Western Branch Watershed Restoration Action Strategy Prince George’s County and the City of Bowie, Maryland

Final Report 2004

The City of Bowie Prince George’s County 2614 Kenhill Drive Department of Bowie, MD 20715 Environmental Resources Largo, MD 20774 A Watershed Restoration Action Strategy for the Western Branch Watershed in Prince George’s County and the City of Bowie, Maryland

Final Report 2004

Prepared by Prince George’s County, Department of Environmental Resources and the City of Bowie

Prepared for Maryland Department of Natural Resources Coastal Zone Management Division Watershed Services

Financial assistance provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any of its sub-agencies.

A publication of the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program, Department of Natural Resources, pursuant to NOAA Award No. NA17OZ1124.

WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION 5 II. METHODS 7 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION...... 7 CURRENT CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT...... 8 Stream Corridor Assessment ...... 8 Synoptic Surveys ...... 12 Water Quality Sampling...... 12 BASIN CONDITION SCORE ...... 16 GREEN BUILDING AND ITS EFFECT ON WATER QUALITY ...... 18 GREEN BUILDING SURVEY...... 21 LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT RETROFIT ASSESSMENT...... 22 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION...... 24 III. RESULTS 29 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION...... 29 Land Use and Natural Resources ...... 29 Stream Corridor Assessment ...... 31 Synoptic Surveys ...... 33 Low Impact Development Retrofit Assessment...... 53 Public Participation Process ...... 59 Basin Condition Score ...... 66 IV. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 70 INTRODUCTION ...... 70 WATERSHED WIDE PROGRAMS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMATIC CHANGES...... 71 Low Impact Development Approach...... 72 Green Building Plan ...... 72 Green Schools ...... 80 Green Acres Strategy ...... 81 Migratory Fish...... 82 River Monitoring Methods- Proposed Pilot Study...... 84 Stream Restoration Mitigation Bank ...... 84 Western Branch Watershed Association and Friends of the Subwatersheds ...... 85 PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY SUBWATERSHED APPROACH...... 86

APPENDICES A Basin Condition Scoring Methodology B Green Building Survey C Low Impact Development Assessment Reports D Stream Corridor Assessment Letters E Stream Corridor Assessment Priorities F Grants

4 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

I. INTRODUCTION

In 1998, Maryland developed the Clean Water Action Plan (Clean Water Action Plan Technical Workgroup, 1998) to identify and restore watersheds not meeting clean water and other natural resource goals, and to sustain healthy conditions in those watersheds that currently meet these goals. Development of this Plan involved conducting a unified watershed assessment, prioritization for restoration or protection, and developing strategies for restoration or protection. The initial unified watershed assessment classified the Maryland 8-digit watersheds into the following categories:

Category 1 – Watersheds not meeting clean water and other natural resource goals and needing restoration; Category 2 – Watersheds currently meeting goals that need preventive actions to sustain water quality and aquatic resources; Category 3 – Pristine or sensitive watersheds that need an extra level of protection; and Category 4 – Insufficient data.

As a result of this effort, the Western Branch (Maryland 8-digit watershed 02131104) was classified as a Category 1and 3 watershed in need of restoration and protection.

The next step in the Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP) process was to assign restoration priorities to each watershed. Watersheds that failed to meet at least half of their goals (i.e., half of the evaluation indicators had values failing to meet Category 1 benchmarks) were considered Category 1 Priority Watersheds in need of restoration action in the near term (e.g., within 2 years of CWAP publication). The Western Branch Watershed did not fail any of the water quality evaluation indicators but received a Category I Priority for restoration based on the presence of a TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) in the watershed. Restoration watershed indicators that failed were four Aquatic Living Resources indictors (Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Abundance, SAV Habitat, Nontidal Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and Nontidal Instream Habitat) and three landscape parameters (Percent Impervious Surface, Population Density and Soil Erodibility). There were two protection indicators (Imperiled Aquatic Species and Wildland Acres) that also make this watershed a Category 3.

The final component in the CWAP is the development of Watershed Restoration Action Strategies (WRAS) for watersheds in need of restoration or protection. A WRAS is a comprehensive restoration strategy that addresses all aspects of watershed condition and water quality. The WRAS is led by the local government, in partnership with the State, and encourages public participation in the strategy development and implementation. In 2003, Prince George’s County and the City of Bowie entered into a cooperative agreement with Maryland Department of Natural Resources, to develop WRAS for the Western Branch. The cooperative agreement provided the County and the City with an avenue to apply for and receive grant monies to assist in watershed assessment and planning, receive technical assistance from Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and develop the watershed restoration action strategy.

The Western Branch Watershed encompasses 71,500 acres (112 square miles) and lies entirely within the Maryland’s Coastal Plain. Within the study area, 5% (3,730 acres) of the watershed is located within the City of Bowie and 95% (67,770 acres) within Prince George’s County. 5 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

According to the Maryland Department of Planning Land Use data, Western Branch has 19,949 urban acres (34%), 15,281 agricultural acres (26%), 23, 006 forested acres (39%), 58 Wetland acres (0%) and 1,115 barren acres (1%) for a total of 59,409 non-water acres. Western Branch continues to experience significant development pressures and is within the County’s developing tier. Both innovative stormwater management and green building practices combined with aggressive conservation and protection measures are necessary to restore and protect the natural resources of Western Branch.

The overarching goal of the Western Branch WRAS is to minimize water quality impacts to the river and its’ tributaries from land use changes. To accomplish this goal, action items were developed based on a review of historic and current natural resources and water quality conditions, as well as through watershed stakeholder input.

In the conduct of this WRAS, Prince George’s County and the City of Bowie worked closely with State staff to collect existing information and develop a watershed characterization, and to field assess current watershed and water quality conditions. Additionally, the WRAS Partners (Prince George’s County, City of Bowie, and Maryland DNR) undertook public participation activities to ascertain the perceived issues and assets associated with the Western Branch River watershed. The urban land within this watershed was also reviewed and assessed for the potential to retrofit or implement environmentally sensitive, low impact, development techniques that will address and reduce nonpoint source pollution from site runoff. From the existing information and current assessments, the WRAS Partners refined the Basin Condition Scoring methodology to prioritize subwatersheds for restoration and/or protection activities based on differences in ecological conditions (e.g., water quality, habitat conditions, land uses) that was developed in the Upper Patuxent WRAS. Restoration and protection action strategies were then developed to address and improve those ecological conditions, and to achieve the overall WRAS goal. Also, the Upper Patuxent WRAS restoration objectives were incorporated where applicable in this WRAS.

The overall results of the Western Branch WRAS include: Prioritized listing of subwatersheds in need of restoration or protection, Prioritized listing of associated subwatershed projects that will address those restoration and protection needs, Top ten projects prioritized on a watershed-wide basis, Natural Resource Objectives; and Potential programmatic changes to protect and preserve the Western Branch watershed.

6 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

II. Methods

The WRAS Partners employed several methods to assess the ecological condition of the Western Branch watershed and to determine appropriate action strategies. Descriptions of each component of this study, and the methodology employed, are noted in the following text.

Watershed Characterization

The first step in developing the Western Branch WRAS was to compile and review the existing information relative to this watershed, and develop a watershed characterization based on this information. Existing data and information pertaining to water quality, land use, living resources and their habitats were identified by the WRAS Partners, and compiled and analyzed by DNR staff with input from Prince George’s County. Information collected included numerous GIS coverages and associated databases, as well as hard copy data and reports. The information and data were summarized and presented in a succinct format such that the reviewer can readily identify information and issues, as well as sources for additional information. Information contained within the Western Branch Characterization is documented in Table II-1. Finally, the characterization provides information on additional resources and how they can be used in the development of the WRAS (Maryland DNR, 2002a). The Western Branch Watershed Characterization was completed in December 2003 and can be found on DNR’s web site at www.dnr.state.md.us/watersheds/surf/proj/wras.html.

Table II-1. Western Branch Watershed Characterization Report Contents Water Quality River Basin Context of Local Water Quality Issues Water Quality Standards and Designated Uses 303(d) Listing – Water Quality Limitations Total Maximum Daily Loads Monitored Water Quality – Status and Trends Fish Tissue Monitoring Data Pollution Sources – Point and Nonpoint Sources Land Use Landscape Indicators Land Use in the Watershed Sand and Gravel Mining 2020 Land Use and Land Cover Projections Zoning Impervious Surface Coverage Sewer and Water Service Smart Growth and Protected Lands Green Infrastructure Forested Natural Resource Areas at the Watershed Scale Soils Wetlands

7 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Table II-1. Western Branch Watershed Characterization Report Contents Living Resources and Habitat Living Resource Indicators Current Biological Monitoring Historic Biological Monitoring Recreational and Migratory Fisheries Sensitive Species Restoration Targeting Tools 2003 Stream Corridor Assessment Stream Buffer Restoration Low Impact Development Techniques Wetland Restoration Achieving Measurable Water Quality Improvement Focusing Land Conservation Activities Potential Benchmarks for WRAS Goal Setting Coastal Zone Management Chesapeake 2000 Agreement Goals from the Clean Water Action Plan Wetland, Stream and Forest Habitat Goals for Maryland’s Tributary Strategies Water Quality Improvement Act of 1998 Total Maximum Daily Loads Related Projects

Current Conditions Assessment

In addition to developing a watershed characterization based on previously collected data and information, this WRAS also includes a current conditions assessment of the Western Branch Watershed. The various assessment techniques are discussed below.

Stream Corridor Assessment

The Stream Corridor Assessment is one of the technological tools provided to the County, by Maryland DNR, to help assess the present environmental condition of the stream network. The Stream Corridor Assessment (SCA) provides a rapid overview of the tributary stream network, provides basic information about those streams, and identifies where potential environmental problems occur. Through this effort, 122 miles of perennial stream were field assessed within the 42 square miles of the watershed. Because of the size of this Western Branch watershed and the associated number of stream miles, a subset of perennial streams were chosen for the assessment. Those streams targeted for the SCA are contained within drainage basins that exhibit land uses representative of the overall land uses within the watershed.

Members of the Maryland Conservation Corps (MCC), who had completed an intensive training program designed and instructed by Maryland DNR staff, and Prince George’s County staff, conducted the Western Branch Watershed SCA. Through the intensive training, the MCC teams

8 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY learned to assess the general condition of in-stream and riparian habitats, and to identify and assess severity and correctibility for the following environmental problems:

• Channel alterations • Stream bank erosion sites • Exposed pipes • Pipe outfalls • Fish migration barriers • Inadequate Stream Buffers • Construction in or near the stream • Trash dumping sites • Unusual conditions observed (e.g., odors, scum, excessive algae, water color/clarity, red flock, sewage discharge, oil)

The Western Branch SCA surveys were conducted between late spring and early summer 2003. Assessments were completed in thirteen of twenty-four of the County delineated subwatersheds. All the subwatersheds were located in the eastern half of Western Branch Watershed. Figure II-2 shows the subwatersheds chosen for the SCA survey. Table II-2. summarized the survey team, length of stream miles and drainage area of each subwatersheds assessed during the SCA surveys.

MCC and County teams physically walked along the targeted perennial streams, documenting the location, severity, and potential correctibility of observed environmental problems. Prior to initiating this survey, Prince George's County staff sent information letters to all persons owning land adjacent to the targeted stream reaches. These letters also requested property owner permission to access the stream adjacent to the property, and provided a phone number and e- mail address to contact if the landowner did not want the crews to survey the stream on their property. Additionally, survey crews were instructed to not cross fence lines or enter any areas marked as “No Trespassing” unless specific permission to access the property had been granted by the landowner.

In preparation for the field component of the SCA, the survey manager identified representative sites along each stream reach where survey crews were instructed to record specific information regarding in-stream habitat conditions, wetted width of the stream, thalweg depth, and bottom type. These “representative sites” were denoted on the field maps used by the survey crews.

In the physical conduct of the SCA, field survey crews walked each mile of identified stream, documented any observed problems, and recorded required in-stream information for the “representative sites.” Documentation of observed problems also included determining the severity of the problem, the ease of correcting that problem, and the accessibility of the problem site. A unique identification number was assigned to each problem observed and to each reference site identified along each surveyed stream reach. Each identifier was correlated to a location on the field map.

Photographs of the problem areas and the reference sites were taken to document field conditions from both the upstream and downstream views. MCC and County crews completed field data sheets for each environmental problem observed, as identified above, as well as for the representative sites along the stream reach. The results of the SCA survey efforts were submitted to Maryland DNR staff who compiled the information into a database format, labeled and organized all photographs by site, and incorporated all data and photographs into a readily-usable GIS format.

9 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Table II-2. Prince George's County Stream Corridor Assessments.

Subwatershed Survey Team Length of Drainage Stream Area Surveyed (acres) (miles) Black Branch DNR 8.6 1858 Collington Branch DNR 28.3 4277 Lower Collington Branch DNR 8.6 2217 Middle Collington Branch Upper DNR 16.3 3522 Collington Tributary 1 DNR 3.5 667 Collington Tributary 2 DNR 4.5 839 Collington Tributary 3 DNR 3.5 528 East Branch DNR 6.2 1062 Lottsford Branch DNR 9.0 2048 Northeast Branch Lower DNR 9.4 2486 Northeast Branch DNR 2.9 572 Mainstem Northeast Branch Upper DNR 11.4 2454 Folly Branch PGC 15.8 4034

Complete information on the SCA methodology, including descriptive information for each problem type, and definitions for levels of severity, correctibility, and accessibility, can be found in “Stream Corridor Assessment Survey – Survey Protocols (Yetman, 2001). This document is available on-line, at the Maryland DNR web site, at http://www.dnr.state.md.us/streams/pubs/other.html.

The completed Prince George’s County Stream Corridor Assessment is also available to download through the Maryland DNR web site at www.dnr.state.md.us/watersheds/surf/proj/wras.html.

10 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Figure II- 2. Distribution of SCA subwatersheds and Assessment Sampling in the Western Branch Watershed.

11 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Synoptic Surveys

The ability of a stream to support a diversity of aquatic life depends on the quality and availability of habitat as well as the physical and chemical characteristics of its water quality. While the habitat features of a stream can be easily observed, measurements of water quality require field sampling and usually some laboratory analyses of the samples. Results of a sampling program can also be highly variable and difficult to interpret, particularly if a wet weather sampling program is undertaken.

Staff from Maryland DNR, in support of the Western Branch WRAS, conducted synoptic surveys for water quality and biological community (benthic macroinvertebrate and fish) assessments in the spring and summer sampling periods. Maryland DNR synoptic survey sampling locations are also shown on Figures II-3.

Water Quality Sampling

Synoptic water quality sampling, performed by Maryland DNR, occurred in the spring of 2003. Baseflow grab samples were collected at 40 sites in Prince George’s County. Samples were collected mid-stream, just below the water surface, and filtered on-site using Gelman GF/C 45µ pore size filters. In situ water quality data and stream discharge measurements were taken at the time of sample collection. In situ parameters (i.e., water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and conductivity) were measured using a Hydrolab Surveyor II.

The filtered water samples were stored on ice and frozen on the day of collection. Filtered samples were analyzed for dissolved inorganic nitrogen (NO3, NO2) and dissolved inorganic phosphorus (PO4) at the University of Maryland’s Chesapeake Biological Laboratory. All analyses were conducted in accordance with U.S. EPA protocols.

Nutrient yields per unit area were calculated using watershed areas determined from digitized watershed maps. Where sampling sites were nested within a subwatershed, the mapped concentration for the downstream site was shown only for the area between that site and the next site upstream. Yield calculations for the downstream site, however, were based on the entire area upstream of that site, but were mapped showing just the area between sites. Therefore, the reported yields for the downstream sites illustrate the cumulative impact from all upstream activities.

Within Prince George’s County, supplemental water quality monitoring was performed during the winter months. Water quality during this period can serve as useful starting point for watershed restoration efforts and for the comparison of the water quality of different watersheds. Unless water is of sufficient quality during baseflow conditions, restoration efforts to improve habitat or to reduce impacts on water quality will not be successful. The lower variability of baseflow water quality also allows differences in the water quality between watersheds to be more clearly observed.

The eight watersheds selected for baseflow characterization sampling have a total area of 25800 acres and represent 36% of the Western Branch watershed area (Table II-3; Figure II-3). They include a range of land uses and watershed sizes.

12 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Sampling was completed in December of 2003. Water quality parameters tested for included total phosphorus, nitrate/nitrite, and total kjeldhal nitrogen and trace metals (lead, zinc and copper). Discharge measurements were taken in conjunction with water sampling in order to make baseflow loading estimates of the monitored parameters.

Table II-3. Eight Subwatersheds Selected for Supplemental Baseflow Characterization. Stream Sampling Location Drainage Area Land Uses Back Branch Upstream of point 1692 Acres Agricultural (18%) where stream Residential (15%) crosses Brown Forested (52%) Station Road Open Space (13%) Other (2%) Bald Hill Upstream of point 3533 Acres Agricultural (1%) Branch where stream Residential (45%) crosses Yellowwood Forested(29%) Lane. Open Space(9%) Other (16%) Cabin Branch Upstream of point 3768 Acres Agricultural (28%) where stream Residential (8%) crosses Brown Forested (41%) Station Road Open Space(13%) Other (10%) Charles Southwest Branch 2792 Acres Agricultural (4%) Branch SW of Charles Branch Residential (23%) at Marlboro Forested (56%) Community Park Open Space(12%) Other (5%) Charles Main channel of 5304 Acres Agricultural (14%) Branch Upper Charles Branch Residential (13%) at Marlboro Forested (52%) Community Park Open Space(14%) Other (7%) Federal South of 2201 Acres Agricultural (28%) Spring Branch Intersection of Residential (6%) Brown Station Road Forested (56%) and Old Marlboro Open Space(6%) Pike (adjacent to Other (4%) cemetery) Southwest Upstream of point 5444 Acres Agricultural (2%) Branch where stream Residential (41%) crosses I-95. Forested (30%) Open Space (8%) Other ( 19%) Turkey Upstream of point 1066 Acres Agricultural (9%) Branch where stream Residential (19%) crosses Brown Forested (43%) Station Road Open Space(22%) Other (7%) 13 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

FIGURE II- 3. DNR SYNOPTIC AND PGC SUPPLEMENTAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS.

14 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling

Aquatic benthic macroinvertebrates were collected during the spring indexing period, concurrent with the synoptic water quality sampling. Samples were collected at twenty sites in Prince George’s County. These sites were also targeted for water quality sampling.

Macroinvertebrates were collected over a 20m2 area of best available habitat using a 500-µ mesh size, 0.3m wide D-frame net. The best available habitats were defined as gravel riffles, snags, submerged vegetation, and root mats. Habitats were sampled in proportion to their occurrence at the designed sampling area. Samples were composited in a sieve bucket, fine sediments washed out, and large debris rinsed and discarded in the field. The remaining sample was transferred to a storage container, preserved with 70% ethanol, and returned to the laboratory for processing. In the laboratory, a 100-organism subsample was randomly collected from the field sample using a gridded tray. Organisms were identified to genus, recorded on a bench sheet, and archived for future reference. From these data, a macroinvertebrate Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) was calculated to facilitate ranking of site quality.

Macroinvertebrate Habitat Assessment In-stream and riparian habitat quality was assessed at the twenty macroinvertebrate sampling sites in Prince George’s County. This assessment, modified from Plafkin et al. (1998) to focus on the macroinvertebrate habitat, rates the in-stream structure, channel and lower bank morphology, and the upper bank and riparian area using a series of metrics. The metrics are weighted to provide more scoring potential to the parameters most directly influencing the macroinvertebrate community.

The primary habitat metrics rate the in-stream habitat quality and quantity available for use by the macroinvertebrate community. These metrics include the amount and type of woody debris, prevalence of undercut banks, degree of embeddedness in riffles, pool depth, water velocity, and flow. These metrics are also given the most weight because of their direct importance to the health and diversity of the in-stream macroinvertebrate community. Secondary metrics assess channel morphology, rating the quality of the lower bank and structure of the stream channel. These metrics include relative measures of riffle extent, channel sinuosity, and extent of channel alterations caused by high flow events. These metrics receive less weight than the primary metrics because of their less direct impact on the in-stream macroinvertebrate communities. The tertiary metrics rate the quality of the upper bank and adjacent riparian areas. These metrics include scoring of the type and amount of bank vegetation, amount and frequency of bank erosion, and land use in the riparian area. These characteristics of the watershed are given the least weight because they are less important to the in-stream macroinvertebrate community.

Fish Community Assessment There were no sites that were sampled for fish by DNR staff for the Western Branch watershed. Prince George's County did sample 16 sites (see below in Supplemental and Physical Stream Sampling) using backpack electroshocking gear. This sampling coincided with the MBSS index period for fish sampling. Block nets were placed at each end of a 75-meter reach of stream to preclude the fish from escaping. Two passes through this 75-meter reach were made with the backpack electroshockers. Fish were collected, weighed, enumerated, and identified to species. These data were then used to determine fish community taxa richness and biomass estimates.

15 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Additional information regarding the Synoptic Surveys, methods employed, and the complete Synoptic Survey report for the Western Branch Watershed can be found on the DNR web site at http://www.dnr.state.md.us/watersheds/surf/proj/wras.html.

Supplemental Biological and Physical Stream Assessment Prince George’s County supplemented the biological data collection efforts provided through the Synoptic Survey. The County sampled 57 sites for benthic macroinvertebrates and 16 sites for fish over three years in their 5-year rotating basin stream-monitoring program (Figure II-2 for all biological sampling stations). Twenty-two streams were sampled during the year 1999, eleven in 2001, and 22 in 2003. Approximately 72% of the sites sampled were on first order tributaries, and all were in small watersheds draining directly to the Western Branch mainstem. Through this monitoring and assessment program, the county gathered information on the benthic and fish Indices of Biological Integrity (B-IBI and F-IBI), physical habitat quality, sediment particle size distribution, stream channel cross-sectional area, selected field chemistry, and land use/land cover distributions. Biological and physical habitat methods used were comparable to those used by the MBSS, and all fieldwork was performed during the same index period (March – April). All of these data, and a description of the methods and sites were provided in the WRAS report, the “Western Branch Watershed Restoration Action Strategy (WRAS) Biological Assessment. June 2004, Prince George’s County, Maryland.”

Basin Condition Score

WRAS Partners realized, early in the WRAS process during the Upper Patuxent WRAS, that an acceptable and scientifically sound methodology was needed whereby restoration and protection decisions could be made given the quantity of information collected. Therefore, the WRAS Partners initiated development of an assessment methodology in the Upper Patuxent WRAS to assist in the review and assimilation of data, and to provide a means to prioritize subwatersheds for restoration and/or protection actions.

The Basin Condition Score (BCS) is comprised of a series of metrics that score various characteristics of each subwatershed. These metrics include water quality conditions, living resources conditions, habitat conditions, landscape conditions, and hydrologic conditions. Each metric consists of selected indicators that describe that metric. For example, the indicators used to score the water quality condition metric are inorganic dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations as measured during the synoptic surveys (Maryland DNR 2002b). The BCS metrics evaluate overall subwatershed conditions and are based upon data collected during the SCA (Pellicano and Yetman, 2002), the synoptic survey data (Maryland DNR 2002b), supplemental biological and habitat assessment data (Pavlik and Stribling, 2003, Prince George’s County), and GIS data developed by Maryland DNR (Maryland DNR 2002a) and Prince George's County.

Some indicators within metric groups are believed to better characterize critical ecological processes. Consequently, selected indicators are weighted to emphasize their importance over others when evaluating subwatershed health. Each indicator within a metric group is either unweighted or given a weighting factor of two or three. The decision about which indicators to weight is based upon scientific literature and the best professional judgment of the authors. A metric indicator is unweighted if that metric has a lesser influence on ecological processes in a subwatershed of interest, or if lesser quality data had to be used to score that metric. Data quality 16 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY decisions were made in consultation with GIS professionals and through discussions with the data collection participants (e.g., SCA survey manager).

Points for all the indicators are summed, giving a metric group score. The metric group scores are summed to develop the BCS, leading to a condition classification as illustrated in Table II-4. In addition, since individual metric groups are scored, it is possible to evaluate where problems exist within a particular subwatershed even if an overall score indicates only moderate or low impairment. Using the ranges, subwatershed conditions are classified as described in Table II-4. Method documentation can be found in Appendix A.

RESTORATION PROJECT RANKING

One of the products of the SCA Methodology application is a list of potential restoration sites associated with the problem identification process. As described in Yetman (2001), each observed problem is scored for severity, correctibility, and accessibility. Table II-5 provides brief definitions of how each category is scored in the SCA

Table II-4. Scoring ranges for BCS Methodology Subwatershed Quality Rating Metric Group Good Fair Poor Very Poor Water Quality Conditions <5 5-11 12-17 >17 Living Resource Conditions <18 18-38 39-65 >65 Habitat Conditions <38 38-83 84-128 >128 Landscape Conditions <33 33-72 73-111 >111 Hydrologic Conditions <8 8-17 18-26 >26

Overall BCS <101 101-220 221-345 >345

Table II-5. Problem evaluation categories scored during the SCA. Definitions are summarized from Yetman (2001). Condition Rating Description (Assigned Point Value) Category Low Moderate High Problems generally are Problems generally low intensity or only Problem somewhat widespread with large occur over a short widespread, assessment impact on system health. Severity distance of stream crews have observed Magnitude and/or extent of channel. Problems worse during problem relatively great. judged not significant. assessment. (3) (1) (5) Most difficult. Impacts Easy to correct. More difficult to correct. extensive and likely require Typically, low intensity Might require significant professional expertise to problems that might be volunteer labor, or a Correctability diagnose and determine solved with volunteer small piece of corrective actions. Large, labor or little construction equipment expensive, construction engineering analysis. (1) to correct. (3) projects typical. (5)

17 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Category Condition Rating Description (Assigned Point Value) Easy to access. Near Project might be Project difficult to access Accessibility road crossings or on accessible by foot but by foot and by vehicle. (5) public property. (1) not easily by vehicle. (3)

Prince George’s County’s ranking criteria and results are described in Section III. Sixty-five LID sites were ranked watershed wide and within the County’s subwatersheds. Biological monitoring sites were ranked individually and the subwatersheds were also ranked. Water quality site results were compared to the U. S. EPA region III’s reference levels.

Green Building and its Effect on Water Quality

INTEGRATED DESIGN: WATER

Green buildings are designed to be integrated with their site rather than imposed upon it so as to minimize disturbance of the land. Curbing water consumption, reducing wastewater and stormwater runoff helps to mitigate the impact buildings have on their surroundings. Large buildings can consume millions of gallons of water a day, while during a single rain storm millions of gallons can be lost, as untreated water runs off into sewers or the ground. This "gray" water can instead be reused in irrigation systems, sinks and toilets. This measure in turn minimizes water consumption as does installing low flush or dry toilets. Green buildings are Green in that they also use native vegetation to clean air by converting carbon dioxide into oxygen, and improve water quality by filtering run-off water before it is released into the surrounding environment. The use of plants inside and outside of buildings is a crucial part of the cycle of water consumption and waste. Water consumption inside commercial buildings can be reduced as much as 50% using a variety of innovative strategies that are integrated into the plumbing and mechanical systems. These measures, in conjunction with LID and BayScapes site design can eliminate the need for stormwater management ponds by effectively recreating the pre-existing hydrology of the site.

INTEGRATED DESIGN: ENERGY

Creating, or recreating natural environments is the impetuous behind Environmental Design. Heating, cooling and ventilation systems are designed to compliment the natural environment rather than to create an artificial one. Indoor environments use natural lighting and ventilation. Solar and other renewable energy sources are employed on site to reduce fossil fuel dependency and make buildings more self-reliant or self-sustaining.

An integrated design approach can often take advantage of energy savings that become feasible when the interaction between separate building elements, such as windows, lighting, and mechanical systems, are considered. Green Building incorporates high levels of insulation, passive solar orientation and natural lighting, as well as high-performance windows. Environmental design minimizes cooling loads through careful building design, glazing selection, and landscaping. Renewable energy resources are utilized to meet energy demands and the installation of energy-efficient mechanical equipment, lighting, and appliances ensures efficiency and long term cost savings. As long as the structural integrity of a building is not compromised reducing the surface area of a building will reduce energy consumption and cost.

18 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Simplifying the building geometry, and designing the structure for efficient use of space in dimensions that optimize materials and reduce cut-off waste are also Green Building principles.

Before the development of efficient artificial lighting, heating, and cooling systems in the 20th century, access to fresh air and daylight was a primary determinant of building design and orientation. In the last fifty years buildings have increasingly relied on mechanical systems for their light and air. Some contemporary architects, however, are again promoting natural systems. Natural ventilation and illumination are now becoming more widely accepted as architects and engineers develop advanced techniques for providing natural air-conditioning in buildings of unprecedented size in the hottest of climates, as well as reviving older, forgotten strategies.

INTEGRATED DESIGN: MATERIALS

Land use decisions should be environmentally sensitive to air, water and soil quality and conservation, and habitat protection. Sustainable Development considers life cycle impacts on natural resources, aiming to prevent excessive consumption and environmental exploitation. Green Building views the design of the entire site, not just the building, and attempts to have minimal environmental impact by incorporating non-toxic, locally available/produced building materials. Standard construction uses materials that have been extracted from the ground or harvested from forests and are then treated with ozone-depleting Volatile Organic Compounds, (VOC), which continue emitting pollutants long after construction is complete. The manufacturing of these building products has consumed energy and created pollution. In addition, there are certain building materials that have significant environmental impacts associated with disposal. Green Building avoids the use of materials that generate a lot of pollution during manufacture or use, and generally uses materials with low embodied energy (the energy used in resource extraction, manufacturing, and shipping). Green Products may also include products made from waste or recycled materials, or salvaged from deconstruction sites.

More and more, Green Buildings are incorporating organic building materials or waste by products in construction rather than continue depleting new growth or expendable resources. Adobe, earthberms and natural plasters have been used to shelter humans for thousands of years. The thermal mass they provide naturally keeps buildings cool in the heat of summer, and warm in winter.

The agricultural waste byproduct, straw, has long since been used to create well insulated structures. With the advent of the baling machine, strawbales became a ready packaged, fire resistant building block with an insulation or R-value of 45. Early European settlers built homes of strawbale in the Midwest, although the oldest strawbale structure known to exist was located recently in downtown Munich, Germany, still sound and intact. In the last twenty years, this building method has found popularity among those here in the States seeking to get “back-to-the- land”. It has been estimated that with the amount straw that is burned in this country annually, over 500,000 strawbale 2,000 square foot homes could be built. The availability of straw and the high insulation the bales provide lend this material well to affordable housing.

Thatch construction uses a water reed considered an invasive species to the Chesapeake Bay region. This age old technique is beginning to regain popularity with the Green Building movement. Although it is a bit more expensive to install, a thatched roof requires no sub roofing,

19 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY water barrier, or insulation itself yielding an R-value of 40 or higher. Additionally, thatched roofs last longer, requiring replacement every 80-100 years rather than every 15-20 years.

Over one billion people in the world live in bamboo houses. A rapid growth grass, a sixty foot bamboo cut for market takes only 59 days to replace. A sixty foot tree cut for market takes 60 years to replace. Bamboo, as a renewable resource, can serve as a substitute for fast depleting wood and as an alternative to more expensive building materials. Bamboo is flexible and yet stronger than steel and so has been used extensively in earthquake zones. Although not a traditional building material to the continental United States, it is growing in popularity with the Green Building movement. Pillars, walls, window frames, rafters, room separators, ceilings, floors and roofs can be made with bamboo.

INTEGRATED DESIGN: MINIMIZING CONSTRUCTION SITE WASTE

Green Building, with a commitment to resource conservation and responsible land use, attempts to use not only recycled materials but also reuse materials as well. According to the National Homebuilders Association, as many as 100,000 residential buildings are demolished annually in the United States. This represents more than 8 million tons of wood, plaster and drywall, metals, masonry, and other building materials, most of which will end up in local landfills. Approximately 70 -80% of construction and demolition waste is potentially recyclable. Buildings are therefore a significant source of preventable pollution. Pollution Prevention, or P2, encompasses a wide range of preventative activities aimed at reducing waste at the source.

Deconstruction is the reverse of construction. It is a new term for an old practice which entails the careful dismantling or removal of materials from structures, as an alternative to demolition. The practice of deconstruction maximizes the recovery of valuable building resources for reuse and recycling and minimizes the amount of waste disposed. Like many Green Building concepts, deconstruction is not new. Some wrecking companies have long recognized the economic value by operating their own salvage yards. In fact, deconstruction was more common in the past, until heavy equipment encouraged ever-quicker project timelines. However, as the cost of equipment, lumber, gas and landfill tipping fees increases, deconstruction becomes a more economically attractive option. In addition, the public and builders increasingly recognize the importance of preserving resources and protecting the environment. Deconstruction options include:

• Reusing the building by remodeling, or moving the structure to a new location. • Taking the building apart to reuse lumber, windows, doors, and other materials. • Recycling or composting the non-reusable portions. • Disposing only those materials that are not reusable, recyclable or able to be composted.

Buildings contain a wealth of material resources. In some cases the workmanship and quality of materials that has gone into them is almost impossible to replicate today. Vintage lumber and hard wood beams are highly sought after. Many older buildings contain woods that are now rare and highly valuable, such as first-growth redwood, Douglas fir, oak, and cherry. Nail-holes or other wear may actually contribute to the antique beauty of floors and other products made from them. Multiple salvage companies have found the resale of such architectural relics to be economically profitable. In other situations, materials are still usable although the site may not be. As demand grows, more salvage businesses that sell reused doors, windows, light fixtures, plumbing and appliances and not exclusively architectural pieces are opening. Some contractors 20 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY even conduct successful on-site materials sales. It is possible to salvage building components, keeping the higher value of materials for reuse. Wood flooring, raised panel doors, ornate interior and exterior trim, electrical and plumbing fixtures, even framing and bricks can have salvage value of up to 75% of the item's original value. Reusing or salvaging materials also avoids high disposal costs.

