Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report Frederick County, Maryland

Prepared for: Frederick County Community Development Division Office of Sustainability & Environmental Resources 30 North Market Street Frederick, MD 21701

Prepared by: EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 225 Schilling Circle Suite 400 Hunt Valley, Maryland 21031 (410) 584-7000

April 2016

EA Project No. 6279401 Page intentionally left blank EA Project No.: 6279401 Page i EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

CONTENTS Page

LIST OF APPENDICES ...... i LIST OF FIGURES ...... ii LIST OF TABLES ...... iii LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...... iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 2 1.1 PURPOSE OF STUDY...... 2 1.2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ...... 3

2. PRELIMINARY SITE ASSESSMENT ...... 4 2.1 DESKTOP ASSESSMENT ...... 5 2.2 INITIAL FIELD ASSESSMENT ...... 12 2.3 WORKSHOP WITH COUNTY STAFF ...... 16 2.4 FLUVIAL GEOMORPHIC ASSESSMENT ...... 16

3. DEVELOPMENT OF RESTORATION STRATEGY ...... 19

4. PREDICTING POLLUTANT LOAD REDUCTIONS ...... 20 4.1 APPROACH ...... 20 4.2 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS ...... 24

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 26

6. DETAILED ANALYSISJECT FEASIBILITY CONCEPTS ...... 26 6.1 PROJECT 1 ...... 27 6.2 PROJECT 2 ...... 35 6.3 PROJECT 3 ...... 42 6.4 PROJECT 4 ...... 50 6.5 PROJECT 5 ...... 57

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: TYPICAL STRUCTURES

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page ii EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

LIST OF FIGURES

Number Title

1 Project Location Map

2 Little Hunting Creek Watershed Map

3 Areas of Interest Map

4 Project Sites Ranking Map

5 Top Project Sites

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page iii EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

LIST OF TABLES

Number Title

1 Site Information

2 Priority Ranking of the Sites

3 Summary of Fluvial Geomorphological Assessment

4 List of Priority Projects

5 Potential BMP projects at priority sites

6 Project 1- Pollutant Load Reductions and Impervious Acre Treatment Credits

7 Project 2- Pollutant Load Reductions and Impervious Acre Treatment Credits

8 Project 3- Pollutant Load Reductions and Impervious Acre Treatment Credits

9 Project 4- Pollutant Load Reductions and Impervious Acre Treatment Credits

10 Project 5- Pollutant Load Reductions and Impervious Acre Treatment Credits

11 Cost Estimation

12 Total Cost versus Pollutant Load Reductions and Impervious Acre Treatment Credits

13 Project 1- Property Ownership Information

14 Project 2- Property Ownership Information

15 Project 3- Property Ownership Information

16 Project 4- Property Ownership Information

17 Project 5- Property Ownership Information

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page iv EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AOI Areas of Interest ac. Acres

BMP Best Management Practice

CBP Chesapeake Bay Program

EA EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC ESD Environmental Site Design etc et cetera e.g. for example ft. Foot or Feet

GIS Geographic Information System

Inc. Incorporated

LF Linear Foot or Linear Feet Lbs Pounds

MD Maryland MDE Maryland Department of the Environment MERLIN Maryland’s Environmental Resources and Land Information Network mm Millimeter(s)

NAD North American Datum N/A Not Applicable No. Number

PBC Public Benefit Corporation PVC Polyvinyl Chloride

ROW Right of Way RR Runoff Reduction

SR State Route ST Storm Water Treatment SPSC Step Pool Stormwater Conveyance Sq. ft. Square Foot or Square Feet

TSS Total Suspended Solids TP Total Phosphorous

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page v EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

TN Total Nitrogen WARSSS Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply

Yr Year

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 1 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC (EA) conducted an assessment of the Little Hunting Creek Watershed, located in Frederick County near Thurmont, Maryland in an effort to develop specific stream and watershed restoration actions. The results of this assessment were used to compare and rank each site or sub-watershed area, and to prioritize the areas that would benefit most from watershed/stream restoration efforts to achieve measurable water quality improvements and pollutant and sediment load reductions.

A desktop review of available GIS layers and online resources was performed in order to locate areas for potential stream improvements. A total of thirty (30) areas of interest (AOI) were identified as potential locations for in-stream improvements, upland Best Management Practices (BMP), or structural retrofits. An initial field assessment of each of the 30 sites was conducted in order to field truth the findings of the desktop review and rank each site based on restoration potential. The field assessment was used to identify five priority projects for a more detailed assessment.

EA team members performed geomorphological assessments on September 15, 16, 18, 21 and 22 at the top priority sites. Cross section, profile and pebble count data were collected, as applicable at the stream sites. Out of nine study sites, eight of the sites contained stream channels. Sites FD06, FD21, FD22 and FD24 are within Little Hunting Creek, sites FD19 and FD23 are unnamed tributaries to Little Hunting Creek, sites FD28 and FD30 are un-named tributaries to Big Hunting Creek, and site FD29 is identified as an inline pond in between sites FD28 and FD30.

Based on the information obtained during the detailed site assessments, EA developed potential projects based on multiple factors, including the prioritization of specific study sites based on identified impairments of concern for the watershed, feasibility of implementation, and the potential for ecological and biological uplift of the watershed. Through the field assessment of the nine sites, EA developed 5 potential restoration projects.

For each of the five proposed restoration concept sites, EA performed an assessment of pollutant load reductions, impervious surface treatment area, and a cost estimate in order to determine a cost benefit analysis of each of the projects. Based on this assessment EA identified two projects that would provide a greater benefit with a lower cost and should be considered as the top two priority projects for future consideration.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 2 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 1. INTRODUCTION

The Frederick County Planning and Permit, Office of Sustainability and Environmental Resources has contracted EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC (EA) to conduct an assessment of the Little Hunting Creek watershed, located in Frederick County near Thurmont, Maryland (Appendix A: Figure 1). Located in the northwestern part of Frederick County, Little Hunting Creek flows west to east beginning in the Catoctin Mountains west of Cunningham Falls State Park. The Little Hunting Creek watershed is primarily forested upstream of SR 15, whereas the primary land use downstream of SR 15 is agricultural (Figure 2). The creek flows along the southern edge of the park before passing under SR 15 and continuing east to its confluence with Big Hunting Creek. Along the southern edge of Cunningham Falls State Park, Little Hunting Creek flows along Catoctin Hollow Road which passes over the creek in several locations. As Little Hunting Creek continues east of SR 15, a narrow and discontinuous riparian buffer separates the creek from the surrounding predominantly agricultural land. A rough approximation shows the watershed to be approximately 10-12 square miles in size, with approximately 2-3 square miles that are non-forested, and approximately 5 miles of the main stream stem are in the lower basin (before joining Hunting Creek). The project area for this assessment includes Little Hunting Creek, which is a perennial stream, and its tributaries, adjacent floodplain, and contributing uplands throughout the corridor described above.

Figure 1. Project Location Map

1.1 PURPOSE OF STUDY

As part of the watershed assessment, EA reviewed the landscape history of the watershed, performed field reconnaissance, and developed a priority matrix tool to identify areas of

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 3 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 impairment for the purpose of recommending specific stream and watershed restoration actions within the watershed. The results of this assessment were used to compare and rank each site or sub-watershed area to prioritize the areas that would benefit most from watershed/stream restoration efforts to achieve measurable water quality improvements and pollutant and sediment load reduction. In addition to identifying potential restoration projects, the study includes a cost analysis for the proposed potential projects in order to assist in the ultimate selection of projects to be implemented.

Figure 2. Little Hunting Creek Watershed Map

1.2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to assess the watershed, and recommend specific stream and watershed restoration projects in order to attain measurable water quality improvements and pollutant load reductions within the Little Hunting Creek Watershed. The anticipated primary project type is in-stream improvements, which can restore eroded segments and land loss, as well as stabilize and protect areas that are becoming (or are threatened to become) unstable.

Upland project concepts that would be useful and allowable are expected to be in the form of:  Fences to keep livestock out of streams  Buffer enhancement/restoration, along both stream and edge of farming plots  Potential tillage and grass management practices  Improved grassed swales and contouring  Urban BMPs, including the use of Environmental Site Design (ESD), on a limited basis.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 4 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 Some traditional drainage projects can also be identified which could improve drainage and the in-stream condition of the watershed. These could include:  Undersized culverts that create erosive velocities, as well as prevent/inhibit fish passage  Larger roadway culverts that require regular maintenance (debris/sediment) to avoid excessive backwaters to upstream areas, or excessive exit velocities to downstream areas  Minor roadway drainage collection and conveyance features (swales, inlets) that avoid intense runoff patterns and hazards to drivers, threaten the stability of roadway crossings (undermining), and damage stream banks.

While the primary goal of each project recommendation is to improve drainage and restore and protect stream banks and property loss from erosion, other supporting water quality benefits will be looked for. This would include reduced pollutant loads (sediment, nutrients and bacteria), improved habitat (biological uplift), and better in-stream pollutant load attenuation (cooler stream temperatures, improved aeration and chemical processes, etc.)

2. PRELIMINARY SITE ASSESSMENTS

During this phase of work, the EA team identified potential project sites through a desktop review in an attempt to identify problem areas that would be further assessed during a preliminary site reconnaissance, and then develop a list of high priority sites for future detailed analysis. Figure 3 below displays the thirty (30) potential project sites identified during desktop review.

Figure 3. Areas of Interest Map

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 5 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 2.1 DESKTOP ASSESSMENT

A desktop review of available GIS layers and online resources was performed in order to locate areas for potential stream improvements, quantify the number of locations to visit, and discuss area of known interest with County staff to affirm field assignment emphasis. This included a review of available property ownership information using GIS layers. Resources used to perform the desktop review included GIS layers provided by Frederick County, the Maryland Park Service website, and Maryland’s Environmental Resource and Land Information Network (MERLIN). A total of 30 areas of interest (AOI) were identified as potential locations for in- stream improvements, upland BMPs, or structural retrofits and are presented in Figure 3.

EA used the information obtained from the Desktop Analysis to fill-out “Desktop Screening Forms” for each site. The desktop screening form was developed by a team of engineers and scientists from EA. The form provides general information of various parameters that could be obtained mostly from the desktop review of available GIS layers and other online resources. Parameters such as: existing land use, approximate length of stream, evidence of channelization, evidence of any improvements, potential erosion sources, potential nutrient sources, type and width of riparian buffer, any type of constraints, distance from public roads, site accessibility, etc. are selected to determine whether the sites that are identified during the Desktop Analysis need a field visit during the initial field assessment task.

Prior to conducting field reconnaissance activities, EA created field maps for all 30 sites using the GIS database. The GIS base mapping was used for guidance in the field, and also to review existing conditions of the watershed and individual sites to identify potential sources of watershed impairments.

The site information table (Table 1) below presents a summary of each of the desktop-identified project sites.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 6 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 Forested GIS Site Potential Square Linear Buffer Land Use Coordinates Property Info Notes Number Project Feet Feet Present (NAD 83) Account #: 1115355859/1 115340851/11 The proximity of Little Stream 39.586009° 15341572 Hunting Creek to Catoctin FD01 -- 936 Yes Forest Restoration -77.462862° Map: 0024 Hollow Road may Parcel: undermine the roadway. 0101/0002/00 45 Account #: Potential location for Stream 39.583405° 1115589810 instream restoration such as FD02 -- 964 Yes Forest Restoration -77.455444° Map: 0024 bank stabilization and Parcel: 0002 velocity controls. Little Hunting Creek passes under Catoctin Hollow Structural 39.582197° Road and is potential FD03 -- 113 Yes Forest Unknown Retrofit -77.452092° location for stream bank stabilization and structural retrofit. Potential location for Stream 39.580906° instream restoration such as FD04 -- 740 Yes Forest Unknown Restoration -77.448714° bank stabilization and velocity controls. Little Hunting Creek passes under SR15 and is potential Structural 39.583498° FD05 -- 130 Yes ROW SR 15 ROW location for stream bank Retrofit -77.435316° stabilization and structural retrofit.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 7 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 Forested GIS Site Potential Square Linear Buffer Land Use Coordinates Property Info Notes Number Project Feet Feet Present (NAD 83) Tenants on adjacent property have raised Stream 39.579715° FD06 -- 466 Partial Forest Unknown concern that Little Hunting Restoration -77.431799° Creek is undermining their property. Account #: Little Hunting Creek passes Structural 39.574566° 1115341556 under private driveway, FD07 -- 58 Yes Forest Retrofit -77.428454° Map: 0032 potential location for Parcel: 0017 improved crossing. Little Hunting Creek passes under Blacks Mill Road, Structural 39.572506° FD08 -- 58 Yes Road Road ROW potential location for stream Retrofit -77.425468° bank stabilization and structural retrofit. Historic aerials show that Account #: the fish hatchery located on 1115341556/1 the property was Upland 39.572686° 115340134 FD09 181,605 -- Yes Forest constructed over an old BMP -77.423387° Map: 0032 stream. Infrared Parcel: photography show channels 0017/0020 still exist in this area. Account #: Tributary to Little Hunting Agriculture Upland 39.570328° 1115326034 Creek with little riparian FD10 591,578 -- Partial / BMP -77.427910° Map: 0032 buffer. Potential location for Forest Parcel: 0019 riparian planting.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 8 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 Forested GIS Site Potential Square Linear Buffer Land Use Coordinates Property Info Notes Number Project Feet Feet Present (NAD 83)

Little Hunting Creek passes

under private driveway,

Structural 39.566316° potential for improved FD11 -- 111 No Agriculture Account #: Retrofit -77.419940° crossing. 1120397756 Potential for stream Map: 0032 degradation due to driveway Stream 39.565031° Parcel: 0039 FD12 -- 284 No Agriculture crossing, lack of riparian Restoration -77.420742° buffer, and proximity of land practices. Farm pond adjacent to Account #: unnamed tributary to Little Upland 39.565031° 1120397756 FD13 20,591 -- No Agriculture Hunting Creek with no BMP -77.420742° Map: 0032 buffer, potential location for Parcel: 0039 riparian planting. Little to no riparian buffer Account #: along unnamed tributary to Upland 39.567257°- 1115340134 FD14 40,938 -- Partial Residential Little Hunting Creek, BMP 77.417980° Map: 0032 potential location for Parcel: 0020 riparian planting. Little Hunting Creek passes under Black Mill Road, Structural 39.566467° Blacks Mill FD15 1,761 -- No Agriculture potential location for stream Retrofit -77.417916° Road ROW bank stabilization and structural retrofit.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 9 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 Forested GIS Site Potential Square Linear Buffer Land Use Coordinates Property Info Notes Number Project Feet Feet Present (NAD 83)

Lack of riparian buffer along unnamed tributary to Little Hunting Creek and Stream 39.565148°- FD16 -- 843 Partial Agriculture proximity of existing road Restoration 77.416105° and agricultural practices -

potential stream

degradation.

Account #: Lack of riparian buffer 1120397756 along unnamed tributary to Little Hunting Creek and Stream 39.563861° Map: 0032 FD17 -- 1,799 Partial Agriculture proximity of existing road Restoration -77.415317° Parcel: 0039 and agricultural practices - potential stream degradation. Little to no riparian buffer Upland 39.567523° along unnamed tributary to FD18 -- 482 No Agriculture BMP -77.414551° Account #: Little Hunting Creek within 1115340134 a livestock pasture Map: 0032 Little to no riparian buffer Upland 39.567129° Parcel: 0020 along unnamed tributary to FD19 -- 1,204 Partial Agriculture BMP -77.413711° Little Hunting Creek within a livestock pasture. Little Hunting Creek passes Hessong under Hessong Bridge Structural 39.564796° FD20 -- 186 No ROW Bridge Road Road, potential location for Retrofit -77.414043° ROW stream bank stabilization and structural retrofit.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 10 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 Forested GIS Site Potential Square Linear Buffer Land Use Coordinates Property Info Notes Number Project Feet Feet Present (NAD 83) Account #: Lack of riparian buffer and Stream 39.563785° 110415860 proximity of local land FD21 -- 838 Partial Agriculture Restoration -77.412073° Map: 0032 practices - likelihood of Parcel: 0034 stream degradation. Private, unpaved access Structural road crosses Little Hunting Retrofit 39.564621° FD22 -- 445 Partial Agriculture Creek, potential location for and Stream -77.403435° improved crossing or Restoration Account #: structural retrofit. 1104153553 Little to no riparian buffer Map: 0032 along unnamed tributary to Parcel: 0008 Upland 39.567874° Little Hunting Creek within FD23 92,804 No Agriculture BMP -77.398574° an agriculture field, potential location for riparian planting. Confluence of Little Hunting Creek and unnamed tributary near Blacks Mill Rd. Large Stream 39.567664° FD24 -- 536 Partial Agriculture meanders located near the Restoration -77.397843° Account #: confluence are likely 1104151305M eroded. Potential location ap: for instream restoration and 0032Parcel: bank stabilization 0035 Little to no riparian buffer Upland 39.567636° FD25 437,750 Partial Agriculture along Little Hunting Creek BMP -77.394796° within agricultural fields FD26 Upland -- 423 No Agriculture 39.568281° Little to no riparian buffer

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 11 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 Forested GIS Site Potential Square Linear Buffer Land Use Coordinates Property Info Notes Number Project Feet Feet Present (NAD 83) BMP -77.395007° along unnamed tributary to Little Hunting Creek within agricultural fields. Potential for riparian planting Little Hunting Creek passes under Wilhide Road just before confluence with Big Structural 39.564690° Wilhide Road FD27 -- 116 Partial ROW Hunting Creek. Potential Retrofit -77.387642° ROW location for stream bank stabilization and structural retrofit. Account #: Little to no riparian buffer 1104156687 along unnamed tributary Upland 39.570342° Little Hunting Creek within FD28 -- 1,135 No Agriculture Map: 0032 BMP -77.389644° Parcel: 0005 agricultural fields. Potential location for riparian planting. Inline farm pond with no Upland 39.571217° riparian buffer. Potential FD29 58,250 -- No Agriculture BMP -77.387618° location for riparian planting. Little to no riparian buffer along unnamed tributary Upland 39.571851° FD30 -- 700 No Agriculture Little Hunting Creek within BMP -77.385391° agricultural fields. Potential riparian planting.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 12 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 2.2 INITIAL FIELD ASSESSMENTS

As part of scope of work, initial field assessments were accomplished on 11 and 13 May by an EA team including one scientist and one engineer. The purpose of the visit was to execute a quick assessment of each of the potential project sites identified during the desktop assessment. Rapid evaluations were performed by the crew members at each site to identify potential concerns or issues at the site, determine opportunities for potential restoration, and rank each site based on a standardized scoring form to determine the highest priority sites for future restoration. EA personnel focused the field review to identify potential sources of impairments to the watershed, areas of the stream corridor that had potential for in-stream restoration, and locations for watershed restoration projects based on feasibility and potential for water quality and habitat improvements.

