DOCSLIB.ORG

Developing and Implementing a Stream Watch Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Developing and Implementing a Stream Watch Program Developing and Implementing a Stream Watch Program Created by: Center for Watershed Protection 8390 Main Street, 2nd Floor Ellicott City, MD 21043 Jones Falls Watershed Association 3503 North Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21218 Created for: Baltimore County Department of Environmental Protection and Resource Management October 2004 Preface Preface Developing and Implementing a Stream Watch Program was created by the Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) in cooperation with Jones Falls Watershed Association (JFWA) and Baltimore County Department of Environmental Protection and Resource Management (DEPRM). The intended audience is a local watershed group implementing a Stream Watch Program in its watershed. The main goal of the Stream Watch Program is to develop citizen stewardship of streams within Baltimore County watersheds by providing ample opportunities for citizen involvement in stream assessment and restoration activities. The central idea behind the Stream Watch Program is that a watershed organization, working with citizen volunteers, will track the health of County streams and identify potential restoration and protection projects. The watershed association will be responsible for collecting stream data collected and reported by volunteers, and for continuously updating the Stream Watch Program database. The purpose of this document is to provide educational materials on the impacts of humans on streams, to provide lessons learned from other Stream Watch Programs, and to provide a process for a watershed group to implement a Stream Watch Program. This document was first developed as a draft based on extensive research and detailed surveys of six of Adopt-a-Stream programs from around the country. The JFWA initiated the Stream Watch Pilot Program in July 2003, focusing on the Jones Falls watershed. JFWA served as the principal director and implementation agency of the pilot program and provides periodic updates to DEPRM and CWP. During the pilot program, JFWA was responsible for the recruitment and training of volunteers, the collection of stream data, organizing and implementing annual monitoring programs, reporting updates to DEPRM and updating the Stream Watch database. Although the program was County funded, the pilot program included surveys and adoption sites throughout the entire watershed, including portions in Baltimore City. Developing and Implementing a Stream Watch Program was revised based on lessons learned during the pilot program, feedback from Stream Watch volunteers, and experience gained by the JFWA staff over the course of the pilot program. Instructions for Using the Stream Watch Program Document There are three sections in the Stream Watch Program document. The first two sections describe necessary background information for the document, and the remaining section describes the steps involved in implementing a program. The purpose of each of the sections and the steps are as follows: Section 1. Introduction Outlines the goals of the Stream Watch Program and provides tips gleaned from other programs across the County. Developing and Implementing a Stream Watch Program i Preface Section 2. Streams 101 Provides necessary background information on the impacts of humans on streams that may be useful in answering questions posed by the public when training volunteers Section 3. Implementing a Stream Watch Program Describes the steps involved in implementing a Stream Watch Program, including stream adoption options, volunteer management, data tracking, measuring program success, and budgeting program costs. Appendix A. Stream Watch Visual Survey Provides an introduction to the Visual Survey, a review of important elements of the Visual Survey field form, and the Visual Survey field form. Appendix B. Stream Watch Site Conditions Survey Provides an introduction to the Site Conditions Survey, a review of important elements of the Site Condition forms, and the Site Conditions Survey forms. Appendix C. Data Interpretation: Water Quality and Macroinvertebrate Sampling Provides an overview of interpreting water quality and macroinvertebrate sampling results. Appendix D. Stream Watch Program Database (under separate cover) A Microsoft Access database created to track all volunteer and stream data collected under the Stream Watch program. Appendix E. Stream Watch Program Flyer The flyer used during the pilot program. Appendix F. Stream Watch Training Presentation The presentation used to train volunteers during the pilot program. Appendix G. Stream Watch STREAM CLEANER Pilot Program Volunteer Orientation Packet Orientation materials distributed to volunteers that participated as STREAM CLEANERS in the pilot program. Appendix H. Stream Watch STREAM WALKER Pilot Program Volunteer Orientation Packet Orientation materials distributed to volunteers that participated as STREAM WALKERS in the pilot program. Appendix I. Stream Watch STREAM WATCHER Pilot Program Volunteer Orientation Packet Orientation materials distributed to volunteers that participated as STREAM WATCHERS in the pilot program. Appendix J. Jones Falls Watershed Stream Watch Program Evaluation Form Stream Watch Program evaluation form used during the pilot program. ii Developing and Implementing a Stream Watch Program Preface Table of Contents Preface……………………………………………………………………………….. i Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………. iii Section 1. Introduction to the Stream Watch Program…………………………. 