Most of what goes to the landfill from a construction or demolish site is organic matter, such as earth, rocks, concrete, timber and brush. Instead of being hauled off to a land fill, the excavated earth, rocks, and concrete can be used to enhance the contours of the site, and removed timber and brush can be mulched onsite and incorporated into the landscaping. Sorting and recycling job-site waste and materials from demolition sites for reuse is now easier than ever as recycled products (using broken window glass to make glass tiles) and reconstituted products (mixing post consumer plastics - such as expanded polystyrene, with cement to make RASTRA(r) building blocks) has become one of the fasted growing industries in America.

INTEGRATED DESIGN: OCCUPANT HEALTH

Studies are indicating that more than thirty percent of buildings today cause Environmental Illness, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Sick Building Syndrome. The health hazards inherent in standard construction practices justify the rapidly growing Green Building trend across the nation. The quality of the air we breathe has a great impact on the health of our lungs and strength of our immune system. Fragile lung tissue is easily damaged by pollutants in the air, resulting in increased risk of asthma and allergies, chronic bronchitis, lung cancer and other respiratory diseases. Toxic substances such as formaldehyde, benzene, and arsenic are commonly used in the production of building materials, (such as wood and vinyl products, and carpeting and upholstery particleboard, adhesives and paints), and gas off for years after installation. Modern structures are wrapped in moisture barriers that prohibit natural "breathing", virtually trapping these toxins in the indoor air that we breathe the majority of our lives. Green products do not use these harmful substances in the manufacturing of building materials.

There also is concern regarding the biological and health effects of electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) from sources such as power lines, electrical wiring, and appliances. Therefore, Green Building provides that measures are taken to limit occupant exposure to EMF's as well. Moisture is minimized in environmental design by introducing natural day lighting in order to prevent the growth of mold and mildew. Installation of easy to clean air distribution and ventilation systems rather than mechanical equipment that emits combustion gases prevents such illnesses and promotes overall cleaner air for enhanced human health.

Green Building Survey

A “Green” Building is intended to maximize the occupants well being, minimize environmental impacts and provide economic returns. Established and innovative procedures and technologies are promoted to achieve these goals.

A Green Building Survey will be conducted at the Prince Georges County Municipal Building at 9400 Peppercorn Place Largo, Maryland (Figure II-2) to assess the building’s status in comparison to criteria established by the U.S. Department of Energy, Green Building Council. 21 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

The criteria are described in detail in the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, Green Building Rating System for Existing Buildings Operations and Upgrades (LEED-EB) dated February, 2004.

To facilitate the Green Building Survey, a summary checklist of the LEED-EB criteria has been prepared (Appendix B). The methodology to be followed in conducting the survey at 9400 Peppercorn Place will be as follows:

A review of the LEED-EB criteria will be accomplished to identify all applicable background documentation that would assist in completing the survey. A request for available background documentation will be submitted to Prince Georges County, and all documentation will be reviewed to provide the survey personnel with an understanding of the building facilities and operations. An appointment will be set up with the building engineer/property manager to conduct the physical survey of the building. Survey personnel will meet with the building engineer/manager and proceed through the LEED-EB checklist and assess each of the criteria. The building will be surveyed to identify the following: o Criteria that are fully met and qualify for LEED-EB scoring, o Criteria that are partially met, but do not qualify for LEED-EB scoring, o Recommended actions that can be taken to bring the building partially or fully in compliance with LEED-EB. Following the survey the accumulated information will be reviewed and summarized. Follow-on questions will be prepared and submitted to the building engineer/manager. Based on all of the information accumulated, a survey report will be prepared that: o Summarizes the findings of the survey, o Provides an overall LEED-EB scoring for the building, and o Provides a list of potential recommended actions to improve the building’s facilities and operations and bring them partially or fully in compliance with LEED-EB.

Low Impact Development Retrofit Assessment

Conventional land development techniques can dramatically alter natural hydrologic functions. Such site development techniques quickly remove stormwater from developed lands using roofs, gutters, downspouts, driveways, curb and gutter, roads, pipes, drainage swales, and other efficient drainage systems that convey runoff to end-of-pipe collection systems (stormwater management ponds). Resulting changes in hydrologic function include increased stormwater runoff, which amplifies the volume, frequency and rate of discharge; increased impervious surface, decreased infiltration and groundwater recharge; decreased time of concentration; decreased runoff travel times; and increased hydraulic connection. Natural features including

22 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY vegetation are removed and/or dramatically altered. These changes adversely affect the ecosystems that were present before development.

Conventional stormwater management systems such as ponds have been shown to reduce pollutant runoff to some degree but have not been effective in protecting the habitat structure or hydrology of streams. Fish and macroinvertebrate studies have shown that SWM ponds alone are not enough to protect physical habitat structure (cover, substrate, sedimentation) or hydrology (baseflow, thermal fluxes or flashiness). Therefore, the implication is that SWM ponds are limited in their ability to protect streams and cannot reproduce predevelopment hydrological functions.

In both Prince George’s County and the City of Bowie, there are developed areas with little or no stormwater management (SWM) or older SWM technology that is inadequate to protect the ecological structure of aquatic systems. Both jurisdictions believe that a more holistic and site specific SWM approach is needed, particularly, for urban retrofit. In contrast to conventional stormwater management, Low Impact Development’s main goal is to provide maximum protection of the ecological integrity of the receiving waters by maintaining the watershed’s hydrologic regime. This goal is met by creatively designing hydrologic functions into the site design with the intent of replicating the predevelopment hydrology. This provides a significant positive impact on stream stability, habitat structure, baseflows, and water quality.

Low Impact Development (LID) is a comprehensive technology based approach to manage urban stormwater. Stormwater is managed in small, cost-effective landscape features located on each lot (as compared to conveying it to an end of pipe control such as SWM pond). Source control employing reduced impervious surfaces, functional grading, open channel sections, disconnection and reduction of drainage areas and flowpaths, and bioretention/filtration landscape features maintain hydrologic functions (infiltration. groundwater recharge, frequency and volume of discharges).

Multifunctional site design is a key component to LID. LID controls reduce runoff by integrating stormwater controls throughout the site in many small, discrete units. These controls are located on-lot at the source of impacts. Using this type of design, environmental features are preserved and incorporated into the development. Examples of LID controls are bioretention (rain gardens), rain barrels, rooftop storage, green roofs and amended soils. Forming micro drainage areas and disconnecting drainage paths are in sharp contrast to the efficient drainage systems practiced in conventional land development.

In addition to developing a catalog of information relative to the natural resources health of the Western Branch Watershed, an assessment of urban lands was conducted. The purpose of this assessment was twofold. First, an attempt was made to identify areas appropriate for stormwater management retrofits such that the levels of control required by the County’s and City’s stormwater management regulations could be met. Second, evaluations were conducted to determine if lands set for development/redevelopment could be managed with environmentally sensitive and low impact development site design techniques.

Site Selection Selection of viable retrofit and LID implementation sites was needed to facilitate the management of restoration efforts and to support the targeting of limited assessment resources. 23 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

For the Prince George’s County efforts, the initial step in the site selection process was the subdivision of the State's Western Branch watershed into subwatersheds based on drainage area and land use criteria. The subdivision of the Western Branch watershed resulted in 24 subwatersheds ranging in size from 528 to 9838 acres, with an average subwatershed size of 2979 acres. The subdivided subwatersheds had relatively homogenous land uses. The location of the 24 subwatersheds within the Western Branch watershed are shown in Figures II-2.

BCS results, stream condition information, and biological, water quality assessment information and stakeholder input were used to identify individual parcels for evaluation as potential retrofit sites. It was expected that focusing on a single parcel would increase the homogeneity of features recorded on the site evaluation forms. Homogeneous features on a parcel were needed to facilitate the ranking of sites. The parcels had various levels of urban and suburban land uses. Some parcels had storm water management (SWM) within or downstream of their watersheds. The parcels had various ownership types and opportunity criteria.

Site Evaluation Procedures for LID Feasibility Determinations Concurrent with the site selection process, Prince George County used a methodology developed for the Upper Patuxent WRAS to evaluate the feasibility of retrofitting LID to residential and commercial/industrial areas. As part of this process, an assessment of available data and required data was conducted, in-office assessments and site characterizations using GIS data were performed, and extensive field work was done at the focus areas to collect site-specific data to determine the most feasible types of LID best management practices for installation. The assessment of the data requirements and availability was needed to develop the evaluation procedure with the objective to rank the sites as to their potential for LID implementation and / or storm water management (SWM) retrofits. Data needs include mapping, impervious area, storm drain system layout, utilities, topography, parcel ownership, land use, and existing storm water management. Available information included the County’s GIS and soils information. The parcel evaluation procedure included the development of data collection forms. The data collection forms, which were used in both office assessments and field assessments, were structured to facilitate collection of information and to rank the sites in a consistent manner. Three forms were developed to facilitate collection of data and subsequent analysis. Examples of the forms and a complete description of the assessment methods used in both Counties can be found in Appendix C.

Public Participation

Prince George’s County and the City of Bowie cooperatively developed a strategy to provide for public participation in the development of the Western Branch WRAS. The goals were to maximize public participation, provide a mechanism for stakeholders to be involved in the development of the WRAS and to have a major participatory element in the implementation phase. Components of the strategy included:

• Identification of Potential Stakeholders • Development of Stakeholder Database(s) • Formation of Committee Structure • Stakeholder Kickoff Meeting • Steering Committee Meetings

24 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

• Provide the Opportunity for Public Comment and Participation in the Development of the Western Branch WRAS • Develop Public Outreach and Participation Strategy for the Implementation Phase of the Western Branch WRAS

Stakeholder Identification A list of potential stakeholder groups was developed for the WRAS process. Stakeholders included government agencies, municipalities, planning committees, community organizations, watershed and environmental groups, citizen activists, businesses and landowners. Prior to initiating the Stream Corridor Assessments, property owners adjacent to targeted streams were identified. Over 2600 property owners in Prince George’s County and over 600 in the City of Bowie were identified and contacted by mail. A copy of the letter used can be found in Appendix C. The purpose of this contact was to (1) introduce the property owners to the watershed study goals and activities, (2), introduce the property owners to the field activities associated with the study, and (3) request permission to access property for in-stream and stream-side habitat assessment and monitoring. Approximately, 29% of those contacted in Prince George’s County and City of Bowie responded to the letter. The vast majority of respondents were positive about the study; many requested further information, described problems that the County will address (see discussion under Development of Stakeholder Database), or expressed a desire to accompany field crews during the field surveys.

Development of Stakeholder Database(s) Prince George’s County developed databases for the major commercial and industrial businesses, community organizations and individual citizen activists on the County’s and the City’s portion of the Western Branch Watershed. The County is continuing to develop a database on the results from the permission letter campaign that was initiated in the Upper Patuxent and Western Branch WRASs. All of the databases will be incorporated into a GIS planning tool. These databases are designed for multiple uses that include:

• Identification and targeting of stakeholders for future watershed projects and studies; • Development of an Upper Patuxent and Western Branch watershed organizations; • Identification of future restoration and retrofit sites; • Stakeholder notification of watershed events, workshops and training opportunities; and • Recruitment of volunteers for restoration and retrofit projects.

Formation of WRAS Committee Structure The committee structure consisted of a workgroup, steering committee and watershed stakeholder oversight organization. The workgroup was responsible for the planning and development of WRAS activities, public meetings, documents, and strategies. The group members included Prince George’s County Department of Environmental Resources, Prince George’s County Department of Public Works and Transportation, Prince George’s Soil Conservation District, the City of Bowie and MDNR staff and monthly strategy sessions were held. The Workgroup developed four focus areas for the WRAS public participation process:

• Low Impact Development and Green Building • Natural Resources • Land Use and Development

25 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

• Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)

The Steering Committee’s charge was to help direct the development of the watershed plan by providing input and recommendations to the workgroup. This input would meet the needs of the watershed stakeholders. The Committee also addressed each focus area in breakout groups and in meetings that specifically addressed each focus area. The charge for these breakout and meetings included:

1. Identify issues, concerns and areas of special interest. 2. Identify and outline any programmatic changes (both anticipated and desired) 3. Outline steps to implement programmatic changes.

Committee members were volunteers solicited from the Stakeholder Kickoff meeting and throughout the public participation phase. Comprised mainly of individuals who attended the Stakeholder Kickoff meeting, the Stakeholder Oversight Organization consisted of interested stakeholders in the Western Branch Watershed. The relationship and structure of the committees, as well as committee participants, is shown in Figure II-4.

Stakeholder Kickoff Meeting Major watershed stakeholders were identified by the WRAS partners and invited to a briefing held in December 2003. The purpose of this meeting was to introduce stakeholders to the Western Branch WRAS. Of those invited, about 20 stakeholders attended the briefing. Those stakeholders represented the City of Bowie, major landowners, Prince George’s County Schools, Prince George's Soil Conservation District, NRCS, civic associations, citizen watershed organizations, and Maryland Tributary Strategy Teams (i.e., Patuxent River Commission). Briefing presentations included an introduction to the WRAS process, the goals of the Western Branch WRAS, findings from the field studies (e.g SCA and Synoptic Surveys) and a description of the work effort involved. Stakeholders were asked to identify their watershed concerns and any opportunities they saw for enhancing, restoring, and protecting the Western Branch watershed and be a part of the LID and Green Building investigations. Lastly, volunteers were solicited to serve on the Western Branch WRAS Steering Committee. Stakeholders were provided with workshop packets that contained an agenda, overview of the WRAS and its process, contact lists for the project, maps, information on the City of Bowie’s Green Initiative and educational materials.

Steering Committee Meetings The Steering Committee was comprised of representatives from the Prince George’s County School System, Howard B. Owens Science Center, Prince George’s Community College, grant agencies, Natural Heritage, citizen watershed organizations, City of Bowie, Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, Prince George’s Soil Conservation District, state agencies (Fisheries, Forestry, Natural Areas) and Prince George’s County’s Department of Public Works and Transportation. The Steering Committee met four times between December 2003 and May 2004, to discuss the WRAS progress, and provided constructive feedback on WRAS activities. Table II-6 indicates the meeting dates and subjects for the WRAS Steering Committee.

26 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Workgroup Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) The City of Bowie Prince George’s County DER

Prince George’s County Department of

Public Works & Transportation

(DPW&T) Prince George’s Soil Conservation Di strict (PGSCD)

Steering Committee Prince George’s County DER Interested Citizens in the Watershed Bowie Sierra Club City of Bowie Prince George’s County Schools Prince George’s Community College Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission Prince George’s DPW&T Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission

MDNR

Howard B. Owens Science Center

Prince George’s SCD

Local Engineering Firm Members Neighborhood Design Center Chesapeake Bay Trust

Stakeholder Oversight Organization Community Organizations Businesses Property and Landowners Citizens Activists Planni ng Committees Patuxent River Commission Watershed Groups Enviro nmental Organizations

Figure II-4. Schematic of public participation process in the Western Branch WRAS.

27 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

TABLE II-7. UPPER PATUXENT WRAS STEERING COMMITTEE MEETINGS Meeting Topics December 2003 Overview of WRAS Program Western Branch Watershed Characterization Synoptic Survey Results Stream Corridor Assessment Survey Results Committee Formation and Process Four Focus Areas January 2004 Natural Resource Focus Area Discussion Prince George's County Green Infrastructure Program Presentation TMDL Focus Area Presentation and Discussion Presentation and Discussion on Draft Outline for WRAS Report February 2004 LID Focus Area Discussion Selection of LID Assessment Sites Natural Resource Focus Area Discussion March 2004 Potential restoration activities LID activities Stormwater Management Retrofits Grant opportunities to support these activities Finalize WRAS report outline April 2004 Recommendations for opportunities to implement WRAS

Provide Opportunity for Public Comment and Participation in Western Branch WRAS Development

In addition to the Steering Committee and Stakeholder meetings, Prince George’s County solicited participation and input with the area schools, the Bowie Sierra Club, and the City of Bowie at formal meetings and informal gatherings. Concerns, projects and comments were incorporated into the final strategy.

Develop Public Outreach And Participation Strategy For The Implementation Phase Of The Western Branch WRAS

Public outreach and participation is key to the success of the Western Branch WRAS. Both the City of Bowie and Prince George’s County have agreed that the main element in this strategy is to develop a Western Branch Watershed Association. The development of “Friends of” for each of the subwatersheds within Western Branch is also an important part of the restoration and protection effort. Other key components are to provide watershed wide workshops on Low Impact Development geared for both professionals and the general public. For a more detailed discussion on this strategy, see Section IV. Implementation.

28 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

III. Results

This section summarizes the results of both MDNR’s and Prince George’s County’s assessments for the Western Branch Watershed. The summaries include the results, conclusions and recommendations for each type of assessment.

Watershed Characterization

Land Use and Natural Resources

The Western Branch is about has about 44% forested with most of the developed areas area located along the western edges of the watershed. For more information, see “The Western Branch Watershed Characterization” at www.dnr.state.md.us/watersheds/surf/proj/wras.html.

The Western Branch subwatersheds range in size from 528 acres to 9838 acres. Table III-1 outlines the land use in acreage per subwatershed. Natural resources (forested, wetlands and water) are placed in the first category. These areas are proposed for conservation and protection. The urban land uses (residential, transportation and utility and industrial, commercial and institutional) are planned for LID retrofit and redevelopment.

Table III-1. Land Use for Prince George’s County Upper Patuxent Subwatersheds Land use Forest Agri- Com- Low Medium High Trans. Open cultural merical Density Density Density Space Res. Res. Res. Watershed Back Branch 52.2 17.6 1.5 2.4 11.1 1.2 1.7 12.3 (1696 acres) Baldhill Branch 31.0 2.1 13.5 4.1 35.2 3.1 1.7 9.3 (3761 acres) Black Branch 51.8 25.1 1.1 4.3 2.4 0.2 0.9 14.2 (1853 acres) Cabin Branch 41.4 31.1 5.3 5.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 13.0 (3766 acres) Charles Branch 67.7 18.5 1.7 5.3 0.1 0.0 0.6 6.0 Lower (3144 acres) Charles Branch 56.4 7.2 0.7 3.9 15.8 3.4 0.3 12.3 SW Branch (2783 acres) Charles Branch 52.6 16.0 3.4 6.0 6.2 0.6 1.0 14.0 Upper (5293 acres) Collington 59.7 8.2 6.0 6.0 6.5 0.8 1.3 11.4 Branch Lower (4272 acres) Collington 39.5 7.0 2.5 3.0 30.8 5.9 0.4 10.8 Branch Middle (2218 acres) Collington 35.8 18.6 2.9 6.4 18.9 1.6 1.7 14.2 Branch Upper (3502 acres)

29 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Table III-1. Land Use for Prince George’s County Western Branch Subwatersheds Land use Forest Agri- Com- Low Medium High Trans. Open cultural merical Density Density Density Space Res. Res. Res. Watershed Collington 46.9 6.4 14.7 3.9 0.0 0.0 3.9 24.1 Tributary 1 (667 acres) Collington 45.6 7.2 0.0 9.7 15.3 2.9 0.2 19.0 Tributary 2 (835 acres) Collington 45.0 3.0 0.6 45.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 6.3 Tributary 3 (527 acres) East Branch 62.9 27.9 2.7 0.9 0.1 0.7 1.9 3.0 (1055 acres) Federal Spring 51.3 25.4 2.9 5.7 2.0 2.7 2.6 7.4 Branch (2557 acres) Folly Branch 37.7 1.0 7.6 11.7 22.9 3.9 2.0 13.1 (4003 acres) Lottsford Branch 38.9 13.8 1.8 5.3 16.7 3.0 2.5 18.0 (2042 acres) Northeast 48.3 20.3 1.5 9.6 1.2 0.0 0.3 18.8 Branch Lower (2481 acres) Northeast 28.2 0.4 3.9 1.8 47.9 4.0 3.0 10.9 Branch Mainstem (570 acres) Northeast 34.3 21.7 1.6 15.0 7.4 2.6 1.2 16.2 Branch Upper (2452 acres) Southwest 33.8 14.1 8.0 1.7 19.0 6.9 3.4 13.0 Branch Lower (3088 acres) Southwest 31.6 2.2 16.7 5.5 18.7 7.3 5.4 12.6 Branch Upper (6705 acres) Turkey Branch 39.8 10.2 3.9 14.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 31.1 (1423 acres) Western Branch 45.8 8.1 4.9 3.1 13.2 4.4 1.7 18.9 Mainstem (9839 acres)

Recommendations and Actions

• Develop GIS application/tool for planning and implementation • Identify, map all natural resources by watershed and the 24 subwatersheds and place information in GIS application/tool • Natural resources that are specified by Federal, State and County to be of special concern and/or interest (e.g. sensitive species), will be identified and mapped per watershed and 24 subwatersheds and are of first priority for protection • Identify, update property owners database and link to GIS application/tool 30 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

• Coordinate with Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission on protection efforts

Stream Corridor Assessment

Results and recommendations for both Prince George’s County and MDNR’s Stream Corridor Assessments are outlined in this section. Four MDNR identified subwatersheds were evaluated. The four MDNR identified subwatersheds overlapped and included 13 of PGC identified subwatersheds.

Results Approximately 127 miles of streams were surveyed, and 492 potential environmental problems were identified. The most common environmental concern seen during the SCA survey was pipe outfalls, which was reported at 149 sites. Other potential environmental problems identified during the survey include: 121 fish barriers, 65 erosion sites, 62 inadequate buffers, 45 trash dumping sites, 20 unusual conditions, 14 in/near stream construction sites, 5 exposed pipes, and 11 channel alterations.

An overall summary of survey results is presented in Table III-2. Table III-3 summarizes the data by major stream segments. For more detailed information, see “Western Branch Stream Corridor Assessment Survey” on MDNR’s website: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/watersheds/surf/proj/wras.html) and the County’s website, http://www.co.pg.md.us/Government/AgencyIndex/DER/PPD/. All data collected during the survey is presented in Appendices A and B in that report. Appendix A provides a listing of information by problem number along with its location, using Maryland State Plane northing and easting coordinates. The coordinates are meters. Information in this format is useful when working with maps showing the location of problem sites to determine what problems may be present along a specific stream reach. In Appendix B the data is presented by problem type with more detailed information about each problem. Presenting the data by problem type allows the reader to see which problems the field crews rated the most severe or easiest to fix within each category.

Table III-2. Summary of Results from the Western Branch SCA Survey Potential Problems Identified Number Estimated Length Very Severe Severe Moderate Low Severity Minor Pipe Outfalls 149 N/A 2 - 90 3 54 Fish Barriers 121 N/A 2 1 13 24 81 Erosion Site 65 117,140 feet (22.2miles) 8 7 38 9 3 Inadequate Buffers 62 62,560 feet (11.85miles) 6 11 16 13 16 Trash Dumping 45 N/A 1 4 12 12 16 Unusual Conditions 20 N/A 1 1 8 4 6 In/Near Stream Construction 14 N/A 2 2 6 4 - Channel Alterations 11 7010 (1.3miles) 2 2 4 1 2

31 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Table III-2. Summary of Results from the Western Branch SCA Survey Potential Problems Identified Number Estimated Length Very Severe Severe Moderate Low Severity Minor Exposed Pipes 5 169 feet (0.03miles) - - - 2 3 TOTAL 492 19 20 184 66 159

Comments 6 Representative Sites 50

Table III-3. Summary of survey results by major stream segments

ing

n p n

o

rati e

Stream Segment Channel Alt Comment Constructio Erosion Exposed Pipe Fish Barrier Inadequate Buffer Pipe Outfall Trash Dum Unusual Condition Total Black Branch 8 1 6 2 1 5 23 Collington Branch Lower 1 1 1 25 1 28 8 28 13 5 111 Collington Branch Middle 1 2 3 1 18 4 15 5 1 50 Collington Branch Upper 3 2 1 26 12 35 10 5 94 Collington Tributary 1 1 1 1 4 1 8 Collington Tributary 2 1 1 2 1 3 6 1 15 Collington Tributary 3 2 6 9 2 4 3 26 East Branch 1 4 6 12 4 3 2 32 Folly Branch 2 5 1 4 10 21 43 Lottsford Branch 1 3 4 5 10 11 2 3 39 Northeast Branch Lower 1 1 2 5 1 10 Northeast Branch 1 1 2 1 3 1 9 Mainstem Northeast Branch Upper 1 1 2 5 2 20 2 3 36 Western Branch Mainstem 1 1

Prince George’s County has made a first cut to prioritize the SCA problems by subwatershed. The first step in the process was to separate the pipe outfalls (except those that have discharge problems) from the other problem categories. Pipe outfalls will be assessed for retrofitting with LID techniques. The next step was summing the three scores (severity, correctibility and access) to get a total score. This list was then analyzed per problem type. In-stream construction sites were removed from the priority lists (a follow up investigation will be made to determine if still a problem). If there was a tie in the total score, the severity score was considered the most important factor. If there were 10 or less problem sites in a subwatershed, all problems were listed for that subwatershed. See Appendix D for summary tables of the subwatershed priorities.

32 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Recommendations and Actions

• Use GIS application/tool for prioritization and planning • Produce subwatershed maps (aerials) at scale showing all problem sites • Review the rating of the problem sites and adjust scoring • Determine property owner of each problem site • Select sites to be resurveyed; sites to include are those rated as very severe and severe, the initial priority sites and any others that indicate anomalies in the data • Package all restoration opportunities in geographical areas (stream restoration, fish barriers, LID, etc.) within each subwatershed • Perform any necessary preliminary work (e.g. LID assessments, geo-morphological evaluations, etc.) for each priority site • Coordinate with watershed stakeholders and property owners for final selection • Complete the remaining stream miles in the Western Branch Watershed

Synoptic Surveys

The results, conclusions and recommendations are presented in the following sections for both Prince George’s County and MDNR’s water quality and biological assessments. Water quality sampling was evaluated in all of SCA subwatersheds and biological monitoring was performed at 77 stream sites.

Water Quality Sampling

Nutrients

Nutrients levels can impact both the small streams found within the subwatersheds as well as at the lower tidal portions of the Western Branch. Concentrations can be used as a measure of the impact on the in-stream aquatic environment while nutrient loading are of greater importance in evaluating the impacts on the Lower Western Branch and Patuxent River.

Nitrate/Nitrite Levels: Nitrate is an essential nutrient for aquatic plants with natural concentrations seldom exceeding 0.1 mg/L (Chapman, 1996). Natural levels may be elevated due to municipal or industrial wastewaters and by the use of inorganic fertilizers. In well aerated waters the nitrite ion is rapidly oxidized to nitrate and is usually included with nitrate for an overall nitrate/nitrite measurement. The EPA has also published Ambient Water Quality Criteria recommendations on the reference levels of nitrate/nitrite values in rivers and streams for the 25th percentile of sites within each Ecolevel (EPA, 2000). The Western Branch and its subwatersheds fall within Ecolevel 65, which has a reference level of 0.1 mg/L in winter. All nitrate/nitrite baseflow samples collected by Prince George's County had concentrations above the recommended reference concentration of 0.1 mg/L (see Figure III-1).

33 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

1.4 EPA Ecolevel 65 (Winter, 0.100 mg/L) 1.2

) 1 L / g

m 0.8 e ( t i r t i

N 0.6 e/ at r t i

N 0.4

0.2

0 Back Bald Hill Charles Charles Cabin Federal Southwest Turkey Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Spring Branch Run SW Upper Branch

Figure III-1: Nitrate/Nitrite Levels by Subwatershed and by Sampling Agency.

No clear pattern between land use and ambient nitrate levels were apparent for the eight water subwatersheds sampled. Both highly urbanized subwatersheds and watersheds with large areas of agricultural land use had high nitrate levels. All eight watersheds sampled by Prince George's County exceed the EPA reference value of 0.100 mg/L. Daily nitrate/nitrite loads per unit area were highest for the Federal Springs subwatershed. While Federal Springs had one of the highest percentages of agricultural land use, the Cabin Branch subwatershed with a similar percentage of agricultural land use, had daily loadings comparable to the other subwatersheds sampled (Figure III-2).

34 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

0.030

0.025 ) g/ha

k 0.020 d ( Loa ily

a 0.015 D e it r t i N / e

t 0.010 a r t i N

0.005

0.000 Back Bald Hill Charles Charles Cabin Federal Southwest Turkey Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Spring Branch Run SW Upper Branch

Figure III-2: Nitrate/Nitrite Daily Baseflow Loadings by Subwatershed.

Phosphorus Levels: Phosphorus is an essential nutrient for living organisms and exists in water bodies in both a particulate as well as a dissolved form (Chapman, 1996). In most cases it is the limiting nutrient for algal growth and as a result controls the primary productivity of a water body. The EPA's reference levels for total phosphorus in rivers and streams for the 25th percentile of sites within Ecolevel 65 is 0.020 mg/L for winter conditions. All the subwatersheds sampled in the Western Branch had total phosphorus levels exceeding this reference level (Figure III-3). The two highly urbanized subwatersheds, Baldhill Branch and Southwest Branch had both the lowest ambient concentrations as well as the lowest loading (Figures III-3 & III-4)

35 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

0.12

EPA Ecolevel 65 (Winter, 0.020 mg/L) 0.1 L)

g/ 0.08 m ( us

or 0.06 ph s o h P l 0.04 a t o T

0.02

0 Back Bald Hill Charles Charles Cabin Federal Southwest Turkey Run Branch Branch Branch SW Branch Branch Spring Branch Upper Branch

Figure III-3: Total Phosphorus Level by Subwatershed Sampled.

0.0120

) 0.0100 y a d / g k

( 0.0080 d a o L

us 0.0060 r pho

os 0.0040 h P

l a

Tot 0.0020

0.0000 Back Bald Hill Charles Charles Cabin Federal Southwest Turkey Run Branch Branch Branch SW Branch Branch Spring Branch Upper Branch

Figure III-4: Total Phosphorus Daily Baseflow Loadings by Subwatershed.

36 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Trace Metals

Trace metals such as cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc are commonly found in storm runoff from urban areas and are toxic to aquatic life at very low concentrations. Since baseflow conditions persist in stream and rivers for most of the year, elevated levels of any of these trace metals could seriously impact the aquatic health of a subwatershed.

In over half of the subwatersheds sampled cadmium levels exceeded Maryland's chronic criteria standard (COMAR 26.08.02.03-2). Copper, lead and zinc concentrations in all the watersheds sampled were all below Maryland's chronic criteria standard (Figure III-6, III-7 & III-8).

Cadmium levels were the lowest in the two most urbanized subwatersheds of Baldhill Branch and Southwest Branch while the highest value of cadmium measured was in the Federal Springs subwatershed, a predominately agricultural watershed. The five subwatersheds with the highest baseflow cadmium levels were also located geographically adjacent to each other and tended to have the highest percentages of agricultural land uses (Figure III-5).

0.004

Maryland Chronic WQ Criteria ( 0.0021 mg/L) 0.0035

0.003 )

/L 0.0025 g m 0.002 m ( iu m

d 0.0015 a C

0.001

0.0005

0 Back Bald Hill Charles Charles Cabin Federal Southwest Turkey Run Branch Branch Branch SW Branch Branch Spring Branch Upper Branch

Figure III-5: Cadmium Concentration by Subwatershed Sampled.

37 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

0.01

0.009 Maryland Chronic WQ Criteria ( 0.0089 mg/L)

0.008

0.007 L)

/ 0.006 g m (

r 0.005 e

opp 0.004 C 0.003

0.002

0.001

0 Back Bald Hill Charles Charles Cabin Federal Southwest Turkey Run Branch Branch Branch SW Branch Branch Spring Branch Upper Branch

Figure III-6: Copper Concentration by Subwatershed Sampled.

0.003

Maryland Chronic WQ Criteria ( 0.0025 mg/L) 0.0025

0.002 L) g/

m 0.0015 ( d a e L 0.001

0.0005

0 Back Bald Hill Charles Charles Cabin Federal Southwest Turkey Run Branch Branch Branch SW Branch Branch Spring Branch Upper Branch

Figure III-7: Lead Concentration by Subwatershed Sampled (EPA Chronic Level - 32ug/L).

38 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

0.14

Maryland Chronic WQ Criteria ( 0.1183 mg/L) 0.12

0.1

L) 0.08 g/ m (

nc 0.06 Zi

0.04

0.02

0 Back Bald Hill Charles Charles Cabin Federal Southwest Turkey Run Branch Branch Branch SW Branch Branch Spring Branch Upper Branch

Figure III-8: Zinc Concentration by Subwatershed Sampled (EPA Chronic Level - 110 ug/L).

Conclusions and Recommendations

Winter baseflow concentrations of nitrate/nitrite were higher than the EPA recommended levels in all of the nine subwatersheds sampled. Similarly total phosphorus levels recommended by EPA were exceeded in all of the subwatersheds sampled. The lowest ambient level and daily loads for total phosphorus were measured in the two most urbanized watersheds.

Trace level concentrations of metals were generally well below recommended levels for lead, zinc and copper. Over half the subwatersheds sampled exceeded the chronic criteria levels for cadmium.

The management of total phosphorus levels is important to both the streams within subwatersheds of the Western Branch as well as to the Western Branch River. This is particularly true in the tidal portions of the Western Branch. The two highly urbanized subwatersheds, Baldhill Branch and Southwest Branch had both the lowest ambient concentrations as well as the lowest loading. Wet weather load also likely represents the bulk of the total phosphorus loads to the Western Branch.