During the field reviews, EA noted characteristics of the watershed that were identified throughout many of the study sites during the desktop analysis and prioritization process. The crew started their assessment starting at upstream site ‘FD01’ and worked towards the downstream locations. Pictures were taken and field notes were recorded during the assessment. The crew also consulted with property owners, where possible, to identify the problematic areas and their concerns, if any. Areas lacking forested riparian buffer were also observed throughout the watershed. Some of the sites that are located along the main stream corridor appeared to have encroached by continuous mobilization of different types of equipment through the channel (for example site FD21, FD22 and FD25). Some owners have mowed and removed vegetation within five feet (ft.) of the stream channel (for example: downstream of site FD06). Data collected during field assessment were used to develop a list of priority areas that will receive a comprehensive field assessment in Task 2.

After completion of the rapid field assessment, the EA team gathered and organized field notes, pictures, and information received from adjacent property owners during field visit. Along with the standardized scoring form, EA team staff applied their expertise to develop a list of priority ranking (High, Medium, Low) of these sites, as well as sites that had no potential for future restoration. For this particular project, sites with the total score of up to 50 are considered as low priority, sites scoring from 51 to 60 are considered as medium priority, and the ones that score 61 and above are considered as a high priority sites. A color coded map was built to show high, medium, low, and sites that has no project potentials (Figure 4).

EA’s standardized scoring form provides general information, obtained mostly from visual-based instantaneous field observations of various parameters. Relevant and clearly defined parameters such as: stream length, accessibility to the site, existing adjacent tree cover, presence of visible utilities, bank erosion potential, BMP potential, drainage area, stream order, percentage cover of impervious land, total number of property owners, etc. are selected to rank the mitigation priority of each assessed site. All parameters are evaluated and rated on a numerical scale of 1 to 10 (10 = highest) for each assessment site. These parameters are classified into Optimal, Suboptimal, Marginal, and Poor based on their score range. The ratings are then totaled to get final score. Scores increase as the priority increases. To ensure consistency in the evaluation procedure, descriptions of the parameters and relative criteria are included in the ranking form.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 13 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 Figure 4. Project Sites Ranking Map

Table 2 below provides a summary of the field assessment results including the identification of the sites with the highest restoration priority. All of the top priority sites were identified at locations downstream of Catoctin Mountain Highway (Route 15).

Table 2: Priority Ranking of the Sites Site Restoration Priority Potential Mitigation Field Notes Number Priority Score Measures Potential for stabilization on Left side facing Bank stabilization using FD01 Low 39 downstream. Two eroded gabion wall. Bank sections along the Road. Erosion of steep slope on FD02 Low 45 Right Bank at sharp turn. FD03 N/A - No project potential.

Right Bank undermining Bank stabilization using FD04 Medium 53 Road. Stabilization is traditional rock wall. needed. Grout bags installed to FD05 N/A - stabilize stream. No project

potential.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 14 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 Site Restoration Priority Potential Mitigation Field Notes Number Priority Score Measures Eroding property, Bank stabilization using encroaching on garage. Imbricated Riprap. Structure downstream Install J hook Vane at FD06 High 61 diverting water to fish the upstream bend. hatchery, possible to cause Remove the man-made of flooding at downstream dam. side of the site. FD07 N/A - No project potential.

Undersized culverts. Potential road flood during Replace culverts with high flow events. Road side new bridge. Install Root erosion downstream of FD08 Medium 60 Wad (or Soil Lift) culvert. Bank erosion structure at the upstream upstream of the culvert. bend, stabilize banks. Evidence of dredging of stream bed material. FD09 N/A - No project potential.

FD10 N/A - No project potential.

Undersized culverts, clogged and deflecting Replace old culverts FD11 Medium 60 water. Potential private with new bridge, banks driveway flood during high stabilization. flow events. Potential riparian buffer Riparian buffer planting, FD12 Medium 60 planting area. bank stabilization. Herbaceous shrub planting, Convert pond to FD13 Low 38 recently seeded. wetland. FD14 N/A - No project potential.

FD15 N/A - No project potential.

Potential riparian buffer FD16 Medium 58 Riparian buffer planting. planting area. Bed rock visible at base of Floodplain bench slope in stream. Right Bank creation, bank very steep and eroding, FD17 Medium 60 stabilization at right possible stream restoration bank. Riparian buffer and grading to decrease planting. slope. Very small watershed, No FD18 N/A - prominent stream. No

project potential.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 15 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 Site Restoration Priority Potential Mitigation Field Notes Number Priority Score Measures

Riparian buffer planting, Not mowed, no water, no FD19 High 80 Fence to keep livestock livestock present. out of stream corridor. Sediment deposition under FD20 Low 48 the bridge. Potential riparian buffer planting area. Grass buffer exists, not mowed or Riparian buffer planting, FD21 High 62 planted and could easily be Bridge construction. planted with trees. Possible bridge construction. Potential riparian buffer enhancement area. Possible bridge construction and Riparian buffer planting, FD22 High 62 bank stabilization at stream Bridge construction. crossing location. Erosion on South bank, downstream from crossing.

Plant riparian buffer at least 50 feet each side. Construct a splash pool to dissipate energy Medium to high gradient coming out of culvert and highly eroded located across Blacks agricultural drainage path. Mill Road. Construct FD23 High 83 Potential riparian planting. elevated berms at Erosion at drain tiles outlet certain interval across location. the ditch to check high velocity. Fix drain tiles outlet location. Realign culvert at Blacks Mill Road.

Floodplain bench Steep right bank. Possible creation and bank slope FD24 Medium 52 bench creation at right stabilization at right bank. bank. Potential riparian buffer Riparian buffer planting, FD25 High 61 planting area. Bridge construction.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 16 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 Site Restoration Priority Potential Mitigation Field Notes Number Priority Score Measures The feature has been re- graded and farmed through, FD26 N/A - possibly installed drain tile underneath. Construct a J Hook Left Bank deposition Structure at the FD27 Medium 51 forcing thalweg to Right upstream bend, shape Bank eroding Right Bank. banks. Culvert cleanout, grade control structures, riparian Grade control structures planting. At pond outlet, (Log Sill or Rock Sill), FD28 High 66 triple metal culvert, steep shape banks, riparian but bedrock. Right bank buffer planting. could use stabilizing. Observed discharge pipe Riparian buffer planting. FD29 Low 38 into the pond, Geese, No Convert pond to buffer around pond. wetland. Potential Riparian Buffer FD30 High 66 Riparian buffer planting. planting area.

2.3 WORKSHOP WITH COUNTY STAFF

The EA team attended a meeting with the County staff to present the draft report on our initial field observations, discuss the initial field assessment (hot spots, anticipated tactics to apply, etc.) and received feedback. The team also obtained approval from the County staff to proceed with the detailed field analysis on the identified top priority sites (Figure 5). EA selected nine of the project sites for further assessment and potential conceptual design. These sites include:

 FD06  FD19  FD21  FD22  FD23  FD24  FD28  FD29  FD30

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 17 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 Figure 5. Top Project Sites

2.4 FLUVIAL GEOMORPHIC ASSESSMENT

A fluvial geomorphic assessment and stream classification was completed following the methodologies and field techniques described by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply (WARSSS) manual (Rosgen 2006a). Fluvial Geomorphic Data are provided in Section 6 for each project site.

During the analysis, the team performed field geomorphological assessments on the representative section of the identified top priority sites. The team collected longitudinal profile data along the thalweg, and existing water surface and cross-section data using differential levelling techniques, as applicable. Elevations at each site were tied to the assumed datum at a temporary benchmark location. The start and end location of the profile and cross-section survey were marked using a sub-meter global positioning system (GPS). To quantify the type of stream bed material, Wolman pebble count (Wolman 1954) analysis was performed at the sites where applicable. Each pebble count consisted of 100 particles which were sampled randomly within the channel bed and did not include bankfull particles to reduce the potential to skew the particles that make up the boundary of the channel. Pebble count data included the particle analysis from riffles, runs, pools, and glides features. The section of Little Hunting Creek between Route 15 and Hessong Bridge Road is classified as C3b and the section below the Hessong Bridge Road is classified as C4 stream type based on existing survey data. A summary of geomorphological assessment is provided in Table 3 below.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 18 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 Table 3: Summary of Fluvial Geomorphological Assessment Pebble Cross-Section Plan Count

Water Bankfull Bankfull Width to Bankfull Channel Entrenchment Surface Sinuosity*** D50 Study Width Mean Depth Ratio Area Slope Ratio (ft./ft.) Slope (ft./ft.) (mm) Sites (ft.) Depth (ft.) (ft./ft.) (sq.ft.) (%) (%) FD06 28.2 > 3.5 1.6 17.2 46.2 2.03 1.1 2.08 88 FD19* 27.0 > 3.7 0.8 33.0 22.1 - 1.03 2.12 - FD21 39.9 > 2.5 1.6 25.0 63.8 0.48 1.3 0.45 69.47 FD22 31.1 > 3.2 2.1 14.8 65.5 0.34 1.3 0.32 46.19 FD23* 20.6 2.2 0.2 88.4 4.8 - 1.1 3.6 - FD24 36.9 > 2.7 1.8 20.3 67.1 0.97 1.3 0.47 37.2 FD28** 7.7 2.5 0.6 12.2 4.8 2.07 1.05 2.26 - FD30** 12.1 2.0 0.4 30.9 4.7 - 1.01 1.19 -

* Un-named Tributary to Little Hunting Creek ** Un-named Tributary to Big Hunting Creek *** Sinuosity for Little Hunting Creek was estimated separately for two different sections - one between Route 15 and Hessong Bridge Road and the other between Hessong Bridge Road and the confluence with Big Hunting Creek.

Where,  Entrenchment ratio is flood-prone area width divided by bankfull channel width, measured at riffle cross-section.  Width/Depth ratio is bankfull width divided by bankfull mean depth, measured at riffle cross-section.  Sinuosity is stream length divided by valley length.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 19 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 In general, the channel slope of Little Hunting Creek is higher west of Route 15, and it gets moderately steep in between Route 15 and Hessong Bridge Road. The channel then becomes less steep, sinuous and bank width is wider after it crosses the Hessong Bridge Road. A decent size (nearly 1.5 square miles drainage area) of an un-named tributary, approaching from north-west side, makes confluence with Little Hunting Creek, before the combined creek passes through the Hessong Bridge Road. Most of the section of Little Hunting Creek downstream of Route 15 can be described as moderate to high width to depth ratio, slightly entrenched, and with limited floodplain connectivity. The majority of the channel bed material consists of very coarse gravel to small cobble. Although some portions of the creek lack sufficient root material of the riparian vegetation that can often help stabilize the bank and some areas exhibit steep and unstable eroding banks, for most of the part, the stream does not appear to be in the state of transition. There are some sections of the creek where bedrock is exposed that may be assisting in making the bed and banks stable.

3. DEVELOPMENT OF RESTORATION STRATEGY

The identification of potential projects was based on multiple factors, including identified impairments of concern for the watershed, feasibility of implementation, and the potential for ecological and biological uplift of the watershed. Two levels of field assessments were conducted to identify potential sources of impairment and locations that had potential for erosion control and water quality improvements per identified study site. Through the field assessment, nine potential restoration projects sites were developed for different areas throughout the watershed. Seven of them are stream segments, one is an existing pond and one is an existing erosional swale. Some lower-scored sites that are within close proximity to the top priority sites were grouped together to create a single project as shown in Table 4 below. Although the site FD25 is ranked as a high priority site based upon the standardized scoring form, it is excluded during the detailed field analysis phase as the scope of work was to limit the efforts only to seven stream segments.

Table 4: List of Priority Projects Project Sites 1 FD28, FD29 and FD30 2 FD22 3 FD19 and FD21 4 FD06 5 FD23 and FD24

A general project description for each of the 5 projects is provided in Table 5.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 20 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 Table 5: Potential BMP projects at priority sites Project Project Site Project Description Number Type Establish riparian vegetation buffer zone; remove existing Stream FD28 discharge pipe; install Sill structures, create riffle and pool Restoration habitats Create wetland in place of existing pond; remove existing 1 Wetland FD29 discharge pipe, replace existing culverts across the private Creation driveway Stream Install sill structures; create riffle and pool habitats; establish FD30 Restoration riparian vegetation buffer zone Relocate a section of driveway; establish riparian vegetation Stream 2 FD22 buffer zone; construct a J-Hook structure; build soil lift with Restoration toe wood structure; build a bridge at stream crossing location Stream Restoration Install Sill structures; create riffle and pool habitats; establish 3A FD19 and riparian vegetation buffer zone; create a wetland Wetland Creation Build imbricated rip-rap bank protection structure; build soil Stream lift with toe wood structure; construct rock Cross-Vane 3B FD21 Restoration structure; establish riparian vegetation buffer zone; build a bridge at stream crossing location Install a rock J-Hook structure to bring stream flow towards Stream the center; build imbricated rip-rap bank protection structure; 4 FD06 Restoration establish riparian vegetation buffer zone; remove existing flow diversion structure Establish riparian vegetation buffer zone; install check dams Upland FD23 and erosion control mat; create a plunge pool; stabilize drain BMPs tile outlet location 5 Stream FD24 Bank Build soil lift Protection

4. PREDICTING POLLUTANT LOAD REDUCTIONS

4.1 APPROACH

For the urban stormwater BMPs, pollutant load reduction calculation was performed using the BMP removal rates from MDE’s (2014) Accounting for Stormwater Wasteload Allocations and Impervious Acres Treated guidance document. The MDE guidance uses load reduction rates that are a function of the BMP type [e.g., environmental site design (ESD), runoff reduction (RR),

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 21 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 stormwater treatment (ST), and alternative BMPs] and the runoff depth that the BMP is designed to treat. Each urban stormwater BMP was assigned an appropriate BMP type based on its intended function as described in the MDE Stormwater Design Manual, and then the corresponding removal rates for ESD/RR, ST, and alternative BMP practices were used to compute the BMP’s load reductions.

4.1.1 RESTORATION CREDITS

Pollutant load reductions for stream restoration were calculated by multiplying the pounds reduced per linear foot by total linear feet of implementation. Impervious area treatment credit for stream restoration was calculated by multiplying total linear feet of stream restoration by the impervious acre equivalency.

Pollutant load reduction for forestation on pervious urban land was calculated by multiplying the difference of pollutant loads associated with runoff from an acre of pervious land cover and an acre of forest by the total acres of practice implementation. Impervious area treatment credit for forestation on pervious urban land was calculated by multiplying total reforestation acres by the impervious acre equivalency.

Pollutant load reduction rate (pounds per acre) for Regenerative Step Pool Storm Conveyance (SPSC) was calculated by multiplying the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) urban pollutant load by the efficiency for the Runoff Reduction (RR) practices for one inch runoff depth. Total nutrient and sediment loads are then calculated by multiplying the catchment area by pollutant loads per pound per acre. Impervious area treatment credit for SPSC practice was calculated based on the proportion of 0.9 inch of water quality volume (WQv) treated.

Pollutant load reduction for wetland creation was calculated by dividing the catchment area into pervious and impervious acreages. Load reductions rates (pounds per acre) in both cases were calculated by multiplying the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) urban pollutant load by the efficiency for the Stormwater Treatment (ST) practices for one inch runoff depth.

All of the Total Suspended Solid (TSS) calculations were converted into tons per year whereas the calculations for nutrient loads (Total Phosphorous and Total Nitrogen) were kept in units of pounds per year.

The value of pollutant load reductions and impervious acre treatment credits for each of the five projects are summarized below.

Table 6 Project 1- Pollutant Load Reductions and Impervious Acre Treatment Credits Impervious TSS TP TN BMP Description BMP Type Acre (tons/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) Credit Stream Restoration STRE 40.41 122.40 135.00 18.00 Forest on Pervious Urban FPU 0.25 2.76 39.38 2.39

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 22 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 Shallow Marsh WSHW 8.37 38.4 576.18 12.21 Total Load Reductions 49.03 163.56 750.56 32.6

Table 7 Project 2- Pollutant Load Reductions and Impervious Acre Treatment Credits Impervious TSS TP TN BMP Description BMP Type Acre (tons/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) Credit Stream Restoration STRE 21.1 63.92 70.50 9.40 Forest on Pervious Urban FPU 0.11 1.23 17.56 1.06 Total Load Reductions 21.22 65.15 88.06 10.46

Table 8 Project 3- Pollutant Load Reductions and Impervious Acre Treatment Credits Impervious TSS TP TN BMP Description BMP Type Acre (tons/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) Credit Stream Restoration STRE 69.93 211.82 233.63 31.15 Forest on Pervious Urban FPU 0.33 3.60 51.29 3.11 Total Load Reductions 70.26 215.42 284.91 34.26

Table 9 Project 4- Pollutant Load Reductions and Impervious Acre Treatment Credits TSS TP TN Impervious BMP Description BMP Type (tons/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) Acre Credit Stream Restoration STRE 20.77 62.9 69.38 9.25 Forest on Pervious Urban FPU 0.04 0.41 5.89 0.36

Total Load Reductions 20.8 63.31 75.27 9.61

Table 10 Project 5- Pollutant Load Reductions and Impervious Acre Treatment Credits Impervious TSS TP TN BMP Description BMP Type Acre (tons/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) Credit Stream Restoration STRE 2.25 6.8 7.5 1

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 23 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 Impervious TSS TP TN BMP Description BMP Type Acre (tons/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) Credit Regenerative Step Pool SPSC 3.43 19.87 430.92 3.68 Storm Conveyance Forest on Pervious Urban FPU 0.05 0.60 8.53 0.52

Total Load Reductions 5.73 27.26 446.95 5.2

4.1.2 COST ESTIMATION

Cost estimation for each BMP were completed using industry standard rates and referencing to EA’s previously designed projects (Table 11). The reported prices were pro-rated on a per unit basis (e.g., $/linear foot of stream restoration) and scaled to the estimated project sizes (e.g., $/linear feet x 925 linear feet). Estimated total prices include design costs and construction costs. This cost estimation is a preliminary cost analysis for the purpose of identifying variability of cost between proposed projects. The estimated cost does not include easement acquisition costs. More detailed cost estimation will be conducted in the next phase of design.

