EPA-903-R-95-018
CBP/TRS-J 42/95
EPA 903-R-95-018
COMMUNITIES
nn
Chesapeake Bay Program
A Catalog of
Local Initiatives
to Protect and
Restore the
Chesapeake Bay
Watershed
-------
George Allen
Governor
Office of the Governor
Dear Stewards of the Chesapeake Bay:
Chesapeake Bay Communities - Making the Connection features the
accomplishments of local governments and citizens to improve the quality and
condition of the Chesapeake Bay. The publication catalogs more than 100 locally
initiated efforts in which private citizens have undertaken projects or developed
their own policies to help continue the positive trends occurring in this dynamic
and resilient natural resource.
The people who live and work in communities throughout the Bay basin
are the true stewards of this tremendous natural resource. The fate of the
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries holds a direct bearing on the quality of life of
those who live, work and recreate in a huge area comprising three states. The
people of the Bay basin, therefore, have a deep and abiding motivation to
conserve and improve this valuable resource. It is this incentive, more than any
other factor, which leads people to engage in the wise resource management
practices that are improving water quality and bay habitats.
I am pleased, therefore, to commend this publication to your attention. It
offers some excellent examples of what communities can do to enhance their
particular section of a river or the Bay while contributing to the overall Bay
restoration.
With warm regards, I remain,
Suicerely,
Geo»ge Allen
Chairman, Chesapeake
Executive Council
State Capitol • Richmond, Virginia 23219 • (804) 786-2211 • TDD (804) 371-8015
-------
Chesapeake
Bay
Communities
April 1996
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Flocf
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
Editor's Note
Without the assistance of local government officials and staff and community
organizations and associations, this publication would not have been
possible. Their participation provided the basis for the 100 case studies
featured in this book. When further information was required, the contacts
fulfilled these requests beyond expectations. We thank them for their efforts.
Thanks also go out to the Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory
Committee and the Land, Growth, and Stewardship Subcommittee members
and their staff, as well as the publication workgroup which provided
assistance in the organization of this publication and provided invaluable
guidance and support during the preparation of Chesapeake Bay
Communities - Making the Connection.
Editor
Kerry Hodges
April 1996
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction
• Preface 1
• About the Chesapeake Bay Program 2
• About the Local Government Advisory Committee and the Land, Growth, & Steward-
ship Subcommittee 3
• How-to-Use this Catalog 5
Local Land Use Management/Policy
• Introduction 7
• Supporting case studies 9
Watershed Management
• Introduction 37
• Supporting case studies 39
Water Quality/Nutrient Reduction
• Introduction 63
• Supporting case studies 65
Living Resource Protection/Habitat Restoration
• Introduction 77
• Supporting case studies 79
Pollution Prevention
• Introduction 91
• Supporting case studies 93
Forest Conservation/Riparian Forest Protection
• Introduction 101
• Supporting case studies 103
Agricultural Preservation/Conservation
• Introduction 119
• Supporting case studies 121
-------
Land Stewardship
• Introduction 133
• Supporting case studies 135
Public Information and Education
• Introduction 161
• Supporting case studies 163
Bibliography
• Financial and Technical Assistance Resources 185
• Index of Local Programs 190
-------
PREFACE
This compilation of case studies is a significant indication of the range of important
environmental activities occurring within the nearly 2,000 communities in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed. Local governments and community organizations have
been and will continue to be an essential part of Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts.
The intent of this publication is to share the knowledge and experience gained through
specific projects among communities who will appropriate these strategies into their own
development plans for environmentally-sensitive areas.
Protection and restoration actions taken at the local level have a significant impact on
overall water quality and living resources of the watershed. Achieving nutrient reduction
targets begins upstream in the many tributaries within the Bay watershed. With the
growing awareness that improvements originate in "local backyards", local governments
have risen to meet new challenges. It is exciting to witness the increased involvement
of local officials and community organizations in the Chesapeake Bay watershed's
protection and restoration efforts. We are pleased to share these local initiatives with
others through this publication.
The enthusiasm of local government officials for the restoration efforts must be
supplemented by the knowledge and resources to produce change. Information and
technical assistance are the means to successful project implementation. Constituents,
as well, need to be aware of the state of the Bay and its tributaries which will help foster
a sense of community and encourage cooperation in working towards a more healthy
environment. The health of the Bay impacts on a locale's economic well-being,
recreational possibilities, and community pride. Thus, even the smallest restoration
project contributes to the larger picture of economic vitality and quality of life in the entire
watershed.
Recognizing the goal of encouraging cooperation and communication between
communities, the title of the publication evolved into Making the Connection. The more
local governments "connect" their efforts to the larger Bay goals, the more positive the
end results will be for the entire watershed. When communities sponsor effective
projects and gain expertise of their implementation, their work deserves to be shared.
High turnover rates of elected officials lead to a limited institutional memory. It is my
hope that this publication will supplement each local government official's effort to
provide leadership for sustainable, environmental policies in his or her county,
municipality, or township. Local governments and community organizations need not
work in isolation in the essential task of protecting and restoring this most valuable
resource — the Chesapeake Bay.
Gary Allen
Mayor, City of Bowie
Chairman, Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory Committee
Preface • 1
-------
The Chesapeake Bay Program - Leading the Restoration
The Chesapeake Bay Program is considered a national and international model for
estuarine restoration and watershed protection. The Chesapeake Bay Program is a
unique, regional, federal-state-local partnership which has directed and coordinated
Chesapeake Bay restoration since the signing of the historic 1983 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement. The Chesapeake Bay Program partners are the State of Maryland, the
Commonwealths of Pennsylvania and Virginia, the District of Columbia; the Chesapeake
Bay Commission, a tri-state legislative body; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
representing the federal government; and participating advisory groups.
The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the U.S. and one of the most productive
in the world. In the mid-1970s, the Chesapeake was the nation's first estuary targeted
for restoration and protection. This scientific and estuarine research identified three
areas requiring immediate attention: nutrient over-enrichment; dwindling underwater
Bay grasses; and toxic pollution. Based on the sound science of the ten year research
effort, the Chesapeake Bay Program evolved as the management means to restore this
exceptionally valuable resource.
The Bay Program's highest priority has been and continues to be the restoration of the
Bay's living resources and significant results have been achieved. Indicators of that
progress are evident in the recent resurgence of the striped bass and increased acreage
of Bay grasses, as well as reductions in nutrients reaching the Bay. The Bay Program
has also been instrumental in introducing agricultural best management practices,
biological nutrient removal, and a public education campaign emphasizing the role each
of the watershed's 14.2 million residents plays in the restoration effort.
I n 1987, the Chesapeake Bay Program partners signed the Chesapeake Bay Agreement
which set a goal to reduce the nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus, entering the Bay by
40 percent by the year 2000. Achieving the 40 percent reduction will dramatically
improve the water quality of the Bay and improve the health and abundance of the Bay's
living resources.
To achieve the 40 percent reduction goal the Bay Program recognized the need to move
up into the tributaries, to attack the nutrients at their source. In 1992, the Chesapeake
Bay Program partners agreed to establish nutrient reduction targets for the Bay's ten
major tributaries. As a result Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District of
Columbia have developed "tributary strategies" to achieve the nutrient reduction targets.
This action has literally moved the Bay Program's emphasis into the communities and
neighborhoods of the Chesapeake Bay Program.
The Bay Program's Executive Council, consisting of the Governors of Pennsylvania,
Maryland, and Virginia, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Administrator, and the Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay
Commission, a tri-state legislative body, has signed results-oriented commitments to
ensure the success of the Bay restoration effort. In 1993, the Council signed five
directives addressing key areas of the restoration, including the tributaries, toxics,
underwater Bay grasses, fish passage, and agricultural non-point source pollution. In
1994, the Executive Council signed three additional directives addressing the
establishment of a riparian forest policy, reciprocal agricultural certification between Bay
Program states and a framework for habitat restoration, as well as the Chesapeake Bay
Basinwide Toxics Reduction and Prevention Strategy. In 1995, the Executive Council
recognized the integral role local governments play in achieving Bay Program goals by
signing the Local Government Partnership Initiative. It is providing local governments
significant status in the Bay Program's on-going effort to protect the Bay and its
tributaries.
CBP
-------
The Local Government Advisory Committee of the Chesapeake
Bay Program
Upon signing the Chesapeake Bay Agreement in 1987, the Chesapeake Executive
Council determined that an integral part of achieving its goals would come through a
reliance on local governments. They therefore established the following commitment to
achieve these goals: "By March 1988, to establish a local government advisory
committee to the Executive Council and charge that committee to develop a strategy for
local government participation in the Bay program."
The Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC), consisting of 20
local government officials, represents the diverse interests of several thousand
governments from the 64,000 square mile Bay watershed. Upon its creation, the
committee was charged with communicating information about the on-going and
evolving Chesapeake Bay Program activities to local governments. In addition, the
committee was given the responsibility of communicating the opinions, concerns, and
recommendations of local governments to the Executive Council. Since its creation, the
LGAC has actively established the foundation for local government participation in the
Bay Program. It works to broaden the Bay Program's understanding of local
perspectives concerning Bay restoration and protection efforts.
In working to meet the goals of the Executive Council, the LGAC balances proactive and
reactive responsibilities and activities. The committee provides comments on numerous
strategies and other documents, giving a local perspective on Bay issues. It also fulfills
a role in communicating to the Executive Council on issues that are of special concern
to local governments. In turn, the committee provides a direct channel for the Executive
Council to disseminate information to local governments.
Contact
Local Government Advisory Committee: 1-800-446-5422
Gary Allen, Chair
Local Government Advisory Committee
Mayor, City of Bowie
c/o Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology
5112 Berwyn Road, 3rd floor
College Park, MD 20740
(301)220-0879
LGAC
-------
The Land, Growth and Stewardship Subcommittee of the
Chesapeake Bay Program
The Land, Growth and Stewardship Subcommittee was originally established as the
"Population, Growth and Development Subcommittee" to be an information forum to
identify issues of population, growth and development in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. The subcommittee was reformed as the Land, Growth and Stewardship
Subcommittee, with the adoption of the December 5, 1994 mission statement, which
expanded the subcommittee's activities to include: 1) promoting sound land
management decisions; 2) providing growth projections addressing the impacts of
existing growth on the Bay and its tributaries; and 3) encouraging public and private
actions to reduce the impacts of growth on the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.
The activities of the subcommittee will be pursued in support of the 1987 Chesapeake
Bay Agreement and amendments to the Bay agreement which commit the signatories,
among other things, to implement tributary-specific strategies that meet mainstem
nutrient reduction goals and achieve water quality requirements necessary to support
living resources in both the mainstem and the tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay.
Furthermore, the 1992 Amendments commit the signatories to explore opportunities to
further reduce airborne sources of nitrogen which enter the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries, beyond that which is captured under the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air
Act.
In accomplishing its new mission, the Land, Growth and Stewardship Subcommittee
seeks to provide technical assistance to local governments in their efforts to manage
growth and to create public forums and form alliances with other organizations for the
exchange of ideas and strategies for land conservation, stewardship and growth
management.
Contact
Land, Growth and Stewardship Subcommittee: 1-800-968-7229
Michael Thomas, Chair
Land, Growth and Stewardship Subcommittee
Virginia Secretary of Administration
202 North Ninth Street, Room 633
Richmond, VA 23219
(804)786-1201
LGSS
-------
How-to-Use this Catalog
The catalog has been organized into nine chapters, each with its own identifying icon. Due to
the fact that a project does not necessarily apply to only one category, smaller icons are used
to demonstrate a sub-section for a case study. For example, a project that is primarily focusing
on Water Quality/Nutrient Reduction may also be linked to Public Information and Education
through the use of a small icon.
Please find below a description of each chapter's contents and their respective icons.
Local Land Use Management/Policy
• Comprehensive Local Government Planning
• Land Use Regulation/Zoning and Subdivision
• Growth Management Techniques
• Designating Urban Growth Boundaries
• Linking Infrastructure to Land Use Patterns
• Technological Advances Applied with GIS/Mapping
• Financing Land Use Management
• Fostering Efficient/Environmentally-Sensitive Patterns of Development
• Neo-traditional Development
• Cluster Development
Watershed Management
• Watershed Restoration and Monitoring
• Stream Corridor Protection
Water Quality/Nutrient Reduction
• Advanced Wastewater Treatment
• Agricultural Nutrient Management Practices
• Managing Nutrients on Developed Lands
• Stormwater Management
Living Resource Protection/Habitat Restoration
• Wetlands Protection/Restoration/Mitigation
• Non-Regulatory Approaches to Wetland Protection
• Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Restoration
• Fisheries Management
Pollution Prevention
• Household Hazardous Waste Management/Education Programs
• Toxics Reduction
• Groundwater Protection
• Stormwater Management
• Pollution Prevention Projects
• Beneficial Use of Dredge Materials
• Agricultural Integrated Pest Management
Forest Conservation/Riparian Forest Protection
• Forest Conservation Programs
• Riparian Forest Buffer Protection/Restoration
• Greenways
How-to-Use this Catalog • 5
-------
Agricultural Preservation/Conservation
• Agricultural Preservation/Conservation Programs
• Purchase and/or Transfer of Development Rights Programs
• Cluster Development Programs and Projects
Land Stewardship
• Greenspace (Tree planting, Landscaping, BayScaping)
• Conservation Easement Programs
• Public Access
• Heritage Areas Protection/Eco-Tourism
• Countryside Stewardship Exchange
• Stewardship Practices
Public Information and Education
• Local Government Education Programs
• "Hands-on" Environmental Education
• Public Information/Outreach
• Environmental Education Curriculum
• Continuing Education Programs
How-to-Use this Catalog
-------
The Chesapeake Bay Issue
The Chesapeake Bay region is one of the fastest growing regions in the United States.
In fact, several of the counties in the watershed are among the ten fastest growing
counties in the nation. The region's cultural activites, strong economic growth,
accessibility, and unique natural environment are just a few of the reasons that the
watershed is enjoying such a high rate of growth. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed's
population now totals 14.2 million people and is predicted to grow to about 15 million by
the turn of the century. The Baltimore-Washington-Richmond corridor is experiencing
unprecedented growth and development.
This exceptional growth presents localities with tremendous challenges, not the least of
which is ensuring propetstewardship of the Chesapeake Bay.
County/ riihicipal, and to^lflglliQy^^eril^^^ppunterlng-Sfte effSSf'of poor
development patterns by sfrati|'^p^s§^sinpt^^growth patterns, and gr|ating
comprehensive plans to promotepettedlSjuie patterns for development, proteclnltural
habitat^, and revitalize existing develpment Genf|rs.;; In addition, responsible land use
decistqjis often consideration'transportation policy, and farm preservatigrf as a
comment of c6pf|||Snsive plans. By encouraging wise resource managemerif'these
land life policieifean eontributeto improving the Chesapeake Bay, ,
Loc|f |i|f©rnmerjj:s'- |0J© irf the Bay clean-up effort has been defined by elfortsjo manage
the pij|6f;lar«l ,|%jl goyej|irneht land use controls manage deveiopmeht,fo/rn, density,
and tlinipacjti^pe/e(|5rrton environmental iBSQurces, ,\ ,s'*§r
*;••* ^ '~ • '•••-.'",
teVetoprrt^nt entails sediment control, sforrnwater
subdivision authority, These resporiibliitieifplace local
es in the eWort to improve Bay habitat an
e iay's'tributaj|f|;has brought the
management efforts in the form of compreprisive
evolving. "Tbdayj- watershed plans- and gfltnway
loc^it Jevel are common planning activities. These programs
Jemeritjthedrjaditional planning activities andjpfovide
'nri'serving'irfa enha0,|^g»environmental res'owces and
-•;-.,;•-, " ^^~:N" _,'- - >•**'
•• '
The Chsap'eake Bay Prran arid the Locateovemment. Advisory Committee !;are
assisting local communities with technical assistance in establishing planning p"oifcfes
that take an integrated approach to their development plan. These community planning
technical assistance activities have been successful in preserving natural areas,
increasing economic opportunities and revitalizing the quality of life of a community.
Local Land
Use
Management/
Policy
An Introduction
Local Land L/se Management/Policy • 7
-------
State governments in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) are also providing technical, informational, and financial
assistance to local government decision-makers. State assistance programs, including
Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department, Maryland's Office of
Planning, and Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection, provide local
governments with the tools to formulate sound land use policy decisions. U.S. EPA's
Office of Regional Operations and State/Local Relations assists local governments by
introducing environmental planning techniques to small communities.
The following section describes selected Chesapeake Bay watershed land use policies
and implementation techniques to help protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay region.
These policies and techniques include cluster development, tax incentives, transfer of
development rights, and other innovative provisions to incorporate into comprehensive
plans and zoning ordinances. The objective is to encourage growth in appropriate
locations and protect resources.
Problems in the Bay
Causes of Decline in the Bay's Health:
• Air Pollution
• Algae Blooms
• Deforestation
• Disease
• Excessive Nutrients
• Lack of Public Education and Involvement
• LossofSAV
• Overharvesting
• Poor Use of Water Resources
• Toxics
8 • Making the Connection
-------
City Island and Riverfront Park
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Background
Riverfront Park was created in the early 1900s as part of a program to preserve and
enhance the health and beauty of the railroad and industrial center which was
Harrisburg. The city acquired all the property along the Susquehanna Riverwhich forms
the five mile Riverfront Park. In the years following the City Beautiful movement, the
area fell into a state of disrepair. It was not until 1985 that efforts to enhance the City
Island and the Riverfront Park began in earnest.
Project Description
Since 1987, the program has resulted in the successful transformation of a once blighted
island into a major regional recreation facility. The program has also complemented and
supported city initiatives to revitalize the downtown and improve the economic
environment of the city.
Improvements include the 6,300 seat Riverside Stadium, the Skyline sports complex,
Riverside Village Park, the Pride of the Susquehanna riverboat, the Harrisburg Marina,
a nature trail featuring wetlands and wildlife, sunken gardens, and more. Additionally,
many improvements were made to the waterfront's infrastructure. On City Island, bank
stabilization has been accomplished in areas where erosion from ice and floods was
prevalent. Riprap and vegetation has successfully stabilized problem areas. A sewage
collection and pumping station delivers wastewater across the river through the Market
Street Bridge and conveys it to the Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant in South
Harrisburg.
Neighborhood and civic groups such as the Riverfront Peoples Park support the city's
activities in the Park. The Riverfront Peoples Park is a non-profit volunteer organization
which helps the city maintain and improve Riverfront Park. Members have been
responsible for installing an exercise course in the park, planting 250 trees to restore
the park's shade tree population, and organizing several clean-up sessions which have
included raking leaves, trimming trees, painting park benches, and repairing overviews.
Benefits/Results
While the program has fulfilled its objectives of enhancing recreational opportunities,
complementing economic development initiatives, and providing free public access to
the river, these gains have not come at the expense of the environment. Careful
planning was undertaken to preserve environmental quality while achieving the
objectives. When trees are removed in park areas, the city's policy is to plant three trees
for each removed.
Enhancement of the waterfront posed many obstacles including compliance with the
local floodplains management ordinances, complex environmental regulations
concerning water quality, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and historical and cultural
resources. Wetland areas have been preserved, eroded areas stabilized, and
stormwater and wastewater systems improved.
Local Land Use Management/Policy • 9
-------
The restoration of the city's waterfront has also increased the focus of the city and other
local communities on preserving and enhancing the environmental quality of the river
and its environs. This focus will directly and positively influence restoration of the
Chesapeake Bay.
Costs/Funding Source
The city utilized a combination of funding sources, including federal and state grant
programs, interest earnings from tax-exempt bonds issued by the city, and revenues
generated from park permits issued by the city. Most projects involved a public-private
partnership that shared the costs of construction. No city tax dollars were used for the
program's construction and revenues generated by the projects and special events help
defray the cost of maintenance.
Contact
Daniel Lispi
Department of Parks and Recreation
City of Harrisburg
123 Walnut Street, Suite 212-E
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717)255-6455
10 • Making the Connection
-------
Coastal Program Special Area
Management Plan for Sustainable
Development
Northampton County, Virginia
Background
Northampton County, the southernmost county on Virginia's Eastern Shore, forms the
gateway to the Chesapeake Bay. This is a place rich in natural and cultural assets —
beaches, marshes, barrier islands, woodlands, tidal creeks, and historic villages.
