Corsica River Watershed Restoration Action Strategy (WRAS)

Exactly as extracted, unformatted — for checking against the original. The readable version is easier to read.

Corsica River
Watershed Restoration Action Strategy
Final Report
September 2004
Prepared by:
The Town of Centreville
101 Lawyers Row
Centreville, MD 21617

This page was left blank intentionally
ii

Corsica River
Watershed Restoration Action Strategy
Final Report
September 2004
Prepared by
The Town of Centreville
In Cooperation with
Queen Anne's County Department of Planning and Zoning
Queen Anne Soil Conservation District
The Chester River Association
USDA NRCS
Prepared for
MD Department of Natural Resources
Coastal Zone Management Division
Financial Assistance provided by Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended,
administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric administration (NOAA)
A report of the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program, Department of Natural
Resources pursuant to NOAA Award No. NA17OZ2337
iii

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank our diligent partner stakeholders, Katrina Tucker, Principal Planner
with the Queen Anne's County Department of Planning and Zoning, Frank DiGialleonardo
with Chester River Association (CRA), Dr. Eileen McClellan- the Chester River Keeper with CRA,
Amy Owsley with the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy, Steve Spielman, District Manager, and
Alison Putnam with Queen Anne Soil Conservation District (QASCD), Michael Whitehill
designee from the Town of Centreville and Upper Eastern Shore Tributary Team chair, Sabrina
Fite GIS specialist with McCrone, Inc., Loring Hawes representing the QA Co. Planning
Commission, Bobby Wilson representing local agriculture, and Royden N. Powell, III as Town
Manager for the Town of Centreville, for their many contributions, editing, and passion for this
process. We would also like to thank the Department of Natural Resources Coastal Zone
Management and Watershed Restoration Divisions for their invaluable contributions to the
Corsica River Watershed Restoration Strategy, in particular, Danielle Lucid, Ken Shanks, Steve
Czwartacki, Niles Primrose, Ken Yetman and Mitch Keiler.
GIS Data
Geographical information system data and associated layers produced in the development of
this report were gracefully provided by: Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Queen
Anne's County Department of Planning and Zoning. Additional descriptive layers were provided
by McCrone, Inc.
iv

Corsica River
Watershed Restoration Action Strategy
(WRAS)
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND COMMITMENT
The Corsica River Watershed Restoration Action Strategy, sponsored by the Town of Centreville
and supported by wide and active stakeholder interests, sets forth a blueprint for the
sustainable environmental health of the Corsica River. The WRAS is based upon a
comprehensive and scientific assessment of the Corsica River Watershed. The Corsica has been
designated as impaired under Maryland’s Clean Water Action Plan since 1999, and given the
highest priority for restoration. The WRAS science draws upon the historic data contributing to
that designation, while updating and expanding that knowledge with a host of new data which
describes and documents water quality, shoreline characteristics, development and farming
impact, and a variety of impairments. These data show that considerable restoration is sorely
needed. Moreover, they point to where, what, and how much.
By comprehensively assessing the River’s present state and by reaching deeply into its future,
this plan and its background studies chart a clear course towards watershed improvements.
That course is made up of specific action strategies that include:
• Remedial field projects to repair eroding land,
• Thickening of inadequate buffers,
• Restoring fish migrations, cleaning-up dumping sites,
• Creating habitat corridor connections,
• Restoring submerged aquatic vegetation, and much more.
The WRAS also recommends bold initiatives that will be undertaken by local government to
develop and adopt policy and programmatic changes that will:
• Create innovative stormwater management practices for low impact development;
• Put in place tighter enforcement controls on erosion and sedimentation;
• Achieve the maximum feasible reduction of nitrogen and phosphorous in the
municipal wastewater stream;
• Create mechanisms to design, fund, construct, and maintain acres of filtering non-
tidal wetlands on public lands; and
• Teach our citizens of the environmental danger of poorly maintained septic systems,
over-fertilized lawns, eroding shorelines, and unbuffered streams.
With diligent application of the principles of this Action Strategy and implementation of its
recommendations, the Corsica River one day will be de-listed as an impaired waterway.
Accordingly, the principal stakeholder entities proclaim the following ethic and commitment:
WHEREAS the Corsica River is one of the most visited anchorages and safe harbors along the
northeastern United States, with tranquil waters bearing recreational and commercial value,
and a Town at its headwaters deriving great historical and cultural benefit from her tides; and,
v

WHEREAS the Corsica River watershed is stressed by the chemistry of urbanization from land,
by tides, and from the air; and
WHEREAS the future of the Corsica River and its environs, including the management of rural
growth and development, enhancement of its wildlife habitat and aquatic resources, definition
of its urban growth boundaries, preservation and conservation of its commercially vital
farmlands, and protection of the quality of life along its shores and tributaries is of foremost
concern to the undersigned stakeholders;
THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the undersigned stakeholders agree to work in
concert to implement the recommendations of the Corsica River Watershed Restoration Action
Strategy, to take bold strides to change the direction of environmental planning and practice,
thinking forward to a balanced watershed and working towards achieving it safely, and to
engage every watershed citizen as a steward of the Strategy and the Watershed to achieve the
goals set forth therein.
Signed:
The Town Council of Centreville
The Queen Anne’s County Commissioners
The Chester River Association
The University of Maryland Cooperative Extension Service
The Queen Anne Soil Conservation District
The Eastern Shore Land Conservancy
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Upper Eastern Shore Tributary Team
vi

Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
Executive Summary
I. Introduction
II. Methods
Watershed Characterization and Assessment
·
Stream Corridor Assessment
·
Synoptic Survey
·
TMDL
·
Public Involvement/ Committee Formation
III. Corsica River Management Strategy
·
Overall Watershed Conditions
IV. Implementation Strategies and Recommendation
·
13 implementation strategies
V. Recommendations for Programmatic Changes
·
Programmatic changes
·
Outreach
·
Sustainable WRAS Implementation and its future
VI. Conclusions
VII. References/Glossary/Weblinks
Appendix
1. Property Owner notification letter
2. Resource Field Inventory for Conservation Planning (Field Evaluation Worksheets)
3. Upper Eastern Shore Tributary Strategy BMPs
4. Stakeholder Goals (Selected meeting minutes March 2003 to November 2003)
vii

List of Tables
Table 1 Corsica River Watershed Characterization Report Contents
Table 2 12-digit sub-watersheds
Table 3 Synoptic Nutrient Sample Site Locations
Table 3a Altered Shorelines
Table 3b Channel Alterations
Table 3c Exposed Pipes
Table 3d Erosion Sites
Table 3e Fish Barriers
Table 3f Inadequate Buffers
Table 3g In/Near Stream Construction
Table 3h Pipe Outfalls
Table 3i Trash dumping
Table 3j Unusual Conditions/Comments
Table 3k Summary of Stream Corridor Impairment Remediation Costs
Table 4 Implementation Strategies and Recommendations
Table 5 Summary of Implementation Project Costs and Reductions
viii

List of Figures
1. Location of Corsica River Watershed (in relation to state watersheds)
2. Location of Corsica River Watershed (blow-up in relation to adjacent watersheds. Show
all roads and pick locations for Now Entering/Now Leaving the Corsica River Watershed
signs)
3. Right of entry Map
4. Map 2 project area Corsica River WRAS Sub-watersheds
5. Corsica WRAS Nutrient Synoptic, April 2003 Sample Site Location
6. Figure of watershed with Critical area line on it together with Town Boundary and three
(3) acreages computed: Total area in CA, Total area in the Town, Area in remainder of
Watershed
7. Map of the Town and its growth area (from Comp plan map)
8. Map of Maryland Tributary Teams with TMDLs for the Corsica River.
9. Maps of Impairments listed by severity (and therefore by priority) with photos of each
Most Severe, Severe, and Moderate shown.
9a. Altered Shorelines
9b. Channel Alterations
9c. Exposed Pipes
9d. Erosion Sites
9e. Fish Barriers
9f. Inadequate Buffers
9g. In/Near Stream Construction
9h. Pipe Outfall
9i. Trash Dumping
9j. Unusual Conditions/Comments
10. Map of Conserved or eased lands. (Compute the acreage if different from DNRs)
11. Map of Historic Shellfish Beds
12. Map of Centreville with regional SWM basin areas shown on each end of Town
ix

Executive Summary
The Town of Centreville has identified the health of the Corsica River as a key component of its
heritage and future. The Town’s goal is to ensure that growth does not occur at the expense of
the Corsica River. In 2002 the Town of Centreville, through a competitive process, applied for
and received support from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to conduct a
watershed assessment and develop a watershed plan, or Watershed Restoration Action
Strategy (WRAS). The WRAS has identified impairments lying in multiple political jurisdictions,
and provides guidance for implementation opportunities and the possible means to achieve
water quality enhancement, expanded wildlife habitat, more sensitive land use conversions,
and conservation. The Corsica WRAS is a strategy that, once implemented, would noticeably
improve and protect the water quality and habitat of the watershed.
The support from DNR consisted of technical and financial assistance including: a one hundred
mile stream corridor assessment that identified the stream and river corridor conditions and
rated observed problems for severity, accessibility, and correctability, (Stream Corridor
Assessment); an assessment of the water quality in the streams of the Corsica River watershed
(Synoptic Survey); a compilation of available water quality and natural resources information
and issues (Characterization); $40,000 in discretionary funding; and a DNR representative to
provide assistance.
Under the leadership of the Town of Centreville, a stakeholders group was formed consisting of
representatives from the Queen Anne’s Soil Conservation District, the USDA-NRCS, the Chester
River Association, the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy, the Queen Anne’s County Planning
Commission, Queen Anne’s County Planning and Zoning, and DNR. The University of
Maryland, the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, the Queen Anne’s County Health Department,
and local builder/developers also participated during grant development opportunities.
Citizens and farmers were also represented. In the two-year project period, the stakeholders
met eleven times to identify concerns, review data, apply for implementation grants, and make
management decisions and recommendations that would, when implemented, restore and
protect the water quality and habitat of the Corsica River watershed.
The Corsica WRAS Stakeholders developed 13 individual strategies to improve water quality
and habitat in the Corsica watershed.
1. Target additional cover crop funding for this area,
2. Agriculture nutrient and sediment reducing buffers including tidal frontage of the
Corsica River,
3. Demonstration projects for farmettes which focus on whole farm nutrient
management and horse pasture management,
4. Household pollution reduction strategies for lawn fertilization and pet waste,
5. Permanent water quality monitoring in the main stem of the Corsica River,
6. Reestablishment of submerged aquatic vegetation,
x

7. Ordinances for low impact development,
8. Demonstration projects for native conservation landscaping,
9. An easement incentive program,
10. The creation of non-agricultural wetlands,
11. Septic system retrofits and comparative studies,
12. “EcoTeam” development to build volunteer capacity,
13. Oyster reef ecosystems establishment to historic areas
To perpetuate the conservation and restoration of the watershed, the Town of Centreville has
considered programmatic initiatives in the form of policies and codes that will impact land-
related issues into the future (a Town Greenbelt together with promotion of nutrient reducing
septic systems near tidal waters or perennial streams in remote greenbelt locations, and
advance the promotion of living shorelines). Additionally, in exploring conservation
opportunities in the watershed, ESLC will consult with the WRAS data custodian to understand
property information and work to complement WRAS priorities. The Chester River Association
has accepted custodial responsibility for the Corsica WRAS information, and the Centreville
Town Manager will be the responsible party for supporting and advancing the initiatives that
forward the goals of the WRAS.
xi

I. Introduction
In 1998, the State of Maryland developed the Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP Technical
Workgroup, 1998) to identify and restore watersheds not meeting clean water and other
natural resource goals, and to sustain healthy conditions in those watersheds that currently
meet these goals. Development of this plan involved conducting a Unified Watershed
Assessment, prioritization for restoration or protection, and developing strategies for restoration
and protection. The initial Unified Watershed Assessment classified the Maryland 8-digit
watersheds into the following categories:
• Category 1 - Watersheds not meeting clean water and other natural resource goals and
needing restoration;
• Category 2 - Watersheds currently meeting goals that need preventive actions to sustain
water quality and aquatic resources;
• Category 3 - Pristine or sensitive watersheds that need an extra level of protection; and
• Category 4 - Insufficient data
As a direct result of this effort the Corsica River Watershed (Maryland 8-digit watershed
02130507) was classified as a Category 1 watershed in need of restoration
The next step in the Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP) process was to assign restoration
priorities to each watershed. Watersheds that failed to meet at least half of their goals (i.e., half
of the evaluation indicators had values failing to meet Category 1 benchmarks) were considered
Category 1 Priority Watersheds in need of restoration in the near term (e.g., within 2 years of
CWAP publication). The Corsica River Watershed received a Category 1 Priority for restoration.
The final component in the CWAP is the development of Watershed Restoration Action
Strategies (WRAS) for watersheds in need of restoration or protection. A WRAS is a
comprehensive restoration strategy that addresses all aspects of watershed condition and water
quality. The WRAS is led by the local government, in partnership with the State, and
encourages public participation in the strategy development and implementation. On April 2,
2003, the Town of Centreville entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the State of
Maryland Department of Natural Resources to develop a WRAS for the entire Corsica River
Watershed. This memorandum provided the Town with a pathway to apply for and receive
grant monies to assist in the watershed assessment and planning, receive technical assistance
from Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and develop the watershed
restoration strategy. Consequential CWA influences are to State and local stormwater
management codes, sewer and water regulations, and ultimately in local Comprehensive Land
Use Plans. To move from existing planning methods to include watershed based perspective
and protection, would require a significant shift in State and local policy, considerable
resources, and added manpower. While such a shift may be appropriate, the WRAS
Committee recognizes that the success of such an effort will depend on actions taken beyond
the limits of the Corsica River Watershed. The same is not true for the Town of Centreville
which lies in a separate political jurisdiction and lies solely within the watershed.
The Corsica River Watershed comprises 25,300 acres (40 square miles) which lie entirely within
Maryland's Coastal Plain. Of this acreage, 2,441 acres lie within Queen Anne's County Critical
Area, 21,452 acres lie in the County upland, and 1,406 acres lie within the Corporate Limits of
the Town of Centreville (Approximately 1,395 acres of the above total lie within the tidal
reaches of the Corsica River itself].
1

The primary goal of the Corsica River Watershed Restoration Action Strategy grant application
was to:
Develop a WRAS that fully quantifies the existing water quality stressors, the existing
stream conditions, and other natural resource impairments of the Corsica River Basin,
which results in a watershed-wide master plan to reduce impairing nutrients, to restore
and preserve habitat areas, to monitor nutrient reduction gains and habitat protection
progress and pre-account for environmental impacts of growth consistent with and
anticipated by, the Comprehensive Plans of The Town of Centreville and Queen Anne's
County, and reflecting concomitant regulatory and programmatic changes initiated and
adopted thereby.
The WRAS recommends the ethic that growth or agricultural land conversion in the watershed
not occur at the further expense of the environmental health of the Corsica River.
The WRAS results for the Corsica River Watershed comprise:
·
Priority impairments with restoration and protection needs;
·
Specific projects and strategies to remediate the identified impairments;
·
Instruments for programmatic changes in the Code of the Town of Centreville; and
·
Recommendations for Queen Anne’s County consideration.
Public Involvement
The Town of Centreville, with cooperation from the Chester River Association and Queen
Anne's County developed a strategy to garner public participation in the Corsica River WRAS
development process. As the majority of the watershed's geo-mass lies in agricultural use and
rural landscape, great care was exercised to ensure that the agricultural community was well
represented. The Town had several goals for public involvement:
·
To reach the broadest range of vested stakeholders, regardless of sophistication;
·
To propose a meeting and venue schedule;
·
To link the stakeholders to web-based data for their review and comment; and
·
To develop a database from the WRAS stakeholders for potential participation in
implementation strategies on WRAS identified work items.
The strategy included:
1) Identification of Stakeholder groups and/or individuals, and property owners
2) Compilation of a spreadsheet of Stakeholders
3) Formation of a Steering Committee
4) Sponsoring the kick-off meeting
5) Setup the e-mail information network
6) Develop the outreach strategy
2

Stakeholders Identification
A list of preliminary stakeholders was developed for the WRAS which included those most
likely to be directly affected by the WRAS such as planning staff and politicians (Town and
County), local land conservancy, private landowners in riparian and tidal interfaces,
environmental activists, government agencies at the State level, representatives from agriculture,
and the Tributary Teams. MdPropertyView 7 tax map property lines were overlaid on the new
orthophotography (dated November 2003). A database search was run and a new database
was established for the names, addresses, type of land use, etc., and mailings were sent to all
landowners in the watershed whose property bordered an intermittent or perennial stream,
and tidal waters of the Corsica River. This list is regarded as the property owner notification list
for rights-of-entry, for future notifications of possible restoration projects, and for updates on
the WRAS findings. Many of the individuals that signed onto the Strategy sent comments and
encouragement with their responses, and these were recorded by the Town as well (see
Appendix I for Property Owner Notification Letter).
The Stakeholder database was referenced to the DNR and MDP Technology Toolbox so that
updates of property transfers within the watershed could be made and new owners notified of
the WRAS initiatives. The databases thus prepared, with all layers highlighted, now serves
multiple functions as will be later seen, such as quantifying buffer needs, initiating septic
systems replacements, farm restoration projects, etc.
The Corsica River WRAS Steering Committee was established comprising members from each
major constituency identified earlier. The Steering Committee kick-off meeting was held on
March 4, 2003 at which meeting information was distributed about the WRAS process and a
solicitation of input was made. The Steering Committee membership included: A voting
member of the Town Council of The Town of Centreville , a voting member of the Queen
Anne's County Planning Commission, staff from Queen Anne's County Department of Planning
and Zoning, the Town Clerk, for administrative function, the local Nutrient Management
Advisor from the University of MD Cooperative Extension Service, the Outreach and Education
Coordinator from the Queen Anne's Soil Conservation District, a senior planner from the
Eastern Shore Land Conservancy, the Chester River Association's Riverkeeper and several CRA
Board members, a private citizen landowner with river frontage, two local independent
farmer/operators, a commercial developer in the watershed, the Upper Eastern Shore Tributary
Team, and QA CO. Farm Bureau. Advisors to the WRAS Steering Committee included the
State of Maryland WRAS Program Manager, Assistant Secretary of the MD Department of
Agriculture, with advisory contacts, DNR for Synoptic Survey and monitoring, DNR for Stream
Corridor Assessment, McCrone, Inc. for GPS control and GIS specialist/databases, and Spectrum
Mapping, LLC (formerly 3Di) orthophotography/remote sensing/SAV mapping.
Upon completion of the synoptic survey and Stream Corridor Assessment (SCA), the Steering
Committee meeting was held on July 18, 2003 to discuss methods, identify impairments and
future projects. November 21, 2003 brought the group together again for a stream walk and a
visit to the Centreville Wastewater Treatment Plants (old and new under construction). A list of
stakeholder comments, goals, and interests is found as Appendix 4 of this report. A meeting
was called for February 18, 2004 to review the final results and priorities for the final report.
3

During the spring of 2004 members of the Corsica River WRAS Steering Committee met in
support of the development of two strong watershed initiatives: an EPA Watershed Initiatives
Grant sponsored by the Corsica River Watershed Partnership, and a National Sea Grant Office
Proposal. Each of these opportunities helped the Steering Committee solidify the specific
Corsica River WRAS implementation needs, priorities, and funding sources.
The Town of Centreville, working through the DNR WRAS Program Manager, set up a very
effective e-mail and hard copy mail network and information is readily and instantly available
to the WRAS Stakeholder groups. The Town also revived its local weekly newspaper bully
pulpit, and has agreed to sponsor the Corsica Corner with space available to post ongoing calls
for volunteers, progress of specific restoration projects, and to celebrate accomplishments of our
strategies. The Town further agreed to sponsor outreach on Urban Nutrient Management
(UNM) in the form of tri-fold information pieces and to adopt the UNM ethic and code.
4

CORSICA RIVER WRAS
Figure 1
MARYLAND'S WATERSHEDS
QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY
MARYLAND
CHESAPEAKE BAY
Corsica River Watershed
8 Digit Watershed
N
While small in size, the Corsica River Watershed
is an important part of Maryland's Tributary Strategies.
20 0 20 40 Miles

II. Methods
Watershed Characterization
The Corsica River WRAS was envisioned to result in a user friendly, GIS driven, responsive and
flexible, technical and pictorial product that made simple the abstraction of problem areas for
inclusion in implementation grant applications and citizen volunteer driven restoration
projects. The watershed is simply defined and comparatively small in area. The first step in
developing the Corsica River WRAS was to capture the most current existing conditions in a
photographic format. Using digital orthophotography (orthos) coupled with Maryland
PropertyView7, ArcView7, and existing detailed topographical surveys of lands within the
watershed, a mapping base was compiled which would later be used to identify and quantify
watershed attributes like shore buffers, septic system locations, farmed wetlands, impervious
areas, and the like. The orthos were intentionally compiled just before autumn leaf drop in
order to capture the forest drip-line. Ground control was established by GPS and is permanent.
This was done to ensure that subsequent over-flights to map on-going changes in the
watershed could be performed inexpensively and with the high accuracy used in the original
mapping. This data was compiled and segmented for use by the DNR and Maryland
Conservation Corps (MCC) in the Stream Corridor Assessment. Additional GIS layers were
provided by the Town and County. Information contained in the resulting Watershed
Characterization is set forth in Table 1. The Watershed Characterization provides useful
signposts used in developing the WRAS. The final print publication of the Corsica River
Watershed Characterization appeared in May 2004 with electronic publication in Oct. 2003
at: http://dnr.maryland.gov/watersheds/surf/proj/wras.html
CORSICA RIVER WATERSHED
CHARACTERISTICS CONTENTS
TABLE 1
WATER QUALITY
Water Quality Standards and Designated Uses
Use Impairments and Restrictions
Total Maximum Daily Loads for Corsica River Nutrients
Water Quality Indicators - Setting Priority for Restoration and Protection
Water Quality Monitoring
Water Quality Analysis
Sources of Pollution
Groundwater and Water Supply
6

LANDSCAPE
Landscape Indicators
Land Use/Land Cover
Impervious Surface
Lands with Significant Natural Resource Value and Large Area
Protected Lands
Soils of the Corsica River Watershed
Wetlands
Tidal Marshes
Floodplains
Low Elevation Areas Subject to Sea Level Rise
LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT
Living Resource Indicators
Biological Monitoring in Streams
Fish and Oysters
Sensitive Species
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION TARGETING
2003 Stream Assessments Conducted by DNR
Agricultural Conservation Programs
Marina Programs
Stream Buffer Restoration
7

CORSICA RIVER WRAS
/( Figure 2
THE CORSICA RIVER WATERSHED
301
/(
CORSICA RIVER
213
QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY
MARYLAND
/(
CHESAPEAKE BAY
305
/(
/(
304
301 /(
213
The Town of Centreville
Queen Anne's County
Streams
Roads
Corsica River Watershed
Southeast
Lower Creek
Chester
Corsica
River N
River The Town of Centreville sits at the heart of the
Tuckahoe
Wye Creek Corsica River Watershed at the confluence of the
River River's upper headwaters.
1 0 1 2 Miles