1-1 1.1 Goals of the Stream Watch Program…………………………. 1-1 1.2 Lesson Learned from other Stream Watch Programs………… 1-1 Section 2. Streams 101………………………………………………………….. 2-1 2.1 Why Small Streams are Important……………………………. 2-1 2.2 How We Impact Streams……………………………………... 2-2 Section 3. Implementing a Stream Watch Program…………………………….. 3-1 3.1 Identifying Streams for Adoption…………………………….. 3-1 3.2 Stream Adoption Options…………………………………….. 3-7 3.3 Volunteer Management…………………………………….… 3-29 3.4 Using the Tracking Database…………………………………. 3-35 3.5 Reporting Problems and Data to Baltimore County………….. 3-41 3.6 Measurements of Program Success…………………………... 3-42 3.7 Estimated Program Costs……………………………………... 3-43 References…………………………………….……………………………………... R-1 Appendix A Stream Watch Visual Survey Appendix B Stream Watch Site Conditions Survey Appendix C Data Interpretation: Water Quality and Macroinvertebrate Sampling Appendix D Stream Watch Program Database (under separate cover) Appendix E Stream Watch Program Flyer Appendix F Stream Watch Training Presentation Appendix G Stream Watch STREAM CLEANER Pilot Program Volunteer Orientation Packet Appendix H Stream Watch STREAM WALKER Pilot Program Volunteer Orientation Packet Appendix I Stream Watch STREAM WATCHER Pilot Program Volunteer Orientation Packet Appendix J Jones Falls Watershed Stream Watch Program Evaluation Form Developing and Implementing a Stream Watch Program iii Preface iv Developing and Implementing a Stream Watch Program Section 1. Introduction Section 1. Introduction 1.1 Goals of the Stream Watch Program The Stream Watch Program will develop citizen stewardship within Baltimore County watersheds by providing ample opportunities for citizen involvement in stream assessment and restoration activities. The goals guiding the development of this program include the following: • Expand watershed stewardship throughout the County • Build the technical and organizational capacity of the watershed organizations in the County • Build the memberships of the watershed organizations in the County • Identify priority stream and public health concerns to be addressed by the County • Identify potential stream protection and restoration projects to be implemented by the watershed organizations • Identify potential stream protection and restoration projects to be implemented by the County • Collect data on the health of County streams • Actively involve County residents and watershed stakeholders in stream health data collection and goal setting 1.2 Lesson Learned from other Stream Watch Programs In an effort to improve our recommendations and guidance for the Stream Watch Program in Baltimore County, the Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) researched existing Stream Watch Programs nationwide. CWP found approximately 13 programs and, after briefly researching each, narrowed these down to eight. CWP conducted detailed surveys of six of these programs, via telephone or email, to understand each program in detail and to assess their successes, failures and lessons learned. The survey explored topics such as the program’s background, information on volunteer recruitment and retention, and the lessons learned by each community. Each community found some aspects of its program were successful and some were not so successful. Some of the communities are in the process of using the information and feedback they have gained themselves, to fine tune their own programs. While each community measured its program’s overall success differently, volunteer retention and number of volunteers were commonly used. Other measures of success included: use of data to influence change, number of reports written, number of bags of trash collected, and amount of good data collected. In general, the program managers surveyed indicated that they felt the programs have been successful. One notable aspect of all programs that has been successful is the large turnout of volunteers at training workshops and monitoring events. It was noted that people were interested in volunteering because they felt they were contributing to improving water quality in their rivers
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Chesapeake Bay Trust