To assess the effectiveness of watershed wide restoration efforts in reducing both the in-stream and the wet weather loads of phosphorus, one of the assessed subwatersheds within the Western Branch should be selected as a pilot for restoration work. A useful first step in the restoration effort would be to determine the extent and effectiveness of existing urban and/or agricultural stormwater facilities within the pilot subwatershed. This information in conjunction with an assessment of both in-stream concentrations, as well as the wet weather loadings of phosphorus, 39 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY and their likely sources could form the basis of restoration efforts and procedures to track those efforts. Watershed restoration should target both reductions in controllable sources as well as the mitigation of uncontrolled sources.

Reductions in controllable sources can include pollution prevention/nutrient management plans for both urban and agricultural land uses, or the identification and elimination of illegal storm drain connections. Mitigation measures can include a wide range of best management practices that reduce non-point source phosphorus loads, such as low-impact development techniques, pollution prevention and modifications to existing stormwater management facilities.

Monitoring of nitrate and total suspended concentrations and loads should also be continued with efforts focused on reducing phosphorus concentrations and loads. If loads of these constituents are not reduced in conjunction with a reduction in phosphorus levels than a more detailed assessment of their source loads and mitigation options should be undertaken.

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling/ Macroinvertebrate Habitat Assessment/Fish Community Assessment Individual Site Assessments Of the 77 samples, 57 were sampled by Prince George’s over a 5-year period (1999-2003) and 20 were collected by MDNR in 2003. Sixteen samples were collected. Table III-4 summarizes the habitat, Benthic IBI, Fish IBI, sampling agency, sample year and type of site for each station.

Table III-4. Sample results for Western Branch WRAS (N=77); total physical habitat, benthic macroinvertebrate IBI, and fish IBI. Total Physical Habitat Benthic IBI Fish IBI Station Sample Nume ID Year Entity Sample Type ric Narrative Numeric Narrative Numeric Narrative Partially 11-005A 2001 PG DER Targeted 102 Supporting 2.14 Poor not sampled 11-005A 2003 WRD Targeted not sampled 1.57 Very Poor not sampled 11-006 1999 PG DER Probabilistic 142 Supporting 1.57 Very Poor not sampled Partially 11-008 1999 PG DER Probabilistic 125 Supporting 1.29 Very Poor not sampled 11-012 1999 PG DER Probabilistic 149 Supporting 2.43 Poor not sampled Partially 11-014 1999 PG DER Probabilistic 115 Supporting 2.14 Poor not sampled Non 11-018 2001 PG DER Targeted 87 Supporting 1.57 Very Poor not sampled 13-001 1999 PG DER Probabilistic 130 Supporting 3.57 Fair 4 Fair 13-005 1999 PG DER Probabilistic 147 Supporting 2.43 Poor not sampled Partially 13-006 1999 PG DER Probabilistic 117 Supporting 1.86 Very Poor not sampled 17-001A 2003 WRD Targeted not sampled 1.57 Very Poor not sampled 17-002A 2003 WRD Targeted not sampled 1.86 Very Poor not sampled Partially 17-004 1999 PG DER Probabilistic 105 Supporting 1.86 Very Poor not sampled 17-004 2003 WRD Targeted not sampled 1.29 Very Poor not sampled 18-001 1999 PG DER Probabilistic 110 Partially 3.29 Fair not sampled 40 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Total Physical Habitat Benthic IBI Fish IBI Station Sample Nume ID Year Entity Sample Type ric Narrative Numeric Narrative Numeric Narrative Supporting 18-001 2003 WRD Targeted not sampled 1.86 Very Poor not sampled Non 18-002A 1999 PG DER Targeted 95 Supporting 2.71 Poor not sampled Non 18-002B 1999 PG DER Targeted 64 Supporting 1.86 Very Poor not sampled Partially 18-003 1999 PG DER Targeted 124 Supporting 3.00 Fair 2 Poor 18-004 2003 WRD Targeted not sampled 1.29 Very Poor not sampled Partially 18-006 1999 PG DER Probabilistic 121 Supporting 2.71 Poor not sampled 18-006 2003 WRD Targeted not sampled 1.29 Very Poor not sampled 18-007 2003 WRD Targeted not sampled 1.57 Very Poor not sampled 18-010 1999 PG DER Probabilistic 152 Comparable 1.57 Very Poor not sampled 18-010 2003 WRD Targeted not sampled 1.57 Very Poor not sampled Partially 18-011 1999 PG DER Probabilistic 116 Supporting 1.86 Very Poor not sampled 18-011 2003 WRD Targeted not sampled 2.14 Poor not sampled Non 21-004A 2003 PG DER Probabilistic 76 Supporting 2.71 Poor not sampled 21-004B 2003 PG DER Probabilistic 148 Supporting 1.86 Very Poor not sampled Partially 21-005 2003 PG DER Probabilistic 108 Supporting < 80 org. Very Poor not sampled Non 21-011 2003 PG DER Probabilistic 57 Supporting NA Very Poor 2 Poor Non 21-014B 2003 PG DER Probabilistic 95 Supporting 2.71 Poor not sampled 21-024B 2003 PG DER Probabilistic 126 Supporting < 80 org. Very Poor 2 Poor Partially 21-024C 2003 PG DER Probabilistic 118 Supporting 2.43 Poor not sampled Partially 21-025B 2003 PG DER Probabilistic 107 Supporting 1.86 Very Poor 3 Poor Partially 21-034 2003 PG DER Probabilistic 121 Supporting 1.29 Very Poor not sampled 40-003 2003 WRD Targeted not sampled 2.14 Poor not sampled 40-009 2003 WRD Targeted not sampled 2.43 Poor not sampled Non 40-010 1999 PG DER Targeted 85 Supporting 3.00 Fair not sampled 40-012 2003 WRD Targeted not sampled 2.43 Poor not sampled Partially 40-013 2003 PG DER Probabilistic 101 Supporting 2.71 Poor not sampled 40-013 2003 WRD Targeted not sampled 2.43 Poor not sampled 40-014 2003 WRD Targeted not sampled 2.14 Poor not sampled Partially 40-014A 2003 PG DER Probabilistic 114 Supporting 2.43 Poor 3 Fair Partially 40-016 2000 PG DER Targeted 109 Supporting 2.14 Poor not sampled Non 40-016 2001 PG DER Targeted 94 Supporting 2.43 Poor 4 Fair 40-016 2002 PG DER Targeted 107 Partially 2.14 Poor 4 Good 41 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Total Physical Habitat Benthic IBI Fish IBI Station Sample Nume ID Year Entity Sample Type ric Narrative Numeric Narrative Numeric Narrative Supporting Non 40-016 2003 PG DER Targeted 87 Supporting 2.71 Poor 4 Fair 40-016 2003 WRD Targeted not sampled 2.14 Poor not sampled 40-018 2003 PG DER Probabilistic 143 Supporting 2.14 Poor not sampled 40-019 2003 WRD Targeted not sampled 2.14 Poor not sampled Non 40-028 2003 PG DER Probabilistic 96 Supporting 3.00 Fair not sampled Non 40-030 2003 PG DER Probabilistic 78 Supporting 1.86 Very Poor not sampled Non 40-031 2003 PG DER Probabilistic 93 Supporting 3.29 Fair not sampled Partially 40-035 2003 PG DER Probabilistic 110 Supporting 3.29 Fair not sampled 40-037 2003 PG DER Probabilistic 137 Supporting 2.43 Poor not sampled 40-041 2003 WRD Targeted not sampled 1.29 Very Poor not sampled 40-042A 2003 PG DER Probabilistic 137 Supporting 1.86 Very Poor not sampled Non 40-042B 2003 PG DER Probabilistic 78 Supporting 1.57 Very Poor not sampled 40-044 2003 WRD Targeted not sampled 1.00 Very Poor not sampled Non 40-045 2003 PG DER Probabilistic 95 Supporting 2.43 Poor not sampled Non 40-047 2003 PG DER Probabilistic 100 Supporting 2.43 Poor not sampled 40-047 2003 WRD Targeted not sampled 1.29 Very Poor not sampled 41-002 2001 PG DER Probabilistic 140 Supporting < 80 org. Very Poor not sampled Non 41-009 2001 PG DER Probabilistic 76 Supporting 2.43 Poor 5 Good Partially 41-016 2001 PG DER Probabilistic 121 Supporting 3.29 Fair 3 Poor 41-018 1999 PG DER Targeted 148 Supporting 2.71 Poor not sampled 41-018A 2001 PG DER Targeted 128 Supporting 3.29 Fair not sampled Partially 41-018B 2001 PG DER Targeted 123 Supporting 3.00 Fair not sampled Non 41-018C 2001 PG DER Probabilistic 84 Supporting 2.43 Poor not sampled Non 41-029A 2001 PG DER Probabilistic 83 Supporting 2.43 Poor not sampled Partially 41-030 2001 PG DER Probabilistic 114 Supporting 3.29 Fair 4 Fair Partially 42-003 1999 PG DER Probabilistic 117 Supporting 2.71 Poor 3 Poor Partially 42-009 1999 PG DER Probabilistic 106 Supporting 2.14 Poor not sampled 42-010 1999 PG DER Probabilistic 132 Supporting 3.57 Fair 3 Fair 42-011 1999 PG DER Probabilistic 135 Supporting 2.14 Poor not sampled Non 42-020 1999 PG DER Probabilistic 93 Supporting 2.14 Poor not sampled

42 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Physical Habitat The overall physical habitat assessment of Western Branch is partially supporting (Table III-5). Only one of the six subwatersheds rated as supporting. Examining all 57 samples for habitat assessment, results show that partially supporting is the largest group (40%), followed by non supporting (33%), supporting (25%), and comparable (2%) (Figure III-9).

Table III-5. Overall physical habitat assessment for Western Branch WRAS (only probabilistic sites used, N=44).

Order (Median) Watershed Watershed Watershed Names 1 2 3 Mean Score Narrative (11) Folly Br, (13) Baldhill Br, & (17) Lottsford Br 121.0 138.5 -- 129.8 Supporting (18) Northeast Br (WB) 136.5 116.0 110.0 120.8 Partially Supporting (21) Southwest Br 118.0 82.5 -- 100.3 Non Supporting (40) Collington Br 100.0 137.0 98.5 111.8 Partially Supporting (41) Western Br 84.0 76.0 117.5 92.5 Non Supporting (42) Charles Br 106.0 132.0 117.0 118.3 Partially Supporting Overall Rating 112.3 Partially Supporting

2%

25% 33%

Comparable Supporting Partially Supporting Non Supporting

40%

Figure III-9: Narrative assessments for physical habitat for Western Branch WRAS (N=57).

43 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Benthic Macroinvertebrates The overall assessment of Western Branch is poor (Table III-6). All of the seven subwatersheds were assessed as poor. The third order streams tended to score higher than the smaller first and second order streams. Of all 77 samples collected, 46% were assessed as poor, the remainder were assessed as very poor (38%) and fair (16%) (Figure III-10).

Table III-6: Overall benthic IBI assessment for Western Branch WRAS (only probabilistic sites used, N=44).

Order (Median) Watershed Watershed Watershed Names 1 2 3 Mean Score Narrative (11) Folly Br, (13) 1.71 2.43 2.07 Poor Baldhill Br, & (17) Lottsford Br (18) Northeast Br (WB) 2.14 1.86 3.29 2.43 Poor (21) Southwest Br 2.14 2.14 2.14 Poor (40) Collington Br 2.14 2.43 3.14 2.57 Poor (41) Western Br 2.43 2.43 3.29 2.71 Poor (42) Charles Br 2.14 3.57 2.71 2.81 Poor Overall Rating 2.5 Poor

16%

38%

Fair Poor Very Poor

46%

Figure III-10: Narrative assessments for benthic macroinvertebrate samples for Western Branch WRAS (N=77).

44 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Fish Only 16 sites have been assessed for fish (Table III-4). One of the major reasons that there are few fish sampling sites is that early in the program only smaller streams were sampled and just recently, have larger streams been sampled. Also, sites with a drainage area of less than 300 acres have not been sampled, as this is the minimum size for determining an IBI score. There are an equal number of sites rating poor and fair (43%) with a smaller number rated as good (14%) and none as very poor (Figure III-11).

14%

43% Good Fair Poor

43%

Figure III-11: Narrative assessments for fish for Western Branch WRAS (N=15).

Watershed Assessments

Folly Branch, Baldhill Branch, & Lottsford Branch – Watersheds 11, 13, & 17

Fifty percent of the streams assessed in this watershed group were rated as “very poor”, 37.5% were “poor” and 12.5% (one site) was rated as “fair” for biological condition (Table III-4). All of the streams rated very poor were first order streams with low taxa richness and low numbers of intolerant taxa as scored by the EPT taxa and Beck's Biotic Index. Dominant species at these sites were oligochaetes, midges or blackflies. One site rated as fair, had taxa richness comparable to reference conditions and mayflies as the dominant taxon. The remaining sites rated “poor” although taxa richness was high; some sensitive taxa were present however they were not abundant.

45 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

The overall watershed condition is assessed as being “poor” with a “supporting” habitat (Table III-7). Many sites rated as capable of supporting a good or fair biological condition but exhibited poor or very poor biology indicating potential water quality impairment in the system.

Table III-7: Watershed condition for (11) Folly Branch, (13) Baldhill Branch, and (17) Lottsford Branch, sampled in 1999 (N=6). Benthic IBI Physical Habitat Order 1 2 1 2 Number of Samples 4 4 4 4 Order Median 1.71 2.43 121.0 138.5 Watershed Mean 2.07 129.8 Standard Deviation 0.51 12.4 Narrative Rating Poor Supporting

The fish assemblage at one site within the watershed group indicated a “fair” biological condition. Although most fish metrics received mid-range scores, density and biomass values were extremely low with all species represented by less than 6 individuals each.

All sites in this watershed group were rated as “supporting” or “partially supporting” for physical habitat condition. Many of the streams were channelized and had poor vegetative protection on the banks. Sedimentation has resulted in marginal epifaunal substrate quality. Three of the four first order streams were channelized and either received scouring flows or were filled in with heavy deposition; one site that had a higher degree of sinuosity and less deposition had a majority of clinger taxa. Physical habitat ratings indicate that 50% of the sites were capable of “supporting” a biological community and 50% were “partially supporting”. The overall physical habitat quality rated as supporting (Table III-7).

Northeast Branch (Western Branch) – Watershed 18

Fifty percent of the sites were rated as “very poor” for biological condition and 25% each were rated as “poor” and “fair” (Table III-4). The dominant taxa at most sites were midges or blackflies; mayflies and midges dominated one site rated as “fair”. Taxa richness was good at several sites and intolerant taxa were not highly represented. The overall biological condition of this watershed was rated as “poor” (Table III-8).

Northeast Branch rated “partially supporting” for habitat quality (Table III-8). Channelized streams with marginal substrate quality and poor bank stability have led to increased sedimentation. Two sites assessed in this watershed scored lower on biological condition than would be expected for the quality of habitat present at the sites. This could indicate some type of toxic input into the system; one site scored higher for biology than expected for the habitat quality.

46 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Table III-8: Watershed condition for (18) Northeast Branch (Western Branch), sampled in 1999 (N=6). Benthic IBI Physical Habitat Order 1 2 3 1 2 3 Number of Samples 2 1 1 2 1 1 Order Median 2.14 1.86 3.29 136.5 116.0 110.0 Watershed Mean 2.43 120.8 Standard Deviation 0.76 13.9 Narrative Rating Poor Partially Supporting

Fish sampling within the watershed (one site in the Northeast Branch) indicated a “poor” biological condition. Species richness, fish density, and total biomass measures were all notably low. Of the six fishes collected, all were represented by less than 10 individuals.

The physical habitat quality of the watershed was rated as “partially supporting” scoring as 72% comparable to reference conditions (Table III-8). Sites within this watershed had “marginal” to “poor” ratings for channel sinuosity, substrate quality and sedimentation; bank stability was marginal at several sites. Riparian zones were generally good with forested areas surrounding many of the sampling stations. However, urban areas within the watershed are likely contributing to bank failures and increased sedimentation due to stormwater flows.

Southwest Branch – Watershed 21

The physical habitat rated as non supporting and the benthic macroinvertebrate community rated as poor (Table III-9). The rating for the biology is higher than that of the physical habitat but the physical habitat score is less than half a point from rating in the next higher category (partially supporting), which would make the two ratings equal.

Table III-9: Watershed condition for (21) Southwest Branch, sampled in 2003 (N=9). Benthic IBI Physical Habitat Order 1 2 1 2 Number of Samples 6* 1* 7 2 Order Median 2.14 2.14 118.0 82.5 Watershed Mean 2.14 100.3 Standard Deviation 0 25.1 Narrative Rating Poor Non Supporting *One first and one second order sample did not reach the minimum number of organisms in the sample (80) and was not scored.

The physical habitat for this watershed is rated as non supporting but is close to being partially supporting. There is a large difference between the seven first order streams and the two second order streams (118 vs. 82.5). Two of the first order streams rated as supporting. The parameters that scored the lowest, on average, across all sites were bank stability, bank vegetative protection, riparian vegetative zone width, channel sinuosity, sediment deposition, pool substrate, and epifaunal substrate.

Two of the nine sites sampled in this watershed did not reach the target number of organisms and were rated as very poor and none of the sites scored better than poor. 47 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Three sites were sampled for fish, in 2003, and all scored as poor. Low biomass and numbers rated the lowest scoring for all three sites.

This watershed is stressed and scored the lowest of all the subwatersheds in the Western Branch watershed for biology and second lowest for physical habitat. This watershed is also one the most heavily urbanized and has the DC Beltway (I-95) cross the median axis of the watershed and potentially affecting the mainstem of Southwest Branch and four of the six tributaries. There are 28 different locations that have been identified as former mining operations within this watershed, most of which are concentrated in the southern portion near reaches 004, 024 and 025 that could have an impact and should be investigated as potential stressor sources.

Collington Branch – Watershed 40

The biological rating of this watershed is poor (Table III-10). Many of the samples have a fair number of taxa but lack sensitive taxa. The physical habitat of this watershed rates as partially supporting (Table III-10). Individual site scores range from 78 (non supporting) to 143 (supporting). Channel alteration and channel flow status rated as optimal or suboptimal at all but two sites.

Table III-10: Watershed condition for (40) Collington Branch, sampled in 2003 (N=12). Benthic IBI Physical Habitat Order 1 2 3 1 2 3 Number of Samples 7 1 4 7 1 4 Order Median 2.14 2.43 3.14 100.0 137.0 98.5 Watershed Mean 2.57 111.8 Standard Deviation 0.52 21.8 Narrative Rating Poor Partially Supporting

Fish were not widely sampled in this watershed. Many of the site locations are less than 300 acres of drainage area (the minimum for calculating the Fish IBI) and were not sampled. Two sites were sampled in 2003 (one site, 40-016, was also sampled in 2001 and 2002). The average score of the fish samples is fair.

This watershed is stressed for both physical habitat and biology. A significant amount of urbanization (commercial and medium density residential land use) in the Bowie area is concentrated on the eastern side of Collington Branch for most of its length. There also exist railroad tracks on the western side of Collington Branch for its entire length. Unlike some of the other subwatersheds in Western Branch there are only two mining operations in this subwatershed (both marked as abandoned). Also, at many of the sites within this subwatershed beaver activity (chews on trees or beaver dams) was noted by the field crews.

Western Branch (mainstem) – Watershed 41

The biological condition of this watershed was rated as poor, slightly higher than expectations, given its habitat rating of non-supporting (Table III-11). The overall condition of the mainstem Western Branch rated higher than the first and second order tributaries and would score as partially supporting for habitat and fair for biology. 48 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Table III-11: Watershed condition for (41) Western Branch (mainstem), sampled in 2001 (N=6). Benthic IBI Physical Habitat Order 1 2 3 1 2 3 Number of Samples 2* 1 2 3 1 2 Order Median 2.43 2.43 3.29 84.0 76.0 117.5 Watershed Mean 2.71 92.5 Standard Deviation 0.49 22.0 Narrative Rating Poor Non Supporting *One first order sample did not reach the minimum number of organisms in the sample (80) and was not scored.

Charles Branch – Watershed 42

Twenty percent of the sites were rated “fair” for biological condition, 60% were rated as “poor” and 20% rated as “very poor”. The dominant taxa collected in this watershed were midges and blackflies. Stoneflies were common at several sites. The overall biological condition rating was “poor” (Table III-12).

Table III-12: Watershed condition for (42) Charles Branch, sampled in 1999 (N=5). Benthic IBI Physical Habitat Order 1 2 3 1 2 3 Number of Samples 3 1 1 3 1 1 Order Median 2.14 3.57 2.71 106.0 132.0 117.0 Watershed Mean 2.81 118.3 Standard Deviation 0.72 13.1 Narrative Rating Poor Partially Supporting

Fish sampling within the watershed consisted of one site in Charles Branch, and one site in the Southwest Branch of Charles Branch. Biological conditions of the assemblage rated “poor” at both sites. The tolerant blacknose dace dominated the catch (composing nearly 82 percent of the total) at the Southwest Branch site, and fish abundance was very low (less than 4 individual per species) at the Charles Branch site.

Forty percent of the sites in this watershed were rated as having a “supporting” physical habitat quality, 40% were rated “partially supporting” and 20% were rated “non-supporting”. Epifaunal substrate quality, bank stability and sedimentation were the main problems affecting sites in this watershed. Beaver activity was evident at 40% of the sites and new home construction was noted throughout the area. The overall habitat rating for the Charles Branch watershed was “partially supporting” (Table III-12).

Biological condition appears to be meeting the potential of the overall degraded physical habitat. Though the watershed land use was predominantly forested, urban activities, through increased impervious surfaces, appear to be adversely affecting the streams. Bank stability and vegetative protection are deteriorating and leading to poor substrate quality and increased sedimentation.

49 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Conclusions and Recommendations The overall assessment of the entire Western Branch watershed is partially supporting for habitat and poor for benthic macroinvertebrates. The biological score is expected given the biological potential of the physical habitat. Potential stressor sources in this watershed include land use (urbanization including roads, I-95, and development) and historical mined lands (96 locations concentrated in Southwest Branch, Charles Branch, and mainstem Western Branch subwatersheds).

It should be a goal of any agency charged with protecting the environment to preserve the best sites such that they do not degrade from current conditions and to restore the sites with the worst conditions. Preservation and restoration sites can be grouped into four categories with varying levels of impairment and preservation/restoration and thus prioritized Table III-13. The categories are based on physical habitat and other non-biological parameters. The biological organisms in streams are affected by the conditions in the stream where they live and are thus a measurement tool of the quality of the streams. That is, the quality of the biological community in the stream is related to the condition of the stream and can be impacted by a multitude of stressors that might not be obvious.

Table III-13: Preservation/restoration categories with physical habitat and benthic IBI narrative ratings. Category Physical Habitat Benthic IBI 1 Comparable or Supporting All 2 Partially Supporting Not Very Poor Partially Supporting Very Poor 3 Non Supporting Not Very Poor 4 Non Supporting Very Poor

Group 1 contains those sites that should be of the highest priority. These are sites that have the least impacted physical habitat (rated as supporting or comparable to reference) and are recommended to receive a combination of protection for physical and hydrologic characteristics and correction of other stressors impeding biological performance. The sites in group 1 are recommended as priority because it is generally perceived to be less expensive to preserve these “least impacted” sites while providing for the most potential gain (i.e., highest return on investment).

Sites in group 2 include those sites with only slightly impacted physical habitat (narrative rating of partially supporting). Assessment results from these streams suggest substantial stressor loads are present, but the biological community is able to somewhat positively respond. More attention needs to be directed to these locations to identify specific stressors, since they may be on the verge of requiring more expensive restoration/rehabilitation techniques.

For prioritization purposes groups 3 and 4 have been combined. Group 3 are those sites with degraded habitat (non supporting) but do not have the most impacted biological communities (fair or poor but not very poor). Group 3 also includes habitat at partially supporting with benthic rating of very poor. Group 4 includes those sites with the most impacted habitat (non supporting) and the most stressed biological communities (very poor). Major restoration and rehabilitation techniques/programs would be required at these sites to show an improvement in 50 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY overall biological condition. The biological communities are impacted by a multitude of stressors (known and unknown). At these sites it is recommended that efforts begin with establishing reasonable hydrology and physical habitat complexity (geomorphic reconfiguration), controlling inputs of chemical stressors, and eliminating non-native species that may be able to thrive in severely impacted systems. These sites will be the most complex and expensive to rehabilitate/restore.

Using these groups all the samples collected in the study area were categorized (Table III-14). Eleven sites were not ranked since only the biological data was available (ranking was either poor or very poor).

Table III-14: Preservation and restoration priority for Western Branch WRAS sites (N=65). Narrative Assessment Preservation / Restoration StationID Category Physical Habitat Benthos Fish 18-010 1 Comparable Very Poor 13-001 1 Supporting Fair Fair 41-018A 1 Supporting Fair 42-010 1 Supporting Fair Fair 11-012 1 Supporting Poor 13-005 1 Supporting Poor 40-018 1 Supporting Poor 40-037 1 Supporting Poor 41-018 1 Supporting Poor 42-011 1 Supporting Poor 11-006 1 Supporting Very Poor 21-004B 1 Supporting Very Poor 21-024B 1 Supporting Very Poor Poor 40-042A 1 Supporting Very Poor 41-002 1 Supporting Very Poor 18-003 2 Partially Supporting Fair Poor 40-035 2 Partially Supporting Fair 41-016 2 Partially Supporting Fair Poor 41-018B 2 Partially Supporting Fair 41-030 2 Partially Supporting Fair Fair 11-014 2 Partially Supporting Poor 18-001 2 Partially Supporting Poor 18-006 2 Partially Supporting Poor 18-011 2 Partially Supporting Poor 21-005 2 Partially Supporting Poor 21-024C 2 Partially Supporting Poor 40-013 2 Partially Supporting Poor 40-014A 2 Partially Supporting Poor Fair 42-003 2 Partially Supporting Poor Poor 42-009 2 Partially Supporting Poor 11-005A 3 Partially Supporting Very Poor

51 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Narrative Assessment Preservation / Restoration StationID Category Physical Habitat Benthos Fish 11-008 3 Partially Supporting Very Poor 13-006 3 Partially Supporting Very Poor 17-004 3 Partially Supporting Very Poor 21-025B 3 Partially Supporting Very Poor Poor 21-034 3 Partially Supporting Very Poor 40-010 3 Non Supporting Fair 40-028 3 Non Supporting Fair 40-031 3 Non Supporting Fair 18-002A 3 Non Supporting Poor 21-004A 3 Non Supporting Poor 21-014B 3 Non Supporting Poor 40-016 3 Non Supporting Poor Fair 40-045 3 Non Supporting Poor 41-009 3 Non Supporting Poor Good 41-018C 3 Non Supporting Poor 41-029A 3 Non Supporting Poor 42-020 3 Non Supporting Poor 11-018 4 Non Supporting Very Poor 18-002B 4 Non Supporting Very Poor 21-011 4 Non Supporting Very Poor Poor 40-030 4 Non Supporting Very Poor 40-042B 4 Non Supporting Very Poor 40-047 4 Non Supporting Very Poor 40-003 NA NC Poor 40-009 NA NC Poor 40-012 NA NC Poor 40-014 NA NC Poor 40-019 NA NC Poor 17-001A NA NC Very Poor 17-002A NA NC Very Poor 18-004 NA NC Very Poor 18-007 NA NC Very Poor 40-041 NA NC Very Poor 40-044 NA NC Very Poor NC = Not Collected

For categories 1, 2, and 3 there is an almost equal distribution. Category 4 (the most stressed sites) is less than 10%. Eleven sites had a biological sample but no habitat assessment (Figure III-12).

52 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

17% 23%

1 9% 2 3 4 NA

23%

28%

Figure III-12: Priority restoration category distribution by station (N=65) in Western Branch.

Low Impact Development Retrofit Assessment

WRAS stakeholders identified fifty parcels for evaluation. Five parcels were not evaluated because the property owner or tenant would not provide permission to access the parcel. Therefore, 45 parcels were evaluated. Because a parcel can drain to more than one catchment, 65 sites were evaluated. Prince George’s County‘s results for the ranking of the 65 sites and a discussion on the pilot sites is described in this session. The assessments are in Appendix C.

Site Ranking The completed forms are used to rank the 65 LID sites. The purpose of the ranking is to identify the sites that would most benefit from the retrofit of treatment applications. Forty ranking parameters were identified and include the following: • Impairment type • Catchment percent impervious • Catchment water quality volume • Catchment ground water recharge volume • Predominant land use • Depth to ground water • Sanitary sewer type • Water supply type • Area served by storm drain system • Percentage of drainage system that is piped • Percentage of channels that are not concrete • Location of system in catchment • Catchment existing storm water treatment • Percent of catchment that is treated • Treatment provided for catchment • Site ownership • Site percent impervious • Site water quality volume • Site ground water recharge volume • Site storm drainage type • Site existing storm water treatment • Percent of site that is treated • Treatment provided for site • Pavement type

53 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

• Pavement condition • Underdrains could be installed • Roof connected directly to storm drain • Roof drains directly onto impervious area • Existing drainage problems • Steep slopes • Existing landscaping • Mature / specimen trees • Area available for above ground treatment • Existing cover for potential sties • Traffic islands • Curb around traffic island • Ground level of traffic island • Traffic island landscaping • Trees have sufficient spacing for treatment • Area that can be directed to treatment

Each ranking parameter was given a score ranging from zero and one. The scoring range was developed so that a high score yielded a site that would most benefit from treatment retrofits or where retrofits would be relatively easy to implement. Three examples of the ranking system used in the Western Branch WRAS follow. 1. Existing Water Quality. A site with poor existing water quality would rank higher than a site with good water quality. Water quality was determined based on the Basin Condition Scoring (BCS) methodology developed for the Upper Patuxent River Watershed (Victoria, et al, 2003). 2. Existing Storm Water Management. Although storm water treatment is desirable from a water quality perspective, a site with existing storm water treatment would rank low. An attempt was made in the ranking procedure to address the type of facility and its overall condition. However, it is very likely that existing SWM would benefit from additional upstream treatment. Fish and macroinvertebrate studies including the one conducted by Prince George’s County in Spring 2000, have shown that SWM ponds alone are not enough to protect physical habitat structure (cover, substrate, sedimentation) or hydrology (baseflow, thermal fluxes or flashiness). Therefore, the implication is that SWM ponds are limited in their ability to protect streams and cannot reproduce predevelopment hydrological functions. 3. Site Constraints. A site with adequate area to construct SWM would also rank high. Areas that are covered with grass would rank higher than area covered with pavement. Conversely, a site that has a large portion that is covered with steep slopes or mature trees would rate lower. The grassed areas should still be treated with LID techniques. Several studies comparing grass/turf areas to meadow as shown significant difference in runoff and pollutant removal (meadow areas are more efficient and have less runoff). Also, many turfed areas are so compacted that the function as an impervious surface. Amending the soils is an excellent technique in those situations.

The scoring for the ranking components developed for the Western Branch WRAS is presented in Appendix C.

The ranking parameters are not equally significant. To indicate the relative importance of each ranking parameter, weighting factors were used. The less significant parameters were given a weight of less than one and significant parameters were given a weight greater than one. The derivation of the scores is presented in Appendix C. This sheet provides the score for each of the 40 ranking parameters for each of the 65 sites. The ranked sites are presented in Table III-15. The 65 sites were located in 11 subwatersheds. To facilitate comparison of sites within the individual subwatersheds, the sites were grouped by subwatershed. Within each subwatershed, the sites were ranked. The results are presented in Table III-16.

54 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

It is anticipated that the ranking components, scoring and weighting will be adapted and refined with use and for use for other applications, depending on the goals of the project. Typically, an area with few site constraints would rank low. However, LID techniques are quite adaptable. For example, slopes that are conditioned and planted with native vegetation would decrease the amount of runoff. Bioretention weep walls could also be used on slopes.

One of the important tenets of LID is to subdivide larger sites into smaller drainage areas. By dividing sites into smaller drainage units, you increase the use of LID practices; provide improved water quality and hydrologic control. There are many methods that can be used to subdivide larger drainage areas into micro drainage areas and employ LID techniques. For instance, by using traffic calming devices, streets can be narrowed, divided into smaller drainage units and bioretention installed. Also, the presence of mature vegetation and/or a site that is extensively landscaped was ranked low because the vegetation would need to be removed. In many cases, the landscaping consists of invasive plants. Since invasive plants should be removed and LID practices could then be installed, a new ranking factor will be developed. Training for site assessors to identify invasive species will be provided.