CHESAPEAKE BAY A W sh h l a a
L
r n
A
f
N
d
DS
END BU
R R IS S V ILLE
SPAR
B
K
O
S
X RO
H
A
A
D
TCHE M
TT
ILL
ROAD
G R r
C
a O
H
n
U
A n
R
y D
C 7 H . 7
Browns
HIL
F
L
inley
FLAT C IR
R
o
OA
O
D
r N ner S C Q O U R E A C R A R A S E E M T C E T P R IO N N R A O L AD
D A O R 2
4
.6
05 C
P
E
R
D
IC
A
E
R C
C
O
O
R
R
S
S
I
I F
C
C i
A
g A u
R
R r
I
e I
V
V 2
E
E a
R
R
W
W
R
R
A
A
S
S
3 R C G E 4 r r e E o 6 Q e v H D u e k R e F i e c H i n d P m k N s o g t o O o E S o C l 1 e t R w r C C i C r o p D n S y . n C e P K E E P o O 4 a n o t R e r C A T b e S o v n O k M T e N i A 1 U e H n N i i k C n R a O N 8 0 S E M R t C r E . K W d Y E R 9 R D D E R 4 4 K - I H G 5 R D H P C R JO S E P A H 6 e T R R O D K S R c EC o R B G O O R Y L E E E V N S R v P E R IN R S G R Y O D e R I C A r S C C P y e O D H ID e A E E N G R R R d O Q A R A W D T U Y E N B E E C E W K L S A J R A Y O T N R R D C O E O H A R D r 6 A N O e D .3 e A k D T D B 4 B U L L C H i I R N P O 3 l CL A R K g O C O O A . C E h M 0 R W C 5 R R o m L I O m N 3 S K v A U o N 0 G e B D B I r e 0 a D B C y R d P R r A O n A C 1 o L a R R O o A H E r IB . N E e R w D r O N O R I 4 W A i e D P n k - A U n A H N t D T s R G SV E U v K I N L L P i 1 S E l A R T l 8 e R O O R 4 N A J I K 3 D O E . V H N 8 a B N . r E E P 3 H l L e E I C C U R B R E O K L R 1 E N E IA T E 8 C T RO O R O B A C O r. D W S R O B A P O D R N N A W R Y 3 N O C R N R A I E O A 0 R A D D 2 A R O l 4 D D 1 R d A B O D e 3 O r A R D Q X D U D EL I A L 2 B C V R N ER E T I 6 N E . E 1 R L C r N 1 C D a T A D O K R F R R 3 1 n T . U E 1 E V 3 c A N ILL R E . h Y 4 0 R L . S I 8 O C W T R C K A A R B S S O R R T R O O R A T D S O u O A R 0 D A D O A . N r 6 R N r M D is I M L 3 v L i H l i 0 C l l H A R U l R I R C e 4 s H D R C l P a J O E n E R A S d R L A E S P C O D H A P D H O T H R R I E L O G R O D LL I L A I R N N G B D E O H C R R L M O 2 E P T R L A R P D E N O A 1 R L S R L R E R I N T N R Y G 3 U O t 2 R P D L A r E T D e B E . A O F R T H 9 I D N a V I P G V L h S E 2 D R D I m . L 3 L B r . I ( 1 e L & B 5 3 M U . L , E 0 e 9 A R M D D 0 7 L C E G O E R 0 O A D M 9 K S L E T R O T A ) R O R A W I D C A A C R L A r D R L B R e O R A A B D e r N C E 6 a k r 3 N . i n o 8 d R IH S 0 c r T g . A S R A B h n 5 W e N R R H . C R e I s C A H L K r R I F A T O I I L T E R E S A B A S O I N A D C D L T Y H O H A F A 1 O I R D E D R T G O . D R T D L H 7 L H L Y S R I W O E N E U B A S Y E E Y R D R C O S A 3 A R D E V t 0 I a A L S R L G 1 r E H U L M r A R L O T N O N A E H E A P D R E S S I B G H U C B H R r a C G B B . 4 A r O R A R W . v V B O 2 Y R C I S i L r E T l A L S E a C l A E L e D R N n O H R C R R T c 3 O U O O R E O h P O N 4 0 M A R A A E . 2 T 4 D D E P 4 D R R . G R I 2 E C Y EN E V ILLE W N Y R N A R 3 G il B d R O R A 0 c N A a C O H 5 t D A R R O D O A A D D HA H A Y D H E N Y R O A D D a R E O 5 y H A N D d . o 1 D E A N e C p C B D 4 n H T L L E e r O 8 A a B U V U R O A P D P R R n C E 1 E 40 C 0 H 0 E S A P E Q A 0 u K e R E W e B O n A M R A Y A 4 a N n A D 0 r n y S 0 e l M a 0 's B n A d C o 8 P o u u 0 n n 0 t d y 0 ar F y eet

Current Conditions Assessment Methods
Several specific assessment protocols went into the developing the current conditions of the
Corsica River Watershed:
Stream Corridor Assessment (SCA)
The Stream Corridor Assessment is one of the most valuable tools delivered by DNR to help
assess the current environmental condition of each stream contributing to the tidal waters of
the Corsica. Fortunately the 100 miles of allowable assessment allocated under the grant to
the Corsica WRAS more than covered the total stream reaches in the entire watershed. Thus
the SCA provided a total stream reach assessment which gives the Corsica River WRAS a
broader coverage and every stream received hands-on field scrutiny. The Maryland
Conservation Corps team, trained by Maryland DNR staff, executed the SCA protocol which
sought to identify the following potential impairments, classify the degree of severity and rate
the level of correction needed of each identified problem:
• Altered Shorelines
• Channel alterations
• Exposed pipes
• Erosion sites
• Fish barriers
• Inadequate stream buffers (riparian)
• Construction in or near stream
• Pipe outfalls
• Trash dumping sites
• Other unusual conditions observed (e.g., odors, scum, excessive algae, water
color/clarity, red flock, sewage discharge, oil, and the like)
Prior to the launch of the on-site SCA work, the Town notified every landowner in the
watershed adjacent to an intermittent or perennial stream and adjacent to the tidal waters of
the Corsica River. Permission and Response cards were mailed, the results were compiled in a
spreadsheet and individual parcels were mapped and color coded so that the DNR field chief
would have a visual log of willing landowners to contact prior to his visits. This process was
very successful and the overall response was such that, where permission was not granted, the
landowner on the opposite side of the stream invariably granted permission so that virtually all
stream reaches had right-of-entry access and permission.
10

CORSICA RIVER WRAS
Figure 3
RIGHT OF ENTRY MAP
QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY
MARYLAND
/(
301
CORSICA RIVER CHESAPEAKE BAY
/(
213
/(
305 Responses
Entry granted
Entry not granted
No response or
/( right of entry not required
/(
304 Streams
301 /(
Roads
213
Watershed Boundary
N
Strong support and interest from riparian
landowners helped launch the WRAS field work
4000 0 4000 8000 Feet

The primary Sub-watersheds in the Corsica River Basin are depicted below:
TABLE 2
Subwatersheds in the Corsica River Watershed
DNR and MDP 2000 Data
Number Name Area in Acres Description
02130507
"12 Digit"
-
Subwatershed
XXXX
02130507 Corsica River With Land
Water Only
0395 Corsica Direct 8,382 7,053 All tributary areas that drain
Drainage directly to the estuarine portion
of the Corsica River
0396 Mill Stream Branch 9,384 9,560 Includes south and west portions
of Centreville
0397 Three Bridges Branch 7,533 7,491 Includes north and east portions
and Gravel Run of Centreville
02130507 Corsica River 25,299 24,104 Entire "8-digit" watershed
Watershed
Field Maps
Digitally prepared field maps were annotated with identified areas of concern and numbered
photographs of the observed problem areas were keyed to the maps for pin-pointing in the GIS
geo-reference. Severity and ease of problem remediation as well as physical accessibility were
also noted. This field data is now linked to the GIS and complete information on the SCA
methodology, including descriptive information for each problem type, definitions of levels of
severity, correctability, and accessibility can now be found in the "Stream Corridor Assessment-
Survey Protocols" available on-line at Maryland DNR web site
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/streams/pubs/other.html
12

CORSICA RIVER WRAS
Figure 4
SUB-WATERSHEDS
QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY
MARYLAND
/(
301
CORSICA RIVER
CHESAPEAKE BAY
/(
213
Three
Bridges
Branch
G /(
ravel
R 305 Sub-watersheds
un
Corsica Direct Drainage
Millstream Branch
Millstream
Branch Three Bridges Branch and
/( Gravel Run
/(
304
Streams
301 /(
Roads
213
Watershed Boundary
N
Considerable acreages in the watershed drain to the
4000 0 4000 8000 Feet
Three Bridges Branch, Gravel Run, and Millstream Branch Perennial freshwater streams

Synoptic Surveys
The capacity of streams to support a diversity of aquatic life depends on the quality and
availability of habitat as well as the physical and chemical characteristics of its water quality. A
nutrient synoptic survey was conducted during April 2003 in the Corsica River Watershed as
part of the Corsica WRAS. Fifty-one (51) Baseflow grab sample sites were established
throughout the watershed distributed to reach each of the 12-digit Sub-watersheds. Water
quality sampling, benthic macroinvertebrate sampling, and fish sampling occurred in April using
established DNR sampling protocols and complete details of the synoptic survey may be found
at the Maryland DNR website.
Nutrient synoptic sampling was scheduled for early spring to coincide with the period of
maximum nitrogen concentrations in the free-flowing fresh water streams. The major
proportion of nitrogen compounds are carried dissolved in the groundwater rather than in
surface run-off. The higher nitrogen concentrations in the late winter and early spring reflect
the higher proportion of nitrogen-rich shallow groundwater present in the base flow at this time
of year. Nitrogen concentrations are reduced in summer as the proportion of shallow
groundwater is reduced through plant uptake, and replaced by deeper groundwater that may
have lower nitrate concentrations, or has been denitrified through interaction with anoxic
conditions in the soils below the streambed. Point sources can also contribute to in-stream
nitrate concentrations.
Orthophosphate is generally transported bound to suspended sediments in the water column.
In-stream orthophosphate concentrations can also be produced through mobilization of
sediment bound phosphorous in anoxic water column and/or sediment conditions, sediment in
surface run-off from areas having had surface applied phosphorous, groundwater from
phosphorous saturated soils, and point source discharges.
14

CORSICA RIVER WRAS
Figure 5
SYNOPTIC NUTRIENT
SAMPLE SITES
G"
G" 2
1
QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY
/(
G" MARYLAND
3 301
CORSICA RIVER /(
G" 7 G"G" 9 213 CHESAPEAKE BAY
G" 52 10
51
G" 1
G"
3
21
2
G"
4
50 4 G" 8 1 G" 4 1 G" 5 GG""16 18 1 G"G" 9 20 G"G" 22 G" 23
G" 17 G"
49 G" /( 25
G" 29 G"
G"30 305 2 G" 6
G"
33
G"
34
35G"G"
36
G" Synoptic Site
37 G"G"38 GG"" 41 G"G" 44 47 G" /( Streams
/( 42 43 Roads
304
Watershed Boundary
301 /(3
G"G"
9
40
213 46
G"
N
1 0 1 2 Miles

Table 3
Synoptic Nutrient Sample Site Locations
SAMPLE
SITE_# LOCATION TYPE LATITUDE LONGITUDENOTES
1 North Fork Emory Cr. at Spaniards Neck Rd. N,F 39.09555 76.09426
2 North Fork Emory Cr. at Coon Box Rd. N 39.98060 76.09003
3 South Fork Emory Cr. at Spaniards Neck Rd. N,B,F 39.88150 76.09132
7 UT to Corsica at Spaniards Neck Rd. N 39.07470 76.07041 perched culvert
9 UT to Corsica at Spaniards Neck Rd. N 39.07118 76.07005 perched culvert
10 UT to Corsica at Spaniards Neck Rd. N 39.07118 76.07005
13 UT to Corsica at Quail Run Dr. N
14 Three Bridges Branch at Rt 213 N,B 39.05419 76.05343
15 UT to Three Bridges Br. at confluence N 39.05459 76.04919
16 UT to Three Bridges Br.at confluence N 39.05401 76.04707
17 Three Bridges Br. N 39.05401 76.04707
18 UT to Three Bridges Br.at confluence N 39.05260 76.03207
19 UT to Three Bridges Br.at confluence N 39.05440 76.03250
20 UT to Three Bridges Br. at confluence N 39.05436 76.03280
21 UT to Three Bridges Br. at confluence N 39.05679 76.02257
22 UT to Three Bridges Br. at confluence N 39.05679 76.02257
23 UT to Three Bridges Br. at Tanyard Rd. N
24 UT to Three Bridges Br. at Tanyard Rd. N
25 Three Bridges Br. at Rt 300 N
26 Three Bridges Br. at Rt 301 N 39.04175 76.01283
28 Grays Cr. at Rt 213 N
29 Grays Cr. behind detention center N 39.04336 76.05263 perched culvert
32 UT to Millstream Br. at Hibernia Rd. N
33 Millstream Br. above Rt 213 N 39.38380 76.70500
34 UT to Millstream Br at confluence N
35 Millstreasm Br. at confluence N,B,F
36 UT to Millstream Br. at Taylor Mill Rd. N
37 Millstream Br. at Taylor Mill Rd N
39 UT to Millstream Br. at Rt 301 N 39.01500 76.06726
40 UT to Millstream Br. at confluence N
41 Millstream Br at confluence N
42 UT to Millstream Br at Rt 301 N

SAMPLE
SITE_# LOCATION TYPE LATITUDE LONGITUDENOTES
43 Millstream Br. at Rt 301 N,B,F
45 Millstream Br. at Little Eagle Rd. N
46 Millstream Br. at Rt 304 N
47 UT to Corsica at Rt 304 N,F
48 UT to Corsica at Hibernia Rd. N perched culvert
49 UT to UT at Brownsville Rd. N perched culvert
50 Earle Cr at Fort Point Rd. N perched culvert
51 UT to Tilghman Cove N 39.05765 76.11498
*N = nutrients
F = Fish
B = benthic

Water Chemistry Sampling
Sampling sites were selected and pinpointed in the GIS base. The contributing drainage areas
(used to calculate nutrient yields per unit area) were determined from a digitized watershed
map using ArcView® software. Synoptic water chemistry samples were collected in early spring
throughout the watershed. Sampling was halted for a minimum of 24 hours after rainfall events
totaling more than 0.25 inches. Grab samples of whole water (500 ml) were collected just
below the water surface at mid-stream and filtered using a 0.45 micron pore size (Gelman
GF/C) filter. The samples were stored on ice and frozen on the day of collection. Filtered
samples were analyzed by the Nutrient Analytical Services Laboratory at the University of
Maryland's Chesapeake Biological Laboratory (CBL) for dissolved inorganic nitrogen (NO , NO),
3 2
and dissolved inorganic phosphorous (PO ). All analyses were conducted in accordance with
4
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) protocols. Stream discharge measurements were
taken at the time of all chemistry samples. Water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and
conductivity were measured in the field with a Hydrolab Surveyor II® at selected sites at the
time of water quality collections. Watershed areas used to calculate nutrient yields were
determined from a digitized watershed map using ArcView® software.
Where sites are nested in a watershed, the mapped concentration data for the downstream site
is shown only for the area between the sites. Yield calculations for a downstream site are based
on the entire area upstream of the site, but are mapped showing just the area between sites.
The downstream sites therefore illustrate the cumulative impact from all upstream activities.
This is particularly important in the Corsica River Watershed in light of the fact that the
upstream areas in Subwatersheds 0396 and 0397 flow to confluence with the tidal Corsica
within the Town of Centreville.
18

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling
Aquatic macroinvertebrates were collected at the time of water chemistry samples during the
spring to be within the Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) spring index period.
Macroinvertebrate collections were made over a 2m2 area of the best available habitat using a
0.3m wide dip net with a mesh size of 500 microns. The best available habitats include: gravel
riffles, snags, submerged vegetation and root mats. Habitats were sampled in the proportion to
their occurrence at the station. Samples were composited in a sieve bucket, fine sediments
washed out, and large debris rinsed and discarded. The remaining sample was preserved in
70% ethanol and returned to the laboratory for sub-sampling. Sub-sampling was done using a
gridded tray. Grids were chosen at random until the 100th organism had been completed.
Organisms were identified to genus, recorded on a bench sheet, and archived for future
reference. Insitu water quality data (dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity, temperature) were
collected during each sampling episode with a Hydrolab Surveyor II®. A macroinvertebrate
index of biotic integrity (IBI) (MD DNR, 1998) was calculated to facilitate ranking of site quality.
Fish Sampling
Fish were sampled during the summer of 2003 to coincide with the MBSS index period for fish
sampling. Backpack electroshockers were used for two passes through a 75-meter reach of
stream with block nets at each end of the reach. All species were enumerated and weighed to
obtain taxa richness and biomass estimates.
20

CORSICA RIVER WRAS
Figure 8
Maryland Tributary Teams
(w/Corsica River TMDL)
QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY
MARYLAND
CHESAPEAKE BAY
Corsica River TMDL
(EPA approved)
May 1 - Oct.31
Nitrogen - 1379 lbs/month
TRIBUTARY TEAM AREAS
Phosphorus - 202 lbs/month
Annual
Choptank River
Nitrogen - 287 670 lbs/yr
Lower Eastern Shore
Phosphorus - 22 244 lbs/yr
Lower Potomac River
Lower Western Shore
Middle Potomac River
Patapsco-Back River
Patuxent River
Upper Eastern Shore
Upper Potomac River
Upper Western Shore
Ten Tributary Teams serve Maryland's Chesapeake Bay
N
basin with the mission to help achieve the nutrient
reduction goals agreed to in the Chesapeake 2000
Agreement and restore living resources in the bay and its tributaries.
20 0 20 40 Miles

Total Maximum Daily Loads of Nitrogen and Phosphorous for Corsica
River
On April 9, 2000 the EPA approved the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) established by
the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) for the Corsica River for phosphorous and
nitrogen. A TMDL reflects the total pollutant loading of the impairing substance a water body
can receive and still meet water quality standards. The Corsica River was first identified on the
1996 303(d) list submitted to EPA by the Maryland Department of the Environment.
Impairments from Maryland's 303(d) list are:
• Nutrients in the tidal portions of the River
• Fecal Coliform
• Sediment
• Biological Impairment (a stretch of Gravel Run is listed based on poor ratings for fish
and benthic organisms population and/or habitat)
• Toxics- PCBs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury and Fish Consumption Advisory. The
presence of PCBs may relate to the fact that the Former Centreville Electric Plant
(now the Centreville Police Department Building and Public Works grounds) was
located directly on the Gravel Run
The Corsica was listed as being impaired by nutrients with established TMDLs for phosphorous
and nitrogen. The TMDL may be found in its complete form on the MDE website at
http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/waterprograms/tmdl/approvedfinaltmdl/tmdl_corsica.asp
Abstractions from this report are made here to inform the reader of the breadth of available
information on the Corsica. Specific attention is drawn to the Point Source and Nonpoint
Source Technical Memoranda, the Appendix A and submitted comments found on the above
captioned web pages.
On the nonpoint source side, the TMDL technical memorandum cited above, suggests the
allocation of implementation strategy efforts may be prioritized on the basis of land use.
Nutrient pollution or over-enrichment problems may arise from numerous sources including all
types of land use and from the atmosphere as well. Adding to the problem, dredging done to
improve occluded navigation channels and from near-shore clamming operations causes the
resuspension of legacy sediments and their attached nutrients in the water column. Tidal
influences from the Chester River mainstem further complicate the sampling and water quality
monitoring as well. Residential land can be an important contributor of nutrients depending
on fertilizer use, extent of lawn area, and status of septic systems. Farmers apply nutrients using
different approaches, so nutrients entering waterways from crop land vary greatly depending on
conservation practices. Typically, streams and other surface waters receive relatively small
amounts of nutrients from forest land and relatively high amounts from land uses that involve
land disturbance and application of fertilizer. The Corsica River Watershed Management
Strategy amplifies this discussion in later pages relative to nutrients and sedimentation
problems.
23

The Corsica River is impaired by nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorous, which cause excessive
algal blooms and can cause "exceedances" of the dissolved oxygen standard. The water quality
goal of the Corsica River TMDLs is to reduce high chlorophyll-a concentrations (a surrogate for
algal blooms), and maintain dissolved oxygen standards at levels where designated uses of the
Corsica River will be met. The TMDL was determined using the WASP5 water quality model.
Total loading caps for nitrogen and phosphorous entering the Corsica River are established for
both the low flow conditions and for annual loads. The TMDL evaluation of the pointsource of
the Centreville WWTP assumed that the discharge would be extended from the existing stream
location at a point at the Watson Road Bridge. This was never done as spray irrigation was
selected over added direct discharge. Seasonal variations are important factors as the new
Centreville WWTP utilizes land application of effluent instead of the current confined stream
discharge method.
The currently established low flow TMDL for nitrogen is 1,379 lbs/month, and the low flow for
phosphorous is 202 lbs/month. These TMDLs apply during the period of May 1- October 31,
and will be implemented through NPDES permits. The annual TMDL for nitrogen is 286,670
lbs/yr, and the annual TMDL for phosphorous load 22,244 lbs/yr.
24

III. Corsica River Management Strategy
Results of the Stream Corridor Assessment and Synoptic Survey
Overall Watershed Conditions
Stream Corridor Assessment/ Synoptic Survey
It is the intent of the Town and its WRAS partners that the WRAS be presented in a simple and
comprehensible manner. The results of the Stream Corridor Assessment (SCA) and associated
ranking of impairment severity may be seen on the following Tables and Figures. These are
included to demonstrate how these data can be particularized for study and for future
restoration implementation plans and grant applications. Each of these assessment tools may
be further studied by merging the orthophoto layer with the exact location of the impairment
under study. Add to this the database result for the applicable landowner, photos taken in the
field of the impairment, soils layers, accessibility from streets or granted right-of-way, etc.
Severity, correctability, and access ratings have been provided on all Figure 9
plates and all Table 3 impairment rankings. To help prioritize future restoration work, all
problem sites are evaluated and scored by field crews on a scale of one to five for three separate
areas: problem severity, correctability and accessibility. These scores are subjective and based
on the field crew's evaluation at the time of the survey. While the Maryland Conservation
Corps (MCC) members receive a week of training on how to do the survey, the overall
experience of individual Corps members is usually limited. Often they do not have the
background to provide a definitive evaluation of the severity or correctability of a particular
problem. The rating should therefore be viewed as the field team's opinion of the worst
problem within a specific problem category and which problems they believed would be the
easiest to correct. The scores provide a starting point for more detailed follow-up evaluations
by individuals that are more experienced dealing with specific problem categories. This is
initially done by reviewing the data and photographs collected by the field teams and can
involve follow-up field visits as well. As additional information about a specific problem site is
obtained, the site's severity, correctability, and/or accessibility ratings can change. While the
criteria for rating problem severity, correctability, and access can vary among different problem
categories, the general guidelines used by survey teams to assign these values are as follows:
Severity Rating
The severity rating is a rating on how bad a specific problem is relative to other problems in the
same problem category. It is used to answer questions such as, where do the field crews
believe the worst erosion problems were, or where was the largest section of stream with an
inadequate buffer. In general, the scoring is based on the overall impression of the survey team
of the severity of the problem.
25

