Center for Watershed Protection Study on DCL

Transcription

Deep Creek Lake Field Findings Memorandum
Memorandum
Date:
October 26, 2009
To:
Barbara Beelar
Friends of Deep Creek Lake
From:
Lori Lilly, Paul Sturm
Re:
Field Findings and Recommendations from the Deep
Creek Lake Assessment, May 2009
1.0
8390 Main Street, 2nd Floor
Ellicott City, MD 21043
410.461.8323
FAX 410.461.8324
www.cwp.org
www.stormwatercenter.net
Introduction
This memorandum provides a summary of fieldwork conducted in the Deep Creek Lake
Watershed by the Center for Watershed Protection (CWP), Friends of Deep Creek Lake
(DoDCL), University of Maryland Sea Grant Extension Program (UMD), and Maryland
Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The purpose of this memo is to document
fieldwork activities, provide a general summary of our findings, recommendations and
future work identified by the field teams. The information presented here is part of a
deliverable for a Chesapeake Bay Trust Grant award to FoDCL to create a watershed
action plan for Deep Creek.
Memo Structure
This technical memo is organized into the following parts:
Section 1.0
Section 2.0
Section 3.0
Subsection 3.1
Subsection 3.2
Subsection 3.3
Section 4.0
Subsection 4.1
Subsection 4.2
Section 5.0
Attachments
Introduction
Stream Corridor Assessment
Upland Assessment
Neighbor Source Assessment
Hotspot Site Investigation
Stormwater Retrofit Inventory
Synoptic sampling
Water Quality Analysis
Soil Sample Analysis
Initial Recommendations
A: Assessment maps
B: Tables (Reach summary, land use/land cover by subwatershed,
site location information)
C: Stream and neighborhood field forms
D: Retrofit field forms
E: Soil sample report
F: CD-ROM (Photos, GIS)
Center for Watershed Protection
P-1
2.0
Stream Corridor Assessment
CWP, FoDCL, and field work partners conducted a physical stream corridor assessment
along ~5 linear stream miles in the Deep Creek Lake watershed on May 27 and 28, 2009.
The assessment was used to evaluate restoration opportunities and impacts within the
stream corridor.
Assessment Protocol
The primary assessment protocol used was the Unified Stream Assessment (USA), which
is a comprehensive stream walk protocol developed by CWP for evaluating the physical
riparian and floodplain conditions in small watersheds. The USA integrates qualitative
and quantitative components of various stream survey and habitat assessment methods
and is used to identify locations of suspected illicit connections, impacted buffers, severe
stream bank erosion, excessive trash accumulation, livestock impacts and dumping, as
well as stream crossings. Restoration opportunities for discharge prevention, stream
restoration, stormwater retrofits, livestock fencing, alternative waters sources for
livestock and riparian reforestation are also identified.
The USA contains eight individual impact assessment forms for evaluating restoration
potential for common urban stream impairments. The USA also provides an overall reach
assessment to document average instream and riparian conditions for an individual reach.
More detail on conducting the USA protocol can be obtained directly from Kitchell and
Schueler (2004).
Summary of Reaches Assessed
Eighteen stream reaches totaling ~5 miles were evaluated in the Deep Creek Lake
watershed using the USA. Our goal for the project was to survey representative streams
in each subwatershed. However, our assessment was limited due to access and private
property constraints. An overall quantitative score for each reach was assigned based on
average physical condition of various instream and riparian parameters (diversity of
instream habitat, floodplain connectivity, vegetative buffer width, etc). These scores
were used to classify stream reaches into condition categories ranging from excellent to
fair (Table 1). The best reach score in the study area was THV-RCH-4, which scored
151 points. This can be considered a representative score for the best attainable condition
for a reach within the watershed. These scores are based on habitat conditions only and
do not represent an incorporation of any other data sources. A score of at least 90% or
greater than this number (>136) is considered comparable to the reference condition and
represents excellent stream conditions for the watershed. A score less than < 49% (<76
pts) of the reference score is considered poor. Between these two extremes, 50% of the
reference score (106 pts) represents fair stream conditions, and 70% of the reference
score (121 pts) represents good stream conditions.
P-2
Table 1. Stream Reach Scoring Criteria
Classification
Percentile
Point Threshold
Excellent
90%
>136
Good
70%
135 >107
Fair
50%
106 >77
Poor
< 49%
< 76
While these criteria serve to place the assessed reaches in context, they are somewhat
subjective. A reach scoring a few points higher than another may be placed in a higher
category, but the qualitative aspects of the method make differences of a few points
insignificant.
Summary of Reaches Assessed
In general, stream habitat conditions were in good to excellent condition, with only a few
sites ranking fair and no sites ranking poor. Seven reaches were classified as “excellent”
primarily due to high quality in-stream habitat. Five reaches scored as “good” due to
some small issues such as isolated erosion, sand deposition or limited buffer width.
Three reaches were classified as “fair” mostly due to impacts from livestock. No reaches
scored “poor” in this assessment. It is important to note that stream water quality data as
collected through the Maryland Biological Stream Survey program indicate poor water
quality conditions in some of the streams assessed as “excellent” through the reach
assessment. The reach assessment is primarily based on habitat and geomorphological
conditions of the stream. Synoptic sampling results of water quality as measured in this
study are discussed below in Section 4.1. Maps of the stream reaches assessed are found
in Attachment A. A table summarizing information from each reach can be found in
Attachment B. Photo documentation for conditions in each reach can be found on the
accompanying DVD. Completed USA field forms are in Attachment C.
Individual site impact evaluations were completed at 18 locations. Potential restoration
recommendations at these locations include livestock exclusion, buffer reforestation and
discharge detection and elimination. A summary of notable restoration opportunities and
impacts are presented in Table 2. Figure A-1 depicts some representative site conditions.
Photo documentation for conditions of each impact can be found on the accompanying
DVD. Completed stream impact field forms are located in Attachment C.
General Findings
Observations along the stream corridor by field crews include the following:


Livestock in stream were noted in several locations, resulting in impacted buffer,
poor bank conditions and water quality impacts.
Two potential illicit discharges were detected during field work. One of these
(THV-OT-2) was determined to be potassium permanganate by the Maryland
P-3
Department of the Environment (MDE) and is commonly used to remove iron and
hydrogen sulfide from well and waste water but is not permissible to be
discharged into streams. The other discharge (THV-OT-1) was determined to be
a natural condition by MDE staff.
P-4
Table 2: Summary of Noted Stream Improvement Opportunities and Impacts
Type
Site Description

Discharge
Investigation


Livestock Exclusion
Trash Removal




THV-OT-1. Orange substance detected in swale; very strong gaseous odor present near
site; swale drains large area of impervious cover directly to lake; authorities were
notified (MDE).
THV-OT-2. Purple water detected in pool near a culvert; water was mostly transparent
but with purple tint; no odor; authorities notified (MDE).
UDC-LA-1. Various types of livestock observed in stream. Alternative water sources
appeared broken.
UDC-LA-2. Moderate bank erosion and impacted buffer.
PR-LA-1. Livestock observed in stream with no existing evidence of BMPs evident.
GGR-LA-1. Impacted buffer – see GGR-IB-1.
PR-SC-4. Road crossing; livestock in stream above road - muddy and trampled.

LDC-TR-1. Dumping site in excellent riparian / stream corridor area by roadway pulloff; would be an easy volunteer effort to clean-up.