Recommendations

• Use GIS application/tool for prioritization and planning • Complete LID IMP assessments for the remaining 43 sites (timeframe – one year) • Target future LID assessment sites using GIS application/tool • Update, revise and refine the LID assessment scheme and forms (target – 2005 for Anacostia River WRAS) • Continue to refine ranking system • Target LID retrofits per subwatershed using BCS (target one subwatershed per year) • Train County, municipal staff on LID assessment scheme (timeframe – ongoing)

55 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Table III-15. Site Ranking Summary

Site No Site Name Site Description Catchment Subwatershed Score Rank 29 COC2 Collington Center CB08 Collington Branch Lower 29.78 1 29 COC1 Collington Center CB07 Collington Branch Lower 27.93 2 4 KES1 Kingsford Elementary School NB05 Northeast Branch Upper 27.83 3 37 ENP2 Enterprise Plaza BB05 Baldhill Branch 27.71 4 44 ENOP Enterprise Office Park BB03 Baldhill Branch 27.68 5 14 RGMS Robert Goddard Junior High School BB01 Baldhill Branch 27.53 6 33 REX2 Rexel CB09 Collington Branch Tributary 1 27.43 7 45 SEES Seabrook Elementary School BB02 Baldhill Branch 27.21 8 10 KMS1 Kettering Junior High School WB01 Western Branch Mainstem 27.13 9 13 DHS1 Duval High School BB01 Baldhill Branch 27.11 10 36 HWS1 Halliewood Subdivision BB06 Baldhill Branch 26.63 11 31 COC5 Collington Center CB13 Collington Branch Tributary 1 26.56 12 31 COC7 Collington Center CB09 Collington Branch Tributary 1 26.53 13 6 ENSC Enterprise Shopping Center NB06 Northeast Branch Mainstem 26.48 14 5 WPP1 Watkins Park Plaza NB01 Northeast Branch Mainstem 26.33 15 15 CES2 Catherine T. Reed Elementary School BB01 Baldhill Branch 26.28 16 39 AGN1 9418 / 9420 American General BB05 Baldhill Branch 26.26 17 42 ABCO AB Consulting BB03 Baldhill Branch 26.19 18 4 KES2 Kingsford Elementary School NB04 Northeast Branch Upper 26.03 19 49 RVBS Riverdale Baptist School WB09 Western Branch Mainstem 25.905 20 30 COC3 Collington Center CB14 Collington Branch Lower 25.89 21 43 WCOP W.F. Chesney Office Park BB03 Baldhill Branch 25.84 22 1 SFL2 Six Flags of America BN02 Northeast Branch Lower 25.83 23 24 BOCH Fox Hill Elementary School/Bowie City Hall CB03 Collington Branch Upper 25.56 24 37 ENP1 Enterprise Plaza BB10 Baldhill Branch 25.54 25 18 BOP2 Bowie Office Park CB01 Collington Branch Upper 25.44 26 33 REX1 Rexel CB11 Collington Branch Tributary 1 25.33 27 47 SRG1 Site Realty Ground WB18 Baldhill Branch 25.23 28 31 COC6 Collington Center CB10 Collington Branch Tributary 1 25.03 29 9 KEES Kettering Elementary School WB08 Western Branch Mainstem 24.98 30 13 DHS2 Duval High School BB11 Baldhill Branch 24.83 31 19 MDO1 McDonalds CB01 Collington Branch Upper 24.79 32 36 HWS2 Halliewood Subdivision BB07 Baldhill Branch 24.73 33 47 SRG2 Site Realty Ground WB19 Baldhill Branch 24.68 34 19 MDO2 McDonalds CB16 Collington Branch Upper 24.61 35 38 JOHH John Hanson Highway BB05 Baldhill Branch 24.39 36 41 SHLS Halliewood Annex BB03 Baldhill Branch 24.35 37 2SIFL Six Flags of America BN03 Northeast Branch Lower 24.28 38 40 KMCL Empire Cleaner BB03 Baldhill Branch 24.1 39 5 WPP2 Watkins Park Plaza NB01 Northeast Branch Mainstem 23.78 40 34 ENSA Entomolical Society of America BB09 Baldhill Branch 23.23 41 28 ERSE C. Elizabeth Reig Special Education Ctr. CB06 Collington Branch Middle 23.15 42 39 AGN2 9418 / 9420 American General BB03 Baldhill Branch 22.61 43 10 KMS2 Kettering Junior High School WB02 Western Branch Mainstem 22.53 44 20 CBOW City of Bowie CB01 Collington Branch Upper 22.43 45 15 CES1 Catherine T. Reed Elementary School BB12 Baldhill Branch 21.84 46 22 BOCB Bowie City Building CB02 Collington Branch Upper 21.64 47 35 HASB Halliewood Subdivision BB06 Baldhill Branch 21.43 48 8 MAC1 Manor Care WB03 Western Branch Mainstem 20.94 49 18 BOP1 Bowie Office Park CB16 Collington Branch Upper 20.76 50 7 EBCH Mt Ephriam Baptist Church WB03 Western Branch Mainstem 20.53 51 30 COC4 Collington Center CB15 Collington Branch Lower 20.36 52 21 BOBC Bowie Business Center CB01 Collington Branch Upper 20.13 53 12 EVCH Evangel Church BN04 Black Branch 19.63 54 3 LCC1 Largo Community Church NB03 Northeast Branch Upper 19.09 55 46 SMCP St. Matthias Church Property BB04 Baldhill Branch 18.5 56 11 KCR1 Kettering Crossing WB06 Western Branch Mainstem 18.38 57 1 SFL1 Six Flags of America BN01 Black Branch 18.13 58 26 AAPP Amphitheatre at Allen Pond Park CB05 Collington Branch Middle 17.14 59 3 LCC2 Largo Community Church NB07 Northeast Branch Upper 16.83 60 27 CCEN Children's Center WB17 Collington Branch Middle 16.275 61 50 INAM Int. Assoc. of Machinists CA17 Cabin Branch 16.175 62 17 HOSC Howard B. Owens Science Center BB01 Baldhill Branch 15.91 63 11 KCR2 Kettering Crossing WB07 Western Branch Mainstem 14.83 64 8 MAC2 Manor Care WB04 Western Branch Mainstem 13.48 65

56 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Table III-16. Site Ranking Summarized by Subwatershed

Site No Site Name Site Description Catchment Subwatershed Score Rank 37 ENP2 Enterprise Plaza BB05 Baldhill Branch 27.71 4 44 ENOP Enterprise Office Park BB03 Baldhill Branch 27.68 5 14 RGMS Robert Goddard Junior High School BB01 Baldhill Branch 27.53 6 45 SEES Seabrook Elementary School BB02 Baldhill Branch 27.21 8 13 DHS1 Duval High School BB01 Baldhill Branch 27.11 10 36 HWS1 Halliewood Subdivision BB06 Baldhill Branch 26.63 11 15 CES2 Catherine T. Reed Elementary School BB01 Baldhill Branch 26.28 16 39 AGN1 9418 / 9420 American General BB05 Baldhill Branch 26.26 17 42 ABCO AB Consulting BB03 Baldhill Branch 26.19 18 43 WCOP W.F. Chesney Office Park BB03 Baldhill Branch 25.84 22 37 ENP1 Enterprise Plaza BB10 Baldhill Branch 25.54 25 47 SRG1 Site Realty Ground WB18 Baldhill Branch 25.23 28 13 DHS2 Duval High School BB11 Baldhill Branch 24.83 31 36 HWS2 Halliewood Subdivision BB07 Baldhill Branch 24.73 33 47 SRG2 Site Realty Ground WB19 Baldhill Branch 24.68 34 38 JOHH John Hanson Highway BB05 Baldhill Branch 24.39 36 41 SHLS Halliewood Annex BB03 Baldhill Branch 24.35 37 40 KMCL Empire Cleaner BB03 Baldhill Branch 24.1 39 34 ENSA Entomolical Society of America BB09 Baldhill Branch 23.23 41 39 AGN2 9418 / 9420 American General BB03 Baldhill Branch 22.61 43 15 CES1 Catherine T. Reed Elementary School BB12 Baldhill Branch 21.84 46 35 HASB Halliewood Subdivision BB06 Baldhill Branch 21.43 48 46 SMCP St. Matthias Church Property BB04 Baldhill Branch 18.5 56 17 HOSC Howard B. Owens Science Center BB01 Baldhill Branch 15.91 63 12 EVCH Evangel Church BN04 Black Branch 19.63 54 1 SFL1 Six Flags of America BN01 Black Branch 18.13 58 50 INAM Int. Assoc. of Machinists CA17 Cabin Branch 16.175 62 29 COC2 Collington Center CB08 Collington Branch Lower 29.78 1 29 COC1 Collington Center CB07 Collington Branch Lower 27.93 2 30 COC3 Collington Center CB14 Collington Branch Lower 25.89 21 30 COC4 Collington Center CB15 Collington Branch Lower 20.36 52 28 ERSE C. Elizabeth Reig Special Education Ctr. CB06 Collington Branch Middle 23.15 42 26 AAPP Amphitheatre at Allen Pond Park CB05 Collington Branch Middle 17.14 59 27 CCEN Children's Center WB17 Collington Branch Middle 16.275 61 33 REX2 Rexel CB09 Collington Branch Tributary 1 27.43 7 31 COC5 Collington Center CB13 Collington Branch Tributary 1 26.56 12 31 COC7 Collington Center CB09 Collington Branch Tributary 1 26.53 13 33 REX1 Rexel CB11 Collington Branch Tributary 1 25.33 27 31 COC6 Collington Center CB10 Collington Branch Tributary 1 25.03 29 18 BOP2 Bowie Office Park CB01 Collington Branch Upper 25.44 26 18 BOP1 Bowie Office Park CB16 Collington Branch Upper 20.76 50 24 BOCH Fox Hill Elementary School/Bowie City Hall CB03 Collington Branch Upper 25.56 24 19 MDO1 McDonalds CB01 Collington Branch Upper 24.79 32 19 MDO2 McDonalds CB16 Collington Branch Upper 24.61 35 20 CBOW City of Bowie CB01 Collington Branch Upper 22.43 45 22 BOCB Bowie City Building CB02 Collington Branch Upper 21.64 47 21 BOBC Bowie Business Center CB01 Collington Branch Upper 20.13 53 1 SFL2 Six Flags of America BN02 Northeast Branch Lower 25.83 23 2SIFL Six Flags of America BN03 Northeast Branch Lower 24.28 38 6 ENSC Enterprise Shopping Center NB06 Northeast Branch Mainstem 26.48 14 5 WPP1 Watkins Park Plaza NB01 Northeast Branch Mainstem 26.33 15 5 WPP2 Watkins Park Plaza NB01 Northeast Branch Mainstem 23.78 40 3 LCC1 Largo Community Church NB03 Northeast Branch Upper 19.09 55 3 LCC2 Largo Community Church NB07 Northeast Branch Upper 16.83 60 4 KES1 Kingsford Elementary School NB05 Northeast Branch Upper 27.83 3 4 KES2 Kingsford Elementary School NB04 Northeast Branch Upper 26.03 19 10 KMS1 Kettering Junior High School WB01 Western Branch Mainstem 27.13 9 49 RVBS Riverdale Baptist School WB09 Western Branch Mainstem 25.905 20 9 KEES Kettering Elementary School WB08 Western Branch Mainstem 24.98 30 10 KMS2 Kettering Junior High School WB02 Western Branch Mainstem 22.53 44 8 MAC1 Manor Care WB03 Western Branch Mainstem 20.94 49 7 EBCH Mt Ephriam Baptist Church WB03 Western Branch Mainstem 20.53 51 11 KCR1 Kettering Crossing WB06 Western Branch Mainstem 18.38 57 11 KCR2 Kettering Crossing WB07 Western Branch Mainstem 14.83 64 8 MAC2 Manor Care WB04 Western Branch Mainstem 13.48 65

57 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Pilot Sites Five site groups were evaluated for opportunities and constraints related to the implementation of potential management practices. These five pilot site groups would include projects that would demonstrate the retrofit potential of (LID) techniques. Because these sites would showcase LID techniques, the sites will need to be highly visible. The sites should also address water quality issues and be important to the community. To address these goals, the stakeholders made a decision to locate the five pilot site groups in the following locations:

Site Group Name Site Description Subwatershed Rank 1 CES1 Catherine T. Reed Elementary School Baldhill Branch 46 1 CES2 Catherine T. Reed Elementary School Baldhill Branch 16 1 HOSC Howard B. Owens Science Center Baldhill Branch 63 1 RGMS Robert Goddard Junior High School Baldhill Branch 6 2 AAPP Amphitheatre at Allen Pond Park Collington Branch Middle 59 3 COC1 Collington Center Collington Branch Lower 2 3 COC2 Collington Center Collington Branch Lower 1 4 KES1 Kingsford Elementary School Northeast Branch Upper 3 4 KES2 Kingsford Elementary School Northeast Branch Upper 19 5 ENSC Enterprise Shopping Center Northeast Branch Mainstem 14

To demonstrate LID techniques, the stakeholders decided to have each site have a unique land use. The following land ownership and land uses were selected: (1) municipal – park, (2) municipal – school, (3) commercial – retail, and (4) commercial – office park. A further consideration, particularly for the school sites, was to physically group in order to provide superior benefits to the receiving stream. These sites are included in bold italic font in Tables III-15 and III-16.

The opportunities and constraints for each site were assessed using Form 3. Focusing on the opportunities of the site, potential treatment for storm water was considered. Preferred potential treatment applications include (LID) techniques called Integrated Management Practices (IMPs). Potential treatment applications also include SWM Best Management Practices (BMPs). Descriptions of the various IMPs / BMPs, the water quality impairments that are addressed for each IMP / BMP technique and the applicability of each IMP / BMP are found in Appendix C.

Treatment was provided for as much of the site as possible, targeting impervious areas. Treatment applications that addressed water quality, quantity control and ground water recharge were given the highest priority. Treatment applications were evaluated on the basis of the benefit provided and constructability. Constructability includes constraints such as the presence of utilities, steep slopes, existing vegetation and mature trees; the suitability of soils and ground water table; and accessibility. Parking needs of the site were assessed when proposing a potential treatment application. In those areas where parking was in short supply or where vehicular access was required, parking and access were not altered.

In many situations, diverting flow could treat additional area. One example of an inexpensive flow diversion is an asphalt “speed bump.” If the site owner would not accept a “speed bump”, a trench drain could be substituted.

58 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

After the site is assessed for the viability of treatment, specific practices are proposed. The approximate available footprint is noted on each site map. The drainage area to the treatment application is also drawn on the site map. Each treatment application is documented on Form 3. The documentation includes photographs of the proposed location. Proposed IMP’s, their locations and photos are provided in the Appendix C.

Public Participation Process

The public participation process included discussions on environmental issues, opportunities for conservation, protection and restoration and visions for the future. The results of the public participation process and proposed potential actions to address the issues raised by the stakeholders, are described in the Tables III-17, III-18 and III-19.

Table III-17 outlines general and specific environmental concerns and issues. Major issues outlined by the stakeholders are: point sources, flora and fauna, open space and forest cover, stream and water quality degradation, resource and habitat loss and government’s business practices. Several issues also pertain to the Upper Patuxent River watershed and were mentioned in that WRAS.

Table III-17: Environmental Issues Environmental Factor Issue Potential Action

Point Sources Quality of effluent Work with WSSC, City of Bowie and MDE from WWTP on WWTP effluent; Research and implement alternative wastewater treatment in sewered areas Sludge production Work with WSSC on techniques to minimize impacts Problems with Work with Maryland Environmental Service Marlboro Meadows WWTP TMDL Review TMDL studies and continue to coordinate with WSSC Rubble Fill Expansion Coordinate with MDE, Prince George’s County Health Department, MNCPPC, and business owners on policy, regulations, and Ten Year Solid Waste Plan Septic System Failure Coordinate with the Health Department, and Maintenance WSSC on alternative systems; Integrate LID techniques with decentralized wastewater systems, Coordinate with WSSC on maintenance operations for decentralized systems; Continue pilot project in the Upper Patuxent WRAS and utilize successful strategies developed in the Western Branch

59 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Environmental Factor Issue Potential Action

Flora and Fauna Invasive plants Develop invasive plant eradication program; identify pilot projects Deer population Survey measures to control population; research hunting restrictions; public education Geese management Work with Patuxent Wildlife Refuge on management strategy; develop volunteer monitoring program Pet waste Develop public outreach program for general public; work with City Parks Departments, MNCPPC and other public areas to develop pet waste stations Fish blockages Rank fish blockages; develop program to remove blockages State Endangered Fish Develop habitat protection, stream buffers and development guidelines; work with MDNR on restoration strategies Lack of anadromous See above; develop monitoring program to fish populations assess anadromous fish populations; set up stocking program Grassland Birds Develop a restoration program for grassland habitats; Develop target species for restoration; Coordinate with MDNR, NRCS MNCPPC, and the University of Maryland Forest Interior Identify and protect existing FIDs habitat; Dwelling Species Develop mechanism for increasing FIDS habitat; Require LID in sensitive areas Endangered flora Identify and protect existing habitats; Develop mechanism for increasing habitats and endangered flora; Require LID in sensitive areas Open Space and Forest Cover Fragmentation of Review Greenways program (state and local); forested area; narrow develop sensitive watershed protection areas; forest buffers Review development criteria; require LID in sensitive watershed protection areas Greenways loss See above Stream valley corridors Identify all stream valley corridors lacking adequate protection; Coordinate with MNPPC, City of Bowie and land conservation trusts on land acquisition; use as mitigation projects

60 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Environmental Factor Issue Potential Action

Open Space and Forest Cover Conservation, Coordinate with MNCPPC, place protection and recommendations from this strategy into the expansion of County’s Green Infrastructure Plan; enhance significant Greenways the “Heart of Western Branch” greenways Lack of adequate Identify and prioritize riparian areas for riparian buffers reforestation by coordinating with Patuxent River Commission, MDNR Forestry, MNCPPC and NCS; use State, local and private programs for reforestation projects Timber Harvesting Promote sustainable timber and logging and provide local markets for timber operations

Stream and Water Quality Degradation Concreted streams Investigate possible naturalization and “day lighting” of piped and concrete stream systems; develop alternative methods to improve in-stream habitat Horse stables and Use State and local enforcement action; racetrack facilities- Develop pollution prevention plans for these manure runoff type of facilities; research alternative waste disposal options, Coordinate with business and track owners; Develop/enhance outreach program Animal Farming – Coordinate with SCD and NCRS and manure runoff develop/enhance/ environmentally sensitive farming practices; promote organic and sustainable farming practices; remove barriers to organic and sustainable farming practices Crop and vegetable See above farming

Inappropriate yard Educate public about problems with yard waste disposal waste and correct disposal methods

61 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Environmental Factor Issue Potential Action

Stream and Water Quality Degradation Trash dumping along Educate public about trash problems and streams correct disposal methods; initiate neighborhood cleanup campaigns; develop/publicize pollution hotline; research regulations and strengthen if necessary; provide adequate resources for local enforcement programs Trash and See above; install trash collection systems on contamination from storm drain inlets with street sweeping storm drains; program People using storm drains for inappropriate use Stormwater pollutants Require LID for new development, and hydrological redevelopment and retrofit areas changes due to development

Pesticide and herbicide Research, develop and implement alternative application in methods for plant removal for levee systems, floodplains and streams powerlines, etc.; educate both government, utility, businesses and the general public on the benefits of meadow plantings and naturalization; join and support the Wildlife Habitat Council Current development Review development process and incorporate plans do not address LID techniques; develop Bioretention run off problems Certification Course and provide LID training manuals and workshops Erosion and denuding Use LID for urban retrofit, redevelopment and of landscape new development; use BayScaping Old stormwater Use LID for urban retrofit, redevelopment and systems new development

62 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Environmental Factor Issue Potential Action

Resource and Habitat Loss (urban and natural areas)

Stream bank and bed Use LID for urban retrofit, redevelopment and erosion, in-stream and new development; use urban forestry riparian habitat practices; coordinate with MDNR and degradation enhance existing County programs; update stream restoration bank; develop project list Lack of urban tree Use BayScaping and native plants; enhance cover and vegetation existing programs (e.g. Stream Teams) to adopt urban trees; develop Green Building practices; develop requirements for Green roofs Government Business Practices

Lack of Strengthen coordination efforts in the Western Intergovernmental Branch WRAS process in the implementation coordination phase Municipality Develop Municipal forum; continue Steering representation in Committee/Stakeholder meetings and WRAS process coordinate with municipalities on projects; provide funding and technical expertise to Municipalities and their staff Poor communication of Develop/continue public education and “green” issues with the outreach efforts on green issues, solicit general public and stakeholder input; provide incentives for development “green” programs to businesses and citizens community

Comments on the three areas (conservation, protection and restoration) are shown in Table III- 18. Potential actions were added to each comment. Several comments

Table III-18: Opportunities and Areas for Conservation, Protection and Restoration Issue Opportunity/Area Potential Action Conservation

Support land trusts to Identify and coordinate with land trusts, Soil help with private Conservation Districts conservation efforts 63 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Environmental Factor Issue Potential Action

Conservation

Support funding for Place conservation programs in the Prince conservation programs George’s County’s Livable Communities Initiative as a priority Protection

Protect stream valley Coordinate with WSSC on identifying and and streams from sewer repairing sewer leaks and providing adequate lines and Waste Water buffers Treatment Plants Protect and enhance Coordinate with MNCPPC on zoning, green infrastructure on greenways and Master Plans; Provide political second, third and fourth support for greenway program and order streams in the enhancement Western Branch tributaries and mainstem. Acquire larger buffers Work with land trusts, MNCPPC and MDNR for Belt Woods to enhance connections to the “Heart of the Western Branch in Western Branch WRAS Restoration

Restore local streams Select priority watersheds and streams for by using a variety of restoration; develop comprehensive plan techniques that include using appropriate environmental techniques in LID techniques in the a concerted and holistic manner. watershed; enhance urban vegetation with LID, BayScaping and urban reforestation programs and stream and habitat projects Sludge entrenchment Coordinate with Health Department, MDE site on Rt. 202 and property owner on containment methods discharging nitrate into Patuxent River

There were four major themes that the Stakeholders offered as visions. These included protection and restoration natural resources (forests, streams, biotic communities, etc.), improvement water quality using LID, promoting and incorporating Green Building and

64 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY providing and protecting public access to the main stem of the Western Branch (see Table III-19 for vision statements).

Table III-19: Visions for the Future Vision

Foster community wide awareness and responsibility for water resources and better stewardship of natural resources so that every individual is involved and becomes part of the solution

Restore streams throughout Bowie and educate the public about proper disposal of trash or yard waste

Protect sensitive species in the Western Branch watershed and increase/restore their habitats

Provide incentives to land owners to restore grassland bird habitat

Provide buffers along streams and river to protect water quality and habitat

Protect and increase habitat for FIDS

Develop low impact trails providing a way to explore the Western Branch and provide educational opportunities on the main stem (history)

Restore the State endangered fish habitat to historic levels

Restore spawning runs of migratory fish to historic levels and locations

Permanently protect the corridor along the Western Branch and its tributaries and remove gaps in the Greenways

Keep the “Heart of the Western Branch” beating strong and protect and enhance its greenways

Create a public and private protected greenway along main stem of the Western Branch; improve water quality and provide appropriate public access

65 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Vision

Every new development in the watershed must use LID and Green Building

Incorporate LID and Green Building retrofit into every day business practices for both public and private enterprises

Stakeholders selected several sites for preservation and LID retrofit. Several pilot LID retrofit projects have funding and are part of the implementation phase.

Basin Condition Score

In Prince George’s County, the twenty four subwatersheds were scored using the individual metrics developed under the Basin Condition Score Methodology and summing those metrics to obtain the final overall score. Figure III-13 specifies the final score for the watersheds.

The BCS rating has shown good discrimination in rating the twenty subwatersheds within Prince George’s County in both the Upper Patuxent and Western Branch WRASs. This system has demonstrated a range of score throughout the methodology’s spectrum. Table III-20 illustrates the ranking and the preliminary priority given to the each subwatershed. The priority ranking is from the lowest to the highest (very poor to good). There are no subwatersheds rated as very poor, sixteen rated as poor, eight rated as fair and none rated as good.

Table III-20: Ranking of Twenty Four Subwatersheds in Prince George’s County (BCS)

Watershed BCS Score Rating Western Branch Mainstem Fair 1 Northeast Branch Lower Fair 2 Black Branch Fair 3 Collington Tributary 1 Fair 4 Charles Branch Lower Fair 5 Folly Branch Fair 6 Back Branch Fair 7 Collington Branch Middle Fair 8 Collington Tributary 2 Poor 9 Collington Branch Lower Poor 10 Northeast Branch Upper Poor 11 East Branch Poor 12 Cabin Branch Poor 13 Collington Tributary 3 Poor 14 Charles Branch SW Branch Poor 15 Collington Branch Upper Poor 16 Northeast Branch Mainstem Poor 17 Charles Branch Upper Poor 18

66 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Watershed BCS Score Rating Lottsford Branch Poor 19 Federal Spring Branch Poor 20 Turkey Branch Poor 21 Baldhill Branch Poor 22 Southwest Branch Lower Poor 23 Southwest Branch Upper Poor 24

Not surprisingly, the more developed the watershed, the lower the BCS score and concurrently the higher the ranking; conversely, the less dense the developed area, the better the score and ranking. The unassessed watersheds are high priority for County personnel to perform SCA’s and other assessments that would be applicable.

The WRAS stakeholders selected the Upper Collington Branch, Lottsford Branch and Southwest Branch Upper as priority restoration subwatersheds. All three watersheds have an overall BCS rating as poor and were rated 16, 19 and 24 respectively. There has been significant citizen interest and involvement from the School System, local schools, Prince George’s Community College, the County and the City to improve stream health and restore and protect the terrestrial, riparian and in-stream habitats.

The Upper Collington Branch is located in the City of Bowie and Southwest Upper and Lottsford are entirely in the unincorporated portions of Prince George’s County. These watersheds are rapidly developing with a mix of older developments and communities that have little or no stormwater management. Significant opportunities for LID retrofit, stream restoration and protection/conservation/restoration of forest “greenways’” are obtainable.

Priority watersheds for protection and conservation were the top six subwatersheds (Western Branch Mainstem, Northeast Branch Lower, Black Branch, Collington Tributary 1, Charles Branch Lower and Folly Branch) and Northeast Branch Upper (rating of poor). These subwatersheds constitute considerable forested Greenways, endangered flora and fauna and include the “Heart of Western Branch”. The “Heart” is the most important greenway feature (see Figure III-14) in the Western Branch watershed and provides a unique opportunity for both protection and enhancement of fragile ecosystems by showcasing sustainable development and conservation measures in developing watersheds.

67 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Figure III-13: Prince George's County Overall Basin Condition Scores for Western Branch Subwatersheds

68 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Heart of the Western Branch

Figure III-14: The Heart of the Western Branch

69 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

IV. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

INTRODUCTION

Since the end of World War II, the American Dream has been defined as a house in the suburbs and two cars in the driveway. Jacques Cousteau thought population growth would prove to be the primary source of environmental damage and according to census projections, his assertions were correct. There is currently almost twice the number of people living in the United States than our natural resources can sustain and yet it is estimated that approximately100 million new households will be formed during the next century. The construction of the new houses today consumes two fifths of all the lumber and plywood used in the country each year, and a typical 1,700 square-foot wood-frame house requires the equivalent of 1 acre of trees. With Maryland loosing almost 10,000 acres a year of forest, and a current reforestation rate of between 1-3,000 acres per year, serious measures are required to control growth, development and natural resource depletion.

Significant environmental impacts result from the more than 15 million people living in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. All life within an ecosystem is dependent on healthy water and it is affected by everything humans do, and don't do. Daily human activities, from fertilizing lawns to driving cars, to building homes and parking lots, have an impact on water quality. Pollutants that rainwater comes into contact with between the time it leaves the sky and the time it enters the Bay diminish the overall water quality of the Bay. More than 60 percent of water pollution today comes from contaminants in stormwater run off like car oil, agricultural fertilizers, and failing septic tanks. Rain falls onto roofs, drains onto pavement, and into gutters to be diverted to stormwater management ponds.

Many Americans consider urban sprawl to be the fastest growing threat to their local environment. They are starting to question the wisdom of growing faster than infrastructures can support or service and are beginning to recognize that decades of road construction have not and may not alleviate traffic congestion. Every day, 130 people relocate to Maryland, which results in an increase to the State’s population of 46,000 people annually. As urban communities continue to increase the amount of land covered by impervious surfaces, the natural hydrology in stream systems is altered. Some controls have been established in order to mitigate the impacts of increased surface runoff, to reduce the non-point pollution in runoff that effects water quality, and to ensure groundwater replenishment. Stormwater, site planning, stream buffer, and forest conservation and reforestation requirements are intended to minimize the extent of necessary impervious surfaces associated with approved land uses, capture and slow down runoff peak flows to mimic predevelopment flows to the extent feasible, and reduce pollutants in runoff.

Successful watershed restoration requires a many faceted, comprehensive and holistic approach that utilizes innovative methods combined with a committed private/public effort. Community buy in and active involvement in the development and implementation of any restoration plan, is the cornerstone to a sustainable program to improve, protect and conserve our natural resources.

New, innovative methods and thought processes are also necessary to slow down, stop and reverse the degradation of our living resources and our environment. Linking separate disciplines such as wastewater and stormwater and providing a forum for experts from diverse 70 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY fields to experiment and develop new ways of integrating treatment options, can bring about real progress in reducing human impacts to our groundwater and surface water environments. Incorporating LID and Green Building in a whole site design for new development, redevelopment and urban retrofit are fundamental components for sustainable development. Environmentally sensitive farming, timbering and production/manufacturing procedures are also key to sustainable communities. Necessary steps to provide successful Livable and sustainable communities include:

• Demonstration projects that illustrate innovative systems; • Incentives for businesses, property owners, developers and builders for LID/Green Building projects; • Disincentives for projects that encourage sprawl and conventional development; • Educational forums, workshops, certification courses on LID and Green Building philosophy, techniques and How-to’s tailored towards public and private professionals, property owners and managers, developers, builders and businesses; • Training and public education for the general public, homeowners, HOAs, and community organizations on LID and Green Building; • Empower citizens in policy and decision making; • Remove artificial barriers to pioneering designs, operations, procedures and techniques; • Develop economic opportunities for local products that are “green” and sustainable (e.g. organic farming, sustainable timber harvesting, native plant nurseries); and • Create market inducements by employing “Government by Example” (e.g. purchasing local products, implementing LID/Green Building measures);

The partnership between the City of Bowie and Prince George’s County has demonstrated that neighboring jurisdictions can forge a strategy that can be implemented across political boundaries by developing watershed wide restoration programs. In concert and separately, both the City and the County are also implementing retrofit and/or restoration projects in their respective subwatersheds.

Watershed Wide Programs And Local Government Programmatic Changes

Prince George’s County and the City of Bowie with cooperative input from their watershed partners have developed an implementation strategy that incorporates programmatic changes and provides common restoration approaches on a watershed wide basis. There are several key components:

• Low Impact Development Approach • Green Building Plan • Green Schools • Green Acres Strategy • Migratory Fish Program • Stream Restoration Mitigation Bank • River Monitoring Methods • Western Branch Watershed Association and Friends of the Subwatersheds

71 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

These programs will be implemented both watershed wide and on the subwatershed level. Potential projects for each of these elements have been identified in the LID, SCA, water quality and biological assessments (see section III and appendices).

Funding can be one of the major roadblocks for effective implementation of watershed restoration plans. Prince George’s County and the City of Bowie both have successful grant programs. For example, the County obtained $1 million dollars from the United States Congressional Initiative on Decentralized Stormwater and Wastewater Systems for demonstration projects in the Upper Patuxent River Watershed. For the Western Branch WRAS, smaller grants have been received for LID retrofits and public outreach and education. The County and the City will continue to pursue grants both as a partnership and individually, for restoration projects. Appendix F outlines potential grants. Other funding mechanisms include the County and City Capital programs, future Congressional initiatives for innovative technologies, USCOE programs and the State Revolving Fund.

Low Impact Development Approach

Low Impact Development is an integrated, comprehensive and holistic approach to stormwater management. The County has been a leader in this innovative strategy to control stormwater on site and mimic predevelopment conditions using integrated management practices, whole site design, preservation and conservation. In this WRAS, the County is concentrating on requiring Low Impact Development in sensitive watersheds. DNR has identified three areas for sensitive species and these watersheds that contain the sensitive species should be designated as sensitive watersheds. A second objective is to construct, encourage and require retrofits and redevelopment using LID. The County’s goal is to construct two projects per year.

Green Building Plan

Green Building, by utilizing cleaner products in building construction and by incorporating whole site design, can reduce the amount of pollutants and storm water leaving the site. Green is the term given to high efficiency buildings (also known as sustainable buildings). Green buildings, unlike typical contemporary buildings, are designed through an integrated process that marries new technologies with low tech, natural systems and concepts to create buildings that use our limited resources efficiently and minimize their impact on the environment.

One of the biggest environmental problems today is the consumption of fossil fuels, resulting in air pollution, water, and soil pollution. Automobiles and factories are the most obvious fossil fuel perpetrators, but buildings consume more than half the energy used worldwide. Decisions made during the design and construction of a building will affect the environmental performance of that building for decades.

As rapid growth and development inherently impact wildlife habitat and the environment, governmental leaders must consider adopting and implementing more environmentally sensitive land use practices. The well being of residents and the natural environment is completely reliant on clean water, air, and soil. As stewards of the 64,000 square miles of land with hundreds of thousands of rivers, creeks and streams draining into the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, local governments must recognize that what happens within their jurisdictions, impacts ecosystems well beyond their boundaries, and affects future generations of wildlife and human inhabitants. 72 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Governments must develop solutions to uncontrolled, apparently "sprawling", development that better define how and where new development should occur. As with the United Nations and the United States Federal Government, the State of Maryland has committed itself towards accomplishing specific goals that would ensure environmental protection of the State's natural resources. The Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement supports local governments and other stakeholders to adopts and implement sustainable land use principles that:

• Protect Water Quality • Use Land Sustainably • Protect and Restore Native Habitat • Engage the Community in Environmental Stewardship

Incorporating pollution prevention principles into the operations of government agencies, businesses, and residents will not only ensure better water quality for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, but also provide healthier air quality and promote human health. Green House Keeping policies mandate agencies purchase and utilize nontoxic cleaning materials. Clean Air policies encourage the purchase of Alternative Fuel Vehicles and the construction of hiker/biker trail systems that provide an alternative mode of transportation. Telecommuting policies, also a clean air initiative, minimizes the number of commuters on the already congested highway system, and reduces fossil fuel consumption. Green Building policies and programs promote more responsible land use, and ensure cleaner air, soil and water.