Table 11 Cost Estimation Project Project Wetland Linear Design Cost Construction Total Cost Number Type acre Feet ($) Cost ($) ($) Stream Restoration 1 and 1 1,800 $160,805.00 $643,220.00 $804,025.00 Wetland Creation Stream 2 940 $63,757.50 $255,030.00 $318,787.50 Restoration Stream Restoration 3 and 0.5 3,115 $293,991.25 $1,175,965.00 $1,469,956.25 Wetland Creation Stream 4 925 $103,596.25 $414,385.00 $517,981.25 Restoration Upland BMPs and 5 Stream 700 $61,462.50 $245,850.00 $307,312.50 Bank Protection TOTAL $3,418,062.50

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 24 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 4.2 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS

A summary of estimated total costs for design and construction versus estimated potential pollutant load reductions and impervious acre treatment credits for each of the five selected projects are presented in Table 12. Cost per impervious acre credit, and cost per TSS load reductions were also calculated by dividing the total cost for each project by respective parameters. Cost per impervious acre credit for project No. 5 is calculated to be $24,663. Cost per TSS load reductions (in tons per year) for Project 3 is $15,022. Based upon the total cost for design and construction for one acre of impervious acre credit, execution of Project 5 appears to be more beneficial. Similarly, based upon the total cost per TSS reductions, Project 3 appears to be more beneficial.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 25 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 Table 12 Total Cost versus Pollutant Load Reductions and Impervious Acre Treatment Credits Cost / Impervious TSS TP TN Impervious Cost / TSS Project Acre Cost ($) (tons/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) Acre Credit ($) Credit ($) Project 1 32.60 49.03 163.56 750.56 $804,025.00 $24,663.34 $16,398.63 Project 2 10.46 21.22 65.15 88.06 $318,787.50 $30,476.82 $15,022.97 Project 3 34.26 70.26 215.42 284.91 $1,469,956.25 $42,905.90 $20,921.67 Project 4 9.61 20.80 63.31 75.27 $517,981.25 $53,900.23 $24,902.94 Project 5 5.20 5.73 27.26 446.95 $307,312.50 $59,098.56 $53,632.20 Total 92.13 167.04 534.71 1645.74 $3,418,062.50 -- --

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 26 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based upon this analysis the implementation of Project 1 along with the Project 2 would be a reasonable watershed improvement approach for the County based on the preliminary site assessment, detailed geomorphological assessment, prediction of pollutant load reductions and impervious acre treatment credits, and cost estimation. Project 1 is believed to be the most realistic project that can achieve some of the required pollutant load reductions and improve the overall stream and watershed quality, including chemical, biological, and physical impairments and habitat improvements.

Upon selection of proposed restoration projects, EA recommends developing detailed conceptual plans for each project to determine more specific load reductions capabilities required by the County’s NPDES program, and determine the anticipated improvements to the stream habitat and biological conditions of the stream.

Implementation of specific strategies, such as milestones for achieving load reductions from this study, would need to be developed after final selection of the watershed restoration projects in conjunction with the County’s NPDES program requirements. More detailed area-specific scientific and engineering studies and field surveys will be required to develop restoration design plans, which can then be re-modeled using additional monitoring data to get more accurate load reduction credit estimates for each project. The anticipated improvements to the stream habitat and biological conditions of the stream would be determined at the design level of each project. Pre- and post-construction monitoring activities to evaluate key design elements and functionality such as the riparian buffers, aquatic habitat, water quality, and stream stability will be critical to the success of meeting the County’s goals for these impairments and the County’s compliance with their NPDES MS4 permit.

6. DETAILED ANALYSIS AND PROJECT FEASIBILITY CONCEPTS

Following presentation of the draft report to the County and receipt of comments on our initial field observations, the EA team performed geomorphological assessments on September 15, 16, 18, 21 and 22 at the identified sites noted above. Cross section, profile and pebble count data were collected, as applicable at the stream sites. Out of nine study sites, eight of the sites contained stream channels. Sites FD06, FD21, FD22 and FD24 are within Little Hunting Creek, sites FD19 and FD23 are un-named tributaries to Little Hunting Creek, sites FD28 and FD30 are un-named tributaries to Big Hunting Creek, and site FD29 is identified as an inline pond in between sites FD28 and FD30. The pond site, by itself, scored below 50 in standardized scoring form putting the site in lower restoration priority. The lower score is due to the lack of stream length available for restoration. But, since the site is in line with upstream and downstream stream sites and possess a good restoration potential, it is proposed to combine these three sites to form a single project. Converting the existing pond to a wetland will not only help ecological uplift of the project but also believed to help generating more pollutant load reductions and impervious acre treatment credits. A general description of observations from the detailed analysis, and current issues for each study site are provided below in this report.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 27 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

6.1 PROJECT 1

Project 1 consists of three different sites – FD28, FD29 and FD30

6.1.1 Study Site FD28, FD29 and FD30

This project consists of an un-named tributary to Big Hunting Creek, located outside of the Little Hunting Creek watershed, north to Blacks Mill Road and east to Layman Road (Figure 5). Site FD28 can be accessed either from Blacks Mill Road or Layman Road whereas the sites FD29 and FD30 can only be accessed from Blacks Mill Road. Site FD28 is separated by a private drive way from two other sites FD29 and FD30. Site FD29 is an excavated pond (Picture 11), nearly an acre (ac.) in size, located upstream of Picture 11: Pond, facing north. the private driveway and downstream of site FD30. Site FD28 receives flow from the pond (site FD29) through multiple size culverts placed at several elevations across the private driveway (Picture 12). Channel slope at site FD 28 is nearly 2.26 percent, and at site FD30 is nearly 1.19 percent. Most of the study site is situated on a private property (Table 13) with the land use of agriculture/pasture. Exposed bedrocks were noticed at these sites during the field survey.

Current Issues: While there is a sparse tree line present along both banks, there is not enough width of deeply rooted riparian buffer vegetation in the project site. Existing culverts that cross the private driveway are worn out and need to be replaced. During the initial field assessment, on 11 May 2015, a discharge pipe was observed that was feeding into the pond. During the detailed analysis, in September 2015, another discharging pipe/drain tile outlet was observed in the channel, downstream of the private driveway culvert, near the bend. Iron bacteria (fuzzy orange colored particles) were observed to be discharging through the pipe into the stream. During the field assessments, a lot of geese activity was noticed in and around the pond.

Below is a list of recommendations for the potential improvements at site FD28.

 Establish a minimum of 75 feet wide riparian vegetation buffer zone along both banks of the project site to intercept surface runoff with high nutrient levels.  Build fence around the riparian buffer areas to avoid any kind of encroachment.  Remove the existing discharge pipe in the stream.  Shape the banks to maintain at least 3:1 slope as applicable. Seed, install live stakes and secure with erosion control blanket. Do not damage existing trees, as much as possible, during the construction process.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 28 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

 Install three sill structures as grade control structures as per design. Create a riffle habitat using designed bed material immediately above each sill structures and a pool habitat immediately below these structures.

Below is a list of recommendations for the potential improvements at site FD29.

 Replace the culverts that are crossing the private driveway.  Remove the existing discharge pipe.  Create an emergent wetland in place of existing pond.  Build fence around the wetland creation area to avoid any kind of encroachment.  Apply measures to alleviate geese activities in the area.

Below is a list of recommendations for the potential improvements at site FD30.

 Establish a minimum of 75 feet wide riparian vegetation buffer zone along both banks of the project site to intercept surface runoff with high nutrient levels.  Build fence around the riparian buffer areas to avoid any kind of encroachment.  Shape the banks to maintain at least 3:1 slope as applicable. Seed, install live stakes and secure with erosion control blanket. Do not damage existing trees, as possible, during the construction process.  Install two sill structures as grade control structures as per design. Create a riffle habitat using designed bed material immediately above each sill structures and a pool habitat immediately below these structures.

Picture 12: Culvert outlets across the Picture 13: Existing bank erosion at site private driveway, facing upstream. FD28.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 29 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

Table 13 Project 1- Property Ownership Information Account Site ID Property Owner Mailing Address No FD28, FD29 Kovitch John R & 8040 Blacks Mill Rd Thurmont MD 156684 & FD30 Judith T 21788-2411

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 30 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

6.1.2 Project Summary Sheet

See attached project summary sheet.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report Project 1 Prioritization Ranking: 1 Sites FD28, FD29, and FD30 Planning Level Cost Estimate: $804,025.00 General BMP Information: Estimated Cost/Impervious Acre: $24,663.34 Project Location: Blacks Mill Rd Estimated Cost/TSS: $16,398.63 ADC Map: 35, F4 Northing/Easting: 294,913.31/4,382,891.30 NPDES Watershed: Little Hunting Creek Upper Monocacy River MDE 8 Digit Watershed: (021403030244) Proposed BMP Retrofit General Informtaion: Stream Restoration, Tree BMP Type: Planting, and Wetland Creation Management Type: Quality Site FD29 Total Drainage Area* (ac): 166.4 Total Impervious Area* 2.75 (ac): Water Quality Treatment Provided: WQv Provided (cu.ft.): 0.87 Impervious Acre Credit: 32.6 Estimated Nutrient Reductions: TN (lbs/yr): 750.56 TP (lbs/yr): 163.56 TSS (lbs/yr): 49.03 * Drainage area and impervious area (NLCD 2011) is obtained from USGS StreamStats Program. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The proposed stream restoration and wetland creation project is an un-named tributary to Big Hunting Creek. While there is a sparse tree line present along both banks, there is not enough width of deeply rooted riparian buffer vegetation zone in the project site. Some portion of channel bed and banks are unstable. Site FD29 is an existing pond.

ANTICIPATED SITE CONSTRAINTS Required Permitting Site FD28 can be accessed either from Blacks Mill Road or Frederick County SWM Review: Layman Road whereas the sites FD29 and FD30 can only be Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC): X accessed from Blacks Mill Road. Site FD28 is separated by a private drive way from two other sites FD29 and FD30. There Grading Permit: X Joint Permit Application (JPA)/General are some exposed bed rocks present at the project location. Waterway Construction Permit: X Majority of existing fields located at north side of sites FD28 and FD30 are being used for agricultural purposes. Other: NONE

PROPOSED RETROFIT Stream restoration and establishment of 75 feet wide riparian vegetation buffer zone along both banks of the project. Replacement of the culverts that cross the private driveway. Creation of emergent wetland in place of existing pond. EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 31 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

6.1.3 Proposed Project Restoration Concept

See attached proposed project restoration concept.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report VICINITY MAP

FD28, FD29, & FD30 Map Extent d x m . n o i t a r o t s e R d

e 2.59 Acres s o p o r P _ 0

3 Legend

D 0

F 3 D 7

_ F 5 9 Shape Banks to

2 ' Little Hunting Creek Watershed D Maintain 3:1 Slope F _

8 Property Boundary 2 D F

_ Stream 1 o N t 9 c 2 e j D Existing Culvert Outlet o F § r

L P _ a x i y Proposed Restoration

d d m R n ills e M a s p ck n p Bla Riparian Buffer

R _

7 D D C d D 5 D

H Fence ' L \ n g i Replace Existing Culverts Wetland Creation s § e D t n 8 Sill Structure e 2 c D r k F e e P W re 5 O C

1 L \ F ing D nt X Hu M g \ Bi 3.69 Acres Notes: k o e y t e r Stream Restoration - 1,800 ft r uta C rib Wetland Creation - 1 ac g d T n e i t am n nn u U Proposed restoration features H e l are conceptual designs and t t i

L not engineer designs. \ d n a l y Aerial: Google Earth, 2013 r a M \ t

s Map Date: 3/30/2016 a e h t 0 100 200 r F o

N B L \ l i O a g Feet c o H W $ L u d n n

a t i e n t

a g t

S C \

a r t e a e d k Project No. 1 S I G \ Proposed Restoration s i g n Concept o t e

v Little Hunting Creek o l \ \ Frederick County, Maryland EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 32 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

6.1.4 Standardized Field Ranking Forms

See attached standardized field ranking forms.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report TMDL Priority Stream Ranking Form CO_WTSD_ID # : FD28 8-digit W.S/Segmentshed: Field Assessment Date: 5/11/2015 Firm Name: EA TOTAL PARTS A, B AND C: 66 Site Source: Reviewers Name: R Poudel, K Rigney

Part A: Field Observations Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1. STREAM LENGTH > 1500 LF 1000 to 1500 LF 500 to 1000 LF 5 0 to 500 LF

2. ACCESS Adjacent, Unrestricted 9 Minor Constraints Moderate Constraints Significant Constraints Site access from Blacks Mill Road Access location relatively flat, Access location relatively flat, Access location has some steep Access location has steep slopes, is open, dry, and within 100 feet of open, dry, within 100 - 500 feet slopes, some vegetation clearing heavily vegetated, has wet areas, a public road. from a public road, and may required, some wet areas, is over 2000 feet from a public require special construction road between 500-1000 feet from a road, and may requires special treatments. public road, and may require construction road treatments. special construction road treatments.

3. FOREST / TREE COVER Sparse (0-10%) 9 Limited (11-30%) Moderate (31-50%) Dense (51-100%) Partially forested Treeline extends to a width of Treeline extends to a width of 30- Treeline extends to a width of 60 - Treeline extends to a width of <30 feet. 60 feet. 100 feet. >100 feet.

4. UTILITIES (VISIBLE) None Minor Moderate5 Significant No obvious underground and/or Presence of underground and/or Presence of underground and/or Presence of underground and/or overhead utilities present at overhead utlity observed within overhead utilities within the overhead utilities within the within the restoration site. the restoration site. restoration site. It is anticipated restoration site. It is anticipated that the restoration design will that the restoration design will need to incorporate protection need to incorporate utility measures for utilities but no relocation(s). relocation(s).

5. STREAMBANK EROSION % 75-100% 50-74% 25-49% 5 0-24%

6/9/2015, 2:05 PM Page 1 of 2 Part A: Field Observations (continued) Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6. BANK ERODIBILITY POTENTIAL Extreme High Medium 5 Low Potential of bank erosion due to Active headcuts and/or The restoration reach is highly The restoration reach is highly Channel incision is low and vertical significant potential for new incised, top-of-bank width to incised, top-of-bank width to degradation potential is limited. lack of enough riparian vegetation. headcuts are present within the depth ratio is low and in-channel depth ratio is high and in-channel Floodplain vegetation rooting restoration site or immediately depositional features are limited. depositional features are depth extends down to the base downstream where the prevalent. flow or streambed level. streambed is expected to vertically degrade to be followed by a period of channel widening.

7. SEDIMENT STORAGE / NUTRIENT Mark all that apply: Treatment of U/S Sources Floodplain Storage Retention Time Adjustment TREATMENT POTENTIAL Potential for all 3 Potential for 2 Potential for 1 No Potential 1

Reforestation X Wetland Creation Avoid low water crossing Keep livestock out 8. OTHER BMP STRATEGIES Potential for 3-4 Potential for 2 Potential for 1 4 No Potential

TOTAL PART A: 43

Part B: Watershed Characteristics Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9. DRAINAGE AREA < 1 sq. mi. 1-3 sq. mi. 8 3-10 sq. mi. > 10 sq. mi.

10. STREAM ORDER 1st Order 2nd Order6 3rd Order 4th Order or Greater

11. % IMPERVIOUS > 50% 30-50% 10-29% <10% 1

12. % SHA OWNED IMP. > 15 % 10-14 % 9-5 % < 5 %

TOTAL PART B: 15

Part C: Property Owner Information Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 or More Public 1 - 2 Private 8 3 - 4 Private 5 or More Private 13. TOTAL PROPERTY OWNERS Landowner(s) Landowner(s) Landowners Landowners

TOTAL PART C: 8 6/9/2015, 2:05 PM Page 2 of 2 TMDL Priority Stream Ranking Form CO_WTSD_ID # : FD29 8-digit W.S/Segmentshed: Field Assessment Date: 5/11/2015 Firm Name: EA TOTAL PARTS A, B AND C: 38 Site Source: Reviewers Name: R Poudel, K Rigney

Part A: Field Observations Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1. STREAM LENGTH > 1500 LF 1000 to 1500 LF 500 to 1000 LF 0 to 500 LF

2. ACCESS Adjacent, Unrestricted 9 Minor Constraints Moderate Constraints Significant Constraints Site access from private driveway Access location relatively flat, Access location relatively flat, Access location has some steep Access location has steep slopes, is open, dry, and within 100 feet of open, dry, within 100 - 500 feet slopes, some vegetation clearing heavily vegetated, has wet areas, a public road. from a public road, and may required, some wet areas, is over 2000 feet from a public require special construction road between 500-1000 feet from a road, and may requires special treatments. public road, and may require construction road treatments. special construction road treatments.

3. FOREST / TREE COVER Sparse (0-10%) 9 Limited (11-30%) Moderate (31-50%) Dense (51-100%) Sparsely forested Treeline extends to a width of Treeline extends to a width of 30- Treeline extends to a width of 60 - Treeline extends to a width of <30 feet. 60 feet. 100 feet. >100 feet.

5. STREAMBANK EROSION % 75-100% 50-74% 25-49% 0-24%

6/9/2015, 2:05 PM Page 1 of 2 Part A: Field Observations (continued) Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6. BANK ERODIBILITY POTENTIAL Extreme High Medium Low Notes Active headcuts and/or The restoration reach is highly The restoration reach is highly Channel incision is low and vertical significant potential for new incised, top-of-bank width to incised, top-of-bank width to degradation potential is limited. headcuts are present within the depth ratio is low and in-channel depth ratio is high and in-channel Floodplain vegetation rooting restoration site or immediately depositional features are limited. depositional features are depth extends down to the base downstream where the prevalent. flow or streambed level. streambed is expected to vertically degrade to be followed by a period of channel widening.

Reforestation XXWetland Creation Avoid low water crossing Keep livestock out 8. OTHER BMP STRATEGIES Potential for 3-4 Potential for 26 Potential for 1 No Potential

TOTAL PART A: 29

Part B: Watershed Characteristics Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9. DRAINAGE AREA < 1 sq. mi. 1-3 sq. mi. 3-10 sq. mi. > 10 sq. mi.

10. STREAM ORDER 1st Order 2nd Order 3rd Order 4th Order or Greater

11. % IMPERVIOUS > 50% 30-50% 10-29% <10% 1

12. % SHA OWNED IMP. > 15 % 10-14 % 9-5 % < 5 %

TOTAL PART B: 1

TOTAL PART C: 8 6/9/2015, 2:05 PM Page 2 of 2 TMDL Priority Stream Ranking Form CO_WTSD_ID # : FD30 8-digit W.S/Segmentshed: Field Assessment Date: 5/11/2015 Firm Name: EA TOTAL PARTS A, B AND C: 66 Site Source: Reviewers Name: R Poudel, K Rigney

Part A: Field Observations Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1. STREAM LENGTH > 1500 LF 1000 to 1500 LF 500 to 1000 LF 3 0 to 500 LF

4. UTILITIES (VISIBLE) None 9 Minor Moderate Significant No obvious underground and/or Presence of underground and/or Presence of underground and/or Presence of underground and/or overhead utilities present at overhead utlity observed within overhead utilities within the overhead utilities within the within the restoration site. the restoration site. restoration site. It is anticipated restoration site. It is anticipated that the restoration design will that the restoration design will need to incorporate protection need to incorporate utility measures for utilities but no relocation(s). relocation(s).

5. STREAMBANK EROSION % 75-100% 50-74% 25-49% 4 0-24%

6/9/2015, 2:05 PM Page 1 of 2 Part A: Field Observations (continued) Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6. BANK ERODIBILITY POTENTIAL Extreme High Medium 4 Low Potential of bank erosion due to Active headcuts and/or The restoration reach is highly The restoration reach is highly Channel incision is low and vertical significant potential for new incised, top-of-bank width to incised, top-of-bank width to degradation potential is limited. lack of enough riparian vegetation. headcuts are present within the depth ratio is low and in-channel depth ratio is high and in-channel Floodplain vegetation rooting restoration site or immediately depositional features are limited. depositional features are depth extends down to the base downstream where the prevalent. flow or streambed level. streambed is expected to vertically degrade to be followed by a period of channel widening.