UDC-IB-1. Livestock pasture; impacted buffer downstream of road crossing.
PR-IB-1. Livestock in stream on one side of crossing; intense mowing to streamside on
the other side of crossing.
GGR-IB-1. Livestock access to stream upstream of Bittinger Rd; downstream mowed to edge of stream; very turbid water.
Buffer Restoration

P-5
A
C
E
B
D
F
Figure A-1. Representative photos left to right top to bottom. A) Orange discharge in
Thayerville, B) Purple discharge in Thayerville, C) Inadequate buffer in Upper Deep
Creek, D) Dumping of residential trash in Lower Deep Creek, E) Impacted buffer in
Pawn Run, F) Optimal stream habitat conditions in Marsh Run.
P-6
3.0 Upland Assessment
3.1 Neighborhood Source Assessment
CWP, FoDCL, and other field work partners assessed 19 residential neighborhoods in the
Deep Creek Lake watershed on May 27 and 28, 2009. The assessment was used to
evaluate prevalent residential behaviors that contribute to stormwater pollution (excessive
lawn fertilization, vehicle maintenance, impervious surfaces, etc.), and to help target
future educational campaigns to the most appropriate locations and behaviors of concern.
Assessment Protocol
The primary assessment protocol used was the Neighborhood Source Assessment
(NSA)—one of four components of the Unified Subwatershed and Site Reconnaissance
(USSR). The USSR is a field survey to evaluate potential pollution sources and
restoration opportunities within the upland portion of an urban subwatershed. The
concept behind the USSR is to provide watershed groups, municipal staff, and
consultants a quick but thorough characterization of upland areas to identify major
sources of pollutants and restoration opportunities for source controls, pervious area
management, and improved municipal maintenance (i.e. education, retrofits, and referral
for immediate enforcement). More information on the USSR protocol can be found in
Wright et al. (2004).
The NSA was conducted to evaluate pollution source areas, stewardship behaviors, and
restoration opportunities within individual residential areas. The assessment looks
specifically at yards and lawns, rooftops, driveways and sidewalks, curbs, and common
areas. It is important to note that DNR has been managing the lake bottom and a buffered
easement around the entire lake since 2000. As such, they often have to address
numerous and often unique management issues (e.g., requests for dock permits, buffer
crossing permits, dredging requests and development pressure in the shoreline buffer,
complaints from the public about algal blooms, sedimentation, and shoreline erosion; MD
DNR, 2009).
Neighborhoods were assessed in terms of age, lot size, tree cover, drainage, lawn size,
general upkeep, and evidence of resident stewardship (i.e., storm drain stenciling, pet
waste management signage, etc.). Each site was assigned a pollution severity of
“severe,” “high,” “moderate,” or “low,” using a set of benchmarks set forth in Wright et
al. (2004). Pollution severity is an index of how much non-point source pollution a
neighborhood is likely generating based on easily observable features (lawn care
practices, drainage patterns, oil stains, etc.). A restoration potential was also determined
for each neighborhood type of “high,” “moderate,” or “low.” Restoration potential is a
measure of how feasible onsite retrofits or behavior changes would be based on space,
number of opportunities, presence of a strong HOA, etc. Opportunities for the following
types of restoration activities were evaluated for each site:
P-7



On-site retrofits – such as rain gardens, rain barrels or other rooftop disconnection
practices
Better lawn and landscaping practices – improved buffer protection, native plants,
turf reduction, proper fertilization and pesticide application, and mowing practices
Open-space management – reforestation of neighborhood common areas or
courtyards (landscaping, pet waste, etc.)
Summary of Sites Investigated
Field crews evaluated 19 neighborhoods during the assessment period. The majority of
neighborhoods were classified as moderate pollution generators. The top priorities at
these sites include buffer plantings on the lake itself, tree planting, reforestation in
communal open spaces, landscaping on lawns with native vegetation and downspout
disconnection to rain barrels or rain gardens. Retrofit opportunities were noted in some
neighborhoods. Retrofit options that were noted include bioretention by a community
center (BLK-NSA-9), stormwater pond retrofit (RNH-NSA-14), retrofit of cement swales
leading directly to the lake (GR-NSA-5) and flow diversion into woods from steep slopes
(MSH-NSA-2).
Table 3 summarizes the pollution and restoration classifications assigned to each
neighborhood evaluated. Figure A-2 depicts some representative site conditions. Maps
of the neighborhoods assessed are found in Attachment A. Photo documentation for
conditions in each neighborhood can be found on the accompanying DVD. Completed
USSR field forms are in Attachment C.
Table 3: Deep Creek Lake Neighborhood Assessment, 5/27/2009 & 5/28/2009
Pollution
SubNeighborhood
Opportunity
Severity
watershed Name
Site_ID
Incorporate natural landscaping
with native vegetation; decrease
lawn maintenance; stencil storm
South Gate /
drains; direct downspouts to turf /
North
Waterfront
lawn or rain barrel; reforestation of
open space
NGR-NSA-1 Glade Run Greens
Moderate
North
South Shore
NGR-NSA-2 Glade Run Rd.
Moderate
lawn maintenance
with native vegetation; plantings in
bare soil; reforestation of open
North
NGR-NSA-3 Glade Run Sky Valley
Moderate
space
GR-NSA-4
Green
Glade
P-8
Thousand
Acres
Moderate
lawn maintenance; reforestation of
open space; increase buffer width
on shoreline; tennis courts have
retrofit potential
Table 3: Deep Creek Lake Neighborhood Assessment, 5/27/2009 & 5/28/2009
with native vegetation; plant trees
on lots; remove trash from yards;
disconnect downspouts; cement
swales could be retrofitted;
Green
Dr. Thompson
Glade
Rd
reforestation of open space
GR-NSA-5
Moderate
on lots; decrease lawn
Green
maintenance; disconnect
GR-NSA-6
Glade
Hazelhurst
Moderate
downspouts
Upper
Pine Tree Pt
Deep
Rd /
lawn maintenance; disconnect
UDC-NSA-7
Moderate
downspouts
Creek
Cedarbrook
Upper
Deep
Hickory Ridge /
lawn maintenance; disconnect
UDC-NSA-8
Moderate
downspouts
Creek
Moorings Way
Disconnect downspouts;
proposed bioretention retrofit
opportunity at community center;
BLK-NSA-9
Blakeslee
Moderate
reforestation of open space
Four Hoop Pole
on lots; reforestation of open
space; roadside ditches have
South /
Hoop Pole
retrofit potential (lead directly to
Paradise Acres
HPR-NSA-10 Run
Rd
Moderate
lake)
with native vegetation; disconnect
Hoop Pole
storm drains
HPR-NSA-11 Run
Heron Cove
Moderate
lawn maintenance; reforestation
Heron Cove /
Hoop Pole
Midden Cove
of open space; tennis court has
retrofit potential
HPR-NSA-12 Run
Ct
Moderate
Plant trees on lots; grass islands
Silver Tree Ln /
in parking lot have retrofit
THV-NSA-13 Thayerville Silver Rideg
Low
potential
lawn maintenance; downspout
Roman
Mountainside
disconnection, potential for
community
stormwater pond retrofit
RNH-NSA-14 Nose Hill
Moderate
MSH-NSA-1
Marsh Run
Village of Wisp
None
MSH-NSA-2
Marsh Run
Ski Harbor
Moderate
P-9
Flow diversions into woods from
steep roads
Tree planting in lawn; rain
gardens at downspouts; new SW
filter for parking lot
General Findings
Observations during the neighborhood assessment include the following:



Many neighborhoods had low to moderate lawn care intensity and minimal
landscaping and forest canopy. A tree planting program is recommended through out
the watershed. Trees could be planted in the right of ways, lawns, institutional areas,
commercial properties and in the DNR buffer easement.
Areas upstream of eroding road-side ditches or cement swales should receive
increased attention for downspout disconnection (i.e. rain barrels, rain gardens).
There was no educational signage (pet waste removal, storm drain stenciling, signs
that say Deep Creek Lake Watershed) posted in residential or commercial areas or
near storm drains.
Figure A-2 below illustrates some of these findings.
A
B
C
D
Figure A-2. (A) MSH-NSA-2: impervious rooftops and parking areas draining directly
into the storm drain; (B) THV-NSA-13: stormwater pond with no clear connection to the
stormwater conveyance system; (C) North Glade Run: large tracts of opens space in
neighborhood and golf course could use tree planting; (D) GGR-NSA-7: typical road-side
ditch on steep slope drains directly to lake.
P-10
Based on these observations, we recommend the following actions for FoDCL and
project partners:




