Uncategorized

ACLT is Building a Cathedral of Nature

December 4, 2023 By Community Relations Manager

By Father Peter Daly, ACLT Board Member & Donor Relations Co-Chair

In medieval Europe, local people came together in a remarkable way to create a sacred space, a place for the human spirit to be lifted up. They built the great cathedrals.

Often it was small towns, like Leon in Spain, then only 7,000 people, that took on a huge, seemingly impossible task, to create giant structures. They did not build for themselves, but for generations to come. They did it because their spirits, their souls needed it.

In many places, like Notre Dame in Paris, it took hundreds of years and successive generations to create and sustain these sacred places. But they did it. They had a vision and they persisted until it was done.

Through its preservation of land, ACLT is co-creating a Cathedral of Nature in Southern Maryland. It is a sacred place for the human spirit. A place where human beings of every religion, or no religion, can find rest and refreshment for their spirits. A place where the cry of the eagle can be heard, the beavers’ ingenuity can be admired and the movement of the breeze can be felt on silent walks through towering trees.

This Cathedral of Nature will be our monument to last for 1,000 years. It will be our gift to the people who come after us. Our task may be difficult, given the pressures of economics and climate change, but if the people of the Middle Ages can build Notre Dame, we can do this. It is our urgent legacy to the future.

We have a vision of a sacred space, set apart to renew our souls.
We have a determination to make this happen.
We can do this.
Together we can create a Cathedral of Nature to renew the spirits of generations to come.

Help us build our Cathedral of Nature by visiting www.acltweb.org/support.

ACLT’s Community Cookbook – A Labor of Love

November 28, 2023 By Community Relations Manager

By Darlene Harrod, Board of Directors Member & Cookbook Committee Chair

A Fun(d)raising Idea

Having worked on a cookbook fundraising project with members of my church that helped to raise $6,000 in 2010, I believed it would be possible to do a similar project and double the profit to help ACLT reach its goals of promoting preservation throughout Southern Maryland. Robyn Truslow, Chair, ACLT Donor Relations, agreed it would make a good fun(d)raiser and took the idea to the Board of Directors. With their blessing, the Cookbook Committee was formed with Robyn, me, Board member Shirley Knight, along with members Pat Hofmann and Kathy Klauda. ACLT member Angie Shields and Mt. Gethsemane Church member Lingerine Robinson stepped up to proofread and help with typing some of the recipes.

A True "Community" Cookbook

The cookbook, called A Culinary Trail, intentionally focuses on recipes from various cultures and locally sourced ingredients from the Calvert County community … even putting to good use invasive plants and fish! More than 90 people submitted 277 recipes for the following eight categories: Appetizers & Beverages, Soups & Salads, Vegetables & Side Dishes, Main Dishes, Breads & Rolls, Desserts, Cookies & Candy and This & That.

Featured among the unique recipes are: Swiss Chard with Raisins and Almonds, Tangy Yellow Squash Salad, Zucchini (low fat Italian) Sausage Casserole, Japanese Knotweed Quiche, Woodchuck Gumbo, Smothered Muskrat, Baked Invasive Northern Snakehead Fish, Cinnamon Raisin Biscuits and Paw Paw Parfait.

Special Thanks

As you might imagine, it took many people to produce the cookbook. I thank all who played a role, including the staff at ACLT’s Office. Special thanks to ACLT Charter Member Peter Vogt who wrote an interesting article on Foraging Wild Plant Edibles and to David Farr, Board of Directors President, for writing the Forward.

I also want to extend special thanks to: Robbie McGaughran for naming the cookbook, Nathan Bowen for the cover photo of Parkers Creek flowing into the Chesapeake Bay, and Rhonda Saunders, RS GRAPHX, Inc. for the press-ready cover design and ads. In addition, we were extremely pleased to have received ads to pay for the cookbooks and related expenses from the following local businesses: Brothers Johnson Deluxe Portable Restrooms and Septic Services; Delaney & Keffler, LLC; Windy Willow Farm; RS GRAPHX, Inc.; LEAP Forward, Inc.; National Society of Black Engineers Jr. Chapter; Chris’ Rentals & Cleaning; Morgan Marie Photography; Jetmore Insurance Group; Gorman & Sons Landscaping and Lawn Services; Kathy Klauda Avon; Edward Jones (Nate Novotny); Reid & Reid Transportation Services; Prime Partners Engineering, LLC; and Chesapeake’s Bounty.