Reforestation X Wetland Creation Avoid low water crossing Keep livestock out 8. OTHER BMP STRATEGIES Potential for 3-4 Potential for 2 Potential for 1 4 No Potential

TOTAL PART A: 43

Part B: Watershed Characteristics Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9. DRAINAGE AREA < 1 sq. mi. 1-3 sq. mi. 8 3-10 sq. mi. > 10 sq. mi.

10. STREAM ORDER 1st Order 2nd Order6 3rd Order 4th Order or Greater

11. % IMPERVIOUS > 50% 30-50% 10-29% <10% 1

12. % SHA OWNED IMP. > 15 % 10-14 % 9-5 % < 5 %

TOTAL PART B: 15

TOTAL PART C: 8 6/9/2015, 2:05 PM Page 2 of 2 EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 33 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

6.1.5 Fluvial Geomorphic Assessment Data

See attached fluvial geomorphic assessment data sheets.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report FD28 Profile

92.00

91.00

90.00

89.00

88.00

87.00

86.00

85.00

84.00

83.00

82.00

81.00

80.00

79.00

78.00

77.00 Thalweg 76.00

75.00 Water Surface

74.00 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 CROSS SECTION SURVEY DATA SHEET Project name: Little Hunting Creek Survey date: 9/22/2015 Tuesday Stream name: Little Hunting Creek FD28 Calculations Cross-section ID: XS1 Bankfull width (Wbkf): 7.2 feet Bankfull mean depth (Dbkf): 0.6 feet Location: Bankfull max depth (Dmax): 1.0 feet State: County: Width to Depth Ratio (W/D): 11.8 ft./ft. Maryland Frederick Bankfull Area (Abkf): 4.4 sq. ft. Bankfull Elevation: 86.92 feet Co-ordinates: Latitude: Longitude: Observers: 1 Rajesh Poudel 2 Kathryn Minczuk Feature: Long-Pro Stn.: 42 Note: Dominant channel bed material: Bedrock No water is present at this location in the channel.

Temp. Bench mark Elevation: 100.00 Bench mark rod reading: 0 Height of Instrument: 100.00

XS1 92.00 91.00 90.00 89.00 88.00 87.00 Cross-section 86.00 Bankfull Level Flood-prone Level 85.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00

Picture facing downstream CROSS SECTION SURVEY DATA SHEET Project name: Little Hunting Creek Survey date: 9/22/2015 Tuesday Stream name: Little Hunting Creek FD28 Calculations Cross-section ID: XS2 Bankfull width (Wbkf): 7.7 feet Bankfull mean depth (Dbkf): 0.6 feet Location: Bankfull max depth (Dmax): 1.1 feet State: County: Width to Depth Ratio (W/D): 12.2 ft./ft. Maryland Frederick Bankfull Area (Abkf): 4.8 sq. ft. Bankfull Elevation: 81 feet Co-ordinates: Latitude: Longitude: Observers: 1 Rajesh Poudel 2 Kathryn Minczuk Feature: Long-Pro Stn.: 300 Note: Dominant channel bed material:

Temp. Bench mark Elevation: 86.25 Bench mark rod reading: 0.55 Height of Instrument: 86.80

XS2 86.00 85.00 84.00 83.00 82.00 81.00

80.00 Cross-section Bankfull Level 79.00 Flood-prone Level 78.00 Water Surface 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00

Picture facing downstream FD30 Profile

90.00

89.00

88.00

87.00

86.00

85.00

84.00

Thalweg

83.00 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 CROSS SECTION SURVEY DATA SHEET Project name: Little Hunting Creek Survey date: 9/22/2015 Tuesday Stream name: Little Hunting Creek FD30 Calculations Cross-section ID: XS1 Bankfull width (Wbkf): 12.1 feet Bankfull mean depth (Dbkf): 0.4 feet Location: Bankfull max depth (Dmax): 0.8 feet State: County: Width to Depth Ratio (W/D): 30.9 ft./ft. Maryland Frederick Bankfull Area (Abkf): 4.7 sq. ft. Bankfull Elevation: 89.7 feet Co-ordinates: Latitude: Longitude: Observers: 1 Rajesh Poudel 2 Kathryn Minczuk Feature: Long-Pro Stn.: 52 Note: Dominant channel bed material: Bedrock and Silt No water is present at this location in the channel.

Temp. Bench mark Elevation: 100.00 Bench mark rod reading: 0 Height of Instrument: 100.00

XS1 94.00

93.00

92.00

91.00

90.00 Cross-section Bankfull Level Flood-prone Level 89.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00

Picture facing downstream CROSS SECTION SURVEY DATA SHEET Project name: Little Hunting Creek Survey date: 9/22/2015 Tuesday Stream name: Little Hunting Creek FD30 Calculations Cross-section ID: XS2 Bankfull width (Wbkf): 8.7 feet Bankfull mean depth (Dbkf): 0.8 feet Location: Bankfull max depth (Dmax): 1.2 feet State: County: Width to Depth Ratio (W/D): 10.7 ft./ft. Maryland Frederick Bankfull Area (Abkf): 7.1 sq. ft. Bankfull Elevation: 86.79 feet Co-ordinates: Latitude: Longitude: Observers: 1 Rajesh Poudel 2 Kathryn Minczuk Feature: Long-Pro Stn.: Note: Dominant channel bed material: Bedrock and Silt No water is present at this location in the channel.

Temp. Bench mark Elevation: 100.00 Bench mark rod reading: 0 Height of Instrument: 100.00

XS2 90.00

89.00

88.00

87.00

86.00 Cross-section Bankfull Level Flood-prone Level 85.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00

Picture facing downstream EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 34 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

6.1.6 Desktop Screening Forms

See attached desktop screening forms.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report TMDL Phase II Desktop Screening Form

Site Information Site number FD28 County Frederick Site Identified By EA Reviewers Name R. Poudel Desktop Screening Date 5/7/2015

Site Characteristics Existing Landuse Agriculture Agriculture and tree line Approximate Length (ft) 1135 Stream Order 1st Length of Stream US (ft) 1135 Source for Length & Order Evidence of Improvements none identified i.e.. Stream restoration, buffer planting, etc Evidence of Channelization none identified i.e.. Straightening, channelization. Describe planform shift. Critical Area Yes Erosion Visible No Potential Erosion Sources culvert outlet, run-off from agriculture field Potential Nutrient Sources Pond, agriculture field Describe distance upstream for both erosion and nutrients Riparian Buffer Trees within 100' Yes If yes, describe density Sparse Riparian Condition Other LB Agriculture RB If other, describe Tree line along the bank, shrubs Floodplain storage potential none identified

Constraints Lateral Interruptions Include # and Proximity Culvert at both upstream and downstream end of the reach Longitudinal Interruptions Include # culvert inverts Utilities none identified Natural Constraints tree line along banks Access Good site access from Blacks Mill Road Distance from Public Road (ft) <500 located along Blacks Mill Road

Site Information Site Visit Required Yes If no, reason Nearest Rd. Intersection Blacks Mill Road and Layman Road Property Owner Information John R & Judith T Kovitch Property Access Instructions Site can be accessed from private dirt road along agriculture field

Additional Notes/Additional Site Little to no riparian buffer alon unnamed tributary to Little Hunting Creek within Opportunities agricultural fields. Potential location for riparian planting. TMDL Phase II Desktop Screening Form

Site Information Site number FD29 County Frederick Site Identified By EA Reviewers Name R. Poudel Desktop Screening Date 5/7/2015

Site Characteristics Existing Landuse Agriculture Predominately agriculture and pasture field Approximate Length (ft) Stream Order Length of Stream US (ft) Source for Length & Order Evidence of Improvements none identified i.e.. Stream restoration, buffer planting, etc Evidence of Channelization none identified i.e.. Straightening, channelization. Describe planform shift. Critical Area Yes Erosion Visible Yes Potential Erosion Sources run-off from agriculture field, culvert Potential Nutrient Sources Agriculture field run-off, pipe discharge Describe distance upstream for both erosion and nutrients Riparian Buffer Trees within 100' Yes If yes, describe density Bare Riparian Condition Agriculture LB Agriculture RB If other, describe Pasture land with few trees and shrubs Floodplain storage potential

Constraints Lateral Interruptions Include # and Proximity Longitudinal Interruptions Include # Utilities Overhead electical power line Natural Constraints Few trees Access Good site access from private driveway Distance from Public Road (ft) <500 located ~150 feet from Blacks Mill Road

Additional Notes/Additional Site Opportunities Inline farmpond with no riparian buffer. Potential location for riparian planting. TMDL Phase II Desktop Screening Form

Site Information Site number FD30 County Frederick Site Identified By EA Reviewers Name R. Poudel Desktop Screening Date 5/7/2015

Site Characteristics Existing Landuse Agriculture Agriculture and tree line Approximate Length (ft) 700 Stream Order 1st Length of Stream US (ft) 700 Source for Length & Order Evidence of Improvements none identified i.e.. Stream restoration, buffer planting, etc Evidence of Channelization none identified i.e.. Straightening, channelization. Describe planform shift. Critical Area Yes Erosion Visible Yes Potential Erosion Sources run-off from agriculture field Potential Nutrient Sources agriculture field run-off Describe distance upstream for both erosion and nutrients Riparian Buffer Trees within 100' Yes If yes, describe density Sparse Riparian Condition Agriculture LB Agriculture RB If other, describe Tree line along both banks Floodplain storage potential none identified

Constraints Lateral Interruptions Include # and Proximity none identified Longitudinal Interruptions Include # none identified Utilities none identified Natural Constraints tree line along banks Access Good site access from Blacks Mill Road Distance from Public Road (ft) <500 located ~250 feet from Blacks Mill Road

Additional Notes/Additional Site Little to no riparian buffer along unnamed tributary to Little Hunting Creek within Opportunities agricultural fields. Potential location for riparian planting. EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 35 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

6.2 PROJECT 2

Project 2 consists of a single site – FD22.

6.2.1 Study Site FD22

FD22: The site is a perennial stream, located towards the downstream end of the Little Hunting Creek watershed, south to the Blacks Mill Road (Figure 5). This section of the study site exhibits nearly 0.34 percent water surface slope, nearly 0.32 percent channel slope, 65.5 sq. ft. of bankfull area and 46.19 mm mean channel bed particle size diameter. The site can be accessed from Blacks Mill Road. Most of the study site is situated on a private property (Table 14) with the land use of agriculture / pasture. The majority of the channel bed material is composed of gravel and cobble. The channel bed appears to be stable due to the presence of bedrock.

Picture 6: Stream crossing location, facing Picture 7: Eroded right bank along the south. outer bend, facing downstream.

Current Issues: The private driveway, to access the farm land situated at the south side of Little Hunting Creek, runs very close and parallel to the stream on the north side for approximately 100 LF, which limits the riparian buffer from establishing. Although, presently, there are no major issues observed along the stretch, there is always a potential of bank instability and eventual encroachment on the driveway including 1) there is a lack of sufficient tree root mass to hold banks in place and 2) constant access by farm equipment of various sizes may destabilize the nearby bank. While there is tree line present along both banks, there is not enough width of riparian buffer vegetation in the study site. Because of the lack of enough buffer width, there is a high chance that the surface runoff with high nutrient levels would flow directly into the receiving stream. During the field investigations, evidence of stream crossing, potentially by heavy farm equipment was observed (Picture 6). The outer bend along right bank (facing downstream), below the stream crossing, of the study site was observed to be eroded and unstable (Picture 7).

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 36 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

Below is a list of recommendations for the potential improvements at site FD22.

 Establish a minimum of 75 feet wide riparian vegetation buffer zone along both banks of the project site to intercept surface runoff with high nutrient levels.  Build fence around the riparian buffer areas to avoid any kind of encroachment.  Relocate the section of driveway that is currently running closer to the stream, beyond the proposed riparian buffer area.  Construct a rock J-Hook structure at the location, upstream of existing stream crossing area, to bring current flow towards the center of the channel to reduce bank erosion. Create a riffle habitat using designed bed material immediately above the structure and a pool habitat immediately below the structure.  Build soil lift with toe wood structure along the unstable outer bend section (Picture 7) of the right bank. Seed, install live stakes and secure with an erosion control blanket. Do not damage existing trees, as much as possible, during the construction process.  Discontinue the stream crossing practice by vehicles and other heavy equipment. Build a bridge at suitable location for equipment and vehicle crossing if necessary.

Table 14 Project 2- Property Ownership Information Account Site ID Property Owner Mailing Address No King Maurice C JR 7610 Blacks Mill RD Thurmont MD FD22 Trustee & King Anne 153553 21788 W Trustee

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 37 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

6.2.2 Project Summary Sheet

See attached project summary sheet.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report Project 2 Prioritization Ranking: 2 Site FD22 Planning Level Cost Estimate: $318,787.50 General BMP Information: Estimated Cost/Impervious Acre: $30,476.82 Project Location: South of Blacks Mill Rd Estimated Cost/TSS: $15,022.97 ADC Map: 35, D5 Northing/Easting: 293,534.97/4,382,195.35 NPDES Watershed: Little Hunting Creek Upper Monocacy River MDE 8 Digit Watershed: (021403030244) Proposed BMP Retrofit General Informtaion: Stream Restoration and BMP Type: Tree Planting Management Type: Quality Total Drainage Area* (ac): 6,976.00 Site FD22 Total Impervious Area* 32.1 (ac): Water Quality Treatment Provided: WQv Provided (cu.ft.): N/A Impervious Acre Credit: 10.46 Estimated Nutrient Reductions: TN (lbs/yr): 88.06 TP (lbs/yr): 65.15 TSS (lbs/yr): 21.22 * Drainage area and impervious area (NLCD 2011) is obtained from USGS StreamStats Program. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The private driveway, to access the farm land situated at the south side of Little Hunting Creek, runs very close and parallel to the stream on the north side for approximately 100 LF, which limits the riparian buffer from establishing. While there is a sparse tree line present along both banks, there is not enough width of riparian buffer vegetation in the study site. During the field investigations, evidence of stream crossing, potentially by heavy farm equipment was observed. The outer bend along right bank (facing downstream), below the stream crossing, of the study site was observed to be eroded and unstable.

ANTICIPATED SITE CONSTRAINTS Required Permitting The project reach is a perennial stream and is surrounded Frederick County SWM Review: mostly by agricultural field. There are some matured trees Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC): X present along the stream. There are some exposed bed rocks present at the project location. Grading Permit: X Joint Permit Application (JPA)/General Waterway Construction Permit: X Other: NONE PROPOSED RETROFIT Stream restoration and establishment of 75 feet wide riparian vegetation buffer zone along both banks of the project. Relocation of a section of driveway. Build a bridge at suitable location to discontinue current stream crossing practice. EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 38 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

6.2.3 Proposed Project Restoration Concept

See attached proposed project restoration concept.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report VICINITY MAP

FD22 d R ill M s ck la B d x m .

n Map Extent o i t a r

o k t e s

e e r R C Legend d e g s n o ti p Little Hunting Creek Watershed o n r W u P

_ O H 2 e Property Boundary

2 L 2.80 Acres tl D F it F D L _ Stream 2 D o D

N D D t D D D c D D Proposed Restoration

e D D D j D D D o D D r D D D D D D

P D D Riparian Buffer _ D D D D x

i D D d

n D D

D Bridge

e D p D

p D D

7 D

A 5

_ D ' Driveway Relocation

D D

C D

D DD

H D D D D D D L D \ D D Fence

n D D D D g D D i

e D D Soil Lift with Toe Wood D D

D D

t D D

D Structure (see detail)

n D D

e D

c D r D

D D

e J-Hook Structure D

D D

P D

D D D

5 (see detail)

D D

1 D

D D D

D D

M D \ k D e D D

e Notes: r

C D Stream Restoration - 940 ft g D

n D i t n u Proposed restoration features H e l are conceptual designs and t t i

L not engineer designs. \ d n a l y Aerial: Google Earth, 2013 r a M \ t

s Map Date: 3/30/2016 a e h t 0 50 100 r o N \ l a Feet c o $ L d n a e t a t S \ a t a d Project No. 2 S I G \ Proposed Restoration s i g n Concept o t e

v Little Hunting Creek o l \ \ Frederick County, Maryland EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 39 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

6.2.4 Standardized Field Ranking Forms

See attached standardized field ranking forms.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report TMDL Priority Stream Ranking Form CO_WTSD_ID # : FD22 8-digit W.S/Segmentshed: Field Assessment Date: 5/11/2015 Firm Name: EA TOTAL PARTS A, B AND C: 62 Site Source: Reviewers Name: R Poudel, K Rigney

Part A: Field Observations Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1. STREAM LENGTH > 1500 LF 1000 to 1500 LF 500 to 1000 LF 0 to 500 LF 2

2. ACCESS Adjacent, UnrestrictedMinor Constraints 7 Moderate Constraints Significant Constraints Site access from private dirt road to Access location relatively flat, Access location relatively flat, Access location has some steep Access location has steep slopes, is open, dry, and within 100 feet of open, dry, within 100 - 500 feet slopes, some vegetation clearing heavily vegetated, has wet areas, agriculture field. a public road. from a public road, and may required, some wet areas, is over 2000 feet from a public require special construction road between 500-1000 feet from a road, and may requires special treatments. public road, and may require construction road treatments. special construction road treatments.

3. FOREST / TREE COVER Sparse (0-10%) 9 Limited (11-30%) Moderate (31-50%) Dense (51-100%) Partial forest along both banks Treeline extends to a width of Treeline extends to a width of 30- Treeline extends to a width of 60 - Treeline extends to a width of <30 feet. 60 feet. 100 feet. >100 feet.

4. UTILITIES (VISIBLE) None 9 Minor Moderate Significant Overhead electric power line No obvious underground and/or Presence of underground and/or Presence of underground and/or Presence of underground and/or overhead utilities present at overhead utlity observed within overhead utilities within the overhead utilities within the within the restoration site. the restoration site. restoration site. It is anticipated restoration site. It is anticipated that the restoration design will that the restoration design will need to incorporate protection need to incorporate utility measures for utilities but no relocation(s). relocation(s).

5. STREAMBANK EROSION % 75-100% 50-74% 25-49% 5 0-24%

6/9/2015, 2:03 PM Page 1 of 2 Part A: Field Observations (continued) Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6. BANK ERODIBILITY POTENTIAL Extreme High 6 Medium Low Sever bank erosion on right bank Active headcuts and/or The restoration reach is highly The restoration reach is highly Channel incision is low and vertical significant potential for new incised, top-of-bank width to incised, top-of-bank width to degradation potential is limited. encroaching on Garage headcuts are present within the depth ratio is low and in-channel depth ratio is high and in-channel Floodplain vegetation rooting restoration site or immediately depositional features are limited. depositional features are depth extends down to the base downstream where the prevalent. flow or streambed level. streambed is expected to vertically degrade to be followed by a period of channel widening.