Rating of 1 is for the most severe problems that appear to have direct and wide-reaching
impact on the streams aquatic resources.
Rating of 3 is for moderately severe problems that appear to be having some adverse impacts
at a specific site.
Rating of 5 is for minor problems that do not appear to be having a significant impact on the
stream and aquatic resources.
Correctability Rating
Correctability ratings provide a relative measure on how easily the field teams believe it would
be to correct a specific problem. The correctability rating can be helpful in determining which
problems to initially examine when developing a restoration plan for a drainage basin. One
restoration strategy would be to initially target the severest problems that are the easiest to fix.
The correctability rating can also be useful in identifying simple projects that can be done by
volunteers, as opposed to projects that require more significant engineering efforts.
Rating of 1 is for minor problems that could be corrected quickly and easily using hand labor,
with a minimum amount of planning.
Rating of 3 is for moderate size problems that may require a small piece of equipment, such as
a backhoe, and some planning to correct.
Rating of 5 is for major restoration problems that would require a large expensive effort to
correct. These projects would usually require heavy equipment, significant amount of funding
($100,000.00 or more), and construction could take a month or more.
Accessibility Rating
Accessibility rating is a relative measure of how difficult it is to reach a specific problem site.
The rating is made by the field survey team standing at the site, using their field map and field
observations. While factors such as land ownership and surrounding land use can enter into
the field judgment of accessibility, the rating assumes that some access to the site could be
obtained if requested.
Rating of 1 is for a site that is easily accessible by both car or on foot. Examples would
include a problem in an open area inside a public park where there is sufficient room to park
near the site. If heavy equipment was needed, it could easily access the site using existing roads
or trails.
Rating of 3 is for sites that are easily accessible by foot but not easily accessible by a vehicle.
Examples would include a stream section that could be reached by crossing a large field or a
site that was accessible only by 4-wheel drive vehicles.
26

Rating of 5 is for sites that are difficult to reach both on foot and by a vehicle. Examples
would include a site on private land where there are no roads or trails nearby. To reach the site
it would be necessary to hike over a mile. If equipment were needed to do the restoration
work, an access road would need to be built over a long distance through rough terrain.
27

CORSICA RIVER WATERSHED
SCA SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 9a
ALTERED SHORELINES
³#
016001 029003
029006 ³#+ /( QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY
MARYLAND
+ 03 0 4 3 0 5 0 0 1 01 # ³# + 0 C 3 O S 4 # 0 R 0 S 0 3 4 IC 70 A 0 2 R 0 S I # 3 V 6 E 0 R 0 + 5 S#038 S 0 # 01 0 ³# 38003 /( 301
047001 049003 051002 ³#051004
213
064005+ ´"064002 CHESAPEAKE BAY
080010S#
S#
080011 ³# ³ 0 # 9 ³# 30 0 0 9 1 3005
093004 + ³# 094004
107004
³#
107002
/(
305
Altered Shorelines
# Very Severe
´" Severe
³# Moderate
+ Low Severity
/( /(
S# Minor
301 304
Roads
/( Streams
213 Watershed Boundary
N
1 0 1 Miles

Table 3a - Altered Shorelines
y
Pr o bl e m Sit e D at e P h ot o S ur v e y Ty pe L e n gt h (ft) L a n d U s e A L a n d U s e B S e v erit y C orr e ct a b A i c li c t e s s
Altered Shore 034003 10/6/2003 181-18 CR Groin & broken con 2500 Crop field Open wate 1 3 3
Altered Shore 064002 10/6/2003 CR Wood bulkhead 825 Lawn Open wate 2 2 2
Altered Shore 016001 10/6/2003 172-17 CR Rip-rap 1700 Open wate 3 2 3
Altered Shore 029006 10/6/2003 CR Rip-rap 730 Single home Phramites 3 3 3
Altered Shore 035001 10/6/2003 200 CR Wood bulkhead 275 Lawn Open wate 3 3 2
Altered Shore 051002 10/6/2003 274-27 CR Mix of bulkhead & 530 Residential Open wate 3 3 2
Altered Shore 051004 10/6/2003 281 CR Wood bulkhead 440 Residential Open wate 3 4 3
Altered Shore 093001 10/6/2003 307 CR Wood bulkhead 400 Lawn Open wate 3 3 2
Altered Shore 093004 10/6/2003 313 CR Mix of bulkhead & 130 Single home Open wate 3 3 2
Altered Shore 093005 10/6/2003 314 CR Rip-rap 490 Single home Open wate 3 3 2
Altered Shore 107002 10/6/2003 CR Mix of bulkhead & 700 Boat landing Open wate 3 3 1
Altered Shore 107004 10/6/2003 CR Mix of bulkhead & 410 Marsh emergent Open wate 3 3 1
Altered Shore 029003 10/6/2003 CR Rip-rap 550 Single home Beach 4 2 3
Altered Shore 034001 10/6/2003 180 CR Rip-rap 600 Crop field Open wate 4 3 2
Altered Shore 047001 10/6/2003 CR Rip-rap 545 Lawn Open wate 4 3 3
Altered Shore 049003 10/6/2003 217 CR Rip-rap 640 4 3 2
Altered Shore 064005 10/6/2003 289 CR Rip-rap & gravel 205 Residential Open wate 4 3 2
Altered Shore 094004 10/6/2003 CR Rip-rap 420 Single home Open wate 4 3 2
Altered Shore 036005 10/6/2003 CR Rip-rap 260 Lawn Beach 5 2 2
Altered Shore 038001 10/6/2003 255 CR Wood bulkhead 50 Lawn Beach 5 2 2
Altered Shore 038003 10/6/2003 219 CR Wood bulkhead 115 Residential Open wate 5 3 2
Altered Shore 047002 10/6/2003 CR Rip-rap 190 Shrubs & small Open wate 5 3 3
Altered Shore 080010 10/6/2003 CR Rip-rap 150 Residential Open wate 5 1 2
Altered Shore 080011 10/6/2003 303 CR Rip-rap 200 Residential Open wate 5 2 2

CORSICA RIVER WATERSHED
SCA SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 9b
CHANNEL ALTERATIONS
QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY
/( MARYLAND
CORSICA RIVER 301
/(
213 S# CHESAPEAKE BAY
073101
S# 100104
085104 ++
100101
+
117202 109204
S#
+121118
/(
128102S#
S#
S# 305 +138201
130103 +146102 139102
Channel Alterations
# Very Severe
´" Severe
193102 206109 ³# Moderate
S# + S#199204
+ + Low Severity
/( 194104 + /( S# Minor
206105
301 215103 S# 304 Roads
S# 217202
/( Streams
S#
213 229202 Watershed Boundary
N
1 0 1 Miles

Table 3b - Channel Alterations
Pr o bl e m Sit e D at e Ty pe B ott o m Wi d L t e h n (f g t) t h(ft) S e di m e nt a V t e i o g n i n C h a R n o n a e d l Cr o s L s e i n n g gt h A b o L v e n e( g ft t ) h B el S o e w v (f e t) rit y C orr e ct a b A il c it c y e s s
Channel Alteration 100101 06/09/2003 Corrugated Pipe 10 20 Yes No Both 8 8 4 2 2
Channel Alteration 100104 06/09/2003 Rip-rap 5 100 No Yes Below 0 40 4 4 2
Channel Alteration 109204 06/03/2003 Concrete 2 30 No Both 3 3 4 5 1
Channel Alteration 121118 05/28/2003 Concrete 2 100 Yes Yes Above 75 0 4 5 1
Channel Alteration 138201 06/09/2003 Concrete 8 170 Yes No Both 15 15 4 4 1
Channel Alteration 146102 06/03/2003 Rip-rap 3 300 Yes No No 0 0 4 4 2
Channel Alteration 194104 06/17/2003 Gabion 3 30 No No No 0 0 4 3 2
Channel Alteration 206105 06/12/2003 Concrete 12 150 Yes Yes Both 15 15 4 5 2
Channel Alteration 206109 06/12/2003 Metal Pipe 6 30 No No Both 5 5 4 4 2
Channel Alteration 073101 06/25/2003 Earth Channel 2 800 Yes Yes Below 0 8 5 2 2
Channel Alteration 085104 05/12/2003 Earth Channel 1.5 700 Yes Yes No 0 0 5 2 3
Channel Alteration 117202 06/24/2003 Earth Channel 1.5 600 Yes No No 0 0 5 4 2
Channel Alteration 128102 06/11/2003 Earth Channel 2 500 No Yes No 0 0 5 3 2
Channel Alteration 130103 06/24/2003 Earth Channel 3 5 No Yes No 0 0 5 2 2
Channel Alteration 139102 06/11/2003 Earth Channel 3 250 Yes No No 0 0 5 3 2
Channel Alteration 193102 06/17/2003 Earth Channel 3 700 Yes Yes No 0 0 5 4 2
Channel Alteration 199204 06/11/2003 Earth Channel 1.5 600 Yes Yes No 0 0 5 3 3
Channel Alteration 215103 06/12/2003 Earth Channel 2 300 Yes No No 0 0 5 3 2
Channel Alteration 217202 06/17/2003 Earth Channel 1.5 800 Yes Yes No 0 0 5 2 1
Channel Alteration 229202 06/11/2003 Earth Channel 2 0 Yes Yes No 0 0 5 2 1

CORSICA RIVER WATERSHED
SCA SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 9c
EXPOSED PIPES
S#
021101 QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY
/(
MARYLAND
112201
301
CORSICA RIVER
/(
213
CHESAPEAKE BAY
112201
+
121108 S´#"
121112 /(
305
S#
144201
Exposed Pipes
# Very Severe
´" Severe
³# Moderate
+ Low Severity
S# Minor
/( /(
Roads
301
304
Streams
/( Watershed Boundary
213
N
112201
1 0 1 Miles

Table 3c - Exposed Pipes
e
p
Pr o bl e m Sit e D at e L o c ati o n of
Pi
Ty pe Di a m et er L (i e n n ) gt h(ft) P ur p o s e Di s c h ar g C e ol or O d or S e v erit y C orr e ct a A bi c li c t
y
e s s
Smooth
Exposed Pipe 021101 06/24/2003 Exposed Across Bottom of Stream Metal 3 8 Unknown No 5 2 1
Exposed Pipe 112201 06/09/2003 Exposed Along Stream Bank PSlmasotoicth 2 300 Unknown No 4 2 1
Exposed Pipe 121112 05/28/2003 Exposed Along Stream Bank MSmetoaolth 6 15 Unknown No 5 5 1
Exposed Pipe 144201 06/12/2003 Exposed Along Bottom of Bridge Metal 8 30 Unknown No 5 2 1

CORSICA RIVER WATERSHED
SCA SURVEY RESULTS
++ 005102
005104 Figure 9d
EROSION SITES
021102+#
+ 021103
017002 + 021103 /(
CORSICA RIVER 027001
301 QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY
03600 S#1 S#036 + 003 048 ´" 001 049002 ³# 038002 0 0 5 5 3 4 2 1 0 + 0 1 6+³# ³ 0 ³ # # 54 0 1 5 0 4 3 102 /( MARYLAND
054104 213
´" 066203´" ³#
066202
061101
085105 + 099106 CHESAPEAKE BAY
091201S# ´" 091203 09621 ´ 2 + " +´" 110 ´" 201 09 1 8 11 10 10 3
S´
1
#"
++ + +
+
09 + 910 09 3 9105
+105202 099101
109203 109202 ´" 111103
+ 110101
118101´" +118105 121101 /( ´"124201
³#134105
129101+ 133101³#+
134103
305 138202#S# 13
³#
81
´
0"6 S#
139107
´" + 144102
´"146103 149201´"
15010
1
1
38101
143202 +
# S#
´" 158201 160102 163101
156203
170102+
+
182101 Erosion Sites
´"195205 +
198201
´"
195201
# Very Severe
/( + 207203 /( ´" Severe
301 304 ³# Moderate
/( + Low Severity
213 S# Minor
160102
Roads
Streams
Watershed Boundary
N
1 0 1 Miles
138202

Table 3d - Erosion Sites
?
d
e
n
e
at
e
Pr o bl e m Sit e D at e Ty pe P o s si bl e C a u s e L e n gt h(ft H ) ei g ht(ft) L a n d u s eri g ht L a n d u s el eft I nfr a str u c D t e u s r e c r T i b h e r S e v erit y C orr e ct a A bi c li c t y e s s
Erosion Site 021103 06/25/2003 Widening Natural 1037 4 Forest Forest No 1 2 2
Erosion Site 138202 06/09/2003 Widening Below Channelization 7230 4 Forest Forest No 1 5 4
Erosion Site 160102 06/03/2003 Widening Below Road Crossing 3430 4 Crop Field Forest No 1 4 2
Erosion Site 061101 06/24/2003 Widening Bend at Steep Slope 4380 1 Forest Forest No 2 2 4
Erosion Site 066203 07/07/2003 Downcutting Bend at Steep Slope 1000 1.5 Forest Forest No 2 2 4
Erosion Site 091203 06/24/2003 Downcutting Bend at Steep Slope 3200 1 Forest Forest No 2 2 2
Erosion Site 098104 05/12/2003 Widening Bend at Steep Slope 1720 2 Forest Forest No 2 3 4
Erosion Site 109102 05/27/2003 Widening Land Use Change Upstream 1720 3 Forest Forest No 2 4 3
Erosion Site 109203 06/03/2003 Widening Bend at Steep Slope 1480 2 Forest Forest No 2 3 2
Erosion Site 110101 05/27/2003 Widening Bend at Steep Slope 1390 1 Forest Forest No 2 2 3
Erosion Site 110201 06/03/2003 Widening Bend at Steep Slope 3080 2 Forest Forest No 2 3 4
Erosion Site 118101 06/24/2003 Widening Natural 2060 2.5 Lawn Forest No 2 2 2
Erosion Site 124201 06/09/2003 Widening Bend at Steep Slope 2280 2 Forest Forest No 2 4 3
Erosion Site 138101 06/11/2003 Widening Bend at Steep Slope 1725 3 Crop Field Crop Field No 2 3 3
Erosion Site 143202 06/17/2003 Widening Below Road Crossing 4600 3 Forest Forest No 2 5 1
Erosion Site 146103 06/03/2003 Widening Bend at Steep Slope 3060 2 Forest Forest No 2 3 4
Erosion Site 149201 06/09/2003 Widening Land Use Change Upstream 1715 1 Forest Forest No 2 2 4
Erosion Site 156203 06/17/2003 Widening Below Road Crossing 1630 2 Pasture Pasture No 2 2 2
Erosion Site 195201 06/17/2003 Widening Below Road Crossing 1000 1 Forest Forest No 2 3 3
Erosion Site 195205 06/17/2003 Widening Below Road Crossing 3700 1 Forest Forest No 2 3 4
Erosion Site 054102 07/01/2003 Widening Bend at Steep Slope 470 4 Crop Field Crop Field No 3 2 3
Erosion Site 054103 07/01/2003 Widening Bend at Steep Slope 300 4 Crop Field Crop Field No 3 3 3
Erosion Site 054104 07/01/2003 Widening Bend at Steep Slope 475 4 Crop Field Crop Field No 3 3 3
Erosion Site 066202 07/01/2003 Downcutting Bend at Steep Slope 700 4 Forest Forest No 3 3 3
Erosion Site 133101 06/03/2003 Widening Bend at Steep Slope 375 5 Forest Forest No 3 4 2
Erosion Site 134105 06/03/2003 Widening Bend at Steep Slope 570 4 Forest Forest No 3 4 2
Erosion Site 150101 06/11/2003 Widening Bend at Steep Slope 480 4 Crop Field Crop Field No 3 3 3
Erosion Site 005102 06/25/2003 Widening Bend at Steep Slope 900 3 Forest Forest No 4 2 2

Table 3d - Erosion Sites
?
d
e
n
e
at
e
Pr o bl e m Sit e D at e Ty pe P o s si bl e C a u s e L e n gt h(ft H ) ei g ht(ft) L a n d u s eri g ht L a n d u s el eft I nfr a str u c D t e u s r e c r T i b h e r S e v erit y C orr e ct a A bi c li c t y e s s
Erosion Site 005104 06/25/2003 Widening Bend at Steep Slope 100 6 Forest Forest No 4 2 2
Erosion Site 021102 06/25/2003 Widening Bend at Steep Slope 15 5 Forest Forest No 4 2 2
Erosion Site 053201 07/01/2003 Downcutting Below Road Crossing 620 2 Crop Field Forest No 4 2 3
Erosion Site 054106 07/01/2003 Widening Bend at Steep Slope 260 5 Crop Field Crop Field No 4 3 3
Erosion Site 085105 05/12/2003 Widening Unknown 400 3 Crop Field Crop Field No 4 3 3
Erosion Site 096212 06/03/2003 Widening Bend at Steep Slope 770 3 Forest Forest No 4 3 3
Erosion Site 099101 06/09/2003 Widening Bend at Steep Slope 75 12 Crop Field Forest No 4 3 2
Erosion Site 099103 06/09/2003 Widening Bend at Steep Slope 50 5 Crop Field Forest No 4 2 2
Erosion Site 099105 06/09/2003 Widening Bend at Steep Slope 20 4 Crop Field Forest No 4 1 2
Erosion Site 099106 06/25/2003 Widening Bend at Steep Slope 25 4 Forest Forest No 4 2 2
Erosion Site 105202 06/24/2003 Widening Bend at Steep Slope 800 2 Forest Lawn No 4 2 2
Erosion Site 109202 06/03/2003 Widening Bend at Steep Slope 310 2 Forest Forest No 4 1 5
Erosion Site 111101 06/09/2003 Widening Bend at Steep Slope 50 5 Pasture Forest No 4 2 3
Erosion Site 111103 06/09/2003 Widening Bend at Steep Slope 50 10 Crop Field Forest No 4 2 3
Erosion Site 118105 06/24/2003 Widening Bend at Steep Slope 20 5 Forest Forest No 4 4 4
Erosion Site 121101 05/28/2003 Widening Land Use Change Upstream 600 3 Pasture Pasture No 4 3 2
Erosion Site 129101 06/24/2003 Widening Natural 430 2 Pasture Crop Field No 4 2 1
Erosion Site 134103 06/03/2003 Widening Natural 500 2 Forest Forest No 4 3 2
Erosion Site 144102 06/17/2003 Widening Bend at Steep Slope 45 5 Crop Field Crop Field No 4 2 3
Erosion Site 158201 06/12/2003 Downcutting Bend at Steep Slope 500 1 Forest Forest No 4 1 3
Erosion Site 170102 06/17/2003 Widening Natural 545 2 Crop Field Crop Field No 4 3 3
Erosion Site 182101 06/17/2003 Widening Bend at Steep Slope 550 3 Crop Field Crop Field No 4 3 3
Erosion Site 198201 06/11/2003 Widening Bend at Steep Slope 500 1 Forest Forest No 4 2 2
Erosion Site 207203 06/17/2003 Widening Below Road Crossing 560 1 Forest Forest No 4 2 2
Erosion Site 091201 06/24/2003 Downcutting Bend at Steep Slope 140 2 Forest Forest No 5 2 3
Erosion Site 098103 05/12/2003 Headcutting Instream Debris 120 3 Crop Field Crop Field No 5 1 3
Erosion Site 138106 06/11/2003 Widening Bend at Steep Slope 290 3 Crop Field Crop Field No 5 3 2
Erosion Site 139107 06/11/2003 Widening Natural 30 3 Crop Field Crop Field No 5 2 2

Table 3d - Erosion Sites
?
d
e
n
e
at
e
Pr o bl e m Sit e D at e Ty pe P o s si bl e C a u s e L e n gt h(ft H ) ei g ht(ft) L a n d u s eri g ht L a n d u s el eft I nfr a str u c D t e u s r e c r T i b h e r S e v erit y C orr e ct a A bi c li c t y e s s
Erosion Site 163101 06/11/2003 Widening Natural 230 3 Crop Field Crop Field No 5 3 3
Erosion Site 017002 10/6/2003 4 1 3
Erosion Site 027001 10/6/2003 4 3
Erosion Site 036001 10/6/2003 5 3
Erosion Site 036003 10/6/2003 5 3 4
Erosion Site 038002 10/6/2003 3 3 3
Erosion Site 048001 10/6/2003 4 4 3
Erosion Site 049002 10/6/2003 2 4 3

CORSICA RIVER WATERSHED
S#+005101 SCA SURVEY RESULTS
005103
Figure 9e
FISH BARRIERS
040102 /(
S#
CORSICA RIVER 301
053202
+
/(
+ + QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY
054105 054101213 MARYLAND
S#
066201
+ S#
0
S#
79201 0
S#
96204 S#
085101
S#
088101
090101 +
092201 096208
104201+
S#
+
1
1
2
0
9
5
1
2
0
0
2
4
144105 SS##
1
1
2
4
1
4
1
1
2
0
2
7
#
1
S#
09
+ 1
2
2
0
1
5
1 1 2 2
SS##
1 3 125 11
+
010 1 4 24 /( 2
3
1
0
0
1
3
5
12
S#
0
S#
3S#
12
S
4
#
20
1
5 S#
112
1
0
³ 2 # 5
1
2 1 0 3 2 7202
1
1
3
3
9
9
1
1
S#0
0
4
8
S#+S#13
1
9
39
10
10
1
5
CHESAPEAKE BAY
+ S# 150108S#
143201 + 147102 S#
+ 158203 163102
156202 S#
171201
S#
+ 182103 S#
182109 S# 186201
+ 195203
/( 194105 + +207205 + /( Fish Barriers
207202 208101
301 304 # Very Severe
/( + ´" Severe
215101
213 ³# Moderate
+
234101 + Low Severity
S# Minor
Roads
Streams
Watershed Boundary
N
1 0 1 Miles
121122