Get Yours Before It's Too Late

The attractive padded 3-ring binder with a linen-finish laminated cover will make a really memorable gift for all sorts of occasions. Five hundred copies were ordered, and we like that they are selling nicely. But we would love to have them all sold by the end of this year. Then ACLT would revisit re-ordering more copies to increase our profit. For now, ACLT is calling on friends, family members and the Calvert County community to purchase a copy or two of A Culinary Trail to help us continue our preservation and land conservation efforts.

Special Opportunity: Use the online form or purchase your copy at ACLT’s Annual Wreath & Greens Sale on Saturday, December 2nd from 11am-1pm at the South Side Trailhead!

NOTE: To save money, we are unable to ship the cookbooks. They must be picked up from the ACLT Office located at 676 Double Oak Road, Prince Frederick, Md. Office Hours are Monday thru Friday 8am-5pm.

Slowing the Spread of Phragmites in Parkers Creek

September 19, 2023 By Community Relations Manager

By Grace Mayer, ’22/’23 Chesapeake Conservation Corps Member

Phragmites australis is a common invasive reed that is all-too-familiar to many environmentalists in Maryland. Phragmites was introduced to the region in the 19^th century from Europe and Asia by ship and grows in brackish and fresh water. Patches of phragmites can be seen along Parkers Creek, where they provide few benefits to local wildlife and crowd out native vegetation. There have been many efforts to slow the spread of the invasive reed in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and one of the more common methods used to control phragmites is through the use of a glyphosate herbicide.

Phragmites spreads quickly through seed dispersal, rhizome and stolon growth, and through rhizome fragments. Stolon (above-ground runners from existing phragmites) and rhizomes (under-ground stems spreading from the roots) can both sprout new plants, meaning that phragmites spreads even if it doesn’t go to seed. Cut fragments of plants can sometimes re-establish after relocation, making it possible for phragmites to spread to new areas on equipment used for control.

Because of the ease and number of ways in which phragmites can spread, single control methods like cutting or mowing tend to be ineffective. Even if the plants are made unable to produce or spread seeds, the underground and aboveground offshoots can continue to generate new plants.

ACLT has been taking steps to slow the spread of phragmites in the marsh surrounding Parkers Creek for the last several years. Rather than utilizing herbicide which can be expensive and carry certain environmental risks, ACLT has been using a mechanical method of control. ACLT staff and volunteers cut the phragmites at water level using weed whackers and then covered the cut areas with black plastic. The plastic serves to overheat the rhizomes under the water and block sunlight from reaching the plants after the stem has been cut. The plastic is generally left on for about one year, although in some cases it is left on for a second growing season if the phragmites persists under the plastic.

ACLT has had success with this method in several areas and the level of phragmites control after just one year has been impressive. Additionally, the number of native plants that naturally repopulate the site during the first growing season after the plastic has been removed has been higher than we anticipated. Patches of phragmites, as well as sites previously covered in plastic, are scattered along Parkers Creek and some can be seen from the Parkers Creek Loop trail and on ACLT’s canoe trips.

Fighting Chinese Lespedeza in ACLT’s Meadows

August 14, 2023 By Community Relations Manager

By Grace Mayer, Chesapeake Conservation Corps Intern

This summer, ACLT is testing the effectiveness of two different control methods on Chinese lespedeza. Many of ACLT’s meadows have been home to lespedeza, an invasive forb that spreads quickly and out-competes native grasses and flowers. ACLT has had success in controlling lespedeza in the past using a combination of herbicide, controlled burns, and mowing. However, one meadow that is heavily infected with Chinese lespedeza sits between ACLT’s Double Oak Farm and Food Forest. Organic herbicides and solarization were tested in an attempt to find a successful organic method of control that poses the least risk to the food production happening on both sides of the site.

Upon first application, the organic herbicide d-limonene and vinegar both showed some effect on the lespedeza. Many of the plants sprayed with d-limonene were brown and wilting, while plants sprayed with vinegar showed similar but lesser effects. D-limonene acts as a degreasing agent, dissolving the plant’s cuticle and drying it out. Vinegar ruptures the plant cells’ walls, causing the leaves to leak water. Both act to dehydrate the plant, and while both caused some lespedeza to wilt; more leaves on the plants sprayed with d-limonene were brown and dried out compared to the plants sprayed with vinegar. After spraying the plots a second time, the plot sprayed with d-limonene had a visibly lower density of lespedeza and the remaining plants were shorter. While the area sprayed with vinegar did have a slightly lower density of lespedeza than the control plot, the d-limonene was much more effective.

