Natural Habitats Along the Chester River – from John Smith to Today
Excerpted from The Chester River – Feasibility study for Nomination as a Connector Trail in the Captain
John smith National Historic Trail (Seidel 2009)
The Chester River and its tributaries served as a transportation route for both American Indians
and colonists, but it also was a source of food and other resources for both groups due to its biological
productivity. The river retains many of the natural characteristics it had in the early 17th century, thanks
in part to an unusually large percentage of land in conservation easements or other forms of protection.
Although water quality is impaired, oysters have been depleted, and many of the large animal species
prevalent during that period have disappeared – especially large predators – the same may be said of all
of the rivers of the Chesapeake. Despite these shortcomings, however, to outward appearances much of
the river will appear little changed to visitors and it does retain an impressive set of natural resources.
Before assessing the degree to which the Chester River is evocative of the 17 th century
landscape, it was necessary to establish the essential elements of that historic character. Period writers
give us a good sense of both the landscape and the flora and fauna, beginning with John Smith himself.
Smith’s most detailed descriptions of the landscape are probably fond in his Map of Virginia (Smith
1986b), augmented with site-specific information in the different accounts he left of his travels. While a
comprehensive review of his descriptions are beyond the scope of this report, some salient characteristic
may be highlighted. In the Bay and its rivers, Smith spoke of “many Isles both great and small, some
woody, some plaine, most of them low and not inhabited” (Smith 1986b:144). This certainly characterizes
today’s Eastern Neck Island at the mouth of the Chester, now a 2,285 acre national wildlife refuge. He
noted that the land was “not mountainous nor yet low but such pleasant plaine hills and fertle valleys,
one prettily crossing an other, and watered conveniently with their sweete brookes...By the rivers are
many plaine marishes containing some 20 some 100 some 200 Acres, some more, some lesse…” (Smith
1986b:145), and this is a good description of much of the Chester River today.
Smith’s treatment of forests mirrors the description given above, along with insights on their use
by American Indians. He likewise lists berries of various types and a wonderful description of the native
use of arrow arum: “called Tockawhoughe, It groweth like a flagge in low muddy freshes” (Smith
1986b:153). He recounts a range of game and other animals, including deer, bears, opossum, muskrat,
beavers, and “a small beast they have, they call Assapanick but we call them flying squirrels, because
spreading their legs, and so stretching the largeness of their skins they have bin seene to fly 30 or 40
yards” (Smith 1986b:154-155). Smith’s vivid descriptions provide wonderful material for heritage tourism
interpretation.
John Smith was not the only Englishman to write of the country’s landscape, he was merely the
first and perhaps most prolific during the early period. Father Andrew White accompanied the Calverts to
Maryland in 1634, and he described some of the prairie grasslands that, along with pine savannah, were
an important characteristic of the Delmarva: “On the plains and in open fields there is a great abundance
of grass; but the country is, for the most part, thickly wooded. There are a great many hickory trees, and
the oaks are so straight and tall, that beams, sixty feet long and one half feet wide can be made of them…
There are alder, ash, and chestnut trees…The woods moreover are passable, not filled with thorns or
undergrowth…” (White 1899). To these accounts may be added later works such as Alsop’s Character of
the Province of Maryland (1902 [1666]), other writers, and landscape details from journals, letters and
deed descriptions. All of these lines of evidence work toward filling in our understanding of the natural
landscape of the early 17th century and establishing a baseline for comparison.
Much of what these early observers wrote about remains in the landscape today, and the
Chester retains an impressive diversity of resources along its length. The connector route we have
recommended spans several major regime changes in the river, based in large part on water salinity. The
hydrologic cycle, the complexity and diversity of estuarine systems, and the specifics of the Chesapeake
estuary as a system are comprehensively treated in a variety of places, and this report will not attempt to
replicate that, but rather highlight some of the important assets or characteristics of the Chester River.
Beginning at the mouth of the river, the water is highest in salinity. Depending upon the season,
rainfall, and other factors, the water of the Chester can be salty-brackish or oligohaline (brackish-fresh),
up to just above Chestertown. It tends to be oligohaline to just above Crumpton, and freshwater beyond.
The river historically supported blue crabs, American oysters, hard clams (quahog), and soft clams
(manninose). Fish include American eel, American shad, alewife, blueback herring, Atlantic silverside,
winter flounder, hogchokers, weakfish, and bay anchovy. Herring and shad spawning areas typically are
located in the upper, freshwater portions of rivers, while hogchoker and bay anchovies spawn in the
middle reaches and have nurseries in the upper freshwater zones. Both juvenile and adult bluefish
frequent the river, with widely varying distributions from year to year. Striped bass (rockfish) spawn in
parts of the Chester. Yellow perch, brown bullhead, channel catfish and white catfish concentrate in the
upper reaches (Lippson 1973:32,38; Rountree and Davidson 1997).
From the standpoint of Native Americans, fresh-brackish oligohaline waters and freshwater
reaches that correspond with Matapeake and Sassafras loamy soils were particularly attractive (and soil
and water type tended to correlate). In the spring, these areas provided spawning grounds for
anadromous fish such as shad, herring, alewife, sturgeon, spot, croaker (hardheads)and white perch.
They also support a range of important, edible plants, such as arrow arum (Tuckahoe), wild rice, duck
potato and more Rountree and Davidson 1997).
The forest cover of the region during the Contact Period was predominantly hardwood and
mixed deciduous forest. Oak-hickory was wide-spread in the upper portions of the Chester, with some
areas that were predominantly oak-gum. Oak-hickory forests are particularly productive from the human
standpoint, having abundant mast. This in turn attracts preferred game species such as turkey and
white-tailed deer. Along freshwater streams, trees and shrubs such as birch, alder, red maple, beech, oak,
witch hazel, cherry, willow and service berry historically attracted large beaver populations, which may
still be seen on some of the Chester’s streams (Rountree and Davidson 1997: 9-12).
The Chester’s position on the Atlantic flyway brings seasonal waterfowl such as Canada geese
and duck. Other species, some year-round and some seasonal, include osprey, bald eagle, kestrel,
kingfisher, a variety of herons, bobwhite quail, gray squirrel, raccoon, and rabbit. Otter were (and are)
present on some tributaries of the Chester, along with the endangered Delmarva fox squirrel. Introduced
species today include red fox and bluebirds, as well as a variety of non-native plants – of the latter, the
most visible along the river is Phragmites australis, which is especially prolific in disturbed areas. Unlike
many native plants, this species does not provide food for waterfowl. The Delmarva bay-basins noted in
the previous section, sometimes called Carolina Bays, historically extended down along the Chester,
although most have now been obliterated by plowing.