Implement a tree planting program in several of the neighborhoods and open
spaces to increase forest canopy in the subwatershed. Promote native, natural
landscaping in targeted neighborhoods. Visit http://www.trees.maryland.gov/ for
advice on where, how and what type of trees to plant, as well as discount coupons,
made possible through environmental mitigation fines and participating vendors,
for your tree purchases.
Establish a downspout disconnection program in targeted neighborhoods. This
program would redirect rooftop downspouts into rain gardens, rain barrels, or to
lawn areas where space is available.
Begin a storm drain stenciling program in urban and neighborhood areas.
Divert flow on steep slopes into wooded or bioretention areas.
3.2 Hotspot Site Investigation
CWP, FoDCL and field work partners assessed potential stormwater hotspots in the Deep
Creek Lake watershed on May 27 and 28, 2009. The assessment was used to evaluate
sites where the risk of stormwater contamination is higher than normal (gas stations, large
parking lots, municipal maintenance yards, etc) and to provide recommendations for
pollution prevention.
Assessment Protocol
Another component of the USSR is the Hotspot Site Investigation (HSI), which is used to
evaluate commercial, industrial, municipal or transport-related sites that have a high
potential to contribute contaminated runoff to the storm drain system or directly to
receiving waters. At hotspot sites, field crews look specifically at vehicle operations,
outdoor materials storage, waste management, building conditions, turf and landscaping,
and stormwater infrastructure to evaluate potential pollution sources. Based on
observations at the site, field crews may recommend enforcement measures, follow-up
inspections; illicit discharge investigations; retrofits, or pollution prevention planning and
education. Locations visited and findings are summarized in Table 5.
The overall pollution potential for each hotspot site was assessed based on observed
sources of pollution and the potential of the site to generate pollutants that would likely
enter the storm drain network. The hotspot designation criteria as set forth in Wright et
al. (2004) was used to determine the status of each site based on field crew observations.
Sites were classified into four initial hotspot status categories:




Not a hotspot – no observed pollutant; few to no potential sources
Potential hotspot – no observed pollution; some potential sources present
Confirmed hotspot – pollution observed; many potential sources
Severe hotspot – multiple polluting activities directly observed
P-11
Prior to going out in the field, potential hotspot locations were identified in the office.
Hotspots assessed in the watershed include public schools, industrial complexes, and
commercial sites such as gas and automotive services, strip malls, marinas, etc.
Summary of Sites Assessed
Field crews assessed 5 representative hotspot candidates including. One site was a
confirmed hotspot, three sites were potential hotspots and one site had no observed or
apparent pollution sources. Table 4 summarizes the hotspot status and source of
pollution at each site visited. Maps of the hotspot sites assessed are found in Attachment
A. Photo documentation for conditions at each site can be found on the accompanying
DVD. Completed HSI field forms are in Attachment C.
Table 4: Deep Creek Lake Hotspot Assessment, 5/27/2009 & 5/28/2009
Subwatershed
Pawn Run
Meadow
Mountain Run
North Glade
Run
Site_ID
PR-HSI-1
MMR-HSI-1
NGR-HSI-2
Name
Little Sandy's
Diner: gas
station/restaura
nt - corner of
Sand Flat Rd. &
Garrett
Highway
Problems
Stream behind
station is very trashy,
fueling areas
draining to stream
w/o treatment
Suggested
follow-up
Potential
Education;
Needs sand
filter or
bioretention
for parking lot
State Park
maintenance
yard
Uncovered fueling
area; vehicles
washed outdoors;
barrels without
secondary
containment
Potential
Education;
Contain
washwater
from vehicle
washing;
cover fuel
areas
Bill's Marina
Vehicles washed
outdoors; evidence
of spills/leakage from
vehicles
Potential
Follow-up site
inspection;
education
Confirmed
Follow-up site
inspection;
education
Not a
hotspot
North Glade
Run
NGR-HSI-3
Patterson's
Boat Company
Vehicles and other
material stored
outdoors, including
drums, batteries,
construction debris;
area drains directly
to lake; potentially
hazardous material
draining directly to
lake
Roman Nose
Hill
RNH-HSI-5
Bill's Marine
Service Garrett Hwy.
None observed.
P-12
Status
General Findings



