—^ •» »v •% -^ rsi so CSJ -=r w 1 ^-^* _ ^.-^ ,^-^ CM C-^ CM CSJ J CM CM c^ so O O o o C?N r-l -3^-' f^-Cf OS r-l f CO 1 C— y-^ -=f H ■LfN CM / — . o^„ C3S r^ "lA o o O^ r-f r-f o o rH O rH i—l H r<^v_- -a J- ^^ ^_^ ^^ ^,_^ ^ r. CO m 03 to o w s s § 0) s o c Q "^ CO K c3 H y K ^ -a! O ^ Q "^ w o CO g 3; im 3 •a; M 3 M 3 !>H bO 3 § S O o s ca ra o cc n) o m cd O C nS o < ffi fc QJ O M (U o C3 0) O p; Q) o &H Sh O M Pd IZ) @ <« ^ o Q t( o M t, O fH OS >H EH o CO o O o EC O CO o pi p o 3 o •a; • o S^o o Q O III w ° ^ <3 z 5 s § > w to S Q M 1 a. • o A-36 a •H o si m B O o o •H e o o % •H (0 ■D n) i-H +3 0) s U] S •4^ (1> EQ a) (8 n S 0} «iH ra O CO o t».H U O ■P B a OS H r-l -P rt CO C +J (U Q) O CO -d- 0 0 0 VO 0 O -P CO 0 • e • • • !h O r-\ VO rH rH 0 0 CD =H rH ao iH 0 P^ o r-l H m -rr VO en 0 o o o »\ »\ E-> cn I^ o-\ 0 en 0 CO C CD 1 f^ r^ CVJ CM 1 iH • T) •H 0 i-l CM c^ c CO cd r-l 3 0 « -p a: 0 0 z rH •Lr\ CM rH 0 S Cm tH O ttf • •H > 0 CVJ CD -a to h CD 1 1 J VO VO 1 0 • CD ■P Q CVJ H -cf en to CO rH 3 3 O T) C « M 0 s J H 0) c •H T3 O ■H >» -P G 3 O O ^ 0) -p to 0) o u o M c 03 o o -p >5 -p CO 3 XJ K> c3 0) rH U -P 3 (U -P S 3 O Xl ^ c >i n) -P o -J > H ct) EH^ M O QD C7\ iH cu O CM CO a • • • » • O ^ OO OO O CO Oco r-t a fc m m Cvj O CM rH 1>- Oh O ' *--N tn CT\ On UN C^ jm ON i-l r— cjv oo CtN ^ M ^- rH_3 VO rr^ fnj- n^ CA On On r^ Jv^ r^^^ vo--^ C— VO O EH r^ •» •V •» »\ "v •\ O r^ OvJ rH O l^O r^ EH rH c-l iH CA rH 1 CM a\r^ r- o" CO vO CVJ o VO CM -:3- On CO VO — r~ pH VO i-l lA CVJ VO ■LA r-i CM fH J- r^- o ~— CAv^ CM On <-A V— ^ "\ •\ •» »» •s »\ •v iH * ^ — ^ vO ON I^ CO r^-d -a- J CJn rH CO [^ cv o o" ^J>— - c^-^ rH r-i iH — ' CvJ Ov rn" 1 rH OT '"I' S ^^^ ,_^ ^_^ ^^ OO UN CA f- l^-ITN -^fOD C\J vO ■LA C3N CA'LA J- (A O C7\-^ r^ r^ r-i --' XArH CM VO VO V • c— 1>- On--' ON VO >— •% •\ •I ^ •x •» »\ O OD rH J r-t r-^ H CO CM 1 rH t^ , — ^ -— ^ ^ — . ,-^ LA (^ CM CO r^rH CO 0\ HOO fnr^ On cm t-- rH VO ■LTN— ' ON^-' CM -— ' CVJ — r-t " 1 1-H r-i ^ — ^ oo2 On 1-h o o' t^ O C~- lA ■LA o o ^-•— - Cvj ^^ O o rH H ^ — ^ y — ^ ^ ^ , ^ O M to m m CO ■< a 0) H pS @ ^2!° M 0) O M !h O ^ f^ O fH O O Eh O Q (h a: o CO o Ct; Eh CK S § ^ o 2; OT O . O o . =>! • M =< • M o a i O U -P CO (U T3 -P o -p CO cfl H -P (D XI do CO » •fj pj o u u 01 += CQ 0) C) u o •t a •H to ■n • c m rt (1) H in -P 3 Q) m S o Ih ■rt O c =H « bn tn c fl) •H tn -P CO 0) o fti-l E o Q) o hil m in (1) 0) S-, B i^ tM hn o c •H >> S ;^ o o -p ■s c HI > C I EH 1 -p n) C -P tn O O 0) o o E-i tn o CM J- r-l o en • ^( m • • a • o 0 l+H o o rH o CO o (^ O ^A CO H 1-1 Q) tn HMO) \^ CM OS (C ni in \A •LA r-\ -P a) to o o^ vO <3\ 1 0\ so O Sh O CSJ •^ •H E-< O iJ CO H O <: 1-1 1^ crs H -J -p * • 1 t CM t 1 MD tJs OO O ■ o s CM CM -J- o 0) bl CO (3 ■u^ t^ C -:J MD O -H I 1 »» a\ 1 1 J- O cfl OO •v LPi !h OO so ■> a^ • OS J -H • O O 1-1 H t~- (X, s 'in r-l 1-1 tn ^ ni n « m CA (1) tn tn ;-! 0) ;3 T) o 0 f) H f) «M C r-l •H O fall r^ CTl (1) S u o tH !-i n UJ «M tu Ih tl t> fl) CD x; -p r- O \A A-39 APPENDIX B Wetlands Information Retrieval System APPENDIX B WETLANDS INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEM* To assist the Department of State Planning in establishing a wetlands data processing system which would systematize collected data, organize, store and retrieve the programmed information, assistance was solicited from private organizations with competence in operations research, systems analysis, and automatic data programming and processing. From among the responses received the one most attractive on financial and operational bases was the proposal presented by Link Information Sciences (LIS) of General Precision Systems, Inc. The basic feature of the LIS proposal was an information retrieval system that would permit complete and immediate access to the data collected by the Wetlands Technical Advisory Committee. The information, when encoded, would be stored in machine readable form for State-operated computers and accessed (or retrieved) by use of the proposed retrieval system. The system developed by LIS for the Department of State Planning and now operational is a program for retrieving stored information. It is not a panacea for resolving all information problems nor does it provide decisions. The system is designed to extract answers from text