    The Chesapeake Bay Trust Working to promote public awareness and participation in the restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries Annual Report 2003 From the Chairman Dear Friends of the Chesapeake Bay, With the help of many partners, volunteers, and donors, 2003 has been a terrific year for the Chesapeake Bay Trust. In 2003, the Trust was pleased to award more than $1.8 million in grants to nonprofit organizations, community groups, schools, and public agencies—an increase of nearly 50 percent from the previous year. This marks the highest level of annual grantmaking in the Trust’s 18-year history. Through this ambitious year of grantmaking, the Trust has supported hundreds of projects that benefit the Bay and involve the citizens of Maryland in the process. Trust grants helped plant stream- side forests to reduce water pollution and create important wildlife habitat. They supported innovative streambank stabilization projects—called “living shorelines”—that absorb polluted run-off and reestablish fish and crab habitat. And Trust grants gave thousands of Maryland students a greater appreciation for the Bay through hands-on experiences like skipjack trips and schoolyard habitat projects. The following pages detail these and other projects supported by the Trust at locations throughout the state. This report also summarizes other notable Trust activities in 2003, including a new scholarship, an urban watershed grant program, and a new design for the popular Treasure the Chesapeake license plate. In 2003, the Trust made significant strides in advancing its mission to promote public awareness and participation in the restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay and its rivers.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of the Jones Falls Sewershed
    GREEN TOWSON ALLIANCE WHITE PAPER ON SEWERS AUGUST 31, 2017 IS RAW SEWAGE CONTAMINATING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD STREAMS? ANALYISIS OF THE JONES FALLS SEWERSHED ADEQUATE PUBLIC SEWER TASK FORCE OF THE GREEN TOWSON ALLIANCE: Larry Fogelson, Retired MD State Planner, Rogers Forge Resident Tom McCord, Former CFO, and MD Industry CPA, Ruxton Resident Roger Gookin, Retired Sewer Contractor, Towsongate Resident JONES FALLS SEWER SYSTEM INVESTIGATION AND REPORT It is shocking that in the year 2017, human waste is discharged into open waters. The Green Towson Alliance (GTA) believes the public has a right to know that continuing problems with the Baltimore County sanitary sewer system are probably contributing to dangerous bacteria in Lake Roland and the streams and waterways that flow into it. This paper is the result of 15 months of inquiries and analysis of information provided by the County and direct observations by individuals with expertise in various professional disciplines related to this topic. GTA welcomes additional information that might alter our analysis and disprove our findings. To date, the generalized types of responses GTA has received to questions generated by our analysis do not constitute proof, or provide assurance, that all is well. 1. The Adequate Public Sewer Task Force of the Green Towson Alliance: The purpose of this task force is to protect water quality and public health by promoting the integrity and adequacy of the sanitary sewer systems that serve the Towson area. It seeks transparency by regulators and responsible officials to assure that the sewerage systems are properly planned, maintained, and operated in a manner that meets the requirements of governing laws and regulations.
    [Show full text]
  • Neighborhood News Summer 2010 Summer
    Neighborhood News Summer 2010 Summer Ruxton-Riderwood-Lake Roland Area Improvement Association springs. As the Flynn family drove to one of Jack’s Toad Haul lacrosse games, Kevin described their experience via car phone, with Jack chiming in from the back seat. INSIDE by Bliss McCord It seems that each spring hundreds, perhaps One rainy night this Three Ways to thousands, of toads make spring, as I was Help the Bay winding my way home their annual migration from down the Bellona Towson Run to Lake Roland, Page 3 looking for true love. They Avenue hill, my heart Election sank. Down at the used to swim through the Information bottom were the culvert where Towson Run is telltale signs of a car piped under Bellona. For at Page 4 accident: flashing least 15 years now, however, Home Sales hazard lights, orangey- siltation has forced the red highway cones, toads to go overland across Page 6 men with flashlights. the road. The resultant Judging by the amount carnage gave birth to a new Blakehurst Hosts of activity, I worried volunteer movement, what Board Meeting & that the accident might we are calling The Toad Legislative be serious. Brigade. Woe to the toad Wrap Up who tries crossing without As I was waved around its help. Toad escorting Page 8 the cones by someone is not unique to Towson. Winner of Azalea who looked like The In Philadelphia, parts of House Award Fisherman from the Port Royal Avenue and Eva Gorton’s ads, my eyes Street are closed annually so Page 9 darted to the right, that local toads can make Stream drawn by more lights their way from the hills of Clean Up 2010 well off the road.