Table 3e - Fish Barriers
y
Pr o bl e m Sit e D at e Bl o c k a g e Ty pe R e a s o n Dr o p(I n) D e pt h(I n) S e v erit y C orr e ct a A
bi
c
li
c
t
e s s
Fish Barrier 147102 06/03/2003 Temporary Natural Falls Too High 8 5 1 3
Fish Barrier 139108 06/11/2003 Temporary Natural Falls Too High 2 5 2 3
Fish Barrier 121123 05/28/2003 Temporary Beaver Dam Too High 3 5 1 2
Fish Barrier 111201 06/09/2003 Partial Natural Falls Too High 3 5 2 2
Fish Barrier 079201 06/24/2003 Temporary Natural Falls Too High 4 5 2 3
Fish Barrier 124205 06/09/2003 Temporary Natural Falls Too High 4 5 1 3
Fish Barrier 125202 06/09/2003 Partial Natural Falls Too High 5 5 2 2
Fish Barrier 096204 06/03/2003 Temporary Natural Falls Too High 6 5 1 2
Fish Barrier 111203 06/09/2003 Temporary Natural Falls Too High 6 5 1 4
Fish Barrier 139101 06/11/2003 Temporary Natural Falls Too High 6 5 1 2
Fish Barrier 054101 07/01/2003 Total Road Crossing Too High 6 4 4 2
Fish Barrier 090101 06/24/2003 Total Road Crossing Too High 6 4 2 1
Fish Barrier 171201 06/12/2003 Temporary Beaver Dam Too High 8 5 2 4
Fish Barrier 124203 06/09/2003 Temporary Natural Falls Too High 8 5 5 3
Fish Barrier 182103 06/17/2003 Temporary Natural Falls Too High 8 5 2 3
Fish Barrier 092201 06/24/2003 Total Natural Falls Too High 8 5 3 4
Fish Barrier 137202 06/09/2003 Total Road Crossing Too High 8 3 3 1
Fish Barrier 105204 06/24/2003 Total Road Crossing Too High 10 4 3 1
Fish Barrier 110104 05/27/2003 Temporary Beaver Dam Too High 12 4 2 5
Fish Barrier 121125 05/28/2003 Temporary Beaver Dam Too High 12 4 4 3
Fish Barrier 088101 06/09/2003 Temporary Natural Falls Too High 12 5 2 3
Fish Barrier 150108 06/11/2003 Temporary Natural Falls Too High 12 5 1 2
Fish Barrier 163102 06/11/2003 Temporary Natural Falls Too High 12 5 3 3
Fish Barrier 109205 06/03/2003 Total Natural Falls Too High 12 5 2 3
Fish Barrier 195203 06/17/2003 Total Natural Falls Too High 12 5 3 4
Fish Barrier 158203 06/12/2003 Total Pipe Crossing Too High 12 4 4 3
Fish Barrier 054105 07/01/2003 Total Road Crossing Too High 12 4 5 1
Fish Barrier 104201 06/24/2003 Total Road Crossing Too High 12 4 4 2
Fish Barrier 207202 06/17/2003 Total Road Crossing Too High 12 4 4 2
Fish Barrier 139104 06/11/2003 Total Instream Pond Too High 18 5 3 2
Fish Barrier 144105 06/17/2003 Partial Natural Falls Too High 18 5 2 2

Table 3e - Fish Barriers
y
Pr o bl e m Sit e D at e Bl o c k a g e Ty pe R e a s o n Dr o p(I n) D e pt h(I n) S e v erit y C orr e ct a A
bi
c
li
c
t
e s s
Fish Barrier 186201 06/11/2003 Temporary Natural Falls Too High 18 5 5 1
Fish Barrier 143201 06/17/2003 Total Road Crossing Too High 18 4 4 1
Fish Barrier 109206 06/03/2003 Total Beaver Dam Too High 24 5 1 3
Fish Barrier 144107 06/17/2003 Partial Natural Falls Too High 24 5 3 2
Fish Barrier 040102 07/01/2003 Total Natural Falls Too High 24 5 3 3
Fish Barrier 182109 06/17/2003 Total Road Crossing Too High 24 4 4 1
Fish Barrier 066201 07/01/2003 Total Natural Falls Too High 30 5 1 2
Fish Barrier 215101 06/12/2003 Total Instream Pond Too High 36 4 4 2
Fish Barrier 053202 07/01/2003 Total Road Crossing Too High 36 4 4 1
Fish Barrier 139105 06/11/2003 Total Instream Pond Too High 36 4 4 2
Fish Barrier 156202 06/17/2003 Total Road Crossing Too High 48 4 4 2
Fish Barrier 121122 05/28/2003 Total Dam Too High 60 1 5 1
Fish Barrier 194105 06/17/2003 Total Instream Pond Too High 60 4 5 2
Fish Barrier 208101 06/17/2003 Total Instream Pond Too High 60 4 5 2
Fish Barrier 234101 06/12/2003 Total Instream Pond Too High 60 4 5 2
Fish Barrier 085101 05/12/2003 Total Instream Pond Too High 120 5 5 2
Fish Barrier 096208 06/03/2003 Total Pipe Crossing Too High 144 4 5 3
Fish Barrier 207205 06/17/2003 Total Channelized Too Shallow 0.5 4 5 1
Fish Barrier 005103 06/25/2003 Temporary Natural Falls Too High 24 5 2 3
Fish Barrier 129102 06/24/2003 Temporary Natural Falls Too High 24 5 2 2
Fish Barrier 005101 06/24/2003 Partial Pipe Crossing Too Shallow 1 4 2 1

CORSICA RIVER WATERSHED
SCA SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 9f
INADEQUATE BUFFERS
#
016 ´ 002 + 027002 + 028001 ´029004 128101 /( QUEEN M A A N R N Y E L ' A S N C D OUNTY
017001 +
CORSICA RIV 0 E 2 R 8002 + 301
034002´
#
0470
0
0
3
3
600 ³#4 037
0
0
3
0
8
1
00
³
2
# ´039002
/(
213 +
064006 + +064001 073102 CHESAPEAKE BAY
+080002 098102+ +085103
+ ´ 094003
09620
S#
1S#
S#
´ 093002 097202
090102
´094001 096205 S# S#
#³# S# 111102 113101
´ 107003 110102
117201 121102++ 121124 /( S#
124206
128101 #
S#
305 S#138109
139103
´ 144103S#+ 144203 + ´
130102+ 146101 149205
143203 S#
158204
´ Inadequate Buffers
156201
SS## # Very Severe
193103
182104 ´" Severe
# ´199203
S# ³# Moderate
/( 194103 ³#207204 /( + Low Severity
301 ´ 304
215102³# 217201 S# Minor
/( Roads
´
213 229201 Streams
Watershed Boundary
N
1 0 1 Miles
193103

Table 3f - Inadequate Buffers
d
e
h
s
Pr o bl e m Sit e D at e Si d e s U n s h a d e d Wi dt h L ef W t(f i t d ) t h Ri g h L t( e ft n ) gt h L eft(f L t) e n gt h Ri g ht(ft) L a n d U s e L eft L a n d U s e Ri g ht R e c e ntl y L e i s v t e a s b t l o i c k Li v e st o c k S T e y v p e e rit y C orr e ct a A bi c li c t y e s s W etl a n d
Inadequate Buffer 229201 06/11/2003 Both Both 10 10 2165 2165 Crop Field Crop Field No No 2 3 1 4
Inadequate Buffer 073102 06/24/2003 Both Both 2 2 670 670 Crop Field Crop Field No No 4 2 2 5
Inadequate Buffer 085103 05/12/2003 Both Neither 20 20 770 770 Shrubs & Small Trees Shrubs & Small Trees Yes No 4 2 3 2
Inadequate Buffer 090102 06/24/2003 Both Neither 5 5 1350 1350 Crop Field Crop Field No No 2 3 2 5
Inadequate Buffer 096201 06/03/2003 Right Neither 10 115 Forest Lawn No No 5 2 2 5
Inadequate Buffer 096205 06/03/2003 Left Left 20 110 Lawn Forest No No 5 2 3 3
Inadequate Buffer 097202 06/03/2003 Right Neither 10 70 Forest Construction Site No No 5 2 4 5
Inadequate Buffer 098102 05/12/2003 Right Neither 15 860 Forest Crop Field No No 4 2 3 3
Inadequate Buffer 110102 05/27/2003 Right Neither 15 300 Forest Crop Field No No 5 1 4 4
Inadequate Buffer 111102 06/09/2003 Left Neither 30 115 Crop Field Forest No No 5 3 3 4
Inadequate Buffer 113101 06/25/2003 Both Both 15 0 180 180 Crop Field Lawn No No 5 2 1 5
Inadequate Buffer 117201 06/24/2003 Both Both 2 2 1175 1175 Crop Field Crop Field No No 2 3 2 5
Inadequate Buffer 121102 05/28/2003 Both Both 10 10 980 400 Pasture Pasture No No 4 4 2 4
Inadequate Buffer 121124 05/28/2003 Right Neither 10 270 Forest Lawn No No 4 1 2 5
Inadequate Buffer 124206 06/09/2003 Both Neither 20 20 300 300 Crop Field Crop Field No No 5 2 2 4
Inadequate Buffer 128101 06/11/2003 Both Both 0 0 1615 1615 Crop Field Crop Field No No 1 4 2 2
Inadequate Buffer 130102 06/24/2003 Both Both 3 7 1000 1000 Crop Field Crop Field No No 2 2 2 5
Inadequate Buffer 138109 06/11/2003 Both Both 0 0 150 150 Crop Field Crop Field No No 5 3 2 4
Inadequate Buffer 139103 06/11/2003 Right Neither 15 260 Crop Field Crop Field No No 5 2 2 3
Inadequate Buffer 143203 06/17/2003 Both Neither 10 10 340 340 Lawn Lawn No No 4 3 1 3
Inadequate Buffer 144103 06/17/2003 Right Neither 15 130 Crop Field Lawn No No 5 3 2 3
Inadequate Buffer 144203 06/12/2003 Both Both 10 10 350 350 Shrubs & Small Trees Shrubs & Small Trees No No 4 2 1 4
Inadequate Buffer 146101 06/03/2003 Left Left 0 140 Railroad Track Forest No No 4 4 2 5
Inadequate Buffer 149205 06/09/2003 Both Neither 6 6 850 850 Crop Field Crop Field No No 2 3 2 4
Inadequate Buffer 156201 06/17/2003 Both Neither 3 3 870 870 Pasture Pasture No No 2 3 1 3
Inadequate Buffer 158204 06/12/2003 Both Neither 15 15 850 850 Crop Field Crop Field No No 5 3 3 4
Inadequate Buffer 182104 06/17/2003 Right Right 0 75 Crop Field Crop Field No No 5 3 2 4
Inadequate Buffer 182106 06/17/2003 Both Both 0 0 85 90 Lawn Lawn No No 5 3 2 3
Inadequate Buffer 193103 06/17/2003 Both Both 0 0 1575 1575 Crop Field Crop Field No No 1 3 2 2

Table 3f - Inadequate Buffers
d
e
h
s
Pr o bl e m Sit e D at e Si d e s U n s h a d e d Wi dt h L ef W t(f i t d ) t h Ri g h L t( e ft n ) gt h L eft(f L t) e n gt h Ri g ht(ft) L a n d U s e L eft L a n d U s e Ri g ht R e c e ntl y L e i s v t e a s b t l o i c k Li v e st o c k S T e y v p e e rit y C orr e ct a A bi c li c t y e s s W etl a n d
Inadequate Buffer 194103 03/17/2003 Both Neither 20 30 105 105 Crop Field Crop Field No No 5 3 2 2
Inadequate Buffer 199203 06/11/2003 Both Both 10 10 1220 1220 Crop Field Crop Field No No 2 3 3 4
Inadequate Buffer 207204 06/17/2003 Right Neither 10 975 Forest Crop Field No No 3 3 2 3
Inadequate Buffer 215102 06/12/2003 Both Both 0 0 785 785 Crop Field Pasture No Yes Horses 3 3 2 3
Inadequate Buffer 217201 06/17/2003 Both Both 1 1 1050 1050 Crop Field Crop Field No No 2 3 1 3
Inadequate buffer 016002 10/6/2003 1 2 3 3
Inadequate buffer 017001 10/6/2003 2 1 3 1
Inadequate buffer 027002 10/6/2003 4 1 3 3
Inadequate buffer 028001 10/6/2003 4 2 3 1
Inadequate buffer 028002 10/6/2003 4 1 3 1
Inadequate buffer 029004 10/6/2003 2 1 2 1
Inadequate buffer 034002 10/6/2003 2 2 3 3
Inadequate buffer 036004 10/6/2003 3 3 2 2
Inadequate buffer 037001 10/6/2003 4 1 2 2
Inadequate buffer 038002 10/6/2003 3 1 2 2
Inadequate buffer 039002 10/6/2003 2 2 3 2
Inadequate buffer 047003 10/6/2003 1
Inadequate buffer 064001 10/6/2003 4 2 2 3
Inadequate buffer 064006 10/6/2003 4 1 2 4
Inadequate buffer 080002 10/6/2003 4 2 2 3
Inadequate buffer 093002 10/6/2003 4 1 2 3
Inadequate buffer 094001 10/6/2003 2 2 2 2
Inadequate buffer 094003 10/6/2003 2 2 2 2
Inadequate buffer 107001 10/6/2003 3 4 1 2
Inadequate buffer 107003 10/6/2003 1 1 2 3

CORSICA RIVER WATERSHED
SCA SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 9g
IN/NEAR STREAM
CONSTRUCTION
QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY
MARYLAND
096101
CHESAPEAKE BAY
/(
CORSICA RIVER 301
/(
213
096101# S#
097203
+121103
/( In/Near Stream Construction
305 # Very Severe
´" Severe
³# Moderate
+ Low Severity
S# Minor
182103³#
Roads
Streams
/( /( Watershed Boundary
301 304
/( N
213
1 0 1 Miles

Table 3g - In/Near Stream Construction
Pr o ble m Site Date Type of
Activity
Sedi ment
Control
Why, if
inadequate
Excess Se L d e i
m
ng
e
t
n
h
t?
Co mpany Location Severity
Residential David A. Bramble,
In/Near Stream Construction096101 05/27/2003 DReesviedleonptmiael nt Adequate Yes 1700 Inc. Head of Tributary off Three Bridges Branch 1
In/Near Stream Construction097203 06/03/2003 DReesviedleonptmiael nt Adequate No 1800 Barkers Tributary of Three Bridges Branch 5
In/Near Stream Construction121103 05/28/2003 Development Adequate No Controls No 500 Unknown Gravel Run under 213 Dam 4
In/Near Stream Construction182105 06/17/2003 Logging Inadequate Present Yes 150 Unknown 3

CORSICA RIVER WATERSHED
SCA SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 9h
PIPE OUTFALL
QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY
MARYLAND
/(
S#
CORSICA RIVER 040101 301
/(
096211 CHESAPEAKE BAY
213
09 S 6#203 100102SS+##100103
S#091202
096209
³S#+##
09
0
6
9
2
6
1
2
0
11
096207
111202
+
1211
1
0
21
6
# ´ 1 #++"SS³++³³##### 04
121121 /(
124+204
140101 +
130
+
101 134+104
305 138102SSS 1###+ 38104
144 SS##202 + 13 + 8105
14 ³ 3#20414410 S#1 144204 160S#+ 103 149206 150104 Pipe Outfalls
160101
170101 # Very Severe
+
18210 ³#2 ´" Severe
182 SS##110 ³# Moderate
182111 196+201
/( 301
194S#1
2
0
06
6
10 2 1 0 ³# + 6 ++++ 10 2 8 06
2
1
0
0
7
3
2 S³+##08
S2#07201 /( 304
+
S#
L
M
o
in
w
o
S
r
everity
Roads
121104
/(
Streams
213 234³#102
Watershed Boundary
N
1 0 1 Miles
121106

Table 3h - Pipe Outfalls
Pr o ble m Site Date Outfall Type Pipe Type Location of
Pipe
Dia meter C (in h ) annel
Width
Purpose Discharge C ol or Odor Severity Correctab A il c ity cess
Pipe Outfall040101 07/01/2003 unknown Concrete Channel Left Bank 12 0 Unknown No 5 -1 -1
Pipe Outfall121109 05/28/2003 Stormwater Concrete Channel Left Bank 0 6 Stormwater Yes Clear None 4 5 1
Pipe Outfall121110 05/28/2003 Stormwater Concrete Channel Left Bank 24 0 Stormwater Yes Clear None 4 5 1
Pipe Outfall121114 05/28/2003 Stormwater Concrete Channel Left Bank 0 2 Stormwater No 5 5 1
Pipe Outfall130101 06/24/2003 Agricultural Concrete Channel Right Bank 36 3 Stormwater Yes Clear None 4 2 2
Pipe Outfall138102 06/11/2003 Stormwater Concrete Channel Right Bank 0 3 Stormwater No 5 3 1
Pipe Outfall140101 06/11/2003 Stormwater Concrete Channel Left Bank 18 2 Stormwater Yes Clear None 4 2 1
Pipe Outfall150104 06/11/2003 Stormwater Concrete Channel Right Bank 24 3 Stormwater No 4 3 2
Pipe Outfall194106 06/17/2003 Stormwater Concrete Channel Right Bank 36 4 Stormwater No 5 3 2
Pipe Outfall206101 06/12/2003 Agricultural Concrete Channel Left Bank 8 0 Unknown Yes Clear None 3 2 2
Pipe Outfall207208 06/17/2003 Stormwater Concrete Channel Left Bank 0 4 Stormwater Yes Clear None 4 2 1
Pipe Outfall096209 06/03/2003 Stormwater Concrete Pipe Left Bank 8 0 Stormwater No 5 5 3
Pipe Outfall121111 05/28/2003 Stormwater Concrete Pipe bHoetahd s iodfe s 4 0 Stormwater Yes Medium Brown None 2 5 1
Pipe Outfall160101 06/03/2003 Stormwater Concrete Pipe Stream 18 3 Stormwater Yes Clear None 4 3 2
Pipe Outfall160103 06/03/2003 Stormwater Concrete Pipe Left Bank 18 2 Stormwater No 5 3 2
Pipe Outfall096203 06/03/2003 Stormwater Corrugated Metal LHeefat dB aonf k 18 0 Stormwater No 5 4 2
Pipe Outfall096207 06/03/2003 Dam Outfall Corrugated Metal Stream 18 0 Dam Outfall Yes Clear None 3 5 3
Pipe Outfall100102 06/09/2003 Stormwater Corrugated Metal Left Bank 36 10 Stormwater No 5 5 1
Pipe Outfall100103 06/09/2003 Stormwater Corrugated Metal Left Bank 36 8 Stormwater No 5 4 2
Pipe Outfall100105 06/09/2003 Stormwater Corrugated Metal Right Bank 18 2 Stormwater Yes Clear None 4 4 2
Pipe Outfall121106 05/28/2003 Stormwater Corrugated Metal Left Bank 18 4 Stormwater Yes Medium Brown Musky 1 5 2
Pipe Outfall124204 06/09/2003 Stormwater Corrugated Metal Right Bank 24 0 Stormwater Yes Clear None 4 5 3
Pipe Outfall144101 06/17/2003 Unknown Corrugated Metal Right Bank 12 3 Unknown No 5 4 3
Pipe Outfall182110 06/17/2003 Stormwater Corrugated Metal Left Bank 12 1.5 Stormwater No 5 3 1
Pipe Outfall196201 06/17/2003 Stormwater Corrugated Metal Left Bank 18 3 Stormwater Yes Clear None 4 3 1
Pipe Outfall206107 06/12/2003 Stormwater Corrugated Metal Left Bank 16 0 Stormwater Yes Clear None 4 5 2
Pipe Outfall207206 06/17/2003 Stormwater Corrugated Metal Left Bank 18 Stormwater No 5 1 1
Pipe Outfall234102 06/12/2003 Agricultural Corrugated Metal Left Bank 8 2 Drainage-Crop Yes Clear None 3 3 3
Pipe Outfall091202 06/24/2003 Stormwater Earth Channel Left Bank 0 1 Stormwater No 5 2 1
Pipe Outfall182111 06/17/2003 Stormwater Earth Channel Right Bank 0 1.5 Stormwater No 5 2 1
Pipe Outfall206108 06/12/2003 Stormwater Earth Channel Right Bank 0 4 Stormwater Yes Clear None 4 3 2
Pipe Outfall096210 06/03/2003 Stormwater Plastic Right Bank 18 0 Stormwater Yes Clear None 4 5 3
Pipe Outfall096211 06/03/2003 unknown Plastic Right Bank 6 2 Unknown Yes Medium Brown None 1 5 3
Pipe Outfall111202 06/09/2003 Stormwater Plastic Right Bank 36 1 Stormwater Yes Clear None 4 3 2
Pipe Outfall121116 05/28/2003 Stormwater Plastic Both Sides 4 0 Stormwater Yes Medium Brown None 3 5 1

Table 3h - Pipe Outfalls
Pr o ble m Site Date Outfall Type Pipe Type Location of
Pipe
Dia meter C (in h ) annel
Width
Purpose Discharge C ol or Odor Severity Correctab A il c ity cess
Pipe Outfall121117 05/28/2003 Stormwater Plastic Right Bank 18 0 Stormwater Yes Clear None 4 5 1
Pipe Outfall143204 06/17/2003 UCnokmnionwg nFrom Back of Plastic Left Bank 4 0 Unknown Yes Clear None 3 2 1
Pipe Outfall144204 06/12/2003 Restaurant Plastic Left Bank 1 0 Unknown No 5 1 1
Pipe Outfall149206 06/09/2003 Stormwater Plastic Left Bank 8 1 Stormwater Yes Clear None 4 3 2
Pipe Outfall170101 06/17/2003 Stormwater Plastic Left Bank 36 8 Sewage Yes Clear None 4 5 3
Pipe Outfall206106 06/12/2003 Stormwater PSmlasotoicth Metal Above Stream 12 0 Stormwater Yes Clear None 4 5 2
Pipe Outfall121104 05/28/2003 Sewage Overflow PSimpeooth Metal Left Bank 12 0 Sewage No 1 5 2
Pipe Outfall121115 05/28/2003 Stormwater PSimpeooth Metal Left Bank 18 0 Stormwater No 5 5 1
Pipe Outfall121119 05/28/2003 Pumping Station PSimpeooth Metal LHeefat dB aonf k 6 0 Stormwater Yes Clear None 4 5 1
Pipe Outfall121120 05/28/2003 Dam Outfall PSimpeooth Metal SHtereaadm of 8 0 Dam Outfall Yes Clear None 3 5 1
Pipe Outfall121121 05/28/2003 Dam Outfalls PSimpeooth Metal Stream 12 0 Dam Outfall Yes Clear None 3 5 1
Pipe Outfall138103 06/11/2003 Stormwater PSimpeooth Metal Right Bank 4 0 Stormwater No 5 3 1
Pipe Outfall138104 06/11/2003 Stormwater PSimpeooth Metal Left Bank 5 0 Stormwater No 5 3 1
Pipe Outfall138105 06/11/2003 Stormwater PSimpeooth Metal Left Bank 5 0 Water Supply Yes Clear None 4 3 1
Pipe Outfall206103 06/12/2003 Stormwater PSimpeooth Metal Left Bank 6 0 Stormwater Yes Clear None 4 5 2
Pipe Outfall206104 06/12/2003 Stormwater PSimpeooth Metal Left Bank 6 0 Stormwater Yes Clear None 4 5 2
Pipe Outfall207201 06/17/2003 Agricultural PSimpeooth Metal Right Bank 12 0 Water Supply No 5 1 2
Pipe Outfall207207 06/17/2003 Stormwater Pipe Left Bank 4 0 Stormwater Yes Medium Brown None 3 2 1
Pipe Outfall144202 06/12/2003 Stormwater Terra Cotta Left Bank 18 0 Stormwater No 5 1 1
Pipe Outfall182102 06/17/2003 Unknown Terra Cotta Left Bank 6 0 Unknown Yes Clear None 3 3 3
Pipe Outfall134104 06/03/2003 Stormwater Terra Cotta Left Bank 6 10 Stormwater Yes Clear None 4 2 2