A more detailed hotpsot site inventory is needed for the area. Assessment of gas
stations, marinas, service areas, and other areas, particularly sites adjacent to the
Lake, should be assessed.
Several potential or confirmed hotspots encroach upon the lake with no existing
buffer. Especially due to the high gradients adjacent to the lake, pollutants from
these sites can quickly and directly enter the lake. These areas are important sites
to target for education and pollution prevention.
Storage of materials could be greatly improved at some problem sites through the
use of secondary containment and secure storage containers.
Figure A-3 below illustrates some of these findings.
B
A
C
Figure A-3. (A-B) Patterson’s Boat Company, a confirmed hotspot. The site has
numerous hazardous materials such as corroding batteries, automobiles and boats stored
on-site, and numerous barrels containing unknown materials, all directly upslope from
the Lake; (C) A gas station in Pawn Run has improper storage of materials such as grease
barrels and backs up to a drainage area (headwaters of a tributary to Pawn Run), visible
in the background.
P-13
3.3 Stormwater Retrofit Inventory
CWP, FoDCL and field work partners conducted a stormwater retrofit inventory on May
27 and 28, 2009. The inventory was used to evaluate potential stormwater retrofit
opportunities.
Stormwater retrofits are structural stormwater management practices that can be used to
address existing stormwater management problems within a watershed. They are an
essential element of a holistic watershed restoration program because they can help
improve water quality, increase groundwater recharge, provide channel protection, and
control overbank flooding. Without using stormwater retrofits to address existing
problems and to help establish a stable, predictable hydrologic regime by regulating the
volume, duration, frequency, and rate of stormwater runoff, the success of many other
watershed restoration strategies -- such as bank stabilization, riparian reforestation, and
aquatic habitat enhancement -- cannot be guaranteed. In addition to the stormwater
management benefits, stormwater retrofits can be used as demonstration projects,
forming visual centerpieces that can be used to help educate residents and stakeholders,
as well as build additional interest in watershed restoration.
Stormwater retrofits can be broken into three general categories: offsite storage, onsite
nonresidential, and onsite residential. Offsite storage retrofits, such as ponds and
wetlands, generally provide the widest range of watershed restoration benefits because of
their ability to treat relatively large drainage areas. However, onsite retrofit practices,
such as bioretention and filtration practices, can provide a substantial benefit when
applied to a large number of sites within a subwatershed.
Assessment Protocol
Potential stormwater retrofit opportunities at a number of candidate project sites in the
Deep Creek Lake watershed were assessed during the retrofit inventory. Nine candidate
project sites were identified prior to the inventory using aerial photography and GIS data.
Candidate project sites were typically located upstream of impacted stream reaches, at
stormwater hotspots, at existing stormwater management facilities, and at relatively large
tracts of publicly-owned open space (e.g. school sites, parks).
Field crews visited each of the pre-identified candidate project sites and several
additional sites during the field investigation. Using the Retrofit Reconnaissance
Inventory field form (see Attachment B), the stormwater retrofit potential of each
candidate site was evaluated by analyzing drainage patterns, drainage areas, impervious
cover, available space, and other site constraints (e.g. conflicts with existing utilities and
land uses, site access, and potential impacts to natural areas). Unless there were obvious
site constraints and/or evidence that a particular stormwater retrofit would offer few or no
watershed benefits, a stormwater retrofit concept was developed for each candidate
project site.
P-14
Each stormwater retrofit concept was based on the size of the candidate project site, the
particular constraints and characteristics of the candidate site, the size of the drainage
area to be treated, the land use and amount of impervious cover within the drainage area,
and the overall watershed restoration goals being pursued.
Summary of Sites Inventoried
Preliminary stormwater retrofit concepts were developed for 9 sites within the Deep
Creek Lake watershed. Most of the preliminary concepts that were developed were
onsite retrofit practices, such as bioretention practices. Wetland creation was also
proposed at two sites. Table 5 summarizes the retrofit potential at each site visited.
Maps of the retrofit sites assessed are found in Attachment A. Photo documentation for
conditions at each retrofit can be found on the accompanying DVD. Completed RRI
field forms are in Attachment C.
Table 5: Deep Creek Lake Retrofit Inventory, 5/27/2009 & 5/28/2009
Subwatershed
North
Glade Run
Marsh Run
Marsh Run
Site
ID
R1
R2
R3
Location
Garrett
County
Community
College
R4
Foodland
Marsh Run
R5
Did not assess
R6
Comments
Notes
Did not assess
Did not assess
Marsh Run
Marsh Run
Retrofit
Concept
The Willows
condo and
commercial
area
P-15
Enhance
existing
swales
bioretention
/
stormwater
retrofits
bioretention
/ permeable
pavement
Four retrofit opportunities identified 1) enhance existing swale on south
side of new parking lot and library; 2)
add landscaping and hydric plants to
new swale under construction; 3)
Rain garden proposed at outlet of
downspout; 4) Enhance existing
swale in north parking lot.
Armor inlets to stormwater pond with
rip-rap or other hard structure; add
berm or other barrier to create more
storage in wetland area to treat road
runoff more thoroughly; add four
bioretention cells in parking lot with
under-drains to stormwater pond.
Four retrofit opportunities identified,
three of these are in existing swales
that could be converted to
bioretention areas; two possibly low
use parking lots could be converted to
permeable pavement.
Discontinue
mowing around
swales and
ditches;
reforestation in
many areas
possible.
Very steep area
with lots of
connected
impervious cover;
slope is a
challenge;
drainage swales
need to be well
armored to
handle heavy
flows.
Table 5: Deep Creek Lake Retrofit Inventory, 5/27/2009 & 5/28/2009
Marsh Run
Thayerville
Marsh Run
Pawn Run
Marsh Run
R7
R8
Wisp Ski
Resort
Pizzeria
Uno's / Honi
Honi
bioretention
/
downspout
disconnecti
on /retrofit
existing
ponds
Good public site with great
educational and treatment potential;
concept to treat rooftop and parking
areas; install bioretention in medians;
retrofit curbs with individual parking
blocks; disconnect downspouts or
redirect to planters; install aquatic
bench and berm in ponds; discontinue
mowing to edge.
Current
stormwater
ponds utilized for
recreational
events; impact of
SnoMax on water
quality is an
unknown;
drainage from
storm drains to
pond - elevations
may be off as
storm drains
appeared to be
backed up.
created
wetland /
bioretention
Good educational site with a lot of
public exposure. Constructed
wetland proposed Honi Honi and gas
station; swale already present to be
enhanced for improved stormwater
treatment. Church and movie theatre
across Hwy 219 have retrofit potential
with bioretetnion and vegetated
swales.
Purple water
found in storm
drain by church;
iron flock with
fumes found in
existing
vegetated swale
by Honi Honi.
Post office
parking lot proposed area of
impervious for
retrofit states "No
Parking;" poor
storm water drain
near gas pump
should be revisited.
R9
BP gas
station, post
office, Bill's
Boat
Service
bioretetion /
infiltration
Install bioretention or permeable
pavement to fire department parking
lot; at post office, use half of lot for
trees and rain garden; re-gravel boat
rental; install buffer along shoreline;
1/4 of lot at back of gas station could
be replaced with permeable paver.
R10
Blakeslee
neighborhoo
d
bioretention
/
downspout
disconnecti
on
Community center for established
neighborhood: propose downspout
disconnection small bioretentions
created at SW corner of parking lot
and southwest corner of tennis court.
bioretention
Untreated runoff from Hwy 219
creating erosion on steep slope;
approximately 2 acres of drainage
could be treated with bioretention.
R11
Garrett
Highway
and Pyssell
Rd (state
highway
right of way)
P-16
new site
new site
Figure A-4 depicts some representative site conditions. Photo documentation for
conditions of site can be found on the accompanying DVD. Figures A-4 shows the
locations at which preliminary stormwater retrofit concepts were developed. The Retrofit
Reconnaissance Inventory field sheets, which contain field data, can be found in
Attachment B.
A
B
C
D
Figure A-4. (A) Marsh Run, Site R3: an ideal location for a bioretention facility to treat
highway runoff, site may require check dams; (B) Marsh Run, Site R6: steep sloped,
impervious cover draining directly to the Lake; (C) Thayerville, Site R8: location of
corrected illicit discharge, the site drains a gas station, Pizzaria Uno’s and a bar but could
be retrofitted to create a wetland and more effectively treat runoff; the site is ideal
because it is in part owned by DNR.
P-17
E
(D-E) Marsh Run, Site R7: Wisp Ski Resort – multiple opportunities for stormwater
treatment by disconnecting downspouts to landscaped areas or tree planter, creating
bioretention facilities in parking lot islands and adding aquatic benches and buffers to
existing stormwater management ponds such as the one pictured above.
General Findings