Despite this wealth of resources, Northampton County is among the poorest in Virginia
and suffers from a depressed, declining economy and chronic unemployment.
The area has been designated as a World Biosphere Reserve by the United Nations
due to the habitat it provides for over 260 species of birds, as well as other wildlife. The
bayside and southern end of Northampton County provide critical habitat during fall
migration for songbirds which funnel into the tip of this peninsula to rest and feed before
crossing vast open waters on their way to the Caribbean or Central and South America.
The seaside marshes and barrier islands also provide a coastal wilderness for huge
numbers of colonial birds, shorebirds, waterfowl, finfish and shellfish.
Project Description
In 1991, the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program approached the county with
a four-year, match-free grant proposal to create new enforceable policies to protect
coastal habitat and promote sustainable growth. A federal, state, and local partnership
of agencies was formed. In 1992 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) awarded Virginia's Coastal Program $800,000 to carry out the Plan.
The grant enabled the community to hire a project coordinator and begin to create a
Sustainable Development Action Strategy based on the Plan. The Strategy targets six
sustainable development industries for promotion, linking them with asset protection
policies of the Plan:
• Develop Heritage Tourism Industry/Protect Natural and Cultural Assets
• Develop Seafood and Aquaculture Industries/Protect Water Quality
• Develop Agriculture Industry/Protect Productive Land
• Develop New Industry/Protect Sense of Place, Quality of Life, and
Groundwater
• Develop Research, Education Industry/Protect Natural and Cultural Systems
• Develop Arts, Crafts, Local Products Industries/Preserve Culturally-Diverse,
Authentic Community
Benefits/Results
• Research on bird habitat requirements needed for policy development
completed by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation and
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and The Nature Conservancy.
Landowners guide in preparation. County Geographic Information System
established.
Local Land Use Management/Policy • 11
-------
• Virginia Coastal Program initiated the Eastern Shore Birding Festival as part of
the Plan and annual festivals have been hosted by the local Chamber of
Commerce since 1993 celebrating the fall migration. Festivals created major
interest among birdwatchers nationally and brought in several hundred
thousand ecotourism dollars.
• County received the National Association of Counties' Presidential Leadership
Award for the Strategy and was chosen as one of four sites by the President's
Council on Sustainable Development for an eco-industrial park. A community
design charette was held and a master plan for the Port of Cape Charles
Sustainable Technologies Industrial Park (STIP) was created, (see p. 31)
• Northampton's aquaculture industry expanded from one company and less
than $1 million in sales in 1991 to four companies with $5 million in sales in
1995.
• The Plan has leveraged an additional $740,000 from the Department of
Transportation for a project to restore historic sites and create a Heritage Trail
within the county; $200,000 from EPA for brownfields/greenfields project;
$70,000 from the Chesapeake Bay Program for habitat restoration project.
The county is in the process of trying to leverage an additional $800,000 from
USDA and EPA for infrastructure construction at the STIP and the Coastal
Program is trying to leverage $800,000 from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
critical habitat acquisition.
Costs/Funding Source
Work has been funded by the Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program of the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality through NOAA's Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resources Management. Funds expended or allocated to date total
$1,810,000.
Contact
Laura McKay
Virginia Coastal Resources
Management Program
Department of Environmental Quality
629 East Main Street
Richmond, VA 23219
(804) 762-4323
or
Tim Hayes
Director of Sustainable Development
Northampton County
P.O. Box 538
Eastville, VA 23347
(804) 678-0477
12 • Making the Connection
-------
Development Evaluation Process
Arlington, Virginia
Background
Arlington County officials established a development evaluation process to provide a
coherent and concurrent process by which county staff and citizens can examine a
project and provide information and comment so that the County Board will make
informed decisions about the project. It is a streamlined process for evaluating a range
of environmental impacts, including water quality, of publicly-funded projects.
Project Description
The Administration Regulation was adopted in February 1994. What has been learned
is that if environmental issues arise and are dealt with early, the potential for consensus
is enhanced and changes are more easily incorporated at a time when the project is not
already "cast in stone."
The major features of the process include: factors to be considered in deciding when
the environmental assessment is required; how to establish and operate the staff
working group for each assessment; when and how to notify citizens and other
interested groups; a tracking procedure for the assessments so that staff and citizens
have access to basic information about each environmental assessment; and
establishing the Environment and Energy Conservation Commission as a link between
staff and public comment activities.
Benefits/Results
Environmental assessments are an important part of the total information considered in
evaluating a project. The process is designed to make county agencies aware of
potential impacts, to provide them a basis for weighing adverse impacts against the
benefits of the proposed project, and to assist them in incorporating design features
which improve the environment or lessen adverse environmental impacts.
The process is uncomplicated and easily replicated. It can be modified to suit other
jurisdictions and would be especially helpful to jurisdictions that seek citizen involvement.
Costs/Funding Source
The process itself does not require additional funding. Staff have replaced an earlier
process with a new and more inclusive and efficient process.
Contact
Barbara Nash
Department of Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources
3308 S. Stafford Street
Arlington, VA 22206
(703) 358-6409
Local Land Use Management/Policy • 13
-------
Development Guidance System
Charles County, Maryland
Background
Charles County's Zoning Ordinance establishes floating zones to permit certain land
use activities within a "planned development". The county's Development Guidance
System (DCS) is a tool used to evaluate larger residential development and mixed use
development projects proposed for "planned development" zoning. The DCS evaluation
is made on the basis of points assigned and awarded to those proposals which meet
predetermined criteria which correlate to County Comprehensive Plan objectives and/or
provide specific amenities that benefit the county or neighborhood in which the
development is proposed.
Project Description
Under the DCS, the development proposal which best achieves plan objectives will
accrue the highest points which translates into development approval. Projects which
provide certain amenities and features, including environmental protection measures,
above and beyond those normally required by ordinance may be granted density
increases as a bonus. The system rewards projects located near existing developed
areas of the county and penalizes those located in more rural areas. The DGS provides
a tool to clearly and objectively measure the connection between a proposed
development and the degree to which it is consistent with county land use and
environmental planning objectives. Examples of county objectives for which points are
awarded include:
Community Character Points can be added for meeting certain design criteria
associated with achieving traditional neighborhood
design objectives.
Community Facilities A greater number of points are awarded for proximity
to existing or developer provided facilities.
Environment Points are awarded for greater percentages of forest
cover protected, steep slopes avoided, expanded
buffers from sensitive resources, etc.
The County DGS was conceived as part of the process to update the County
Comprehensive Plan in the late 1980s and incorporated into a new county zoning
ordinance adopted in August 1992. A critical component of the DGS is the built-in
evaluation system which requires the County Planning Commission to review the
established criteria and point scoring system annually. This review permits re-calibration
of points awarded to assure the system adapts to changes in policy that may occur over
time.
Contact
Zakary Krebeck, Zoning Administrator
Charles County Department of Planning and Growth Management
P.O. Box B
La Plata, MD 20646
(301)645-0540
14 • Making the Connection
-------
Environmental Resources Plan
Carroll County, Maryland
Background
On October 1, 1992, the Maryland Economic Growth, Resource Protection, and
Planning Act of 1992 took effect. The Planning Act is designed to encourage economic
growth, limit development sprawl, and protect the state's natural resources. The Act
recognizes local comprehensive planning processes undertaken by counties and towns
as the most effective and suitable method to establish priorities for resource
conservation. It also establishes requirements for local government preparation of
"Sensitive Areas" elements in local Comprehensive Plans and requires such plan
elements and corresponding implementation regulations to be adopted by both county
and municipal local governments by July 1,1997.
Project Description
In 1993, Carroll County and the eight incorporated municipalities within the county
executed formal agreements to work cooperatively in developing amendments to the
Carroll County Master Plan, in the form of an Environmental Resources Element, and
to amend the environmental protection elements of the Master Plans for each of the
eight municipalities. The effort included the development of related implementation
measures to assure protection of sensitive areas as defined by the Planning Act. The
Carroll County Planning Department and a local "Interjurisdictional Steering Committee"
facilitated the exchange of ideas and information between the municipalities and the
county as new plan elements were reviewed and existing plans modified. Municipal
governments represented in the interjurisdictional project include the city of Westminster
and the towns of Hampstead, Manchester, Mount Airy, New Windsor, Sykesville,
Taneytown and Union Bridge.
This cooperative effort led to the creation of one planning document that could be
adopted by all nine jurisdictions. Although the exact wording and format of the
implementation measures may vary between jurisdictions, the intent is that each
jurisdiction will also adopt the same amendments to its respective subdivision
regulations and zoning ordinances, thereby creating uniform and consistent protection
to environmental resources.
Since environmental resources do not recognize jurisdictional boundaries, the
Interjurisdictional Steering Committee determined that a uniform plan and
implementation measures would provide greater protection to environmental resources
than nine individually developed plans. Thirty meetings were held for purposes of
disseminating information and obtaining input.
Benefits/Results
In general, this plan does not recommend any changes that would prohibit the
development of land, with the exception of land within a stream buffer or wellhead buffer.
Rather, the plan makes recommendations on designing development to reduce impact
on environmental resources. All jurisdictions are recommended to adopt a uniform
Environmental Resources Element, uniform definitions, uniform implementation
measures, and a more streamlined review process. Protection of resources is to be
accomplished through adoption of the definitions in the subdivision regulations, adoption
Local Land Use Management/Policy • 15
-------
of stream and wellhead buffers, requiring subdivisions and site plans for development
to be designed following Guidelines for Development in Environmental Resources
Areas. Guidance maps using data mapped on a GIS system have been developed to
support this effort and an additional staff person hired by the county reviews
development proposals for consistency with guidelines for development in both the
county and the towns.
Costs/Funding Sources
This project was funded entirely through the Carroll County operating budget.
Contact
K. Marlene Conaway/ Brenda J. M. Dinne
Carroll County Planning Department
225 North Center Street
Westminster, MD21157
(410)857-2145
16 • Making the Connection
-------
Geographic Information System
Adams County, Pennsylvania
Background
Adams County is an agricultural community of 526 square miles located in south-central
Pennsylvania adjacent to the Mason-Dixon line. All of the waters of the county drain
into the Chesapeake Bay either through the Potomac or the Susquehanna Rivers.
Project Description
One of the goals of the Adams County Geographic Information System (CIS) is to
improve the quality and availability of the information that is used for decision-making.
By developing inventories of water-related resources and registering the features to a
common base map, the Adams County CIS will assist those programs concerned with
protecting the quality of water entering the Chesapeake Bay. By establishing the
baseline conditions, the effect of land use changes on the quality of the water entering
the Chesapeake Bay system will be measured.
Benefits/Results
The Adams County GIS Development Plan was adopted in June 1995 and numerous
relevant data sets have been collected. By 1996, parcel mapping should be complete
so that parcel specific land use decisions can be considered using the water resource
inventories.
Some of the benefits that the county expects from the use of a GIS in Adams County
are:
• improved access to ownership, taxation and regulatory records;
• improved understanding and responsibility for the impacts of development
upon air and water quality;
• a decrease in duplication of effort and redundant data sets through the sharing
of data; and
• improved ability to answer geographic feature inventory related questions.
Costs/Fundina Source
Primary data acquisition and system hardware and software have been paid for by the
Adams County Commissioners from the general fund. Resource sharing and assistance
has been obtained from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, PennDOT,
other state and federal agencies and some of the townships and boroughs.
Contact
Curt Musselman
GIS Coordinator
111-117 Baltimore Street
Gettysburg, PA 17325
(717)334-6781
Local Land Use Management/Policy • 17
-------
Model Zoning Regulations for the
Lackawanna Valley
Scranton, Pennsylvania
Background
A draft land use plan for the Lackawanna Valley, released in the spring of 1995, provided
a foundation for decisions concerning future development. The plan is a blend of the
best features of several development scenarios explored by the Lackawanna County
Regional Planning Commission (LCRPC) and reviewing committees. This plan also
serves as the basis for an outline of changes to development regulations for Valley
communities. Twelve municipalities are located in the land use study area, each with its
independent authority for implementation of land development ordinances, including
zoning and subdivision regulations.
Project Description
Achieving the desired future pattern of development in the Lackawanna Valley is
dependent on land use regulatory programs administered by the twelve municipal
governments in the study area. While each municipality is unique, there are a number
of common traits among Valley communities, including the impending arrival of the
Lackawanna Valley Industrial Highway (LVIH). These common characteristics
suggested that a "menu" of zoning districts and regulations would cover the most
important aspects of the recommended land use plan for the Valley and would be widely
applicable in the twelve municipalities.
To facilitate needed land use reforms to implement the plan, the LCRPC prepared a set
of model zoning districts for Lackawanna Valley municipalities. These regulations can
be adopted by Valley municipalities to support the vision of the future contained in the
Comprehensive Plan. While all districts will not be appropriate in all communities, the
common circumstances of most Valley municipalities should mean that many of the
districts will be appropriate in many of them. For example, seven out of the twelve
communities have:
• the LVIH passing directly through them;
• an LVIH interchange location;
• areas of mature residential and mixed-use development; and
• undeveloped "sides" of the Valley.
Three more communities share the last two characteristics. Model ordinance provisions
are organized into five major zoning districts and their related regulations. The Resource
Conservation District establishes limitations on the percentage of a tract permitted to be
disturbed for development in order to preserve trees and steep slopes. Incentives in the
form of density bonuses are also included to encourage developers to proceed under
cluster and compact cluster provisions of the ordinance, further reducing the potential
land area disturbed.
Results/Benefits
Ordinance changes will ultimately need to be tailored to the precise needs of each
municipality, reflecting community wants and aspirations and the circumstances of its
existing settlement pattern and development regulations. Nevertheless, the model will
18 • Making the Connection
-------
facilitate their efforts to update land use regulations in the future and offer potential to
bring greater uniformity or consistency in zoning treatments and increase the likelihood
of concerted action toward achieving the desired pattern of land use in the Lackawanna
Valley.
Costs/Funding Source
Funding for the Lackawanna Valley Plan is being provided by the: Federal Highway
Administration; PA Departments of Transportation and Community Affairs; and the
County of Lackawanna.
Contact
Steve Pitoniak
LCRPC Project Manager
Lackawanna County Regional Planning Commission
County Administration Building, Room 610
200 Adams Avenue
Scranton, PA 18503
(717)963-6400
Local Land Use Management/Policy • 19
-------
Neighborhood Planning for the
Future
Manheim Township, Pennsylvania
Background
Manheim Township is a populated suburb of Lancaster City in Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania. The township, nestled between the Conestoga River on its east and the
Little Conestoga River on its west, has a population of 29,000, and covers approximately
22 square miles. It is in one of the fastest growing counties in Pennsylvania, where
farmland is the predominant land use.
Project Description
The Manheim Township Department of Planning and Zoning, in coordination with the
Parks, Public Works and Police Departments, spearheaded the development of a
comprehensive zoning ordinance. The goal of the ordinance is to provide a safe
community, promote economic prosperity without compromising the township's
character, provide for the use of land within the township for residential housing of
various dwelling types, and accommodate reasonable overall community growth. The
ordinance emphasizes mixed dwelling types, higher densities and the development of
commercial infrastructure in new developments. Public access through the creation of
bike paths and main street type development enhances the traditional development
scenario.
In addition to traditional development incentives, the township also included agricultural
districts in order to promote the continuation and preservation of agricultural activities in
those areas most suitable for such activities. The protection and stabilization of the
agricultural economy by eliminating uses that are incompatible with farming, but
permitting limited agriculture-supporting businesses was essential to the development
of the agricultural districts.
Benefits/Results
The non-regulatory ordinance was adopted in June 1992. Although development has
slowed in the region, two developers have submitted plans for a 400 dwelling-units
development and a 160 unit development. Both developments have commercial use in
their plans.
The township is providing a simple guide book on Purchase of Development Rights
(PDR) and Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) which will be available in 1996. The
ordinance was funded by the township.
Contact
Jeff Butler
Director of Planning & Zoning
1840 Municipal Drive
Lancaster, PA 17601
(717)569-6406
20 • Making the Connection
-------
Northridge
Prince George's County, Maryland
Background
Northridge is a 344 acre planned unit development of 855 homesites located in the City
of Bowie, Prince George's County, Maryland. Developer Michael T. Rose designed a
community with a mixture of densities for residents seeking to live closer to nature in a
rural-like atmosphere. The goal was to combine human habitat and wildlife habitat in a
compatible manner.
Project Description
The design team responded to the unique site of the community — the contours of the
land, its natural environment — and devised a plan that lets the community interact with
nature. The Northridge plan has three steps: 1) Establish a series of development
design standards that complement each other and the land to create a rural-like
atmosphere. These design standards are essential because the ability to preserve and
enhance the natural vegetation is dependent upon their approval. 2) Establish
landscape guidelines that respond to the native vegetation. The guidelines for trees,
driveways, street lights, and intersections all are designed to foster a more natural feeling
throughout the community. 3) Utilize the services of an urban forester to survey the site
to delineate significant trees and vegetation areas. By avoiding those areas by design,
avoiding them during construction, and transplanting trees when necessary, mature
vegetation areas were preserved.
In order to achieve this plan, the cooperation of local government officials with an
understanding of development regulations was required. Some of the county
ordinances adapted to the designers' recommendations were:
• curbs and gutters eliminated in favor of grassed drainage swales with a
natural, country-like look;
• sidewalks replaced by forest trails;
• setbacks for building pads reduced from ten feet to four feet in order to
preserve more of the existing environment; and
• road width is 22 feet instead of 30, saving eight feet of trees throughout the
site.
Benefits/Results
The waivers to local and county regulations created a community with country lanes,
mature trees, and a rural feeling. Northridge received an Urban Wildlife designation from
the Urban Wildlife League and the Izaak Walton League Chesapeake Bay Conservation
award. A full range of housing from affordable entry level through luxurious executive
housing has been provided in a environmentally-sensitive manner.
Contact
Bob Kaufman
Michael T. Rose Chartered Co.
8353 Cherry Lane
Laurel, MD 20707
(301)953-3110
Local Land Use Management/Policy • 21
-------
Park Progress...For The Next
Generation
Fairfax County, Virginia
Background
Fairfax County, a jurisdiction encompassing 399 square miles and over 800,000
residents, set out to provide a county park comprehensive plan. Responsibility fell to
the Fairfax County Park Authority, a local government agency whose mission includes
setting aside public spaces for the protection and enhancement of environmental values,
diversity of natural habitats and cultural heritage to guarantee that these resources will
be available for future generations.
Project Description
The comprehensive plan sets forth countywide policies, planning recommendations and
programs intended to guide park progress for the next generation. One policy is to
identify Biodiversity Conservation Areas to promote ecosystem management and, in
conjunction with the Greenways Program, identify larger stream valleys outside these
areas which afford opportunities to protect areas of sensitive riparian habitat, water
quality and aesthetic values.
The plan is in final draft form and is being circulated for review and comment from other
county agencies and key constituency groups. Formal adoption of the plan will precede
preparation of the County Policy Plan during the 1996 Policy Review Year.
Benefits/Results
Key issues have been identified, data has been gathered and analyzed concerning
resource supplies and needs, key constituency groups have been involved, criteria and
standards have been established for resource protection, land acquisition, facility
development and program service delivery, and policies and priorities have been
determined. The plan provides the foundation and framework for long range planning
decisions.
Costs/Funding Source
Funding comes from the Fairfax County Park Authority budget.
Contact
Susan Allen
Project Manager
Fairfax County Park Authority
Division of Planning and Development
3701 Pender Drive
Fairfax, VA 22030
(703) 246-5752
22 • Making the Connection
-------
Primary Development Boundary
Spotsylvania County, Virginia
Background
Spotsylvania County encompasses over 400 square miles between Washington, D.C.
and Richmond. According to the 1990 Census, it is the fastest growing county in Virginia
with over 60,000 residents. As part of the Code of Virginia, the county is required to
review its Comprehensive Plan every five years. The current Plan is the culmination of
two and a half years of intensive work by the Board of Supervisors, the Planning
Commission, the Planning Advisory Committee, the Technical Advisory Committee and
the consultants, Mary Means and Associates. The Planning Advisory Committee
developed planning goals for economic development, housing, community facilities,
transportation, natural and cultural resources, and land use that formed the basis for
establishing the Primary Development Boundary.