CORSICA RIVER WATERSHED
SCA SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 9i
TRASH DUMPING
/(
301
/( QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY
MARYLAND
213
CORSICA RIVER
096202
S#
CHESAPEAKE BAY
S#
099102
105205
++
105203
+ /(
118102
305
³#
144106 + S#147103
144205
Trash Dumping
# Very Severe
/( /( ´" Severe
301
304 ³# Moderate
+ Low Severity
/(
S# Minor
213
Roads
Streams
Watershed Boundary
N
1 0 1 Miles
144106

Table 3i - Trash Dumping
?
ct
Pr o bl e m Sit e D at e Ty pe Tr u c kl o a d s Ot h er m e a s ur e E xt e nt V ol u nt e er Pr O o w j e n er T y p e O w ner Na S m e e v erit y C orr e ct a A bi c li c t y e s s
Trash Dumping 144106 06/17/2003 Cars/Buses 30 40-50 Cars, junkyard Large Area No Private 3 4 2
Trash Dumping 105203 06/24/2003 Residential 1 Single Site Yes Private 4 1 2
Trash Dumping 105205 06/24/2003 Industrial 2 Single Site No Unknown 4 2 2
Trash Dumping 118102 06/24/2003 Residential 1 Single Site Yes Private 4 2 2
Trash Dumping 144205 06/12/2003 Tires 3 Single Site No Unknown 4 4 3
Trash Dumping 096202 06/03/2003 Construction 3 Large Area Yes Unknown 5 2 2
Trash Dumping 099102 06/09/2003 Lumber/Building Materials 1 Single Site Yes Private 5 1 3
Trash Dumping 147103 06/03/2003 Lumber 1 Single Site Yes Private 5 3 3

CORSICA RIVER WATERSHED
SCA SURVEY RESULTS
++005102
005104
Figure 9j
021102+# UNUSUAL
+ 021103
017002 + /( CONDITIONS/COMMENTS
027001
CORSICA RIVER 301
03600S#1 S#036 + 00 0 3 48 ´" 00 0 1 49002 ³# 038002 0 0 5 5 3 4 2 1 0 + 0 1 6+³# ³ 0 ³ ## 54 0 1 5 0 4 3 102 /( QUEEN M A A N R N Y E L ' A S N C D OUNTY
054104 213
´" 066203´" ³#
066202
061101
08510 + 5 099106
091201S# ´" 09
+
120
1
3
05202
09621 ´" + 2 +´" 110 ´" 201 09 1 8 11 10 10 3
S#´
1
"
++ +
099
+
+
10
0
1
9 + 910 09 3 9105 CHESAPEAKE BAY
109203 109202 ´" 111103
+ 110101
118101´" +118105 121101 /( ´"124201
³#134105
129101+ 133101³#+
134103
305 138202#S# 13
³#
81
´
0"6 S#
139107
´" +144102
´"146103 149201´"
15010
1
1
38101
143202 + # S#
´" 158201 160102 163101
156203
170102+
+
182101 Unusual
´"195205 +
198201
´"195201 Conditions/Comments
/( +207203 /(
$ Comment
301 304
# Very Severe
/(
´" Severe
213
³# Moderate
+ Low Severity
S# Minor
Roads
Streams
Watershed Boundary
N
1 0 1 Miles
121107

Table 3j - Unusual Conditions
e
Pr o bl e m Sit e D at e Ty pe D e s cri pti
o n
P ot e nti al
C a u s
S e v erit y C orr e ct a A
bi
c
li
c
t y
e s s
Abnormal Seep From Land Use Change
Unusual Condition 121107 05/28/2003 Bank Musky Smelling Seep 3ft long, 10 inches side Upstream 2 2 2
Unusual Condition 085102 05/12/2003 Red Flock Red Flock In Stream below instream pond utrification in pond 3 3 2
Unusual Condition 134106 06/03/2003 Red Flock Excessive Red Flock Present Iron Oxides 3 3 2
Channel Discharging into Dark Brown Discharge in Channel entering
Unusual Condition 139106 06/11/2003 Stream stream Unknown 3 3 2
Orange Substance Orange Substance leaking from bank in many
Unusual Condition 143206 06/17/2003 Leaking from Bank different places along section of bank Runoff from field 3 4 3
Stream has large amount of black organic
Unusual Condition 098105 05/12/2003 Black Organic Material material present 4 3 3
Whole Tributary w/excessive sediment from Upstream
Unusual Condition 109101 05/27/2003 Excessive Sediment upstream construction Construction 4 4 3
Unusual Condition 134101 06/03/2003 Red Flock Discharge from Bank Runoff 4 3 2
Water dark brown/red in color - darkens as
Unusual Condition 150106 06/11/2003 Water Color/Clarity you proceed upstream Runoff 4 2 3
Unusual Condition 220201 06/11/2003 Red Flock Field Drainage 4 4 1
Unusual Condition 118104 06/24/2003 Scum Orange Scum Washing into Stream Farm 5 3 3
SE Healing over w/
Unusual Condition 038002 10/06/2003 trees and toe protection 0

TABLE 3k
Summary of Stream Corridor Impairment Remediation Costs
Total for Impairment Remediation
Altered Shorelines 13055 lf @ $215/lf $2,806825.00
$714,875.00 (sev./mod. Only)
Channel Alterations 6,185/lf @ $65.00/lf $402,025.00
$60,450.00 (mod. Only)
Exposed Pipes 4 occurrences @ $4,000.00
$1,000.00/site
Erosion Sites 64,312 lf @ $40.00/lf $2,572,480.00
$467,880.00 (sev./mod. Only)
Fish Barriers 52 occurrences @ $78,000.00
$1,500.00/site (1 sev. @ Gravel Run Dam
$175,00.00)
Inadequate Buffers 54 occurrences (see
Implementation Initiatives)
In-Stream Construction 4 sites @ $0.00/site Enforcement of approved BMPs
Pipe Outfalls 56 sites @ $3,200.00/site $179,200.00
Trash Dumping 42 truckloads @ $15,750.00
$375.00/load
Unusual Conditions ("Hot Spots") 12 sites As needed, per site
*Cost estimates used above are taken from The Technical reference for Maryland’s Tributary Strategies October 2002 and from local engineering
estimating practices.
53

Additional Concerns
Particular note is made of certain impairment categories for which the WRAS Steering
Committee requests further programmatic protections be provided by the appropriate
government entities. These are: channel alterations, construction in or near stream and stream
bank erosion sites. Site locations of several large on-going land development projects include,
but are not limited to, Northbrook, Symphony Village, Providence Farm (all in the Town of
Centreville), and Corsica River Estates, Three Creeks, Hopelands, Claiborne Fields (all in the
County). These projects all have approved sediment and erosion control plans in place.
Inspection and Maintenance Agreements by the County and MDE relative to those provisions
and those for Storm Water Management are in place as well. The Town and its WRAS partners
have included specific proposals for increased oversight of these developments and their
construction practices within the Watershed. The emphasis on this stems in part from the
conclusions in the Corsica River Watershed Characterization which suggest that the
disappearance of oysters in the River may have been due to sedimentation and that
sedimentation/suspended solids are a listed impairment on Maryland's 303(d) list.
54

IV. Implementation Strategies and Recommendations
Summary of prioritized findings from all the Methods employed in the WRAS data collection (to
ground truth or monitor the Corsica River Watershed condition and move forward with
implementation projects) are as follows:
1. Nutrient Uptake in the nonpoint source (NPS) contributors is deemed our highest
overall priority as agricultural practices contributed 86% of the NPS Nitrogen and 84% of
the NPS Phosphorous according to the Watershed Characterization and the MDE
TMDL. Many of the farmers in The Corsica River Watershed voluntarily implement
management systems that address nutrient run-off and infiltration, erosion and sediment
control, and animal waste utilization. All farms in the Maryland Agricultural Land
Preservation Fund (MALPF) program have been assessed by USDA-NRCS using the
Resource Inventory for Conservation Planning Field Evaluation protocol. This assessment
and the required nutrient management plans in process throughout the watershed are
certainly a start. Best Management Practices (BMPs) identified in the Soil Conservation
and Water Quality Plans for implementation on individual farms within the watershed
include grassed waterways, riparian herbaceous and riparian forested buffers,
conservation cover, cover crops, shallow water wildlife areas and grade stabilization
structures. Of the above, while all are important, the WRAS Steering Committee has
identified the Cover Crop opportunity as a primary means to improve the nutrient
reductions from Agricultural land uses. The funding for the Maryland Cover Crop
Program has gone quickly statewide and the WRAS seeks to target additional funding to
this program. To that end, the WRAS Committee supports the following initiative:
CORSICA RIVER COVER CROP – DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
Project Area:
Corsica River Watershed
Sponsors: Queen Anne’s SCD Office
505 Railroad Avenue, Suite 3
Centreville, Maryland 21617
Preamble
The Queen Anne’s Soil Conservation District established a voluntary Winter Cover Crop
program in the Corsica River watershed. Targeting in this area is necessary because of
WRAS priorities and the Corsica River TMDL focus on nutrient reduction. Maryland’s
current cover crop program is funding limited and will not meet the goals of the nutrient
reduction needed to meet the TMDL.
The Corsica River Cover Crop Program will contain requirements already familiar to local
agricultural producers including: provisions for a limited sign-up period, requirements for
a nutrient management plan, no commercial fertilization, program guidelines that
establish crop species and planting dates, spot checks by the local SCD staff and a
required spring kill down or suppression.
55

Because cover crop planting dates continue to be an issue, this demonstration will pro-
rate cost-share in accordance with nutrient uptake potential, i.e., producers will receive
$30/acre for cover crops planted by October 1, 2004 and $15/acre for cover crops
planted by November 1, 2004. The Corsica River Cover Crop program will be run by the
local Soil Conservation District with administrative assistance provided by the Maryland
Department of Agriculture through staffing and will be subject to all of its regulations
and procedures.
The Queen Anne’s County Cooperative Extension endorses this program as both cost
effective and beneficial to the water quality in the Chesapeake Bay. Proposed nitrogen
and phosphorus reductions from this practice with 3,000 acres under management are
estimated at 21,000 lbs. and 570 lbs. respectively.
This project addresses the goals outlined by the WRAS which call for the restoration of
the Corsica River watershed based on a watershed plan and having a direct relationship
to a TMDL.
Funding: $90,000
Source of funding: As yet unidentified grants
Project History/Background
The Corsica River, a tributary of the Chester River, is located in Queen Anne’s County,
Maryland. The Corsica River is approximately 6.5 miles in length. The watershed of the
Corsica River has an area of approximately 25,000 acres or 40 square miles. The
predominant land use, based on 1994 Maryland Office of Planning information, is
agricultural (15,600 acres or 62%). Watersheds, and the implementation of agricultural
best management practices (BMPs) makes a significant contribution to nutrient
reductions in these watersheds. Implementation of nutrient management plans, new
animal waste management systems, conservation tillage, Soil Conservation and Water
Quality Plans (SCWQPs) and treatment of lands with high erosion potential all
contribute to nutrient reduction. However, further actions are necessary in order to
address conditions in watersheds as identified under the Watershed Restoration Plan
and the TMDL goals.
Annual cover crops are highly effective in managing nutrients and sediments when
planted in the early fall following the harvest of corn, soybeans, vegetables or tobacco.
Cover crops reduce the leaching of excess crop nutrients from the root zone and
valuable erosion protection.
Cover crops have long been recognized as one of the most effective practices to reduce
nitrate leaching losses. As noted in the November 1997 Blue Ribbon Report, the
Citizens Pfiesteria Action Commission headed by The Honorable Harry Hughes:
The Commission heard testimony from Dr. Russell B. Brinsfield. He pointed out
that nitrate leaching losses occur even when all crop yield goals are met and all
best management practices and a nutrient management plan are implemented.
Dr. Brinsfield estimates that the utilization of cereal grain cover crops can reduce
nitrate leaching losses by 60% following a corn or soybean crop. The
Commission strongly encourages the regular use of cover crops as a best
management practice.
56

The Commission strongly recommends that the State implement a continuing
cover crop program designed specifically to limit nitrate leaching and to prevent
nutrients from entering the Bay and its tributaries. The Commission anticipates a
meaningful level of support of a program designed to meet the specific goal of
nutrient reduction. Participants in the program should not be permitted to assist
crop growth by adding nutrients from organic or commercial fertilizer.
This voluntary project will build upon the State’s current cover crop initiative that is
inadequate to address the needs based upon C2K funding analysis. Maryland provides
1.5 to 2.5 million annually for state wide cover crops. Evaluation of the need to meet
the commitments in the current round of Tributary Strategies suggest that up to 19.5
million will be needed annually to meet the cover crop goals. Through this 319 initiative
the agricultural agencies of Queen Anne’s County will implement a voluntary enrollment
cover crop program targeted for maximum water quality benefits in the Corsica River.
The implementation and benefits are proportionate to and dependent upon adequate
grant funding levels.
Previous work has focused on the Monocacy Basin in Western Maryland. However,
new FY2003 grant program guidance requires a focus on only those watersheds with a
watershed restoration plan and a draft or final TMDL.
The Corsica River Cover Crop Program will include aerial seeding of cover crops in order
to address implementation barriers caused by limited fall planting dates. Cooperators
will be provided the opportunity to sign up and apply cover crops under this program.
For those not interested in aerial seeding but interested in applying cover crops, a more
traditional crop application program will also be available. This program will contain
many requirements already familiar to local agricultural producers including: provisions
for a limited sign up period, requirements for a nutrient management plan, no
commercial fertilizer application, program guidelines that establish crop species and
planting dates, spot checks by the local SCD staff and a required spring kill down or
suppression. Because cover crop planting dates continue to be an issue, this
demonstration will pro-rate cost-share in accordance with nutrient uptake potential, i.e.,
producers could receive $30/acre for cover crops planted by October 1, 2004 and
$15/acre for cover crop planted by November 1, 2004. The Corsica River Cover Crop
program will administratively follow the Maryland Agricultural Cost Share Program
(MACS) cover crop program offered on the Eastern Shore and will be subject to all of its
regulations and procedures.
Local Soil Conservation Districts’ personnel will be responsible for delivery, sign up,
administration, and certification.
We expect program sign up to exceed the funds available. The program would continue
to sign up acreage beyond the available funds as “stand by contracts” if they agree to
follow program guidelines.
57

Goals and Objectives
Goal
The project will promote a voluntary best management practice to improve the water
quality in the Corsica River.
Objectives
1. Promote a watershed based cover crop program within the region by way of
publications and outreach through the Cooperative Extension, Soil Conservation
District and local print and broadcast media.
2. Install cover crops on over 3,000 acres of cropland.
Measurable Environmental Results
The proposed cover crop program will target 3,000 acres under management. Based
upon Chesapeake Bay Program and Maryland’s Tributary Strategies, the reduction
efficiency of this practice is estimated at 21,000 lbs. for nitrogen and 570 lbs. for
phosphorus. In addition, cover crops provide valuable erosion protection on the
moderately sloped lands.
58

CORSICA RIVER WRAS
Figure 10
CONSERVED OR PROTECTED LANDS
QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY
/( MARYLAND
301
/(
CHESAPEAKE BAY
213
/(
305
Private Conservation
Deed Restricted Open Space
MET (Maryland Environmental
Trust Easment)
County Parks
/(
/( Agricultural Districts (MALPF)
304
Agricultural Easement
301 /(
(MALPF)
213
Town of Centreville
Streams
Roads
WRAS Boundary
N
While considerable acreage in the watershed is currently conserved,
4000 0 4000 8000 Feet
a strategic plan is needed to link easements, open space, and conserved lands

2. AG Nutrient and Sediment Reducing Buffers are important permanent measures for
water quality and habitat enhancement in the Watershed. To best actualize the
benefits of these buffers, they should be at least 100 feet wide - 50 feet on either side of
an intermittent stream and a full 100 feet wide on each side of a perennial or blueline
stream and the same for Critical Area's standard shore buffer. The WRAS Committee
further recommends that through outreach efforts and a pilot program, Wildlife Habitat
Incentive Program (WHIP) grants through Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
be sought along the tidal frontage of the Corsica River. This is a gap closer between the
agricultural buffer practices and currently required buffers for new developments. (See
figure 9).
In Maryland, the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) offers additional
incentives to encourage landowners to implement practices that will help reduce
sediment and nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay and will improve wildlife habitat. CREP
is seeking to enroll 16,000 acres of highly erodible cropland into grass and/or tree
plantings, establish 77,000 acres of riparian buffer habitat, provide 5,000 acres of water
and wetland habitat, and restore 2,000 acres of habitat for declining species.
Like the original conservation reserve program (CRP), land must be owned or leased for
at least one year before it can be enrolled in CREP. Land must also meet cropping
history and/or other eligibility requirements. Enrollment is on a continuous basis,
allowing landowners to join the program at any time rather than waiting for specific sign-
up periods.
The USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) provides an annual land rental payment, including
a CREP special incentive payment, plus cost-share of up to 50 percent of the eligible
costs to plant grasses or trees on highly erodible cropland, establish vegetated buffers
along streams, restore wetlands, provide shallow water areas for wildlife, and restore
habitat for rare and declining species. The Maryland Department of Agriculture, through
the Maryland Agricultural Water Quality Cost Share (MACS) program, offers additional
cost-share (up to 37.5 percent of eligible costs) for practices that will provide significant
benefits for water quality.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay Program has established
ambitious goals to reduce nutrients entering the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries by
2010 while increasing habitat and restoring wetlands. When fully implemented, CREP
will help to achieve Maryland’s water quality goals by:
• Reducing an estimated 5,750 tons of nitrogen and 550 tons of phosphorus from
entering Maryland waterways each year.
• Reducing the amount of sediment entering the Bay and its tributaries by
approximately 200,000 tons annually.
60

• Establishing and enhancing 93,000 acres of riparian buffers, 5000 acres of
wetland habitat and 2000 acres of habitat for declining, threatened or
endangered species including the bald eagle, Eastern bog turtle, dwarf wedge
mussel, glassy darter and harparella, a nearly extinct aquatic plant that grows
only where suitable water quality conditions are present.
Queen Anne’s County as a whole currently has in inventory:
• 8000 acres of grass buffer
• 440 acres of forested buffer
• 655 acres of wetland restoration
• 121 acres of shallow water areas designed for waterfowl
The goal of this initiative is to add 100 acres in the Corsica River Watershed @
$170/acre for 15 years (sign-up). Above that, we include in the costs one review person
for 2 years at $50,000/year and supplies of $5,000. As yet unidentified grants are to
fund this initiative. In addition, supplemental budget requests to the State legislature
are recommended. The Nutrient Reduction Efficiency of CREP in the Upper Eastern
Shore is 43% for nitrogen and 53% for phosphorous. Therefore, assuming low till for a
more conservative agricultural practice on the average, conversion from arable to
buffered lands should yield a reduction of 1000 ac. X 21.3685lbs/ac x 0.43= 9,188.46
lbs/acre of nitrogen; and 1000 ac. X 1.4951lbs/ac. X 0.53 = 792.40 lbs
3. Whole Farm Nutrient Management and Horse Pasture Management are areas the
WRAS Committee recommends in the form of demonstration projects designed for
farmettes of ten acres or less. This is an area which can fall through the regulatory cracks
but could result in both ecological and farm owner benefits. Unlike larger animal waste
management systems, some of the nutrient reduction is acknowledged to be found on
waste in pasture land as well as animal confinement runoff control. This demonstration
site employs techniques for manure storage and treatment as well as entrapment and
treatment of surface run-off. There are fifty (50) voluntary demonstration acres in the
Corsica River Watershed set aside for a maximum of five such farmette conversion
projects proposed for $ 25,000 each with an anticipated nutrient reduction of 14%. An
example of the reduction calculation is as follows: 10 acres x 2282.4784 lbs/ac. x 0.14
= 3,195.47 x 5 (conversions) = 15,977 lbs of nitrogen and 10 acres x 277.7539 lbs/ac.
x 0.14 = 388.85 lbs/ac. x 5 (conversions) = 1,944.28 lbs.
Funding source is from grants and existing USDA NRCS programs.
4. Household Pollution Reduction strategy involves the Town of Centreville sponsorship of
an outreach program to promulgate Urban Nutrient Management pieces on lawn
fertilization and pet waste control. Specific Code implementation is hereinafter
discussed. It is important to remember that this WRAS is intended to leave no sector of
the watershed citizenry uninvolved in the overall effort to improve the watershed. There
are approximately 3,700 people in the watershed whose ecological behaviors must be
affected.
61

Brochures describing how to reduce nutrient loads coming from lawns and residences
will be prepared for each property owner in the watershed. The estimated cost to
develop, print and mail approximately 4,000 brochures is $3,000.00. Funding for this
project is through the Upper Eastern Shore Tributary Team and Strategies program. The
brochures will be developed through the Queen Anne=s County Master Gardner
program of the University of Maryland Extension Service. The target date for having the
brochures distributed is March 2005 (development by 11/15, review and printing by 2/1,
distribution by 3/15). The metric will be an average of 1/3 acre of lawn per residence x
1201 households (in the Town of Centreville) = 400 acres in lawn at $1.74/ac/yr or
$696. The total loading reduction goals for each element are as follows: N-17%, P-
22%. The estimated cost for implementation of this BMP includes soil testing and
tracking by house to house survey. The estimated nutrient reduction is a follows: 400
acres x 9.3315 lbs/ac x 0.17 = 634.54 lbs. for nitrogen and 400 acres x 1.3399 lbs/ac. x
0.22 = 117.91 lbs. We will assume that 50% of brochure recipients will achieve these
goals by June 2005; 75% by June 2006 and 90% by June 2007. Progress will be
monitored by phone surveys of a sample of brochure recipients. Survey Sampling will be
conducted in December 2006, and December 2007 by QAC Extension Service/MG
program.
In addition, steps will be taken to reduce nutrient applications by commercial lawn
services. Ordinances will be proposed for the Town which will expressly prohibit
fertilizer application by contractors more than twice per year and with an application
rate determined in total lbs per acre established by U of MD Cooperative Extension
Service specifically for the Town. Letters will be prepared and sent to each nursery and
vendor of lawn maintenance products in the watershed and boundary areas requesting
that they review their inventories of fertilizer and lawn care products to make sure that
products labeled primarily for correcting lawn problems like crabgrass, weeds, fungus etc
have minimal amounts of fertilizer included and that products that are mainly comprised
of fertilizer are labeled as such. No specific metric will be applied to these actions as
they are meant to supplement the principle action directed to residents as outlined in
the previous paragraph.
5. Main Stem of the Corsica River: Water Quality Monitoring is crucial to our
understanding of both existing conditions and the highly anticipated improvements in
water quality as WRAS implementation strategies mature. It is imperative that
monitoring be permanent, that the findings be scientifically unassailable, and that such
progress in water quality improvements be heralded. Acquisition and deployment of
buoys and data collection are the keys to this strategy. Sufficient funding is crucial to the
success of this strategy.
Main stem of the Corsica River: Water quality monitoring. CRA is eager to work in
partnership with MD DNR and University of Maryland to develop a water quality
monitoring program that will integrate continuous monitoring technology (supplied by
DNR) with citizen monitoring using bioindicators (isotopic analysis of which will be
provided by University of Maryland and can be used to track pollution sources). Cost
estimate = $345,434. Project entirely dependent on grant funding; no grant sources
currently identified.
62