data, user-specified format data and compiled file data in response to a user's query. Figure B-1 shows the basic organization and operation of the wetlands information retrieval system. A question or query at (1) is formulated to extract desired information. The question is addressed to the system's programmed information at (2). An important aid to questioning the program is the wetlands thesaurus (3), a dictionary containing all individual or distinct words, abgreviations, and notations that have appeared at one time or another on all the wetlands habitat file data sheets (4) shown in Figures VI-1 and VI-2 (Ch. VI). The reply to a query will be in the format shown in abbreviated form (Figure B-2). Depending upon the nature of the requested information, the response is programmed to respond and print out in either a special, standard or random request report format (5). Without eleborating further on technical details which are beyond the scope of this appendices, it is perhaps more informative to illustrate briefly what can be produced in terms of user interest. The system will answer such questions as what is the total acreage (of a specified wetlands habitat) for each county (Figure B-2) and also for the entire State. Some additional sample questions might be-list wetlands over 50 acres of Type 12 (wooded swamp) by county-by the entire State. List wetlands that possess a unique habitat value ranking of 10 (for endangered species such as the bald eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus, or the Bryant fox squirrel, Sciurus niger cinereus). List wetland units and acreages by county or entire State evaluated to be in the highly vulnerable category (potential acreage losses within 5 years). Obviously, the question and answer combination possibilities offered the wetlands information retrieval system are, indeed, endless. With regard to the future utility of the system following completion of the study, it is envisioned that the system will be especially useful in evaluating applications to the Corps of Engineers and Department of Water Resources for permits for tidewater construction and water resources development projects proposed under Public Law 566 administered by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. The system should also produce helpful insight into ways of developing future and enlarged systems that might combine many additional parameters such as those on water quality to develop an estuarine management data processing system. The complexities and dynamic properties of estuaries, the mix of its inhabitants, and the characteristics or quahties essential to them imply a requirement of large amounts of data. The only possible way of effectively handling all of the necessary data so as to produce meaningful information and insight can be handled only by computers directed by relevant programming. For more, detailed information on the system refer to the report, Orientation Manual and User's Guide Maryland Wetlands Information Retrievel System, Maryland Department of State Planning Pubhcation No. 157. *This system is presently under review and re-evaluation. B-1 VJETLANDS FILE DATA SPECIAL REPORTS VffiTLANDS QUERIES WETLANDS IWFORI'IATION RETRIEVAL PROGRAM STANDARD REPORTS IJETLA^IDS THESAURUS 1 RANDOM REQUEST REPORTS WETLANDS INFORMATION FLOW Figure B-1. Basic organization and information flow of the wetlands information retrieval system (Courtesy of LIS, 1968). B-2 1- ■z (J in in III UJ a. a. •>- > C/3 o I- CO O u a > ID O ■n o g to E 3 CD -o 0) 0) jr CD E < E 3 < 0) ■D en ;d Z Q. 3 Z (U < ■o < O E 3 < oT cu CI < x: a 3 Z e' 3 < 0) XI < < o i CD o CD E CO tT CD D J 3 c o +-' 3 GO CD ■g' OJ g OJ I) c> < to a 3 Z 1 ^ i o i 0) (0 E V5 o; Q. 03 2 CD a 3 Z 3 z ■o < 0) o CL Q. 3 Z xi" 0} CIJ ■n ■n 0) -a 1- 0) s o 'cD o CD Q. 3 Z to 3 c g o CD ID < < o ■o < < < § o i 3 -5 D C2. 