Project Description
The Primary Development Boundary defines the areas of the county in which sewer and
water service will be provided. By establishing such a boundary, the county will be able
to encourage more efficient uses of land while preserving the rural character of those
portions of the county outside of the boundary.
Two land use planning districts are of special significance to the Comprehensive Plan
since they have the most impact on the future of the county. The Primary Settlement
District represents the portion of the county that is already substantially developed and
is slated to receive additional public services. The Transition District surrounds the
Primary Settlement District. It contains some of the same development patterns found
in the Primary Settlement District and will eventually support a similar density. However,
the county does not plan to fund extensions of sewer and water service. Public facilities
will be the responsibility of the developer.
By creating these two districts, the Plan encourages the development of mixed-use
centers surrounded by residential neighborhoods. This type of development adds to a
sense of community and creates viable town centers located in compact clusters.
The county also employs mechanisms to protect water quality. A zoning ordinance is
in effect that includes two overlay districts, the River Protection and Reservoir Protection
Districts.
Benefits/Results
The Comprehensive Plan is the result of a broad-based citizen participation process that
focuses on the county's future and provides a framework for future decision-making.
Public participation included workshops, vision forums, a citizen-based Planning
Advisory Committee, and surveys. The Plan sets the goals that guide more detailed
planning for long- and short-term objectives. The county's ultimate development pattern
will be based on the long-term commitment to maintain distinct suburban and urban
areas.
Local Land Use Management/Policy • 23
-------
In order to achieve the goals and realize the visions, the Plan provides for specific
refinements to existing subdivision and zoning controls, planning methods that
incorporate flexible techniques, and construction standards for public facilities. The Plan
also seeks to promote increased participation by the private development sector in
paying for costs associated with the provision of public facilities.
Costs/Funding Source
The county received a Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department grant and a
National Park Service Battlefield Protection Program grant. Other costs were absorbed
by county government funds.
Contact
John W. Taylor
Spotsylvania County Long Range Planner
P.O. Box 876
Spotsylvania, VA 22553
(540) 582-7146
(540) 582-1032 (fax)
24 • Making the Connection
-------
Quarter Century Committee
Wicomico County, Maryland
Background
Wicomico County is experiencing rapid population growth in both the City of Salisbury
and the smaller townships. It is expected that by the year 2025, there will be an additional
40,000 to 75,000 persons living in the county which will call for at least twice the present
level of public and private services.
With this awareness, the County Council appointed 31 people to serve on the Wicomico
County Quarter Century Committee. Over a three year period, this county-wide
Committee examined the significant problems facing the community in the coming
decades. The Committee's mission was to study the major development issues, assess
the county's long-term needs, and develop a strategic plan of action.
Project Description
Four strategic issues were targeted for examination — growth management, economic
development, infrastructure and governance, and education. The 1995 Quarter Century
Report, New Directions fora New Century, presented the findings of the Committee on
each of these topics. A video by the same name was developed to target a wider
audience and to encourage community concern for the consequences of the dramatic
growth occurring in the county.
Growth Management
Economic Development
Infrastructure and Governance
Education
The Report stresses the need to preserve the unique
attributes of the county — open space, rural
atmosphere, rivers and marshes — that contribute to
the quality of life of the region. Suburban sprawl is to
be avoided by promoting growth within urban areas
and rural towns.
A diverse economy equals a strong economy which
means that Wicomico County must be able to adapt to
market changes and business fluctuations. This has
direct consequences for land use, transportation,
housing, and community facilities and services.
The Committee pointed to the fact that as long as
policies encourage growth beyond urban services,
implementing the solutions will become more difficult
politically and more costly.
Improving the quality of life in the county means
expanding the educational opportunities for its
children. Technology will play a major role in
improving the return on investment in education.
Local Land Use Management/Policy • 25
-------
Benefits/Results
The Quarter Century Report was presented to the Wicomico County Council on August
15, 1995. The Council accepted the Report and the Chamber of Commerce later
endorsed it. Presently, the Greater Salisbury Committee is reviewing both the Report
and the video.
Both products will be used for a Wicomico County speaker's bureau that will promote
sound growth management for the county. By bringing the message to the people, more
pressure will be exerted on public officials to make the proper decisions for Wicomico
County.
Costs/Funding Source
The County Council provided funding for the project out of its budget. Committee
members served voluntarily.
Contact
Herb Fincher
Chairman, Quarter Century Committee
1209 N. Salisbury Blvd.
Salisbury, MD 21801
(410)742-6163
26 • Making the Connection
-------
Rural Clustering & Density Exchange
Option Overlay Districts
Howard County, Maryland
Background
Howard County has grown very rapidly in the past twenty-five years due to growth
pressures from both the Washington and Baltimore markets. By the late 1980s, Howard
County's rural character was rapidly becoming suburban and there was strong public
concern about the impact of continued growth on the county's remaining rural character
and natural resources. Consequently, the County's General Plan was amended in 1990
to include an integrated package of new land use and growth management policies.
Central to this new approach was the concept of clustering new development to preserve
agricultural land and sensitive environmental resources.
Project Description
Three new rural cluster zoning districts were established in September 1992 to guide
development in rural western Howard County. The county's objectives for these areas,
which are located outside beyond planned water and sewer service areas, are:
• to preserve agricultural land in large blocks;
• to direct rural residential development to locations that will minimize conflicts
between agricultural and residential uses; and
• to cluster residential development so as to protect agricultural, environmental,
and scenic features.
Key elements or features of the three rural cluster districts are:
RC - Rural Conservation
RR - Rural Residential
Agricultural uses have priority in this district.
Residential use is permitted at a density of 1 dwelling
unit (du) per 4.25 acres. However, clustering is
mandatory on all parcels 20 acres or greater. Cluster
lots may be no larger than 60,000 square feet and may
be as small as 33,000 square feet, if a shared septic
drainfield is used. Cluster lots are to be located where
they least impact important agricultural or natural
features. These resources must be protected by a
permanent preservation easement, which covers 60
to 80 percent of the property, depending on lot size.
This district is one wherein extensive subdivision has
already taken place. It is intended to accommodate
much of the demand for rural residential development
as infill. Clustering is optional, at the same density as
the Rural Conservation district, but not mandatory.
Non-cluster subdivision is permitted utilizing the three
acre minimum lot size of previous zoning. However,
non-cluster subdivisions typically only achieve
densities of 1 du per 4.5 acres due to soil qualities and
septic drainfield limitations. Thus, the cluster and
Local Land Use Management/Policy • 27
-------
non-cluster options are comparable in terms of yield or
number of lots generated.
Density Exchange Option The DEO district is an overlay district that covers all
lands zoned RC and RR. In order to permanently
protect large agricultural parcels, density may be
exchanged between qualified sending and receiving
parcels. A slight density bonus is offered (one dwelling
unit per 3 acres) if density is exchanged to the RR
district or to small parcels which are infill between
existing subdivisions in the RC district. Density may
be exchanged (without the density bonus) to other
parcels in the RC district. The intent is to give farmers
considerable flexibility in transferring density away
from the best farms to those locations which have the
least long term viability for agriculture.
Benefits/Results
There are approximately 40 subdivisions currently in process in western Howard County.
Most of these are cluster subdivisions. Even in the RR district where clustering is
optional, property owners and developers have generally chosen clustering for four
reasons:
1) There is strong demand for cluster lots (most people do not enjoy mowing three to
five acres). Lot prices vary much more by location than by size.
2) Cluster and non-cluster subdivisions generate roughly the same number of lots, but
cluster subdivisions have less development costs (reduced road construction,
stormwater management and grading).
3) The property owner still retains (or may sell) a large percentage of the property, which
is permanently protected as a farm or estate lot.
4) Everyone (owner, buyer, neighbor, government) feels better when a property's unique
features are protected, rather than destroyed by development.
There are five DEO subdivisions currently in process. These are defining the market in
terms of both the purchase price for the lots which may be exchanged and the
acceptability of slightly increased density in the receiving subdivision (maximum of 1 du
per 2 acres).
The application of these three zoning districts in combination serve to concentrate
development on the least environmentally sensitive locations. The most sensitive
features (streams, wetlands, riparian buffers, floodplains, 25 percent or greater slopes
and priority forests) are permanently protected either as county open space or via a
permanent easement.
Contact
Marsha S. Mclaughlin
Deputy Director
Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning
3430 Courthouse Drive
Ellicott City, Maryland 21043
(410)313-2350
28 • Making the Connection
-------
Rural Village Community Design
Guidelines
Loudoun County, Virginia
Background
Loudoun County was interested in establishing a framework to provide for the
development of new rural villages at a scale intended to continue Loudoun's traditional
rural land use pattern and to promote its traditional concept of villages. Loudoun County
adopted its first rural village policies and zoning ordinance district in 1991. On December
21, 1994, the revised Rural Village Community Design Guidelines were adopted by the
Board of Supervisors as amendments to the Loudoun County Choices and Changes
General Plan and the Loudoun County Zoning Ordinance.
Rural villages represent one of the county's preferred rural development options due to
their ability to enhance the natural landscape and scenic vistas of the region, while
retaining, preserving, and protecting farmland, open space, natural resources, and
environmentally-sensitive areas from three acre by-right development. Their creation
is intended to provide physical, social, and economic centers for Loudoun County.
Project Description
Rural villages are envisioned to be self-sustaining communities. Villages are a
minimum of 300 acres, with no less than 80 percent of the gross land area being subject
to a permanent open space easement and no more than 20 percent of the gross land
area constituting the village center. A village center and a village conservancy, which
is the open space surrounding the village center, constitute the two subdistricts of the
rural village.
The maximum residential development potential of a village is no greater than one
dwelling unit per three-net acres. To reach the 300 unit cap, a 35 percent dwelling unit
bonus is provided as an incentive for selecting the village option. An additional 15
percent bonus density is provided if a mix of unit types within a village is developed.
The village center includes residential neighborhoods, complemented by civic and
business users, and parks, squares, and greens. Land for the development of retail
services is required to be reserved until the development of such services are marketable
and/or economically viable.
The village conservancy consists of farms, forest, and open space which act as a buffer
between village centers and the surrounding rural areas. The land is permanently
protected from subdivision of lots averaging less than 50 acres with one principal
structure per lot, and subject to the dedication of common open space conservation
easements. Bonus density in excess of the 300-net cap can be achieved by developing
100 acre conservancy lots.
A key component of the village is the requirement that the village center be served by
a communal water supply system and wastewater system. The cost for developing the
system is financed by the owner and is operated by the Loudoun County Sanitation
Authority.
Local Land Use Management/Policy • 29
-------
The preservation of existing trees, hedgerows, and other natural vegetation during
design is encouraged. Landscaping is another important component of the village.
Trees are planted along streets to complement housing.
Benefits/Results
The guidelines are serving to protect the rural environment of Loudoun County. Two
development proposals have been submitted since the ordinance was revised. Both
designs attempt to protect the environmentally-sensitive portions of the sites.
Contact
Pam Bower
County of Loudoun Department of Planning
750 Miller Drive, S.E.
Suite 800
Leesburg, VA 22075
(703) 777-0246
(703) 777-0441 (fax)
or
Kathryn Basha
County of Loudoun Department of Building and Development
750 Miller Drive, S.E.
Suite 100
Leesburg, VA 22075
(703) 777-0397
(703) 771-5215 (fax)
30 • Making the Connection
-------
Park
Northampton County, Virginia
Technologies Industrial
Background
Between the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean, lies the narrow peninsula Cape
Charles, also known as Virginia's Eastern Shore. The southern tip of the peninsula is
within Northampton County. The county has created and adopted a Sustainable
Development Action Strategy (see p. 11) and is working to simultaneously invest and
protect its assets in order to build a strong and lasting economy and preserve one of the
last unspoiled places on the Atlantic coast.
One of the actions called for by the Strategy is development of the Port of Cape Charles
Sustainable Technologies Industrial Park (STIP) at the historic Chesapeake Bay town
of Cape Charles. The Park has been chosen as a national prototype by the President's
Council on Sustainable Development. The Industrial Park's planning, design and
development process serves as a model for community sustainable development.
Project Description
The Sustainable Technologies Industrial Park is being developed jointly by Northampton
County and the Town of Cape Charles to meet the high standards of national and
multi-national businesses which have made a commitment to profitability with
environmental and social integrity. It will demonstrate advanced facilities in resource
efficiency and pollution prevention and will model symbiotic relationships among
industrial processes. The Sustainable Technologies Industrial Park is set to support
existing local enterprises while also attracting new industry which models sustainable
products and sustainable means of producing such products. Located in a critical area
in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the industrial park is designed to protect and
enhance the cultural and natural systems of the area.
The Cape Charles site is one of four model industrial park designations nationally. The
Eco-lndustrial Park (EIP) concept integrates economic and environmental management
strategies—the goals of which have sometimes worked against one another when used
independently to solve isolated environmental problems. Some of the strategies include:
Pollution prevention The park builds upon the foundation of pollution
prevention, which evolved in an attempt to reduce the
production of waste at the source.
Industrial ecology In the EIP, interconnected materials and energy flows
reduce both wastes exported and resource inputs
needed.
Sustainable development The park minimizes the use of limited natural
resources and strives to achieve high per capita
consumption and distributional equity.
Local Land Use Management/Policy "31
-------
Ecological economics The park's development will be enhanced by the
integration of traditional economic and business
analysis concepts with an in-depth understanding of
natural systems.
Benefits/Results
To facilitate park design and development, Northampton County and Cape Charles
hosted an initial design and development community workshop in February 1995 and
an April community design workshop which brought together local citizens; prospective
industry tenants; potential public and private investors; local, region, state and federal
officials; regulatory agencies; and design professionals.
An overall master plan was designed for a 500-acre site that includes roads, storm and
sanitary sewers, water and stormwater management, and wetland tertiary treatment for
water recycling. The design integrates the industrial park with the historic town and
harbor and includes redevelopment of former industrial areas. Fully half of the site is
"ecological infrastructure", including a Chesapeake Bay Coastal Dune Habitat Preserve,
natural and created wetlands, and historic/archaeological sites.
As plans are finalized, local sponsors are working on detailed master plan elements,
infrastructure design, and STIP development standards for incorporation into public
zoning and private covenants.
Costs/Funding Source
Existing: $500,000 county funds for land acquisition; $65,000 National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) funds for community workshop and design;
$55,000 part of $700,000 NOAA County-wide Special Area Management
Plan/Sustainable Development Initiative; $267,000 county funds for infrastructure
construction; $60,000 NOAA funds for habitat restoration/nature trail; $5,000 NOAA
funds for wetland park design; $46,000 NOAA funds for education/public information;
$200,000 EPA funds for environmental assessment of brownfield redevelopment areas.
Contact
Timothy E. Hayes
Director of Sustainable Development
Northampton County
16404 Courthouse Road
P.O. Box 538
Eastville, VA 23347
(804) 678-0477
32 • Making the Connection
-------
Transfer Development Rights
Program
Calvert County, Maryland
Background
Calvert County was the first county in the state to adopt an Agricultural Preservation
Program. The county has a goal of preserving 80 percent of the remaining farm and
forest land and has identified areas considered unique and sensitive in the area. The
long range goal for the program is to preserve 20,000 acres by the year 2000. A method
of safeguarding these areas is through the use of Transfer Development Rights (TDR),
which has been in effect since 1978.
Project Description
Under the terms of the program, owners of prime farm and forest land may sell their
rights to develop their property while retaining the land for farming and forestry. A major
feature of the program is that owners may sell their development rights on the open
market, but the total number of lots does not increase. For every five TDR's, the
purchaser may create one lot. Density may not exceed two acres per lot except within
a mile of Town Centers where a one acre density is permitted.
In 1993, this program was expanded to include a Purchase and Retirement Fund (PAR)
for the purchase of certified development rights. This is a matching fund of county and
state monies from the Agricultural Transfer tax. Once "purchased and retired", the acres
become permanently preserved. Additionally, once the TDR's are purchased through
any means, they become permanently preserved.
In 1993, Calvert County also adopted a Mandatory Clustering Provision. Under the
terms of this program, residential density remains the same, but 50-80 percent of the
land in all new subdivisions is preserved as open space. The three new overlay districts
are 1) a Farming Community District intended to help maintain large, contiguous,
unfragmented farming and forested areas; 2) a Resource Conservation District
intended to protect areas having unique or significant environmental features; and 3) a
Rural Community District intended to provide for a balanced mix of farming, forestry,
wildlife habitat and low density residential development.
Benefits/Results
Since the implementation of the TDR Program, over 7,000 acres have been permanently
preserved through the county program and an additional 3,580 acres have been
permanently preserved through the state program.
Contact
Gregory A. Bowen, Deputy Director
Department of Planning and Zoning
176 Main Street
Prince Frederick, MD 20678
(410) 535-2348
Local Land Use Management/Policy • 33
-------
Transit District Overlay Zone
Prince George's County, Maryland
Background
The Transit District Overlay Zone (TDOZ) is used to designate areas suitable for
transit-oriented development and redevelopment. The overlay encourages coordinated
and integrated development schemes for certain properties within a half-mile distance
of existing and planned transit stations.
Project Description
The TDOZ is intended to insure that the development of land in the vicinity of Metro
stations maximizes transit ridership, serves the economic and social goals of the area,
and takes advantage of the unique development opportunities which mass transit
provides. The TDOZ is a mapped zone which is superimposed over other zones in a
designated area around a Metro station, and which may modify certain requirements for
development within those underlying zones. This designated area is called a Transit
District.
A Transit District Development Plan must be approved by the District Council, and all
development is subject to the approval by the planning board of a Detailed Site Plan.
This process coordinates public policy decisions, supports regional and local growth and
development strategies, and creates conditions which make joint development possible.
Benefits/Results
The TDOZ ensures that developments within the Transit District possess a desirable
urban design relationship with one another, the Metro station, and adjoining areas.
Costs of extending or expanding public services and facilities are minimized by
encouraging appropriate development in the vicinity of transit stations.
Contact
Prince George's County Department of Planning
County Administration Building
14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive
Upper Marlboro, MD 20722
(301)952-3595
(301)952-3749 (fax)
34 • Making the Connection
-------
Woodlake Residential Community
Richmond, Virginia
Background
East West Partners has been developing environmentally sensitive residential
communities for more than 20 years. The company is particularly committed to
preserving and integrating mature forest stands into its development projects.
Admittedly, monetary gain is important to the company, which understands that beyond
providing important environmental benefits such as reducing runoff velocities, filtering
pollutants, and producing CO2, mature trees can enhance the marketability of a
residential development. The company has developed notable projects across the
United States, some in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Project Description
The Woodlake residential community development, located near Richmond, is one such
project. Located on the shores of a 1,700-acre fresh water reservoir which provides more
than 12 million gallons of drinking water daily to Chesterfield County, development
objectives for this 4,000-acre site included both protection of significant tree stand and
the reservoir. Measures taken by East West Partners throughout the development
process stressed reduction of impacts to the reservoir and surrounding environment.
These measures included establishment of an advisory committee to identify and assess
potential impacts to the drinking water reservoir, and application of environmental
guidelines to the development that were more stringent than those required by the local
planning department. Conservation of significant forest stands is a key part.
Advisory Committee. East West Partners initiated the development process by
convening an advisory committee to identify and assess potential development-related
impacts to the drinking water reservoir. The advisory committee, comprised of technical
professionals and academics, made recommendations on setback and stormwater
runoff requirements. Issues of concern and resultant recommendations put forth by the
committee were incorporated into project design, including Best Management Practices
for the control of stormwater runoff.
The Development Process-Environmental Guidelines. Environmental objectives were
subsequently integrated into each phase of Woodlake's development process which
includes: planning; siting; construction of utilities; and post-construction.
Planning Phase. During the planning phase, areas with significant tree cover were
identified. Other physical characteristics identified include wetlands, flood plains, steep
slopes, water courses, and highly erodible soils. This information was mapped then
used to establish buffer areas and open space; typically, 20 percent of the development
is designated as buffer or open space. Once buffer/open space was established, access
roads, amenities, and neighborhoods were mapped.