Milestones: 1 month after funds received – recruit participants, 3 months after funds
received, train participants, citizen monitoring ongoing for months 3 – 24. Educational
component: citizens hopefully will see improvements in water quality over time and be
able to relate this to WRAS implementation.
6. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Reestablishment is deemed important by the
WRAS Partners as it constitutes an ongoing measure of water clarity, and chemical
quality. While SAVs may be the canary in the coal mine, its survival will give a very
visible and measurable means to gauge watershed improvement. This is also an area
which engages a growing corps of volunteers and students in the restoration process.
With the new Centreville WWTP having come on line, a concerted effort will be made
starting in 2005 to dramatically increase the planting and seeding of underwater grasses
in the Corsica. An on-the-water survey of historic and prospective grass planting sites in
the River was completed in the first quarter of 2004, in concert with Underwater Grass
experts from UMD Horn Point Center. Some plants were grown and planted by
Chester River Association in early June 2004 and are currently being monitored for
survival and growth. Growth during the summer of 2004 has been sustained, significant,
and very promising. Funds and sources for massive plantings and seedings of
underwater grasses at surveyed sites throughout the mainstem of the Corsica will be
sought through grants and continued cooperation with CRA, University of MD Center
for Environmental and Estuarine Studies at Horn Point, and the Chesapeake Bay Trust
(CBT). The goal is to begin this large-scale program in the summer of 2005 and to
sustain it until grasses show a persistent ability to regenerate at all historic and
prospective sites in the River.
A total of $48,000 will be sought to implement this program over two years. CBT grants
and other as yet unidentified grants will be pursued for this strategy. The metric will be
square feet of SAV planted in early summer and measured against square feet of SAV
surviving in late summer/early fall. There will be no direct nutrient load reduction
associated with this strategy. However, water clarity and reduced turbidity will be
associated indicators of success, along with overall habitat improvement as identified by
DNR and through citizen monitoring. Funding proposal will be developed and
submitted by CRA by 11/15/04 for funds to begin large-scale plantings in June 2005 with
a similar cycle for 2006. CRA will work closely with Horn Point and DNR technical
assistance and to identify funding sources. CRA will continue to work closely with the
CBF and VIMS in surveying and reporting SAV in the Corsica and surrounding areas. As
the lead for SAV restoration in the watershed, CRA will also continue the educational
outreach component of this program through citizen participation in growing grasses for
plantings.
63

CORSICA RIVER WRAS
Figure 11
Historic Shellfish Beds
QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY
MARYLAND
CHESAPEAKE BAY
R
IV
CORSICA E R
Historic Oyster Beds
(circa 1910)
Current Oyster Beds
Streams
Roads
WRAS Boundary
N
Historic oyster bed locations give us clues to the habitat
preferences and survivability of our future oyster populations
2000 0 2000 4000 Feet

7. Low Impact Development Technique in Ordinance Form
Water Quality Protection Regulation
The Town of Centreville will produce and adopt the Centreville Water Quality
Protection Regulation and associated Centreville Water Quality Design Manual. This
ordinance and manual is to supercede the existing Queen Anne=s County Stormwater
Management Ordinance currently regulating such activities within the Town. This new
regulation and design manual is being modeled after the Huntersville, NC low impact
development ordinance which may be found in complete detail at
http://www.charmeck.nc.us/Departments/LUESA/Water+and+Land+Resources/Progra
ms/Water+Quality/Huntersville+Ordinance/Home.htm
The Prince George=s County Maryland Low Impact Development Design Strategies and
the MDE Model Stormwater Management Ordinance (2000) must be used to ensure
that volumetric or quantity management objectives of the State of Maryland are
integrated into the final Town code. The WRAS Committee is aware that this ordinance
can only have effect within the incorporated Town and that efforts should be made to
establish a similar ethic in the County portions of the watershed to the degree possible.
Because the vast majority of the impervious area in the watershed is found within the
Town and its growth area, LIDs will make a significant contribution to development and
urban-driven nutrient and sediment reductions.
The first step in the implementation process after the adoption of the above anticipated
code will be the design and construction of regional urban stormwater management
facilities on publicly owned lands along the Millstream and along Gravel Run. These
facilities are in addition to the marsh creation opportunities that exist at each of these
sites. At the very least, mechanical trash removal and water quality improvements will
be implemented. Partial funding is in place through the fee-in-lieu escrow account for
stormwater management previously established by the Town. The cost to develop the
required code and have it published and promulgated is $37,000. The Town will
provide funding for this ordinance from its general fund. This cost includes pilot
demonstration sites that clearly show the design and application of LID techniques and
practices. The goal reduction is 33% for nitrogen and 46% for phosphorous
improvement over existing untreated lands. A calculation for Centreville is as follows:
996 acres (urban impervious) x 8.1184bls/ac. x 0.33 = 2668.36lbs of nitrogen and 996
acres x 0.5145 lbs/ac. x 0.46 = 235.72 lbs. of phosphorous.
8. A Native Conservation Landscaping Demonstration Project was deemed of value as it
is coupled with an outreach effort to engage a minimum of 200 citizen participants.
Potential sites for this project are to be selected using the full capability of the GIS
system developed by the WRAS. This item evolved in the context of an extreme make-
over which would take a highly impaired site into an environmental limelight.
Native Conservation Landscaping Project. Project relies on volunteers to participate in
high-profile “makeover” of a public site to demonstrate the value of Bay-friendly
landscaping. This includes an education and outreach component (media coverage and
on-site educational materials). Success measured by # of citizen participants and CRA-
sponsored tracking of subsequent referrals to landscape consultants. Estimated cost =
$78,410. The Town of Centreville will work with its stakeholders to designate public
65

lands for this project at the Millstream and Gravel Run Public Parks. Project entirely
dependent on grant funding; no grant sources currently identified. Anticipated pollution
reduction: phosphorus and suspended sediments reduction per acre of Bayscape of
approximately 70%, anticipated acreage of “makeover” site and subsequent
homeowner efforts = 2 acres. Milestones: 2 months after funds received, site
identified; 3 months after grant received, participants recruited media alerted and site
design begun; 4 months after grant received (and/or during appropriate planting period)
plants ordered and planted; 6 months after grant received follow-up with participants
to encourage home projects. Educational component: citizens will learn how to reduce
pollution by using native plants which require fewer chemicals, and will understand the
role of raingardens in retaining and filtering stormwater runoff.
Residential Buffer Planting and Conservation Landscaping. The Buffer Gap analysis
from the WRAS SCA will be used to identify and prioritize residential areas in need of
increased buffer plantings and conservation landscaping. The total linear frontage of
residential buffer gaps in the Corsica watershed is estimated at 23,898 linear ft. The
goal is to cover 90% of these gaps with conservation landscaping to a depth of at least
100 ft from mean high tide within two years of the completion of the WRAS (by Fall
2006 with interim goal of 45% by Fall 2005) Vegetation appropriate for this purpose will
consist of a variety of tidal water grasses and proceed upland to various native shrubs
and trees. Sources for plants have been established through joint CRA/DNR Watershed
efforts (e.g., grow out stations) but will need reinforcement and enlargement to meet the
supply needs to close the identified Corsica buffer gaps.
Workshops will be held for target communities throughout the watershed, working
through CRA, DNR Watershed Services, QAC SCD, Queen Anne’s County local agents
for the U of MD Cooperative Extension Service and Master Gardeners (QAC ES/MG), the
QA Soil Conservation District, and UES TribTeam. Property owner volunteers will be
enlisted through these workshops and other more focused targeting efforts to participate
in buffer plantings on their property. Incentives will include the supply of plants,
landscape design assistance, spraying of invasives, and volunteer assistance with
plantings. The total cost of grasses, trees, shrubs and replacement grow-out stock and
supplies for the two-year program is $75,000. Grants will be sought through the
Chesapeake Bay Trust and the alliance for the Chesapeake Bay as well as other sources
with continuing funding and existing delivery systems in place.
Records will be kept by SCD of linear feet of shoreline buffers treated through this
program.
9. An Easements Incentive Program for acquisition of development rights within the
watershed is contemplated which would boost the rate of conservancy in the Corsica
River Watershed. Methods to finance these acquisitions will be discussed in Chapter V
part 3 of this report.
66

CORSICA RIVER WRAS
Figure 12
REGIONAL STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT BASIN AREAS
QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY
/(
MARYLAND
301
/(
213 CHESAPEAKE BAY
(
/(
# 305
#
SWM Basin Area
/( Town of Centreville
/(
304 Streams
301 /(
Roads
213
WRAS Boundary
N
Regional stormwater management designed with low impact
development techniques is proposed for the town
4000 0 4000 8000 Feet

The WRAS Committee has a strong partner in the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy. The
WRAS Steering Committee suggested that information be gathered during the opening
process of purchasing easements in the Watershed which would give the Conservators a
field survey of the environmental condition of the acquisition. Similar to the USDA-
NRCS farm plan (see Appendix II), this request for information supplement, will alert
interested parties of opportunities to remedy impairments identified through the WRAS
and to implement agricultural BMPs that will go with the land into the future.
This program will be coupled with a Town of Centreville Comprehensive Land Use Plan
that establishes an Urban Growth Boundary around the Town and a platted Greenbelt
within the Town limits into which priority funding would be funneled by the Town for
easement acquisition.
10. Creation of Non-Agricultural Wetlands is deemed a valuable means of effecting human
behavior changes resulting in stronger watershed stewardship. The Corsica River
Watershed has an identified need for conversion (or more accurately, reversion) of hydric
soils to their original pre-historic wetland condition. If a demonstration project can be
accomplished which results in a suburban wetland landscape that is attractive, easily
accessed by the public and affordable, the WRAS believes great downstream benefit will
found. Wetlands and wetland marshes are very effective at removing nitrogen.
The WRAS has demonstrated opportunities to restore nontidal wetlands on landowner
properties. The Chester River Association in partnership with DNR and The Alliance for
Chesapeake Bay will seek to identify 2 wetland restoration sites and engage up to 100
citizens in marsh planting and restoration. The Town will assist in locating these sites on
public lands within the Town boundary and make safe and easy access to them for
educational purposes. Estimated cost = $22,000. Project entirely dependent on grant
funding; no grant sources currently identified. Anticipated pollution reduction: nitrogen
reduction per acre of emergent marsh = 42%, and phosphorus reduction per acre of
nontidal wetlands = 55%, anticipated acreage of wetlands restored = 1 acre.
Milestones: 2 months after grant received, sites identified; 4 months after grant
received, participants recruited and plants ordered; 6 months after grant received (or
appropriate planting season) marsh plantings occur; 12 months after grant received
wetland condition assessed.
The restoration of wetland habitat in the Corsica watershed is recognized as an
important attribute in restoring water quality. The Corsica watershed is estimated to
have a historic wetland loss of 4,192 acres (Unified Watershed Assessment 1998). Most
of this historic loss occurred in the upper headwater tributaries of the Three Bridges and
Mill Stream sub-basins. Conversion of wetlands was a common agricultural practice in
the region until 1985. Today those converted wetlands are valuable high production
cropland. A network of lateral collectors (farm ditches) and grass swales has altered the
pre-colonial landscape and watershed hydrology.
As part of the action strategy to restore water quality to the Corsica Watershed it is
recognized that restoration of upper headwater prior converted wetlands can play an
important role in sequestering nutrients and sediments. Most of the opportunities for
wetland restoration are on agricultural lands and farmland converted to low density
68

development. Furthermore, the cost of conversion of agricultural land to wetland is a
loss to the farmer in terms of the economic value of the land. Agricultural programs that
promote best management practices (BMPs) can offset the cost of converting drained
hydric soils back to wetland through rental agreements. It is recognized that the
restoration of wetlands should be done on a voluntary basis and that there are other
conservation practices that may achieve similar results.
There may be additional opportunities to restore wetlands in the urban environment.
These wetland restoration opportunities are down stream in the watershed and at or
near the tidal interface with the Corsica River. These areas include both tidal and
nontidal systems where public land inside the Centreville municipal limits is adjacent to
the fresh water tributaries and the main stem of the Corsica River. The Town of
Centreville holds seventy (70) acres encompassing the acreage of the original normal
pool of the mill pond located east of Maryland Route 213. This area may be considered
for a wetland restoration project. The Town also holds six (6) acreages of public land
immediately upstream of Maryland Route 213 encompassing the existing pond in
Gravel Run. Both these areas are potential restoration sites that tie into the Town’s
regional urban stormwater management construction goal cited in item seven (7) above.
Additionally, landowners along the tidal waters of the Corsica who are concerned with
erosion and habitat loss may adopt a Living Shoreline approaches to restore tidal fringe
marsh.
11. Septic System Retrofits are believed to be a critical priority in the Corsica River
Watershed strategy as this comprises a large part of the non-agricultural nonpoint source
nutrient contribution to the Corsica. There are existing systems that are installed in
marginal soils, some are very poorly (if ever) maintained, some lie within 300 feet of a
tributary stream or the edge of tidal water, and employ ancient technology not capable
of any significant nutrient reduction. Many innovative systems are now commercially
available some of which are currently pre-qualified for installation in Queen Anne's
County by the Queen Anne’s County Environmental Health Department.
The overall goal of this strategy is reduce nutrients from septics throughout the
watershed, particularly those within the 300 foot critical area. Conventional systems
that are permitted in the County emit 40 - 60 mg/l of nitrogen (estimated N content in
what flows from the whole septic system into the groundwater). The goal is to reduce
this to about 20-25 mg/l. [For the purposes of this initiative, 80-100 gallons per day per
capita is used to determine total annual flow and 705 existing systems are included in
the strategy. Using data from MdPropertyView®, total parcels in the watershed = 2142
minus 1201 in the Town of Centreville (on public sewer and water) – 236 unimproved
parcels = 705.] Therefore, clearly it will be a long time before this can be done for the
majority of systems in the watershed, maybe never. However, the WRAS program will
begin efforts towards this goal in a voluntary program led by the Upper Eastern Shore
Tributary Team (UESTT).
The program is one of education of existing and new septic system owners and getting
them to voluntarily adopt improvements to their current systems. These improvements
include regular pumping of solids (1-3 years depending on size and usage), adding
“risers” for better access and identification, adding plastic baffles to existing tanks,
adding filters to prevent the entry of solids to drainfields. In addition to the cost of
69

educational pamphlets, some financial assistance to make improvements to systems
might also be pursued if the need can be demonstrated through citizen response. The
cost for this portion is, 705 systems x $125 = $88,125 for a three year coverage span.
Funding will be pursued through MDE grants.
We also plan to work closely with QAC Health Department to work cooperatively with
owners with failing septic systems that are clearly discharging into the waterways of the
Corsica to immediately remedy those problems.
Measures will include number of new BNR systems installed, percentage of new systems
that are BNR vs Conventional, number of conventional systems with improved features
and maintenance, number of offending failed systems corrected or eliminated. The QAC
Health Department will have records reflecting this data which the UES Tributary Team
will periodically review to monitor progress. The total cost for this is 705 x $5500 =
$3,877,500 + $141,000/yr. in maintenance ($200 per connection per year spaced over
time). Anticipated nutrient reduction is 365x2.8ppux80gpdcx8.34lbs/galx 60mmg/l÷
1m +40.91 say 41 lbs per unit or 28,905 pounds of nitrogen per watershed year.
Funding through the Maryland Department of the Environment will be sought.
Working with the Queen Anne's County Health Department, the WRAS Committee will
forge a plan to retrofit and test selected septic systems through a voluntary agreement
with the homeowners in an effort to document in an unequivocal manner the benefits
of system maintenance and replacement of technologies. This plan will call for both
installation and long term water quality testing. The WRAS stakeholders believe there
may be a significant benefit derived through extended drain field life expectancy. In the
rural landscape of the Corsica River Watershed, individual systems will prevail well into
the future. A WRAS Committee recommendation is that voluntary installation of
innovative denitrification systems should be encouraged in new development or
replacements with particular attention to those systems located within 300 feet of a
perennial stream or tide water.
12. EcoTeams offer an opportunity within the watershed, and beyond, to coalesce a
growing environmentally concerned citizenry into function teams to plan and implement
workshops, school education programs and to measure and track homeowner
behavioral change over time. The Chester River Association will be the leader of this
initiative which is intended to build volunteer capacity and voice for future
implementation of WRAS projects.
Urban and suburban homeowners will be recruited to participate in local teams which
“adopt” their local waterway through monitoring and stream cleanup projects. In
addition, participants will learn homeowner BMPs for river protection and restoration
and will use journals and workbooks to track their progress in implementing these
BMPs. Teams will provide peer support groups and volunteer coaches to encourage
individual participants and provide learning resources. A pre- and post- project survey
will track the program’s effectiveness in inducing behavior change. Estimated cost =
$93,500. A grant has been submitted to fund the initial stages of this work. Anticipated
pollution reduction: phosphorus reduction per household = 10 lbs., anticipated
number of households participating = 50. Milestones: 1 month after grant received
educational materials, log books etc. developed; 2 months after grant received design
70

and send out homeowner survey; 4 months after grant received participants recruited; 5
months after grant received begin series of homeowner education workshops and hold
first EcoTeam meetings, distribute workbooks etc; 6 months after grant received and
monthly through month 18, host EcoTeam meetings; month 18 send out post-survey to
measure behavior change. The CRA will champion this initiative and grant funding
through DNR and EPA- Watershed Initiatives grant will be sought as a capacity builder.
13. Turbidity Reduction in the Corsica River can occur through the reintroduction of oyster
reef ecosystems. The WRAS suggests that the historic shellfish areas, shown on Figure
14, should be formally set aside in Sanctuary, seeded, and monitored as to viability. To
defend the scope of this project the WRAS Committee suggests that clam dredging be
suspended in and near these historic locations. Turbidity in the Corsica and the Chester
River mainstem will be measured and indexed along with the chemistry suggested in #5
above. The estimated cost is $14,500/acre and the WRAS estimates a total 80 acre
opportunity for $1,160,000 or increments thereof as water quality over survivability is
assessed over time. For The WRAS phase one, assume a first phase of 10 acres at
14,500 = $145,000. Chester River Association will champion this project and funding
will be sought through Maryland Fisheries and other research funding sources. This
project will proceed when water quality data suggests survivability may be sustainable.
In addition, Chester River Association will continue its long-term monitoring program,
Chester Testers, which maintains a site on the Corsica River, and its newly-initiated
testing of the effluent from the Town of Centreville wastewater treatment plant.
The strategies discussed above are not intended to limit the power of the WRAS to espouse
and support any project deemed of value to the health of the Corsica River. As a starting place,
these initiatives touch the core of impairments that can, if remedied, have significant and early
impact on the health of the river. Many other initiatives are difficult to quantify in terms of
specific nutrient reduction but have great value to the long term and sustainable water quality.
Outreach is one such example. These future initiatives will be pursued within the
comprehensive context of the WRAS and result in ongoing updates to the WRAS databases.
71

TABLE 4 Implementation Strategies
Implementation Party responsible for Schedule Measurable indicators/ Monitoring and party Public involvement, Innovations or
Strategies & meeting management performance measures responsible for outreach, or additional leverage or
Recommendation objective monitoring education component benefit
s
1. Market and Queen Anne’s Outreach: Fall Pounds of nutrients Paired watershed QA SCD aggressive Pro-rated early planting
early planting County Soil 2004. reduced. study: Maryland enroll-ment initiative. incentive: $17/acre early
incentive, Conservation Department of Natural planting, $12/per acre
commodity, small District (QA SCD). Implementation: Number of farmers and Resources. Presentation of data later planting. Provides
grain, cover crop. 2005 to 2007. number of acres enrolled. results to public, financial incentive to
Ground water test other watersheds, and farmers to plant cover
Goal: 3000 Monitoring: 2005 Quarterly reports and wells: University of MD DNR WRAS web crops earlier to achieve
demonstration to 2007. tracking of acreages Maryland Cooperative site. greater nutrient uptake.
acres. enrolled. Extension.
3. QA County SCD, the Outreach: Fall Reduction in concentration Paired watershed QA SCD enrollment A “gap” closer.
Demonstration, Chester River 2004. of sediment, nutrients, study. Pre and post initiative.
whole farm Association, bacteria in surface and sampling: Maryland Demonstrates small
nutrient and and the Alliance for Implementation: ground water. Department of Natural Presentation of farmette management
horse pasture the Chesapeake Bay. 2005 to 2007. Resources. results to public, techniques.
management for Number of demonstration other Maryland/Bay
farmettes of less Tier I BMP’s in BMP’s. Ground water test watersheds, and MD Currently, these
than 10 acres 2005, Tier II BMP’s wells: University of DNR WRAS web site. farmettes fall outside of
each. in 2006. Quarterly reports and Maryland Cooperative traditional nutrient
tracking of farmette acreage Extension. management programs.
Goal: 50 Monitoring: 2005 enrolled.
demonstration to 2007.
acres.
2. Agriculture Queen Anne’s Outreach: Fall Number of acres buffered. Tracking of buffered QA SCD aggressive A “gap” closer.
nutrient and County Soil 2004. acres: Queen Anne’s enrollment initiative.
sediment Conservation Change in concentration of County Soil Demonstrates buffer
reducing stream District. Implementation: nutrient and sediment Conservation District: Presentation of development and
buffers. 2005 to 2007. levels in surface waters. Paired watershed results to public, management techniques.
study. other MD/Bay
Goal: 30 15 acres by 2005. Quarterly reports tracking watersheds, and MD
demonstration numbers of acres enrolled. Pre and post sampling DNR WRAS web site. Currently, these
acres. 15 acres by 2006. for nutrients and unbuffered areas fall
sediment: Maryland outside of traditional
Monitoring: 2005 Department of Natural buffer program criteria.
to 2007. Resources.
72