Prince George’s County and the City of Bowie as well as other government agencies have adopted or are in the process of adopting policies that will begin to ensure more sustainable land use and resource consumption. By restoring, maintaining and enhancing the pre-development environs within the development sites with the incorporation of Low Impact Development, Green Building, renewable energy, and conservation landscaping techniques, and by implementing policies that encourage sustainable, responsible development, communities can effectively reduce overland runoff and diminish the erodible soils, nutrients, and metals being transported to rivers and streams, and assist in improving-stream habitat and biotic communities.

Programmatic Changes

Pertinent programmatic changes include:

Prince George’s County

The County is currently developing a Green Building program that will incorporate these components: • Adopt standards and guidelines for both retrofit of existing buildings and new development; • Conduct demonstration projects; • Develop extensive public outreach and education program on Green Building and innovative stormwater management; • Integrate innovative stormwater management practices (LID) and Green Building into a seamless site and building design for retrofit, redevelopment and new development;

73 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

• Provide incentives for Green Building and LID to developers, homeowners, and property owners; • Institute code and regulatory changes to permit and encourage LID and Green Building for retrofit, redevelopment and new development in the County; and, • Incorporate into the County’s Green Infrastructure Plan and the Livable Communities Initiative.

The Western Branch WRAS will address the retrofit of existing buildings with Green Building techniques. The Green Building program development timeline is expected to be a two-year process. Mechanisms include County resolutions, building code revisions (e.g. allowing straw bale construction), stormwater code revisions (integration of site and building designs) and implementation of demonstration projects. Under the Anacostia WRAS, redevelopment and new development for Green Building, alternative vehicle programs, telecommunication policies and business practices will be addressed. Specific steps are outlined under the Programmatic Changes section.

The City of Bowie

• Bowie Development Review Guidelines • Bowie Stormwater Ordinance • Resolution R-15 Municipal Green Building and LID Policy • Resolution R-16 Rebuild America Partnership • Greenway Infrastructure Strategy Plan • Green House Keeping Policy • Telecommuting Policy • Alternative Fuel Vehicle Program

Demonstration Projects

Actions and decisions made by local governments will influence corporate and residential practices. Local governments have the ability to revise building ordinances and operational policies that would encourage such environmentally sensitive land use practices region wide. Demonstration projects conducted by local governments bring techniques already mandated by Federal and State legislation into the private sector, and serve to provide local data with which policy/ordinance changes may be made. Governments with such visible examples are better able to educate and encourage developers and residents to build in such a way that benefits our watershed. Projects currently underway consist of:

Prince George’s County

Inglewood Center 3 LID and Green Building Retrofit Project:

A. Project need

The Inglewood Center 3 government office building at 9400 Peppercorn Place in Largo, MD in the Western Branch watershed (see attached map). The site is located in a sprawling commercial and office complex. The building was built in 1988 and is the 74 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY headquarters for three Prince George’s County Departments: the Department of Environmental Resources (DER), Department of Public Works and Transportation (DPW&T) and the Department of Housing. The Permits office (DER) is also located at this site. The site area is 7.8 acres.

The upper free-flowing portion of the Western Branch, where the site is located, runs through both urban and forest lands; however, there is significant development pressure and innovative sustainable development techniques are needed to protect water quality and natural systems (e.g. forests, wetlands, streams). When this building was constructed, no onsite storm water management controls were installed. An existing in- stream regional SWM pond is located downstream on an unnamed tributary to Southwest Branch (a tributary to Western Branch). In 1998, two island bioretention cells were installed in the rear parking lot. Data collected on one of the cells indicated there was significant reduction in heavy metals, some reduction in phosphorus and mixed results for nitrogen. Since their construction, technology for bioretention has significantly improved and the specifications have been updated to reflect those improvements.

Specific watershed and natural resource needs that this project will address are:

• Localized flooding and drainage issues; • Aquatic biological and in-stream habitat impairments; • Hydrological changes in the subwatershed; • Pollutant loads and water quality; and • Terrestrial habitat loss.

Flooding occurs at the McCormick Drive Bridge, approximately ¼ mile downstream of the proposed project and is a result of the increased runoff from this site and neighboring buildings. The biological assessment of the Southwest Branch watershed is poor for benthic macroinvertebrates and non-supporting for physical habitat. Pollutant loads to the receiving stream are not mitigated at the site level, except at the two pilot bioretention cells. Hydrological changes from the development have not been addressed and have negatively impacted the receiving stream contributing to streambed and bank erosion. The project will demonstrate effective LID and Green Building retrofit approaches that will be replicated at public and private commercial and office facilities in the area and throughout the County. Community involvement in the project through workshops, training and volunteer opportunities is an integral component.

B. Objectives: This project will provide a comprehensive, holistic LID and Green Building retrofit demonstration project. The County has developed a Green Building Retrofit form under the Western Branch WRAS and plans to perform an audit to provide feasible, doable Green Building retrofits for the existing building. Proposed retrofits will be used as a model for retrofit opportunities at other public and commercial buildings. Specific objectives of this proposal are:

1) Development of an integrated and comprehensive site design that incorporates LID and Green Building techniques that can be replicated by public and private entities at commercial and office complexes. This site design will include site, SWM, Sediment and Erosion, Building and Landscaping plans 75 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

2) Construction of several LID/Green Building facilities to demonstrate the effectiveness of innovative SWM approaches and the integration of LID and Green Building disciplines for urban retrofit. LID practices that will be considered for this project are shown in attachment A and include but are not limited to: Green Roof, island bioretention, weep wall bioretention, BayScaping/Conservation Landscaping, planter box bioretention, pervious pavers and rain gardens (shallow landscaped depressions that treat residential runoff on lot). Specific LID techniques that will be constructed are five island bioretention, up to two weep wall bioretention, amended soil areas, retrofit two existing bioretention cells to current standards, and BayScaping/Conservation Landscaping areas Specific Green Building techniques may include shielding outdoor lighting, energy efficient devices, sustainable flooring and environmentally sensitive paints. 3) Development and implementation of educational workshops for the general public and professional community that also provides training in the design, installation, inspection and construction of LID/Green Building practices. The County will utilize the Stream Teams and From Rainbows to Rain Gardens public outreach programs to train citizens volunteers on LID and Green Building and will develop workshop(s) for the professional community. 4) Provide Measurable Environmental Results (MERs) Goals for: • Heavy metals (Cu, Pb, Zn • Nutrients: Phosphorus: and Nitrogen • Energy Conservation • Hydrological improvements 5) Provide blue print for County owned and maintained facilities to establish and improve their SWM and Green Building function. 6) Installation of a native plant “grow out” garden. This garden will be multifunctional; some of the functions are outlined below: • Provide training opportunities for the general public, public and private maintenance workers, garden clubs, etc. on distinguishing between weeds and “baby” plants, • Be a resource for this building and possibly other County facilities for “replacement” plants (i.e. replace dead plants) and thus reduce maintenance burden, • Train volunteers, the general public, public and private maintenance workers, professionals on care and maintenance, types of plants and their use, • Provide community service opportunities, and • Planting instruction for perennials, shrubs and trees.

C. Overall context

The anticipated results and outcomes of this project addresses the specific commitments identified in the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. Particularly, this innovative project will provide:

76 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

1) Vital Habitat Protection and Restoration: The proposed project site is a priority urban LID and green building retrofit for the Western Branch Watershed Restoration Action Strategy. 2) Water Quality Protection and Restoration: The Patuxent is shifting from a point-source-dominated system to a non-point-source-dominated system. Due to this change, and the fact that most of the nutrient reductions to date have been from point sources, many of the future improvements will need to come from non-point source improvements. LID technology captures and treats non-point source nutrients, sediments, and toxics with quantifiable results. Because of the developed nature of the Patuxent basin, retrofit projects are especially useful. By demonstrating the full range of LID retrofit techniques and piloting the integration of LID and green building retrofit techniques; this project supports the commitment to reduce pollutant loads and restore watersheds in priority urban waters. 3) Sound Land Use: An important principle of sound land use is to concentrate development in developed areas. The challenge is to allow for growth without exceeding TMDL restrictions or losing urban green space. This project will show how that challenge can be met with LID and green building technologies that also enhance the urban esthetic and foster a sense of place. 4) Stewardship and Community Engagement: This project provides information to enhance the ability of businesses, citizens and community groups to participate in Bay restoration activities on their property and in their local watershed. There will be training opportunities for landscape professionals as well as the general public. 5) Government by Example: The proposed project site is a County office building that contains County permitting services and housing programs. By making this property a showcase for LID and green building techniques, every “customer” of these programs will see a graphic demonstration of the County’s commitment to Bay restoration. This will also serve as a demonstration for the County’s Livable Communities Initiatives. Finally, the project will provide training for maintenance staff, thus building County capacity to lead by example.

The project will be designed to mimic predevelopment hydrology, show the efficacy of retrofitting developed sites using LID techniques and will serve as a master plan for the County’s Green Infrastructure Initiative to protect sensitive watersheds. In addition, this site complements the joint County, US Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) watershed assessment plan. in the Western Branch watershed. The study concentrated on aquatic, riparian and wetland environments. Urban retrofit opportunities were also investigated in selected subwatersheds including Southwest Branch.

DER has received a grant to produce an integrated site design and construct five bioretention facilities under the Maryland Department of Natural Resources Green Initiative. The grant period for the Green Initiative is anticipated to begin in March 2005 and run to November 2005 for Phase 1 (Design) and Phase 2 (Construction) should begin in January 2006 to December 2006. The County also has applied for the Legacy/Small Watershed grant and plans to use funding from the Legacy/Small Watershed program for the construction of several additional LID/Green Building practices, and planting 77 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

materials; thus, providing a more robust demonstration of real sustainable and environmentally sensitive retrofits.

The City Of Bowie

The Parks and Grounds Sustainable Development Demonstration Project:

The City of Bowie Green Building and Sustainable Site Demonstration Project will present the opportunity for a community collaboration to further this goal because it will model environmentally sensitive building techniques and reduce energy consumption.

Following LEED protocol, City staff and the Project Partners will work in conjunction with a LEED certified design firm (comprising the Project Team) to ensure that extensive and thorough consideration be made to the overall sustainability and replicability of this project. This demonstration project hopes to achieve defined goals, which include significant reductions in energy usage, construction site waste, water consumption, stormwater runoff, and non-point pollution. In doing so, a new precedent may be established that would influence future development standards.

Objectives: In compliance with the Sound Land Use goal (the first of five Chesapeake 2000 Agreement goals to relate to this project), the primary objective of the City’s Demonstration Project is to promote and demonstrate Green Building concepts, and increase public awareness of the environmental issues related to construction/development and land use. By serving as a model for other community agencies, businesses, developers, architects, contractors, and homeowners, the project partners intend to demonstrate that responsible land use through sustainable design and Green construction has both environmental and economic benefits. The City of Bowie spends approximately one million dollars annually on energy. This project offers the opportunity to illustrate that cost savings can be achieved by building Green methods and renewable energy technology, maximizing tax dollars by minimizing utility costs, while simultaneously protecting and improving environmental resources. Going “Green” would prove to be a win-win situation.

Other potential project sites are outlined in the LID assessments report.

Public Outreach

Public education and outreach has been and will continue to serve a vital role in the development and the implementation of the Green Building Strategy as well as all watershed restoration efforts. The Strategy for future outreach efforts includes but is not limited to:

Prince George’s County

Development of County Web Pages for Green Building Technologies, Projects Development of workshops for Professionals and the General Public on Green Building Provide training using demonstration projects 78 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

City Of Bowie

The City of Bowie GREEN Page of the City’s Website The GREEN Initiatives: Public Information Presentations Public Stakeholders Meetings

Western Branch WRAS Programmatic Change: Because the County is serious about providing a comprehensive and holistic watershed restoration strategy, there are two major proposed programmatic changes for the Western Branch WRAS; one for Low Impact Development and one for Green Building. A description of the proposed changes and implementation strategy follows:

• For Prince George’s County, a policy change using LID for development in sensitive watersheds. The approach is to require that LID be used for any development projects in sensitive watersheds. The changes would be incorporated into each jurisdiction’s normal business practices. This would require policy changes for Prince George’s County, the Cities of Bowie and Laurel, MNCPPC and the private sector. A committee will be formed to implement the change. The charge to the committee will include:

- Research policies pertaining to retrofit and redevelopment - Propose recommendations to incorporate and remove barriers to LID - Identify the processes needed for the changes - Develop implementation strategy and timeline.

Committee members at a minimum would include representatives from the municipalities, County, MNCPPC, the development community and property owners. The policy committee would also address legislative and regulatory changes that may be needed. For example, some potential policy changes for the City of Bowie is:

- Incorporate LID into their City planning functions and revise pertinent codes related to new development to encourage LID. - Incorporate LID into their street review program. - Change municipal codes that may inhibit use of LID techniques (e.g. spacing requirements on landscaping; restrictions on street size)

• Policy, legislative and regulatory changes for the retrofit of existing buildings. Neither the County nor the City of Bowie has programs to retrofit their buildings with LID and Green Building techniques. This change will provide the framework by using the Inglewood Center 3 demonstration project. The demonstration project on the Green Building and LID integration should provide opportunities for further policy, legislative and regulatory changes both in local and state codes.

More detailed steps are outlined below for each proposed programmatic change:

1. Require that LID be used for new development projects. This will focus on countywide projects and include both public and private endeavors. 2. Identify, assess and implement Green Building and LID techniques in County and City facilities. 79 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Specific strategies to achieve each programmatic change are described in the following paragraphs.

To realize the requirement of using LID in sensitive watersheds, several steps will be completed. These are:

• Revise the stormwater management code and manual to require LID for any development projects located in sensitive watersheds. • Revise codes to identify sensitive watersheds (county wide) and their requirements. • Revise building codes and possibly BOCA regulations for Green Building retrofits and integration with LID. • Provide successful LID and Green Building demonstration projects for each land use type (residential, commercial, industrial and transportation) that will grant impetus for the proposed changes. • Increase internal capacity in County and municipal governments to provide a better understanding of the LID approach, and a more comprehensive review and design of innovative LID projects and Green Building, including standards and guidelines. • Provide training for local government staff and policy makers on the LID approach, techniques and design criteria and LEEDS, Green Building techniques and design criteria. • In the two other WRASs that the County has received, identify and propose changes to codes and regulations in other County agencies (e.g. Department of Public Works and Transportation), State agencies (e.g. Maryland State Highway Administration) and municipalities (e.g. the City of Bowie) to require LID and Green Building retrofits. • Obtain approval for the stormwater management code and manual changes from the appropriate state and federal agencies. • Obtain approval for the building code and manual changes from the appropriate oversite agencies such as BOCA. • Achieve buy-in on LID and Green Building from communities, the general public and the local political establishment. • Codify these changes through both the County and Municipal Councils as appropriate.

It is anticipated that the timeline for the stormwater management code and manual changes will take a minimum of two years. Some steps are dependent on other WRASs and still others are long term and are on going activities that will evolve over time.

Green Schools

The County promotes “Livable Communities” through the development and implementation of innovative cost effective solutions that protect the County’s vital environmental resources, promote public health and ensure regulatory compliance. The County is working with the public to plan, develop and deliver tangible community based environmental services/benefits, consistent with unique local needs and County’s policies, programs and objectives. Quality schools are a key element of livable communities and students can provide much-needed volunteer services. Grants fund these projects to replant and improve school rain gardens; add additional Low Impact Development features to the school grounds; enhance the environmental curriculum, provide job skills; and promote community service and stewardship. These also

80 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY provide mentoring opportunities for students. Creating partnerships with teachers and students can diminish barriers and competition between schools. Green Schools program is a broad method for integrated environmental approaches that are incorporated into the school curriculum. Examples include use of rain gardens that can demonstrate stormwater management, recycling, habitat restoration, biodiversity and soil structure. This also can provide social and economic benefits by providing incentives to students to stay in school and learn job skills (i.e. landscaping and maintenance). The County has partnered with the Prince George’s School System on several projects within the Western Branch Watershed:

A. Seabrook/Owens Science Center Green School Stream Teams Rain Garden Project Grant funding by Chesapeake Bay Trust (CBT). B. Seabrook/Robert Goddard MS Green School Stream Teams Rain Garden Project Priority project under the Western Branch WRAS and prime candidate for grant; C. Greenbelt/Eleanor Roosevelt High School Rain Garden Project CBT grant received.

Green Acres Strategy

Green Acres encompasses the terrestrial portions of the watershed and include sustainable agricultural and timbering approaches and protection, conservation and extension of habitat for aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna.

Goal: Entire Western Branch 1. Ensure that Benthic IBI and habitat scores per subwatershed at a minimum do not degrade. 2. In 20 years, increase Benthic IBI and habitat scores by a minimum of one grade. Example: if the current IBI is very poor – raise score to poor; if the current habitat score is non-supporting, raise to partially supporting 3. Use fish IBI to support the Benthic and habitat scores

Goal: Sensitive Watersheds Measurable Objectives 1. Identify, target and protect sensitive watersheds by using the biological, chemical and Basin Condition Scoring and the Sensitive areas identified by DNR. The timeline is one year. 2. Also use the these criteria for protection measures: a. State Endangered Fish 1) Habitat protection 2) Stream Buffers – determine optimum buffer and institute 3) Restore habitat 4) Development Guidelines b. Forests 1) MET and FMP criteria 2) Green Infrastructure 3) Development Guidelines c. Birds 1) FIDS Habitat criteria and protection

81 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

2) Grassland Birds Habitat criteria and protection – work with landowners to provide habitat to the targeted species. 3) CREP guidelines – encourage local, sustainable harvesting, production and selling of timber and wood products. Objective is to have five properties per year in this program. d. Backyard Bird Habitats – objective is to institute five per subwatershed per year e. Rare Plants – identify habitat, conservation and protection needs. f. Land Trust: work with the land trusts to purchase most ecologically important and threatened habitats. g. Require Low Impact Development for projects in these watersheds.

Goal: Sustainable Agriculture Measurable Objectives 1. Identify local, state and federal regulations that inhibit organic farming 2. Coordinate with Natural Resource Conservation Service, Prince George’s Soil Conservation District and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) on incentives, education and marketing strategies for local farmers to use organic approaches 3. Develop local and regional outlets for organic products 4. Educate the public on the benefits of organic products. 5. Provide funding for pilot projects that are modeled after CBF’s sustainable farm – this farm is located in the watershed.

Migratory Fish

The seven migratory species of greatest historical importance in the area were American shad, hickory shad, alewife, blueback herring, yellow perch, white perch, and striped bass. These seven remain the most important, today. They've dramatically declined in abundance in the Western Branch, the Patuxent River and the Chesapeake Bay, throughout the 20th and now the 21st centuries. Declines were primarily due to the combined effects of over harvesting, pollutants, and stream blockages. In 2002, the entire Patuxent River watershed contained 108 blockages (primarily dams and culverts), which is a relatively high number for a relatively small system. The Maryland DNR Fish Passage Program has identified 28 blockages in the Western Branch Watershed (see Western Branch Watershed Characterization, December 2003). The Stream Corridor Assessments performed for this WRAS, identified 121 fish barriers in Prince George’s County. Herring, White Perch, Yellow Perch are spawning in the mainstem and in some tributaries of the Western Branch, and Shad spawn just outside of the Western Branch in the Patuxent River (see Western Branch Watershed Characterization, December 2003).

Maryland DNR has documented the historic presence of migratory fish species in their report: “1983 Surveys and Inventory of Anadromous Fish Spawning and Nursery Areas” (Mowrer, J. and J. O'Dell). The report details numbers of migratory fish found in specific Patuxent tributaries, and provides maps to show where the species were collected. Up to the time of the Chesapeake 2000 Bay Agreement, migratory fish restoration program success was primarily based on stream "miles reopened," that is, the number of miles of stream upstream of a blockage that removed. Using "miles reopened" as the only indicator of passage success is an over- simplified measure, and ignores the importance of habitat quality above the blockage.

82 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

The Chesapeake 2000 Bay Agreement recognized the importance of "miles reopened," but also identified the need to quantify and standardize cost, habitat benefits for fish populations, and geographic location. In 2002, the Gemstone Fish Sustainability Team (a part of the Gemstone Program at the University of Maryland, College Park) designed a model to meet the goals of the Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement. Their model consists of four factors: historical presence of migratory fish populations; stream miles reopened; indices of the condition of individual Patuxent watersheds compiled by the Chesapeake Bay Program; and recently collected habitat data associated with each blockage. The conceptual design of their model may be a suitable tool for use by Prince George's County in partnership with Maryland DNR for future anadromous fish monitoring, assessment and restoration programs. The model centralizes a decision-making process that typically involves fisheries managers, biologists, engineers, economists, managers and landowners. Use of the model provides a preliminary prioritization, i.e., establishes a passage (or restoration) priority for a given watershed, which informs decision-makers as to which blockages should be studied further by fisheries managers for actual passage implementation.

An interesting aspect in considering the use of the conceptual design of this model is that the County, the City and Maryland DNR could use their existing network of biological contractors and volunteers to gather the input information with State monitoring. It's also possible that (in some cases) existing data that's been gathered to date by the contractors and volunteers may by used as model input. The SCA data would also be good input data for the model. An important aspect of this model approach is that it would result in a "benefit rating," or measure of the probability that removing (or bypassing) a blockage will increase migratory fish populations (based on a weighted sum of benefit components -- stream miles upstream of the blockage, historic presence of migratory fish, and the quality of the habitat above the blockage. By collecting some simple habitat parameter data at known blockages, combining it with some desk- top stream mile measurement and historical fish presence homework, and applying it all to the model framework, it would be a method to prioritize locations/watersheds for potential future migratory fish restoration efforts (e.g., blockage removal, fish passage technology installation and/or habitat improvement).

Maryland has had extensive hatchery and stocking programs for migratory species and Maryland DNR Fisheries Service has been conducting a project to restore populations of American shad and hickory shad in the Patuxent River watershed (which Western Branch is apart of). It's important to realize that removal of a migration blockage or installation of a passage technology doesn't guarantee that fish will return even if habitat is suitable upstream of the blockage. Stocking in upstream habitats with migratory species to encourage spawning in that area (and increase the likelihood that fish will return to the area in subsequent years) is the goal of the project. This is where post-restoration monitoring would come into the picture, e.g., to determine whether fish are naturally returning to the area or whether there's a need for a reintroduction/stocking program.

Prince George’s County, the City of Bowie and the Patuxent Wildlife Refuge are interested in coordinating with MDNR on the restocking project. Cooperative efforts may be expanded to include the development of a network of volunteer programs. This network could include incorporating existing educational hatching, stocking and monitoring programs (e.g. Chesapeake Bay Foundation) as well as “filling the gaps” by creating new projects. Cooperative partnerships could be formed with schools, universities, fishing and environmental groups, and community 83 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY organizations. This effort will dovetail well with both state and national migratory fish initiatives. Prince George’s County has identified the two potential pilot schools (Owens Science Center and Duvall High School).

Another potential project is to work with the Fisheries Service of DNR to develop a sport fish area in the mainstem of Western Branch in Upper Marlboro. This is an excellent spot for game fishing that could provide a location for fisherman to park. LID techniques may be included to control the runoff.

River Monitoring Methods- Proposed Pilot Study

There are no accepted non-wadeable monitoring methods for large rivers for both fish and benthos. The States of Michigan and Mississippi, and the USEPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), are testing methods to monitor large rivers. EMAP is working predominantly in western rivers. Though testing hasn't been completed, it seems that the methods are heading towards sampling along the shores for both fish and benthos. The sampling reach includes both sides of the river channel over very long distances (around 30-40x the wetted width). Boats would be used for both benthos and fish and the sampling method would be electroshocking for fish, D-frame net for benthos in snags, vegetation, root mats and other appropriate habitats.

A pilot study to test this monitoring method in the Patuxent River and the Western Branch is an objective for Prince George's County, in partnership with Maryland DNR, Maryland Monitoring Council and the U.S.EPA. The mainstem of the Western Branch from the Patuxent River to the Town of Upper Marlboro might be a good area for this pilot. The study may be used to determine the status of the biotic community and gauge the effectiveness of management practices on larger river systems, such as the Patuxent. Grants, congressional initiatives and cooperative partnerships are some ways to fund this type of project. Anne Arundel and Prince George’s will coordinate with the appropriate State and Federal agencies to determine the scope and interest in this type of monitoring effort.

In addition to the fish blockage removal projects identified in Section III and Appendix D, the implementation strategy for restoring historic migratory fish populations will include the following actions: • Development of prioritization approach such as the Gemstone Fish Sustainability Team model using SCA and County data • Coordination with Maryland DNR programs and others for fish stocking and monitoring • Development of a volunteer network to support restoration of those fisheries • Implementation of a pilot project for large river monitoring in the Patuxent River

Stream Restoration Mitigation Bank

Prince George’s County is continuing the work to establish a stream restoration bank modeled after wetland mitigation banking programs that was begun in the Upper Patuxent WRAS. The first step is to set up an in-house list of potential mitigation projects that may be of interest to other government agencies and developers. This could be done both watershed wide and for

84 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY individual subwatersheds. Potential stream restoration mitigation sites have been identified in the SCA. Further “culling” of the list by selected field investigations would be performed. These field investigations may collect more data and determine the stream mileage to be restored. This mitigation bank would be continually updated with new projects. This potential program should increase the number of stream restoration projects.

Western Branch Watershed Association and Friends of the Subwatersheds

Building on the work begun in the development of the Upper Patuxent and Western Branch WRASs, Western Branch Watershed Association will be developed to address WRAS implementation in both Prince George’s County and the City of Bowie. The core group of members will consist of interested Steering Committee members and stakeholders identified in the WRAS process. The purpose of the watershed association will include being an advocate for sound land use practices in the watershed; assisting with the WRAS implementation; and working with the local jurisdictions to ensure that the WRAS is, indeed, a living document that will be revisited, updated, and continually implemented. Prince George’s and the City have noted that membership in local environmental organizations grows and remains strong only for those organizations whose members are interested and actively participate in activities with tangible results. To that end, the WRAS Partners will propose implementing many of the volunteer-oriented projects, as identified in the strategy, through the watershed association. Concomitantly, volunteer-oriented project implementation should serve to increase the membership of the watershed association. Friends of the Western Branch subwatersheds will also be developed. The goal is to develop Friends of all twenty-four subwatersheds delineated in this WRAS.

One of the primary communication methods for the watershed association will be via the Internet, using list serves. Prince George’s County has investigated the list serve process. A “list serve” is basically a subscription-based e-mail mailing list. It is an excellent method of distributing information within groups. From a public / community outreach standpoint, it is an efficient means of distributing all kinds of information - announcements, meeting notices, newsletters, press releases, etc. For less than the cost of a large direct mailing, a “list serve” can effectively reach a computer-literate audience and solicit an interactive response if desired.

Once set up, the “list serve” is easy to administer; adding and deleting names is easy, requiring no assistance from the hosting organization. Then, whenever there is an announcement to be made, one e-mail is created, and with the push of a button, it is sent to all the subscribers. Prince George’s County’s DER can use a “list serve” to disseminate information about its contributions to the Western Branch Watershed Restoration Action Strategy (WRAS). Subscribers would be stakeholders, the Workgroup (representatives of MDNR and the City of Bowie), the Steering Committee, volunteers and others interested in the project.

“List Serve” Options: There are two types of list serves: announce and discussion. An announce list serve is a subscription based e-mail mailing list. One e-mail message is sent to a list of subscribers with one push of the send button. Also, because it is a subscription based program, recipients can unsubscribe at any time. In terms of applicability for the project, project updates and meeting announcements can be easily disseminated to everyone for whom we currently have an e-mail address. Also, using an interactive form on the web site to invite visitors to subscribe to the lists 85 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY may be a good vehicle for increasing the list of project volunteers. A discussion list serve is subscription based as well and all subscribers can post messages to all other subscribers. Whenever one list member sends an e-mail message to the list address, it is sent to all of the list members. These discussion lists can also be monitored where all messages go through a list moderator and are posted as are deemed appropriate for the list. An example of how a list serve may be used is for discussions of Stream Teams activities among volunteers as well as stakeholders for the Western Branch WRAS. As with the announce list serve, members may unsubscribe at any time.

Archiving Options

Posted messages from discussion or announce lists can be archived for future reference. Archiving in a searchable database or in a database that is searchable from a web page. These options entail additional charges.

Subscription Options

All subscribers have the ability to unsubscribe from the “list serve” that they belong to at any time. Both announce and discussion lists can be either open, that is, anyone can subscribe; or private, where new subscribers must be approved by the list administrator.

Discussion list subscribers have the option of receiving posts one at a time, or they can receive messages posted in digest form. Digest form is where all the day's messages are combined and sent at one time.

Set Up

A “list serve” can either be hosted by a specific company, or Prince George’s County can purchase the software itself and host it through the County website. The County is investigating cost and set up information for this service

Stakeholder involvement and input to develop the Watershed Association is key to a successful organization. Prince George’s County and the City have successful stakeholder-based volunteer watershed organizations. These organizations will be used as models for the Western Branch Watershed Association. As the Watershed Association takes form, its members will determine the structure, goals, objectives, by-laws, projects, and other necessary components. The Watershed Association will become the vehicle for sustainable restoration and public education/outreach efforts in the Upper Patuxent River watershed.

In conclusion, the City of Bowie and Prince George’s County will continue their partnership in the implementation phase of the Western Branch WRAS.

Prince George’s County Subwatershed Approach

Prince George’s County will implement the recommendations outlined in Section III and Appendix D for each type of assessment (LID, Green Building, SCA, Biological and Water Quality). The County will use volunteer efforts and County resources in the projects identified. 86 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

To measure the success of these projects, various methods will be employed, appropriate to the type of project. These include both quantitative and qualitative assessments including professional and volunteer biological monitoring, BMP/IMP monitoring, physical stream assessments and surrogates such as amount and type of trash collected, the miles of stream restored, and other qualitative measures.

87 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Appendix A

Basin Condition Scoring Methodology

WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

The Basin Condition Score (BCS): a subwatershed assessment methodology used in the preparation of the Upper Patuxent River Watershed Restoration Action Strategy (WRAS)

July 2003

Christopher J. Victoria*1+ Janis Markusic 1+ Sharon Meigs2+ Danielle Lucid3+ John Scarborough4+ Z. John Licsko5

1: Anne Arundel County Office of Environmental & Cultural Resources, 2664 Riva Road, Annapolis, MD, 21401 2: Prince George’s County Department of Environmental Resources, Programs and Planning Division, Largo, MD 3: Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Chesapeake and Coastal Watershed Service, Annapolis, MD 4: Anne Arundel County Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, Annapolis, MD 5: Dewberry & Davis, LLC, Fairfax, VA * Corresponding author: [email protected], Phone: 410.222.7441 + Member, Upper Patuxent River WRAS Workgroup

WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Introduction The purpose of this document is to summarize a prioritization methodology to use in ranking subwatersheds in the Upper Patuxent River Watershed for restoration activities.

Methods In this approach, indicators were developed to evaluate overall subwatershed conditions. These indicators are based upon data collected during the Stream Corridor Assessment (SCA) performed by DNR staff, biological and water quality data collected concurrently with and prior to the SCA work, and GIS data developed by DNR and the Counties. The methods used in the SCA are found in Yetman (2001). Water quality assessment methods are described in DNR (2002). Biological assessment methods are described in Pavlik and Stribling (2003), DNR (2002) and in PGDER (1995).

Some indicators are believed to better characterize critical ecological processes. Consequently, these indicators were weighted to emphasize the importance of some variables over others when evaluating subwatershed health. Each indicator was either unweighted or had a weighting factor of 2 or 3 applied. The decision about which indicator to weight was based upon scientific literature and the best professional judgment of the authors. Besides having a lesser impact on ecological processes in a subwatershed of interest, indicators were also left unweighted if it was judged that data of poor quality had to be used to score the indicator. The authors made data quality decisions in consultation with GIS professionals and through discussions with participants of the SCA assessment.

The points for each indicator were summed to develop the Basin Condition Score (BCS), leading to a condition classification as illustrated in Table 1. In addition, individual indicators were grouped and scored under various categories, allowing an evaluation of where problems exist within a particular subwatershed even if an overall score indicates only moderate or low impairment. Using the ranges, subwatershed conditions were classified as described below:

Table 1. Scoring ranges for BCS methodology.

Subwatershed Quality Rating

Indicator Group Very Good Fair Poor Poor

<5 5-11 12-17 >17 Water Quality Conditions Living Resource Conditions <18 18-38 39-65 >65

WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

38-83 84-128 >128 Habitat Conditions <38 <33 33-72 73-111 >111 Landscape Conditions <8 8-17 18-26 >26 Hydrologic Conditions <101 101-220 221-345 >345 OVERALL BCS

A. WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS. Water quality data provide insight into the ability of organisms to survive in aquatic systems and these data also provide an indication of the impacts of development or other anthropogenic activities in a subwatershed. Water quality data were collected during a synoptic survey of the study area (DNR 2002).

WQ1—Baseflow Nitrate/Nitrite Concentration Departure

Justification: Nutrient concentrations associated with relatively unimpaired subwatersheds have been documented for Coastal Plain watersheds. In addition, excess nutrient loading has been shown to be a main impairment in Chesapeake Bay water quality.

Scoring Definition: This indicator is scored using nitrate concentration determined in synoptic sampling. The level of departure from levels listed below, which is based upon guidance from USEPA (2000) and local unpublished data, is considered indicative of impairment. An average is taken of all available concentration values within a subwatershed of interest.

Definition Score (Unweighted) Quality Rating <0.1 mg/L 1 Good 0.1 to 0.3 mg/L 4 Fair >0.30 to 0.50 mg/L 7 Poor >0.5 mg/L 10 Very Poor

WQ2—Baseflow Orthophosphorous Concentration Departure

Justification: Nutrient concentrations associated with relatively unimpaired watersheds have been documented for Coastal Plain watersheds. In addition, excess nutrient loading has been shown to be a main impairment in Chesapeake Bay water quality.