In addition to testing the effects of the organic herbicides, the plots are meant to test the effectiveness of solarization on lespedeza. ACLT has tested solarization in the same meadow in the past, so this year solarization was tested in tandem with the herbicides. A total of three plots were covered with black plastic. Two of the plots were covered with plastic after being sprayed with either d-limonene or vinegar, and a third was solarized without being sprayed as a control. The plastic will be left in place for 5 weeks during the hottest months of the year. The results will determine whether solarization and/or organic herbicides are worth using as a lespedeza control method at ACLT after factoring in cost, labor intensity, risk mitigation, and effectiveness.

Stay tuned …

The Rills are Alive….With Strands of DNA

July 27, 2023 By Community Relations Manager

By Ron Klauda, Mary Hoover, and Evan Klauda

With apologies to Julie Andrews and “The Sound of Music” for the titular pun, we want to tell you about an exciting biological sampling tool tested by the Friends of Hunting Creek (FOHC) for the first time in Calvert County streams (or rills, if you prefer). Taking inspiration and encouragement from Dr. Chris Rowe (Associate Professor, Chesapeake Biological Lab), we conducted a pilot study using eDNA sampling in four non-tidal streams in the Hunting Creek watershed.

What is eDNA and how can it describe biodiversity?

Environmental DNA, or eDNA, is the genetic material shed by fish and other aquatic animals into the streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, estuaries, wetlands, and oceans where they live. By carefully collecting water samples that contain mucus, skin, scales, other tissues, urine, and yes, even ‘poop’, scientists can extract and process eDNA to learn who lives where.

There is a growing consensus among the scientific community that eDNA analysis is a complementary and perhaps an emerging alternative approach to traditional sampling methods. eDNA analysis is often an easier, quicker, and cheaper way to reliably describe fish communities in a stream. There is also considerable evidence to support using eDNA concentrations as an ancillary tool for estimating fish species composition and abundance, in addition to mere diversity. eDNA-based methods are revolutionizing biodiversity monitoring by enabling non-invasive, efficient, and less costly surveys of diverse taxa in aquatic ecosystems. The FOHC has neither the equipment nor the staff needed to sample stream fishes using traditional sampling gear, so eDNA sampling offered us a doable approach.

To learn more about this innovative sampling tool, check out this short video from “down under.”

What do we want to learn from our pilot study?

Our goal was to determine if eDNA analysis can tell us what fish species call the Hunting Creek watershed home. To better understand and protect the largest watershed in Calvert County (almost 20,000 acres), the FOHC needs to know what lives in the watershed’s 50 or more miles of streams. How many fish species live in these streams and which ones are most common? Are there any rare species in need of special protection? Are there non-native, invasive fish species that could pose a threat to native species? We asked eDNA sampling to help us answer these important questions.

After consulting Maryland DNR’s Stream Health Map, we were surprised to learn there is only one site in the Hunting Creek watershed where fish were collected by the Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS): an unnamed tributary to Sewell Branch that the FOHC unofficially call “Barberry Branch.” Sampled by the MBSS in 2004, only three fish species were collected at this site: Eastern Blacknose Dace, Eastern Mudminnow, and Tessellated Darter. For comparison, the MBSS has sampled and collected fish at 9 sites in the Parkers Creek watershed.

Where, when, and how did we collect eDNA samples?

Water samples were collected in mid-April 2023 in four streams using a Smith-Root eDNA Citizen Scientist sampling pump and their Self-Preserving Filter Packs with micron mesh filters. Two water samples were collected in each stream, along with two distilled water field blanks to check for possible on-site contamination in sample handling.

The four pilot study streams were HC6 (Fox Run), HC18 (unofficially called “Chingaware Run”), HC19 (an unnamed tributary to Mill Creek), and HC20 (upper Mill Creek).

How were the eDNA samples processed?

After collection, the filter packs were mailed to Jonah Ventures for analysis. The DNA was extracted, amplified, sequenced, and then the found sequences were compared to known DNA sequences to determine what fish species were present in each sampled stream.