Implementation Party responsible for Schedule Measurable indicators/ Monitoring and party Public involvement, Innovations or
Strategies & meeting management performance measures responsible for outreach, or additional leverage or
Recommendation objective monitoring education component benefit
s
12. EcoTeams: Chester River Outreach planning: Measuring/tracking Number of acres Public will be A “gap” closer. This
Public awareness, Association, Fall 2004. homeowner behavior buffered, estimate of involved in: project has the potential
education, Alliance for the change as education load reductions: - neighborhood of reaching EVERY
involvement, and Chesapeake Bay, the EcoTeam process unfolds. Queen Anne’s County based EcoTeams. person in the watershed
capacity building: Chesapeake Bay recruitment: 2004 to Number of Eco-teams, Soil Conservation - education thus having a significant
Conservation 2005. number of active District. workshops potential to affect water
participants on EcoTeams, - demonstration quality.
10. Suburban Landscaping Capacity building number of workshops, and projects.
marsh (2 sites) Council, and the and educational meetings. Behavior change Currently, these non-
and stream (2 Queen Anne’s initiatives: 2004 to measurements, Volunteer citizens buffered areas fall
sites) buffer County Soil 2006. Number of demonstration participant participate to outside of traditional
projects (200 Conservation projects (marsh and stream involvement, demonstrate buffer program criteria.
citizens). District. Site selection, and acres buffered, homes household pollution “Extreme”
. project planning: landscaped). reduced: conservation Builds capacity to
8. Native Fall 2004. Chester River makeover for develop and manage
conservation Pounds of fertilizers and Association and the environmentally buffers, reduce
landscaping Implementation of pesticides reduced, gallons Alliance for the friendly landscaping. pollutants, affect
demonstration Demonstration of water conserved in Chesapeake Bay. behavior change in
project (200 projects: Summer homes. Citizen involvement in others.
citizen 2005. television
participants). Number of referrals to documentary and
Monitoring: restoration consultants. homeowner behavior Demonstrates stream
4. Household Fall 2005 to 2007. change program. and marsh buffer
pollution Implementation of development and
reduction, citizen “Extreme” conservation management techniques
survey, and landscape makeovers. in tidal areas.
behavior change EcoTeams workbook.
projects Production of
(watershed – documentary.
3700 people).
7. Low Impact Town of Centreville Number of Public Acres reduction of Projection of nutrients Public inclusion in Town of Centreville is at
Development Roundtables. impervious surfaces within and sediments reduced Roundtables to the headwaters of the
(LID), ordinance the town limits. as a result of code gather input and Corsica. Innovative LID
and code change Code and changes: Town of feedback. application (greenroofs,
research, Ordinance Projected percent increase Centreville. reduction of impervious
development, and development: Fall in vegetative buffer within surfaces, elimination of
adoption. Will 2004 to 2005. town limits. Projection of percent curb and gutter, swales,
directly improve change in watershed street narrowing, bio-
73

Implementation Party responsible for Schedule Measurable indicators/ Monitoring and party Public involvement, Innovations or
Strategies & meeting management performance measures responsible for outreach, or additional leverage or
Recommendation objective monitoring education component benefit
s
Corsica River’s Adoption and Projected utilization of LID imperviousness: Town retention areas, rain
water quality and implementation of techniques. of Centreville. gardens, etc.), will
provide collateral code changes: prevent water quality
flood control. 2005. Projected pounds of degradation as infill
nutrients reduced from LID begins to occur in this
technique application. designated growth area.
13. Chester River Shellfish Program, Survey historic Survey of historic site. Survey, collaboration Oyster gardening Historically oysters
turbidity Fisheries Service, oyster beds for activities, habitat and with citizen groups. filtered the Chesapeake
reduction and Maryland oyster suitability: Measurement of site seed planting: Bay water column in
reintroduction of Department of Spring 2004. suitability. Shellfish Program, three days. Oysters can
Oyster reef Natural Resources. Fisheries Service, greatly affect turbidity,
ecosystems. Convene and Pending suitability: oyster Maryland Department thus light, and thus the
Note** This is collaborate with viability. of Natural Resources. growth of beneficial
contingent on County Oyster submerged aquatic
survey. Committee to close Measurement of turbidity vegetation. The
No funding is an area as a after oyster reef is establishment of oysters
requested for this sanctuary: Spring established. in the Corsica River
effort. 2005. ** could play an innovative
Plant oyster habitat role in water quality
and or seed, 2005. (turbidity) improvement.
**
6. Submerged Tidewater Test plots, public Number of acres of Test plot Grasses in Classes The use of spatial water
aquatic Ecosystem training, and submerged aquatic establishment, public Program in Corsica quality data for
vegetation (SAV) Assessment Service, ongoing vegetation. training, public River watershed restoration site selection
reestablishment Maryland monitoring: 2005. involvement, and schools. will increase the
in Corsica River Department of monitoring: Tidewater likelihood of project
for water quality Natural Resources. Utilize spatial water Ecosystem Public assistance in success. The
and ecosystem quality data to Assessment Service, monitoring. establishment of one
function further delineate Maryland Department acre of submerged
improvement. sites: 2005 to 2006. of Natural Resources Eyes on the Bay Web aquatic vegetation
and the Chester River Site, the Maryland (SAV) in the Corsica
Goal: One acre of Plantings: Association. DNR WRAS Web River will re-establish the
historical SAV 2005/2006. site, and other sites. historical component of
grounds. ecosystem function and
form and further improve
water quality (clarity).
5. Main stem of Tidewater Buoy acquisition Every 15 minutes: salinity, Continuous monitoring All data interactively Measure success of
74

Implementation Party responsible for Schedule Measurable indicators/ Monitoring and party Public involvement, Innovations or
Strategies & meeting management performance measures responsible for outreach, or additional leverage or
Recommendation objective monitoring education component benefit
s
the Corsica River: Ecosystem and deployment: dissolved oxygen, every 15 minutes: displayed on the Eyes cumulative land and
Water quality Assessment Service, 2004. turbidity, pH, chlorophyll, salinity, d.o., turbidity, on the Bay Web Site. water based management
monitoring. Maryland temperature. pH, chl, temperature. actions via temporally
Department of Viable data stream Weekly monitoring: and spatially intensive
Natural Resources. and link to Eyes on Nutrient data will be nutrients. Tidewater monitoring station in
the Bay Web Site: collected every week. Ecosystem Corsica River main stem.
2004/2005. Assessment Service,
MD DNR.
9. Easements Town of Centreville Outreach and Projected pounds nutrients Enrollment outreach Meetings with Market incentive based
incentive in partnership with implementation: reduced through change in and monitoring: individual plans.
program.$924/acr conservation Fall 2004 to 2007. land use and acreage Conservation landowners.
e.Incentive partners conserved easement holders.
bonus$1,848/ac.
11. Septic Queen Anne's Fall 2004 program Water quality samplings Queen Anne's County Septic brochure and Establishes a tracking
System Retrofits County Health discussions. from completed systems Health Department public workshops by method for septic
Department & Upper Implementation Trib. Team & effluent, incentivizes
Eastern Shore Trib. 2005 information system maintenance and
Team promulgated by QAC broad public outreach.
P&Z
*Cost estimates used above are taken from The Technical reference for Maryland’s Tributary Strategies October 2002 and from local engineering estimating
practices.
75

TABLE 5
Summary of Implementation Project Costs and Reductions
Nutrient
Best Management Practice (BMP) Goal Cost
Reduction/Lbs.
1. Nutrient Uptake 3,000 $90,000.00 21,000 N, 570 P
acres
2. AG Nutrient and Sediment Reducing Buffers 100 acres ($170/ac + staff) $67,000.00 9,188 N, 792 P
3. Whole Farm Nutrient Management and Horse Pasture
5 projects ($25,000.00/site) $125,00.00 15,977 N, 1,944 P
Management
4. Household Pollution Reduction 400 acres $3,696.00 634 N, 118P
5. Main Stem of the Corsica River: Water Quality $345,434.00
Monitoring
6. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Reestablishment $48,000.00
7. Low Impact Development Technique in Ordinance Form Ordinance $37,000.00/Regional BMPs 2,668 N, 236 P
$272,385.00
8. Native Conservation Landscaping Demonstration Project $78,410.00 Est. 70% Reduction
9. Easements Incentive Program 1,710 ($2,437.00 ac.) $4,167,270.00
acres
10. Creation of Non-Agricultural Wetlands $22,000.00
11. Septic System Retrofits $141,000.00 28,905 N
12. EcoTeams $93,500.00
13. Turbidity Reduction (cost for first 10 ac.) $145,000.00
Total with All Programs, Complete $9,423,320.00
Total without Easements (9) and Total Septic Conversion (11) $1,378,550.00
76

V. Recommendations for Programmatic Change
Programmatic changes are perhaps the single most potent outcome of the Corsica River
Watershed Restoration Strategy. It is here that the Town of Centreville and its neighboring
Queen Anne's County can step beyond lip service to the environment and into a unique joint
stewardship that transcends politics. Because the Town of Centreville is a separate political
jurisdiction from Queen Anne's County with separate Codes and Laws, analysis of existing
impairments needs to find a focus in the jurisdiction in which it occurs so that a cogent strategy
can be developed to remedy each problem with a tailored programmatic change or inspection
authority. The WRAS, above all, is not a political tool. It is an environmental tool. When
issues like traffic, and growth, and quality of life, and economic development, and sense of
place are measurably improved as a result of a true and vigorous dedication to the health of our
Watershed, the real politics are not polemics for impact or power, but are rather in strong-
willed changes in local and State codes and policies that shift watershed behaviors over time.
There are many hammer handles in a single tree.
1. The Town of Centreville lies at the heart of the Corsica River Watershed and forms the
confluence of the three major non-tidal Sub-watersheds. The Town is the sole point
source contributor of nutrients to the Corsica River. The Town, as one of the State's
Smart Growth Priority Funding Areas (PFAs) now known as "Priority Places", is the
primary area for future growth in the watershed. The Town is the Seat of Government
for Queen Anne's County. The Town has the most to gain from pro-active
environmental stewardship and the most to lose for not pursuing the highest standards
of environmental excellence. During the WRAS process several key pieces of proposed
legislation have presented themselves that neatly and efficiently further overall WRAS
implementation. These programmatic changes are:
• Ordinance to establish Sewer Allocation Management Plan
• Resolution to establish oversight and redundancy in monitoring of Sewerage, Water
and Storm Drain infrastructure
• Development of Comprehensive Plan in cooperation with Queen Anne’s County
that integrates the ethic and strategies of the WRAS throughout
• Ordinance for Stormwater Management and Water Quality Manual using LID
techniques to the fullest (see strategy 7 above).
• Proclamation to establish the Centreville Wharf as a "Green Marina"
• Ordinance for sediment and erosion control inspection, and enforcement
• Ordinance for Urban Nutrient Management Plan
• CIP addition to include design and construction of regional stormwater management
facilities on Town owned lands at the Millstream and Gravel Run
77

• Ordinance to establish an Urban Growth Boundary, the limits of which must be
consistent with TMDL for a calculated maximum future conversion of agricultural
land
• Ordinance establishing a "Greenbelt" together with a per unit assessment through
the building permit process of impact fee for preservation targeted only to the
greenbelt area
• Formal resolution to proceed with Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion to match
Comprehensive Plan vision and to include Enhanced Nutrient Removal technology.
(Formal resolution was adopted 8.12.04 authorizing the Town Manager to proceed
with the search and negotiations for added spray field capacity).
• Ordinance setting the limits for phosphorous chemical commercial cleansers and
TSP use within the Town
• Memorandum of Agreement to support the Implementation of the WRAS
recommendations
• Promulgate Living Shorelines outreach piece and UNR tri-fold outreach pieces to all
citizens and future building permit certificate of occupancy recipients.
2. Queen Anne’s County government jurisdiction encompasses all of the land area outside
of the Town of Centreville’s corporate limits that is within the Corsica Watershed. This
is virtually all the agricultural land within the watershed. The County’s zoning and
subdivision ordinance is codified in Title 18 of the County Code, and contains the
regulations for any conversion of the land from agricultural to residential or other use of
the lands that are not within the Town. The WRAS suggests the following
recommendations for joint efforts between the County and the Town of Centreville:
• Enter an agreement with The Town of Centreville to jointly update the Town of
Centreville’s Community Plan for the area around the Town, which would become
part of the County Comprehensive Plan
• Assist in disseminating the Living Shorelines outreach pieces and UNR tri-fold that is
developed by the Town by displaying and distributing at County Offices
• Permit the placement of Watershed Boundary signs along County roads
• Include the WRAS keeper as a mandatory recipient of letters of notification sent to
adjoining property owners in Title 18 -1-163(a)
• Consider a policy through the Queen Anne’s County office of Environmental Health
and the Queen Anne’s County’s Comprehensive Master Water and Sewer Plan to
promote the use of nutrient reducing septic system technology on all new septic
systems within the watershed with particular attention to systems within 300 feet of
tidal water for new construction.
78

3. Eastern Shore Land Conservancy (ESLC) has agreed to the following programmatic and
internal policy change:
• Add the WRAS data custodian to the list of the ESLC's standard Research Request
Form recipients. This will enable ESLC to receive a list of documented impairments
and remediation implementation strategies on subject parcels as part of their normal
parcel investigation.
• Participate with the Town of Centreville and other conservation easement
purchasers and trusts to target desirable easement outreach and acquisitions within
the Centerville "Greenbelt."
Specifically, the following WRAS driven pilot easement incentive program:
Strategic Land Conservation Program—
Purpose: The watershed impairment addressed through this action is the threat posed by
sprawl development to water quality, the land base needed to support agricultural
economic viability, and the vitality and definition of the watershed’s main growth center,
Centreville.
This program would serve to provide a defined edge between town and rural lands of the
watershed through a greenbelt. Specifically, the Town of Centreville would establish an
urban growth boundary (UGB), and a platted greenbelt within the Town limits into which
existing and new priority funding and incentives would be funneled by the Town of
Centreville for easement acquisition and other land protection work.
The UGB could identify the extent to which Centreville envisions growing. The greenbelt
then could serve to secure this perimeter by providing a buffer of lands protected from
development (range from existing low density residential, to open space, to resource
conservation, to agricultural land uses).
In addition to the Town’s establishing the Centreville Greenbelt and making it a priority for
funding, this Conservation Program should also include the development of an
implementation toolbox of existing and new financing options and incentives by the Town
of Centreville that are focused on providing protection of greenbelts lands. These options
could range from agricultural land/open space fees adopted through annexation
agreements, land banking process, inter-jurisdictional transfer of development rights
program, fostering Town public sources of acquisition funding, Town easement tax
incentives, and others as determined appropriate.
Monitoring/Evaluation:
• Town of Centreville to evaluate annual land protection priorities, budget and
partnership needs related thereto.
79

Suggested Responsible Parties:
• Town of Centreville in coordination with Queen Anne’s County: Jointly adopt an
updated Town of Centreville Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
• Town of Centreville: Establish a definitive, platted greenbelt area within the
Town Limits. Zoning in Town should then complement the intent of the
greenbelt with such policies as restrictive residential zoning, agricultural/rural
zoning, design guidelines for scenic protection for new development, and, if
applicable, designation of greenbelt area as sending area for any related transfer
of development rights program with Town acting as the receiving area.
• Town of Centreville: Establish policy of making greenbelt lands a priority for
conservation funding
• Town of Centreville with its conservation partners: Establish the palette of
existing and new financing options and incentives focused on providing
protection of greenbelts lands.
4. CRA - The Chester River Association, in partnership with the Town of Centreville agrees
to become custodian of the WRAS data sets as funding and expertise become available,
to maintain the data and to respond to requests for information regarding impairments
and implementation opportunities on parcels proposed for development in the County
or Town and for conservancy candidates. Other duties of the WRAS keeper include
finding and administering grants for waterway improvements and special projects,
promote forums with the WRAS partners on watershed issues, etc. This initiative is
intended to ensure that all the Chester River WRAS data is kept together with the intent
to unify implementation efforts throughout the broader Chester River Basin.
80

VI. Conclusions
The Corsica River WRAS is truly unique in that it is the only WRAS sponsored by an
incorporated municipality. The Town of Centreville has identified the health of the Corsica
River as a key component to its heritage and its future. The Town believes that by taking a
leadership role in the watershed restoration effort, precedent will be made for other towns
across the state to seize control of their environmental destiny and open the way for detente
between economic development and growth, and the preservation of a tangible quality of life
and sense of place. It has always been the Town of Centreville's goal to ensure that no growth
occur at the further expense of the environmental health of the Corsica River.
Recent notoriety surrounding operations and maintenance at Centreville's own superannuated
wastewater facility, has brought to the fore the need for oversight and review of every facet of
Town and County infrastructure that affects the health of the Corsica River.
The WRAS has identified impairments lying in both political jurisdictions and provides
guidance to both on implementation opportunities and possible means to achieve water
quality enhancement, expanded wildlife habitat, more sensitive land use conversions, and
conservation.
The simple digital formats were used to build the working WRAS data skeleton. Added themes
or digital layers have fleshed the bones of raw data allowing the WRAS partners to generate site
specific portfolios of restoration projects for work parties, for funding searches, and for media
outreach, to name a few. Data sets are available so that information mailings or newsletter
events can be sent with ease. Special demographic or geographic property sets can be isolated
for more efficient landowner notification if need, i.e., to all families residing within 300 feet of a
riparian stream, or all citizens within the Critical Area, or all persons on a septic tank, or the
taxpayer of the Town of Centreville, etc. Specific photographic maps can and will be created
for the WRAS partners to keep the momentum of the WRAS alive. The Town of Centreville
dedicates the open access to this data to the Corsica River and her many friends.
The stakeholders of the Corsica are many and varied. Their enthusiasm, energy, and urgency
are unmatched. The Corsica River Watershed is the place where meaningful and immediate
implementation can be made with the promise of timely and measurable environmental
successes. The Town of Centreville and its stakeholder partners will continue to work
cooperatively to fund required waterway improvements, execute crucial programmatic code
and policy changes, and to assure that sustainable outreach efforts touch every watershed
citizen.
81

VII. References
Clean Water Action Plan Technical Workgroup. 1998 Maryland Clean Water Action Plan Final
1998 report on Unifies Watershed Assessment , Watershed Prioritization and Plans for
Restoration Action Strategies. Prepared by Clean Water Action Plan Technical Workgroup
under the guidance of Maryland Bay Cabinet, Maryland State Conservationist, Representatives
of local government, and Maryland's Tributary Teams. See
Maryland DNR. Oct. 2003 Corsica River Watershed Characterization. Prepared by Maryland
Department of Natural Resources Watershed Services in partnership with the Town of
Centreville and Queen Anne's County.
See
Yetman, K.T. 2001. Stream Corridor Assessment Survey: SCA Survey Protocols. Prepared by
Watershed Restoration Division, Chesapeake and Coastal Watershed, Service, Maryland
Department of Natural Resources.
See:
Maryland DNR. April, 2003. Report on Nutrient Synoptic Surveys in the Corsica River
Watershed, Queen Anne's, Maryland, April 2003 as part of the Watershed Restoration Action
Strategy. Prepared by Maryland DNR Watershed Services [Landscape and Watershed Analysis
Nov. 2003. See
MDE April, 2000. Total Maximum Daily Loads of Nitrogen and Phosphorous for the Corsica
River, (approved April 9,2000 by EPA). Prepared by Maryland Department of the Environment
for Watershed Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III
See: www.mde.state.md.us/tmdl
Maryland Department of Planning, 2003 edition. MarylandPropertyView® Prepared by: MDP
-Planning Data Services Division. See
Maryland DNR, 2003 edition. DNR Technology Toolbox Prepared by, Maryland Department
of Natural Resources, Chesapeake & Coastal Watershed Service, Geographic Information
Services. See and
82

GLOSSARY
303(d) A section of the federal Clean Water Act requiring the states to report
which waters of the state are considered impaired for the uses for which
they have been designated, and the reasons for the impairment. Waters
included in the "303(d)" list are candidates for having TMDLs developed
for them.
319 A section of the federal Clean Water Act dealing with non-point sources
of pollution. The number is often used alone as either a noun or an
adjective to refer to some aspect of that section of the law, such as grants.
8-digit watershed Maryland has divided the state into 138 watersheds, each comprising an
average of about 75 square miles, that are known as 8-digit watersheds
because there are 8 numbers in the identification number each has been
given. These nest into the 21 larger 6-digit watersheds in Maryland which
are also called Tributary Basins or River Basins. Within the Chesapeake
Bay drainage, 8-digit watersheds also nest into 10 Tributary Team Basins.
Anadromous fish Fish that live most of their lives in salt water but migrate upstream into
fresh water to spawn.
Benthic Living on the bottom of a body of water.
CREP Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, a program of MDA. CREP is
a federal/state and private partnership which reimburses farmers at above
normal rental rates for establishing riparian forest or grass buffers, planting
permanent cover on sensitive agricultural lands and restoring wetlands for
the health of the Chesapeake Bay.
CRP Conservation Reserve Program, a program of Farm Service Agency in
cooperation with local Soil Conservation Districts. CRP encourages
farmers to take highly erodible and other environmentally-sensitive farm
land out of production for ten to fifteen years.
CWAP Clean Water Action Plan, promulgated by EPA in 1998. It mandates a
statewide assessment of watershed conditions and provides for
development of Watershed Restoration Action Strategies (WRASs) for
priority watersheds deemed in need of restoration.
83

CZARA The Coastal Zone Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, intended to
address coastal non-point source pollution. Section 6217 of CZARA
established that each state with an approved Coastal Zone Management
program must develop and submit a Coastal Non-Point Source program
for joint EPA/NOAA approval in order to "develop and implement
management measures for NPS pollution to restore and protect coastal
waters."
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, establishing a program for states
and territories to voluntarily develop comprehensive programs to protect
and manage coastal resources (including the Great Lakes). Federal
funding is available to states with approved programs.
Conservation Easement A legal document recorded in the local land records office that
specifies conditions and/or restrictions on the use of and title to a
parcel of land. Conservation easements run with the title of the
land and typically restrict development and protect natural
attributes of the parcel. Easements may stay in effect for a specified
period of time, or they may run into perpetuity. (The majority of
easements within the Corsica River Watershed are held in
perpetuity with the exception of MALF)
DNR Department of Natural Resources (Maryland State)
EPA Environmental Protection Agency (United States)
Fish blockage An impediment, usually man-made, to the migration of fish in a stream,
such as a dam or weir, or a culvert or other structure in the stream.
GIS Geographical Information System, a computerized method of capturing,
storing, analyzing, manipulating and presenting geographical data.
MDA Maryland Department of Agriculture
MDE Maryland Department of the Environment
MDP Maryland Department of Planning
MET Maryland Environmental Trust, an organization that holds conservation
easements on private lands and assists local land trusts to do similar land
protection work.
84