Reforestation X Wetland Creation Avoid low water crossingX Keep livestock out 8. OTHER BMP STRATEGIES Potential for 3-4 Potential for 27 Potential for 1 No Potential

TOTAL PART A: 46

Part B: Watershed Characteristics Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9. DRAINAGE AREA < 1 sq. mi. 1-3 sq. mi. 3-10 sq. mi. 3 > 10 sq. mi.

10. STREAM ORDER 1st Order 2nd Order 3rd Order3 4th Order or Greater

11. % IMPERVIOUS > 50% 30-50% 10-29% <10% 2

12. % SHA OWNED IMP. > 15 % 10-14 % 9-5 % < 5 %

TOTAL PART B: 8

TOTAL PART C: 8 6/9/2015, 2:03 PM Page 2 of 2 EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 40 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

6.2.5 Fluvial Geomorphic Assessment Data

See attached fluvial geomorphic assessment data sheets.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report FD22 Profile

99.00

98.50

98.00

97.50

97.00

96.50

96.00

Thalweg

95.50 Water Surface

Linear (Water Surface)

95.00 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 CROSS SECTION SURVEY DATA SHEET Project name: Little Hunting Creek Survey date: 9/16/2015 Stream name: Little Hunting Creek FD22 Calculations Cross-section ID: XS1 Bankfull width (Wbkf): 61.4 feet Bankfull mean depth (Dbkf): 1.0 feet Location: Bankfull max depth (Dmax): 1.8 feet State: County: Width to Depth Ratio (W/D): 60.0 ft./ft. Maryland Frederick Bankfull Area (Abkf): 62.8 sq. ft. Bankfull Elevation: 98.75 feet Co-ordinates: Latitude: Longitude: Observers: 1 Rajesh Poudel 2 Kathryn Minczuk Feature: Stream Crossing Long-Pro Stn.: 232 Note: Dominant channel bed material: Cobble Cross-Section is located at stream crossing.

Temp. Bench mark Elevation: 100.00 Bench mark rod reading: 2.9 Height of Instrument: 102.90

XS1 102.00

101.00

100.00

99.00

98.00 Cross-section 97.00 Bankfull Level Flood-prone Level 96.00 Water Surface 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00

Picture is taken from left bank facing towards right bank CROSS SECTION SURVEY DATA SHEET Project name: Little Hunting Creek Survey date: 9/16/2015 Wednesday Stream name: Little Hunting Creek FD22 Calculations Cross-section ID: XS2 Bankfull width (Wbkf): 58.6 feet Bankfull mean depth (Dbkf): 1.1 feet Location: Bankfull max depth (Dmax): 2.6 feet State: County: Width to Depth Ratio (W/D): 54.9 ft./ft. Maryland Frederick Bankfull Area (Abkf): 62.6 sq. ft. Bankfull Elevation: 98.94 feet Co-ordinates: Latitude: Longitude: Observers: 1 Rajesh Poudel 2 Kathryn Minczuk Feature: Pool Long-Pro Stn.: 330 Note: Dominant channel bed material: Cobble Cross-Section is located at the bend of the stream.

Temp. Bench mark Elevation: 100.00 Bench mark rod reading: 2.9 Height of Instrument: 102.90

XS2 103.00 102.00 101.00 100.00 99.00 98.00 Cross-section 97.00 Bankfull Level Flood-prone Level 96.00 Water Surface 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00

Picture facing upstream CROSS SECTION SURVEY DATA SHEET Project name: Little Hunting Creek Survey date: 9/16/2015 Wednesday Stream name: Little Hunting Creek FD22 Calculations Cross-section ID: XS3 Bankfull width (Wbkf): 31.1 feet Bankfull mean depth (Dbkf): 2.1 feet Location: Bankfull max depth (Dmax): 2.3 feet State: County: Width to Depth Ratio (W/D): 14.8 ft./ft. Maryland Frederick Bankfull Area (Abkf): 65.5 sq. ft. Bankfull Elevation: 98 feet Co-ordinates: Latitude: Longitude: Observers: 1 Rajesh Poudel 2 Kathryn Minczuk Feature: Riffle Long-Pro Stn.: 613 Note: Dominant channel bed material: Cobble Right Bank at cross-section location (looking downstream) is all bedrock. Temp. Bench mark Elevation: 97.37 Bench mark rod reading: 3.64 Height of Instrument: 101.01

XS3 101.00

100.00 Cross-section Bankfull Level 99.00 Flood-prone Level Water Surface 98.00

97.00

96.00

95.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00

Picture facing downstream Little Hunting Creek Pebble Count Data Collection Date: 9/16/2015 Wednesday Site: FD22 Location: Little Hunting Creek Observers: Rajesh Poudel, Kathryn Minczuk

Particle Size ranges (mm) Size finer than (mm) Tallies (Counts) % Item % Cum Silt/Clay S/C < 0.062 0.062 1 1.0% 1.0% Very Fine 0.062-0.125 0.125 0.0% 1.0% S Fine 0.125-0.25 0.25 0.0% 1.0% A Medium 0.25-0.50 0.5 0.0% 1.0% N Coarse 0.50-1.0 1 12 11.5% 12.5% D Very Coarse 1.0-2.0 2 0.0% 12.5% Very Fine 2.0-4.0 4 0.0% 12.5% Fine 4-5.7 5.7 2 1.9% 14.4% G Fine 5.7-8 8 1 1.0% 15.4% R Medium 8-11.3 11.3 3 2.9% 18.3% A Medium 11.3-16 16 5 4.8% 23.1% V Coarse 16-22.6 22.6 8 7.7% 30.8% E Coarse 22.6-32 32 7 6.7% 37.5% L Very Coarse 32-45 45 12 11.5% 49.0% Very Coarse 45-64 64 16 15.4% 64.4% 0.0% Small 64-90 90 19 18.3% 82.7% Small E 90-128 128 11 10.6% 93.3% BBL Large O 128-180 180 5 4.8% 98.1% C Large 180-256 256 1 1.0% 99.0% Small 256-362 362 1 1.0% 100.0% Small 362-512 512 0.0% 100.0% LDER Medium 512-1024 1024 0.0% 100.0% BOU Large-Vry Large 1024-2048 2048 0.0% 100.0% Bed Rock 0.0% 100.0% TOTALS 104 100.0% Little Hunting Creek FD22 Pebble-count Plot 100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40% Cumulative percentfiner than 30%

20%

10%

0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Particle Size (mm) D50 = 46.19 mm Little Hunting Creek FD22 Pebble Count Size Frequency

Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder 20.0%

18.0%

16.0%

14.0%

12.0%

10.0%

8.0% Percent total count of 6.0%

4.0%

2.0%

0.0%

size ranges (mm) EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 41 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

6.2.6 Desktop Screening Forms

See attached desktop screening forms.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report TMDL Phase II Desktop Screening Form

Site Information Site number FD22 County Frederick Site Identified By EA Reviewers Name R. Poudel Desktop Screening Date 5/7/2015

Site Characteristics Existing Landuse Agriculture Agriculture and tree line Approximate Length (ft) 445 Stream Order 3rd Length of Stream US (ft) 445 Source for Length & Order Evidence of Improvements none identified i.e.. Stream restoration, buffer planting, etc Evidence of Channelization none identified i.e.. Straightening, channelization. Describe planform shift. Critical Area Yes Erosion Visible No Potential Erosion Sources Low water crossing, run-off from agriculture field Potential Nutrient Sources Farm pond, fish hatchery, agriculture field Describe distance upstream for both erosion and nutrients Riparian Buffer Trees within 100' Yes If yes, describe density Sparse Riparian Condition Agriculture LB Agriculture RB If other, describe Tree line along both banks Floodplain storage potential potential floodplain storage in downstream wooded areas

Constraints Lateral Interruptions Include # and Proximity none identified Longitudinal Interruptions Include # Low water crossings Utilities none identified Natural Constraints tree line along banks Access Moderate site access from Blacks Mill Road Distance from Public Road (ft) 500-2000

Site Information Site Visit Required Yes If no, reason Nearest Rd. Intersection Blacks Mill Road and Hessong Bridge Road Property Owner Information Maurice C King JR Trustee & Anne W King Trustee Property Access Instructions site access from Blacks Mill Road

Additional Notes/Additional Site Private, unpaved access road crosses Little Hunting Creek, potential location for Opportunities improved crossing or structural retrofit. EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 42 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

6.3 PROJECT 3

Project 3 consists of two different sites – FD19 and FD21.

6.3.1 Study Site FD19 and FD21

FD19: This ephemeral stream is an un-named tributary to Little Hunting Creek, located towards the downstream end of the Little Hunting Creek watershed, North-West to the intersection of Blacks Mill Road and Hessong Bridge Road (Figure 5). The stream runs from North to the South and passes through a culvert across Blacks Mill Road before making a confluence with Little Hunting Creek. Most of the study site is situated on a private property (Table 15) with the land use of agriculture/pasture. This section of the study site exhibits nearly 22.1 sq. ft. of bankfull area. The site Picture 3: Lack of riparian vegetation can be accessed from either Hessong Bridge Road or along the channel, facing upstream. Blacks Mill Road. The channel has nearly 2.12 percent average slope with flatter area at the top of the watershed. During the field survey, the flatter area was noticed to be comparatively wetter, and identified as the potential location for wetland creation.

Current Issues: The study site is located in the agricultural/pasture field and only sparse tree- lining along the banks (Picture 3). Channel bed and banks are mostly composed of silt material and are highly unstable due to the lack of riparian vegetation buffer and past livestock activities. Because of the lack of enough buffer zone, there is a high chance that the surface runoff with high nutrient levels would flow directly into the receiving stream.

Below is a list of recommendations for the potential improvements at site FD19.

 Create a wetland at the top of the watershed in the flatter area and connect it with the stream.  Shape channel banks to maintain at least 3:1 slope as applicable, seed and secure with an erosion control blanket. Do not damage existing trees, as much as possible, during the construction process.  Establish a minimum of 50 feet wide riparian vegetation buffer zone along each banks of the project site to intercept surface runoff with

high nutrient levels. Picture 4: Stream crossing location, facing upstream.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 43 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

 Build fence around the riparian buffer areas to avoid encroachment.  Install eight sill structures as grade control structures as per design.

FD21: The site is a perennial stream, located towards the downstream end of the Little Hunting Creek watershed, South-East to the intersection of Hessong Bridge Road and Blacks Mill Road (Figure 5). This section of the study site exhibits nearly 0.48 percent water surface slope, nearly 0.45 percent channel slope, 63.8 sq. ft. of bankfull area and 69.47 mm mean channel bed particle size diameter. The site can be accessed from either Hessong Bridge Road or Blacks Mill Road. Most of the study site is situated on private property (Table 15) with the land use of agriculture/pasture. The majority of the channel bed material is composed of gravel and cobble. The channel bed appears to be stable due to the presence of bed rock.

Current Issues: The stream runs very close to Blacks Mill Road at the upstream end of the study site, along the bend. Although, presently, there are no major issues observed along the outer curve of the bend, there is always a potential of bank instability and eventually encroachment on Blacks Mill Road as the outer bend of the curve is continually subject to higher shear stress. While there is a thin tree line present along both banks, there is not enough riparian buffer vegetation in the study site. Because of the lack of enough buffer zone, there is a high chance that the surface runoff with high nutrient levels would flow Picture 5: Eroded right bank, facing directly into the receiving stream. During the upstream. field investigations, evidence of stream crossings, potentially by farm equipment such as tractor, trucks, etc. was observed (Picture 4) i.e., the presence of unpaved tracks on both sides of the stream crossing location. A section of the right side bank (facing downstream), above the stream crossing, of the study site was observed to be eroded and very unstable (Picture 5).

Below is a list of recommendations for the potential improvements at site FD21.

 Build imbricated rip-rap bank protection structure along the outer bend (left bank) of the curve, downstream of Hessong Bridge Road to stabilize the bank and prevent encroachment on Blacks Mill Road.  Construct a rock Cross-Vane structure at a straight section of the stream in between the above mentioned curve and the existing stream crossing location as a grade control structure to reduce near-bank shear stress. Create a riffle habitat using designed bed material immediately above the structure and a pool habitat immediately below the structure.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 44 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

 Shape right bank to maintain at least 3:1 slope as applicable. Build soil lift with toe wood structure along the unstable section (Picture 5) of the right bank. Seed, install live stakes and secure with an erosion control blanket. Do not damage existing trees, as much as possible, during the construction process.  Establish a minimum of 75 feet wide riparian vegetation buffer zone along both banks of the project site to intercept surface runoff with high nutrient levels. Minimize equipment mobilization through the proposed buffer area.  Build fence around the riparian buffer areas to avoid any kind of encroachment.  Discontinue the stream crossing practice by vehicles and heavy. Build driveway and a bridge at suitable location for equipment and vehicle crossing if necessary.

Table 15 Project 3- Property Ownership Information Account Site ID Property Owner Mailing Address No 5301 Wisconsin Ave NW FL 4 FD19 TCA Trustcorp America 340134 Washington DC 20015-2015 4835 Shookstown RD Frederick MD FD21 Den of Wolves LLC 151860 21702

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 45 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

6.3.2 Project Summary Sheet

See attached project summary sheet.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report Project Summary Sheet

Project 3 Prioritization Ranking: 3 Sites FD19 and FD21 Planning Level Cost Estimate: $1,469,956.25 General BMP Information: Estimated Cost/Impervious Acre: $42,905.90 Project Location: Blacks Mill Rd Estimated Cost/TSS: $20,921.67 ADC Map: 35, C4-C5 Northing/Easting: 292,712.92/4,382,307.79 NPDES Watershed: Little Hunting Creek Upper Monocacy River MDE 8 Digit Watershed: (021403030244) Proposed BMP Retrofit General Informtaion: Stream Restoration and BMP Type: Tree Planting Management Type: Quality Total Drainage Area* (ac): 6,944.00 Site FD21 Total Impervious Area* 31.2 (ac): Water Quality Treatment Provided: WQv Provided (cu.ft.): N/A Impervious Acre Credit: 34.26 Estimated Nutrient Reductions: TN (lbs/yr): 284.91 TP (lbs/yr): 215.42 TSS (lbs/yr): 70.26 * Drainage area and impervious area (NLCD 2011) is obtained from USGS StreamStats Program. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The proposed stream restoration project consists of an un-named tributary to Little Hunting Creek (FD19) and a section of the Little Hunting Creek (FD21). FD19 runs from North to the South and passes through a culvert across Blacks Mill Road before making a confluence with Little Hunting Creek. A section of FD21 runs very close to Blacks Mill Road and consists of a stream crossing location through the channel. There is a lack of enough riparian buffer vegetation width on both of the sites.

ANTICIPATED SITE CONSTRAINTS Required Permitting FD19 is surrounded by agricultural field. FD21 is a perennial Frederick County SWM Review: stream and is surrounded by agricultural field. There are some Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC): X matured trees and exposed bed rocks present at site FD21. Grading Permit: X Joint Permit Application (JPA)/General Waterway Construction Permit: X Other: NONE PROPOSED RETROFIT Stream restoration and establishment of 50 feet wide riparian vegetation buffer zone along both banks of site FD19. Stream restoration and establishment of 75 feet wide riparian vegetation buffer zone along both banks of site FD19. Build a bridge at suitable location to discontinue current stream crossing practice. EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 46 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

6.3.3 Proposed Project Restoration Concept

See attached proposed project restoration concept.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report VICINITY MAP FD19 d x m . n o i Map Extent t a r W o t

s O e L R d F Legend e s o p o r 4.88 Acres Little Hunting Creek Watershed P _ 9

1 Property Boundary D F _

A Stream 3 10 o 0' N t

c Proposed Restoration e j o r

P Riparian Buffer _ x i

D D k d n e D D Fence e e

p r p

C A

_ Shape Banks to Wetland Creation g C

i H

t Maintain 3:1 Slope L \

n Sill Structure

n u g

i s H

e e

D l

n t i

e c L r

o t P 5

y 1 \

r D

t X

M u \ Notes: b k i e r

e Stream Restoration - 2,100 ft T r

C d Wetland Creation - 0.5 ac g e n i t m n u a Proposed restoration features

H n d e l n R are conceptual designs and t t i U e

L not engineer designs.

\ g d d ri n

a B l y g Aerial: Google Earth, 2013 r n a o

M s \

t s

s e Map Date: 3/30/2016 a H e h t 0 100 200 r U o n

N n \ a l m a Feet c ed o $

L T d ri n b

a u

e t

t a

a r t y

S B

\ t o l a a t L c a k

d i s t M Black Project No. 3A S s Mill R I t d le ill G \ H R Proposed Restoration s d i u g n n tin Concept o g t C e r v ee Little Hunting Creek o k l \ \ Frederick County, Maryland VICINITY MAP FD21

Blacks Mill Rd d x m . n o i Map Extent t a r o t

s 3.30 Acres e R d Legend e s o p o r Little Hunting Creek Watershed P _ 1

2 Property Boundary D F _

B Stream 3 o Shape Right Bank N t

c Proposed Restoration

e to Maintain 3:1 Slope j o r

P Riparian Buffer _ d x i

R d n Bridge e e

p g p d i A r

_ Driveway Relocation

D H D g D L \ n D Fence n o g i s s s

e Imbricated Rip-rap

e D t Bank Protection Structure H n e

c (see detail) r e P

5 Soil Lift with Toe Wood 1 \

D Structure (see detail) X M \ Cross-Vane Structure k e

e (see detail) r

C ' g 5 Notes: n 7 i t n Stream Restoration - 1,015 ft u H e l t t

i Proposed restoration features L \ are conceptual designs and d n a

l not engineer designs. L y r it a t l

M e F \ Aerial: Google Earth, 2013 t H L s a u O e n h t t W Map Date: 3/30/2016 r in o g

N 0 50 100 \ l C a c r o e

L e Feet d k $ n a e t a t S \ a t a d Project No. 3B S I G \ Proposed Restoration s i g n Concept o t e

v Little Hunting Creek o l \ \ Frederick County, Maryland EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 47 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

6.3.4 Standardized Field Ranking Forms

See attached standardized field ranking forms.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report TMDL Priority Stream Ranking Form CO_WTSD_ID # : FD19 8-digit W.S/Segmentshed: Field Assessment Date: 5/11/2015 Firm Name: EA TOTAL PARTS A, B AND C: 80 Site Source: Reviewers Name: R Poudel, K Rigney

Part A: Field Observations Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1. STREAM LENGTH > 1500 LF 1000 to 1500 LF 8 500 to 1000 LF 0 to 500 LF

2. ACCESS Adjacent, UnrestrictedMinor Constraints 8 Moderate Constraints Significant Constraints Site access from Hessong Bridge Access location relatively flat, Access location relatively flat, Access location has some steep Access location has steep slopes, is open, dry, and within 100 feet of open, dry, within 100 - 500 feet slopes, some vegetation clearing heavily vegetated, has wet areas, Road. a public road. from a public road, and may required, some wet areas, is over 2000 feet from a public require special construction road between 500-1000 feet from a road, and may requires special treatments. public road, and may require construction road treatments. special construction road treatments.