Scoring Definition: This indicator is scored using orthophosphate concentrations determined in synoptic sampling. The level of departure from levels listed below is considered indicative of impairment. These categories are based upon DNR (2002). An average is taken of all available concentration values within a subwatershed of interest and scored as described below:

WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Definition Score (Unweighted) Quality Rating <0.005 mg/L 1 Good 0.005 to 0.010 mg/L 4 Fair 0.011 to 0.015 mg/L 7 Poor >0.015 mg/L 10 Very Poor

B. LIVING RESOURCE CONDITIONS. Samples of the benthic macroinvertebrate community along with fish population data were collected in all subwatersheds. In addition, data from DNR on anadromous fish usage and on the presence or absence of threatened and endangered species was also obtained. With this information, a total of four indicators are described to evaluate overall biological conditions in the study subwatersheds. In order to evaluate overall living resource conditions, an indicator group score is calculated by summing the scores of all four indicators and scored using the ranges in Table 1.

LR1—Aquatic Insect Community Condition

Justification: Benthic macroinvertebrates are considered reliable indicators of aquatic system health (Stepenuck et al 2002). These groups integrate water quality impacts over longer time frames because of repeated exposures to whatever pollutants flow through the system, making them a more reliable indicator of water quality degradation than synoptic water quality samples.

Scoring Definition: Based upon sampling done as part of this study, the level of departure from Maryland reference values defined by work done by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources as part of its Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) resulted in the calculation of an index of biotic integrity (IBI). These IBI values are given qualitative scores that are used as described below.

Definition Score (Weighting Factor Quality Rating 3) Score of Good 3 Good Score of Fair 12 Fair Score of Poor 21 Poor Score of Very Poor 30 Very Poor

LR2—Anadromous Fish Utilization

Justification: Because anadromous fishes return to the same streams each season, these species are an indicator of moderate to high quality habitat conditions. Like invertebrates, these species integrate water quality impacts over longer time frames due to the presence of multiple life history phases utilizing these areas. Scoring Definition: The presence or absence from subwatersheds as detailed in Mowrer and McGinty (2002) forms the basis of the score. A total five species are evaluated: yellow perch,

WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY white perch, American shad, blueback herring, and alewife. Because of the age of the data, this indicator is unweighted.

Definition Score (Unweighted) Quality Rating 4 or 5 species use the 1 Good subwatershed 2 or 3 species use the 4 Fair subwatershed 1 or 2 species use the 7 Poor subwatershed No species use the subwatershed. 10 Very Poor

LR3—Presence/Absence of Sensitive Species Protection Areas

Justification: Loss of biodiversity is indicative of an impacted subwatershed. The presence of areas supporting rare or endangered species signify high quality habitat within that subwatershed.

Scoring Definition: Because of the nature of the GIS data associated with this indicator, exact locations, numbers, and extent of distribution are not know for the species in question. Consequently, the presence or absence of these species is used to score this indicator.

Definition Score (Unweighted) Quality Rating 1 or more SSPA present in 1 Good subwatershed No SSPA present in 10 Very Poor subwatershed

LR4—Stream Fish Community Condition

Justification: These groups integrate water quality impacts over longer time frames because of repeated exposures to whatever pollutants flow through the system, making them a more reliable indicator of water quality degradation than collecting water quality samples. Stream fishes also occupy top carnivore niches in these systems. Depressed fish populations are effective in identifying poor stream conditions (Schleiger 2000).

Scoring Definition: For fish sampling locations, an Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) was calculated using metrics described in Roth et al (1997) with data from DNR (2000). These values are given qualitative scores that are used as described below. When more than one site within a subwatershed was sampled, an average IBI was calculated. In cases where an unsampled subwatershed evaluated with all the other indicators is nested within a

WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY larger subwatershed where the fish sampling occurred, the IBI or average IBI in the large subwatershed was applied to all the nested subwatersheds. If a nested subwatershed has been sampled as part of a larger subwatershed, only the IBI applicable to that subwatershed is used. No average is calculated for that subwatershed. Subwatersheds where sampling was attempted but no water was found receive a score of very poor. Finally, if a “no data” condition exists for this indicator in a subwatershed that is otherwise assessed, then this indicator is scored by giving it the quantitative score of habitat indicator group.

Definition Score (Weighting Factor Quality Rating 3) IBI of Good 3 Good IBI of Fair 12 Fair IBI of Poor 21 Poor IBI of Very Poor 30 Very Poor

C. HABITAT CONDITIONS. Habitat conditions were evaluated as part of the biological assessments performed in the study subwatersheds and as part of the Stream Corridor Assessment (SCA) performed by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Using the various habitat impairment indicators evaluated during SCA and as part of the biological assessment described above, the following six indicators were developed:

HC1—Channel Erosion

Justification: Channel erosion can be a serious habitat impairment. While streams naturally erode banks and rework floodplains over time, excess streambank erosion due to watershed development results in siltation of spawning areas, smothers bottom dwelling invertebrates, and can have adverse impacts on stream channel and floodplain form and function (Waters 1995).

Scoring Definition: Data on eroding banks were collected during the SCA. Each bank was rated during the field assessment. Using the severity rating given during that evaluation, only banks rated moderate in severity or greater were used in calculating this indicator. Channelization impacts were not included in this indicator. The total amount of both banks in this condition was divided by the total amount of stream bank in the subwatershed (double the total GIS-derived stream length) and scored as described below:

Definition Score (Weighting Factor Quality Rating 3) Value <0.10 3 Good Value between 0.10 and 0.20 12 Fair Value between 0.21 and 0.30 21 Poor Value >0.30 30 Very Poor HC2—Pipe Outfalls

WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Justification: As described in Yetman (2001), pipe outfalls represent potential non-point source pollution directly piped into the stream system. The number of outfalls is also an indirect indicator of development density with more outfalls equal to increased development.

Scoring Definition: The total number of outfalls per square mile of subwatershed was calculated and scored as described below:

Definition Score (Unweighted) Quality Rating <2 per sq. mi. 1 Good 2 to 5 per sq. mi. 4 Fair 6 to 10 per sq. mi. 7 Poor >10 per sq. mi. 10 Very Poor

HC3—Buffer Conditions

Justification: Riparian buffers are necessary for stream stability and are a major component of stream habitat through the production of woody debris (Everett and Ruiz 1993, Benke et al 1985, Palmer et al 1996). Streams with more diverse and healthy biological communities tend to have more extensive streamside forested buffers.

Scoring Definition: Buffer impairment was evaluated during the SCA. Using the severity rating given during that evaluation, only buffer impairments rated moderate in severity or greater were used in calculating this indicator. Buffer conditions on both banks were evaluated, but impacts associated with channelization were not included in this indicator. Consequently, the total amount of buffer on both banks in the defined condition was divided by the total amount of potential stream buffer (double the GIS-derived stream length) and scored as described below:

Definition Quality Rating Score (Weighting Factor 3) Value <0.10 3 Good Value 0.10 to 0.20 12 Fair Value 0.21 to 0.30 21 Poor Value >0.30 30 Very Poor

HC4—Fish Barriers

Justification: Free access to habitat is necessary to preserve ecological integrity of stream systems. Barriers to migration, particularly man-made ones, disturb the natural movement of individuals and their usage of available stream habitat. Scoring Definition: Barriers associated with both natural and manmade structures are evaluated as part of the SCA. Since height of the barrier is provided, barriers greater than 12 inches are

WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY considered high enough to impede river herring, so those barriers greater that 12 inches are counted. The total percentage of stream mileage lost above all the blockages was divided by the total amount of habitat available and scored as described below:

Definition Score (Weighting Factor Quality Rating 3) Value <0.10 3 Good Value 0.10 to 0.20 12 Fair Value 0.21 to 0.30 21 Poor Value >0.30 30 Very Poor

HC5—Overall Habitat Rating

Justification: Overall habitat ratings were developed for each subwatershed using data collected as part of the biological sampling work. Instream habitat and streamside condition are well correlated with biological health and ecological function.

Scoring Definition: A subwatershed habitat rating was developed for each subwatershed based upon the total scores observed at all sites throughout a subwatershed of interest. This subwatershed composite score is given a qualitative rating as described in Pavlik and Stribling (2003) and was then used to score this indicator as described below:

Definition Score (Weighting Factor Quality Rating 3) Rating of Comparable 3 Good Rating of Supporting 12 Fair Rating of Partially Supporting 21 Poor Rating of Non-Supporting 30 Very Poor

HC6—Channel Alterations

Justification: Channelization and other alterations of stream systems typically have adverse impacts on water quality (Maxted et al, 1995), stream geomorphology (Hupp 1992, Waters 1995), and biological communities (Waters 1995). Scoring Definition: Channel alterations are evaluated as part of the SCA. Using the severity rating given during that evaluation, only channel alterations rated moderate in severity or greater were used in calculating this indicator. The total length of channel altered is divided by the total amount of stream length to obtain the following:

WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Definition Score (Weighting Factor Quality Rating 2) Value <0.10 2 Good Value 0.10 to 0.20 8 Fair Value 0.21 to 0.30 14 Poor Value >0.30 20 Very Poor

D. LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS. Various subwatershed-wide landscape conditions were evaluated using GIS data. The following seven indicators were developed and are described below:

LC1—Current % Imperviousness

Justification: There is evidence to suggest that total levels of impervious surface in a watershed are directly related to a watershed’s overall condition (Schueler and Holland 2000).

Scoring Definition: As described in Schueler and Holland (2000), streams with less than 10% total impervious surface are considered relatively unimpaired, those between 10 and 25% are stressed, while those with greater than 25% are considered impaired. Imperviousness can be estimated using impervious coefficients derived from local land use conditions in the geographic area where the watershed of interest in located. For subwatersheds in Anne Arundel County, imperviousness is estimated using land use data from 1995 with impervious coefficients derived from AA County (2002b) applied to the total area of each land use polygon. The land use categories in the 1995 data set were more general than the ones used in AA County (2002b). Consequently, the 1995 land use data were overlaid on to year 2000 aerial photography in order to determine which category was appropriate for use. Subwatersheds in Prince George’s County also used locally derived coefficients to determine imperviousness.

Definition Quality Rating Score (Weighting Factor 3) ≤10% 3 Good 11-18% 12 Fair 19-25% 21 Poor >25% 30 Very Poor

LC2--ROAD CROSSINGS

Justification: The number of road crossings on streams has been shown to relate to sediment delivery to developing watersheds (Haskins and Mayhood 1997). Increased numbers of road crossings are also associated with increased watershed development as roadways are constructed to support development needs.

WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Scoring Definition: The higher the number of crossings, the more potential for adverse impacts on stream channel conditions. Dividing the total number of road crossings by subwatershed area in square miles provides the indicator score, as described in Haskins and Mayhood (1997).

Definition Score (Unweighted) Quality Rating <1.5 1 Good 1.5 to 2.0 4 Fair >2.0 to 3.0 7 Poor >3.0 10 Very Poor

LC3—FOREST POLYGON EDGE/AREA

Justification: The presence of large forest blocks has been shown to have a positive impact on aquatic and terrestrial species (Rich et al 1994) while forest fragmentation has been demonstrated to have adverse impacts on species that depend upon intact forest areas (Gates and Evans 1996)

Scoring Definition: The more intact the forest area within a subwatershed, the greater the continuity of forest area within the subwatershed. This indicator is calculated by dividing the total perimeter (feet) of all forest polygons by the area (square feet) of all the forest polygons. Because of the uncertainty associated with the GIS characterization of the necessary data layers, this indicator is unweighted.

Definition Score (Unweighted) Quality Rating < 0.006 1 Good 0.006 to 0.008 4 Fair 0.009 to 0.010 7 Poor >0.010 10 Very Poor

LC4—Full Build Out Increase in Impervious Cover

Justification: Numerous studies have shown that increased impervious cover (IC) in a watershed leads to degradation of stream ecological conditions. Estimating future build out provides an indication of susceptibility to ecological degradation compared with current conditions.

Scoring Definition: Scored as LC1 using the relationship between current imperviousness and future impervious surface by comparing recent land use/land cover information with predicted build out as described in County zoning maps.

WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Definition Score (Weighting Factor Quality Rating 2) <10% IC at full build out 2 Good 11-18% IC at full build out 8 Fair 19-25% IC at full build out 14 Poor >25% IC at full build out 20 Very Poor

LC5—PERCENT OF SUBWATERSHED IN PROPOSED GREENWAY

Justification: Anne Arundel County has identified land area in the County for inclusion in a series of corridors connecting natural areas collectively known as Greenways (Anne Arundel County 2002a). Subwatersheds located in the proposed greenway are likely to have higher levels of protection and preservation than those outside this area because greenway areas were identified as lands having significant ecological value compared to other lands in the County.

Scoring Definition: This indicator is scored using the percentage of total subwatershed area proposed for inclusion in the County Greenway.

Definition Score (Weighting Factor Quality Rating 2) >30% of subwatershed in Good 2 proposed Greenway 20 to 30% of subwatershed in Fair 8 proposed Greenway 10 to 19% of subwatershed in Poor 14 proposed Greenway <10% of subwatershed in Very Poor 20 proposed Greenway

LC6—Percent of Subwatershed Land Area with Permanent Protection

Justification: Protected land usually means that little future development will occur within an subwatershed of interest. Other condition factors being equal, subwatersheds with large amounts of protected land are of higher quality because of the likelihood of being habitat islands in future developed areas surrounding them.

Scoring Definition: Land considered permanently protected includes County, State or Federal parkland or wildlife conservation areas, lands with conservation easements, or any lands with other types of protection that prevents its conversion from open space to developed area. The

WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY total amount of this land will be computed as a percentage of total subwatershed area. There is some overlap with LC5.

Definition Score (Weighting Factor 2) Quality Rating >80% land area in permanent 2 Good protection 50 to 80% of sub in perm. 8 Fair protection 30 to 49 % of sub in perm. 12 Poor protection <30% of sub permanently 20 Very Poor protected.

LC7—Percent of Subwatershed Land Area in Agricultural Land Use

Justification: Conversion of forest areas to agricultural land use can have adverse, long-term impacts on stream systems (Harding et al 1998). Subwatersheds with large amounts of cropland are likely to be more impacted than those with lesser amounts of these land uses (Richards et al 1996).

Scoring Definition: Land cover classified as agriculture is used to score this indicator, with the categories breaks loosely inspired by Harding et al (1998). The total amount of land in this category is divided by the subwatershed area and scored as described below:

Definition Score (Weighting Factor 2) Quality Rating <10% of subwatershed in Ag 2 Good 10 to 25% of subwatershed in 8 Fair Ag 26 to 35% of subwatershed in 12 Poor Ag >35% of subwatershed in Ag 20 Very Poor

E. HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS

HY1—Flooding Potential

Justification: Flooding is a significant concern to some stakeholders in assessed subwatersheds. This indicator scores the potential of damage to developed areas and intrusion into the 100-yr floodplain by older structures.

WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Scoring Definition: An examination is made of developed land and its presence or absence in the 100-yr floodplain.

Definition Score (Weighting Factor 2) Quality Rating No developed land 2 Good in 100-yr FP 0 to 15% of 100-yr FP 8 Fair includes developed land 16 to 25% of 100-yr FP 12 Poor includes developed land >25% of 100-yr FP includes 20 Very Poor developed land.

HY2—Stream Baseflow Condition

Justification: A major impact associated with development concerns the loss of baseflow in stream channels. Because of the lack of recharge, baseflow in urban and suburban streams is typically depressed compared to undeveloped watersheds, with streams frequently dry even during light or moderate drought conditions. The maintenance of baseflow during dry months is a critical habitat feature for aquatic organisms.

Scoring Definition: This indicator is scored using the channel flow status parameter scored during the habitat assessment performed as part of the biological sampling conducted in the study subwatersheds and as part of the representative sites evaluated during the SCA stream walks. For the SCA data, all indicators were scored using the qualitative categories that are part of the RBP habitat assessment (Optimal, Suboptimal, Marginal, Poor). These ratings were converted to values by selecting the median value within the category (18 for Optimal, 13 for Suboptimal, 8 for Marginal, and 3 for Poor). All scores within each subwatershed were then averaged and scored as described below:

Definition Score (Unweighted) Quality Rating Rated optimal 1 Good Rated suboptimal 4 Fair Rated marginal 7 Poor Rated poor 10 Very Poor

WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

F. REFERENCES Anne Arundel County. 2002a. Anne Arundel County Greenways Master Plan. Prepared by Anne Arundel County. On-line. [URL: www.aacounty.org/greenways/pdfs].

Anne Arundel County. 2002b. Severn River Watershed Management Master Plan: Current Conditions Report. Prepared by KCI Technologies, Inc, Hunt Valley, MD, and CH2M Hill, Herndon, VA for the Anne Arundel County Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, Annapolis, MD. 227 pp, plus Appendices.

Benke, A.C., R.L. Henry, D.M. Gillespie and R.J. Hunter. 1985. Importance of snag habitat for animal production in southeast streams. Fisheries 10(5): 8-13.

Everett, R.A. and G.M. Ruiz. 1993. Coarse woody debris as a refuge from predation in aquatic communities. Oecologia 93: 475-486.

Gates, J.E. and D.R. Evans. 1996. Powerline Corridors: Their Role as Forest Interior Access Routs for Brown-Headed Cowbirds, a Brood Parasite of Neotropical Migrants. Prepared for the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Tidewater Administration, Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring Division, Annapolis, MD

Harding, J.S., E.F. Benfield, P.V. Bolstad, G.S. Helfman and E.B.D. Jones, III. 1998. Stream biodiversity: the ghost of land use past. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 95: 14843-14847.

Haskins, W. and D. Mayhood. 1997. Stream crossing density as a predictor of watershed impacts. Proceedings of the 17th Annual ESRI Users Conference, Paper 457.

Hupp, C.R. 1992. Riparian vegetation recovery patterns following stream channelization: a geomorphic perspective. Ecology. 73(4): 1209-1226.

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 2002. Report on nutrient and biological synoptic surveys in the upper Patuxent Watershed, Anne Arundel and Prince George’s Counties, Maryland, April 2002 as part of the Watershed Restoration Action Strategy. MD DNR/CCWS/WRD/WES. 23 pp.

Maxted, J.R., E.L. Dickey and G.M. Mitchell. 1995. The water quality effects of channelization in coastal plain streams of Delaware. Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Division of Water Resources, Dover, DE. 21 pp.

Mower, J. and M. McGinty. 2002. Anadromous and estuarine finfish spawning locations in Maryland. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Service, Annapolis, Maryland. Fisheries Technical Report Number 42. 43 pp. Palmer, M.A., P. Arensburger, A.P. Martin and D.W. Denman. 1996. Disturbance and patch- specific responses: the interactive effects of woody debris and floods on lotic invertebrates. Oecologia 105: 247-257.

Pavlik, K.L and J.B. Stribling. 2003. Anne Arundel County, Biological Assessment of the Upper Patuxent River Watershed Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc, Owings Mills, MD for the Anne Arundel County Office of Planning and Zoning, Annapolis, MD.

WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

PGDER. 1995. Biological Monitoring and Assessment Program. Prince George’s County, Department of Environmental Resources, Programs and Planning Division, Technical Support Section, Landover, MD. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., Owings Mills, MD.

Rich A.C., D.S. Dobkin, and L.J. Niles. 1994. Defining forest fragmentation by corridor width: the influence of narrow forest-dividing corridors on forest-nesting birds in Southern New Jersey. Conservation Biology (8) 4: 1109-1121.

Richards, C., L.B. Johnson and G.E. Host. 1996. Landscape-scale influences on stream habitats and biota. Can. J. Fish. Aquatic. Sci. 53(Supp. 1): 295-311.

Roth, N.E., M.T. Southernland, J.C. Chaillou, P.F. Kazyak, and S.A. Stranko. 2000. Refinement and validation of a fish index of biotic integrity for Maryland streams. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD. CBWP-MANTA-EA-00

Schleiger, S.L. 2000. Use of an index of biotic integrity to detect effects of land uses on stream fish communities in west-central Georgia. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 129: 1118-1133.

Schueler, T.R. and H.K Holland. 2000. The Practice of Watershed Protection. Published by the Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. pp. 7-18 (Article 1).

Stepenuck, K.F., R.L. Crunkilton and L. Wang. 2002. Impacts of urban landuse on macroinvertebrate communities in southeast Wisconsin streams. JAWRA 38(4): 1041-1051.

USEPA. 2000. Ambient Water Criteria Recommendations, Information Supporting the Development of State and Tribal Nutrient Criteria, Rivers and Streams in Nutrient Ecoregion IX. Prepared by the US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, EPA 822-B-00-019.

Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in Streams: Sources, Biological Effects, and Control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7. pp. 44-47.

Yetman, K.T. 2001. Stream corridor assessment survey: SCA survey protocols. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Watershed Restoration Division, Chesapeake & Coastal Watershed Services, Annapolis, MD. 68 pp.

WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Appendix B

Green Building Survey

WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Appendix C

Low Impact Development Assessment Reports

WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Appendix D

Stream Corridor Assessment Letters

WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

«FirstName» «LastName» «Address1» «City», «State» «PostalCode»

Dear «FirstName» «LastName»:

Your help is needed for an important environmental study of the Patuxent River and its tributaries. In October 2002, Prince George’s County Government and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources along with the Maryland Conservation Corps will do a base study of several tributaries to the Patuxent River to obtain baseline condition information on these tributaries.

Your permission is requested to allow a field team to visit the stream on the property shown under your ownership by the latest digital version of the Maryland tax record at «HOUSE_NUMB» «STREET_NAM» «STREET_TYP» referenced by tax identification number «taxid» or access the stream through that property. Each member of the team will be appropriately identified. It is anticipated that the crews will be in your area in October or November 2002.

The first step in the program is to walk the stream and to do field observations of various stream characteristics such as erosion, stream degradation, unshaded stream banks, and other related environmental concerns. In addition, a field crew may also collect a water quality sample and/or a sample of the aquatic insects that live in your stream. Finally, a survey of the stream cross-section may also be performed.

Your cooperation is vitally important in helping the County and the State staff understand the overall conditions of streams draining to the Patuxent River. The information from this study will be used to identify and set priorities for potential restoration projects. The types of projects include but are not limited to:

WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Property Permission Page Two

• Tree and shrub plantings • Streambank restoration and stabilization • Streamside wetland restoration and creation • Streamside fencing • Larger County capital-funded projects

Potentially, landowners that agree to assist in this study will be eligible for County environmental restoration funds.

While your permission is greatly appreciated, you are under no obligation to participate in any way. If you choose not to participate, the segment of the stream on your property will be avoided. However, by allowing this work to occur on your land, you will be helping the County and the State better understand stream conditions within the Patuxent River, allowing for efficient use of your tax dollars by enabling County staff to direct environmental restoration activities where they are most needed.

Please contact Sharon Meigs, Senior Planner, Programs Administration Section, at (301) 883-5898 to provide your permission to allow this important project to go forward. You may also provide your permission by email to [email protected]. Should you have any questions about the study, please contact Ms. Meigs. We thank you for your time and attention on this important matter.

Sincerely,

Larry S. Coffman Associate Director Programs and Planning Division

WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Appendix E

Stream Corridor Assessment Priorities

Yellow Highlighted Sites are the top 10 priorities. Page 22 of 11 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Preliminary Priority Problem Sites Location Problem Stream Score Severity Correctablity Access WB354405 Erosion Black Branch 5 3 1 1 WB354404 Trash Dumping Black Branch 5 3 1 1 WB354401 Fish Barrier Black Branch 6 4 1 1 WB369101 Inadequate Buffer Black Branch 6 2 1 3 WB354402 Exposed Pipe Black Branch 7 5 1 1 WB347401 Fish Barrier Black Branch 7 5 1 1 WB358202 Fish Barrier Black Branch 7 4 1 2 WB354408 Inadequate Buffer Black Branch 7 2 2 3 WB370104 Trash Dumping Black Branch 7 3 1 3 WB353401 Erosion Black Branch 8 3 2 3 WB375101 Erosion Black Branch 8 3 1 4 WB364202 Trash Dumping Black Branch 8 3 2 3 WB376302 Trash Dumping Black Branch 8 2 4 2 WB371102 Erosion Black Branch 9 3 3 3 WB359303 Erosion Black Branch 10 3 4 3 WB364102 Erosion Black Branch 10 3 4 3 WB359301 Fish Barrier Black Branch 10 5 1 4 WB358201 Trash Dumping Black Branch 10 4 4 2 WB370101 Erosion Black Branch 11 4 3 4 WB376301 Erosion Black Branch 11 3 4 4 WB363301 Fish Barrier Black Branch 11 5 3 3 WB363302 Fish Barrier Black Branch 11 5 4 2

WB388102 Erosion Collington Branch Lower 6 3 2 1 WB356203 Inadequate Buffer Collington Branch Lower 6 2 3 1 WB356211 Trash Dumping Collington Branch Lower 6 3 2 1 WB412305 Trash Dumping Collington Branch Lower 6 4 1 1 WB382305 Channel Alteration Collington Branch Lower 7 3 3 1 WB357304 Erosion Collington Branch Lower 7 3 3 1 WB377201 Erosion Collington Branch Lower 7 3 3 1

Yellow Highlighted Sites are the top 10 priorities. Page 1 of 11 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Preliminary Priority Problem Sites Location Problem Stream Score Severity Correctablity Access WB404204 Erosion Collington Branch Lower 7 3 3 1 WB412303 Erosion Collington Branch Lower 7 1 5 1 WB414201 Erosion Collington Branch Lower 7 1 5 1 WB356207 Exposed Pipe Collington Branch Lower 7 5 1 1 WB412304 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Lower 7 5 1 1 WB415203 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Lower 7 5 1 1 WB349201 Inadequate Buffer Collington Branch Lower 7 2 4 1 WB350203 Inadequate Buffer Collington Branch Lower 7 3 3 1 WB351303 Inadequate Buffer Collington Branch Lower 7 4 2 1 WB417202 Inadequate Buffer Collington Branch Lower 7 2 4 1 WB373202 Trash Dumping Collington Branch Lower 7 4 2 1 WB382302 Trash Dumping Collington Branch Lower 7 4 2 1 WB351305 Erosion Collington Branch Lower 8 3 4 1 WB382201 Erosion Collington Branch Lower 8 3 4 1 WB382303 Erosion Collington Branch Lower 8 3 3 2 WB404202 Erosion Collington Branch Lower 8 2 3 3 WB407201 Erosion Collington Branch Lower 8 3 3 2 WB412302 Erosion Collington Branch Lower 8 3 4 1 WB351302 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Lower 8 5 2 1 WB351304 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Lower 8 5 2 1 WB351308 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Lower 8 5 1 2 WB357306 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Lower 8 5 1 2 WB357308 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Lower 8 5 1 2 WB366303 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Lower 8 5 1 2 WB404206 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Lower 8 4 2 2 WB351311 Inadequate Buffer Collington Branch Lower 8 5 2 1 WB367206 Trash Dumping Collington Branch Lower 8 5 2 1 WB414202 Trash Dumping Collington Branch Lower 8 2 4 2 WB414208 Trash Dumping Collington Branch Lower 8 3 4 1 WB356201 Erosion Collington Branch Lower 9 3 3 3 WB357302 Erosion Collington Branch Lower 9 3 4 2

Yellow Highlighted Sites are the top 10 priorities. Page 2 of 11 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Preliminary Priority Problem Sites Location Problem Stream Score Severity Correctablity Access WB367201 Erosion Collington Branch Lower 9 3 3 3 WB414205 Erosion Collington Branch Lower 9 3 5 1 WB415205 Erosion Collington Branch Lower 9 3 5 1 WB418202 Erosion Collington Branch Lower 9 2 5 2 WB350302 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Lower 9 5 2 2 WB366203 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Lower 9 5 2 2 WB366302 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Lower 9 5 1 3 WB411302 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Lower 9 5 1 3 WB412307 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Lower 9 5 1 3 WB412308 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Lower 9 5 1 3 WB414203 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Lower 9 5 1 3 WB415202 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Lower 9 5 3 1 WB382301 Inadequate Buffer Collington Branch Lower 9 3 5 1 WB360301 Trash Dumping Collington Branch Lower 9 3 3 3 WB404203 Trash Dumping Collington Branch Lower 9 4 3 2 WB404205 Trash Dumping Collington Branch Lower 9 4 3 2 WB407203 Trash Dumping Collington Branch Lower 9 5 2 2 WB415201 Trash Dumping Collington Branch Lower 9 3 4 2 WB350303 Erosion Collington Branch Lower 10 4 4 2 WB360302 Erosion Collington Branch Lower 10 4 3 3 WB361201 Erosion Collington Branch Lower 10 3 3 4 WB367203 Erosion Collington Branch Lower 10 3 4 3 WB388103 Erosion Collington Branch Lower 10 1 5 4 WB414301 Erosion Collington Branch Lower 10 4 4 2 WB351307 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Lower 10 4 4 2 WB356301 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Lower 10 3 4 3 WB356302 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Lower 10 4 3 3 WB357303 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Lower 10 5 2 3 WB357305 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Lower 10 5 3 2 WB382304 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Lower 10 5 2 3 WB366202 Erosion Collington Branch Lower 11 3 4 4

Yellow Highlighted Sites are the top 10 priorities. Page 3 of 11 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Preliminary Priority Problem Sites Location Problem Stream Score Severity Correctablity Access WB388302 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Lower 11 5 4 2 WB404201 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Lower 11 5 3 3 WB412306 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Lower 11 5 4 2 WB396102 Trash Dumping Collington Branch Lower 11 4 3 4 WB366205 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Lower 13 5 4 4 WB414204 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Lower 13 5 4 4 WB388101 Inadequate Buffer Collington Branch Lower 13 5 5 3

WB330305 Inadequate Buffer Collington Branch Middle 4 2 1 1 WB344404 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Middle 5 3 1 1 WB344402 Channel Alteration Collington Branch Middle 6 4 1 1 WB340402 Erosion Collington Branch Middle 6 3 1 2 WB343104 Erosion Collington Branch Middle 6 1 4 1 WB334404 Exposed Pipe Collington Branch Middle 6 4 1 1 WB345303 Inadequate Buffer Collington Branch Middle 6 3 1 2 WB331304 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Middle 7 3 2 2 WB334305 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Middle 7 5 1 1 WB337404 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Middle 7 4 1 2 WB339101 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Middle 7 5 1 1 WB330306 Inadequate Buffer Collington Branch Middle 7 4 1 2 WB334403 Trash Dumping Collington Branch Middle 7 5 1 1 WB345302 Trash Dumping Collington Branch Middle 7 5 1 1 WB331307 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Middle 8 4 2 2 WB334402 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Middle 8 5 1 2 WB336101 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Middle 8 4 3 1 WB343101 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Middle 8 5 1 2 WB344405 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Middle 8 4 3 1 WB345304 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Middle 8 5 1 2 WB343105 Inadequate Buffer Collington Branch Middle 8 4 3 1 WB333301 Trash Dumping Collington Branch Middle 8 5 1 2

Yellow Highlighted Sites are the top 10 priorities. Page 4 of 11 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Preliminary Priority Problem Sites Location Problem Stream Score Severity Correctablity Access WB345307 Trash Dumping Collington Branch Middle 8 4 2 2 WB342101 Erosion Collington Branch Middle 9 5 2 2 WB328307 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Middle 9 5 2 2 WB331306 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Middle 9 5 3 1 WB334301 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Middle 9 5 2 2 WB343103 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Middle 9 5 3 1 WB345306 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Middle 9 5 2 2 WB344401 Trash Dumping Collington Branch Middle 9 2 3 4 WB331301 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Middle 10 5 2 3 WB331302 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Middle 10 5 2 3 WB340102 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Middle 10 3 5 2

WB317302 Inadequate Buffer Collington Branch Upper 5 3 1 1 WB308205 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 6 3 2 1 WB305204 Erosion Collington Branch Upper 6 1 3 2 WB328306 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Upper 6 3 2 1 WB308210 Inadequate Buffer Collington Branch Upper 6 1 4 1 WB323301 Trash Dumping Collington Branch Upper 6 3 1 2 WB300201 Channel Alteration Collington Branch Upper 7 3 3 1 WB308202 Inadequate Buffer Collington Branch Upper 7 4 2 1 WB315101 Inadequate Buffer Collington Branch Upper 7 3 3 1 WB300205 Channel Alteration Collington Branch Upper 8 3 3 2 WB305201 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Upper 8 5 1 2 WB316103 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Upper 8 5 1 2 WB330302 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Upper 8 5 1 2 WB330303 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Upper 8 5 1 2 WB312102 Inadequate Buffer Collington Branch Upper 8 3 4 1 WB324305 Inadequate Buffer Collington Branch Upper 8 3 2 3 WB328302 Inadequate Buffer Collington Branch Upper 8 5 1 2 WB305205 Trash Dumping Collington Branch Upper 8 5 1 2