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, an agency of the U.S.
Department of Commerce that, among other things, supports the Coastal
Zone Management program, a source of funding for some local
environmental activities, including restoration work.
NPS Non-Point Source, pollution that originates in the landscape that is not
collected and discharged through an identifiable outlet.
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service, formerly the Soil Conservation
Service, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture that, through
local Soil Conservation Districts, provides technical assistance to help
farmers develop conservation systems suited to their land. NRCS
participates as a partner in other community-based resource protection
and restoration efforts.
Riparian Area 1. Land adjacent to a stream. 2. Riparian areas are transitional between
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and are distinguished by gradients in
biophysical conditions, ecological processes, and biota. They are areas
through which surface and subsurface hydrology connect waterbodies
with their adjacent uplands. They include those portions of terrestrial
ecosystems that significantly influence exchanges of energy and matter
with aquatic ecosystems (i.e., a zone of influence). Riparian areas are
adjacent to perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams, lakes, and
estuarine-marine shorelines. (National Research Council, Riparian Areas:
Functions and Strategies for Management. Executive Summary page 3.
2002)
SAV Submerged Aquatic Vegetation, important shallow-water sea grasses that
serve as a source of food and shelter for many species of fin- and shell-fish.
SCA[M] Stream Corridor Assessment is an activity carried out by DNR Watershed
Services in support of WRAS development and other management needs,
in which trained personnel walk up stream channels noting important
physical features and possible sources of problems.
SCD Soil Conservation District is a county-based, self-governing body whose
purpose is to provide technical assistance and advice to farmers and
landowners on the installation of soil conservation practices and the
management of farmland to prevent erosion.
Synoptic Survey A short-term sampling of water quality and analysis of those samples to
measure selected water quality parameters. A synoptic survey as
performed by DNR in support of watershed planning may be expanded to
include additional types of assessment like benthic macroinvertebrate
sampling or physical habitat assessment.
85

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load, a determination by MDE of the upper limit of
one or more pollutants that can be added to a particular body of water
beyond which water quality would be deemed impaired.
Tributary Teams Geographically-focused groups, appointed by the Governor, oriented to
each of the 10 major Chesapeake Bay tributary basins found in Maryland.
The teams focus on policy, legislation, hands-on implementation of
projects, and public education. Each basin has a plan, or Tributary
Strategy.
Water Quality Surface water quality standards consist of two parts: (a) designated uses
Standard of each water body; and (b) water quality criteria necessary to support the
designated uses. Designated uses of for all surface waters in Maryland
(like shell fish harvesting or public water supply) are defined in regulation.
Water quality criteria may be qualitative (like "no objectionable odors") or
qualitative (toxic limitations or dissolved oxygen requirements).
Watershed All the land that drains to an identified body of water or point on a
stream.
WRAS Watershed Restoration Action Strategy, a document outlining the
condition of a designated watershed, identifying problems and
committing to solutions of prioritized problems.
86

This page was left blank intentionally

Appendix 1

This page was left blank intentionally

Appendix 2

This page was left blank intentionally

This page was left blank intentionally

Appendix 3

This page was left blank intentionally

Table 1
Upper Eastern Shore Tributary Strategy
NITROGEN PHOSPHORUS
(million pounds per year) (million pounds per year)
Category 1985 2002 Strategy 1985 2002 Strategy
Agriculture 6.55 4.87 2.29 0.51 0.39 0.24
Resource Land 0.68 0.73 0.62 0.06 0.07 0.01
Point Source 0.22 0.31 0.19 0.05 0.03 0.02
Urban 0.62 0.65 0.41 0.06 0.05 0.03
Septic 0.24 0.27 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00
Stormwater 0.38 0.38 0.26 0.06 0.05 0.03
Grand Total 8.06 6.56 3.52 0.69 0.53 0.30
Goal: 3.52 Goal: 0.30
NITROGEN
14
8.1
6.6 7
3.5
0
1985 2002 Strategy
NOTE: April 26, 2004, Strategy 6, includes 222,316 lbs/yr TN and 145,980 lb/yr TP reductions from Shore Erosion Control practices,
subtracted from Mixed Open loads, and 300,000 lbs/yr TN reduction from Point Source loads.
raey
rep
sbl
M
PHOSPHORUS
2
0.69
0.53
0.30
0
1985 2002 Strategy
raey
rep
sbl
M

Table 2
Upper Eastern Shore Tributary Strategy Best Management Practices
Full Strategy Remaining Strategy
1985-2010 2003-2010
Best Management Practices Units Units Units Costs (M$$)
Agriculture
Soil Conservation & Water Quality Plans acres 252,862 138,306 $4.84
Conservation Tillage acres/yr 152,047 151,587 $20.62
Cover Crops, Early acres/yr 124,659 124,659 $39.89
Commodity Cover Crops, Early acres/yr 31,165 31,165 $4.99
Alternative Crops acres/yr 10,561 10,561 $2.11
Animal Waste Management - Livestock systems 342 214 $13.60
Animal Waste Management - Poultry systems 80 14 $0.37
Runoff Control systems 148 116 $0.82
Nutrient Management acres 252,862 155,161 $4.72
Precision Agriculture acres 116,035 97,701 $10.94
Stream Protection With Fencing acres 2,290 2,248 $0.22
Stream Protection Without Fencing acres 1,411 525 $0.04
Retirement of Highly Erodible Land acres 6,407 5,210 $0.63
Buffers Forested - Agriculture acres 4,029 2,623 $2.62
Buffers Grassed - Agriculture acres 14,162 13,598 $1.90
Tree Planting - Agriculture acres 2,365 723 $0.44
Wetland - Agriculture acres 3,414 2,542 $8.90
Horse Pasture Management systems 285 285 $1.23
Alternative Manure Management tons 7,297 7,297 $1.17
Ammonia Emmissions systems 20 20 $0.26
Phytase Feed Additive percent 32 16 *
Oyster Aquaculture trays 0 0 $0.00
Urban
Stormwater Management, New acres 710 710 $2.48
Stormwater Management, Recent acres 7,883 5,693 $19.93
Stormwater Management, Old acres 13,812 13,812 $48.34
Stormwater Management, O&M acres 22,404 2,527 $15.92
Erosion and Sediment Control acres/yr 2,349 2,349 $108.99
Nutrient Management, Urban acres 30,404 30,404 $0.19
Nutrient Management, Mixed acres 90,409 90,409 $0.56
Buffers Forested, Urban acres 184 151 $0.18
Tree Planting, Mixed Open acres 58 38.77 $0.169
Tree Planting, Urban Pervious acres 2,291 2,291 $9.98
Stream Restoration, Urban linear feet 0 0 $0.00
Sprawl Reduction & Septics
Sprawl Reduction acres 1,396 1,396 $0.00
Enhanced Septic Denitrification systems 25,203 25,203 $189.02
Enhanced Septic Denitrification O&M systems 25,203 3,150 $34.02
Septic Connections connections 3,797 311 $5.45
Point Sources
WWTPs BNR, ENR, plus 300,000 lbs/yr TN $37.06
Shore Erosion Control
Structural & Nonstructural, State 100,248 lbs/yr TN, 65,869 lb/yr TP $0.00
Total Cost of Implementing Maryland's Tributary Strategy (Million $): $592.60

Table 3
Upper Eastern Shore Strategy Summary Funding Analysis
Total Cost Nitrogen Reductions Phosphorus Reductions
Million $ Million lb/yr
Agriculture 120.304 2.580 0.151
Point Sources 37.060 0.117 0.010
Urban NPS 435.234 0.239 0.017
Septics 228.500 0.125 0.000
Stormwater 206.735 0.114 0.017
TOTAL $593 2.94 0.18
Cost
Agriculture
20%
Point Sources
Urban NPS 6%
74%
Nitrogen Phosphorus
Point
Point Sources
Sources 5%
4%
Urban NPS Urban NPS
8% 9%
Agriculture
Agriculture
88%
86%

This page was left blank intentionally

Appendix 4

This page was left blank intentionally

Minutes
First Stakeholder Meeting for the Corsica River Watershed Action Strategy
March 4, 2003
Centreville Town Hall
Meeting Attendees:
Loring E. Hawes QACo.Com. 410-758-1695 loringhawes@aol.com
Sabrina Fite McCrone 410-758-2237 mccrone@dmv.com
Stephen Czwartacki DNR 410-260-8981 sczwartacki@dnr.state.md.us
Royden N. Powell, III MDA 410-841-5865 powellrn@dmv.com
Katrina Tucker QAC 410-758-1255 ktucker@qac.org
Alison Putnam QAC SCD 410-758-1671x121 alison.Putnam@md.usda.gov
Amy Owsley ES Land Con. 410-827-9756 aowsley@eslc.org
Henry Covington Jr. Farmer 410-758-2247
Mark Sultenfuss Farmer/WREC410-827-7388 msulten@umd.edu
Eileen McLellan Riverkeeper 410-708-3349 riverkeeper@chesterriverassociation.org
Deana Ashley Clerk-Centrev. 410-758-1180 thallmgr@crosslink.net
Danielle Lucid DNR 410-260-8726 dlucid@dnr.state.md.us
Mike Whitehill McCrone/Cent.410-758-2237 mccrone@dmv.com
Scott --- Newspaper
Invited but not attending today’s meeting: Robert Wilson, Donald Dawkins, Henry
Covington, Tom Pippen.
Mike Whitehill opened and welcomed all participants to the first meeting held for
the Corsica River Watershed Action Strategy Stakeholders.
After brief introductions, Mike outlined his reasons for getting involved in
watershed planning. He explained that the Town of Centreville was situated at the
headwaters of the Corsica River and that, with the expected growth from the Town, the
Corsica could be seriously impacted if growth and natural areas were not managed
carefully. Mike indicated that in his opinion it was important to preserve land, form
habitat corridors, and ensure that development occurred with the least impact. He said
that everyone was going to have to share the burden of land protection and preservation.
(“Everyone’s ox will be gored”). Mike also discussed the wastewater treatment plant, the
boundaries of the watershed, and the make-up of the population in the watershed. Mike
said that there are 177 landowners in the watershed and that 101 of them were in the tidal
areas (with septic systems).
Danielle Lucid from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources outlined the
services that DNR provided to the Town of Centreville as a partner in the WRAS.
The services included:
· a 100 mile stream corridor assessment,
· a research effort that would pull together and publish all the readily available data
regarding this 8 digit watershed,

· a one time sampling of up to 80 sites to examine the water quality, fish species,
and benthic community composition,
· and DNR would provide a part time coordinator to assist with the effort.
Danielle also outlined the required deliverables to be included in the final WRAS
document or plan produced by the end of the process. Deliverables included:
· Participants agreed to assess all natural resources in the watershed
· Participants agreed to prioritize what they found to be important to protect or
restore
· Participants must identify a number of prioritized, quantifiable, natural resource
management goals
· Participants must include the public in both the development of the WRAS plan
and as partners in the subsequent natural resource management goals
· The plan must include a monitoring strategy
· TMDLs that exist in the watershed must be addressed
Meeting participants then took turns to express their concerns or hopes for the watershed.
Participants expressed the following ideas:
· Agriculture is an economic engine to be maintained
· Need to preserve agriculture
· Want to keep the rural nature of the area
· Education is important
· Need land protection for the agriculture industry
· Maintain the rural quality of life and agriculture enterprises
· Agriculture could change with market
· Cover crops are good, would like to show that agriculture has put forth great
efforts towards water quality, they need credit for their work
· Need more emphasis on BMPs.
· Developers build and property taxes burden the home owners while the
developers get rich
· Storm water / Chestertown runoff is a big problem
· Queen Anne’s County needs to be involved and “sign-off” on the WRAS
· There is a need to manage growth, implement Low Impact Development, have a
wildlife travel corridor, wetlands, maintain esthetics and quality of life, preserve
natural landscapes
· Approach this from the global picture
· Should include component for cover crops
· Focus on nontidal wetlands and both big and small local hands on efforts
· The water quality must be saved
· The WRAS should be interjurisditional
· This is good for baseline info
· Need to look at sludge and excess irrigation
· Need to look at dredging landing, waterman, seafood, and recreational boaters
· Need more diversity in our stakeholders suggestions included:

o Water quality agency
o Commercial infrastructure
o Waterman (Clay Laramour was recommended)
o Recreation and parks
o Gunston School
o Other developers (W. Calvin Gray, Jr. was recommended)
Letter to landowners was reviewed. Attendees took time to review the draft letter to
landowners seeking permission to walk the streams found on their properties.
Suggestions were incorporated and revisions were made.
The “Charge to the Steering Committee” was reviewed. The participants seemed to
think that the charge as stated was sufficient: “Through collaboration and in cooperation
with other partners, provide recommendations that will help direct the development of the
watershed plan for the Corsica River Watershed”.
Members then discussed which days would be best for meeting in the future. Day
time seemed to be the best time for most people, nearing the end of the day would
accommodate most schedules, and targeting rainy days would be ideal for the farmers.
Thursdays were not good and would be avoided. Future meetings will try to
accommodate these needs. Stakeholders would meet about 5 times during the two-year
development process (or when needed) and would be kept informed about the workgroup
meetings in case they had an interest in attending.
Attendees were thanked for their participation and the meeting was adjourned.

Minutes
Corsica WRAS Stakeholders Meeting
Friday, July 18, 2003
9:00 a.m.
101 Lawyers Row
Centreville, Maryland
Attendance
Mike Whitehill, Niles Primrose, Ken Shanks, Ken Yetman, Sabrina Fite, Bill Jenkins,
Frank Digialderado, Bob Wilson, Don Dawkins, Jenny Rhodes, Alison Putman, Katrina
Tucker, Mitch Keiler, Deana Ashley, Loring Hawes, Susan Phelps Larcher.
Review of Stakeholder concerns
Danielle Lucid, DNR, reviewed the list of stakeholder concerns from the last meeting.
These items, she indicated, must be kept in the forefront of everyone’s minds as the work
to develop a strategy moves forward. Two more concerns or visions for the watershed
were added: the need for scenic byways, and the reduction of nitrogen and
sedimentation.
The “Charge of the Steering Committee” was reviewed
Steering Committee Charge: “Through collaboration and in cooperation with other
partners, provide recommendations that will help direct the development of the watershed
plan for the Corsica River Watershed.”
Ken Yetman discussed the preliminary results of the Stream Corridor Assessment
Ken Yetman, DNR, indicated that the SCAM revealed 58 erosion sites, 57 pipe outfalls
(one with black discharge), 54 fish blockages (mostly logs), 34 sites with inadequate
buffers, 8 trash dumping sites, 4 exposed pipes, 4 construction sites, and 11 unusual
conditions (some with red flock). Over 300 photographs were taken. The team will
produce the finished product by September. In mid-August the team will conduct the
shoreline survey. Mike Whitehill indicated that at the completion of the data collection
phase, he would like to invite all homeowner to join us as we review the data.
Niles Primrose, DNR, reviewed the Synoptic Survey data
Niles Primrose discussed the results of the Synoptic Survey. 51 sites were sampled. All
sites were sampled for nutrients and 11 sites were also sampled for fishes and benthic
organisms. Averages compared similarly to other agricultural watersheds. Some areas
however had excessive (greater than 5 milligrams per liter nitrate and nitrite)
concentrations. When adjusted for loadings, many areas were in excess of .3 kilograms
per hectare per day. Phosphorus showed similar results. An anomaly, (low in pH values,
and excessive conductivity), at one site was explained by an historical dredge deposition.
Ken Shanks, DNR, reviewed the contents of the draft Characterization report
Ken Shanks reviewed the contents of the draft Characterization and discussed how some
of the data could be used to guide management decisions. Ken pointed out reasons that
the watershed was considered for the WRAS (impairments for nutrients, fecal coliform

bacteria, sediment, biological limitations, and toxins such as PCB, dieldrin, and mythel
mercury). These issues, he recommended, the group keep in mind as they develop the
strategy. The TMDL also has “caps” for nutrients that should be addressed in the
strategy as well. The watershed, dominated by agriculture, has significant associated
activities that impact the watershed and which could, if enhanced for water quality
protection, make a significant difference in the water quality of the tributaries. The fish
spawning areas, historical oyster beds, and intermittent SAV near the mouth of the river
are areas of noting as well. There are also four green infrastructure hubs in the watershed
that could be considered. Ken said he would put the draft Characterization document on
the web, per the group’s request, and he would email the address to them.
Mike Whitehill discussed next steps
Mike Whitehill briefly discussed the low impact development regulations from North
Carolina and his interest in modeling Centreville’s codes after NC’s very successful
effort. This was, Mike indicated, a subject that would be discussed at greater length in
the future. Mike also indicated again his desire to invite watershed residents to a larger
meeting and present the findings to them.
Meeting Adjourned

Minutes
Corsica River Watershed Action Strategy
Data Review Meeting
November 21, 2003
Meeting Attendees:
*Loring E. Hawes QACo.Com. 410-758-1695 loringhawes@aol.com
*Sabrina Fite McCrone 410-758-2237 mccrone@dmv.com
*Stephen Czwartacki DNR 410-260-8981 sczwartacki@dnr.state.md.us
*Royden N. Powell, III MDA 410-841-5865 powellrn@dmv.com
*Katrina Tucker QAC 410-758-1255 ktucker@qac.org
*Alison Putnam QAC SCD 410-758-1671x121 alison.Putnam@md.usda.gov
*Amy Owsley ES Land Con. 410-827-9756 aowsley@eslc.org
*Eileen McLellan Riverkeeper 410-708-3349 riverkeeper@chesterriverassociation.org
*Danielle Lucid DNR 410-260-8726 dlucid@dnr.state.md.us
*Mike Whitehill McCrone/Cent.410-758-2237 mccrone@dmv.com
*Niles Primrose DNR 410-260-8804 nprimrose@dnr.state.md.us
*Frank DiGealleonardo frankdig@friend.ly.net
*Ken Yetman DNR 410-260-8812 kyetman@dnr.state.md.us
*Mitch Keiler DNR 410-260-8806 mkeiler@dnr.state.md.us
*Bob Wilson 410 758-0882
* Indicates that they signed in.
Invited but not attending today’s meeting: Mark Sultenfuss Donald Dawkins, Henry
Covington, Tom Pippen.
Welcome and introductions: The meeting opened with participants browsing maps and
enjoying coffee and pumpkin pie. Participants were introduced and the group reviewed
the visions that stakeholders expressed throughout the WRAS process. See last page.
The data review process: As a partner in the WRAS process, DNR provided to the
Town of Centreville a Stream Corridor Assessment, a Synoptic survey, and a
comprehensive assessment of the watershed, called a Characterization. The authors of
these efforts worked as a team and brought together the data for review and consideration
by the stakeholder group, in an iterative, interactive, GIS layered presentation. As a
result of the all day process, management issues, concerns, and ideas, were identified by
the group. (These management issues, concerns and ideas were subsequently developed
into management objectives and submitted to EPA as the “Corsica Watershed Initiative
Proposal”).
The following were the management issues, concerns, and ideas found in the Corsica
Watershed by the stakeholders in attendance:

Tidal portion –
Fecal coliform
Septic systems
Point sources
Sedimentation
Cropland
Construction
Bare Soil
Shore erosion
Stormwater
PCB and other toxics
Centreville electric
County “roads yard”
Centreville wharf area spoils
Dredging in general
Agricultural chemical plant
Fish advisory
Land preservation
Resource based
Agriculture
Priority funding
Protected lands
Easements
Ad districts
MALP
SAV
Monitor water quality, first year
Establish in river, second year
Wetlands
Identify buffer gaps
Close gaps with program (to be developed)
Tidal restoration
Beneficial use of dredge spoil
Identify wetlands in headstreams or agricultural areas
Search for hydric soils/stream corridors/ w/inadequate buffers in ag areas
Sweeten pot
Use existing programs
Make awards

CREP (one of several discussions)
Get map from SCD
Identify gaps
Target both CREP and EPA funds
Forest Area Set asides
Septic Areas (one of two discussions)
From Synoptic Survey
Target red areas
Stormwater
From Synoptic Survey
Habitat and benthic issues from road impacts
See 301/305 and other intersection crossings (both state and county roads)
Accelerate inspections, look for SHA funding
Dredge Spoil
Forested erosion sites
See quantity flow
Agriculture – try for wetlands
Imperviousness – try to limit
Try for recharge
Road crossing and roads (stormwater)
Enhanced buffers
Key restoration
Grass waterways
Specifically
See: Gravel Run impairments (in a pfa) – habitat survey/profile assmnt.
See: Inadequate buffer in head of stream leading to downstream erosion
See: Regional old town street (?) water system retrofits
Cover Crops
Earlier planted cover crops
Increased incentives
Fly into standing crop
15,000 acres
5000 cover crops
Headwater buffers
NM plans
Demonstration Crop Insurance
Precision farming
Intensive soil sampling
Time-release fertilizers
Assessing residual fall N

Farm tours and education efforts
Oysters
Sanctuaries
Review historic sites for suitability of replant
Review water quality
Plant oysters
Septic systems (riparian and tidal)
Search for failing systems, use MDE and dye tabs, include DNR, County Health
Department, MDE, and developers.
Old systems
Monitor
Upgrade
Monitor
New systems
Monitor
Install
Monitor
Both systems
Monitor
Maintenance
Monitor
Urban stormwater
Storm septer
Regional facility
Urban nutrient management plans
Low Impact Development
Centreville takes authority
Education
Urban storm water retrofits, LID
Restoration
Gravel Run demonstration, pfa, trail, park, fish blockage removal
“planning”
Green print
Fill in with buffers/ CREP
Easements
Appendix to the minutes:
Review of deliverables that must be included in the final WRAS document at the
end of the process:
· Assessment of all natural resources in the watershed

· Identify what is important to protect or restore
· Identify many prioritized, quantifiable, natural resource management goals
· Participants must include the public in both the development of the WRAS plan
and as partners in the subsequent natural resource management goals
· The plan must include a monitoring strategy
· TMDLs must be addressed
Review of participants concerns and hopes for the watershed
· Agriculture is an economic engine to be maintained
· Need to preserve agriculture
· Want to keep the rural nature of the area
· Education is important
· Need land protection for the agriculture industry
· Maintain the rural quality of life and agriculture enterprises
· Agriculture could change with market
· Cover crops are good, would like to show that agriculture has put forth great
efforts towards water quality, they need credit for their work
· Need more emphasis on BMPs.
· Developers build and property taxes burden the home owners while the
developers get rich
· Storm water / Chestertown runoff is a big problem
· Queen Anne’s County needs to be involved and “sign-off” on the WRAS
· There is a need to manage growth, implement Low Impact Development, have a
wildlife travel corridor, wetlands, maintain esthetics and quality of life, preserve
natural landscapes
· Approach this from the global picture
· Should include component for cover crops
· Focus on nontidal wetlands and both big and small local hands on efforts
· The water quality must be saved
· The WRAS should be interjurisditional
· This is good for baseline info
· Need to look at sludge and excess irrigation
· Need to look at dredging landing, waterman, seafood, and recreational boaters
· Need more diversity in our stakeholders suggestions included:
o Water quality agency
o Commercial infrastructure
o Waterman (Clay Laramour was recommended)
o Recreation and parks
o Gunston School
o Other developers (W. Calvin Gray, Jr. was recommended)
Review of the “Charge to the Steering Committee”: “Through collaboration and in
cooperation with other partners, provide recommendations that will help direct the
development of the watershed plan for the Corsica River Watershed”.