There are abundant opportunities for onsite retrofit practices within Deep Creek
Lake watershed. These onsite practices could be integrated with existing land
uses and implemented in a manner that provides aesthetic benefits and
educational opportunities. Particularly good educational opportunities exist at
Wisp Ski Resort and the Pizzeria Uno’s, both of which have pollutant generating
potential to the Lake and receive heavy use by tourists.
P-18
4.0
Synoptic Sampling
Indicator sampling is utilized to get synoptic or “snapshot” data, which means that
indicators are sampled at essentially the same time and under the same conditions. In
general, sampling should generally occur only during dry weather conditions to minimize
influence from recent runoff events. Since stream assessments were limited due to access
constraints, some additional resources were utilized for the collection of both sediment
and water.
Indicator sampling is normally repeated several times to get a reliable and representative
value for each subwatershed. The budget for this project precluded multiple sampling
events; all sampling was completed within the two-day field work period on May 27 and
28, 2009. Water quality and soil samples were collected at the mouths of each major
tributary entering the lake, upstream of a road crossing. A map of the synoptic sampling
sites assessed is found in Attachment A. Grab samples for water were collected into
plastic bottles and immediately put on ice. Soil samples were collected in sediment
deposition areas with a trowel within the stream itself, put into soil samples bags and then
put into a cooler. Water samples were analyzed at the University of Maryland Center for
Environmental Science Chesapeake Biological Laboratory in Solomons, MD. Soil
samples were analyzed at A & L Eastern Laboratories in Richmond, VA.
4.1 Water Quality Sampling Analysis
Phosphorus is listed on Maryland Department of the Environment’s 303(d) list as a water
quality impairment for Deep Creek Lake itself and its tributaries. Total nitrogen and total
phosphorus were evaluated in this study to determine which subwatersheds may
potentially be sources of excess nutrients. Table 6 shows stream ratings based on total
nitrogen concentration data adapted from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources
(2005), who based their ratings on loading coefficients reported by Frink (1991).
Rating
Baseline
Slightly elevated
Moderate
High
Excessive
Table 6: Ratings by Nutrient Concentrations
Total Nitrogen (TN)
Total Phosphorus (TP)
0.0 – 1.0
<0.05
1.0 – 2.0
0.05 – 0.075
2.0 – 3.0
0.075 – 0.10
3.0 – 5.0
0.10 – 0.20
>5.0
>0.20
Based on the nutrient ratings table above, one site, PPR-1 (Pawn Run) exhibited both
moderate TP and slightly elevated TN ratings. Three additional sites exhibited slightly
elevated TN ratings (NGR-I, North Glade Run; PPR-2, Pawn Run; and UDL-3, Upper
Deep Creek). Land use / land cover data was obtained from the Natural Resource
Conservation Service and was used to analyze land use and land cover on a subwatershed
basis for this study (see Attachment B, Table 2). The data indicates that the Pawn Run
subwatershed has the highest percentage of hay / pasture / crop acreage (33.6%) of any
P-19
other subwatershed. North Glade Run has the second highest amount of this same cover
type (33%) and Upper Deep Creek has the third (31.4%). Implementation of agricultural
best management practices in these subwatersheds is highly recommended.
NGR-2
Table 8: Water Quality Analysis 1
SubTP
TP
TN
watershed
(mg P/L)
Rating
(mg N/L)
Cherry Creek
0.0115 Baseline
0.40
Green Glade
Run
0.0104 Baseline
0.25
Green Glade
Run
0.0120 Baseline
0.37
Green Glade
Run
0.0237 Baseline
0.46
Meadow
Mountain Run
0.0188 Baseline
0.47
Marsh Run
0.0100 Baseline
0.48
Marsh Run
0.0168 Baseline
0.50
North Glade
Run
0.0165 Baseline
1.10
North Glade
Run
0.0215 Baseline
0.92
PPR-1
Pawn Run
0.0817 Moderate
1.22
PPR-2
RHR-1
THV-1
Pawn Run
Red Run
Thayerville
Upper Deep
Creek
Upper Deep
Creek
Upper Deep
Creek
Upper Deep
Creek
Smith Run
0.0354 Baseline
0.0193 Baseline
0.0156 Baseline
1.56
0.57
0.39
0.0102 Baseline
0.57 Baseline
0.0251 Baseline
0.0484 Baseline
0.88 Baseline
Slightly
1.38 elevated
0.0098 Baseline
0.0074 Baseline
0.35 Baseline
0.34 Baseline
Site_ID
CHC-1
GGR-1
GGR-2
GGR-3
MMR-1
MSH-1
MSH-2
NGR-1
UDL-1
UDL-2
UDL-3
UDL-5
SR-1
1
TN Rating
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Slightly
elevated
Baseline
Slightly
elevated
Slightly
elevated
Baseline
Baseline
These samples were taken at a time of year when concentrations tend to be lower than normal due to
biological uptake.
P-20
4.2 Soil Sample Analysis
The soil analysis report is available in full in Attachment D. Soil phosphorus levels
exhibited similar trends as the water quality analysis. Sites with slightly elevated TN
Ratings (PPR-2, UDL-3, PPR-1, NGR-1) in the water column were in the 80th percentile
or above of ranked sites for the soil analysis (Table 7). Site UDL-2 ranked in the 100th
percentile for soil phosphorus. Another notable correlation occurred at Site Thv-1. This
site had the lowest pH (as did Site MMR-1) as well as ranked in the 100th percentile for
both aluminum and sulfur. Site Thv-1 was downstream of quarry, which the field team
did not visit during the field work period, but which may be a reason for the low pH at
this site. At low pH, aluminum becomes more mobile – these sites (THV-1 and MMR-1)
should be monitored regularly for both pH and aluminum.
Table 7: Soil Sample Analysis
Water Sample
Site_ID
UDL-2
Subwatershed
Upper Deep
Creek
TP
Rating
P
percentile
Aluminum
percentile
Sulfur
percentile
pH
percentile
100
10
75
45
95
55
75
80
90
75
35
60
85
15
55
90
80
75
55
55
55
55
30
30
30
30
30
25
40
80
90
50
35
65
70
60
45
100
55
10
10
35
0
0
55
10
10
95
100
65
25
25
15
40
85
25
65
15
100
0
Baseline
UDL-3
Pawn Run
Upper Deep
Creek
PPR-1
Pawn Run
Moderate
NGR-1
GGR-1
GGR-3
GGR-4
GGR-5
MSH-2
GGR-2
MSH-1
NGR-2
RHR-1
THV-1
North Glade Run
Green Glade Run
Green Glade Run
Green Glade Run
Green Glade Run
Marsh Run
Green Glade Run
Marsh Run
North Glade Run
Red Run
Thayerville
Upper Deep
Creek
Meadow
Mountain Run
Smith Run
Lower Deep
Creek
Upper Deep
Creek
Cherry Creek
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
n/a
n/a
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Slightly
elevated
Slightly
elevated
Slightly
elevated
Slightly
elevated
Baseline
Baseline
n/a
n/a
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
25
20
75
75
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
20
15
5
30
70
35
0
45
n/a
n/a
5
95
75
45
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
5
0
85
0
35
10
10
95
PPR-2
UDL-1
MMR-1
SR-1
LDC-1
UDL-5
CHC-1
P-21
Baseline
TN Rating
Soil Sample
Baseline
5.0
Initial Recommendations
A series of recommendations are made based on the results of the fieldwork. These
recommendations to FoDCL and watershed stakeholders include:
Monitoring & Research
 Additional stream and upland assessments are needed to provide a more
complete understanding of current watershed conditions. Correlate
assessments with ongoing sampling by MD DNR, County Environmental
Health program, USGS, etc.
 Work with volunteers and local partners to continue monitoring the watershed
for bacteria, nitrogen, phosphorus, dissolved oxygen and pH. Once per year,
add a monitoring event for heavy metals.
 Engage additional partners, such as the University of Maryland’s Appalachian
Laboratory, in research studies in the watershed, e.g.harmful algal blooms,
application of bottom ash to the roads, effects of Sno_Max to Lake water
quality, and nutrients.
 Inventory all direct-to-lake culverts for retrofit potential.
Pollution Prevention
 Work with landowners and business in the Deep Creek Lake Watershed,
particularly those identified during the field work as hotspots and potential
sources of illicit discharge, on implementing pollution prevention strategies.
Education
 Work with County Roads Department and State Highway Administration on
the substitution of bottom ash on icy roads with a more watershed-friendly
alternative. This standard is currently being reviewed by MDE.
 Work with agricultural landowners and other local partners (Extension
Service, Soil and Water Conservation District, Natural Resource Conservation
Service) on the implementation of best management practices to reduce
nitrogen and phosphorus loading into the Lake, particularly in Pawn Run,
Upper Deep Creek and North Glade Run subwatersheds.
 Encourage homeowners and neighborhood associations to plant trees and
utilize native landscaping in yards, lawns and common areas, esp. around the
Lake itself or its tributaries.
 Establish a signage program announcing entry into the Deep Creek Lake
Watershed boundaries and stream crossings – possible partners MD DNR,
State Highway, and County Roads.
Retrofits


Perform additional retrofitting assessments in the urban areas along the Lake
as initial efforts only assessed a limited portion.
Perform additional feasibility study for preliminary sketches called out in this
report, particularly for those sites in high profile areas such as Wisp Ski
P-22