3 n TI TO h CD o . CD » g o 0> ro -C f 0) r 0) CD ni +-« n CD O nj a: 3 ro 3 :^ O) 3 — ) 3 U) — ■*-> Q. 3 o O -6 Z Z XJ" Z ■D < ■o" Z T)" < •n -n u ■n S (1) 01 OJ (IJ 0) OJ Cl) 0} OJ ni (/} ^ ^ OJ 0) OJ (U 0) OJ 0) CI) aj 0) 7^ 73 s s ^ 5 g g g g g g ? o C ■D ■o T3 ■a T3 ■n XJ XJ T! T! -n ■*-< C c C c C r c C C r r n3 (D o o o o o o o O n n n U U Q- CL a. Q. CL CL CL CL CL CL CL I > 0) 3 C7 C o Q. a> CD o ooocnooiCDCor^o gj >- CM CD _J _l CJ fc cu 1 ID Ol c c 3 0) O > o o N i > x: E CD z o z g ■o CO 2 CO CO C3) C a Crt X! C _co CD (3 C o CD C g o LL E CD z o z u CU CD _l '> 'e CO ^ 0) cu OJ 3 J3 c £ a O o o o c CD E CJ c o V) C g o XI V) 2 o CO -a cu x; > o X3 X3 c o c o r X3 ^ ^ CD CU O o o CD O cu cu O o o CL LL (J O ^ O Q Q X X X LL X ■a d c (D z CM 'S- CM 1^ CO O en CO in en o CD ^ 9) 'r "" ^ ^ 'S- in in in CD CO t^ P~ CO S D >■ CU c c ^ 3 o 8 (3 X) c CO 0) S > -^ CU c OJ fl. C u^ .2 -J CO "D E g o > c c i J 4-" ^^ 3 CU O C E o ™ S:? CD — .. o <; 4^ in E E. ^^ Etf> CD c XJ •^ cu u — ^ ■9 ^ < J CM CO B-3 APPENDIX C House Joint Resolution No. 2 (1967) APPENDIX C House Bill No. 2-By The Speaker (Legislative Council) — 1967. HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION TWO House Joint Resolution requesting the State Planning Department, with the cooperation of the Board of Natural Resources and the Department of Economic Development, to prepare a detailed long-term plan for the optimum use of wetlands in the State of Maryland. WHEREAS, Wetlands are defined as areas on which standing water, seasonal or permanent, has a depth of six feet or less, and where the wet soil retains sufficient mositure to support aquatic or semi-aquatic plant growth; and WHEREAS, The State of Maryland possesses more that 300,00 acres of coastal and inland marshes, wooded swamps, and other types of wetlands; and WHEREAS, The wetlands produce the basic micro-organisms and other foods upon which the commerically important finfish, shellfish, and crabs of Chesapeake Bay are dependent; and WHEREAS, The wetlands have parallel roles as critical habitat for wildlife, particularly migratory waterfowl and furbearers, and as key areas for fish spawning; and WHEREAS, The wetlands are essential water storage areas for ground-water recharge and flood prevention; and WHEREAS, Additionally and of emerging significance, the wetlands have vital outdoor recreation, open space, and aesthetic values to the people of our State, and WHEREAS, The rapid rate of draining, filling, and other altering of Maryland's wetlands is causing serious disturbance to the economic, biologic, hydrologic, and recreational functions of the wetlands; and WHEREAS, Projected increases in population and industrial activity indicate that accelerated alteration of wetlands soon will be attempted; now therefore, be it Resolved by the General Assembly of Maryland, That the State Planning Department, in cooperation with the Board of Natural Resources and the Department of Economic Development, is hereby requested to prepare a detailed long-term plan for the optimum use of all Maryland wetlands, such plan to be based so far as is possible upon the results of economic, biologic, hydrologic, and recreational research previously completed or underway in Maryland and in other states or nations having comparable wetland types and functions; and be it further Resolved, That the preparation of this plan be scheduled for completion by October 3 1 , 1967, for transmittal to the Legislative Council prior to consideration by the General Assembly; and be it further Resolved, That the Board of Public Works is hereby requested to appropriate from the Emergency Fund the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) for preparation of the plan; and be it further Resolved, That the Governor is hereby requested to direct the heads of relevant State agencies to coordinate all State wetlands development projects through the Board of Natural Resources and that the Governor is hereby requested to urge the chief executives of the State's political subdivisions to coordinate all local wetlands development projects through the Board of Natural Resoruces; and be it further Resolved, That the State Planning Department is hereby requested to advise the planning and zoning agencies of the State's political subdivisions as to the General Assembly's concern for proper wetlands management and the need for adequate provision for wetlands conservation in local zoning ordinances; and be it further Resolved, That copies of this Resolution are sent to the Governor of Maryland, the State Comptroller and the State Treasurer, comprising the Board of Pubhc Works, and the Director of the State Planning Department, the Chairman of the Board of Natural Resources