Allow us to elaborate a bit. As you may recall from that Biology 101 course you took, strands of DNA are made up of four bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). Every organism has its own unique pattern of A, G, C, or T sequences. Scientists at Jonah Ventures labeled each base sequence in a process called metabarcoding. DNA sequences in our stream water samples were compared to other sequences in large DNA databases (think library or fingerprint file) to identify individual fish species.

Rob Aguilar (Research Technician, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center) kindly ‘tweaked’ (our word, not his) the spreadsheet we received from Jonah Ventures, using SERC’s private reference sequence library (CBBI: Chesapeake Bay Barcode Initiative), and improved our confidence in the species identifications.

What have we learned so far?

1.Well, for starters, we now know how to collect uncontaminated water samples from streams for eDNA analysis. Jonah Ventures found no DNA in our two field blanks.

2.We also now know what fish species live in the four streams we sampled. For brevity’s sake, this article will share only what we learned about Fox Run (HC6). eDNA results for the other three streams sampled in our pilot study will be discussed in the FOHC’s 2023 water quality monitoring report currently being prepared.

eDNA analysis told us that Fox Run is home-sweet-home to at least the following 16 fish species, in alphabetical order:

American Eel, Bluegill, Brown Bullhead, Chain Pickerel, or Redfin Pickerel. Creek Chubsucker, Eastern Blacknose Dace, Eastern Mosquitofish, Eastern Mudminnow, Golden Shiner, Green Sunfish, Largemouth Bass, Redbreast, Sunfish or Pumpkinseed, Satinfin Shiner, Spottail Shiner, Tessellated Darter, and Yellow Bullhead, more species found by eDNA analysis than in any of the other three streams.

eDNA analysis could not distinguish Chain Pickerel from Redfin Pickerel, or Redbreast Sunfish from Pumpkinseed. All 16 species are native to some portion of Maryland. None are rare, threatened, or endangered. The three most common fishes found in Fox Run were Tessellated Darter (#1), Creek Chubsucker (#2), and Golden Shiner (#3).

Satinfin Shiner and Spottail Shiner are categorized by MD/DNR as intolerant/pollution-sensitive species found only in good quality streams. Satinfin Shiner is also a lithophilic spawner, meaning their eggs develop in the cracks and crevices of clean sand, gravel, and cobble substrates. Hence, sediment deposition that buries the developing eggs greatly diminishes their spawning success. Redfin Pickerel is somewhat sensitive to pollution and found only in fair to good quality streams. The rest are more pollution tolerant/less sensitive and found in any quality stream.

3. Perhaps most important for this Pilot Study, eDNA analysis did not find any “oddball” fish species (e.g., Sockeye Salmon) that should not live in the Hunting Creek watershed. Our results from four streams suggest that the ‘DNA fingerprint files’ for Coastal Plain Maryland stream fish are robust and reliable.

How does fish diversity in Fox Run compare to other Calvert County streams?

The short answer is, “The highest!” Compared to all other County streams that were sampled by the MBSS, Fox Run has the most fish species (16). Coming in second, to date, is a site in Lyons Creek (sampled in 1997) with 15 species, including 5 species that eDNA analysis did not find in Fox Run: Fallfish, Least Brook Lamprey, Rosyside Dace, Tadpole Madtom, and Yellow Perch.

In case you’re wondering, 14 fish species have been collected among 9 sites in 5 Parkers Creek tributaries, including a non-native species: Northern Snakehead.

What’s Next?

Fox Run flows north behind the Fox Run Shopping Center and Calvert Health Medical Center, areas with many acres of paved parking lots, roadways, and rooftops. These non-absorbing (impervious) surfaces make stormwater management very challenging. Many studies have shown that impervious surfaces can be “stream killers.” Further development is being planned in the upper portions of the Fox Run watershed (e.g., Magnolia Ridge residential complex), which could threaten a stream fish community that appears to be the most diverse in Calvert County. The FOHC will continue to be vigilant and work diligently to protect Fox Run and all streams in the Hunting Creek watershed.

In addition to presenting the fish eDNA results for the other three streams included in our pilot study, the FOHC’s 2023 water quality report will also present eDNA results for benthic macroinvertebrates that were collected in the four streams sampled for fish diversity.