Resort and the Pizzeria Uno/Honi Honi bar area. Implement one project
within the year. Sources of funding include Brookfield Energy, MD DNR &
Chesapeake Bay Trust.
Assess for opportunities to divert road runoff from ditches to adjacent forested
areas rather than directly to the Lake.
P-23
References
Frink C.R. 1991. Estimating nutrient exports to estuaries. Journal of Environmental
Quality 20: 717–724.
Kitchell and Schueler. 2004. The Unified Stream Assessment: A Users Guide. Manual
10 in the Urban Subwatershed Restoration Manual Series. Ellicott City, MD.
downloadable at http://www.cwp.org
MD DNR, 2005. Report on Nutrient Synoptic Surveys in the Anacostia River
Watershed, Prince George’s County, Maryland, April, 2004 as part of a
Watershed Restoration Action Strategy. Watershed Services Division, Annapolis,
MD.
Wright et al., 2004. The Unified Subwatershed and Site Reconnaissance: A Users Guide.
Manual 11 in the Urban Subwatershed Restoration Manual Series. Ellicott City,
MD. downloadable at http://www.cwp.org
P-24
Deep Creek Lake Field Findings Memorandum: Attachement A
P-1
P-2
P-3
P-4
P-5
Deep Creek Lake Field Findings Memorandum: Attachment B
Site_ID
Thv-RCH-4
Subwatershed
NGR-RCH-1
Thayerville
North Glade
Run
LDC-RCH-6
Lower Deep
Creek
PR-RCH-2
Pawn Run
SR-RCH-7
Smith Run
MR-RCH-8
Marsh Run
GGR-RCH-1
MR-RCH-1
Green
Glade
Marsh Run
PR-RCH-3
Pawn Run
HPR-RCH-2
HPR-RCH-3
Hoop Pole
Run
Hoop Pole
Run
P-1
Table 1: Deep Creek Lake Reach Field Data, 5/27/2009 & 5/28/2009
Instream
Buffer/
habitat Flood-plain
Channel
Reach
/80
/80
Total
Biggest Problem
Dynamics
Classification
sediment
deposition
80
71
151 Excellent
isolated erosion on left bank - 8-10' high
banks
unknown
72
70
142 Excellent
sediment
deposition,
braiding
downcutting,
bank scour
sediment
deposition,
slight bank
failure
sediment
deposition
downcutting,
bank scour
(minimal)
bank scour
bank scour
(slight)
downcutting,
sediment
deposition,
bank scour
sediment
deposition
74
67
141
Excellent
trash in stream - GPS recorded
erosion from upstream impacts; water clarity
opaque
65
73
138
Excellent
74
63
137
Excellent
73
64
137
Excellent
68
64
69
61
137
125
Excellent
Good
62
62
124
Good
some down-cutting; water clarity turbid
sand deposition, bank erosion
silt substrate; water clarity opaque; shading
<75%
59
60
119
Good
isolated erosion; water clarity slightly turbid
66
51
117
Good
LB limited buffer width
RR-RCH-5
MR-RCH-9
Red Run
UDC-RCH-1
Marsh Run
Upper Deep
Creek
PR-RCH-1
Pawn Run
P-2
Table 1: Deep Creek Lake Reach Field Data, 5/27/2009 & 5/28/2009
sediment
some trash in stream; water clarity stained;
deposition
59
51
110 Good
shading <75%
sediment
deposition,
bed scour
bank failure,
bank scour
downcutting,
bank scour
(slight)
58
47
105
Fair
50
44
94
Fair
invasive species present; some failure around
stream crossing headwall; pipe leading to
stream looks like it drains; wetland on
residential property; water clarity turbid
lower part of this stream very eroded - livestock
impact (see IB-1) ; shading <75%
52
37
89
Fair
livestock impact; no buffer; water clarity
opaque; shading <50%
Table 2: Land Use / land cover by subwatershed 1
Land cover
Open water
Low intensity
developed
Med intensity
developed
High intensity
developed
Transportation
Urban
Deciduous
forest
Evergreen
forest
Mixed
(deciduousevergreen)
forest
Pasture/hay
Croplands
Wetland
Total
Area
(acres)
56.7
Thayerville
5.5%
Smith
Run
7.0%
Roman
Nose
Hill
43.5%
Red
Run
1.2%
North
Glade
Run
8.2%
Meadow
Mountain
0.3%
Cherry
Creek
0.1%
Bee
Tree
Hollow
18.5%
Green
Glade
Run
12.3%
8.7
0.8%
0.1%
0.2%
0.3%
0.4%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
3.1
0.3%
0.0%
0.4%
0.1%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
6.7
0.6%
0.0%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
28.9
197.5
2.8%
19.0%
1.9%
20.4%
6.3%
35.2%
3.5%
16.5%
1.6%
22.1%
0.1%
8.3%
0.3%
9.2%
4.1%
12.3%
0.9%
18.0%
582.2
56.0%
64.9%
11.7%
61.0%
29.1%
83.4%
57.7%
60.5%
52.7%
37.4
3.6%
3.3%
0.5%
7.6%
2.2%
3.2%
8.2%
1.6%
1.5%
11.8
1.1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.6%
1.4%
0.4%
1.0%
0.0%
0.5%
27.8
69.2
6.89
2.7%
6.7%
0.66%
0.0%
1.9%
0.21%
0.0%
0.6%
1.01%
0.7%
5.2%
3.15%
5.5%
27.5%
1.36%
0.1%
1.9%
2.12%
2.5%
17.4%
3.20%
1.7%
1.08%
2.9%
9.5%
1.43%
1
Computed from National Land Cover Database GIS layer: Fry, J.A., Coan, M.J., Homer, C.G., Meyer, D.K., and Wickham, J.D., 2009, Completion of the
National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 1992–2001 Land Cover Change Retrofit product: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008–1379, 18 p.
P-3
Table 2 (continued): Land Use / land cover by subwatershed
Land cover
Open water
Low intensity
developed
Med intensity
developed
High intensity
developed
Transportation
Urban
Deciduous
forest
Evergreen
forest
Mixed
(deciduousevergreen)
forest
Pasture/hay
Croplands
Wetland
Influence
area
0.1%
Cherry
Creek
Cove
17.7%
Upper
Deep
Creek
Lake
9.84%
0.1%
0.4%
0.1%
0.48%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.13%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
0.02%
0.7%
21.3%
1.0%
29.6%
0.9%
28.2%
1.5%
15.4%
0.8%
18.5%
0.7%
17.0%
1.19%
11.2%
33.9%
64.4%
27.0%
50.5%
57.5%
63.6%
61.0%
41.29%
4.2%
2.8%
4.8%
3.0%
0.2%
9.1%
1.5%
1.9%
1.61%
0.4%
1.1%
0.2%
0.3%
0.5%
0.1%
0.2%
0.6%
0.1%
1.44%
2.1%
8.3%
2.52%
11.0%
22.6%
1.16%
1.0%
7.8%
1.01%
0.1%
3.8%
1.07%
1.6%
10.2%
1.95%
4.0%
0.2%
0.68%
0.7%
3.2%
2.78%
1.6%
11.7%
0.32%
0.0%
0.2%
1.01%
6.48%
24.95%
1.38%
Hoop
Pole
Run
22.4%
Marsh
Run
8.2%
Meadow
Mtn
Run
3.0%
Blakeslee
25.0%
Single
Camp
Hollow
14.6%
Lower
Deep
Creek
9.5%
Pawn
Run
1.9%
0.2%
0.6%
1.3%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.3%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
1.7%
0.0%
2.1%
27.9%
0.8%
16.9%
3.3%
38.1%
29.2%
39.4%
4.9%
P-4
LAT
39.45478333
39.44000000
39.46011667
39.48053376
39.48006258