Siting. East West Partners stipulate that siting decisions made at the lot-level must
minimize removal of significant trees. An architectural review committee aids in this
process. Prior to constructing a home, the builder or homeowner is required to submit
a site plan to the architectural review committee showing location of the house, driveway,
any decks, porches, or outbuildings as well as significant trees. A member of the review
committee visits each site before construction begins to ensure that the site's layout
results in minimal impact to the natural resources.
Local Land Use Management/Policy • 35
-------
East West Partners policy specifies that significant trees be located at least 15 feet from
the house's foundation. Previous experience showed that trees located between 8 and
10 feet of the foundation resulted in either death to trees or significant structural problems
with the foundation.
Construction of Utilities. Contractors are instructed to clear the minimum right-of-way
width and are prohibited from running their equipment elsewhere. Sewer and water
lines, gas, electric and telephone lines are placed in the road right-of-way whenever
possible. Utilities are placed to minimize the need to run them cross country.
Post-Construction/Homeowner Covenants. Protection of significant trees carries on
through the covenant process after the homeowner has occupied the home. East West
Partners routinely establishes covenants that are passed onto the Community
Association after the development company has completed its process. The covenants
require that any trees larger than six inches in diameter at a point two feet above the
ground be removed only with the consent of the Community Association. Consent to
remove the trees will only be granted if they are dead, jeopardizing a foundation, or on
a site where an approved addition to the home will be constructed.
Benefits/Results
The Woodlake development has received recognition from the Urban Land Institute as
an outstanding example of residential, planned community design. Particularly notable
benefits of the development process include:
• protection of environment;
• integration of wooded areas and built areas; and
• preservation of significant tree stands.
Water quality monitoring, conducted for more than ten years at this site, has shown that
post-development pollutant loads are relatively low.
Contact
Hank Meyer
East West Partners
PO Box 1984
Midlothian, VA 23113
(804) 739-3800
36 • Making the Connection
-------
The Chesapeake Bay Issue Watershed
The Chesapeake Bay watershed, which includes parts of six states and the District of
Columbia, is the largest and most productive estuary in the nation. The 64,000 square
mile drainage basin or watershed is host to a number of ecologically and economically
valuable aquatic species such as blue crabs, striped bass and oysters. The Bay's An Introduction
freshwater originating from springs, streams, and rivers mixes with the saltwater of the
ocean to form the watershed's estuarine system. The system is highly productive,
providing spawning habitat and food sources for a diverse number of aquatic and
terrestrial species. The intricate relationships between those organisms and their
habitats play a vital role in the overall health of the Bay.
The focus of the Bay Program's watershed management effort is on the restoration and
protection of the Bay's living resources. In meeting this objective, the Bay Program is
reducing nutrients and toxics, restoring habitat, addressing land stewardship issues and
providing public information to increase Bay awareness. The Bay's watershed
management effort has reduced nutrients and toxics, and increased the populations of
certain living resources including the striped bass. The Bay Program is supported by an
innovative monitoring program and a state of the art modeling program. These tools
provide the Program with the necessary information to make decisions thai improve the
overall quaSty of the watershed.
The Chesapeake Bay Program Is the model for watershed management nationwide. A
diverse group of stakeholders, including scientists, managers, citizens and local
governments jointly establish the goats and objectives of the Program, They work
cooperatively to restore and protect the Bay. These partnerships are at the fay relation
of the program which draws on people's expertise to make sound watershed
management decisions.
The watershed management approach is an integrated strategy for more effectively
restoring aquatic resources.: This approach focuses on hydrologically defined drainage
basins rather tnari on areas arbitrarily defined by political boundaries. Thus, fora given
watershed, the approach encompasses not only the water resource, such as a stream,
river, lake, estuary, or aquifer, but all the land from which water drains to the resource.
To conserve water resources, it is increasingly important to address the condition of land
areas within the watershed. As water drains off the land or leaches to the groundwater,
it carries with it pollution and nutrients thai are ultimately harmful to Bay life.
The Local Challenge
The watershed management approach is characterized by being action oriented, driven
by broad environmental objectives, and involving key stakeholders. Watershed
management emphasizes a cross media approach, addressing water quality issues
through the protection of biological and physical systems and the reduction of pollution.
Local governments and citizen groups are recognizing the need to take an integrated
approach to environmental protection activities. For instance, stream clean-ups now
include tree planting and other preventive activities to ensure a sustainable environment.
This recognition at the local level supports the overall goals of the Bay Program and
assists in the protection of neighborhood watersheds, as well as the Chesapeake Bay.
Watershed Management • 37
-------
The following case studies depict selected watershed protection efforts in the
Chesapeake Bay region. The efforts address not one issue, but several issues to
restore and preserve the local watershed.
The Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin
38 • Making the Connection
-------
Anacostia Watershed Society
Washington, D.C.
Background
The Anacostia River begins inauspiciously at the confluence of several creeks in a
working class section of suburban Maryland and flows past some of the poorest
neighborhoods in the District of Columbia. The Anacostia Watershed Society (AWS)
was formed six years ago with the goal of mobilizing volunteers for tree plantings and
clean-ups, persuading local governments to change their priorities to save the
environment, and pressuring polluters to clean up their act.
Project Description
The goal of the AWS is a swimmable and fishable Anacostia River by the year 2000. It
also strives to restore and protect its local environment for the health and enjoyment of
everyone in the community and build a constituency of local citizens to support the
agenda of the AWS.
The group is currently working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to dredge mudflats
at the Anacostia's edges to tune them into wetlands. By planting moisture-loving plants
such as pickerel week and arrow root, the area of wetlands adjacent to the river will
double from 30 to 60 acres.
Benefits/Results
The Anacostia Watershed Society has removed 109 tons of debris from the Anacostia
River, which involved the participation of 7,000 volunteers from the surrounding
neighborhoods. Since 1989, more than 5,760 trees, shrubs and wetlands vegetation
have been planted. On Earth Day 1995, the AWS removed 7 tons of garbage from the
National Arboretum with the help of 350 volunteers.
The Society's work in restoration, preservation and pollution prevention won it the
prestigious United Nations Achievement Award, Sierra Club Outstanding Achievement
Award and President's Volunteer Action Award.
Cost/Funding Source
The AWS is funded and supported primarily through membership fees and contributions.
Contact
Robert Boone
Anacostia Watershed Society
5110 Roanoke Place, Suite 101
College Park, MD 20740
(301)513-0316
Watershed Management • 39
-------
Big Annemessex River Non-1
Wetlands Watershed Management
Plan
Somerset County, Maryland
Background
Somerset County is the southernmost county on Maryland's Eastern Shore. The county
possesses over 600 miles of shoreline along the Chesapeake Bay, and its character
varies from fishing villages and summer homes to marshland and wilderness.
The Big Annemessex River is located entirely within Somerset County, and palustrine
non-tidal wetlands occur throughout the watershed, including forested, shrub-scrub and
emergent systems.
The development of this non-tidal wetlands management plan for the Big Annemessex
River watershed was accomplished with the intent of adhering to the certification
standards of the Water Resources Administration of the Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE). The management plan, which was certified by MDE in September
1995, will be the basis of state non-tidal wetland permitting decisions and approval of
mitigation in the watershed. The non-tidal wetland management plan supports a
commitment of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement and satisfies a regulation from
Maryland's Non-Tidal Wetlands Protection Act, a derivative of the 1987 Chesapeake
Bay Agreement.
Project Description
The purpose of developing the watershed management plan for the Big Annemessex
River is to protect valuable non-tidal wetlands and habitat for threatened and
endangered species; to provide a measure of economic and social stability by offering
guidance to where development might best occur; to direct mitigation to suitable sites;
to address issues of flood management and water supply as applicable; and to protect
the water quality of the watershed. Watershed protection has become the management
technique for preserving vital habitat, including wetlands, and reducing toxics, nutrients
and other harmful contaminants entering the Annemessex and the Chesapeake Bay.
The goals of the Big Annemessex watershed management plan are:
• identify non-tidal wetland resources, and develop appropriate protection
strategies based on a functional assessment;
• establish recommendations for development activities related to non-tidal
wetlands;
• identify potential non-tidal wetland mitigation sites;
• address issues related to flooding within the watershed, and develop
recommendations; and
• address issues related to water supply and develop recommendations.
40 • Making the Connection
-------
Benefits/Results
The Big Annemessex Management Plan, intended as a State of Maryland model for
non-tidal wetland management, has been successful in identifying wetlands in an entire
watershed and identifying the functional values of those wetlands. Those functional
values were characterized and placed in one of the following categories: ecological
integrity, wildlife habitat, finfish habitat, flood control, sediment trapping, nutrient
attenuation, groundwater discharge or production export. In addition to establishing the
functional values of wetlands, a criteria was developed to rate each wetland in the
watershed. These ratings were dependent on a number of criteria including historical
records of endangered species inhabiting the site, location of state champion plant
specimen; and if the wetland is within the County Groundwater management area "A".
With this criteria the Management Plan was able to determine what non-tidal wetlands
have the highest value.
Somerset County has proposed including the Big Annemessex River watershed as a
"Sensitive Area" in its Comprehensive Plan which is currently being revised to comply
with Maryland's Growth, Economic Development and Resource Protection Act of 1992.
The county's objectives for this area and other areas where non-tidal wetland watershed
management plans may be prepared in the future are to:
• encourage development design that first avoids and then minimizes adverse
impacts to the non-tidal wetlands based on consideration of existing
topography, vegetation, fish and wildlife resources, and hydrological conditions;
• encourage development design that minimizes degradation of groundwater or
surface water;
• encourage development design, and mitigation when required, that is
consistent with non-tidal wetland watershed management plans certified by
MDE.
In addition, the county and MDE have agreed to a joint permitting process that will
streamline non-tidal wetland permitting in the watershed. Development projects that
meet criteria established in a special overlay zone being proposed for the Big
Annemessex River watershed and that are found to be consistent with the Big
Annemessex River Non-Tidal Wetlands Watershed Management Plan will be eligible
for this accelerated review and approval process.
Costs/Funding Source
Funding for the study came from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources,
through a Coastal Zone Management Act grant, administered by the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration. The management plan was developed with the help
of state and county agencies and community participation in the form of a citizen's task
force.
Contact
Joan Kean, Director
Department of Technical and Community Services
11916 Somerset Avenue
Princess Anne, MD21853
(410)651-1424
(410) 651-2597 (fax)
Watershed Management • 41
-------
Chesapeake CARE - Pennsylvania
Octoraro Creek Basin, Pennsylvania
Background
Octoraro Creek is located in Lancaster and Chester Counties, Pennsylvania, and
reaches the Susquehanna River at Octoraro, Maryland, about eight miles upstream from
the head of the Chesapeake Bay. The watershed covers approximately 208 square
miles between the neighboring states. Studies have shown that the basin's drainage is
highly impacted by agriculture. The drainage was rated as having the third worst
agricultural pollution potential index in the state. The Octoraro Creek basin represents
one of the most significant examples of the loss of wildlife habitat to intensive agriculture
in the nation.
Project Description
CARE is an acronym for Conserving Agricultural Resources and the Environment.
CARE- Pennsylvania is an on-going wetland and riparian restoration program that will
reduce agricultural non-point source pollution and improve fish and wildlife habitat in the
Susquehanna River basin over a proposed four year period. The program will include
streambank fencing and restoring riparian areas, restoring wetlands, and reestablishing
stands of native warm season grasses. The emphasis in wetland areas will include
fencing out cattle and the restoration of hydrology by blocking tile drains, filling ditches,
and constructing dikes to recreate wetlands. In-stream measurements of sediments,
macrovertebrates, and fish populations will be taken before and after the project is
implemented as well as on-going monitoring of water quality at selected wetland
restoration sites.
Benefits/Results
The primary goal of the project is to demonstrate the effectiveness of combining proven
habitat restoration and improvement techniques in a watershed treatment program.
Wetland and riparian vegetation will start to develop as soon as the areas are protected
and will dominate the sites by the end of the first growing season. Wildlife use of the
areas will parallel the development of the vegetation. Invertebrates rapidly colonize
restored wetlands and form the basis of much of the avian food chain. Native grasses
take about two years to fully dominate the site.
Costs/Funding Source
The cost of fencing riparian areas will average approximately $5,000 per mile of
protected stream. Wetland restoration will average about $500 per acre, depending on
size and topography. The approximate cost to establish one acre of warm-season
grasses is $125. Estimated total cost of the four year project is $1.5 million. The primary
sources for funding are Ducks Unlimited, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation,
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and tentatively, a section 319
grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Contact
David J. Putnam
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
315 South Allen Street, Suite 322
State College, PA 16801
(814) 234-4090
42 • Making the Connection
-------
Chickahominy Watershed Project
Chickahominy River Watershed, Virginia
Background
The Chickahominy River watershed is a 470 square mile watershed which drains
through extensive forested wetlands and tidal marches and empties into the James
River. The Chickahominy River is one of the cleaner tributaries to the Bay, providing
important wildlife habitat in the marshes, swamps, river and surrounding lands. The
Chickahominy Watershed Alliance is a group that works to restore habitat, sponsors
river clean-ups, and conducts field trips and educational meetings.
One such as activity is the Chickahominy River Watershed Project, a cooperative effort
with the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
identify how natural occurrences and human activities affect biotic diversity over time.
Project Description
The project is supported by a Technical Committee and Citizens Steering Committee.
The Citizens Steering Committee is composed of residents of the watershed who share
a common interest in the Chickahominy River. It uses the information from the project
to promote conservation and stewardship of the natural resources of the Chickahominy
River watershed. The Committee organizes educational events and field days to inform
the public about the Chickahominy River watershed, its natural resources, the watershed
project, and conservation activities.
The Technical Committee, documents the relationships between hydrology, water
chemistry, and biotic diversity. It analyzes the effects of human-induced and natural
changes from the 1950s to the 1990s using CIS. This information is provided to the
Citizens Steering Committee and local, state and federal agencies, so that they may
ensure the long-term sustainability of biotic diversity and economic prosperity in the
watershed.
Benefits/Results
Five community informational/organizational meetings have been held. During the
spring of 1995, the Chickahominy Watershed Alliance organized several activities,
including a canoe/field trip, a river clean-up, and a habitat restoration project. The GIS
mapping of land cover is expected to be integrated with other information by late 1995.
Costs/Funding Source
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service receives assistance from the Alliance for the
Chesapeake Bay for GIS based research integration and bird and vegetation studies.
The U.S. Geological Survey and the City of Newport News provide assistance for water
quality data. The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries assists in the fish
survey. The Virginia Coastal Program provides $45,000 for reforestation projects.
Contact
Diane Eckles, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Chesapeake Bay Field Office
177 Admiral Cochrane Dr.
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410)573-4553
Watershed Management • 43
-------
Dragon Run
Dragon Run Watershed, Virginia
Background
The Dragon Run is a unique watershed that borders four counties in the southwest
portion of the Chesapeake Bay watershed in East-Central Virginia— Middlesex, Essex,
King and Queen, and Gloucester Counties. The Dragon Run or Dragon Swamp flows
into the Piankatank River then directly to the Chesapeake Bay. The river meanders
through the counties and into the Piankatank, hosting the occasional canoeists enjoying
the River's pristine natural habitats and unique wildlife.
Project Description
The natural qualities of the River is the reason the Middle Peninsula Planning District
Commission (MPPDC), in conjunction with the six counties and three towns that make
up its membership, worked cooperatively to provide reasonable public access and a
Dragon Run Conservation District.
The Dragon Run Public Access Plan was developed to provide hikers and canoeists
with adequate access without disturbing the balanced ecological relationship that now
exists along the Dragon. The plan itself has been a success and more people than ever
are enjoying the Dragon without disturbing its delicate natural balance.
The Conservation District has been a challenging regional effort. The Conservation
District provides overlays to certain counties and is part of the zoning district in other
counties. The Conservation District protects the Dragon's valuable wetlands from
development pressures. Planning for development is essential in the Dragon because
of its proximity to the Route 17 corridor, which has become a main transportation artery.
The MPPDC is now in the process of developing a watershed management plan that
incorporates open space provisions and encourages cluster housing. The watershed
management plan will also include an ecological component that establishes the option
to protect riparian zones, wetlands and significant habitat.
Costs/Funding Source
In the late 1980s, the Conservation District was adopted which provided staff support
and enabled other conservation and protection activities for the River to be developed.
However, when financial support came from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration through Virginia's Coastal Resources Management Program (VCRMP),
the resource management unit expanded from the River to the entire watershed. The
Dragon Run watershed continues to receive support from VCRMP and the MPPDC. A
recent VCRMP grant provided funds for a canoe access site.
Contact
Jim Uzel, Environmental Programs Coordinator
Middle Peninsula Planning District Commission
P.O. Box 286
Suluda, VA23149
(804) 758-2311
44 • Making the Connection
-------
Environmental Guidelines
Gaithersburg, Maryland
Background
The City of Gaithersburg is located in the State of Maryland's technology corridor. Its
proximity to the District of Columbia and outlying areas makes this suburban community
a desirable place for both businesses and families. Land uses such as business parks,
commercial, and residential are common. The city's natural resources, particularly
stream systems, have become increasingly degraded with development pressures.
In 1994, the city recognized that existing development standards did not adequately
protect the city's undeveloped riparian corridors. This recognition stemmed from a
residential development proposal which, while meeting all city development standards,
would have encroached significantly on a tributary of the Potomac, the Muddy Branch.
Upon review, the City Council noted that Gaithersburg's environmental ordinances were
not as comprehensive as the county's (Montgomery), and, subsequently directed staff
to develop comprehensive environmental guidelines for development. The Council
expressed a commitment to the protection of natural resources being adversely affected
by construction activities during the development process.
At that time, the city had in place numerous environmental ordinances, including forest
conservation, sediment/erosion control, stormwater management, and floodplain
management. While these ordinances provided some protection to the city's
environmental and riparian resources, protection was fragmented.
Project Description
In December 1994, the City of Gaithersburg convened a committee of local professionals
to work with city staff in the development of comprehensive environmental guidelines.
Bi-weekly meetings were attended by local developers, representatives of the Planning
Commission and City Council, environmental consultants, regional and county
environmental professionals, and city staff. Environmental guidelines developed by
Montgomery County in 1993 provided the basis for analysis of the city's existing
guidelines. The county guidelines were selected as a model not only because of their
comprehensive nature, but to also ease the development process for developers
operating in both the city and county.
Over a period of five months, the committee developed draft guidelines for development
based on the principles of comprehensive watershed management and protection. The
resulting guidelines are more comprehensive, however, in that they relate to other
important environmental concerns, including:
• stream valley protection;
• limiting increases in watershed imperviousness;
• protection of both upland and riparian forest resources;
• recognition and protection of the ecological significance and functions of
headwater areas;
• the need for baseline monitoring to understand and protect the city's streams;
• the consideration of cumulative impacts;
• protecting wildlife corridors;
• managing for wildlife problems;
Watershed Management m 45
-------
• mitigating adverse affects of noise;
• protection of existing cultural resources; and
• protection of important views and vistas.
Management strategies identified to minimize adverse impacts to the city's natural
resources, including stream systems, include:
• the application of judicious land uses which allow for limiting impervious
surfaces and maintaining wetlands, floodplains, seeps, and bogs in their
natural condition;
• the establishment of protected slope areas which address slope gradient, soil
credibility, and proximity to stream channels;
• the use of stream buffers; and
• the protection of healthy forest and tree cover for the purpose of maintaining
water quality, preserving wildlife habitat, preventing erosion, mitigating air
pollution, controlling temperature, and enhancing community amenities in an
urbanizing environment.
Guidelines for the development of a Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) were also
established by the committee. The NRI, required prior to development, is a complete
analysis of existing natural resources and must contain specific information covering the
development site and the first 100 feet of adjoining land. Information pertaining to
streams and drainage courses on or within 200 feet of the property must also be provided
along with the off-site drainage areas for all streams entering the property.