3. FOREST / TREE COVER Sparse (0-10%) 9 Limited (11-30%) Moderate (31-50%) Dense (51-100%) Partially forested. Treeline extends to a width of Treeline extends to a width of 30- Treeline extends to a width of 60 - Treeline extends to a width of <30 feet. 60 feet. 100 feet. >100 feet.

5. STREAMBANK EROSION % 75-100% 50-74% 25-49% 5 0-24%

6/9/2015, 2:02 PM Page 1 of 2 Part A: Field Observations (continued) Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6. BANK ERODIBILITY POTENTIAL Extreme High Medium 5 Low Active headcuts and/or The restoration reach is highly The restoration reach is highly Channel incision is low and vertical significant potential for new incised, top-of-bank width to incised, top-of-bank width to degradation potential is limited. headcuts are present within the depth ratio is low and in-channel depth ratio is high and in-channel Floodplain vegetation rooting restoration site or immediately depositional features are limited. depositional features are depth extends down to the base downstream where the prevalent. flow or streambed level. streambed is expected to vertically degrade to be followed by a period of channel widening.

Reforestation X Wetland Creation Avoid low water crossing Keep livestock out X 8. OTHER BMP STRATEGIES Potential for 3-4 Potential for 26 Potential for 1 No Potential

TOTAL PART A: 51

Part B: Watershed Characteristics Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9. DRAINAGE AREA < 1 sq. mi. 10 1-3 sq. mi. 3-10 sq. mi. > 10 sq. mi.

10. STREAM ORDER 1st Order 10 2nd Order 3rd Order 4th Order or Greater

11. % IMPERVIOUS > 50% 30-50% 10-29% <10% 1

12. % SHA OWNED IMP. > 15 % 10-14 % 9-5 % < 5 %

TOTAL PART B: 21

TOTAL PART C: 8 6/9/2015, 2:02 PM Page 2 of 2 TMDL Priority Stream Ranking Form CO_WTSD_ID # : FD21 8-digit W.S/Segmentshed: Field Assessment Date: 5/11/2015 Firm Name: EA TOTAL PARTS A, B AND C: 62 Site Source: Reviewers Name: R Poudel, K Rigney

Part A: Field Observations Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1. STREAM LENGTH > 1500 LF 1000 to 1500 LF 500 to 1000 LF 5 0 to 500 LF

2. ACCESS Adjacent, Unrestricted Minor Constraints Moderate Constraints5 Significant Constraints Site access from private dirt road Access location relatively flat, Access location relatively flat, Access location has some steep Access location has steep slopes, is open, dry, and within 100 feet of open, dry, within 100 - 500 feet slopes, some vegetation clearing heavily vegetated, has wet areas, along agriculture field and Hessong a public road. from a public road, and may required, some wet areas, is over 2000 feet from a public Bridge Road. require special construction road between 500-1000 feet from a road, and may requires special treatments. public road, and may require construction road treatments. special construction road treatments.

4. UTILITIES (VISIBLE) None 10 Minor Moderate Significant Overhead electric power line No obvious underground and/or Presence of underground and/or Presence of underground and/or Presence of underground and/or overhead utilities present at overhead utlity observed within overhead utilities within the overhead utilities within the within the restoration site. the restoration site. restoration site. It is anticipated restoration site. It is anticipated that the restoration design will that the restoration design will need to incorporate protection need to incorporate utility measures for utilities but no relocation(s). relocation(s).

5. STREAMBANK EROSION % 75-100% 50-74% 25-49% 4 0-24%

6/9/2015, 2:03 PM Page 1 of 2 Part A: Field Observations (continued) Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6. BANK ERODIBILITY POTENTIAL Extreme High Medium 5 Low Sever bank erosion on right bank Active headcuts and/or The restoration reach is highly The restoration reach is highly Channel incision is low and vertical significant potential for new incised, top-of-bank width to incised, top-of-bank width to degradation potential is limited. encroaching on Garage headcuts are present within the depth ratio is low and in-channel depth ratio is high and in-channel Floodplain vegetation rooting restoration site or immediately depositional features are limited. depositional features are depth extends down to the base downstream where the prevalent. flow or streambed level. streambed is expected to vertically degrade to be followed by a period of channel widening.

Reforestation X Wetland Creation Avoid low water crossingX Keep livestock out 8. OTHER BMP STRATEGIES Potential for 3-4 Potential for 27 Potential for 1 No Potential

TOTAL PART A: 46

Part B: Watershed Characteristics Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9. DRAINAGE AREA < 1 sq. mi. 1-3 sq. mi. 3-10 sq. mi. 3 > 10 sq. mi.

10. STREAM ORDER 1st Order 2nd Order 3rd Order3 4th Order or Greater

11. % IMPERVIOUS > 50% 30-50% 10-29% <10% 2

12. % SHA OWNED IMP. > 15 % 10-14 % 9-5 % < 5 %

TOTAL PART B: 8

TOTAL PART C: 8 6/9/2015, 2:03 PM Page 2 of 2 EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 48 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

6.3.5 Fluvial Geomorphic Assessment Data

See attached fluvial geomorphic assessment data sheets.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report FD19 Profile

96.00

95.00

94.00

93.00

92.00

91.00

90.00

89.00 Thalweg

88.00 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 CROSS SECTION SURVEY DATA SHEET Project name: Little Hunting Creek Survey date: 9/21/2015 Monday Stream name: Little Hunting Creek FD19 Calculations Cross-section ID: XS1 Bankfull width (Wbkf): 27.0 feet Bankfull mean depth (Dbkf): 0.8 feet Location: Bankfull max depth (Dmax): 2.0 feet State: County: Width to Depth Ratio (W/D): 33.0 ft./ft. Maryland Frederick Bankfull Area (Abkf): 22.1 sq. ft. Bankfull Elevation: 94.07 feet Co-ordinates: Latitude: Longitude: Observers: 1 Rajesh Poudel 2 Kathryn Minczuk Feature: Long-Pro Stn.: 104 Note: Dominant channel bed material: Silt No water present in the channel.

Temp. Bench mark Elevation: 100.00 Bench mark rod reading: 0 Height of Instrument: 100.00

XS1 97.00

96.00

95.00

94.00

93.00 Cross-section Bankfull Level Flood-prone Level 92.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00

Picture facing downstream CROSS SECTION SURVEY DATA SHEET Project name: Little Hunting Creek Survey date: 9/21/2015 Stream name: Little Hunting Creek FD19 Calculations Cross-section ID: XS2 Bankfull width (Wbkf): 25.3 feet Bankfull mean depth (Dbkf): 0.8 feet Location: Bankfull max depth (Dmax): 2.7 feet State: County: Width to Depth Ratio (W/D): 30.3 ft./ft. Maryland Frederick Bankfull Area (Abkf): 21.1 sq. ft. Bankfull Elevation: 91.15 feet Co-ordinates: Latitude: Longitude: Observers: 1 Rajesh Poudel 2 Kathryn Minczuk Feature: Pool Long-Pro Stn.: 224 Note: Dominant channel bed material: Silt No water present in the channel.

Temp. Bench mark Elevation: 100.00 Bench mark rod reading: 0 Height of Instrument: 100.00

XS2 95.00 94.00 93.00 92.00 91.00 90.00 Cross-section 89.00 Bankfull Level Flood-prone Level 88.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00

Picture facing downstream FD21 Profile

102.00

101.00

100.00

99.00

98.00

97.00 Thalweg

Water Surface

Linear (Water Surface) 96.00 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 CROSS SECTION SURVEY DATA SHEET Project name: Little Hunting Creek Survey date: 9/21/2015 Monday Stream name: Little Hunting Creek FD21 Calculations Cross-section ID: XS1 Bankfull width (Wbkf): 39.9 feet Bankfull mean depth (Dbkf): 1.6 feet Location: Bankfull max depth (Dmax): 3.0 feet State: County: Width to Depth Ratio (W/D): 25.0 ft./ft. Maryland Frederick Bankfull Area (Abkf): 63.8 sq. ft. Bankfull Elevation: 101 feet Co-ordinates: Latitude: Longitude: Observers: 1 Rajesh Poudel 2 Kathryn Minczuk Feature: Riffle Long-Pro Stn.: 448 Note: Dominant channel bed material: Cobble

Temp. Bench mark Elevation: 101.11 Bench mark rod reading: 6.84 Height of Instrument: 107.95

XS1 105.00 104.00 103.00 102.00 101.00

100.00 Cross-section Bankfull Level 99.00 Flood-prone Level Water Surface 98.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00

Picture facing downstream CROSS SECTION SURVEY DATA SHEET Project name: Little Hunting Creek Survey date: 9/21/2015 Monday Stream name: Little Hunting Creek FD21 Calculations Cross-section ID: XS2 Bankfull width (Wbkf): 39.7 feet Bankfull mean depth (Dbkf): 1.6 feet Location: Bankfull max depth (Dmax): 2.3 feet State: County: Width to Depth Ratio (W/D): 24.2 ft./ft. Maryland Frederick Bankfull Area (Abkf): 65.3 sq. ft. Bankfull Elevation: 101.8 feet Co-ordinates: Latitude: Longitude: Observers: 1 Rajesh Poudel 2 Kathryn Minczuk Feature: Long-Pro Stn.: Note: Dominant channel bed material: Cobble

Temp. Bench mark Elevation: 99.46 Bench mark rod reading: 7.54 Height of Instrument: 107.00

XS2 106.00 105.00 104.00 Cross-section 103.00 Bankfull Level Flood-prone Level 102.00 Water Surface 101.00 100.00 99.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00

Picture facing downstream Little Hunting Creek Pebble Count Data Collection Date: 9/21/2015 Monday Site: FD21 Location: Little Hunting Creek Observers: Rajesh Poudel, Kathryn Minczuk

Particle Size ranges (mm) Size finer than (mm) Tallies (Counts) % Item % Cum Silt/Clay S/C < 0.062 0.062 1 0.9% 0.9% Very Fine 0.062-0.125 0.125 0.0% 0.9% S Fine 0.125-0.25 0.25 0.0% 0.9% A Medium 0.25-0.50 0.5 1 0.9% 1.9% N Coarse 0.50-1.0 1 8 7.4% 9.3% D Very Coarse 1.0-2.0 2 3 2.8% 12.0% Very Fine 2.0-4.0 4 1 0.9% 13.0% Fine 4-5.7 5.7 1 0.9% 13.9% G Fine 5.7-8 8 0.0% 13.9% R Medium 8-11.3 11.3 1 0.9% 14.8% A Medium 11.3-16 16 3 2.8% 17.6% V Coarse 16-22.6 22.6 5 4.6% 22.2% E Coarse 22.6-32 32 3 2.8% 25.0% L Very Coarse 32-45 45 8 7.4% 32.4% Very Coarse 45-64 64 15 13.9% 46.3% Small 64-90 90 19 17.6% 63.9% Small E 90-128 128 14 13.0% 76.9% BBL Large O 128-180 180 18 16.7% 93.5% C Large 180-256 256 5 4.6% 98.1% Small 256-362 362 1 0.9% 99.1% Small 362-512 512 0.0% 99.1% LDER Medium 512-1024 1024 0.0% 99.1% BOU Large-Vry Large 1024-2048 2048 0.0% 99.1% Bed Rock 1 0.9% 100.0% TOTALS 108 100.0% Little Hunting Creek FD21 Pebble-count Plot 100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40% Cumulative percentfiner than 30%

20%

10%

0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Particle Size (mm) D50 = 69.47 mm Little Hunting Creek FD21 Pebble Count Size Frequency

Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder 20.0%

18.0%

16.0%

14.0%

12.0%

10.0%

8.0% Percent total count of 6.0%

4.0%

2.0%

0.0%

size ranges (mm) EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 49 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

6.3.6 Desktop Screening Forms

See attached desktop screening forms.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report TMDL Phase II Desktop Screening Form

Site Information Site number FD19 County Frederick Site Identified By EA Reviewers Name R. Poudel Desktop Screening Date 5/7/2015

Site Characteristics Existing Landuse Agriculture Tree line along the stream Approximate Length (ft) 1204 Stream Order 2nd Length of Stream US (ft) 1204 Source for Length & Order Evidence of Improvements none identified i.e.. Stream restoration, buffer planting, etc Evidence of Channelization none identified i.e.. Straightening, channelization. Describe planform shift. Critical Area Yes Erosion Visible No Potential Erosion Sources livestock pasture Potential Nutrient Sources Agriculture field and cattle pasture Describe distance upstream for both erosion and nutrients Riparian Buffer Trees within 100' Yes If yes, describe density Sparse Riparian Condition Agriculture LB Agriculture RB If other, describe Floodplain storage potential potential storage

Constraints Lateral Interruptions Include # and Proximity none identified Longitudinal Interruptions Include # culvert invert Utilities none identified Natural Constraints none identified Access Good site access from Blacks Mill Road and Hessong Bridge Road Distance from Public Road (ft) <500 < 500 feet from Blacks Mill Road and Hessong Bridge Road

Site Information Site Visit Required Yes If no, reason - Nearest Rd. Intersection Blacks Mill Road and Hessong Bridge Road Property Owner Information TCA Trustcorp America Property Access Instructions Site can be accessed from Blacks Mill Road and Hessong Bridge Road

Additional Notes/Additional Site Little to no riparian buffer along unnamed tributary to Little Hunting Creek within a Opportunities livestock pasture. TMDL Phase II Desktop Screening Form

Site Information Site number FD21 County Frederick Site Identified By EA Reviewers Name R. Poudel Desktop Screening Date 5/7/2015

Site Characteristics Existing Landuse Agriculture Agriculture and tree line Approximate Length (ft) 838 Stream Order 3rd Length of Stream US (ft) 838 Source for Length & Order Evidence of Improvements none identified i.e.. Stream restoration, buffer planting, etc Evidence of Channelization none identified i.e.. Straightening, channelization. Describe planform shift. Critical Area Yes Erosion Visible No Potential Erosion Sources Low water crossing, run-off from agriculture field Potential Nutrient Sources Farm pond, fish hatchery, agriculture field Describe distance upstream for both erosion and nutrients Riparian Buffer Trees within 100' Yes If yes, describe density Sparse Riparian Condition Agriculture LB Agriculture RB If other, describe Tree line along both banks Floodplain storage potential potential floodplain storage in downstream wooded areas

Constraints Lateral Interruptions Include # and Proximity none identified Longitudinal Interruptions Include # Low water crossing Utilities none identified Natural Constraints tree line along banks Access Moderate site access from Hessong Bridge Road and Blacks Mill Road Distance from Public Road (ft) 500-2000

Site Information Site Visit Required Yes If no, reason Nearest Rd. Intersection Blacks Mill Road and Hessong Bridge Road Property Owner Information Den of Wolves LLC Property Access Instructions site access from Hessong Bridge Road and Blacks Mill Road

Additional Notes/Additional Site Lack of riparian buffer and proximity of local land practices - likelyhood of stream Opportunities degredation. EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 50 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

6.4 PROJECT 4

Project 4 consists of a single site – FD06.

6.4.1 Study Site FD06

FD06: The site is a perennial stream, located towards the upstream end of the Little Hunting Creek watershed, west of SR15, after the stream crosses the Catoctin Furnace Road (Figure 5). This section of the study site exhibits nearly 2.03 percent water surface slope, nearly 2.08 percent channel slope, 46.2 sq. ft. of bankfull area, and 88 mm mean channel bed particle size diameter. The site can be accessed from the Catoctin Hollow Road off of Catoctin Furnace Road. Most of the study site is situated on multiple private properties (table 16), and the land use is as follow- left side (facing downstream) of the site is mostly forested whereas the right side consists of scattered tree-line along the bank, buildings, lawns and unpaved lots. After talking with the property owner, it was understood that some of the buildings along the right side of the stream are being used as meat processing and packaging facilities. The owner was concerned about the stream actively eroding her property and encroaching on the garage which is located on the north side of the study site at right bank. During the field visits, the property owner also showed concerns about the flooding issue on the downstream side of her property due to the manmade rock diversion structure that is used to divert water to the fish hatchery.

Picture 1: Unstable and eroded right Picture 2: Rock diversion structure in the bank, facing downstream. channel, facing downstream.

Current Issues: The upstream end of the study site is heavily eroded at the bend along the right side bank beginning near the property line. Most of the flow is concentrated along the toe of the right bank generating high shear stress near the bank making it very unstable. The left side along the bend is a depositional area with mostly gravel and cobble deposits (Picture 1). The right bank at this location is steep and there is no access to the floodplain. The right side bank throughout the study site lacks riparian vegetation and the majority of the bank along the property is unstable and needs preventive action. The right bank at the downstream end has been mowed and removed vegetation within 5 ft. of the stream channel. The man made rock diversion structure at

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 51 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 the downstream end of the study site is restricting fish passage during the base flow, and possibly cause flooding at downstream areas of the site during high flow events (Picture 2).

Below is a list of recommendations for potential improvements at site FD06.

 Construct a rock J-Hook structure at the upstream bend near the property line to bring current flow towards the center of the channel reducing bank erosion. Create a riffle habitat using designed bed material immediately above the structure and a pool habitat immediately below the structure.  Build imbricated rip-rap bank protection structure along the right bank from the upstream unstable bend location to the downstream limit of the property to stabilize the bank.  Establish a riparian vegetation buffer zone along the right bank of the project site where applicable and where there are no existing structures. Relocate the existing garage building upon agreement with the property owner to establish the riparian buffer.  Build fence around the riparian buffer areas to avoid any kind of encroachment.  Remove the existing man-made rock diversion structure located near the downstream end of the site to establish the natural flow pattern and allow fish passage during base flow events.