39.44697240
39.45232154
39.46005455
39.48142951
39.45745589
39.48296111
39.50798908
39.49948667
39.50431748
39.50476232
39.50449104
39.47494213
39.47489026
LAT
39.48268333
39.50521094
39.51332627
39.52060014
39.49897751
Table 3: Stream Impact Coordinates
LONG
Site_ID
-79.29470000
UDC-SC1
-79.29898333
UDC-IB-1
-79.33235000
PR-SC-1
-79.33938654
PR-LA-1
-79.33912399
PR-SC-4
-79.29930027
UDC-LA-1
-79.29102230
UDC-LA-2
-79.33257092
PR-IB-1
-79.31979308
HPR-SC-3
-79.27839719
GGR-LA-1
-79.24512732
GGR-IB-1
-79.25081346
NGR-SC-1
-79.23806710
NGR-LA-1
-79.32509349
THV-OT-1
-79.32565836
THV-OT-2
-79.39580040
LDC-TR-6
-79.33215441
PR-SC-2
-79.33943323
PR-SC-3
Assess_typ
Stream crossing
Impacted buffer
Stream crossing
Livestock access
Stream crossing
Livestock access
Livestock access
Impacted buffer
Stream crossing
Livestock access
Impacted buffer
Stream crossing
Livestock access
Outfall
Outfall
Trash and debris
Stream crossing
Stream crossing
Table 4: Hotspot Coordinates
LONG
Site_ID
Assess_typ
-79.35073333
PR-HSI-1
Hotspot
-79.27046849
NGR-HSI-2
Hotspot
-79.29764016
MMR-HSI-1
Hotspot
-79.33061094
RNH-HSI-5
Hotspot
-79.28186342
NGR-HSI-3
Hotspot
P-5
Status
Potential
Potential
Potential
Not a hotspot
Confirmed
Latitude
39.50526249640
39.55853460680
39.56064551320
39.56292053920
39.55591450980
39.55084893810
39.55724982660
39.50430275000
39.55565352160
39.47193600730
39.56213897780
Longitude
-79.27037628480
-79.34539111480
-79.34351619190
-79.35621626600
-79.35517071530
-79.35101147880
-79.36296738140
-79.32509661530
-79.35177356150
-79.30940206420
-79.35643366280
P-6
Retrofits
Site_ID
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
R11
Proposed retrofit
Did not assess
Did not assess
Bioretention
Created wetland
Did not assess
Bioretention
Bioretention
Created wetland / bioretention
Bioretention
Bioretention
Bioretention
Synoptic Sampling
LAT
LONG
39.43986667
-79.29910000
39.45483333
-79.29546667
39.46611667
-79.28806667
39.46633333
-79.27215000
39.46126205
-79.27764698
39.48286667
-79.24606667
39.50779888
-79.25080858
39.50674610
-79.25038627
39.52276667
-79.26800000
39.48010877
-79.33918899
39.47496667
-79.33210000
39.56240000
-79.35756667
39.53833333
-79.34368333
39.44571667
-79.31633333
39.50472542
-79.39595033
39.51857836
-79.35025414
39.49326583
-79.36602889
39.44413978
-79.29708878
39.48668765
-79.27629278
39.53772935
-79.31557193
39.50299715
-79.32639424
P-7
Site_ID
UDL-1
UDL-3
GGR-4
GGR-1
GGR-2
GGR-3
NGR-1
NGR-2
MMR-1
PPR-1
PPR-2
MSH-1
MSH-2
UDL-5
LDC-1
SR-1
RHR-1
UDL-2
GGR-5
CHC-1
THV-1
Report Number:
R09153-0021
A&L Eastern Laboratories, Inc.
Account Number:
29420
7621 Whitepine Road Richmond, Virginia 23237 (804) 743-9401
Fax No. (804) 271-6446 Email: [email protected]
Send To: CTR FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION
8390 MAIN ST/2ND FLOOR
ELLICOTT CITY, MD 21043
Grower: CENTER FOR WATERSHED
PROTECTION
Farm I.D.:
Submitted By: LORI LILLY
Field I.D.:
SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT
Analytical Method(s):
Page: 1
6/2/2009
Date Received:
Date of Analysis:
Organic Matter
Sample
Number
Phosphorus
Lab
Number
%
ENR
lbs/A Rate
THV-1
8739
7.3
150
VH
MMR-1
8740
0.8
64
VL
VDL-2
8741
2.3
91
L
UNK-1
8742
3.0
101
M
RHR-1
8743
3.4
97
M
Available
ppm
Rate
Ca
%
Na
%
Reserve
ppm
Rate
L
MD=18
8
VL
MD=11
59
H
MD=67
7
VL
MD=10
14
L
MD=18
Nitrate
H
%
NO3-N
ppm Rate
Sulfur
6/4/2009
Date of Report:
Potassium
14
Percent Base Saturation
Sample
Number
6/3/2009
Magnesium
Calcium
Sodium
K
ppm
Rate
MG
ppm
Rate
CA
ppm Rate
31
VL
MD=18
5
VL
MD=1
45
L
MD=27
33
VL
MD=20
34
VL
MD=20
32
M
MD=27
22
M
MD=20
65
H
MD=52
183
H
MD=142
85 VL
MD=67
207
L
MD=0
101
L
MD=0
456 M
MD=31
813
M
MD=76
3694 VH
MD=439
Manganese
Zinc
Iron
NA
ppm Rate
Acidity
C.E.C.
meq/100g
Soil
pH
Buffer
Index
H
meq/100g
4.8
6.8
1.2
2.6
4.8
6.9
0.6
1.3
6.1
6.9
0.5
3.4
6.1
6.8
0.9
6.6
7.6
Copper
FE
ppm Rate
pH
Boron
Soluble
Chloride
Salts
B
CL
ppm Rate ms/cm Rate ppm Rate
Aluminum
Mg
%
THV-1
3.1
10.3
40.0
46.6
30
H
3.0
M
3
VL
125 VH
0.9
M
0.1 VL
1899
MMR-1
1.0
14.0
38.5
46.6
10
L
2.1
L
6
L
585 VH
0.2
VL
0.1 VL
285
VDL-2
3.4
15.9
67.0
13.7
13
L
4.1
H
58
VH
690
0.4
L
0.2 VL
292
UNK-1
1.3
23.2
61.8
8
VL
10.2
VH
223 VH
357
VH
0.9
M
0.1 VL
336
RHR-1
0.5
3.7
95.9
16
M
13.1
VH
89 VH
375
VH
1.4
M
0.3 VL
368
VH
CU
ppm Rate
19.3
K
%
13.7
SO4-S
ZN
MN
ppm Rate ppm Rate ppm Rate
MD
MD-FIV
Values on this report represent the plant available nutrients in the soil.
Rating after each value: VL (Very Low), L (Low), M (Medium), H (High), VH (Very High).
ENR - Estimated Nitrogen Release. C.E.C. - Cation Exchange Capacity.
Explanation of symbols: % (percent), ppm (parts per million), lbs/A (pounds per acre),
ms/cm (milli-mhos per centimeter), meq/100g (milli-equivalent per 100 grams).
Conversions: ppm x 2 = lbs/A, Soluble Salts ms/cm x 640 = ppm.
AL
ppm Rate
This report applies to the sample(s) tested. Samples are retained a
maximum of thirty days after testing. Soil Analysis prepared by:
A & L EASTERN LABORATORIES, INC.
by:
Paul Chu, Ph.D.
Report Number:
R09153-0021
Account Number:
29420
PROTECTION
Farm I.D.:
Field I.D.:
Page: 2
6/2/2009
Date Received:
Date of Analysis:
Organic Matter
Sample
Number
Phosphorus
Lab
Number
%
MSH2
8744
1.8
80
L
VDL-1
8745
2.0
86
L
CHC-1
8746
0.3
52
VL
PPR-2
8747
2.2
86
L
VDL-3
8748
1.4
69
L
ENR
lbs/A Rate
Available
ppm
Rate
Ca
%
Na
%
Reserve
ppm
Rate
L
MD=19
11
VL
MD=14
4
VL
MD=7
39
M
MD=45
29
L
MD=34
Nitrate
H
%
NO3-N
ppm Rate
Sulfur
6/4/2009
Date of Report:
Potassium
15
Sample
Number
6/3/2009
Magnesium
Calcium
Sodium
K
ppm
Rate
MG
ppm
Rate
CA
ppm Rate
23
VL
MD=13
29
VL
MD=17
2
VL
MD=0
39
VL
MD=23
64
L
MD=40
56
M
MD=45
69
H
MD=55
38
M
MD=32
60
L
MD=49
135
H
MD=105
766 VH
MD=70
415
H
MD=26
447 VH
MD=30
873
H
MD=83
802
M
MD=74
Manganese
Zinc
K
%
Mg
%
SO4-S
ZN
MN
MSH2
1.3
10.4
85.4
2.9
6
VL
11.4
VH
VDL-1
2.5
19.5
70.5
7.4
13
L