Benefits/Results
What started with a concern for inadequate protection of riparian buffer systems during
the development process, resulted in development of comprehensive environmental
guidelines for development in the City of Gaithersburg. Not only will stream corridors
be protected, but so will other important natural resources. The guidelines set minimum
standards for developers with the hope that even higher standards will be met.
Contact
Clark Wagner
Director of Current Planning
City of Gaithersburg
31 South Summit Avenue
Gaithersburg, MD 20877
(301)258-6330
46 • Making the Connection
-------
Instream Flow Incremental
Methodology
Front Royal, Virginia
Background
The Shenandoah River is extremely important to the municipalities within the Lord
Fairfax Planning District Commission (LFPDC) for the purpose of providing a source for
domestic water supplies and assimilation of waste materials. As the population within
the Shenandoah Valley continues to grow, so does the importance of maintaining the
Shenandoah River at its current quantity and quality. An increasing population means
that there will be increasing demands for drinking water supplies, industrial water needs,
and quality recreational opportunities.
The LFPDC recognized the need for an objective study of the Minimum Instream Flows
that are needed to sustain the various uses. The study would provide the specific data
that could be used for future planning related to municipal withdrawals, recreational
needs, fish and wildlife habitat, and many other river uses. By developing management
plans and conducting appropriate studies for critical resources today, future crises may
be avoided.
Project Description
The Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) is the method that is proposed for
the Minimum Instream Flows study. An IFIM study includes six steps:
Step 1 Scoping involves the definition of study objectives,
delineation of the study boundaries, determination of
the characteristics of the variables, and designation of
species of focus and evaluation.
Step 2 Reach delineation and site selection involves
identification of major points of interest on maps while
taking into consideration the targeted instream values
that are the focus of the protection efforts. Attributes
and physical geography that will allow for the inclusion
of water quality concerns are also considered at this
point.
Step 3 Within each study site, transects are selected to
characterize the hydraulic and instream habitat
conditions. Detailed procedures are specified in IFIM
documents for data collection, compilation, and
reduction.
Step 4 Processed field data are entered into specific
computer programs in order to generate data that
describes the reach as a series of small cells. Velocity,
depth, substrate, and cover are examples of some of
the field data that are input into the model.
Watershed Management • 47
-------
Step 5 An assessment of the total habitat of each sampled
stream segment for each life stage of a particular
species at specific flows is one of the results that can
be achieved. Total habitat is expressed as a
relationship between habitat availability, water quality,
and stream flow.
Step 6 Based on primary interpretation by a biologist,
managers and decision-makers can negotiate flow
regimes suitable for the evaluation of a particular
species of concern while meeting the needs of all
users.
Benefits/Results
The overall objective of the project is to complete a scientific study of the levels of
instream flow needed to achieve different goals related to instream uses of the mainstem
of the Shenandoah River and its tributaries. The completion of the study will allow for
better decisions to be made regarding the goal of striking a balance between instream
flow needs and off-stream flow needs during drought conditions. Instream uses include
aquatic life protection and water-based recreation. Off-stream uses include municipal
water supply, power generation, and agricultural irrigation. The IFIM is a field intensive
instream flow method that will allow detailed information concerning water quality and
aquatic life to be incorporated into the study.
Costs/Funding Source
The LFPDC received $25,000 in local funds, a $25,000 grant from the Virginia
Environmental Endowment, and $40,000 from the U.S. Geological Survey for a total of
$90,000. Due to the phased approach of the study, additional funds will be required for
future action.
Contact
Jeff Slack
Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission
103 East Sixth Street
Front Royal, VA 22630
(540) 636-8800
(540) 635-4147 (fax)
48 • Making the Connection
-------
Parkers Creek Watershed
Management Plan
Calvert County, Maryland
Background
The Parkers Creek watershed contains some of the largest unbroken woodlands
remaining in Calvert County. These surround non-tidal wetlands and the only pristine
saltwater/freshwater marsh on the Western Shore. The creek flows through the woods
and marsh, across a barrier beach and into the Chesapeake Bay. The development of
the Parkers Creek Watershed Management Plan is the result of a local, state and federal
partnership to preserve, protect and manage the natural resources in a watershed that
is experiencing rapid growth. The county is experiencing greaterthan a 4 percent growth
rate (the highest in Maryland), but the Parkers Creek watershed has experienced very
little growth except in its northwest section which encompasses part of the Prince
Frederick Town Center. It is a goal to preserve as much of this watershed, especially
its wetlands, outside of the town center as possible. In addition, the plan seeks to
continue to enhance the town center's economic viability. Reaching a balance of sound
economic growth with a strong land stewardship ethic is at the center of the Parkers
Creek Watershed Plan.
The county's interest in watershed management planning rose out of permitting issues
related to development in the county's town centers. The concept of a comprehensive
approach to the watershed was an appropriate solution, and with the assistance of
Coastal Zone Management Grant funding, the county developed the Watershed
Management Plan.
Project Description
The goals of the Watershed Management Plan are to:
• protect natural resources;
• facilitate economic development in town centers;
• address wetland loss and mitigation on a watershed scale;
• assure public health and safety; and
• encourage public participation.
The county inventoried the natural resources in the region, created a Parkers Creek
Watershed Task Force, conducted a functional analysis of wetlands, and drafted the
Watershed Management Plan. The functional analysis of wetlands was expanded with
the assistance of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Maryland Department
of Natural Resources. During the second year of plan development, the county
conducted a flood study on a portion of the Parkers Creek watershed which was and is
expected to continue to be impacted by development. The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
is currently conducting a hydrologic and hydraulic study on the results of the flood study
survey.
Watershed Management • 49
-------
Benefits/Results
The plan is in its second and final stage of development. There are already a number
of successes, including the creation of a local, state and federal partnership, successful
fundraising, and completion of an extensive research effort which includes an inventory
of the watershed's natural resources. The Parkers Creek Watershed Management Plan
will provide greater protection of the watershed's resources and preserve ecologically
sensitive areas in the town center.
Costs/Funding Source
The studies, surveys, and draft watershed plan were funded primarily through the
Coastal Zone Management Grant support and with the assistance of the U.S. Army
Corp of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Contact
Greg Bowen
Calvert County Planning and Zoning Department
Courthouse
Prince Frederick, MD 20678
(410) 535-2348
50 • Making the Connection
-------
Rappahannock River Watershed
Plan
Fredericksburg, Virginia
Background
The Rappahannock River originates at a spring in the Blue Ridge Mountains and flows
east to the Chesapeake Bay. At one end it is typical of the streams that course through
the farmland of Piedmont Virginia, whereas downstream, the river flows quietly like
others in Tidewater Virginia. It is joined in the secluded middle section by the Rapidan
River, also a relatively untouched waterway.
In 1969, the City of Fredericksburg acquired nearly 4,800 acres of land from the Virginia
Electric Power Company (VEPCO) located along the Rappahannock and Rapidan
Rivers and their tributaries. A small portion of these lands (approximately 124 acres) is
located within the city. The bulk of the property is in Stafford and Spotsylvania Counties,
with portions located in Culpeper, Fauquier, and Orange Counties. Since the City of
Fredericksburg is dependent on this river system for its raw water supplies, this
acquisition was prompted to protect water quality and sensitive areas from development
through public ownership. Lands owned by the city have been maintained in a natural
state to provide limited recreational opportunities, preserve cultural resources, and allow
the natural ecosystem to mitigate the impact of pollutants and provide flood control.
Project Description
In September 1991, prompted by signs of encroachment by adjacent properties on those
riparian lands owned by the city, Fredericksburg adopted the "City Watershed Property
Management Policy". This management policy provides for public recreational use of
city owned lands, but provides for restrictions on such uses as may be necessary to
assure that the lands continue to perform their vital water quality function of restricting
non-point source pollution, retarding erosion and sedimentation, and protecting the
riverine ecosystem. Uses consistent with these water quality criteria may be allowed by
the city manager, but permission must be in writing, must indemnify the city from any
liability or cost associated with such use, and must be consistent with the city's
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance.
The city's lands management policy also specifies a degree of regional cooperation.
The city manager, for example, is to maintain a liaison with the chief administrative
officers of each of the jurisdictions where city owned riparian lands are located. This
on-going communication ensures enforcement of regulations related to use of city
watershed property and facilitates monitoring of development on lands adjacent to city
holdings located.
The benefits of limited regional cooperation which the City of Fredericksburg has derived
from its Watershed Property Management Policy led to an interest by the city in
establishing an expanded scope of liaison with remaining upriver jurisdictions to begin
the process of developing a regional and multi-jurisdictional watershed management
policy.
In 1992, a group of interested jurisdictions and organizations began meeting to define
issues and needs in the upper Rappahannock basin. The Rappahannock River
Watershed Committee was formed to provide a foundation for effective and mutually
Watershed Management • 51
-------
beneficial water resources management. The group's guiding principle is to provide for
current water needs without compromising the ability of the Rappahannock to provide
for the needs of future generations. The Committee continues to meet quarterly to share
ideas and exchange information. Under its auspices, the Rappahannock River
Watershed Plan was completed in October 1994.
Benefits/Results
The plan is 99 pages in length and pulls together disparate information concerning water
quality issues in the upper Rappahannock basin under one cover. It is intended to serve
as a platform for the continued evolution of a broader regional watershed policy and
basis for on-going regional cooperation and interjurisdictional agreements concerning
the management of shared watershed resources. The plan emphasizes the need to
protect the Fredericksburg-owned land in its natural state as a priority, but clearly sets
the stage for a broader base of support for shared regional watershed protection
interests.
Cost/Funding Source
Costs to prepare the plan were absorbed within the city's budget with work performed
by the staff of the Planning and Community Development office.
Contact
Erik F. Nelson
Senior Planner
City of Fredericksburg Planning Department
P.O. Box 7447
Fredericksburg, VA 22404
(703)372-1179
52 • Making the Connection
-------
Stream Team
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Background
The Lancaster Stream Team formed in 1993 to promote the protection and restoration
of streams in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, particularly those flowing through
farmland. Despite the rural atmosphere of Lancaster County, the area lacks the
substantial forests that help maintain good water quality. The largest river in the county,
the Conestoga, carries the highest concentrations of nutrients and sediment of any
monitored stream in the Susquehanna River watershed.
Project Description
The Stream Team helps to disseminate information, coordinate programs for
landowners, discuss developing technologies, and bring government agencies together
with private volunteer organizations which actively promote stream protection. It
coordinates the various programs available to landowners who are interested in
practices such as streambank fencing and forest buffers. For example, the group
recently completed a flyer describing all the available financial assistance programs for
streambank fencing projects in the county. The group has also initiated a mapping
project to record the many stream projects completed throughout the county to better
gauge progress. Possibly its most important function is to match potential stream
projects with the agency best-equipped to provide assistance.
In its efforts to bring together the public and private sectors, the Stream Team arranged
materials for a local fishing group and a dairy farmer who were interested in fencing a
pasture stream and planting trees, but had found no assistance that fit their needs. As
a follow-up activity, the group will host a public open house to recognize the project.
Benefits/Results
Several streams in the county are targeted for intensive assistance to improve biological
and chemical status. A database is compiled as the stream projects are completed. A
Stream Team publication lists organizations which provide interested farmers with up
to 100 percent funding for streambank fencing. Future projects include a hands-on
stream restoration workshop and a section 319 program grant application to target
stream Best Management Practices (BMPs) to the entire stretch of Donegal Spring
Creek.
Costs/Funding Source
The Stream Team is totally volunteer-sponsored. The possibility is being explored of
creating a "Stream Team Protection Fund" for Lancaster County which would help local
volunteers finance projects.
Contact
Lamonte Garber, Agriculture Specialist
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
214 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717)234-5550
Watershed Management • 53
-------
'-Hudson Watershed Partnership
Ellicott City, Maryland
Background
The Tiber-Hudson River has been the backbone of the Ellicott City area since the Ellicott
family founded mills along it in the 1700s. The Tiber-Hudson watershed surrounds the
historic district of Ellicott City and the River flows through several miles of residences
and the historic district into the Patapsco River and the Chesapeake Bay.
Project Description
The Tiber-Hudson Watershed Partnership is an outgrowth of a citizen's task force
convened in September 1994 by the Howard County Board of Public Works, in
cooperation with the Ellicott City Restoration Foundation. The original focus of the
citizen's group was to evaluate and make recommendations about study findings of
repairs needed along the course of the Tiber-Hudson River and means of paying for the
work. The group addressed these issues in enough detail to realize that improving the
flooding, erosion and pollution situations along the River would require unusual
cooperation between citizens and government.
The partnership is composed of citizens who meet monthly to discuss needed actions,
decide priorities and organize activities to address projects such as stream clean-ups,
water quality monitoring, stream buffer plantings, pollutant runoff, and citizen education.
Partners from the non-profit, historical, business, and government sectors attend
meetings and provide technical information and advice.
Citizens schedule and conduct meetings and events such as stream clean-up in
cooperation with Save Our Streams, water quality monitoring in cooperation with Howard
County Department of Parks and Recreation and the Chesapeake Bay Trust, storm
water management techniques in cooperation with the Howard County Board of Public
Works, and erosion control with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Benefits/Results
Five teams of citizens doing water quality management are conducting the first multiple
point monitoring along the Tiber-Hudson. In the most recent stream clean-up project,
70 citizens removed 6,600 pounds of trash and debris from the River. Funding has been
approved in the 1997 budget for additional flood control measures to be done in
cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The partnership assures that the area expands in accordance with zoning standards
currently assigned to it without variances which could harm the watershed.
Citizens have become much more involved in the environmental well-being of their
community by engaging in a variety of volunteer projects and being informed of best
practices for the locale.
Costs/Funding Source
Funding has been provided by the Ellicott City Restoration Foundation, the Chesapeake
Bay Trust, and donations from local businesses. In-kind technical assistance is provided
54 • Making the Connection
-------
by organizations such as the Audubon Society of Central Maryland, National Wildlife
Federation, Irvine Natural Science Center, Shriver Center at UMBC, Villa Julia College,
and Volunteer Maryland.
Contact
Gary C. Maule, President
Ellicott City Restoration Foundation
Urban Forum Ltd.
3431 Church Road
Ellicott City, MD 21043
(410)461-4812
Watershed Management • 55
-------
Upper Susquehanna Coalition
Bradford County, Pennsylvania
Background
Bradford County has been actively involved in the Chesapeake Bay restoration program
since 1987. Early in 1993, with the recognition that 23.3 percent of the Susquehanna
watershed is in the state of New York, the Bradford County Conservation District took
the initiative to propose developing a coalition of northern Pennsylvania counties along
with their neighboring New York counties for the purpose of developing a strategy to
address water quality improvement issues common to the region
Project Description
The Upper Susquehanna Coalition developed the "Strategic Plan for Strengthening the
Coordinated Regional/Bi-state Approach to Protecting and Improving Water Quality in
the Upper Susquehanna River Basin". The Plan represents a joint effort between local
agencies in Pennsylvania and New York to address non-point pollution problems in the
Upper Susquehanna River Basin. Agencies involved include: New York Soil and Water
Conservation Districts, Pennsylvania Conservation Districts, Water Quality Coordinating
Committees, Environmental Management Councils, Cooperative Extensions, Regional
Planning Boards and Resource Conservation and Development Councils. The Plan
serves to coordinate, stimulate, and secure financial and technical resources for water
quality protection efforts in the region. Local governments participating in the
development of the Plan include three counties in Pennsylvania (Bradford, Tioga, and
Susquehanna) as well as ten counties in New York (Broome, Chemung, Chenango,
Cortland, Delaware, Madison, Otsego, Schuyler, Steuben and Tioga). The Strategic
Plan was completed over a period of one year in 1993 through a series of meetings
among local government representatives. The Plan defines four major objectives for
the region including:
Organization: to further strengthen the coordinated regional/bi-state
approach to protecting and improving water quality in
the upper Susquehanna River Basin (SRB).
Education: to foster an increased awareness in the public and
private sector of the importance of non-point source
pollution and its impact in the upper SRB.
Implementation: to accelerate the implementation of local strategies
that address identified priority non-point source
pollution problems in the upper SRB.
Evaluation: to annually evaluate the effectiveness of the
regional/bi-state approach in reducing non-point
source pollution in the upper SRB.
The Strategic Plan identifies actions to be taken and budgets necessary to underwrite
the cost of undertaking a number of initiatives to accomplish each of these four
objectives.
56 • Making the Connection
-------
Benefits/Results
The project has resulted in an active working bi-state coalition of grass roots, local
agencies and organizations dedicated to improving water quality in the upper
Susquehanna River basin. Agencies involved are the delivery mechanisms for a host
of programs that address water quality improvement. The Strategic Plan has received
endorsements from dozens of local governments, agencies and organizations and has
raised an awareness of the importance of the region in the eyes of both New York and
Pennsylvania. An associated result has been the organization of a Susquehanna River
Conference, "Susquehanna Neighbors: Exploring New Connections", sponsored by the
coalition, which was held in October 1994.
Costs/Funding Source
At the present time, all coalition members directly contribute to the strategy's
implementation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency provides support through
the Clean Water Act Section 319 Program. The Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection funded the conference in 1994.
Contact
Michael W. Lovegreen
Bradford County Conservation District
RR 5, Box 5030C
Towanda, PA 18848
(717)265-5539
Watershed Management • 57
-------
Watershed Action Team
Elizabeth River Watershed, Virginia
Background
The Elizabeth River watershed is located in southeastern Virginia. The River runs
through the harbor ports of Norfolk, Portsmouth, Chesapeake, and Virginia Beach and
is both a sub-estuary of the Chesapeake Bay and the busiest port for foreign shipping
on the East coast.
The Elizabeth River Project (ERP) is an independent, non-profit organization founded
in 1992 to build broad community involvement in restoring the environmental health of
the Elizabeth River. The project received funding in the fall of 1993 from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the private Virginia Environmental
Endowment to begin a two-year "comparative risk" assessment of the River.
Comparative risk is a tool the EPA's Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation is
developing to wed science with public values for better policy decisions. The Elizabeth
River basin is the first watershed to become the target of EPA assistance for a
comparative risk assessment.
Three Comparative Risk Committees were named in spring 1994 to bring to the table
the broadest possible spectrum of civic, military, business, research and regulatory
interests. Over a nine-month period, the Citizen/Industry, Government/Agency and
Science/Technical committees identified an initial list of areas of concern, analyzed
existing data and then sought consensus on a ranking of ten problem areas. They
judged each by its relative impact on human health, the ecosystem and quality of life in
a 300-square-mile watershed stretching from the Dismal Swamp Wildlife Refuge to the
busy port of Hampton Roads, Virginia. Results were announced at a public conference
in Norfolk, Virginia on January 10, 1995.
RANKING
High
Sediment Quality
Non-Point Source Pollution
Habitat Loss
Point Source Pollution (not unanimous)
Medium
Dredging & Dredged Material Placement
Altered Hydrology
Contaminated Groundwater
Hazardous Material Transportation and Storage
Low
Vessel Discharges
Non-Indigenous Species
Phase II was initiated with the formation of the Watershed Action Team in spring 1995.
58 • Making the Connection
-------
Project Description
A total of 110 stakeholders are seated on the four task forces of the Watershed Action
Team. They began work by drafting a vision statement and taking a boat tour of the
River. The group then divided into four task forces which drafted initial goals and
developed problem identification and are working on developing an array of
state-of-the-art restoration strategies. The four work groups are: Habitat & Living
Resources, Water Quality, Sediment Quality, and Toxics Reduction.
The team's goals are to develop an integrated Watershed Action Plan by February 1996
which will provide recommendations on: 1) restoring habitat and living resources; 2)
improving water quality, specifically addressing point-source and non-point source
pollution; and 3) improving sediment quality.
One of the four work groups, the Toxics Reduction Team, was specifically formed to link
the Watershed Action Team with the Chesapeake Bay Program's (CBP) Basinwide
Toxics Reduction and Prevention Strategy. The CBP's Toxics Strategy, revised in
October 1994, contains a strong regional focus element aimed at cleaning up toxic "hot
spots", or Regions of Concern. In the Strategy, the Bay jurisdictions agreed to develop
and implement Regional Action Plans for the three Bay Regions of Concern where a
significant threat from toxics was well-established. The Elizabeth River, one of these
three Regions of Concern, is heavily impacted from decades of industrial, military, and
urban contamination.