Yellow Highlighted Sites are the top 10 priorities. Page 5 of 11 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Preliminary Priority Problem Sites Location Problem Stream Score Severity Correctablity Access WB306201 Trash Dumping Collington Branch Upper 8 5 1 2 WB313302 Trash Dumping Collington Branch Upper 8 3 3 2 WB321303 Trash Dumping Collington Branch Upper 8 5 2 1 WB330301 Trash Dumping Collington Branch Upper 8 5 1 2 WB303202 Channel Alteration Collington Branch Upper 9 3 5 1 WB305202 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Upper 9 5 1 3 WB307210 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Upper 9 4 4 1 WB308206 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Upper 9 3 5 1 WB316104 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Upper 9 5 2 2 WB317301 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Upper 9 5 2 2 WB319301 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Upper 9 5 2 2 WB321302 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Upper 9 5 1 3 WB324301 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Upper 9 3 4 2 WB328304 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Upper 9 3 5 1 WB300205 Inadequate Buffer Collington Branch Upper 9 3 5 1 WB306202 Inadequate Buffer Collington Branch Upper 9 5 1 3 WB325302 Inadequate Buffer Collington Branch Upper 9 4 2 3 WB315102 Trash Dumping Collington Branch Upper 9 5 3 1 WB315105 Trash Dumping Collington Branch Upper 9 4 3 2 WB307207 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Upper 10 5 2 3 WB308203 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Upper 10 4 5 1 WB313301 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Upper 10 5 2 3 WB324304 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Upper 10 5 2 3 WB324308 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Upper 10 3 5 2 WB306204 Inadequate Buffer Collington Branch Upper 10 3 3 4 WB313101 Inadequate Buffer Collington Branch Upper 10 4 2 4 WB327301 Trash Dumping Collington Branch Upper 10 3 4 3 WB300202 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Upper 11 5 5 1 WB306205 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Upper 11 4 3 4 WB307205 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Upper 11 5 4 2 WB307209 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Upper 11 5 4 2

Yellow Highlighted Sites are the top 10 priorities. Page 6 of 11 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Preliminary Priority Problem Sites Location Problem Stream Score Severity Correctablity Access WB314206 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Upper 11 4 5 2 WB321304 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Upper 11 5 5 1 WB324302 Fish Barrier Collington Branch Upper 11 3 5 3 WB315103 Trash Dumping Collington Branch Upper 12 5 4 3

WB388301 Trash Dumping Collington Tributary 1 7 3 2 2 WB384201 Erosion Collington Tributary 1 10 1 5 4 WB389302 Fish Barrier Collington Tributary 1 11 5 3 3

WB380401 Erosion Collington Tributary 2 7 4 2 1 WB374403 Fish Barrier Collington Tributary 2 7 4 1 2 WB374404 Exposed Pipe Collington Tributary 2 8 4 3 1 WB387303 Trash Dumping Collington Tributary 2 9 4 3 2 WB387302 Erosion Collington Tributary 2 10 4 3 3 WB380302 Fish Barrier Collington Tributary 2 10 5 3 2 WB386301 Fish Barrier Collington Tributary 2 10 4 5 1

WB395213 Erosion Collington Tributary 3 6 3 2 1 WB395214 Inadequate Buffer Collington Tributary 3 6 3 2 1 WB395210 Erosion Collington Tributary 3 7 1 5 1 WB400101 Fish Barrier Collington Tributary 3 7 3 3 1 WB400102 Erosion Collington Tributary 3 8 3 3 2 WB400104 Fish Barrier Collington Tributary 3 8 3 4 1 WB395101 Trash Dumping Collington Tributary 3 8 5 1 2 WB399103 Trash Dumping Collington Tributary 3 8 5 1 2 WB399102 Erosion Collington Tributary 3 9 2 4 3 WB395211 Fish Barrier Collington Tributary 3 9 5 3 1 WB395212 Fish Barrier Collington Tributary 3 9 5 3 1

Yellow Highlighted Sites are the top 10 priorities. Page 7 of 11 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Preliminary Priority Problem Sites Location Problem Stream Score Severity Correctablity Access WB400103 Fish Barrier Collington Tributary 3 9 5 1 3 WB400106 Fish Barrier Collington Tributary 3 9 5 1 3 WB396101 Trash Dumping Collington Tributary 3 9 5 2 2 WB395103 Erosion Collington Tributary 3 10 3 4 3 WB400101 Erosion Collington Tributary 3 10 3 3 4 WB395104 Fish Barrier Collington Tributary 3 10 5 3 2 WB395107 Fish Barrier Collington Tributary 3 10 5 4 1 WB400105 Fish Barrier Collington Tributary 3 10 4 5 1 WB395105 Inadequate Buffer Collington Tributary 3 11 5 5 1

WB409102 Trash Dumping East Branch 4 1 1 2 WB401401 Channel Alteration East Branch 6 1 3 2 WB398401 Inadequate Buffer East Branch 6 2 3 1 WB406101 Inadequate Buffer East Branch 6 4 1 1 WB406104 Erosion East Branch 7 2 3 2 WB402406 Fish Barrier East Branch 7 4 1 2 WB406102 Fish Barrier East Branch 8 5 2 1 WB406103 Fish Barrier East Branch 8 5 1 2 WB397401 Inadequate Buffer East Branch 8 5 1 2 WB402404 Inadequate Buffer East Branch 8 1 5 2 WB409101 Trash Dumping East Branch 8 5 1 2 WB393402 Erosion East Branch 9 3 3 3 WB397404 Erosion East Branch 9 3 3 3 WB408102 Fish Barrier East Branch 9 5 1 3 WB408105 Fish Barrier East Branch 9 5 1 3 WB393403 Erosion East Branch 10 3 4 3 WB398402 Erosion East Branch 10 2 5 3 WB408101 Erosion East Branch 10 3 3 4 WB393401 Fish Barrier East Branch 10 4 3 3 WB394401 Fish Barrier East Branch 10 4 5 1

Yellow Highlighted Sites are the top 10 priorities. Page 8 of 11 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Preliminary Priority Problem Sites Location Problem Stream Score Severity Correctablity Access WB394402 Fish Barrier East Branch 10 5 1 4 WB402401 Fish Barrier East Branch 10 5 2 3 WB402402 Fish Barrier East Branch 10 5 2 3 WB405102 Fish Barrier East Branch 10 3 3 4 WB408103 Fish Barrier East Branch 10 5 2 3 WB398403 Trash Dumping East Branch 10 3 4 3

WB204101 Fish Barrier Folly Branch 3 1 1 1 WB221102 Inadequate Buffer Folly Branch 5 1 3 1 WB220103 Channel Alteration Folly Branch 6 2 3 1 WB221105 Channel Alteration Folly Branch 6 2 3 1 WB220104 Fish Barrier Folly Branch 6 2 3 1 WB233101 Fish Barrier Folly Branch 6 1 4 1 WB201105 Erosion Folly Branch 7 5 1 1 WB229103 Exposed Pipe Folly Branch 7 5 1 1 WB219103 Fish Barrier Folly Branch 7 5 1 1 WB219104 Inadequate Buffer Folly Branch 7 2 4 1 WB209101 Erosion Folly Branch 8 3 3 2 WB221104 Inadequate Buffer Folly Branch 8 2 5 1 WB225101 Erosion Folly Branch 9 3 4 2 WB201102 Inadequate Buffer Folly Branch 9 3 4 2 WB201104 Inadequate Buffer Folly Branch 9 4 2 3 WB217102 Erosion Folly Branch 10 2 4 4 WB217101 Inadequate Buffer Folly Branch 10 2 4 4 WB204102 Inadequate Buffer Folly Branch 11 5 5 1 WB220106 Inadequate Buffer Folly Branch 11 5 5 1 WB220110 Erosion Folly Branch 12 4 4 4 WB220111 Inadequate Buffer Folly Branch 14 5 5 4

Yellow Highlighted Sites are the top 10 priorities. Page 9 of 11 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Preliminary Priority Problem Sites Location Problem Stream Score Severity Correctablity Access WB103102 Erosion Lottsford Branch 6 4 1 1 WB103101 Fish Barrier Lottsford Branch 6 4 1 1 WB109302 Inadequate Buffer Lottsford Branch 6 3 1 2 WB105105 Trash Dumping Lottsford Branch 6 2 3 1 WB105102 Fish Barrier Lottsford Branch 7 5 1 1 WB105103 Fish Barrier Lottsford Branch 7 5 1 1 WB105106 Inadequate Buffer Lottsford Branch 7 5 1 1 WB112401 Erosion Lottsford Branch 8 3 3 2 WB113202 Erosion Lottsford Branch 8 4 2 2 WB102102 Inadequate Buffer Lottsford Branch 8 3 4 1 WB106302 Inadequate Buffer Lottsford Branch 8 5 2 1 WB111203 Inadequate Buffer Lottsford Branch 8 3 3 2 WB112403 Inadequate Buffer Lottsford Branch 8 5 1 2 WB113203 Inadequate Buffer Lottsford Branch 8 4 3 1 WB113205 Inadequate Buffer Lottsford Branch 8 5 2 1 WB115403 Inadequate Buffer Lottsford Branch 8 3 3 2 WB108301 Trash Dumping Lottsford Branch 8 4 2 2 WB107301 Inadequate Buffer Lottsford Branch 9 5 2 2 WB115401 Erosion Lottsford Branch 10 5 3 2 WB112402 Fish Barrier Lottsford Branch 10 4 4 2 WB111202 Fish Barrier Lottsford Branch 12 5 4 3

WB223201 Inadequate Buffer Northeast Branch Lower 6 4 1 1 WB215204 Fish Barrier Northeast Branch Lower 7 5 1 1 WB239404 Fish Barrier Northeast Branch Lower 7 5 1 1 WB239406 Channel Alteration Northeast Branch Lower 8 5 2 1 WB239403 Erosion Northeast Branch Lower 8 3 3 2 WB211201 Inadequate Buffer Northeast Branch Lower 8 4 3 1 WB215201 Inadequate Buffer Northeast Branch Lower 8 5 2 1 WB215203 Inadequate Buffer Northeast Branch Lower 8 4 3 1

Yellow Highlighted Sites are the top 10 priorities. Page 10 of 11 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Preliminary Priority Problem Sites Location Problem Stream Score Severity Correctablity Access WB223203 Inadequate Buffer Northeast Branch Lower 8 5 2 1

WB417203 Inadequate Buffer Northeast Branch Mainstem 4 1 2 1 WB243107 Inadequate Buffer Northeast Branch Mainstem 7 1 4 2 WB243103 Channel Alteration Northeast Branch Mainstem 9 1 5 3 WB239407 Fish Barrier Northeast Branch Mainstem 9 5 2 2 WB243102 Fish Barrier Northeast Branch Mainstem 9 3 4 2 WB243101 Erosion Northeast Branch Mainstem 10 3 4 3

WB200301 Inadequate Buffer Northeast Branch Upper 3 1 1 1 WB227204 Erosion Northeast Branch Upper 8 2 3 3 WB236403 Erosion Northeast Branch Upper 8 1 5 2 WB221403 Inadequate Buffer Northeast Branch Upper 8 3 3 2 WB216401 Trash Dumping Northeast Branch Upper 8 5 1 2 WB239401 Trash Dumping Northeast Branch Upper 8 4 2 2 WB227205 Fish Barrier Northeast Branch Upper 9 4 4 1 WB232204 Fish Barrier Northeast Branch Upper 9 4 4 1 WB236402 Channel Alteration Northeast Branch Upper 10 5 2 3 WB221401 Fish Barrier Northeast Branch Upper 10 4 4 2 WB232206 Fish Barrier Northeast Branch Upper 11 5 4 2 WB232211 Fish Barrier Northeast Branch Upper 11 5 5 1

Yellow Highlighted Sites are the top 10 priorities. Page 11 of 11

Inspection Followup Location Problem Stream Score Severity Correctablity Access WB402101 Construction East Branch 1 1 WB402403 Construction East Branch 1 1 WB340101 Construction Collington Branch Middle 2 2 WB405102 Construction East Branch 2 2 WB300203 Construction Collington Branch Upper 3 3 WB305206 Construction Collington Branch Upper 3 3 WB374402 Construction Collington Tributary 2 3 3 WB401102 Construction East Branch 3 3 WB105101 Construction Lottsford Branch 3 3 WB203303 Construction Northeast Branch Upper 3 3 WB407204 Construction Collington Branch Lower 4 4 WB337405 Construction Collington Branch Middle 4 4 WB104101 Construction Lottsford Branch 4 4 WB104102 Construction Lottsford Branch 4 4 WB344404 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Middle 5 3 1 1 WB308205 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 6 3 2 1 WB367204 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Lower 8 3 4 1 WB345305 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Middle 9 3 5 1 WB387301 Pipe Outfall Collington Tributary 2 10 3 5 2

1 of 1

Unusual Condition Followup Location Problem Stream Score Severity Correctablity Access WB414206 Unusual Condition Collington Branch Lower 7 3 3 1 WB414209 Unusual Condition Collington Branch Lower 10 4 5 1 WB365301 Unusual Condition Collington Branch Lower 12 4 5 3 WB415204 Unusual Condition Collington Branch Lower 12 5 5 2 WB411304 Unusual Condition Collington Branch Lower 14 5 5 4 WB334301 Unusual Condition Collington Branch Middle 9 3 5 1 WB328306 Unusual Condition Collington Branch Upper 9 3 5 1 WB323301 Unusual Condition Collington Branch Upper 10 3 5 2 WB325301 Unusual Condition Collington Branch Upper 11 3 5 3 WB328303 Unusual Condition Collington Branch Upper 11 5 5 1 WB324307 Unusual Condition Collington Branch Upper 13 5 5 3 WB397402 Unusual Condition East Branch 6 1 4 1 WB401102 Unusual Condition East Branch 8 2 5 1 WB105107 Unusual Condition Lottsford Branch 5 3 1 1 WB115402 Unusual Condition Lottsford Branch 10 3 5 2 WB108304 Unusual Condition Lottsford Branch 11 5 5 1 WB247101 Unusual Condition Northeast Branch Mainstem 7 3 3 1 WB222401 Unusual Condition Northeast Branch Upper 8 4 3 1 WB216402 Unusual Condition Northeast Branch Upper 9 4 3 2 WB203302 Unusual Condition Northeast Branch Upper 10 5 4 1

1 of 1 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Low Impact Development Sites Location Problem Stream Score Severity Correctablity Access WB358203 Pipe Outfall Black Branch 8 3 3 2

WB355201 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Lower 6 3 2 1 WB350201 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Lower 7 3 3 1 WB350204 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Lower 7 5 1 1 WB350205 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Lower 7 5 1 1 WB350206 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Lower 7 5 1 1 WB356201 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Lower 7 3 3 1 WB356202 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Lower 7 3 3 1 WB356204 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Lower 7 3 3 1 WB356205 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Lower 7 5 1 1 WB356206 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Lower 7 3 3 1 WB356208 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Lower 7 3 3 1 WB356209 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Lower 7 5 1 1 WB356210 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Lower 7 5 1 1 WB373201 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Lower 7 3 3 1 WB412301 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Lower 7 3 3 1 WB414207 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Lower 7 3 3 1 WB351301 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Lower 8 3 3 2 WB351309 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Lower 8 3 3 2 WB351310 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Lower 8 3 3 2 WB367204 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Lower 8 3 4 1 WB373203 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Lower 8 3 3 2 WB411303 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Lower 8 3 3 2 WB351312 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Lower 9 5 2 2 WB367202 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Lower 9 3 3 3 WB367205 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Lower 9 3 3 3 WB372301 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Lower 9 3 3 3 WB407202 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Lower 9 3 3 3 WB366204 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Lower 10 3 3 4

WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Low Impact Development Sites Location Problem Stream Score Severity Correctablity Access

WB344404 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Middle 5 3 1 1 WB334304 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Middle 7 3 3 1 WB337402 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Middle 7 3 3 1 WB337403 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Middle 7 5 1 1 WB340401 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Middle 7 5 1 1 WB343102 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Middle 7 3 3 1 WB343107 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Middle 7 3 3 1 WB343108 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Middle 7 5 1 1 WB350301 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Middle 7 3 3 1 WB331303 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Middle 8 3 3 2 WB331305 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Middle 8 3 3 2 WB329301 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Middle 9 3 5 1 WB343106 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Middle 9 3 5 1 WB345301 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Middle 9 3 5 1 WB345305 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Middle 9 3 5 1

WB314213 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 5 3 1 1 WB308205 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 6 3 2 1 WB300204 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 7 3 3 1 WB302201 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 7 3 3 1 WB303201 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 7 5 1 1 WB308201 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 7 3 3 1 WB308204 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 7 5 1 1 WB308207 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 7 3 3 1 WB308208 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 7 3 3 1 WB308209 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 7 5 1 1 WB312101 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 7 5 1 1 WB314201 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 7 3 3 1

WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Low Impact Development Sites Location Problem Stream Score Severity Correctablity Access WB314202 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 7 3 3 1 WB314203 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 7 3 3 1 WB314204 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 7 5 1 1 WB314205 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 7 3 3 1 WB314207 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 7 3 3 1 WB314208 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 7 5 1 1 WB314209 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 7 3 3 1 WB314210 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 7 5 1 1 WB314211 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 7 3 3 1 WB314212 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 7 5 1 1 WB316105 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 7 3 3 1 WB316106 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 7 3 3 1 WB321305 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 7 3 3 1 WB322301 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 7 3 3 1 WB322302 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 7 5 1 1 WB307201 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 8 5 1 2 WB307202 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 8 5 1 2 WB307203 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 8 5 1 2 WB307204 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 8 3 3 2 WB307206 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 8 5 1 2 WB313201 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 8 5 1 2 WB328305 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 8 5 2 1 WB324306 Pipe Outfall Collington Branch Upper 9 3 3 3

WB379203 Pipe Outfall Collington Tributary 1 7 3 3 1 WB384203 Pipe Outfall Collington Tributary 1 7 3 3 1 WB379201 Pipe Outfall Collington Tributary 1 8 3 3 2 WB378201 Pipe Outfall Collington Tributary 1 9 3 3 3

WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Low Impact Development Sites Location Problem Stream Score Severity Correctablity Access WB374401 Pipe Outfall Collington Tributary 2 7 3 3 1 WB380301 Pipe Outfall Collington Tributary 2 7 3 3 1 WB387304 Pipe Outfall Collington Tributary 2 8 3 3 2 WB391301 Pipe Outfall Collington Tributary 2 8 3 3 2 WB387301 Pipe Outfall Collington Tributary 2 10 3 5 2 WB392301 Pipe Outfall Collington Tributary 2 11 5 5 1

WB395106 Pipe Outfall Collington Tributary 3 7 3 3 1 WB395109 Pipe Outfall Collington Tributary 3 7 5 1 1 WB399101 Pipe Outfall Collington Tributary 3 7 3 3 1 WB395108 Pipe Outfall Collington Tributary 3 8 3 3 2

WB219107 Pipe Outfall Folly Branch 4 1 1 2 WB201103 Pipe Outfall Folly Branch 5 1 3 1 WB201101 Pipe Outfall Folly Branch 7 5 1 1 WB201106 Pipe Outfall Folly Branch 7 5 1 1 WB202101 Pipe Outfall Folly Branch 7 5 1 1 WB210101 Pipe Outfall Folly Branch 7 5 1 1 WB219101 Pipe Outfall Folly Branch 7 4 1 2 WB219102 Pipe Outfall Folly Branch 7 4 1 2 WB219106 Pipe Outfall Folly Branch 7 4 1 2 WB220107 Pipe Outfall Folly Branch 7 5 1 1 WB220108 Pipe Outfall Folly Branch 7 5 1 1 WB229101 Pipe Outfall Folly Branch 7 5 1 1 WB229102 Pipe Outfall Folly Branch 7 5 1 1 WB234102 Pipe Outfall Folly Branch 7 5 1 1 WB219105 Pipe Outfall Folly Branch 8 5 1 2 WB220105 Pipe Outfall Folly Branch 8 5 2 1 WB207101 Pipe Outfall Folly Branch 9 5 2 2

WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Low Impact Development Sites Location Problem Stream Score Severity Correctablity Access WB208101 Pipe Outfall Folly Branch 9 5 2 2 WB220101 Pipe Outfall Folly Branch 9 5 2 2 WB220102 Pipe Outfall Folly Branch 9 5 2 2 WB220109 Pipe Outfall Folly Branch 11 5 2 4

WB102101 Pipe Outfall Lottsford Branch 5 3 1 1 WB102103 Pipe Outfall Lottsford Branch 7 5 1 1 WB106301 Pipe Outfall Lottsford Branch 7 3 3 1 WB108302 Pipe Outfall Lottsford Branch 7 5 1 1 WB109301 Pipe Outfall Lottsford Branch 7 3 3 1 WB109304 Pipe Outfall Lottsford Branch 7 3 3 1 WB113201 Pipe Outfall Lottsford Branch 7 5 1 1 WB106305 Pipe Outfall Lottsford Branch 8 3 3 2 WB110301 Pipe Outfall Lottsford Branch 8 3 3 2 WB103104 Pipe Outfall Lottsford Branch 9 3 3 3 WB106304 Pipe Outfall Lottsford Branch 11 5 5 1

WB239405 Pipe Outfall Northeast Branch Lower 7 3 3 1

WB243104 Pipe Outfall Northeast Branch Mainstem 8 3 3 2 WB243105 Pipe Outfall Northeast Branch Mainstem 8 3 3 2 WB243106 Pipe Outfall Northeast Branch Mainstem 9 3 5 1

WB201301 Pipe Outfall Northeast Branch Upper 7 5 1 1 WB201302 Pipe Outfall Northeast Branch Upper 7 5 1 1 WB201303 Pipe Outfall Northeast Branch Upper 7 5 1 1 WB201304 Pipe Outfall Northeast Branch Upper 7 5 1 1

WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Low Impact Development Sites Location Problem Stream Score Severity Correctablity Access WB201305 Pipe Outfall Northeast Branch Upper 7 3 3 1 WB201306 Pipe Outfall Northeast Branch Upper 7 3 3 1 WB221404 Pipe Outfall Northeast Branch Upper 7 3 3 1 WB227207 Pipe Outfall Northeast Branch Upper 7 3 3 1 WB232201 Pipe Outfall Northeast Branch Upper 7 3 3 1 WB232202 Pipe Outfall Northeast Branch Upper 7 3 3 1 WB227201 Pipe Outfall Northeast Branch Upper 8 3 3 2 WB227202 Pipe Outfall Northeast Branch Upper 8 3 3 2 WB227206 Pipe Outfall Northeast Branch Upper 8 3 3 2 WB232203 Pipe Outfall Northeast Branch Upper 8 3 3 2 WB232205 Pipe Outfall Northeast Branch Upper 8 3 3 2 WB232207 Pipe Outfall Northeast Branch Upper 8 3 3 2 WB232209 Pipe Outfall Northeast Branch Upper 8 3 3 2 WB232210 Pipe Outfall Northeast Branch Upper 8 5 1 2 WB212401 Pipe Outfall Northeast Branch Upper 9 5 1 3 WB232208 Pipe Outfall Northeast Branch Upper 11 5 4 2

WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Appendix F

Grants

1

Funding Environmental Projects: Grant Directory For Regional Projects

Compiled By the City of Bowie, Maryland 2004

WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Table of Contents

Federal Funding Sources 1 Brownfields (EPA- Environmental Protection Agency) Environmental Education Grant Program (EPA) Chesapeake Bay Program (EPA) Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grant (USFWS-United States Fish and Wildlife Service) Special Projects (HUD) Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program (NPS-National Park Service)

State Funding Sources 11 Program Open Space (DNR- Department of Natural Resources) Community Legacy Grant (DHCD) Community Parks and Playgrounds (DNR) Non-point Source Funding (DNR) Watershed Restoration Assessment Strategy (DNR) Transportation Enhancement (MDSHA- Maryland State Highway Administration) National Recreational Trail Grant (MDSHA) Waterways Improvement Fund (MDSHA)

Private and Corporate Funding Sources 26 American Express Philanthropic Baltimore Gas &Electric Foundation Alex Brown & Sons Charitable Foundation Morris & Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation Clark Charitable Foundation Clark-Winchcole Foundation Freed Foundation Chartiable Trust u/w LaVerna Hahn J. J. Haines Foundation Sidney L. Hechinger Foundation Hitachi Foundation Grayce B. Kerr Fund Knapp Foundation Kresge Foundation Lockheed Martin Corp. Foundation MARPAT Foundation Merck Family Fund Eugene & Agnes Meyer Foundation Middendorf Foundation Moriah Fund T. Rowe Price Associates Foundation Rouse Company Foundation Summit Foundation Other Funding Prospects3 53 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Federal Funding Sources

Brownfields

Basic Information Name Brownfields Grant Program Agency Maryland Department of the Environment Waste Management Administration Environmental Restoration & Redevelopment Program Address 2500 Broening Highway Baltimore, MD 21224 Contact Person Mr. Karl Kalbacher E-Mail: [email protected] Program Manager Phone (410)-631-3437 410-631-3472 FAX Website http://www.mde.state.md.us Application Information Eligible Applicant Governments, Non-profits only for the Brownfields Cleanup Grants Deadline(s) December 16, 2002 Geographic Limits Application Forms Online? Initial Approach Board Meeting Date(s) Financial Data Grant Range $200-350,000 for the Assessment and Cleanup Grants Up to $1,000,000 for the Loan Fund Grants Required Match Assessments Grants—20% Clean Up Grants—20% Loan Fund Grants—0% Period of Funding/Project Assessments Grants—2 years Clean Up Grants—2 years Loan Fund Grants—5 years Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1. Redevelopment of 1. Mitigation Contaminated Sites. Recent Grants Type of Support Acquisition, Surveys and Assessments, Construction, Sources of Above Information J Directories/grant indexes J Grantor’s Web Site Notes:

1 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Environmental Education Grant Program

Basic Information Name Environmental Education Grant Program Agency Environmental Protection Agency , Environmental Education Grants Address Proposals requesting over $25,000 in Federal environmental education grant funds must be mailed to EPA Headquarters in Washington:1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460

Proposals requesting $25,000 or less must be mailed to the EPA Region III: 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 Contact Person DC: Diane Berger or Sheri Jojokian Philadelphia: Judi Braunston Phone DC: (202) 260-8619 Philadelphia: (215) 814-5536 Fax Website www.epa.gov/enviroed Application Information Eligible Applicant Environmental Agencies, Schools, and 501©(3) Deadline(s) Not yet established; awaiting congressional allocations for 2003. Geographic Limits Applications Forms Online? Yes. Initial Approach Board Meeting Date(s) Financial Data Grant Range $5-100,000 Match Requirement 25%+ Period of Funding/Project Budget periods cannot exceed one-year for small grants of $10,000 or less. EPA prefers a one-year budget period for larger grants, but will accept a budget period of up to two-years, if the project timeline clarifies that more than 12 months is necessary for full implementation of the project. Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1. Design, demonstrate, or 1.Programs development, disseminate environmental Brochures, Website education practices, methods, or development, and Projects that techniques, including assessing provide environmental environmental and ecological education. conditions or specific environmental issues or problems. 2 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Recent Grants Type of Support Not Funded Construction projects-EPA will not fund construction activities such as the acquisition of real property (e.g., buildings) or the construction or modification of any building. EPA may, however, fund activities such as creating a nature trail or building a bird watching station as long as these items are an integral part of the environmental education project, and the cost is a relatively small percentage of the total amount of federal funds requested. Sources of Above Information J Directories/grant indexes J Grantor’s Web Site Notes: The competition for grants is intense, especially at Headquarters which usually receives about 250 proposals and is able to fund 10 to15 grants or about 5% of the applicants. The EPA Regional Offices receive fewer applications and on average fund over 30% each year.

Chesapeake Bay Program

Basic Information Name Chesapeake Bay Program Agency Environmental Protection Agency Address 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 Contact Person Lori Mackey Phone (410) 267-5700 Fax Website www.chesapeakebay.net Application Information Eligible Applicant 501©(3), Local Governments Deadline(s) Spring release for RFPs Geographic Limits Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia Application Forms Online? Yes. Initial Approach Board Meeting Date(s) Awards are announced 7 months later. Financial Data Grant Range $8,200 to $2,800,000. Required Match Period of Funding/Project One Year

3 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1. Non-point source 1. LID, Green Building implementation and sustainable development 2. Education and outreach 2. Environmental Education Center 3. Living resources and habitat 3. Restoration, Mitigation, restoration and program support Monitoring “ Recent Grants Required Match 5%+ Type of Support Sources of Above Information J Directories/grant indexes J Grantor’s Web Site Notes: Proposals are approved by EPA according to technical merit and relevance to the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, and the directives of the Chesapeake Executive Council.

4 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grant

Basic Information Name Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grant Agency National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (& EPA) Address 1120 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036 Contact Person Jonathan Mawdsley [email protected]. Phone (202) 857-0166 FAX Website http://www.nfwf.org/chesapeake/application.htm Application Information Eligible Applicant 501 © 3, County or City Government Deadline(s) February 3, 2003 Geographic Limits Application Forms Online? Yes Initial Approach Board Meeting Date(s) Announcements expected by June 1, 2003 Financial Data Grant Range Standard Grant --$5-50,000 Community Legacy Grant (5)--$50-100,000 Required Match Not required, but preferred. Period of Funding/Project 1 year, but prefer to fund multi-year phased projects Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1. Watershed Restoration 1. Mitigation, Restoration, Monitoring 2. Pollution Prevention Projects 2. LID, Green Building 3. Sustainable Development 3. Green Design and Construction Recent Grants The District of Columbia Office of Planning: Low Impact Development for Urban Watersheds $35,000 Anacostia Watershed Society: Anacostia River Restoration $20,000 Earth Conservation Corps: Anacostia Islands Nature Preserve $25,000 Baltimore City Department of Public Works: Baltimore City Public Schools Greening $100,000 Type of Support Planning, Project

5 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Sources of Above Information J Directories/grant indexes J Grantor’s Web Site Notes: Through the Community Legacy Grants program, five grants of up to $100,000 will be awarded to truly innovative projects which either restore vital fish and wildlife habitats, develop locally-supported watershed management plans, or promote environmentally-sensitive development.

To be eligible for consideration, a project must: 1) support the development or implementation of local watershed management plans that address the water quality and living resource needs in the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem; or 2) promote locally based protection and restoration efforts that complement watershed management strategies. In addition, projects must also directly address at least one of the priority goals of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement.

Special Purpose Grant

Basic Information Name Special Purpose Grants Agency Housing and Urban Development Address 820 First Street NE Suite 300 Washington, DC 20002-4205 Contact Person Lorraine Richardson, (Acting) Field Office Director Phone (202) 275-9200 (202) 275-9212 FAX Website http://www.hud.gov/grants/index.cfm Application Information Eligible Applicant Governments Deadline(s) None Geographic Limits None Application Forms Online? None Initial Approach This is a non-competitive program. Congressional Representative must submit funding request. Awards are contingent on Congressional appropriations. Board Meeting Date(s) None Financial Data Grant Range Up to $1,000,000 Required Match Not stated. Period of Funding/Project Not stated. Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1. Redevelopment 1. Green Construction, Deconstruction, Retrofits

6 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

2. Economic Development 2. Business Incentives, LID/ Streetscapes, Signage 3. Housing or Low Income Benefit 3. Sustainable Housing Projects Recent Grants Not listed. Type of Support Congressional Grant Allocations. Not Funded Preliminary plans and specifications for construction activity and appraisals for future land acquisition are mandated. Projects would be permitted to draw Grant funds in advance to pay for preparation of plans and specifications but HUD approval of the plans would be prerequisite to construction cost draws. Sources of Above Information J Directories/grant indexes J Grantor’s Web Site

7 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program

Basic Information Name Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program Agency National Park Service Address 1849 C Street, NW., Room 3624, Washington, DC 20240 Contact Person Chris Ashley Phone (202) 565-1200 202-565-1130 FAX Website http://www.NCRC.NPS.GOV/UPARR Application Information Eligible Applicant City or County Government Deadline(s) Geographic Limits Application Forms Online? Initial Approach Board Meeting Date(s) Financial Data Grant Range Recovery Action Program Grants--$2-275,000 Rehabilitation Grants--$8-5,000,000 Innovation Grants--$7-300,000 and are limited to ten percent of the total annual authorization for the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery program Match Requirement Recovery Action Program Grants --50% Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program funds (Department of Housing and Urban Development) may be used as part of the local match. Rehabilitation Grants--$30 Innovation Grants —30% Period of Funding/Project Construction activities in either Rehabilitation or Innovation proposals will be limited to 3 years or 3 full construction seasons, whichever is greater. Innovation proposals which consist of service or program stages (e.g., hiring or training personnel, and action/element before actually providing the recreation service) must be initiated within 1 year from grant approval. Planning grants should be completed within 1 year from grant approval. Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1.Rehabilitation of Recreational 1. Areas and Facilities

8 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

2.Improve Park Systems 2. Management 3. Improve Recreational Planning 3. Recent Grants Type of Support Needs assessments, rebuilding, remodeling, or expanding existing facilities. Innovation Grants may cover personnel, facilities, equipment, supplies or services designed to demonstrate innovative and cost effective ways to enhance park and recreation opportunities at the neighborhood level. Not Funded Funds may not be used for routine maintenance and upkeep activities nor may they be used for acquisition. Sources of Above Information J Directories/grant indexes J Grantor’s Web Site Notes:

9 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

State Funding Sources

10 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Program Open Space

Basic Information Name Program Open Space Agency Department of Natural Resources Address 580 Taylor Avenue, E-4 Annapolis, MD 21401 Contact Person Chip Price, Director Program Open Space Phone 410-260-8426 410-260-8404 FAX Website http://www.dnr.state.md.us/pos.html Application Information Eligible Applicant Local Governments Deadline(s) July 1 Geographic Limits Application Forms Online? Yes. Initial Approach Board Meeting Date(s) Financial Data Grant Range Match Requirement Varies, None for Acquisitions Period of Funding/Project Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1. Land Acquisition 1. 2. Parks 2. 3. Trails 3. Recent Grants Type of Support Sources of Above Information J Directories/grant indexes J Grantor’s Web Site Notes:

11 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Community Legacy Grant

Basic Information Name Community Legacy Grant Agency Department of Housing and Community Development Address 100 Community Place, Crownsville, MD, 21032-2023 Contact Person Karen Ashby [email protected] Phone (410)514-7289 FAX Website http://www.dhcd.state.md.us/legacy/index.cfm Application Information Eligible Applicant Municipalities, Counties, Community Development Organization Deadline(s) September 9, 2002 Geographic Limits Must be in a Priority Funding Area Application Forms Online? Yes. Initial Approach Contact Program Officer. Board Meeting Date(s) Awards made within two months. Financial Data Grant Range $10-1,000,000 Match Requirement Not Required, but preferred Period of Funding/Project 1 Year Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1. Land Acquisition/Demolition 1. 2. Economic Development 2. Retrofits/LID, Green design % construction 3. Façade/Property Improvement 3. LID 4. Personnel to Implement 4. Contract Salaries Revitalization Efforts Recent Grants Prince George’s County-Gateway Arts District: $1,020,000 from CDA for the Mt. Rainier Artist Apartments. $58,000 from NBDP for predevelopment activities associated with the African- American Museum at North Brentwood. An additional $30,000 from CL for Gateway CDC operating funds and $20,000 for a Main Street coordinator. Also, $25,000 from NBDP for predevelopment work of a warehouse building in Mt. Rainier into a new, larger location for Joe’s Movement Emporium.