6.5
CHC-1
0.2
12.4
87.4
7
VL
PPR-2
1.9
9.5
82.7
5.9
13
VDL-3
2.7
18.7
66.5
12.1
8
Iron
MD
NA
ppm Rate
C.E.C.
meq/100g
Soil
pH
Buffer
Index
H
meq/100g
6.8
6.9
0.1
4.5
6.5
6.9
0.2
2.9
2.6
6.6
6.9
0.3
5.3
6.2
6.9
0.7
6.0
Boron
CU
ppm Rate
Soluble
Chloride
Salts
B
CL
Aluminum
AL
ppm Rate
212 VH
295 VH
1.3
M
0.1 VL
343
H
198
VH
732 VH
0.2
VL
0.1 VL
317
11.1
VH
84
VH
342
0.2
VL
0.1 VL
279
L
4.3
H
103 VH
657
VH
0.5
L
0.2 VL
407
VL
4.8
H
119 VH
413
VH
1.8
H
0.1 VL
585
VH
MD-FIV
Acidity
7.5
Copper
FE
ppm Rate
pH
by:
Paul Chu, Ph.D.
Report Number:
R09153-0021
Account Number:
29420
PROTECTION
Farm I.D.:
Field I.D.:
Page: 3
6/2/2009
Date Received:
Date of Analysis:
Organic Matter
Sample
Number
Phosphorus
Lab
Number
%
ENR
lbs/A Rate
VDL-4
8749
3.3
108
M
MSH-1
8750
0.9
65
VL
POL-1
8751
0.6
58
VL
VDL-5
8752
3.7
119
M
NGR-1
8753
0.7
60
VL
Available
ppm
Rate
Ca
%
Na
%
Reserve
ppm
Rate
L
MD=19
14
L
MD=18
15
L
MD=19
6
VL
MD=9
23
L
MD=27
Nitrate
H
%
NO3-N
ppm Rate
Sulfur
6/4/2009
Date of Report:
Potassium
15
Sample
Number
6/3/2009
Magnesium
Calcium
Sodium
K
ppm
Rate
MG
ppm
Rate
CA
ppm Rate
53
L
MD=33
15
VL
MD=8
23
VL
MD=13
29
VL
MD=17
21
VL
MD=12
125
H
MD=98
31
M
MD=27
62
H
MD=50
62
M
MD=50
52
M
MD=42
636
M
MD=54
315
H
MD=13
303 M
MD=12
429
M
MD=27
442
H
MD=29
Manganese
Zinc
K
%
Mg
%
SO4-S
ZN
MN
VDL-4
2.4
18.3
56.0
23.3
8
VL
4.9
H
MSH-1
1.9
12.6
76.6
8.9
7
VL
18.5
VH
177
VH
POL-1
2.3
20.5
60.0
17.2
6
VL
4.0
H
50
VDL-5
2.0
14.0
58.2
25.8
8
VL
5.5
NGR-1
1.8
14.6
74.6
8.9
9
VL
3.0
52 VH
Iron
MD
NA
ppm Rate
Copper
FE
ppm Rate
pH
C.E.C.
meq/100g
Soil
pH
Buffer
Index
H
meq/100g
5.6
6.8
1.3
5.7
6.4
6.9
0.2
2.1
5.9
6.9
0.4
2.5
5.5
6.8
0.9
3.7
6.4
6.9
0.3
3.0
Boron
CU
ppm Rate
Soluble
Chloride
Salts
B
CL
Aluminum
AL
ppm Rate
570 VH
1.2
M
0.1 VL
725
284 VH
0.6
L
0.1 VL
537
H
378
0.7
L
0.1 VL
393
H
111 VH
625
VH
0.7
L
0.1 VL
628
M
64 VH
441
VH
0.6
L
0.1 VL
322
VH
MD-FIV
Acidity
by:
Paul Chu, Ph.D.
Report Number:
R09153-0021
Account Number:
29420
PROTECTION
Farm I.D.:
Field I.D.:
Page: 4
6/2/2009
Date Received:
Date of Analysis:
Organic Matter
Sample
Number
Phosphorus
Lab
Number
%
LDL-1
8754
1.5
76
L
PPR-1
8755
0.7
55
VL
GGR-2
8756
1.2
69
L
GGR-3
8757
1.8
79
L
NGR-2
8758
1.4
74
L
ENR
lbs/A Rate
Available
ppm
Rate
K
%
Mg
%
Ca
%
LDL-1
0.9
6.7
78.7
PPR-1
1.5
6.5
92.0
GGR-2
2.7
13.5
64.7
GGR-3
1.9
21.2
57.9
NGR-2
2.3
13.5
60.9
Na
%
Reserve
ppm
Rate
VL
MD=9
27
L
MD=32
14
L
MD=18
15
L
MD=19
14
L
MD=18
Nitrate
H
%
NO3-N
ppm Rate
13.7
K
ppm
Rate
10
VL
MD=5
39
VL
MD=23
34
VL
MD=20
36
VL
MD=21
24
VL
MD=14
Sulfur
6/4/2009
Date of Report:
Potassium
6
Sample
Number
6/3/2009
Magnesium
Sodium
MG
ppm
Rate
CA
ppm Rate
23
L
MD=21
51
L
MD=42
52
M
MD=42
124
H
MD=97
44
M
MD=36
453
H
MD=30
1201 VH
MD=125
414 M
MD=26
565
M
MD=45
331
M
MD=15
Manganese
Zinc
Calcium
SO4-S
ZN
MN
Iron
MD
NA
ppm Rate
Acidity
C.E.C.
meq/100g
Soil
pH
Buffer
Index
H
meq/100g
6.1
6.9
0.4
7.2
Copper
FE
ppm Rate
pH
CU
ppm Rate
2.9
6.5
5.8
6.9
0.6
3.2
5.8
6.8
0.9
4.9
5.6
6.9
0.6
2.7
Boron
Soluble
Chloride
Salts
B
CL
Aluminum
AL
ppm Rate
13
L
9.1
VH
22
H
639 VH
0.4
L
0.1 VL
763
9
VL
3.1
M
107
VH
476 VH
0.9
M
0.1 VL
304
9
VL
5.9
H
105
VH
784
0.5
L
0.1 VL
428
19.0
7
VL
4.9
H
38
H
341
VH
1.4
M
0.1 VL
614
23.3
7
VL
4.5
H
84 VH
679
VH
0.4
L
0.1 VL
423
19.0
VH
MD-FIV
by:
Paul Chu, Ph.D.
Report Number:
R09153-0021
Account Number:
29420
PROTECTION
Farm I.D.:
Field I.D.:
Page: 5
6/2/2009
Date Received:
Date of Analysis:
Organic Matter
Sample
Number
Lab
Number
%
GGR-1
8759
0.8
Phosphorus
ENR
lbs/A Rate
62
Available
ppm
Rate
VL
16
Sample
Number
GGR-1
K
%
Mg
%
2.1
18.0
Ca
%
60.9
Na
%
6/3/2009
H
%
Potassium
Reserve
ppm
Rate
L
MD=20
Nitrate
NO3-N
ppm Rate
19.0
Date of Report:
Sulfur
Magnesium
VL
Calcium
MG
ppm
Rate
CA
ppm Rate
22
VL
MD=12
58
H
MD=47
328
M
MD=15
Manganese
Zinc
6.8
H
48
H
Iron
FE
ppm Rate
421 VH
MD
Sodium
K
ppm
Rate
SO4-S
ZN
MN
7
6/4/2009
NA
ppm Rate
Copper
CU
ppm Rate
0.8
pH
L
C.E.C.
meq/100g
Soil
pH
Buffer
Index
H
meq/100g
5.8
6.9
0.5
Boron
Soluble
Salts
Chloride
B
CL
0.1 VL
MD-FIV
Acidity
2.7
Aluminum
AL
ppm Rate
348
by:
Paul Chu, Ph.D.
University of Maryland
Center for Environmental Science
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory
Nutrient Analytical Services Laboratory
PO Box 38
Solomons, MD 20688
410-326-7252
Samples Collected: 27-28 May 2009
Samples Received: 04 June 2009
Samples Analyzed: 25 and 29 June 2009
Analyst: K. Blodnikar, K. Wood, M Weir
Client: Center for Watershed Protection
Sample # Date
GGR-5
GGR-4
CHC1
GGR1
GGR2
GGR3
LDC1
MMR1
MSH1
MSH2
NGR1
NGR2
POL1
PPR1
PPR2
RHR1
THV1
UDL1
UDL2
UDL3
UDL4
UDL5
UNK1
05/28/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/28/09
05/27/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
TP
TN
(mg P/L) (mg N/L)
0.0115
0.0104
0.0120
0.0237
0.0073
0.0188
0.0100
0.0168
0.0165
0.0215
0.0146
0.0817
0.0354
0.0193
0.0156
0.0102
0.0251
0.0484
0.0146
0.0098
0.0074
Sample #
MMr-1
UDL-2
0.40
0.25
0.37
0.46
0.24
0.47
0.48
0.50
1.10
0.92
0.44
1.22
1.56
0.57
0.39
0.57
0.88
1.38
0.33
0.35
0.34
%P
0.0072
0.0695
QA/QC
Sample #
LDC1
TP mgP/L
Dup 1
0.0076
Spike Concentration
Sample #
MMR1
TP mgP/L
Actual
0.0746
Dup2
0.0070
TN mgN/L
Dup1
0.24
Dup2
0.24
P
N
0.595 mg/L 4.48 mg/L
Expected
0.0712
Original
0.0188
TN mgN/L
Actual
Expected
1.18
1.24
Original
0.47

Center for Watershed Protection Study on DCL

Transcription

Similar documents

March 30 newsletter

Land Use Changes and Increased Nitrogen Export

awarded river protection grant

Little Britain Lake - Colne Valley Regional Park

Spring Creek Restaurants

lake scene - Lake Wapogasset

Big country, small plane

Ghent climate city is working overtime

May

Community Open Houses - I

quinsyn® plus quinsyn® xp quinsyn® pg quinsyn® f

Lantern Lighting August 30th

Untitled - Stormwater Management

Ghent Climate Plan

Linear Sketches

V Regional Geology - Geoscience Resources of Newfoundland and