La Plata, MD – Charles County finds itself in the totally unique position of being the largest of the three Southern Maryland counties, with more development occurring throughout its borders than its southern and eastern neighbors.
They also have an abundance of natural resources, and with the onslaught of development, how to manage and protect those assets became the focus of a presentation to the Charles County Planning Commission Monday, July 27 in La Plata.
Charles County Planner Aimee Dailey told the commissioners that her office focuses on species habitat protection for rare, threatened and endangered species which are state or federally listed.
She said they seek to protect state designated natural heritage areas which encompass streams, including waters within the Tier II [designated for development within the county’s proposed comprehensive plan], their buffers, stream-associated wetlands, wetlands of special state concern, quality forest areas, including forest interior dwelling species habitat.
Dailey said they require protection measures for subdivisions, site development plans, projects subject to forest conservation plans and development within Chesapeake Bay Critical Area designation.
As the result of a 2008 collaboration with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the county helped to clarify the process at the earliest stage of development.
“DNR issues four basic types of review letters [for proposed development],” Dailey explained.
The process entails generating a review letter, noting any environmental feature discovered on a project site, environmental features within close proximity of the project site, and encompasses any project site within sensitive watershed or headwaters of non-tidal wetlands designated as of special state concern.
“If there is no record found for a listed species within the proposed development, no habitat assessment or protection plan is recommended,” she said.
If an environmental feature is found on a project site, then those environmental features are delineated on site plans and a habitat protection plan is prepared to address required buffers, notes, protection zones, clearing restrictions, etc.
Those plans also include any environmental feature within the vicinity of a project site. If the project involves state funding or permitting, she noted, a habitat assessment and habitat protection plan would be drafted if needed.
“There would be no additional requirement unless features are found on the site during development,” she added. “Any project site within sensitive watersheds or headwaters of non-tidal wetlands would be of special state concern, and a habitat protection plan is required.”
Board member Nancy Schertler asked how the 100 foot buffer between shoreline and construction is determined.
“It goes from the edge of the bank,” Dailey said. “I wasn’t here when the ordinance was adopted. It has something to do with state buffer widths.”
“I’m just looking at tools,” Schertler said. “Would expanding that be an option?”
“It depends on what goal you’re trying to get at,” Planner Charles Rice explained. “If it’s nutrient removal, you’d have to look at buffer widths associated with nitrogen or phosphorus. That 100 feet is probably universal to get at all of those things without targeting one aspect of it.”
“When you’re doing a forest plan, is that number incorporated into it?” Schertler asked.
“That is a goal, because that’s a priority area for protection,” Dailey responded. “Roads are permitted to cross if they meet certain parameters.”
Planning Commission Member Joan Jones threw a wrench into the presentation, asking if DNR was involved in the recent euthanizing of geese in St. Charles.
“We were not,” Rice said. “I don’t know if DNR was.”
“I didn’t know if it was in habitat protection or not,” Jones said.
“I’ve never seen a habitat protection plan that had euthanization in it,” Dailey noted.
Contact Joseph Norris at joe.norris@thebaynet.com