    [Show full text]
  • Real Stories Baltimore County History
    REAL STORIES FROM BALTIMORE COUNTY HISTORY Data Obtained hvJ the Teachers and Children of Baltimore County (Maryland) Schools IDustrated with drawings by 7th and 8th Grade Pupils Revised and Adapted by ISOBEL DAVIDSON, Supercisor of Primary Grades, Baltimore County School.s. ---0--- BALTIMORE WARWICK & YORK, INC. 1917. Copyrighted, 1917, by· WARWICK & YORK, INc. REAL STORIES FROM BALTIMORE COUNTY HISTORY CONTENTS Page A FOREWORD ················~···························~---························ . 1 I. ONCE UPON A TIME IN OUR., ~OMMUNITY 1. Neighborhood Changes ....... .-........................................ 5 2. Our Country Long ~,g-0................................................ 9 3. Indians of Marylat'lct: Susquehannoughs and Al- gonqu1ns ......................................... .. ......................... 10 4. Con1ing of the First White 1'Ian-Captain John Smith in the Chesapeake . .: ........................ ~............. 13 5. How Maryland Was Named ........................................ 16 II. ONCE UPON A TIME IN BALTIMORE COUNTY 1. The Changing Boundary Line...................................... 19 2. The Early Pioneers...................................................... 20 3. Colonial Times .............................................................. 22 4. County Seats: Old Baltimore, Foster's Neck, Joppa, Baltimore Town, Towson ........................................ 37 III. ONCE UPON A TIME IN BALTIMORE TowN ........................ 46 IV. ONcE UPON A TIME IN OuR TowN AND V1c1NITY 1. Green Spring. Valley-1743.........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Total Maximum Daily Load of Sediment in the Jones Falls Watershed, Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Maryland
    Total Maximum Daily Load of Sediment in the Jones Falls Watershed, Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Maryland FINAL DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 540 Baltimore, Maryland 21230-1718 Submitted to: Watershed Protection Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 September 2011 EPA Submittal Date: September 28, 2009 EPA Approval Date: September 29, 2011 Jones Falls Sediment TMDL Document Version: 9/29/2011 FINAL Table of Contents List of Figures..................................................................................................................... ii List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... ii List of Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ v 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 2.0 SETTING AND WATER QUALITY DESCRIPTION ............................................... 3 2.1 General Setting ...................................................................................................... 3 2.1.1. Land Use..................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Source Assessment ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • IMPLEMENTATION PLAN for VARIOUS TMDLS in MARYLAND October 9, 2020
    IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR VARIOUS TMDLS IN MARYLAND October 9, 2020 MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION VARIOUS TMDLS IN MARYLAND F7. Gwynns Falls Watershed ............................................ 78 TABLE OF CONTENTS F8. Jones Falls Watershed ............................................... 85 F9. Liberty Reservoir Watershed...................................... 94 Table of Contents ............................................................................... i F10. Loch Raven and Prettyboy Reservoirs Watersheds .. 102 Implementation Plan for Various TMDLS in Maryland .................... 1 F11. Lower Monocacy River Watershed ........................... 116 A. Water Quality Standards and Designated Uses ....................... 1 F12. Patuxent River Lower Watershed ............................. 125 B. Watershed Assessment Coordination ...................................... 3 F13. Magothy River Watershed ........................................ 134 C. Visual Inspections Targeting MDOT SHA ROW ....................... 4 F14. Mattawoman Creek Watershed ................................. 141 D. Benchmarks and Detailed Costs .............................................. 5 F15. Piscataway Creek Watershed ................................... 150 E. Pollution Reduction Strategies ................................................. 7 F16. Rock Creek Watershed ............................................. 158 E.1. MDOT SHA TMDL Responsibilities .............................. 7 F17. Triadelphia
    [Show full text]
  • Northeastern Jones Falls Small Watershed Action Plan Volume 2: Appendices D & E