The Toxics Reduction Team, with technical support provided by the Commonwealth and
EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office, is developing recommendations which the
Commonwealth will utilize in its Elizabeth River Regional Action Plan for Toxics
Reduction. ERP hopes to assist the Commonwealth with Regional Action Plan
implementation by coordinating community-based initiatives and monitoring progress
using environmental indicators.
Benefits/Results
The team will present the final report of their recommendations in spring 1996. Phase
III will be a public conference at which the team will present the recommendations and
solicit support for implementation.
Costs/Funding Source
Funding comes form both public and private sources. The U.S. EPA provided start-up
funds of $74,000 for the two-year Comparative Risk Assessment leading to formation
of the Watershed Action Team. The Toxics Reduction Team is being funded jointly by
the Elizabeth River Project and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
($18,000 from DEQ matched by $16,000 from ERP in private donations). The Virginia
Environmental Endowment and the Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation have
contributed significantly, as have local business organizations and environmental
groups.
Contact
Marjorie Mayfield
Elizabeth River Project
109 East Main Street, Suite 305
Norfolk, VA 23510
(804) 625-3648
Watershed Management • 59
-------
Watershed Management Program
Prince William County, Virginia
Background
Increased development pressures, and the subsequent effect on the county's water
resources, alarmed local Prince William County officials into action. Residential and
commercial development was already affecting the rural landscape and wetland and
stream habitats of the county, so to deter further degradation, officials developed an
environmentally sensitive watershed-wide stormwater management plan. A consortium
of federal, state and local partners, including Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Local
Assistance Department have worked together to reduce and prevent pollution and
improve water quality standards in three contiguous watersheds in the county. These
three creek watersheds drain into the Potomac River and eventually into the
Chesapeake Bay.
Project Description
The county's stormwater management program addresses four major tasks: drainage,
water quality, erosion and pollution control, and flooding.
Three watersheds, Neabsco Creek, Powells Creek and Quantico Creek, each creek in
a different stage of development, have been the sites for innovative stormwater control
efforts. Neabsco Creek has had the largest loss of vital habitat and reduced water quality
because of significant commercial and residential development pressures. Retrofitting
innovative stormwater approaches through riparian buffers and stream channel
restoration is the focus of this effort.
Powells Creek is just starting to see the effects of some development pressures in its
watershed. To prevent the negative ecological effects of development on the natural
resources of the region, experts are developing protective measures that can be
implemented prior to development.
Quantico Creek runs through a national park and is the most pristine of the three creeks.
The focus in this watershed is to evaluate the quality of water and determine obtainable
environmental measures that the other two creeks will eventually achieve through the
project's continued efforts.
Benefits/Results
Prince William County's stormwater management program is a success in building
partnerships to complete a cross-cutting initiative that serves to satisfy a number of
agencies' goals and commitments. The federal, state and local partnership that has
been built to complete the project has done just that.
The county's program has also protected and restored valuable stream habitat,
improved drainage, water quality and erosion, and established erosion and pollution
controls. In completing and continuing to complete these efforts, the partnership has
also enhanced the quality of the aquatic system to better support valuable fish and
waterfowl species. Finally, the county has instituted a citizen education effort to inform
citizens how they can best assist the program in improving water quality and natural
habitats.
60 • Making the Connection
-------
Costs/Funding Source
The project received funding and technical assistance from Virginia's Chesapeake Bay
Local Assistance Department, as well as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
In addition, the county has initiated a "fair and equitable source of funding" approach to
sustain the effort. Residential and nonresidential owners of developed property will pay
based on the amount of impervious area the property has. For instance, single detached
homeowners will pay a $1.50 per month or $18.00 a year, whereas townhome and
condominium owners will pay just $1.13 per month or $13.56 per year. Fee adjustments
or credits may be available if stormwater management already exists on that property.
Agricultural croplands and undeveloped properties will not be charged a fee. Using an
alternative financing approach to fund the county's stormwater management program
has made the program a successful, sustainable activity.
Contact
Department of Public Works
Watershed Management Division
4379 Ridgewook Center Drive
Prince William, VA 22192
(703) 792-7070
Watershed Management • 61
-------
62 • Making the Connection
-------
The Chesapeake Bay Issue
The Chesapeake Bay Program recognized early on that to revive the once abundant
living resources of the Bay, water quality would have to dramatically improve. The 1987
Chesapj|a|fovir)g|he water quality of the Chesapeake, Bay's ecosyMlfiii;;,
- ;" ^ ,-" " ' -'
Recently, thf|Bay Program focused on tributary;*strategies which target nutrient
reduetioji, by establiShjng measurable nutrient reduetl8rt*g'61ls, in the Bay's major
tributaries. With thls^effort, the Bay Program has literally gone upriver to help solve the
prolplerff. ;-;v; ~ "" ' •,. ':* - ^,
Thfe^water quality •6|;;as-fegion such as the Bay watershed has intense rajtiificati^ris in
ter/hs of tHf;econ6rlic stability and human health considerations of commuhWes^tocal
govemmifits can play, and are playing, an integral role in preserving and improving the
wat^equality in local communities and the Chesapeake Bay. Reducing nutrients' through
landscaping techniques, responsible^farming practices,:and habitat restoration can be
completed with strong community involvement and with the technical assistance from
the Bay Program and others promoting the protection of water resources in the
watershed. Local strategies for reducing nutrients are being implemented throughout the
watershed. The following models will assist your community in addressing the water
quality issue to restore the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay and preserve the
water resources in your community.
Water
Quality/
Nutrient
Reduction
An Introduction
Water Quality/Nutrient Reduction • 63
-------
Environmental Indicators of Water Quality/Nutrient Reduction
Point Source Phosphorous Loadings
GOAL: 40% reduction in the 1985
delivered loads by the year 2000.
STATUS: Controllable point source
phosphorus discharges, delivered
to the Bay, have been reduced by
over 40%.
More controls will be necessary to
hold this level as the population and
wastewater flows in the Bay's
basin increase.
B
-------
Citizens Water Quality Handbook
Fairfax County, Virginia
Background
The Citizens Water Quality Handbookwas conceived as the Northern Virginia Soil and
Water Conservation District (NVSWCD) prepared to work with citizen watershed groups
in Fairfax County. A handbook was needed to educate citizens about non-point source
pollution and water quality and to give practical guidelines for improving the quality of
water and reducing non-point pollution in their own neighborhoods. The handbook was
designed to provide citizens with basic information concerning actions they could take
to make a difference and to feel connected to larger watersheds.
Project Description
The Citizens Water Quality Handbook is a practical guide to water quality containing a
variety of information to aid citizens in the understanding and stewardship of water
resources in Northern Virginia. The handbook clearly explains watersheds, water
conservation, non-point source pollution causes and effects, stream management,
wetlands protection, water quality monitoring, environmentally friendly lawn and yard
care, and the process of organizing watershed groups. Each chapter contains specific
steps for "Making a Difference." These steps suggest ways citizens can reduce water
pollution, and restore, protect and enhance the water quality in streams and rivers.
Individuals and groups interested in learning more about water quality and watersheds
or starting watershed initiative projects will find the Handbook an excellent resource and
guide. For more help, there is a two-page listing of agencies and organizations that
provide specific services and information related to water quality in the region.
Benefits/Results
Work on the Citizens Water Quality Handbook began in June 1993 and was completed
in June 1994. Since the Handbook is a new publication, its effectiveness at this point
can only be reflected in the enthusiastic and positive comments it has received and the
substantial number of requests for copies. The first citizens group to receive the
Handbook was the "Friends of Sugarland Run", a group founded in 1992 to protect and
enhance the greenway surrounding Sugarland Run and to protect the quality of the
stream's water. The Handbook provided everyone working on this watershed initiative
a common knowledge base and source of ideas. The "Friends of Sugarland Run"
believe it will help members to be more effective planners, implementers, and
spokespersons for watershed protection. It also will be used as a tool to recruit new
members.
Because information in the handbook is generic and not site-specific, it has been
distributed to every soil and water conservation district in Virginia.
The handbook is also available on the Internet computer network through the
Chesapeake BIOS database. The address is gopher.gmu.edu. After accessing the
gopher (Mason-Link), select item 9 from the first menu. At the next menu select item
1—Biology Department, then select item 2—Chesapeake BIOS.
Water Quality/Nutrient Reduction • 65
-------
Costs/Funding Source
Publication of the Citizens Water Quality Handbookwas funded by a $1,000 grant from
the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Soil and Water
Conservation.
Contact
Paige Shiller
Northern Virginia Soil and Water Conservation District
12055 Government Center Parkway, Suite 905
Fairfax, Virginia 22035-5512
(703) 324-1460
66 • Making the Connection
-------
Conservation District
Adams County, Pennsylvania
Background
The Chesapeake Bay Program formed in Pennsylvania in 1983 and has been
instrumental in working to achieve the 40 percent nutrient reduction goal set by the 1987
Chesapeake Bay Agreement. At that time, the northeastern portion of Adams County,
that portion of the county that drains into the Conewago Creek and then into the
Susquehanna, was one of the original watersheds given the opportunity to take part in
the Bay Program.
Project Description
Farmers in Adams County are eligible for financial and technical assistance to solve
nutrient problems including erosion control, barnyard runoff and manure management.
Funds are made available to pay for 80 percent of the cost to a maximum of $30,000
for the installation of Best Management Practices (BMP) to control these nutrient
problems. The County Conservation District administers this program at the local level
for Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) with technical
assistance being provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
In 1989, the District did an assessment of the southwest portion of the county, which is
part of the Potomac River watershed, to determine if there was sufficient need to expand
the program to this watershed as well. Shortly after submitting the findings to DEP, the
southwestern portion of the county was included in the Bay Program's scope of work.
This, in essence, opened the entire county for eligibility in the program.
Through twilight meetings, farm open houses, countless news releases and public
speaking engagements, the Conservation District has educated the farming community
about the benefits and assistance provided by the Bay Program. Support of the
agricultural community is necessary so that the program can become "self-promotional".
Benefits/Results
To date, 63 farmers in Adams County have participated in the Chesapeake Bay
Program. The Conservation District has allocated over $1,000,000 to these farms with
over $913,000 already spent for the installation of BMPs. Several new applicants are
now being proposed and two to three new contracts are expected to be signed by the
end of 1995, adding another $60,000 to the amount allocated.
Since 1985 the Chesapeake Bay Program has been quite successful in Adams County.
To date the following BMPs have been installed through the Bay Program:
Counter strips 1,458.5 acres
Grassed waterways 43,345 feet
Diversions 24,206 feet
Water control structure 411
Underground outlet 37,413 feet
Subsurface drainage 276,312 feet
Terraces 9,700 feet
Manure storage systems 35
Water Quality/Nutrient Reduction • 67
-------
Soil tests 502
Manure tests 37
Nutrient management plans 4,000 plus acres
The estimated savings from these BMPs are quite extensive. Below are the expected
savings as determined by District and NRCS staff:
Total Nitrogen (Ibs.) 145,362
Total Phosphorous (Ibs) 146,524
Total Potassium (Ibs) 149,375
Total Erosion Reduction (tons) 11,494
Total Sediment Reduction (tons) 6,910*
* the amount of soil not reaching a watercourse
Costs/Funding Source
The Conservation District administers the Chesapeake Bay Program locally for DEP
which provides a portion of the funding for the program with a larger portion coming from
the EPA. Over the years, the county has been more than willing to provide some
additional funds for supplies and salary increases. The District has also sought grants
offered through DEP's Clean Water Funds to fund a stream monitoring and clean-up
project being run by two local teachers with high school students. Funding has also
been obtained from DEP for promotional meetings and educational displays designed
to raise not only the agricultural community's awareness of improving water quality, but
all residents of Adams County.
Contact
Larry Martick
District Manager
Adams County Conservation District
57 N. Fifth Street
Gettysburg, PA 17325
(717)334-0636
68 • Making the Connection
-------
Donegal Creek Restoration Project
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Background
The Donegal Creek watershed is 17.2 square miles or 11,008 acres. The watershed
has been identified by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's "State Water Plan" (SWP)
as a high priority area for "non-point source pollution" (NPS) clean-up. The intense
agricultural land use within the watershed is credited as the main cause of stream
degradation. Due to the poor quality of the stream, the Lancaster County Conservation
District and the Donegal Fish and Conservation Association formed a cooperative
"Partnership" for the purpose of restoring 6.67 miles of impacted stream corridor. The
Partnership refers to its undertaking as the "Donegal Creek Restoration Project".
A "Riparian Corridor Management" strategy is being pursued. The Partnership is not
only concerned by cattle with free access to the stream, but also by the lack of native
vegetation, a sediment-laden substrate and a wide, shallow channel due to various
forms of accelerated erosion and resulting sedimentation.
Project Description
The Partnership is currently working with four landowners in the Donegal Springs area,
and has contacted the remaining 19 landowners in the 6.67 miles of project target area.
The Donegal Creek is a prime example of the impact of cattle on streams. At Donegal
Springs (the headwaters of the west branch), the stream width at water level measured
3.66 meters and had an average depth of 27.94 cm. These measurements were taken
where the stream was in an unimpacted, wooded condition, just before entering one of
the pastures that was to be restored. The stream width and depth was then measured
inside the pasture 30.48 meters downstream of the wooded location. In this pasture
condition, the stream width had increased to 8.53 meters and was only an average of
10.16 cm in depth. It was obvious that dairy cattle with free access to the stream had
made the difference. Within this same pasture (which contains a 304.8 meter corridor),
only a single tree was found along the stream margin.
Benefits/Results
Each landowner is being asked to participate in the formulation of an individual work
plan. Information regarding the landowner's specific situation is presented in the
following format:
Landowner's name;
Status of project participation;
Description of current land use and/or observed NPS pollution impacts;
Description of proposed corrective improvements and/or future plans.
The Partnership anticipates the following results:
Streambank fencing and cattle crossing:
Streambankfencing will be installed in 15 different cattle pastures to protect target areas
from free cattle access to the stream. Fences will be installed as far back as the
landowner will allow, but not less than 3.03 meters. Also, 21 stone ford cattle crossings
will be installed in combination with stream bank fencing.
Water Quality/Nutrient Reduction m 69
-------
Fish enhancement structures:
Approximately 134 rock frame and log frame deflections, three porcupine deflectors, 24
Jack Dams, 15 wood slat fish houses, 40 half-log houses and 100 tons of boulder
replacement will be installed.
Riparian buffer strips:
Forest buffer strips will be installed and re-established along the project's stream
corridor. Normally, the forest buffer strip is at least 3.03 meters wide because of it being
confined to the limits of the stream bank fencing, but in other circumstances exceeds
15.24 meters in width. This will involve the planting of more than 27,733 tree seedlings.
Tree protectors will occasionally be utilized on the following hardwood seedlings: red
maple, shagbark hickory, shellbark hickory, white ash, slippery elm, American planetree
and flowering dogwood. The labor for all forest buffer strip establishment was provided
by the Partnership and other volunteer groups (i.e., scouts, schools, churches).
Streambank stabilization:
Eroded streambanks along the project's stream corridor will be stabilized. Where
appropriate and necessary, stabilization will occur utlizing the following techniques:
• bio-engineering
• rip-rapping
• mud sill installation
• use of porcupine, rock frame and log frame deflectors
Re-establishment of the trout population:
The Partnership believes natural trout reproduction will be possible in the Donegal
Springs area where a propagation area has been established on two of the landowners'
property. In this area, sport fishing is not allowed. Any adult fish, either living in this
area or traveling to it, should be undisturbed during spawning season.
Costs/Funding Source
The project received $900 from a District tree seedling sale. Local contractors have
donated materials and volunteers have been involved in the planting and fencing. Trout
Unlimited supplied a $1,500 grant.
Currently, there is a Clean Water Act-Section 319 grant application for $110,00 that has
received first phase approval and is under review with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
Contact
Mark Metzler
Lancaster County Conservation District
Farm and Home Center
Room 6
1383 Arcadia Road
Lancaster, PA 17601
(717)299-5361
70 • Making the Connection
-------
Evitts Creek Watershed
Project
Bedford County, Pennsylvania
Background
The Evitts Creek watershed is located in south-central Bedford County, Pennsylvania.
It is rural with some farming, timber harvesting, and scattered development. The Creek
is a tributary to two reservoirs, Koon Lake and Gordon Lake, that provide water for the
City of Cumberland, Maryland.
The Evitts Creek Steering Committee was established to help facilitate the watershed
remediation project. The twelve member committee consists of six members each from
Pennsylvania and Maryland.
Project Description
The Steering Committee was formed to implement a watershed project to improve water
quality for the City of Cumberland's public supply system and to increase the recreational
opportunity associated with the two public water supply reservoirs. The first item of
concern is to minimize non-point pollution from sources such as agriculture, silviculture,
and urban-type situations. The next step will be to deal with sewage problems in the
watershed. Concurrently, information is being collected to develop a watershed-wide
management plan to maintain water quality in the drainage basin.
Technical assistance is being rendered through various service agencies such as the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Maryland Department of Environment,
and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
Benefits/Results
Methods to reduce non-point pollution will include two manure pits, streamside fencing,
riprap to stabilize banks, the purchase of a manure pump and spreader for rental to
farmers, cattle and equipment rock crossings in streams, and concrete loafing pads for
animals. There will also be vegetative stabilization in areas where plants have been
disturbed and paddock fencing for rotational grazing.
Costs/Funding Source
Financial assistance has been received from the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection.
A Clean Water Act-Section 319 grant of $150,000 from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency was recently approved to implement Best Management Practices in
the watershed. The EPA money would leverage a $56,000 cost share from landowners,
while an additional $43,000 will come from a Farm Service Agency conservation
program.
Contact
Dick Rice
Chairman, Evitts Creek Steering Committee
(814)623-4807
Water Quality/Nutrient Reduction • 71
-------
Regional Septic Pump-out
Notification and Tracking Project
Fredericksburg, Virginia
Background
The Rappahannock Area Development Commission (RADCO) region is the fastest
growing area in the state. The region includes watersheds of the Rappahannock,
Potomac, and York Rivers. Rural land throughout the district is being rapidly
transformed to subdivisions and commercial development that is not being serviced by
public sewer. Much of the growth that has occurred has been dependent on the use of
individual septic systems.
Project Description
RADCO aims to establish a septic pump-out notification and tracking program for all of
its member localities. The program will provide the localities with the method and means
to implement the five year septic pump-out requirements in the Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Act Regulations. RADCO is responsible for developing the program to the
operational stage, and the localities are responsible for maintaining the program.
Implementation of this program would result in significant water quality improvements
and protection for approximately 1,300 square miles of Tidewater, Virginia.
Benefits/Results
Compliance forms will be completed by septic owners at the time of pump-out and
returned to the locality. The locality will track when each septic system is pumped out
through the receipt of compliance forms and will notify the owner every five years that
a form is due.
Costs/Funding Source
RADCO will apply for grants to conduct this project until it is completed (approximately
2-3 years). A grant from the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department (CBLAD)
for $30,000 was awarded for FY95.
Contact
Sandra Rives-Swope, Environmental Planner
RADCO
P.O. Box 863
512 Lafayette Boulevard
Fredericksburg, VA 22404
(703) 373-2890
(703) 899-4808 (fax)
72 • Making the Connection
-------
Swan Creek Restoration Initiative
Harford County, Maryland
Background
The Swan Creek Restoration Partnership is a consortium of local, state, and federal
agencies that are working together to improve aquatic resources in Swan Creek.
Participants include the cities of Aberdeen and Havre de Grace, Harford County,
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Department of Environment
(MDE), Baltimore District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Aberdeen Proving
Grounds.
Project Description
During its first year, the Partnership identified and categorized environmental problems
in and along Swan Creek. Volunteers walked 96 miles of stream and identified 365
potential problems. Excessive bank erosion and fish migration barriers were the most
common. Data was entered into Harford County's Geographical Information System.
Water quality, fish, and benthic surveys were done in 1994. Results indicate that the
overall quality of aquatic resources is fair to good. Fecal coliform levels in the watershed
were elevated at several sites and at one location, manure discharge from a dairy farm
was found to be causing significant water quality degradation.