12 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Prince George’s County – Greenbelt: $50,000 from CL for renovation of the historic Greenbelt Theatre and $15,000 for the creation of a commercial loan fund. Also, $25,000 from CDA for rehab of assisted living units. Prince George’s County –Hyattsville: $137,000 from CL for the Anacostia trail improvements ($72,000), commercial façade improvements ($40,000) and a Community Legacy coordinator ($25,000). Also, $50,000 from CDA for a high risk rehab loan project ($25,000) and property acquisition ($25,000). Prince George’s County – International Corridor: $150,000 from CL for renovation of the historic McCormick-Goodhart mansion in Langley Park. Prince George’s County – Laurel: $15,000 from CL for pre-development work on the Laurel Armory. Prince George’s County – Palmer Park: $75,000 from CDA for rehabilitation loans ($50,000) and a program to take action against nuisance houses ($25,000). Also, $25,000 from NBDP for a Community Legacy coordinator and $20,700 from CL for home ownership credit counseling. Prince George’s County – Port Towns: $350,000 from CL for acquisition of the George Washington historic house and $72,623 for Bladensburg streetscape improvements. Type of Support Grants, Loans Sources of Above Information JDirectories/grant indexes J Grantor’s Web Site Notes:

13 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Community Parks and Playgrounds

Basic Information Name Community Parks and Playgrounds Agency Maryland Department of Natural Resources Capital Grants and Loans Administration Program Open Space/ Community Parks and Playgrounds Address Tawes Office Bldg E-4 580 Taylor Ave. Annapolis, MD 21401

Contact Person Marketa L. Walker, Program Manager Phone (410) 260 – 8465 FAX Website http://www.dnr.state.md.us/grantsandloans/cppintro.html Application Information Eligible Applicant Local Government Deadline(s) January 14, 2002 Geographic Limits Priority Funding Area Application Forms Online? Yes. Initial Approach Board Meeting Date(s) Awards are made by March 25, 2002 Financial Data Grant Range $10-100,000 Match Requirement Match funding is considered as enhancing criteria, not a requisite. Period of Funding/Project Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1. Rehabilitate, expand or improve 1. Trails, Amphitheatres, existing parks or create new Environmental Education parks kiosks or signage 2. Purchase and install playground 2. equipment in older neighborhoods 3. Construction or replacement of 3. Trails pathways to improve pedestrian or bicycle circulation Recent Grants City of Hyattsville – Heurich Playground Mobility Park $112,300 City of Greenbelt – Buddy Attick Park $ 44, 001 Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission -- Mount Rainer Neighborhood Nature and Recreation Center $ 93,750

14 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Town of Cheverly – Pinkey Oden Park $45,000 Town of Landover Hills -- Landover Hills Neighborhood Playground $75,000 City of District Heights -- Marbury Court Playground $75,000 Town of Fairmont Heights –Fairmont Heights Community Park $70,000 Type of Support While land acquisition costs may be considered for project funding, the highest priority will be placed on capital costs associated with park and playground development and improvement. Not Funded Hiring of staff, routine seasonal maintenance, project design and engineering costs that are in excess of 10% of total project amount. Sources of Above Information J Directories/grant indexes J Grantor’s Web Site Notes: Project is consistent with the Land Preservation and Recreation Plan and/or other local Master Plans/Comprehensive Plans for the applicable jurisdiction.

15 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Non-point Source Funding

Basic Information Name Non-point Source Funding Agency Coastal Zone Management Program, MD Dept. of Natural Resources Address 580 Taylor Avenue, E-2, Annapolis, MD 21401 Contact Person Katharine Dowell, Non-point Source Program Manager [email protected] Phone 410-260-8741 FAX Website http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/czm/nps/ Application Information Eligible Applicant Local Governments Deadline(s) September 25, 2002 Geographic Limits Priority restoration and protection watersheds Application Forms Online? Yes. Initial Approach Board Meeting Date(s) Financial Data Grant Range $60,000 Match Requirement 40% Period of Funding/Project 1.5 years Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1. Non-point Pollution Control 1. Living Roof, Cisterns, Rainbarrels 2. LID 2. Bio-Retention 3. P2 Activities 3. Sustainable Development, Environmental Education Recent Grants Type of Support Sources of Above Information J Directories/grant indexes J Grantor’s Web Site Notes: First priority will be given to projects that have a direct relationship to drafted or completed watershed plans

16 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Transportation Enhancement

Basic Information Name Transportation Enhancement

Agency Maryland State Highway Administration Regional and Intermodal Planning Division Address Mail Stop C502 P.O. Box 717 Baltimore, MD 21203-0717 Contact Person Mr. Dennis N. Simpson [email protected] Phone (410)545-5675 or 1-888-204-4828 (410)209-5025 FAX Website http://www.sha.state.md.us/oppe/tep.htm Application Information Eligible Applicant County or Municipal Government, a private non-profit organization, a community group, or an individual. Projects proposed by non- governmental agencies must secure an appropriate government agency as a co-sponsor. Deadline(s) September 25, 2002 Geographic Limits Application Forms Online? Initial Approach Call to discuss project and determine eligibility. Proposals are accepted at anytime during the year and funds are awarded to new projects in the summer and in the fall. Board Meeting Date(s) Financial Data Grant Range 50% Total Project Cost Match Requirement 50% Period of Funding/Project Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1. Design and Construction of 1. Waterfront Park Boat Ramp, Hiker/Biker Trails, Trail Trails Facilities, Bus Stops, Ferry Landings 2. Acquisition of Scenic or 2. Land Acquisistion Historic Sites Adjacent to State Highways 3. Rehabilitation of Tourist and 3. Welcome Centers Welcome Centers That Demonstrate a Clear link to Scenic or Historic Sites 17 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

4. Lanscaping. 4. LID Recent Grants Type of Support Sources of Above Information JDirectories/grant indexes J Grantor’s Web Site Notes:

18 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Watershed Restoration Assessment Strategy

Basic Information Name Watershed Restoration Assessment Strategy Agency Department of Natural Resources Address Tawes Building, E-2, 580 Taylor Ave Annapolis, MD 21401 Contact Person Danielle Lucid, WRAS Program Phone (410)-260-8726 FAX Website http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/czm/nps/wras/rfp_2002.htm Application Information Eligible Applicant Select Local Governments Deadline(s) August 23, 2002 Geographic Limits There are some watersheds that will receive the highest consideration. The Clean Water Action Plan Categories will influence the overall selection as will those watersheds with approved or scheduled Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDLs). A watershed listed on the 303d list will also be favored. Application Forms Online? Yes. Initial Approach Board Meeting Date(s) Awards are announced in September. Financial Data Grant Range $40,000 Match Requirement Match may or may not be required. DNR supports WRAS development with two funding sources one requires match and one does not. Your designation as a coastal or non coastal county also matters. Period of Funding/Project Two years that may then lead to pollution prevention project funding. Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1. The development of a 1. comprehensive watershed management plan that, at a minimum, reflects specific goals and commitments to protect and restore habitat and water quality. Type of Support DNR is an active partner and provides a number of natural resource assessment services.

19 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Sources of Above Information J Directories/grant indexes J Grantor’s Web Site

20 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

National Recreational Trail Grant

Basic Information Name National Recreational Trail Grant Agency Maryland State Highway Administration Office of Environmental Design Address Mail Stop C-303 P.O. Box 717 Baltimore, MD 21203-0717 Contact Person Terry Maxwell, Recreational Trails Coordinator [email protected] Phone 410-545-8640 410-209-5003 FAX Website http://www.sha.state.md.us/oed/trails.htm Application Information Eligible Applicant Local Governments. Deadline(s) July 1, 2003. Geographic Limits Application Forms Online? Yes. Initial Approach Board Meeting Date(s) Financial Data Grant Ranges $30,000 Match Requirement 50% Period of Funding/Project Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1. Trails, Landscaping 1. Trails 2. Acquisition 2. Recent Grants Type of Support Sources of Above Information J Directories/grant indexes J Grantor’s Web Site Notes: Preference will be given to project that will be accomplished with youth conservation or service groups to perform construction and maintenance.

21 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Waterways Improvement Fund

Basic Information Name Waterways Improvement Fund Agency Department of Natural Resources Address Tawes Building E-4 580 Taylor Ave, Annapolis, MD 21401 Contact Person Mr. Michael Ewing, Director, Waterway Improvement Program [email protected] Phone 410-260-8440 410-260-8404 FAX Website http://www.dnr.state.md.us/grantsandloans/wwigrantprocess.html Application Information Eligible Applicant Local Governments Deadline(s) January 15th Geographic Limits Application Forms Online? Yes. Initial Approach Initial inquiry ongoing, then site visit. Board Meeting Date(s) Awards by April. Financial Data Grant Ranges $5-100,000 Match Requirement Up to $50% Period of Funding/Project Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1. Boating Facilities 1. Waterfront Park, Trails 2. Waterway Recreational Projects 2. “ Recent Grants • Marking of channels and harbors and establishing aids to navigation. • Clearing of debris, aquatic vegetation and obstructions from navigable waters of the state. • Dredging channels and harbors, and constructing jetties and breakwaters, including those projects in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. • Construction of marine facilities beneficial to the general boating public. • Installation of marine sewage pump-out stations. • Improvement, reconstruction, or removal of bridges,

22 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

drawbridges or similar structures over or across water if those structures delay, impede, or obstruct the boating public. • Evaluation of water oriented recreation needs and capacities of Maryland waterways and the development of comprehensive plans for waterway improvement projects. • Boating information and education. • Construction of marine facilities for marine firefighting, police, first aid and medical assistance, and communications for promoting safety of life and property and general service to the boating public. • Acquisition of State equipment and vessels for marine firefighting, policing, first aid and medical assistance, and communications for promoting safety of life and property and general service to the boating public.

Type of Support Sources of Above Information J Directories/grant indexes J Grantor’s Web Site Notes:

23 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Private and Corporate Funding Sources

24 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

American Express Philanthropic

Basic Information Name American Express Philanthropic Foundation Address 200 Vesey Street 48th Floor New York, NY 10285-4804 Contact Person Anne Wickham, Cultural Heritage Program Officer Phone (212) 640-5661 FAX Website www.americanexpress.com/corp/philanthropy Application Information Eligible Applicant (501) © 3 Deadline(s) Applications must be submitted by mail and postmarked accordingly, Arts/Cultural Heritage by January 15, Economic Independence by April 15, and Community Service by August 15. Committee reviews take place 60-90 days after each submission deadline. Geographic Limits None stated. Application Forms Online? Yes Initial Approach To apply for funding, please prepare a hard-copy proposal in the form of a letter, no more than one to three pages in length according to specified format. Board Meeting Date(s) None stated. Financial Data Grant Range $50-500,000 Required Match Non stated. Period of Funding None stated. Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Area Subject Focus 1. Cultural Heritage 1. Eco-Tourism, Environmental • Public awareness of the Preservation, Promotion, importance of Environmental Education environmental preservation. • Preservation and management of major tourism sites. 2. Economic Independence 2. Eco-Tourism • Promote entrepreneurship and small business development.

25 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Recent Grants Conservation Fund, The; Adirondack Gateway Communities Initiative; Arlington, VA National Urban League: Funded implementation of education and employment initiatives serving African-Americans through local affiliates throughout the United States. Count Me In: Internet-based micro-lending program that provides loans and small business technical assistance to women entrepreneurs nationwide. Friends of the New York Transit Museum: Culture Card; Brooklyn, NY Type of Support Direct, General Support Technical Assistance: Not Funded Traveling exhibitions Sources of Above Information JDirectories/grant indexes J Grantor’s Web Site Notes: Projects must have National Scope and benefit more than one community. Only proposals typed, signed and in hard-copy format will be reviewed. Please do not submit electronic requests for grants.

26 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Alex Brown & Sons Charitable Foundation

Basic Information Name Alex Brown & Sons Charitable Foundation

Address One South Street, 30th Floor Baltimore, MD 21202

Contact Person Margaret Preston Phone (410) 727-1700 (410) 895-3950 FAX Website Application Information Eligible Applicant Deadline(s) Geographic Limits Application Forms Online? Initial Approach Board Meeting Date(s) Financial Data Grant Range $5-200,000 Required Match Period of Funding Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1. Community Development 1. Retrofits, LID

2. Conservation/Parks 2. Restoration, Mitigation, Trails, Gardens Recent Grants Type of Support Not Funded Sources of Above Information JDirectories/grant indexes F Grantor’s Web Site

27 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Morris & Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation

Basic Information Name Morris & Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation Address 1825 K Street, N.W., 14th Floor Washington, DC 20006 Contact Person Gail Criger, Program Officer Phone (202) 223-3100 (202) 296-7567 FAX Website http://www.cafritzfoundation.org Application Information Eligible Applicant 501(c)(3) Deadline(s) March 1, July 1, and November 1 by 4:00 p.m. Geographic Limits Washington, DC area Application Forms Online? WRAG Common Grant Application Format. Please send one, unbound copy of your proposal to Ms. Anne Allen, Executive Director. Most decisions are made within 6-9 months of the deadline date for which the proposal was submitted. Initial Approach Not stated. Board Meeting Date(s) Not stated. Financial Data Grant Range $2-300,000 Required Match Not stated. Period of Funding 1 year Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1. Environmental Stewardship, 1. Farmers Market, LID/Gardens, and Leaderships Trails, Restoration, Mitigation, Eco Tourism, Pass Through Grants Recent Grants Low Impact Development Center, Inc $10,000 For restorative landscaping to protect and improve urban water quality. Anacostia Watershed Society $65,000 General support. Center for Watershed Protection $30,000 For Builders for the Bay to initiate changes in the local codes and ordinances of 12 Chesapeake Bay communities and to allow for better site design. Coalition for Smarter Growth $30,000 outright for general support and $20,000 as a 1:1 match to hire an organizer in Prince George's County, Maryland. American Farmland Trust $20,000 outright and $5,000 as a 1:1 match for the Freshfarm Market and expanded educational activities.

28 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Community Harvest $35,000 General support to address the need of affordable fresh food sources for low-income neighborhoods in DC. The Sierra Club Foundation $40,000 $30,000 outright and $10,000 as a 1:1 match for the Sustainable Washington Project. Earth Conservation Corps $200,000 To be paid over two years, for Riverlife Expeditions, a program that focuses on the Anacostia River and inner-city neighborhoods. Garden Resources of Washington $15,000 outright and $10,000 as a 2:1 match for general support. Type of Support Matching Grants Not Funded Capital Projects, Special Events Sources of Above Information J Directories/grant indexes J Grantor’s Web Site Notes: Grant applicants may not reapply for a period of one year from the time of their most recent application date. While proposals may be submitted at any time, applications received between deadlines will be held until the next deadline date for review.

29 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Clark Charitable Foundation

Basic Information Name Clark Charitable Foundation Address 7500 Old Georgetown Rd., 15th Fl. Bethesda, MD 20814 Contact Person Courtney Clark Patrick Phone (301) 657-7166 (301) 657-7263 FAX Website Application Information Eligible Applicant Deadline(s) March, December Geographic Limits Application Forms Online? Initial Approach Board Meeting Date(s) Financial Data Grant Range $10-200,000 Required Match Period of Funding Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1. Conservation 1. Trails, LID, Sustainable Development Recent Grants Type of Support Operating Sources of Above Information J Directories/grant indexes J Grantor’s Web Site Notes:

30 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Clark-Winchcole Foundation

Basic Information Name Clark-Winchcole Foundation Address 3 Bethesda Metro Ctr., Ste. 550 Bethesda, MD 20814 Contact Person Vincent C. Burke, Jr. Phone (301) 654-3607 FAX Website Application Information Eligible Applicant Deadline(s) January-June Geographic Limits Application Forms Online? Initial Approach Board Meeting Date(s) Financial Data Grant Range $2-300,000 Required Match Period of Funding Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1. Culture 1. Eco-Tourism 2. Community Development 2. LID/Urban retrofit 3. Conservation/Parks 3. Trails, Living Roof , Garden/LID Recent Grants Type of Support Building, General Operating Not Funded Sources of Above Information J Directories/grant indexes J Grantor’s Web Site

31 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Freed Foundation

Basic Information Name Freed Foundation Address 1025 Thomas Jefferson St., Ste. 308 E. Washington, DC 20007 Contact Person Elizabeth Freed Phone (202) 337-5487 FAX Website Application Information Eligible Applicant Deadline(s) April Geographic Limits Application Forms Online? Initial Approach Board Meeting Date(s) Financial Data Grant Range $1-250,000 Required Match Period of Funding Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Priority Areas Subject Focus 1. Environment 1. Recent Grants Type of Support Building Sources of Above Information J Directories/grant indexes F Grantor’s Web Site Notes:

32 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

LaVerna Hahn Charitable Trust

Basic Information Name LaVerna Hahn Charitable Trust Address 7 St. Paul St., Ste. 1400 Baltimore, MD 21202- 1626 Contact Person John H. Somerville Phone (410) 347-8786 FAX Website Application Information Eligible Applicant Deadline(s) Geographic Limits Application Forms Online? Initial Approach Board Meeting Date(s) Financial Data Grant Range Required Match Period of Funding/Project Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1. 1. 2. 2. Recent Grants Type of Support Sources of Above Information JDirectories/grant indexes F Grantor’s Web Site Notes:

33 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

J. J. Haines Foundation

Basic Information Name J. J. Haines Foundation Address 6950 Aviation Blvd. Glen Burnie, MD 21061 Contact Person M. Lee Marston Phone (410) 760-4040 FAX Website Application Information Eligible Applicant Deadline(s) October Geographic Limits Application Forms Online? Initial Approach Board Meeting Date(s) Financial Data Grant Range $1-30,000 Required Match Period of Funding Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1. Culture 1. Eco Tourism 2. Economic Development 2. LID/Urban retrofit 3. Conservation/Parks 3. Trails, Gardens, Living Roof Recent Grants Type of Support Sources of Above Information J Directories/grant indexes F Grantor’s Web Site Notes:

34 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Sidney L. Hechinger Foundation

Basic Information Name Sidney L. Hechinger Foundation Address 5001 Upton Street, NW Washington, DC 20016 Contact Person S. Ross Hechinger Phone (201) 363-7760 FAX Website Application Information Eligible Applicant Deadline(s) Geographic Limits Application Forms Online? Initial Approach Board Meeting Date(s) Financial Data Grant Range $1-40,000 Required Match Period of Funding Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1. Economic Development 1. LID/Urban retrofit 2. Culture 2. Eco-Tourism 3. Conservation 3. Trails, Gardens, LID Recent Grants Type of Support Sources of Above Information J Directories/grant indexes F Grantor’s Web Site Notes: Special focus on African American.

35 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Hitachi Foundation

Basic Information Name Hitachi Foundation, General Grants Program Address 1509 22nd St., N.W. Washington, DC 20037-1073 Contact Person Barbara Dyer or Renata Hron Phone (202) 457-0588 (202) 457-0588 FAX Website www.hitachifoundation.org Application Information Eligible Applicant 501 (C) (3) Deadline(s) For the reminder of 2003 NO RFP will be issued by the Foundation. Geographic Limits Laurel, Washington DC Area Application Forms Online? Yes. Initial Approach Not stated. Board Meeting Date(s) Not stated. Financial Data Grant Range $15-250,000 Required Match None stated. Period of Funding 1-3 years Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1. Economic Development 1. LID/Urban retrofit 2. Culture 2. Eco-Tourism 3. Conservation 3. Trails, Gardens, LID Recent Grants None listed. Type of Support Matching Grants. Sources of Above Information J Directories/grant indexes F Grantor’s Web Site Notes:

36 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Grayce B. Kerr Fund Basic Information Name Grayce B. Kerr Fund Address 117 Bay St. Easton, MD 21601 Contact Person Heather Brady [email protected] Phone (410) 822-6652 (410) 822-4546 FAX Website Application Information Eligible Applicant Deadline(s) Geographic Limits Application Forms Online? Initial Approach Board Meeting Date(s) Financial Data Grant Range $5-400,000 Required Match Period of Funding Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1. Culture 1. Heritage Tourism, Museums 2. Arts 2. Art District 3. Conservation/Parks 3. Trails Recent Grants Type of Support Building, Operating Sources of Above Information J Directories/grant indexes F Grantor’s Web Site Notes:

37 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

The Knapp Foundation Inc.

Basic Information Name The Knapp Foundation Inc. Address P.O. Box O St. Michaels, MD 21663 Contact Person Ruth M. Capranica Phone (410) 745-5660 FAX Website Application Information Eligible Applicant Deadline(s) Geographic Limits Application Forms Online? Initial Approach Board Meeting Date(s) Financial Data Grant Range Required Match Period of Funding/Project Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1. 1. 2. 2. Recent Grants Type of Support Sources of Above Information F Directories/grant indexes F Grantor’s Web Site Notes:

38 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Kresge Foundation

Basic Information Name Kresge Foundation Address 3215 W. Big Beaver Rd P.O. Box 315 Troy Michigan 48007-3151 Contact Person Phone (248)643-9630 (248)643-0588 FAX Website www.kresge.org Application Information Eligible Applicant (501) C (3), Governments Deadline(s) None Geographic Limits Application Forms Online? Yes Initial Approach Board Meeting Date(s) March, June, September, December Financial Data Grant Range $100-1,000,000 Required Match Period of Funding/Project 6 – 18 months Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1. Bricks and Mortar 1. Construction, Land Acquisition, Major equipment Recent Grants Oglebay Institute Wheeling, WV $125,000 Toward the construction of a replacement environmental center. Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, Concord, NH $300,000 Toward the construction of a new wing to the Conservation Center. The Nature Conservancy of Washington Seattle, WA $700,000 Toward the purchase of 6,888 acres of land at Moses Coulee - Beezley Hills. Type of Support Building, Renovations, Acquisition Sources of Above Information J Directories/grant indexes J Grantor’s Web Site Notes:

39 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Lockheed Martin Corp. Foundation

Basic Information Name Lockheed Martin Corp. Foundation Address 6801 Rockledge Dr. Bethesda, MD 20817 Contact Person David Phillips Phone (301) 897-6292 (301) 897-6252 FAX Website http://www.lockheedmartin.com/about/community_relations/philanthr opy.html Application Information Eligible Applicant 501(c)(3) Deadline(s) None. Geographic Limits Washington DC Area Application Forms Online? No. Initial Approach A letter less than two pages. Board Meeting Date(s) Quarterly. Financial Data Grant Range $1-500,000 Required Match None Stated. Period of Funding 1 Year Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1. Conservation/Parks 1. Trails, Gardens/LID, Pavilions Recent Grants 1. Discovery Pavilion, Denver Colorado Type of Support Direct Grants. Sources of Above Information J Directories/grant indexes J Grantor’s Web Site

40 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Marpat Foundation Inc.

Basic Information Name Marpat Foundation Inc. Address P.O. Box 1769 Silver Spring, MD 20915-1769 Contact Person Joan F. Koven [email protected] Phone (202) 624-8251 Do not telephone. FAX Website www.marpatfoundation.org Application Information Eligible Applicant 501(c)(3) Deadline(s) The application process has two parts. Any organization may submit the Stage One Summary Sheet by JUNE 1. All applicants will receive a response by the end of June. Those applicants which the Directors wish to consider further will be invited to submit a Stage Two Application that will be mailed to them. The Stage Two application is considerably more time consuming to complete and must be received by August 15, 2002. Geographic Limits Washington D.C Area Application forms online? Initial Approach Board Meeting Date(s) Financial Data Grant Range $2-30,000 (most under $20,000) Required Match Period of Funding/Project Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Area Subject Focus 1. Conserve natural resources 1. Trails and Habitat Restoration Recent Grants Potomac Conservancy Arlington, VA $20,000 For land protection, watershed education and community action programs to restore the Potomac River. Type of Support Sources of Above Information J Directories/grant indexes J Grantor’s Web Site Notes:

41 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Merck Family Fund

Basic Information Name Merck Family Fund Address 303 Adams St. Milton, MA 02186 Contact Person Jenny Russell [email protected] Phone (617) 696-3580 (617) 696-7262 FAX Website http://www.merckff.org Application Information Eligible Applicant 501©(3) Deadline(s) February 28, 2003, August 1, 2003 Geographic Limits None for the Sustainable Economics Program. Application forms online? Associated Grantmakers http://www.agmconnect.org/ Initial Approach LOI Board Meeting Date(s) The Merck Family Fund makes funding decisions twice a year in May and November. Financial Data Grant Range $10-100,000 Required Match None Stated. Period of Funding/Project Multi-year Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1. Promote sustainable 1. Living Roof, LID, Green consumption of natural Building resources at the individual, institutional, and community level 2. Environmentally sustainable 2. Pass Through Grants, Tax economic systems, incentives, Incentives and behaviors Recent Grants Global Action Plan, Woodstock, NY $50,422 To fund the Sustainable Lifestyle Campaign that works with municipalities to reduce their citizens' impact on natural resources and generation of waste. Minimum Impact Development Partnership, Concord, NH $39,126 First year of a two-year, $80,000 grant to help create an ecologically-based standard for development in New Hampshire. New Ecology, Cambridge, MA $35,611 First year of a two-year,

42 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

$70,000 general support grant for sustainable development initiatives in New England. Northwest Earth Institute, Portland, OR $35,809 To support the national network of programs that offer courses on sustainability, consumption, and environmental values. Type of Support Direct Grants. Not Funded Capital Construction, Acquisitions Sources of Above Information J Directories/grant indexes J Grantor’s Web Site Notes: The Fund strongly prefers applications printed double-sided on non-chlorine bleached 100% recycled or alternative paper, and organizations that have a commitment to recycled and reused products throughout their work.

43 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Eugene & Agnes Meyer Foundation

Basic Information Name Eugene & Agnes Meyer Foundation Address 1400 16th St., N.W., Ste. 360 Washington, DC 20036 Contact Person Julie L. Rogers [email protected] Phone (202) 483-8294 (202) 328-6850 FAX Website http://www.meyerfoundation.org Application Information Eligible Applicant (501) c (3) Deadline(s) February 14, June 13, & October 1, 2003 for LOI Geographic Limits Washington DC Area, Prince George’s County Application Forms Online? If your organization has been invited to submit a full proposal to the foundation, you can download the common grant application format from www.wrag.org. http://www.meyerfoundation.org/usr_doc/final_LOI_guidelines.pdf Initial Approach Three collated copies of the LOI and required attachments must be submitted. You should receive a postcard confirming receipt of your LOI within two to three weeks of the LOI deadline. You will be notified two months after the LOI deadline whether or not a proposal will be invited. Board Meeting Date(s) None stated. Financial Data Grant Range $1-50,000 Required Match None stated. Period of Funding 1 Year Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1. Community Development 1. Urban Retrofit/LID, Pass Through Grants 2. Conservation/Parks 2. Trails Recent Grants Washington Regional Network for Livable Communities In February 2000, the Washington Regional Network for Livable Communities received a $10,000 grant from Meyer to support the Redevelopment Program to revitalize older communities by promoting better transportation. DC Heritage Tourism Coalition This $50,000 grant supports general operations for administrative staffing of such initiatives as the expansion of the DC Heritage Trails 44 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

System; completion of a strategic plan for the Shaw neighborhood; development of a heritage tourism marketing plan; creation of a product licensing program for members; and an expanded website. Washington Parks & People, Inc. Meyer awarded a $25,000 grant to Washington Parks and People in October 2000, to support the organization's core work: the Neighborhood Parks Initiative. Type of Support Building, Operating, Matching, Capacity Building, Salaries Not Funded Special Events Sources of Above Information J Directories/grant indexes J Grantor’s Web Site Notes: Management Assistance Program (MAP) grants of up to $10,000 are available to current Meyer grantees for financial management, governance, organizational assessment, or human resources management.

45 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Middendorf Foundation

Basic Information Name Middendorf Foundation Address 2 East Read Street Baltimore, MD 21202 Contact Person E. Phillips Hathaway Phone (410) 752-7088 FAX Website Application Information Eligible Applicant Deadline(s) Geographic Limits Application Forms Online? Initial Approach Board Meeting Date(s) Financial Data Grant Range Required Match Period of Funding/Project Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1. Environmental 1. Trails, Gardens, LID, Green Building Recent Grants Type of Support Building Sources of Above Information J Directories/grant indexes J Grantor’s Web Site

46 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Moriah Fund

Basic Information Name Moriah Fund Address One Farragut Square South 1634 I Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20006-4003 Contact Person Mary Ann Stein For Letters of Inquiry: [email protected] For Proposals: [email protected] Phone (202) 783-8488 (202) 783-8499 FAX Website www.moriahfund.org Application Information Eligible Applicant 501(c)(3) and 509(a) Deadline(s) March1 , August 1 Geographic Limits Forests and wetlands in the eastern part of the US Application Forms Online? Initial Approach LOI one month prior deadline. Based on this letter, the Moriah Fund staff will decide whether to invite a full proposal, and will notify applicants as soon as possible. Board Meeting Date(s) March1 , August 1 Financial Data Grant Range $5-70,000 Required Match Period of Funding/Project Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1. Sustainable Development 1. Eco-tourism, Restoration, Green Roof, LID, Green Building Recent Grants Appalachian Sustainable Development: $25,000 For support of the Sustainable Forestry & Wood Products Project, which aims to increase public commitment to sustainable forestry in the Central Appalachian region, and develop markets for sustainably harvested wood. Alliance to Save Energy: $60,000 For support of its enhanced Energy Efficiency Awareness and Education Campaign, which aims to raise the level of understanding of key policymakers regarding the crucial role efficiency can play in meeting the nation's energy needs. Type of Support Demonstration Projects, Advocacy, Building

47 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Sources of Above Information JDirectories/grant indexes J Grantor’s Web Site

48 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

T. Rowe Price Associates Foundation Inc.

Basic Information Name T. Rowe Price Associates Foundation Inc. Address 100 E. Pratt St. Baltimore, MD 21202 Contact Person Christine D. Stein Phone (410) 345-3603 (410) 345-2848 FAX Website Application Information Eligible Applicant Deadline(s) Geographic Limits Application Forms Online? Initial Approach Board Meeting Date(s) Financial Data Grant Range Required Match Period of Funding/Project Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1. 1. 2. 2. 3. 3. Recent Grants Type of Support Sources of Above Information JDirectories/grant indexes F Grantor’s Web Site Notes:

49 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Rouse Company Foundation

Basic Information Name Rouse Company Foundation Address 10275 Little Patuxent Pkwy. Columbia, MD 21044-3456 Contact Person Margaret P. Mauro Phone (410) 992-6375 (410) 992-6363 FAX Website Application Information Eligible Applicant Deadline(s) Geographic Limits Application Forms Online? Initial Approach Board Meeting Date(s) Financial Data Grant Range $1-100,000 Required Match Period of Funding Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1. Community Development 1. Urban Retrofit/LID 2. Conservation 2. Trails, Parks, Sustainable Development Recent Grants Type of Support Matching, Challenge, Operating, Projects Sources of Above Information J Directories/grant indexes F Grantor’s Web Site Notes:

50 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Summit Foundation

Basic Information Name Summit Foundation Address 2099 Pennsylvania Ave, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20006 Contact Person Phone (202) 912-2900 FAX Website www.summitfdn.org Application Information Eligible Applicant Deadline(s) As a result of the significant decline in the value of our assets, we are not making any new grants in 2002. We will resume limited grant making in 2003, and invite you to check back with us, as we update this site in the coming months with information on our new program priorities. In the meantime, please continue to delay any grant inquiries. Geographic Limits Application Forms Online? Initial Approach Board Meeting Date(s) Financial Data Grant Range $5-250,000 Required Match Period of Funding/Project Grant Program Funding Grantor’s Priority Funding Potential Projects Activity Areas Subject Focus 1. Community Development 1. Urban Retrofit/LID 2. Conservation, Parks 2. Trails, Parks, Sustainable Development Recent Grants Type of Support Sources of Above Information J Directories/grant indexes J Grantor’s Web Site Notes:

51 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Other Funding Prospects

52 WESTERN BRANCH WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGY

Environment Small Grants www.epa.gov/seahome/grants Environmental Education (212) 637-3671 Teresa Ippolito Merck Family Fund www.merckff.org The Merck Foundation www.merckff.org Captain Planet Foundation www.captainplanetfnd.org American Greenways www.conservationfund.org Five Star Restoration www.naco.org/programs/environ/water/grants.cfm Levinson Foundation www.levinsonfoundation.org/Bhow2.html Chesapeake Bay Trust http://www.chesapeakebaytrust.org/guide.html Shared Earth Foundation www.sharedearth.org TKF Foundation www.tkffdn.org/programs.htm The Hut Foundation www.hutfdn.org/guidelines.html Hutzler Fund (800) 327-3066 Albert Hutzler Lawrence Foundaion (301) 652-2356 Samuel Lawrence

1