Table 16 Project 4- Property Ownership Information Account Site ID Property Owner Mailing Address No Tawes State Office Building St of MD Dept. of Natural 337672 Resources 580 Taylor Ave. Annapolis MD 21401-2397 12623 Catoctin Furnace Rd Fraley James A JR Etal 325356 FD06 Thurmont MD 21788-3008 Fraley James Austin Jr & 12623 Catoctin Furnace Rd 325240 Vicky D Thurmont MD 21788-3008 Trippett Michael E & 227 Rock Ridge Rd Millersville MD 337648 Trippett Judith T 21108

Note: Property ownership information for some parcels along the study site FD06 could not be obtained.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 52 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

6.4.2 Project Summary Sheet

See attached project summary sheet.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report Project Summary Sheet

Project 4 Prioritization Ranking: 4 Site FD06 Planning Level Cost Estimate: $517,981.25 General BMP Information: Estimated Cost/Impervious Acre: $53,900.23 Project Location: Catoctin Hollow Rd Estimated Cost/TSS: $24,902.94 ADC Map: 34, F2 Northing/Easting: 291,143.43/4,383,936.33 NPDES Watershed: Little Hunting Creek Upper Monocacy River MDE 8 Digit Watershed: (021403030244) Proposed BMP Retrofit General Informtaion: Stream Restoration and BMP Type: Tree Planting Management Type: Quality Site FD06 Total Drainage Area* (ac): 4,665.60 Total Impervious Area* 7.5 (ac): Water Quality Treatment Provided: WQv Provided (cu.ft.): N/A Impervious Acre Credit: 9.61 Estimated Nutrient Reductions: TN (lbs/yr): 75.27 TP (lbs/yr): 63.31 TSS (lbs/yr): 20.8 * Drainage area and impervious area (NLCD 2011) is obtained from USGS StreamStats Program. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The upstream end of the study site is heavily eroded at the bend along the right side bank beginning near the property line. Most of the flow is concentrated along the toe of the right bank generating high shear stress near the bank making it very unstable. The left side along the bend is a depositional area with mostly gravel and cobble deposits. The right bank at this location is steep and there is no access to the floodplain. The right side bank throughout the study site lacks enough riparian vegetation and the majority of the bank along the property is unstable. The man made rock diversion structure at the downstream end of the study site is restricting fish passage during the base flow, and possibly causing flooding during high flow events. ANTICIPATED SITE CONSTRAINTS Required Permitting The project reach is a perennial stream. Left bank is forested Frederick County SWM Review: and right bank consists of scattered matured tree-line and Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC): X buildings. Surrounding property is owned by multiple property owners. Construction access to the upstream and middle section Grading Permit: X Joint Permit Application (JPA)/General of the project reach is limited. Waterway Construction Permit: X Other: NONE PROPOSED RETROFIT Stream restoration and establishment of wider riparian vegetation buffer zone along right bank of the project. Building of imbricated rip-rap bank protection structure along the right bank. Removal of the existing man-made rock diversion structure located near the downstream end of the site. EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 53 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

6.4.3 Proposed Project Restoration Concept

See attached proposed project restoration concept.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report VICINITY MAP

FD06 W O Map Extent L F d x m . n o i t

a Potential Building r o t Relocation s e

R Legend d e s o p Little Hunting Creek Watershed o r P _

6 Property Boundary 0

D 0.31 Acres F

_ Stream 4 o N t

c Proposed Restoration e j o r

P Riparian Buffer _ x i

D D d n D D Fence e p p

A Imbricated Rip-rap _

C Bank Protection Structure H L

\ (see detail) n C g i a s J-Hook Structure

e t o D t c (see detail) n t

e i n c r

e F

P u 5 r 1

\ n

a D

X c

e M \ k R e

e d Notes: r 0.41 Acres C Stream Restoration - 925 ft g n i t n u Proposed restoration features H e l are conceptual designs and t t i

L not engineer designs. \ d n a l y Aerial: Google Earth, 2013 r a M \ t

s Map Date: 3/30/2016 a e h t 0 50 100 r o N \ l 0.22 Acres a Feet c o $ L Remove Existing d n a Diversion Structure e t a t S \ L a itt t le H a u d nt Project No. 4

S i

I n g G \ C Proposed Restoration s i r

g e n e Concept o k t e

v Little Hunting Creek o l \ \ Frederick County, Maryland EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 54 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

6.4.4 Standardized Field Ranking Forms

See attached standardized field ranking forms.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report TMDL Priority Stream Ranking Form CO_WTSD_ID # : FD06 8-digit W.S/Segmentshed: Field Assessment Date: 5/11/2015 Firm Name: EA TOTAL PARTS A, B AND C: 61 Site Source: Reviewers Name: R Poudel, K Rigney

Part A: Field Observations Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1. STREAM LENGTH > 1500 LF 1000 to 1500 LF 500 to 1000 LF 4 0 to 500 LF

2. ACCESS Adjacent, Unrestricted Minor Constraints Moderate Constraints4 Significant Constraints Site access from Catoctin Hollow Access location relatively flat, Access location relatively flat, Access location has some steep Access location has steep slopes, is open, dry, and within 100 feet of open, dry, within 100 - 500 feet slopes, some vegetation clearing heavily vegetated, has wet areas, Road and private driveway a public road. from a public road, and may required, some wet areas, is over 2000 feet from a public require special construction road between 500-1000 feet from a road, and may requires special treatments. public road, and may require construction road treatments. special construction road treatments.

3. FOREST / TREE COVER Sparse (0-10%) 9 Limited (11-30%) Moderate (31-50%) Dense (51-100%) Partial forest along Right bank Treeline extends to a width of Treeline extends to a width of 30- Treeline extends to a width of 60 - Treeline extends to a width of <30 feet. 60 feet. 100 feet. >100 feet.

4. UTILITIES (VISIBLE) None Minor8 Moderate Significant Overhead electric power line No obvious underground and/or Presence of underground and/or Presence of underground and/or Presence of underground and/or overhead utilities present at overhead utlity observed within overhead utilities within the overhead utilities within the within the restoration site. the restoration site. restoration site. It is anticipated restoration site. It is anticipated that the restoration design will that the restoration design will need to incorporate protection need to incorporate utility measures for utilities but no relocation(s). relocation(s).

5. STREAMBANK EROSION % 75-100% 9 50-74% 25-49% 0-24%

6/9/2015, 1:59 PM Page 1 of 2 Part A: Field Observations (continued) Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6. BANK ERODIBILITY POTENTIAL Extreme 9 High Medium Low Sever bank erosion on right bank Active headcuts and/or The restoration reach is highly The restoration reach is highly Channel incision is low and vertical significant potential for new incised, top-of-bank width to incised, top-of-bank width to degradation potential is limited. encroaching on Garage headcuts are present within the depth ratio is low and in-channel depth ratio is high and in-channel Floodplain vegetation rooting restoration site or immediately depositional features are limited. depositional features are depth extends down to the base downstream where the prevalent. flow or streambed level. streambed is expected to vertically degrade to be followed by a period of channel widening.

Reforestation Wetland Creation Avoid low water crossing Keep livestock out 8. OTHER BMP STRATEGIES Potential for 3-4 Potential for 2 Potential for 1 No Potential 1

TOTAL PART A: 45

Part B: Watershed Characteristics Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9. DRAINAGE AREA < 1 sq. mi. 1-3 sq. mi. 3-10 sq. mi. 4 > 10 sq. mi.

10. STREAM ORDER 1st Order 2nd Order 3rd Order4 4th Order or Greater

11. % IMPERVIOUS > 50% 30-50% 10-29% <10% 2

12. % SHA OWNED IMP. > 15 % 10-14 % 9-5 % < 5 %

TOTAL PART B: 10

Part C: Property Owner Information Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 or More Public 1 - 2 Private 6 3 - 4 Private 5 or More Private 13. TOTAL PROPERTY OWNERS Landowner(s) Landowner(s) Landowners Landowners

TOTAL PART C: 6 6/9/2015, 1:59 PM Page 2 of 2 EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 55 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

6.4.5 Fluvial Geomorphic Assessment Data

See attached fluvial geomorphic assessment data sheets.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report FD06 Profile

99.00 98.00 97.00 96.00 95.00 94.00 93.00 92.00 91.00 90.00 89.00 88.00 87.00 86.00 85.00 84.00 83.00 82.00 81.00 80.00 79.00 78.00 77.00 Thalweg 76.00 Water Surface 75.00 74.00 Linear (Water Surface) 73.00 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 CROSS SECTION SURVEY DATA SHEET Project name: Little Hunting Creek Survey date: 9/15/2015 Tuesday Stream name: Little Hunting Creek FD06 Calculations Cross-section ID: XS1 Bankfull width (Wbkf): 27.2 feet Bankfull mean depth (Dbkf): 1.5 feet Location: Bankfull max depth (Dmax): 3.2 feet State: County: Width to Depth Ratio (W/D): 17.9 ft./ft. Maryland Frederick Bankfull Area (Abkf): 41.2 sq. ft. Bankfull Elevation: 94.55 feet Co-ordinates: Latitude: Longitude: Observers: 1 Rajesh Poudel 2 Kathryn Minczuk Feature: Long-Pro Stn.: 203 Note: Dominant channel bed material: Cobble Cross-section survey is established at the location in front of the house which is upstream of the Garage. Temp. Bench mark Elevation: 92.12 Bench mark rod reading: 12.4 Height of Instrument: 104.52

XS1 100.00 99.00 98.00 97.00 96.00 95.00 94.00 93.00 Cross-section Bankfull Level 92.00 Flood-prone Level Water Surface 91.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00

Picture facing downstream CROSS SECTION SURVEY DATA SHEET Project name: Little Hunting Creek Survey date: 9/15/2015 Tuesday Stream name: Little Hunting Creek FD06 Calculations Cross-section ID: XS2 Bankfull width (Wbkf): 28.2 feet Bankfull mean depth (Dbkf): 1.6 feet Location: Bankfull max depth (Dmax): 2.0 feet State: County: Width to Depth Ratio (W/D): 17.2 ft./ft. Maryland Frederick Bankfull Area (Abkf): 46.2 sq. ft. Bankfull Elevation: 78.6 feet Co-ordinates: Latitude: Longitude: Observers: 1 Rajesh Poudel 2 Kathryn Minczuk Feature: Riffle Long-Pro Stn.: 1048 Note: Dominant channel bed material: Cobble Cross-section survey is established at upstream location of man made rock dam structure that is used to Temp. Bench mark Elevation: 81.42 divert a part of flow in Little Hunting Creek. Bench mark rod reading: 3.71 Height of Instrument: 85.13

XS2 81.00

Cross-section 80.00 Bankfull Level Flood-prone Level 79.00 Water Surface

78.00

77.00

76.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00

Picture facing downstream Little Hunting Creek Pebble Count Data Date: 9/15/2015 Tuesday Site: FD06 Location: Little Hunting Creek Observers: Rajesh Poudel, Kathryn Minczuk

Particle Size ranges (mm) Size finer than (mm) Tallies (Counts) % Item % Cum Silt/Clay S/C < 0.062 0.062 0.0% 0.0% Very Fine 0.062-0.125 0.125 0.0% 0.0% S Fine 0.125-0.25 0.25 0.0% 0.0% A Medium 0.25-0.50 0.5 1 1.0% 1.0% N Coarse 0.50-1.0 1 0.0% 1.0% D Very Coarse 1.0-2.0 2 1 1.0% 2.0% Very Fine 2.0-4.0 4 2 2.0% 3.9% Fine 4-5.7 5.7 0.0% 3.9% G Fine 5.7-8 8 2 2.0% 5.9% R Medium 8-11.3 11.3 4 3.9% 9.8% A Medium 11.3-16 16 3 2.9% 12.7% V Coarse 16-22.6 22.6 5 4.9% 17.6% E Coarse 22.6-32 32 6 5.9% 23.5% L Very Coarse 32-45 45 6 5.9% 29.4% Very Coarse 45-64 64 9 8.8% 38.2% Small 64-90 90 13 12.7% 51.0% Small E 90-128 128 15 14.7% 65.7% BBL Large O 128-180 180 16 15.7% 81.4% C Large 180-256 256 11 10.8% 92.2% Small 256-362 362 5 4.9% 97.1% Small 362-512 512 0.0% 97.1% LDER Medium 512-1024 1024 0.0% 97.1% BOU Large-Vry Large 1024-2048 2048 3 2.9% 100.0% Bed Rock BDRK 0.0% 100.0% TOTALS 102 100.0% Little Hunting Creek FD06 Pebble-count Plot 100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40% Cumulative percentfiner than 30%

20%

10%

0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Particle Size (mm) D50 = 88 mm Little Hunting Creek FD06 Pebble Count Size Frequency

Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder 20.0%

18.0%

16.0%

14.0%

12.0%

10.0%

8.0% Percent total count of 6.0%

4.0%

2.0%

0.0%

size ranges (mm) EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 56 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

6.4.6 Desktop Screening Forms

See attached desktop screening forms.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report TMDL Phase II Desktop Screening Form

Site Information Site number FD06 County Frederick Site Identified By EA Reviewers Name R. Poudel Desktop Screening Date 5/7/2015

Site Characteristics Existing Landuse Suburban forest and development Approximate Length (ft) 466 Stream Order 3rd Length of Stream US (ft) 466 Source for Length & Order Evidence of Improvements none identified i.e.. Stream restoration, buffer planting, etc Evidence of Channelization none identified i.e.. Straightening, channelization. Describe planform shift. Critical Area Yes Erosion Visible No Potential Erosion Sources steeper bank on east side , possible pipe discharge from development area Potential Nutrient Sources none identified Describe distance upstream for both erosion and nutrients Riparian Buffer Trees within 100' Yes If yes, describe density Moderate Riparian Condition Forest LB Suburban RB If other, describe Floodplain storage potential partial floodplain storage potential appears.

Constraints Lateral Interruptions Include # and Proximity Development on right side bank Longitudinal Interruptions Include # none identified Utilities none identified Natural Constraints forested area along left bank Access Moderate site access from Catoctin Hollow Rd Distance from Public Road (ft) <500 located along Catoctin Hollow Rd

Site Information Site Visit Required Yes If no, reason Nearest Rd. Intersection Catoctin Furnace Road and Red Bird Ln Property Owner Information State of Maryland Department of Natral ResourcesTawes State Office Bldg, Unknown, James Austin JR &Vicky D Fraley

Property Access Instructions Site can be accessed from the Catoctin Hollow Rd

Additional Notes/Additional Site Tinants on adjacent property have raised concern that Little Hunting Creek is Opportunities undermining their property. EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 57 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

6.5 PROJECT 5

Project 4 consists of two different sites – FD23 and FD24

6.5.1 Study Site FD23 and FD24

FD23: This site consists of an un-named offshoot to Little Hunting Creek, located towards the downstream end of the Little Hunting Creek watershed, south to the Blacks Mill Road (Figure 5). The site can be accessed from Blacks Mill Road. Most of the study site is on a private property (Table 17) with the land use of agriculture/pasture. The average slope of the valley is around 3.6 percent with a straight drop at the end of the swale where joins with Little Hunting Creek. Most of the flow in the swale is fed by the existing culvert across Blacks Mill Road. Several polyvinyl chloride (PVC) inlet risers were noticed around the culvert outlet location (Picture 8). This may require coordination with the power line company before executing any work in the downstream section of the project area.

Picture 8: Existing PVC inlet risers, facing Picture 9: Existing drain tile outlet, facing downstream. downstream.

Current Issues: Since the swale is receiving direct run-off from the upstream farm field, there is an abundant amount of sediment load delivered to the site and eventually into Little Hunting Creek. The valley is fairly steep, lack of tree roots to stabilize the ground and the flow is concentrated along the valley length to create an eroded flow path. The existing PVC risers located at the upstream end of the study site, at the culvert outlet location, do not appear to be functioning optimally (Picture 8). The downstream tail end of the project site is exposed to multiple drain tile outlets (Picture 9) and the topography drops vertically down to Little Hunting Creek creating unstable locality.

Below is a list of recommendations for the potential improvements at site FD23.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 58 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

 Starting from the edge of Blacks Mill Road, establish a riparian vegetation buffer zone at least 50 feet beyond the existing low flow path to intercept surface runoff. Make sure not to plant tall trees along electric power line right of way.  Replace the existing road side fence in the project area and continue the fencing around the proposed riparian buffer area.  Install bio-degradable sediment barrier/check dam, at least across 20 feet width on each side of the low flow path, at an interval of 1 foot drop in valley elevation. Install bio- degradable erosion control mat at least across 30 feet width on each side of the low flow path throughout the length of the project.  Create a plunge pool with armoring at the culvert outlet location to dissipate the flow energy before it starts flowing down the steeper slope, and enhance the function of existing PVC risers.  Stabilize the drain tile outlet location, at the downstream end of the swale, to establish a stable confluence with Little Hunting Creek. One of the options is to construct a step pool conveyance system.

FD24: The site is a perennial stream, located towards the downstream end of the Little Hunting Creek watershed, south to Blacks Mill Road. This section of the study site exhibits nearly 0.97 percent water surface slope, nearly 0.47 percent channel slope, 67.1 sq. ft. of bankfull area and 37.2 mm mean channel bed particle size diameter. The site can be accessed from Blacks Mill Road. Most of the study site is situated along the overhead electric power line right of way and is surrounded by a cluster of forest and agriculture/pasture land. The majority of the channel bed material is composed Picture 10: Eroded right bank, facing of gravel and cobble. The channel bed appears to downstream. be stable due to the presence of bedrock. The bottom end of the study site is exposed to the multiple drain tiles outlet (Picture 9) approaching from the left bank creating the surrounding area unstable (FD23).

Current Issues: As the study area is located within the powerline right of way, no tall trees can be established within the corridor. The right side bank (facing downstream) lacks surface cover vegetation and is subjected to erosion (Picture 10). The drain tile outfall location is in critical condition and needs to be stabilized as mentioned in the description of site FD23 above. Coordination with the power line company may be required before executing any work in this area.

Below is a list of recommendations for the potential improvements at site FD24.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 59 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

 Build soil lift to establish 3:1 bank slope along the unstable section of the right bank. Seed and secure with an erosion control blanket. Do not damage existing trees, as possible, during the construction process.