and each of the State conservation agencies represented on the Board, and the Director of the Department of Economic Development. C-1 APPENDIX D State Planning Department Advisory Letter on Wetlands to Local Governments and List of Addressees APPENDIX D State Planning Department Advisory Letter on Wetlands to Local Governments June 20, 1967, and List of Addressees At the recent regular session of the General Assembly, there was adopted HJR 2 requesting the State Planning Department, with the cooperation of the Board of Natural Resources and the Department of Economic Development, to prepare a detailed long-term plan for the optimum use of wetlands in the State of Maryland. The Resolution requested that the plan be completed by October 31 , 1967. The Resolution defines wetlands as areas on which standing water, seasonal of permanent, has a depth of six feet or less, and where the wet soil retains sufficient moisture to support aquatic or semiaquatic plant growth. It states that the rapid rate of draining, filling, and other altering of Maryland's wetlands is causing serious disturbance to the economic, biologic, and hydrologic functions of the wetlands, and anticipates accelerated alteration of the wetlands due to projected increases in population and industrial activity. The Resolution requests this Department to advise the planning and zoning agencies of the State's political subdivisions as to the General Assembly's concern for proper wetlands management and the need for adequate provision for wetlands conservation and local zoning ordinances. We are, at this point, embarking on the preparation of the required detailed long-term plan, and as suggested by the terms of the Resolution, we are soliciting your assistance. Initially, we ask your help on the following: 1. Please provide us with a map of your county on which are delineated the wetlands areas as defined above. 2. Does a local zoning law apply to wetlands areas in your county? If so, provide us with copies of such zoning ordinances. What problems have you encountered in the application of your zoning laws as applicable to wetlands? 3. Are there any ongoing encroachments on wetlands areas as defined, or are there any anticipated encroach- ments, whether formaUzed by zoning applications or not? Due to the time limit set by the General Assembly for the preparation of this development plan, your prompt assistance will be most appreciated. Sincerely yours, James J. O'Donnell Director D-1 Copies of this letter were sent to the following 22 representative of their respective county planning and zoning commissions: Albert S. Paye, Acting Director Allegany County Planning and Zoning Commission Marion J. McCoy, Planning and Zoning Officer Anne Arundel County Office of Planning and Zoning Leon W. LeCompte, Inspector Kent County Planning Commission John S. Hewins, Director of Planning Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Montgomery County Office and Prince George's County Office George E. Gavrelis, Director Baltimore County Office of Planning and Zoning Mrs. Edward W. Green, Zoning Admin. Queen Anne's County Planning and Zoning Commission Clarence R. Bowen, Zoning Inspector Calvert County Planning and Zoning Commission Richard A. Bevan, Chairman Somerset County Planning and Zoning Commission Elias W. Nuttle, Chairman Carolina County Planning Commission George A. Grier, Director Carroll County Planning and Zoning Commission C.Y. Vaughan, Zoning Inspector Cecil County Planning Commission William E. Highby, Chairman Charles County Planning Commission Edgar S. Gore, Executive Secretary Dorchester County Planning Commission Robert W. Wirgau, Director Frederick County Plarming Commission Commission J. Lee Hanlon, Executive Secretary Harford County Planning and Zoning Commission Thomas G. Harris, Jr., Director Howard County Planning Commission Leila R. Rogers, Secretary St. Mary's County Planning and Zoning Commission Gladys S. Block, Executive Secretary Talbot County Planning and Zoning Commission Wayne K. Gladden, Planning Director Washington County Planning and Zoning Commission Philip L. Tallon, Director of Planning Wicomico County Planning and Zoning Commission Edmund R. Cueman, Planning Director Worcester County Planning and Zoning Commission D-2 APPENDIX E Maryland Wetlands A