Benefits/Results
Actions to correct identified problems have begun. Harford County received $60,000
from MDE to identify sites where stormwater management in the Swan Creek watershed
can be improved. Two stream bank stabilization projects have been completed and a
culvert which blocked fish migration has been removed.
Additionally, members of the Partnership are working with middle and high school
environmental education teachers to incorporate information on stream ecology and
watershed management into their school curriculum. A one day teacher training session
on stream management techniques was held.
Contact
Christine Buckley
Harford County Public Works
220 South Main Street
Bel Air, MD21014
(410)638-3545
Water Quality/Nutrient Reduction • 73
-------
Terrapin Park Wetlands Project
Stevensville, Maryland
Background
In 1989, Queen Anne's County, the Chesapeake Wildlife Heritage, and Ducks Unlimited
initiated a biological nitrogen removal (BNR) wetlands project at Terrapin Park,
Stevensville, Maryland. In January 1995, facility construction was completed and the
process of data assembly and analysis commenced. One wetlands site and two ponds
are in operation providing a natural filtering system for the Stevensville sewer plant.
Once the effectiveness of the project has been evaluated, further construction of 20-30
acres of new wetlands will proceed.
Project Description
According to the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the nitrate level of effluents
released from sewage plants must be reduced by 40 percent by the year 2000. The
Terrapin Park wetlands project provides a cost effective means of achieving this goal.
The one acre project filters 100,000 gallons per day and removes approximately 75
percent of the nitrogen present in the effluent from the local sewer plant. The wastewater
enters the wetlands area through the roots of the plant life. The plants either take in
nitrogen for food or cause nitrogen to be released into the air, essentially removing all
traces of nitrogen from the wastewater.
The project not only improves water quality, it also provides a habitat for local wildlife.
The county and the Maryland Department of Environment are allowing the Chesapeake
Wildlife Heritage to use the wetland effluent to flood an existing waterfowl impoundment.
This provides a stable, managed wetland environment for wildlife species.
Benefits/Results
From initial data, the project can already claim significant nutrient reduction and
increases in wildlife activity. The nature of the project supports collaboration and
cooperation between organizations and governments which encourages better
utilization of limited resources. This type of natural filtering system can be applied to
communities of all sizes — the acreage requirements of the wetland can be adapted to
the location.
Costs/Funding Source
Funding has come from four major sources: Maryland Department of the Environment;
Queen Anne's County; Chesapeake Wildlife Heritage; and Ducks Unlimited. Terrapin
Park is unique in that it is the first project of its kind that includes federal, state, local and
private funding to benefit Chesapeake Bay wildlife, support nutrient removal, and provide
educational value.
Contact
Gary A. Moore
Queen Anne's County Sanitation District
P.O. Box 10
Stevensville, MD21666
(410)643-3535
74 • Making the Connection
-------
Vegetative Practices to Reduce
Nutrient Runoff
Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, Virginia
Background
The Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC) includes fifteen cities and
counties encompassing over 3,000 square miles and having a population of
approximately 1.5 million people.
In developing approaches to meet the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA)
stormwater and land development performance criteria, Hampton Roads local
governments identified the need for guidance on non-traditional Best Management
Practices (BMPs) that could be implemented and maintained by the homeowner. It was
recognized that vegetation could and should be used to meet this need through
appropriate site design and maintenance practices.
Project Description
An assistance guide entitled Vegetative Practices for Nonpoint Source Pollution
Prevention Management was completed in 1992. The guide is a compilation of research
on how proper vegetative and other environmentally sensitive landscaping applications,
proper nutrient and pest management, landscaping with regionally native plants, and
water use minimalization can be used to achieve measurable water quality benefits.
The guide contains: an overview section on the relationship between vegetation and
water quality; a discussion of various ways to rethink traditional approaches to
landscaping; a survey of vegetative BMP's foron-site stormwater management; special
land use and planning consideration for CBPA; and, appendices, including plant lists
targeted at conditions in the Hampton region and sample landscaping plans.
Benefits/Results
The guide was distributed throughout the region, and well-received by property owners
and others. The project is a model for the entire East Coast. It has assisted with an
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay demonstration project and was requested by other
municipalities and developers. The guide received a 1993 Chesapeake Bay Program
Local Government Advisory Committee's Innovation Award, and was featured in the
Bay Journal, ASPA Newsletter, NARC Newsletter and the Hampton Roads Review.
Costs/Funding Source
The Guide received funding and technical assistance from the Hampton Roads Planning
District Commission and Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department.
Contact
Jeryl Rose
Principal Physical & Environmental Planner
723 Woodlake Drive
Chesapeake, Virginia 23320
(804) 420-8300
Water Quality/Nutrient Reduction • 75
-------
76 • Making the Connection
-------
The Chesapeake Bay Issue
Living resource protection and habitat restoration are clearly the ultimate goal of the Bay
Program. Improvements of living resources and habitat serve as indicators of the
success of the Bay restoration effort. In 1 987, the Chesapeake Bay Program signed the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement which affirmed the commitment to restore living resources,
the estuary's plants and animals, and water quality.
i has recognized the importance of restoring habitat, not only ttflltsiiin
resources, but also to serve .ai^poJlMaoi.bjffers to protect the Bay's water
resUjrces. The Bay Program has fcj^jgdp Iswtvffiiable habitat and living resources
in the watershed. For exampie, the striped bass was once a prime recreationaj-and
commercial catch and a valuable .economic resource to local Bay communities.
However, only a few years agft|h&||rjped bass fishery was severly stressed and record
lowTjtopulations were measul^fToday, striped bass have strongly rebounded and have
surpassed all restor|tion5xp@6tions. There are several reasons for this rebound, but
most attribute th£ success to*- fishing moratoria, improved water quality and restored
spawning habitat -I
l dfc trie 'Chesapeake Bay Program Subcommittees and Workgroups focjsi on
certafriiablJat and iiyirjg resource issues. Th^L^/|ng. Resources Subcommittee helps
eries in:irll%^^
t be requtredftn addition to theseWivitle,s4||® : dnesapeake Bay Program
to restotll||l|4,000 acres of Submerged "Xqtiltic Vegetation (SAV) and
removing ||h|^T6ckages oK tributaries to restore 731 mites of Historical spawning
-;- ^ '
restore aquatic reef habitats, "protect
ari ionest buffers. ;
on to theseiTOifts, vyprk isleiriSlnitiated
sland pmso^iihd' restore forests an^
* . ' "';%%»$/£',', *••,'' • :..
The Local Chal
itT-- "J • • :'-^i~^^-'..''.:f:
Local;g|vefflmefts>!ay'l||rita! role in restoring living resources and habitat to i ^
watersH^llSocal governments throughout tjie Bay are working \||h citi?e^?groffps to
restore •sfr|ams, create and restorerwstiands, plant Bay grassesfl-;-
These* local governmlrit andjcitizeri*aciionj'efforts are invaluable additions to
protection and restoration effort. The following case studies are examples of local
programs and projects that support the living resources and habitat restoration effort.
Living
Resource
Protection/
Habitat
Restoration
An Introduction
Living Resource Protection/Habitat Restoration • 77
-------
Environmental Indicators of Living Resource Protection/Habitat Restoration
Stream Miles Opened for Migratory Fish
GOAL: To restore access to historical
spawning grounds for migratory fish.
STATUS: 211.5 miles made accessible
between 1988 and 1995.
11400
I
J1200-
J1000.
I 800-
> 600-
I 400.
»
| 100.
i o
Year 2003 goal (1,357 miles)
Year 1998 goal (731 miles)
Cumulate* Stnam Milu
Opwwd
Expected
• • I • I
90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97
YMF
Striped Bass Spawning Stock
GOAL: The goal for a recovered fishery
is a spawning stock biomass (SSB) equal
to the average SSBs recorded during the
1960s and early 1970s. i»-
STATUS: Successful management
measures led to decreased harvest
pressure. The Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission has declared
the fishery restored as of January 1,1995.
Baywld* Female Spawning Stock Blomau
Year
78 • Making the Connection
-------
American Shad Restoration Program
Hanticoke River Watershed, Maryland
Background
Once the dominant commercial fishery in the Bay and the Nanticoke, the American shad
has fallen on hard times. A total moratorium on the fishery entered its fifteenth year in
Maryland. In spite of these circumstances, the outlook is improving for rebuilding shad
populations and recovering the substantial social, cultural and economic benefits of a
healthy fishery. The shad population in the Nanticoke is currently "quite low" according
to a recent assessment by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
Bringing the fish back will require a multi-faceted approach including attention to habitat
and fishery management. At this low level, however, it will probably also require a
hatchery stocking effort to help "jump start" the population — current densities of adult
fish may be too low for significant reproductive success. The good news is that the DNR
hatchery program was able to collect sufficient Nanticoke fish in the spring of 1995 to
produce larvae which will be raised in the Delmarva Power and Light pond at Vienna
and released into the River.
Project Description
A major challenge in restoring the shad will be rebuilding the public awareness of this
formerly abundant fish. Reviving public consciousness and creating a constituency for
restoration is the overall goal of the American Shad Restoration Program.
A shad festival is currently planned for April 1996 when shad return to spawn. A school
program to raise shad is now being explored. Delmarva Power and Light is currently
raising 20,000 Nanticoke brood stock shad to be released as fingerlings. Shad bush
plantings will occur in the spring of 1996. Other projects may develop as the program
evolves.
Benefits/Results
The return of the recreational and commercial shad fishing to the Nanticoke River will
signify the success of this project. Bringing the shad back to a healthy, self-sustaining
level could take up to nine years.
Costs/Funding Source
To date, costs have been minimal and each organization has covered their own. The
shad festival is not expected to cost more than a minimal amount to cover basics such
as display items the first year. An application will be made to the Chesapeake Bay Trust
to assist with the high school shad raising. The shad bush plantings may also be funded
through the Chesapeake Bay Trust, with seedlings from the MD State Nursery and
volunteers to heal them in, pot them and distribute them.
Contact
Lisa Jo Freeh
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance
11571 Riverton Wharf Road
Mardela Springs, MD 21837-9717
(410)883-3140
Living Resource Protection/Habitat Restoration • 79
-------
Chesconessex Creek Watershed
Project
Accomack County, Virginia
Background
Accomack County teamed up with the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Virginia's
Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program to establish a multi-faceted environmental project
that is providing valuable data and restoring vital habitat and living resources on
Virginia's Eastern Shore.
Project Description
The goals of the project are to:
• provide data to the scientific community, including the Chesapeake Bay
Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Workgroup;
• identify where water quality is adequate to support SAV growth;
• determine if water quality is improving, declining, or stable;
• correlate water quality data with land use activities within the watershed; and,
• monitor the effects of best management practices on the water quality of the
watershed.
Three sites on the Chesconessex Creek are monitored for a number of biological
indicators to determine the quality of the watershed's aquatic system. The water quality
data is then analyzed and the results compiled in an Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
report to be used by the Chesapeake Bay Program and Accomack County's Department
of Environmental Affairs. In addition, data will be compiled on land use trends in the
watershed. This data will support the goal of correlating water quality data with land use
activities in the watershed.
Benefits/Results
The Chesconessex Creek watershed project has already proven itself as an innovative
and successful Chesapeake Bay preservation project. The project established an
on-going water quality monitoring program supported by a network of professionals and
volunteers. The project provides valuable and previously unavailable data to the
scientific community and to land use planning professionals. The project established a
procedure for long-term monitoring of land use within a watershed. The project educates
participants about issues related to the watershed's living resources and habitat, as well
as land use activities and the effects on water quality.
To date, necessary monitoring equipment has been procured, volunteers have been
trained in monitoring procedures, and three months of monitoring information has been
collected. The first set of reports of monitoring results and land use in the watershed
will be completed by the end of the calendar year. These efforts were made possible
through the establishment of a partnership with local, state and federal governments
and the non-profit sector.
80 • Making the Connection
-------
Costs/Funding Source
Accomack County Department of Environmental Affairs has leveraged funding and
technical assistance from the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, EPA Chesapeake Bay
Program and Virginia Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department.
The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay provided volunteer training, and continues to
provide lab analysis of sample data, monitoring data and other services required to
administer and run the SAV monitoring program. The funding for the monitoring program
came from an EPA Chesapeake Bay Program grant. The EPA Chesapeake Bay
Program also provides guidance and technical assistance to the project. Virginia's
Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department funded the purchase of all monitoring
equipment. The Chesconessex Creek effort is a model approach to protecting and
preserving the vital resources of a watershed.
Contact
Sandy Manter
County Planner
Department of Environmental Affairs
P.O. Box 93
Accomac, VA 23301
(804) 787-5721
Living Resource Protection/Habitat Restoration • 81
-------
Kenilworth Marsh Restoration
Washington, D.C.
Background
Kenilworth Marsh is a tidally influenced freshwater wetland on the Anacostia River in
Washington, D.C. It is a national park located directly east of the National Arboretum
and bordering the District of Columbia/Maryland line to the north.
The goal of the Kenilworth Marsh Restoration was to revitalize a portion of the once
emergent tidal wetlands that historically characterized the Anacostia River. The
Kenilworth area once existed as one of the last unfilled areas where tidal marshes
thrived. The project's expectation was to recreate an ecologically-sound, freshwater
tidal marsh.
Project Description
The Kenilworth Marsh Restoration concept began with the mandated dredging of the
Anacostia River by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A lack of suitable upland disposal
sites and a long-standing intention by the National Park Service to rebuild the Kenilworth
Marsh lead to the proposed "innovative" use of dredge material and the subsequent
filling of the marsh mud flats with the material to create favorable conditions for emergent
plant growth.
Preliminary tests were conducted with dredge material "cells", consisting of plants of
different species, grown under varying degrees of tidal inundation in the marsh. These
tests determined that substrate elevation and resulting tidal inundation were the limiting
factors in emergent vegetative growth.
The physical marsh reconstruction and revegetation of Kenilworth was completed in July
1993. A workgroup and advisory committee, the Kenilworth Marsh Monitoring
Committee, planned and initiated a detailed physical, chemical, and biological
monitoring program to track the development of the newly recreated marsh.
The project involved the input of several federal and local agencies. The primary group
conducting the restoration was the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with the National Park
Service taking the lead on the planning coordination. The District Government's
Environmental Regulation Administration, Water Resource Management Division, the
Metropolitan Council of Governments, and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac
River Basin were the primary local level agencies.
Benefits/Results
Surface sediment bioassy studies found the sediments to be clean after filling and
planting was complete. The first season of vegetative growth saw a "dense greening"
of the major areas planted. It was determined that plants from an expected seed bank
in the fill sediments contributed greatly to the rapid growth and in some areas eliminated
planted species. Second year growth saw barren areas begin to green up. Bird, fish,
plankton, benthic macroinvertebrate, and nutrient studies are all on-going.
The monitoring of the restored Kenilworth Marsh is anticipated to be a 3 - 5 year effort
that is expected to afford valuable insights into the early successional stages of large
82 • Making the Connection
-------
scale wetland reconstruction efforts. The findings from the restoration and monitoring
effort are intended to better develop future wetland restoration projects on the Anacostia
River.
Costs/Funding Source
The physical restoration of the Kenilworth Marsh was funded by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. Monitoring efforts and studies conducted on the marsh are undertaken
by the individual groups using internal funding sources.
Contact
Peter May
Government of the District of Columbia
Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
Environmental Regulation Administration
2100 Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20020-5732
(202) 645-6601 ext. 3216
Living Resource Protection/Habitat Restoration m 83
-------
Non-Tidal Wetland Protection
Program
Prince George's County, Maryland
Background
In recent years, state governments implemented wetland regulatory programs separate
from the federal Clean Water Act. In addition, some local governments implemented
their own wetland regulatory programs separate from both state and federal laws. Prince
George's County recognized that separate involvement in wetland regulation could
result in three levels of government review which might result in conflicts in policy.
Concerned that such results would not benefit the resource nor the regulated community,
the county initiated a program that pulls federal, state and local resources and
experiences into a cohesive and comprehensive program.
Project Description
Prince George's County acts on behalf of the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources to implement the State's Non-Tidal Wetlands Protection Program under a
Memorandum of Understanding which went into effect on September 23, 1991. In
general, the county acts as the state's agent for the review of applications and
verifications of wetland delineations. It acts as a clearinghouse for federal and state
agency comments on each application to assure consistency, clarity, and effectiveness
when corresponding with applicants and in reducing impacts before authorization is
granted.
This program also includes a voluntary Wetland Concept Plan review process. Through
this element, the applicant is given the opportunity to explore development options on
a site before substantial financial resources are invested or committed to project design.
Since September 1991, 677 applications have been submitted under the Wetland
Concept Plan review process.
Benefits/Results
The county indicates that the regulated community is benefitting from the Concept Plan
review process. Developers have the chance to amend their projects around wetlands
and create buffers in order to avoid impacts. The result is two-fold: the wetland
resources are preserved and in many cases, the applicant avoids disturbing the wetlands
and, therefore, does not have to apply for a wetland permit. Through ten of the 677
projects submitted for review as a wetland Concept Plan, the county has assisted the
regulated community in averting development on approximately ten acres of wetlands.
Costs/Funding Source
This Program is fully funded through a county ad valorem tax managed by the
Department of Environmental Resources under the Stormwater Enterprise Fund. This
funding source is on-going and the current budget for the non-tidal wetland protection
program is approximately $213,000.
Contact
Melanie Frisch, Prince George's County Department of Environmental Resources
9400 Peppercorn Place, 5th Floor
Landover, MD 20785
(301)883-5824
84 • Making the Connection
-------
Small Habitat Improvement in
Urban Areas
Anacostia Watershed, Washington, D.C.
Background
The Small Habitat Improvement Program (SHIP) was established in 1990 by the
Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee (AWRC) as a pilot program to package
small-scale environmental restoration projects for citizens and volunteers. SHIP
provides opportunities for Anacostia watershed residents in the District of Columbia,
Prince George's and Montgomery Counties to actively participate in local stream
restoration efforts. Typical SHIP projects include reforestation, wetland plantings,
stormdrain stenciling, stream cleanups, erosion control, biological monitoring, and
small-scale stream restoration work.
Goals of SHIP include restoration of the Anacostia watershed's stream systems,
education of the citizens, and reclamation of streams for local neighborhoods. Public
education, outreach and restoration projects implemented at the local level are key
components of objective achievement. Re-establishment of streams as a community
resource, particularly in neighborhoods where streams have become dumping grounds,
is an important objective of the program.
Program Description
In 1994, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments joined the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, AmeriCorps, and a local service corps to implement
SHIP projects in the District of Columbia portion of the watershed. Other project partners
included federal and local government agencies, citizens groups, schools and non-profit
organizations, as follows:
• District of Columbia's Regulatory Authority, Planning Agency, Department of
Public Works, Department of Recreation and Parks, and Fisheries Program;
• American Rivers;
• Garden Resources of Washington;
• Earth Conservation Corps;
• U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service; and
• Cook, Backus, and Birney Elementary schools.
Working in a cooperative effort, SHIP was implemented in one of the poorer, more
degraded subwatersheds - Watts Branch -with the assistance of 15 local AmeriCorps
participants.
Efforts to implement SHIP in Watts Branch resulted in the establishment of the
Adopt-a-Neighborhood Program. Through this program, environmental and stream
restoration work was implemented at the neighborhood level and, in doing so, watershed
restoration occurred in a cohesive and organized fashion. The following steps
comprised Project Adopt-a-Neighborhood:
• identify geographical boundaries of neighborhood;
• assess neighborhood for project potential (reforestation, stormdrain stenciling,
stream clean-up, education and outreach, etc.);
Living Resource Protection/Habitat Restoration • 85
-------
• develop action plan; and
• implement action plan.
This organizational structure allowed Corps members to make a thorough and
demonstrable difference in a sub-section of the Watts Branch subwatershed before
moving to another neighborhood. Within the framework of this project, Corps members
made significant contributions to the watershed community. They provided education
and outreach to area residents, stenciled stormdrains and planted trees along denuded
sections of the stream. The community also benefited from a series of tree plantings by
other volunteer groups and local schools, resulting in the re-establishment of forest
buffers along Watts Branch.