Table 17 Project 4- Property Ownership Information Account Site ID Property Owner Mailing Address No FD 28, 8040 Blacks Mill Rd Thurmont MD FD 28 & Kovitch John R & Judith T 156684 21788-2411 FD30

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 60 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

6.5.2 Project Summary Sheet

See attached project summary sheet.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report Project Summary Sheet

Project 5 Prioritization Ranking: 5 Sites FD23 and FD24 Planning Level Cost Estimate: $307,312.50 General BMP Information: Estimated Cost/Impervious Acre: $59,098.56 Project Location: South of Blacks Mill Rd Estimated Cost/TSS: $53,632.20 ADC Map: 35, D4-E4 Northing/Easting: 293,991.81/4,382,532.58 NPDES Watershed: Little Hunting Creek Upper Monocacy River MDE 8 Digit Watershed: (021403030244) Proposed BMP Retrofit General Informtaion: Stream Restoration, Tree Planting, and Regenerative BMP Type: Step Pool Storm Conveyance Management Type: Quality Site FD23 Site FD24 Total Drainage Area* (ac): 7,097.86 Total Impervious Area* 32.43 (ac): Water Quality Treatment Provided: WQv Provided (cu.ft.): 0.26 Impervious Acre Credit: 5.2 Estimated Nutrient Reductions: TN (lbs/yr): 446.95 TP (lbs/yr): 27.26 TSS (lbs/yr): 5.73 * Drainage area and impervious area (NLCD 2011) is obtained from USGS StreamStats Program. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The proposed project consists of an un-named swale to Little Hunting Creek (FD23) and a section of the Little Hunting Creek (FD24). FD23 receives direct run-off from the upstream farm field and there is an abundant amount of sediment load delivered to the site and eventually into Little Hunting Creek. The valley is fairly steep, lack of tree roots to stabilize the ground slope and the flow is concentrated along the valley length to create an eroded flow path. Site FD24 is located within the powerline right of way and no tall trees can be established within the corridor. The right side bank (facing downstream) of site FD24 lacks enough surface cover vegetation and is subjected to erosion. ANTICIPATED SITE CONSTRAINTS Required Permitting There are some PVC risers located at the upstream end of Frederick County SWM Review: FD23. The swale is fed by the culvert placed across the Blacks Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC): X Mill Road at the upstream end of the site. Site FD24 is a perennial stream. Most of the site FD24 and downstream Grading Permit: X Joint Permit Application (JPA)/General section of FD23 is located within the powerline right of way of Waterway Construction Permit: X corridor. Other: NONE PROPOSED RETROFIT Establishment of riparian vegetation buffer zone and installation of bio-degradable sediment barrier at site FD 23. Creation of plunge pool at the culvert outlet location and stabilization of the drain tile outlet location. Bank stabilization at site FD24. EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 61 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

6.5.3 Proposed Project Restoration Concept

See attached proposed project restoration concept.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report VICINITY MAP FD23 & FD24 d x m . n o i Install Bio-degradable t d a lls R r Check Dams and ks Mi o ac t Bl Map Extent s

e Erosion Control Mat R d (see detail) e s D D D o D D D p D D D Legend o D D r D D D D P D D _ D D 4 D D D 2 D D D Little Hunting Creek Watershed D D D F D D _

D D § 3

3 FLOW D2 Property Boundary

2 F D D D F

D Stream

5 D D

o D

D D

N D D

D t D

c D

D Proposed Restoration

e D j D

D o D

r '

D 0 P

D 5 Riparian Buffer

_ D

x D D

i D

D d D D n D e

D Existing Culvert Outlet p D § p

_ D

1.36 Acres D D D

C D

D D

H Fence

L D \ D n D g i Plunge Pool s e D t Soil Lift with Toe Wood n e c Structure (see detail) r e P

5 Drain Tile 1 \

D Outlet Stabilization X 4 M

\ 2 k e D e r Notes: F C g Stream Restoration - 600 ft n i t n u

H Proposed restoration features e l t t are conceptual designs and i L \ not engineer designs. d n a l y r Aerial: Google Earth, 2013 a M \ t s

k a Map Date: 3/30/2016

e e h

e t

r W r 0 50 100 o

N O \ l

g L a

c n Feet

i F o t $ L

n d

u n a

H e t a e t l

t S t \ i a

t L a d Project No. 5 S I G \ Proposed Restoration s i g n Concept o t e

v Little Hunting Creek o l \ \ Frederick County, Maryland EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 62 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

6.5.4 Standardized Field Ranking Forms

See attached standardized field ranking forms.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report TMDL Priority Stream Ranking Form CO_WTSD_ID # : FD23 8-digit W.S/Segmentshed: Field Assessment Date: 5/11/2015 Firm Name: EA TOTAL PARTS A, B AND C: 83 Site Source: Reviewers Name: R Poudel, K Rigney

Part A: Field Observations Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1. STREAM LENGTH > 1500 LF 1000 to 1500 LF 500 to 1000 LF 5 0 to 500 LF

2. ACCESS Adjacent, Unrestricted 10 Minor Constraints Moderate Constraints Significant Constraints Site access from Blacks Mill Road. Access location relatively flat, Access location relatively flat, Access location has some steep Access location has steep slopes, is open, dry, and within 100 feet of open, dry, within 100 - 500 feet slopes, some vegetation clearing heavily vegetated, has wet areas, a public road. from a public road, and may required, some wet areas, is over 2000 feet from a public require special construction road between 500-1000 feet from a road, and may requires special treatments. public road, and may require construction road treatments. special construction road treatments.

3. FOREST / TREE COVER Sparse (0-10%) 10 Limited (11-30%) Moderate (31-50%) Dense (51-100%) No riparian buffer. Treeline extends to a width of Treeline extends to a width of 30- Treeline extends to a width of 60 - Treeline extends to a width of <30 feet. 60 feet. 100 feet. >100 feet.

4. UTILITIES (VISIBLE) None Minor8 Moderate Significant Overhead electric power line at No obvious underground and/or Presence of underground and/or Presence of underground and/or Presence of underground and/or overhead utilities present at overhead utlity observed within overhead utilities within the overhead utilities within the downstream end within the restoration site. the restoration site. restoration site. It is anticipated restoration site. It is anticipated that the restoration design will that the restoration design will need to incorporate protection need to incorporate utility measures for utilities but no relocation(s). relocation(s).

5. STREAMBANK EROSION % 75-100% 50-74% 8 25-49% 0-24%

6/9/2015, 2:03 PM Page 1 of 2 Part A: Field Observations (continued) Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6. BANK ERODIBILITY POTENTIAL Extreme High 7 Medium Low Sever bank erosion on right bank Active headcuts and/or The restoration reach is highly The restoration reach is highly Channel incision is low and vertical significant potential for new incised, top-of-bank width to incised, top-of-bank width to degradation potential is limited. encroaching on Garage headcuts are present within the depth ratio is low and in-channel depth ratio is high and in-channel Floodplain vegetation rooting restoration site or immediately depositional features are limited. depositional features are depth extends down to the base downstream where the prevalent. flow or streambed level. streambed is expected to vertically degrade to be followed by a period of channel widening.

7. SEDIMENT STORAGE / NUTRIENT Mark all that apply: Treatment of U/S Sources Floodplain Storage Retention Time Adjustment X TREATMENT POTENTIAL Potential for all 3 Potential for 2 Potential for 1 3 No Potential

Reforestation X Wetland Creation Avoid low water crossing Keep livestock out 8. OTHER BMP STRATEGIES Potential for 3-4 Potential for 2 Potential for 1 5 No Potential

TOTAL PART A: 56

Part B: Watershed Characteristics Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9. DRAINAGE AREA < 1 sq. mi. 9 1-3 sq. mi. 3-10 sq. mi. > 10 sq. mi.

10. STREAM ORDER 1st Order 9 2nd Order 3rd Order 4th Order or Greater

11. % IMPERVIOUS > 50% 30-50% 10-29% <10% 1

12. % SHA OWNED IMP. > 15 % 10-14 % 9-5 % < 5 %

TOTAL PART B: 19

TOTAL PART C: 8 6/9/2015, 2:03 PM Page 2 of 2 TMDL Priority Stream Ranking Form CO_WTSD_ID # : FD24 8-digit W.S/Segmentshed: Field Assessment Date: 5/11/2015 Firm Name: EA TOTAL PARTS A, B AND C: 52 Site Source: Reviewers Name: R Poudel, K Rigney

Part A: Field Observations Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1. STREAM LENGTH > 1500 LF 1000 to 1500 LF 500 to 1000 LF 0 to 500 LF 2

2. ACCESS Adjacent, UnrestrictedMinor Constraints 6 Moderate Constraints Significant Constraints Site access from Blacks Mill Road Access location relatively flat, Access location relatively flat, Access location has some steep Access location has steep slopes, is open, dry, and within 100 feet of open, dry, within 100 - 500 feet slopes, some vegetation clearing heavily vegetated, has wet areas, and private dirt road to agriculture a public road. from a public road, and may required, some wet areas, is over 2000 feet from a public field. require special construction road between 500-1000 feet from a road, and may requires special treatments. public road, and may require construction road treatments. special construction road treatments.

3. FOREST / TREE COVER Sparse (0-10%) Limited (11-30%)7 Moderate (31-50%) Dense (51-100%) Partial forest along both banks Treeline extends to a width of Treeline extends to a width of 30- Treeline extends to a width of 60 - Treeline extends to a width of <30 feet. 60 feet. 100 feet. >100 feet.

4. UTILITIES (VISIBLE) None Minor Moderate4 Significant Overhead electric power line No obvious underground and/or Presence of underground and/or Presence of underground and/or Presence of underground and/or overhead utilities present at overhead utlity observed within overhead utilities within the overhead utilities within the within the restoration site. the restoration site. restoration site. It is anticipated restoration site. It is anticipated that the restoration design will that the restoration design will need to incorporate protection need to incorporate utility measures for utilities but no relocation(s). relocation(s).

5. STREAMBANK EROSION % 75-100% 50-74% 25-49% 4 0-24%

6/9/2015, 2:04 PM Page 1 of 2 Part A: Field Observations (continued) Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6. BANK ERODIBILITY POTENTIAL Extreme High Medium 5 Low Sever bank erosion on right bank Active headcuts and/or The restoration reach is highly The restoration reach is highly Channel incision is low and vertical significant potential for new incised, top-of-bank width to incised, top-of-bank width to degradation potential is limited. encroaching on Garage headcuts are present within the depth ratio is low and in-channel depth ratio is high and in-channel Floodplain vegetation rooting restoration site or immediately depositional features are limited. depositional features are depth extends down to the base downstream where the prevalent. flow or streambed level. streambed is expected to vertically degrade to be followed by a period of channel widening.

7. SEDIMENT STORAGE / NUTRIENT Mark all that apply: Treatment of U/S Sources Floodplain Storage X Retention Time Adjustment TREATMENT POTENTIAL Potential for all 3 Potential for 2 Potential for 1 4 No Potential

Reforestation X Wetland Creation Avoid low water crossing Keep livestock out 8. OTHER BMP STRATEGIES Potential for 3-4 Potential for 2 Potential for 1 4 No Potential

TOTAL PART A: 36

Part B: Watershed Characteristics Optimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9. DRAINAGE AREA < 1 sq. mi. 1-3 sq. mi. 3-10 sq. mi. 3 > 10 sq. mi.

10. STREAM ORDER 1st Order 2nd Order 3rd Order3 4th Order or Greater

11. % IMPERVIOUS > 50% 30-50% 10-29% <10% 2

12. % SHA OWNED IMP. > 15 % 10-14 % 9-5 % < 5 %

TOTAL PART B: 8

TOTAL PART C: 8 6/9/2015, 2:04 PM Page 2 of 2 EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 63 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

6.5.5 Fluvial Geomorphic Assessment Data

See attached fluvial geomorphic assessment data sheets.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report FD23 Profile

100.00

98.00

96.00

94.00

92.00

90.00

88.00

86.00

84.00

82.00

80.00 Thalweg

78.00 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 CROSS SECTION SURVEY DATA SHEET Project name: Little Hunting Creek Survey date: 9/18/2015 Friday Stream name: Little Hunting Creek FD23 Calculations Cross-section ID: XS1 Bankfull width (Wbkf): 20.6 feet Bankfull mean depth (Dbkf): 0.2 feet Location: Bankfull max depth (Dmax): 1.1 feet State: County: Width to Depth Ratio (W/D): 88.4 ft./ft. Maryland Frederick Bankfull Area (Abkf): 4.8 sq. ft. Bankfull Elevation: 87.6 feet Co-ordinates: Latitude: Longitude: Observers: 1 Rajesh Poudel 2 Kathryn Minczuk Feature: Long-Pro Stn.: 398 Note: Dominant channel bed material: Silt No water present in the channel.

Temp. Bench mark Elevation: 90.23 Bench mark rod reading: 2.96 Height of Instrument: 93.19

XS1 93.00 92.00 91.00 90.00 89.00 88.00 Cross-section 87.00 Bankfull Level 86.00 Flood-prone Level Water Surface 85.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00

Picture facing downstream FD24 Profile

97.00

96.50

96.00

95.50

95.00

94.50

Thalweg 94.00 Water Surface

Linear (Water Surface) 93.50 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 CROSS SECTION SURVEY DATA SHEET Project name: Little Hunting Creek Survey date: 9/18/2015 Friday Stream name: Little Hunting Creek FD24 Calculations Cross-section ID: XS1 Bankfull width (Wbkf): 34.7 feet Bankfull mean depth (Dbkf): 2.1 feet Location: Bankfull max depth (Dmax): 3.1 feet State: County: Width to Depth Ratio (W/D): 16.3 ft./ft. Maryland Frederick Bankfull Area (Abkf): 74.0 sq. ft. Bankfull Elevation: 97.11 feet Co-ordinates: Latitude: Longitude: Observers: 1 Rajesh Poudel 2 Kathryn Minczuk Feature: Riffle Long-Pro Stn.: 244 Note: Dominant channel bed material: Cobble

Temp. Bench mark Elevation: 94.85 Bench mark rod reading: 12.55 Height of Instrument: 107.40

XS1 106.00 105.00 Cross-section 104.00 Bankfull Level 103.00 Flood-prone Level 102.00 Water Surface 101.00 100.00 99.00 98.00 97.00 96.00 95.00 94.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00

Picture facing downstream CROSS SECTION SURVEY DATA SHEET Project name: Little Hunting Creek Survey date: 9/18/2015 Friday Stream name: Little Hunting Creek FD24 Calculations Cross-section ID: XS2 Bankfull width (Wbkf): 36.9 feet Bankfull mean depth (Dbkf): 1.8 feet Location: Bankfull max depth (Dmax): 3.1 feet State: County: Width to Depth Ratio (W/D): 20.3 ft./ft. Maryland Frederick Bankfull Area (Abkf): 67.1 sq. ft. Bankfull Elevation: 97 feet Co-ordinates: Latitude: Longitude: Observers: 1 Rajesh Poudel 2 Kathryn Minczuk Feature: Riffle Long-Pro Stn.: 148 Note: Dominant channel bed material: Cobble

Temp. Bench mark Elevation: 94.85 Bench mark rod reading: 10.02 Height of Instrument: 104.87

XS2 103.00 Cross-section 102.00 Bankfull Level 101.00 Flood-prone Level Water Surface 100.00 99.00 98.00 97.00 96.00 95.00 94.00 93.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00

Picture facing downstream Little Hunting Creek Pebble Count Data Collection Date: 9/18/2015 Friday Site: FD24 Location: Little Hunting Creek Observers: Rajesh Poudel, Kathryn Minczuk

Particle Size ranges (mm) Size finer than (mm) Tallies (Counts) % Item % Cum Silt/Clay S/C < 0.062 0.062 2 2.0% 2.0% Very Fine 0.062-0.125 0.125 0.0% 2.0% S Fine 0.125-0.25 0.25 2 2.0% 4.0% A Medium 0.25-0.50 0.5 2 2.0% 6.0% N Coarse 0.50-1.0 1 6 6.0% 12.0% D Very Coarse 1.0-2.0 2 0.0% 12.0% Very Fine 2.0-4.0 4 1 1.0% 13.0% Fine 4-5.7 5.7 1 1.0% 14.0% G Fine 5.7-8 8 7 7.0% 21.0% R Medium 8-11.3 11.3 8 8.0% 29.0% A Medium 11.3-16 16 6 6.0% 35.0% V Coarse 16-22.6 22.6 8 8.0% 43.0% E Coarse 22.6-32 32 3 3.0% 46.0% L Very Coarse 32-45 45 10 10.0% 56.0% Very Coarse 45-64 64 12 12.0% 68.0% Small 64-90 90 6 6.0% 74.0% Small E 90-128 128 13 13.0% 87.0% BBL Large O 128-180 180 7 7.0% 94.0% C Large 180-256 256 2 2.0% 96.0% Small 256-362 362 0.0% 96.0% Small 362-512 512 0.0% 96.0% LDER Medium 512-1024 1024 0.0% 96.0% BOU Large-Vry Large 1024-2048 2048 0.0% 96.0% Bed Rock 4 4.0% 100.0% TOTALS 100 100.0% Little Hunting Creek FD24 Pebble-count Plot 100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40% Cumulative percentfiner than 30%

20%

10%

0% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Particle Size (mm) D50 = 37.2 mm Little Hunting Creek FD24 Pebble Count Size Frequency

Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder 20.0%

18.0%

16.0%

14.0%

12.0%

10.0%

8.0% Percent total count of 6.0%

4.0%

2.0%

0.0%

size ranges (mm) EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 64 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016

6.5.6 Desktop Screening Forms

See attached desktop screening forms.

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report TMDL Phase II Desktop Screening Form

Site Information Site number FD23 County Frederick Site Identified By EA Reviewers Name R. Poudel Desktop Screening Date 5/7/2015

Site Characteristics Existing Landuse Agriculture predominately agriculture field Approximate Length (ft) Stream Order 1st Length of Stream US (ft) 572 Source for Length & Order Google Earth Evidence of Improvements none identified i.e.. Stream restoration, buffer planting, etc Evidence of Channelization Farmer could have used the ditch as agriculture drainage ditch i.e.. Straightening, channelization. Describe planform shift. Critical Area Yes Erosion Visible Yes Potential Erosion Sources Culvert located at upstream side and agriculture field run-off catchment Potential Nutrient Sources agriculture field Describe distance upstream for both erosion and nutrients Riparian Buffer Trees within 100' No If yes, describe density Bare Riparian Condition Agriculture LB Agriculture RB If other, describe Floodplain storage potential none identified

Constraints Lateral Interruptions Include # and Proximity none identified Longitudinal Interruptions Include # Culvert invert Utilities Overhead electirc power line Natural Constraints none identified Access Good site access from Blacks Mill Road Distance from Public Road (ft) <500

Site Information Site Visit Required Yes If no, reason Nearest Rd. Intersection Blacks Mill Road and Wilhide Road Property Owner Information Maurice C King JR Trustee & Anne W King Trustee Property Access Instructions site access from Blacks Mill Road

Additional Notes/Additional Site No riparian buffer along unnamed tributary to Little Hunting Creek within a agriculture Opportunities field, potential location for riparian planting. TMDL Phase II Desktop Screening Form

Site Information Site number FD24 County Frederick Site Identified By EA Reviewers Name R. Poudel Desktop Screening Date 5/7/2015

Site Characteristics Existing Landuse Agriculture Agriculture and partially forested Approximate Length (ft) 536 Stream Order 3rd Length of Stream US (ft) 536 Source for Length & Order Evidence of Improvements none identified i.e.. Stream restoration, buffer planting, etc Evidence of Channelization none identified i.e.. Straightening, channelization. Describe planform shift. Critical Area Yes Erosion Visible No Potential Erosion Sources Agriculture field run-off, drain tiles outlet Potential Nutrient Sources Farm pond, fish hatchery, agriculture field Describe distance upstream for both erosion and nutrients Riparian Buffer Trees within 100' Yes If yes, describe density Sparse Riparian Condition Agriculture LB Agriculture RB If other, describe Tree line along both banks Floodplain storage potential some potential floodplain storage areas

Constraints Lateral Interruptions Include # and Proximity none identified Longitudinal Interruptions Include # Low water crossing Utilities Overhead electrical power line Natural Constraints tree line along banks Access Moderate site access from Blacks Mill Road Distance from Public Road (ft) <500

Site Information Site Visit Required Yes If no, reason Nearest Rd. Intersection Blacks Mill Road and Wilhide Road Property Owner Information Kenneth D Davis Property Access Instructions site access from Blacks Mill Road Confluence of Little Hunting Creek and unnamed tributary in close proximity to Blacks Additional Notes/Additional Site Mill Road. Large meanders located near the confluence are likely eroded. Potential Opportunities location for instream restoration and bank stabilization.

Appendix A

Typical Structures

BIO-DEGRADABLE SEDIMENT BARRIER WITH EROSION CONTROL MAT Source: RoLanka International, Inc.

ROCK SILL STRUCTURE PICTURE

Source: Pohick Creek Tributary Stream Restoration

REGENERATIVE STORMWATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM PICTURE

Source: www.gannettfleming.com

SOIL LIFT WITH TOE WOOD DETAIL

Source: Dave Rosgen