    Northeastern Jones Falls Small Watershed Action Plan Volume 2: Appendices D & E January 2013 December 2012 Final Prepared by: Baltimore County Department of Environmental Protection and Sustainability In Consultation with: Northeastern Jones Falls SWAP Steering Committee NORTHEASTERN JONES FALLS SMALL WATERSHED ACTION PLAN VOLUME II: APPENDICES D & E Appendix D Northeastern Jones Falls Characterization Report Appendix E Applicable Total Maximum Daily Loads APPENDIX D NORTHEASTERN JONES FALLS CHARACTERIZATION REPORT A-1 Northeastern Jones Falls Characterization Report Final December 2012 NORTHEASTERN JONES FALLS CHARACTERIZATION REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of the Characterization 1-1 1.2 Location and Scale of Analysis 1-1 1.3 Report Organization 1-5 CHAPTER 2 LANDSCAPE AND LAND USE 2.1 Introduction 2-1 2.2 The Natural Landscape 2-2 2.2.1 Climate 2-2 2.2.2 Physiographic Province and Topography 2-2 2.2.2.1 Location and Watershed Delineation 2-2 2.2.2.2 Topography 2-3 2.2.3 Geology 2-4 2.2.4 Soils 2-7 2.2.4.1 Hydrologic Soil Groups 2-7 2.2.4.2 Soil Erodibility 2-9 2.2.5 Forest 2-11 2.2.5.1 Forest Cover 2-11 2.2.6 Stream Systems 2-11 2.2.6.1 Stream System Characteristics 2-12 2.2.6.2 Stream Riparian Buffers 2-14 2.3 Human Modified Landscape 2-16 2.3.1 Land Use and Land Cover 2-16 2.3.2 Population 2-19 2.3.3 Impervious Surfaces 2-21 2.3.4 Drinking Water 2-24 2.3.4.1 Public Water Supply 2-24 2.3.5 Waste Water 2-24 2.3.5.1 Septic Systems 2-24 2.3.5.2 Public Sewer 2-24 2.3.5.3 Waste Water Treatment Facilities 2-26
    [Show full text]
  • 2000 Data Report Gunpowder River, Patapsco/Back River West Chesapeake Bay and Patuxent River Watersheds
    2000 Data Report Gunpowder River, Patapsco/Back River West Chesapeake Bay and Pat uxent River Watersheds Gunpowder River Basin Patapsco /Back River Basin Patuxent River Basin West Chesapeake Bay Basin TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 3 GUNPOWDER RIVER SUB-BASIN ............................................................................. 9 GUNPOWDER RIVER....................................................................................................... 10 LOWER BIG GUNPOWDER FALLS ................................................................................... 16 BIRD RIVER.................................................................................................................... 22 LITTLE GUNPOWDER FALLS ........................................................................................... 28 MIDDLE RIVER – BROWNS............................................................................................. 34 PATAPSCO RIVER SUB-BASIN................................................................................. 41 BACK RIVER .................................................................................................................. 43 BODKIN CREEK .............................................................................................................. 49 JONES FALLS .................................................................................................................. 55 GWYNNS FALLS ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality Analysis of Eutrophication for the Jones Falls Watershed in Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Maryland
    FINAL Water Quality Analysis of Eutrophication for the Jones Falls Watershed in Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Maryland FINAL DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 540 Baltimore MD 21230-1718 Submitted to: Water Protection Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 September 2009 EPA Submittal Date: September 9, 2009 EPA Approval Date: March 15, 2010 FINAL This page deliberately left blank. FINAL Table of Contents List of Figures................................................................................................................................. i List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. i List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 GENERAL SETTING...................................................................................................... 2 3.0 WATER QUALITY CHARACTERIZATION.............................................................. 6 3.1 Dissolved Oxygen .................................................................................................. 8 3.2 Chlorophyll
    [Show full text]
  • Chevy Chase Village Board of Managers Executive Session-6:15
    Chevy Chase Village Board of Managers Executive Session-6:15 p.m. The Chevy Chase Village Board of Managers will convene in closed session in the Chevy Chase Village Hall, 5906 Connecticut Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 20815, pursuant to Section 3-305(b) (7) and (8) of the General Provisions Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, to consult with Counsel to obtain legal advice on legal and zoning matters and potential litigation. 1. Meeting Called To Order Mr. Michael L. Denger, Chair 2. Approval Of Minutes From The Previous Board Of Managers' Meetings Regular Monthly Meeting - July 11, 2016 Special Meeting - August 1, 2016 3. Variance And Special Permit Requests 3.I. A-7018 (A-C) Variance And Special Permit Applications A-7018 (A-C) Variance and Special Permit Applications: Mr. Joel Price and Ms. Elizabeth Humphrey Price, 106 Primrose Street: Construct: a) Two (2) brick piers measuring eighteen (18) inches in both width and depth, each with a stone cap measuring nineteen (19) inches in width and depth, located along either side of the front walkway. Each pier would have an attached lantern for a maximum height of six (6) feet when measured from the ground to the top of the lantern; b) the proposed piers would be located both on private property and in the public right-of-way and would be located a minimum of two (2) inches from the public sidewalk; and c) install a fence in the Primrose Street public right-of-way, measuring a maximum of four (4) feet in height, extending from each pier running parallel with the front lot line terminating at a point in alignment with the east and west side property lines of the property.
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 GVC Newsletter.Pub
    Spring 2010 NEWS FROM THE GVC Inside this issue: Upcoming GVC Events 2 Rural Legacy Program Grants GVC $500,000 to Volunteers Wanted 2,5 Preserve more Baltimore County Land! Over the past three years the GVC has Welcome to Spring 3 worked with Baltimore County landowners to conserve 335 additional acres of beauti‐ 4 GVC Hires New Staff ful, undeveloped land. We now have 1,350 acres under stewardship. Some of this land Jennifer Branch Project 5,7 buffers our watershed, some provides woodland for animals and native plants and 2009 Accomplishments 6 other acres provide farmland for local farm‐ ing. All and all, the land maintains the rural Other Grant Updates 7 heritage of northern Baltimore County. Legacy program has granted the GVC Your generous donations and support have $500,000 for additional land preservation helped our organization grow and succeed. in 2010. Our success in locating, negotiat‐ 8 Historical Preservation In my professional life, I provide services for ing and settling on open space land ease‐ states and local governments. Everyday, I ments in Baltimore County has given Rural Membership Form 9 am acutely aware of the difficult, if not Legacy confidence that we can deploy new overwhelming, budgetary crisis that the grant funding year after year. Thank you public sector is facing. Even in the face of a Rural Legacy Program! new austerity, the State, through its Rural Coupled with grant funds available from prior years, the GVC now has around $750,000 in funding available for additional easements; so if you or someone you know would like to learn more about selling or donating a conservation easement please give us a call at 410 472‐4886.
    [Show full text]
  • Unified Stream Assessment: a User's Manual
    Urban Subwatershed Restoration Manual Series UnifiedUnified StreamStream 10 Assessment:Assessment: 11 AA UserUser’s’s ManualManual Version 2.0 February 2005 Manual 10 Photo Acknowledgments Table 10: R. Frymire (vegetation at outfall) Table 10: DEM, Fort Worth, TX (suds in pool; outfall staining) Figure 25: Friends of Sligo Creek (invasive plant removal) Figure 25: South River Federation (buffer planting) Figure 26: DEM, Forth Worth, TX (sewer overflow) Table 18: Clemson University (manhole examination) Table 18: US EPA (manhole stack deterioration; debris jams) Table 18: Restonpath.com (manhole in wetland) Figure 27: Mecklenburg County, NC (sewer line repair) Figure 27: Friends of Sligo Creek (fish barrier) Figure 28: Ft. Worth DEP, TX (sewer overflow) Figure 29/30: Friends of Sligo Creek (trash pickup) Figure 31: City of Austin, TX (no dumping sign) Table 21: Ellicott City VIEW (staff in culvert) Table 27: Mark Sommerfield (algae on rock) Urban Subwatershed Restoration Manual No. 10 UNIFIED STREAM ASSESSMENT: A USER’S MANUAL Version 2.0 Prepared by: Anne Kitchell and Tom Schueler Center for Watershed Protection 8390 Main Street, 2nd Floor Ellicott City, MD 21043 www.cwp.org www.stormwatercenter.net Prepared for: Office of Water Management U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. February 2005 Copyright ©2005 by the Center for Watershed Protection. Material may be quoted provided credit is given. Printed in the United States of America on recycled paper. Foreword Foreword This manual distills two decades of experience Bay Trust, Baltimore County Department of evaluating the restoration potential of urban Environmental Protection and Resource stream corridors during dozens of rapid stream Management, and the National Fish and assessments.
    [Show full text]