Benefits/Results
During the nine-month project, program participants implemented the
Adopt-a-Neighborhood program throughout much of the Watts Branch subwatershed.
This comprehensive and coordinated application of SHIP boasted results that will have
long-lasting, positive impacts both for the watershed community and the stream.
Watershed residents received environmental education materials. More than 1,000
stormdrains were stenciled with the message "Don't Dump -Anacostia River Drainage".
Trash was removed both from neighborhood streets as well the stream system. At the
subwatershed level, significant progress was made: a series of tree plantings resulted
in re-establishment of nearly two linear miles of riparian buffer. Approximately 1,500
trees, all native species, were planted during the nine-month project.
Costs/Funding Sources
An AmeriCorps grant awarded through EPA provided funding for this project. Numerous
District staffers and local professionals donated their time as well.
Contact
Lorrie Herson-Jones
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
777 North Capitol Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
(202) 962-3347
86 • Making the Connection
-------
Stream and Buffer Protection
Overlay Zone
Charles County, Maryland
Background
The Charles County Comprehensive Plan Citizen's Advisory Committee, consisting of
65 members representing both resident and business interests, identified protection of
stream valleys and natural resources as an issue to be addressed in the 1990 County
Comprehensive Plan. To achieve this goal, several objectives were established,
including the "adoption and enforcement of development performance standards to
protect sensitive areas and environmental features and the establishment of a stream
valley protection and acquisition program." The goal of protecting stream valleys and
their associated sensitive areas was achieved with the implementation of a "Resource
Protection Overlay Zone" (RPZ) in a new County Zoning Ordinance adopted in 1993.
Project Description
The overlay zone is superimposed on the County Zoning maps. Its location corresponds
with the location of the major stream valleys/corridors in the county and includes adjacent
sensitive features including: floodplains, adjacent non-tidal wetlands, steep slopes, and
other habitat areas associated with stream valleys. Performance standards for
protection of these sensitive areas are defined in the County Zoning Ordinance. All new
development activities are required to comply with RPZ requirements.
The primary goals of the RPZ is to protect water quality. Non-tidal wetlands and
associated floodplains are required to have forested buffers along stream valleys. To
enhance and preserve the integrity of stream valleys, the removal of vegetation is
prohibited and disturbances to streambeds are to be minimized. The RPZ requires
compliance with a combination of performance standards and established buffer widths
based on stream order. First and second order streams must have a 50 foot minimum
buffer width; third and fourth order streams, a 100 foot minimum buffer. The minimum
buffer is extended outward to include all adjacent 100-year floodplains, adjacent
non-tidal wetlands or contiguous wetlands within 25 feet, and steep slopes greater than
15 percent that are adjacent to the buffer. In the case of adjustment for steep slopes,
the buffer is expanded to the top of the slope or is doubled, whichever is less. The
performance standards are clearly defined and allow for easy application.
There are several uses permitted in the buffer, provided that certain conditions have
been met and that the RPZ is not compromised. These uses include: agriculture,
provided an approved soil conservation and water quality plan is approved; and timber
harvesting. Utility transmission lines, recreational access, and non-motorized trails are
permitted in the buffer, subject to compliance with performance criteria.
During the first two years of implementing RPZ requirements, the county found it
necessary to provide a more comprehensive definition of stream order and establish
policy regarding the location of lot boundaries outside the RPZ area. The definition of
stream now contains criteria for surface flow and water originating from a groundwater
source during a portion of the year. In cluster subdivisions, where lots range from 15,000
to 30,000 square feet, an amendment was proposed requiring the RPZ area to be located
outside the boundaries of the lot (excepting lots greater than 40,000 square feet in size)
Living Resource Protection/Habitat Restoration • 87
-------
to protect the integrity of the buffer and the possible loss of function if the buffer was
encroached upon by homeowners.
Benefits/Results
County officials note the implementation of the RPZ requirements has resulted in greater
protection of stream valleys and associated sensitive areas through better subdivision
design and management of the location of public facilities. For example, the siting of
stormwater management facilities outside the RPZ results in improved water quality,
while maintaining streambed integrity. The county's Forest Conservation Ordinance
identifies forested RPZ areas as a high priority for retention and protection through
conservation easement. Public officials, the development community, and the citizens
of the county have become aware of the importance of preserving streams and their
buffer since the program's inception. RPZ notification on final plats has also assisted in
notification of a stream's resource value to current and future property owners.
Contact
Pat Haddon
Charles County Office of Planning and Growth Management
Charles County Government Building
P.O. Box B
La Plata, MD 20646
(301)645-0540
88 • Making the Connection
-------
Ulmstead Point Oyster
Reef/Sanctuary
Anne Arundel County, Maryland
Background
The Magothy River Association is rebuilding river bottom habitat for oysters and
associated reef animals in the Magothy River. At Downs Park, community volunteers
grow sand grain size oysters to 1.5 inch oysters.
Project Description
The Magothy River Association built oyster reef habitat over a ten acre area at the
Proposed Reef Sanctuary at Ulmstead Point in the summer of 1995. The shell was
placed in "piles" ten feet in diameter and three feet high, providing best possible oyster
habitat. The 100,000 young oysters being grown at the Downs Park nursery will seed
the sanctuary.
This site is a historical reef location and old lease. It was selected based upon substrate,
depth, salinity, availability for leases and survival of individual oyster systems as reported
by residents in the last four years.
The Maryland Department of Natural Resources Shellfish Division allocated oyster shell
to be delivered by barge to the sanctuary site. There is approximately 220 piles clustered
about the area.
Benefits/Results
The Association will host a seminar on topics relating to the Bay ecology and oyster
reefs. Volunteers transferred the oysters to secondary oyster growing systems and
relayed the oysters to the reefs in the fall of 1995. Volunteer divers will monitor the
effectiveness of the "piles", as well as place oysters on the reef in the summer of 1996.
Costs/Funding Source
The Chesapeake Bay Trust provided some funding. Magothy River Association
volunteers built the nursery, P. Cummins Oyster Company provided design and
technical advice, and Anne Arundel Community College students will monitor the
oysters.
Contact
Michelle Powell Cummins
Magothy River Association
(410)255-4501
Living Resource Protection/Habitat Restoration • 89
-------
90 • Making the Connection
-------
The
focuses o
The Chesapeake Bay Issue
Pollution prevention, like preventive health care, works to reduce the risk of major
problems through the early identification of potential issues or problems. This reduction
often eliminates the opportunity for critical and/or more expensive problems to occur
down the road. The Chesapeake Bay Program recognizes pollution prevention as the
preferred approach to reducing risks to human health and living resources due to
exposure to chemical contaminants within the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Pollution prevention is a hierarchy of approaches ultimately directed towards reducing
or eliminating the amount of chemical contaminants at the source of production or
preventing them from entering the environment. Source reduction is the preferred
method when practical; safe disposal is a last alternative. Source reduction addresses
all sources: point and non-point, industrial and agricultural, urban and suburban.
Prograr|i;; Js addressing prevention in a recently ^signed
e^l^aiuction and Prevention Strategy. The strategy
numr of pollution prevention methods incliuding facility basej pollution
integrated pesticide managerWeQ^anci consumer/household Waste
reffictittn,. Each of -these programs has a local gcU'effiMf rrt or cornmuni^comRonent.
Forlnflpce, the objective of the Facilityrjpased Polliitforf*iPrevention rPrograrfris "to
promoW pdKution prevention education anf| technical assistance programgwithin all
levels; of government - federal, state and local throughput the ChesapeakejBay
Watershea." This objective is a clear commifm|jjyo assist local governmenittwith
pollution prevention activities at local government facilities.
The Pesticide Management ancj Consumer/Household Waste programs also set clear
commitments to.asMst mun!6i|iltties antf?|ommunities. The PestiddV Management
program's .goal Js to have^a voluntary tnte^rafed;p^st mariagernesiit practices on 75
percent oral 4gricu|drSlitecreatioirial and public liI3s^60% of all commercial lands;
and1 ^259Pf of ,^all , , ^eiTdentiaL ;,JanlsH;"witWn the 'Chesapeake '' Bay • basin. * The
CoriIu'nj|r/Househ|pWaste •ipro|rami commits to developing and implementing a
basinwjfe c^lmilVilcaition anaeducation program directiid towards reducing ctfrtsumlrs'
use.'oCSarrriful orcontamiriated products, -'-.-^^7.'^;" " ' "' "*?' 'v"
In additiofrto the pollution prevention Issue, it is important ttiat local governments and
community groups are aware of some of the toxic issues in the Bay waterefitcC Significant
toxic problems in the Bay are limited to three "Regions of Concern": Baltimore Harbor,
the Anacostia River and the Elizabeth River. The problems that are occurring in tfiese
regions may effect human health, as well as the health of the living; resources' in the Bay
watershed. These issues are being addressed by the Bay Program and other groups
and agencies, as part of the Basinwide Strategy to ensure that human health and the
health of living resources are protected arid* preserved.
The Local Challenge
In order to fulfill these and other commitments in the Strategy, the Bay Program must
ensure the active participation of local governments and community groups. Today,
communities are organizing efforts to reduce waste, educating each other on toxic
issues, and forming grassroots organizations to counter the debilitating effects toxic
pollution may have on local communities. From confronting polluting businesses to
creating community recycling programs, locals are organizing themselves for action.
Pollution
Prevention
An Introduction
Pollution Prevention • 91
-------
The following case studies illustrate some of today's most effective pollution prevention
projects occurring at the local level. These activities include hazardous waste education,
recycling programs and other actions that support the prevention of contaminants in the
watershed. These and other activities have a direct influence on human health and the
health the Chesapeake Bay.
Environmental Indicators of Pollution Prevention
Acres Under Intergrated Pest Management
GOAL: By 2000, establish voluntary
integrated pest management (IPM)
practices on 75% of all agricultural,
recreational, and public lands; 50%
of all commercial land; and 25%
of all residential land within the
basin.
STATUS: 1,086,764 acres of agricultural
land under IPM as of 1994.
1200'
1000
000
HHl
*1
YMT
QMO|tOM>fO|>l«ldMI
BvAltot.lcropUnd.cr
.9.1.62S.OOO)
M0» 2.194,000)
Regions of Concern
GOAL: Minimize and eventually eliminate
adverse impacts on living resources
within the Regions of Concern by
reducing and preventing chemical
contaminant loadings and releases.
STATUS: Action Plans for the Elizabeth
River, Anacostia River and Baltimore
Harbor have been implemented.
92 • Making the Connection
-------
Gut Road Clean-up Project
East Manchester Township, Pennsylvania
Background
With the help of area volunteers and businesses, East Manchester Township, members
of York Chapter 67 of the Izaak Walton League and the Pennsylvania Fish Commission
began efforts in 1990 to clean-up a four mile stretch of East Manchester Township
Susquehanna riverbank between Wago Junction and Blouse's Landing. Portions of this
reach of riverbank were considered the worst example of illegal dumping in the county,
strewn with furniture, televisions, appliances, empty drums, cans, roofing shingles,
wood, glass, metal and plastic, all within reach of Susquehanna floodwaters.
Project Description
The Gut Road Clean-up Project is a hands-on restoration effort involving local
government and citizen volunteers. In 1990, with its inception, the township in
cooperation with the Izaak Walton League and citizen volunteers, removed over 237
tons of refuse, white goods, car parts, etc. from the four mile stretch of river bank frontage
targeted for removal in three phases.
The final phase of the initial three phase clean-up was completed on June 2 and 9,1990
and demanded 400 man-hours of labor, donated by members of the Izaak Walton
League, Met-Ed (power company) employees, township supervisors, Fish Commission
representatives, representatives from area civic clubs including the Lions and Jaycees,
and the Manchester Cub Scouts. Both time and materials needed for this effort were
donated by utility companies, environmental groups, state representatives, food/vending
companies, refuse collection companies and concerned citizens.
Since the initial effort in 1990, the clean-up project has become an on-going community
event. In 1991, 34.5 tons of material were collected and disposed of and 6.1 tons were
collected and disposed of in 1993. The township supplies a backhoe and front end
loader in support of the community effort. The township also promotes volunteer
participation and informs citizens of event results in the township newsletter. Met-Ed
donated a boom truck during the initial cleanup. A number of groups and organizations
donate necessary items such as garbage bags, food/drink/snack items, rags, bug spray,
gloves, jiffy-johns, promotional signs, dumpsters and money to defray costs. One dozen
30 cubic yard dumpsters were donated by Waste Management, Inc. to support the initial
clean-up effort and the Modern Landfill waived the estimated $3,000 disposal, or tipping
fees to help with the clean-up effort
Benefits/Results
The Gut Road project has demonstrated that local support for conservation is indeed
flourishing. Township officials, as well as the local police department, receive calls from
concerned citizens when dumping occurs or after trash has been discovered. Citizens
attend township meetings to discuss the environmental issues within the project area
and manifest a much greater stewardship interest in the area as a result of their efforts.
Pollution Prevention • 93
-------
Costs/Funding Source
East Manchester Township is a rural township of the second class with a population of
3,714. The township budget is incapable of funding a project of this magnitude.
Organizers estimate the cost of this project may well have been between $40,000 to
$50,000 had it been performed by private contractors. Through the efforts of all involved,
the total cost for clean-up for this area was given a value of $6,627 which included some
costs allocated for dumpsters and tipping fees and backhoe/loader expenses. The
actual fees for the dumpsters, tipping fees, and backhoe/loader use were waived, but
utilized as a basis for cost analysis. Funding sources were many and varied with each
participating organization donating to the cause.
Contact
Karen Schaale
East Manchester Township
5080 North Sherman Street Ext'd
Mt. Wolf, PA 17347
(717) 266-4279
94 • Making the Connection
-------
Municipal Solid Waste
Co-Composting Project
Adams County, Pennsylvania
Background
Adams County is located in south-central Pennsylvania along York County in
Pennsylvania and Carroll and Frederick Counties in Maryland. The county is divided
between two major watersheds: the Susquehanna River and the Potomac River.
Composting of municipal solid waste has been identified by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency as preferential to landfilling and waste-to-energy. This project
provides the opportunity to demonstrate that municipal waste composting is both
technically and economically feasible for many municipalities in Pennsylvania.
Project Description
Adams County provides a unique opportunity for the Commonwealth because many
elements for a successful composting project are already in place. Waste system
economics with disposal at an in-county composting facility are favorable. Within the
county there is increased awareness and interest in a more environmentally acceptable
solution for waste disposal than landfilling and both residents and commercial parties
have expressed support for such a project.
The project began in 1992 and to date, two phases have been completed. Phase I
detailed the feasibility of the co-composting project and Phase II focused on a revision
to the County's Waste Management Plan. Currently, Adams County is in Phase III which
involves a site selection process for the location of the co-composting facility and a
Request for Proposals Development and Evaluation.
Benefits/Results
The goal is to construct a centrally located in-county municipal waste co-composting
facility by 1996 or 1997 to derive the following benefits:
• to provide a waste processing technology that is well-suited to the highly
degradable municipal and agricultural organic portion of the county
wastestream and will make beneficial use of a waste product;
• to provide a long-term solution to the disposal of municipal wastewater
treatment plant sludge and septic tank pumpings;
• to provide a strategy for increasing the rate of recycling in Adams County
while minimizing the cost, and at the same time, reducing the county's reliance
on landfilling;
• to provide a strategy for collection of household hazardous waste materials;
• to reduce the transportation costs incurred by Adams County residents in
hauling wastes to out-of-county disposal sites; and
• to provide a long-term waste management strategy that will respond to and
serve the county's needs and reduce projected waste disposal system costs.
Pollution Prevention • 95
-------
Costs/Funding Source
Grant funding of 80 percent of the costs associated with the various composting facility
activities was received through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection's Act 101-section 901 Municipal Waste Planning Grants. Two grants have
been utilized and Adams County is preparing to submit a third planning grant for the final
phase of the project.
Contact
Bicky Redman
Solid Waste Coordinator
111-117 Baltimore Street
Gettysburg, PA
(717)334-6781
96 • Making the Connection
-------
Nonpoint Source Pollution - Be Part
of the Solution
Hampton Roads, Virginia
Background
The Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC) represents fifteen cities
and counties covering 3,000 square miles in Virginia. Preserving water quality in the
region is vital to maintaining the area's quality of life and thus, the Commission set out
to increase citizen awareness of non-point source (NPS) pollution problems. The
citizen's guide, Nonpoint Source Pollution - Be Part of the Solution, was distributed in
1993 to teach citizens alternatives that reduce their contribution to the NPS problem.
Project Description
The guide was developed in cooperation with the Hampton Roads Chesapeake Bay and
Stormwater Committees, comprised of local government staff planners and public works
engineers. Committee members provided HRPDC staff with commonly asked questions
regarding activities that lead to water pollution and what can be done about them.
Following a general primer on what NPS pollution is, where it comes from, and its effects
on water quality, these questions were each treated as a separate chapter in the guide.
Suggestions for alternative ways to avoid potential water pollution problems are given
for household hazardous wastes, waste reduction, proper disposal and recycling, water
conservation, septic systems and managing pet wastes, controlling stormwater runoff,
environmentally-friendly lawn care and landscaping practices, home auto care,
streambank erosion, and recreational boating and swimming activities.
Benefits/Results
The publication was so successful that it is currently in its second printing. Member local
governments have used it as a basis for developing brochures on stormwater
management, water conservation, and other subjects, and have used excerpts from if
for inserts in utility bills.
The HRPDC continues to receive requests for copies and plans to use the guide as the
framework for a regional environmental education program during FY 95/96.
Costs/Funding Source
The HRPDC received a Water Quality Management Planning Grant from the
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Water Division to undertake the project.
Reprints of the publication were made possible by the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality's Coastal Resource Management Program.
Contact
Jeryl Rose, Principal Physical and Environmental Planner
Hampton Roads Planning District Commission
723 Woodlake Drive
Chesapeake, VA 23320
(804) 420-8300
Pollution Prevention • 97
-------
Sand Filter for Urban Runoff Control
Washington, D.C.
Background
The Washington, D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs is responsible
for regulating, monitoring, and enforcing the federal, state and local laws dealing with
the protection of human health and the environment from environmental pollutants. It
is involved with local issues and programs through either ElS-type assessments of local
construction/renovation of land disturbing activities or through environmental education
activities.
Project Description
The sand filter is a best management practice that controls non-point source pollution
particularly hydrocarbon and heavy metal in urban runoff from sites such as parking lots,
gas stations, vehicle maintenance facilities and other commercial and industrial facilities.
Activities and operations include: review of engineering design plans for compliance with
specifications and codes; inspection during construction; and monitoring the long-term
operation of the facility.
Benefits/Results
Since the program started in 1988, over 200 development projects have been approved
in which the sand filter has been employed to provide control for urban non-point source
pollution control. To date, 108 of these sand filters have been completed and are in
operation. It has been adopted by several states and is currently under consideration
by EPA for adoption in a national storm water Best Management Practices handbook.
Contact
Hung Van Truong
Government of the District of Columbia
Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
Environmental Regulation Administration
2100 Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20020-5732
(202) 645-6059
98 • Making the Connection
-------
Water Quality Monitoring Program
Nanticoke River Watershed, Maryland
Background
Although the Nanticoke River is one of the cleanest rivers flowing into the Chesapeake
Bay, there are various threats to the watershed including many non-point sources of
pollution. To determine the current and future health of the Nanticoke River Ecosystem,
a continuous record of the physical, chemical, and biological nature of the river needs
to be established. The Nanticoke Watershed Alliance, the National Park Service, and
Salisbury State University are working in a partnership to provide this data.
Project Description
Water quality and biological sampling stations that collect data will be established along
the axis of the Nanticoke River. At a minimum, important plant nutrients (nitrogen,
phosphorous, and silicon, chlorophyll (algae) concentrations, and water clarity
parameters (total suspended solids, light extinction coefficients, and secchi depths) will
be assayed. Additional factors such as fish and wildlife species abundance along with
associated habitat characteristics will be determined.
The project will provide training for college students in environmental sampling, as well
as an appreciation for proper watershed management. There is also a possibility of
sharing this data with high school students throughout the watershed who will be able
to follow trends in water quality in their specific area and design related projects.
Benefits/Results
The Program will establish baseline data from which to assess the efficacy of measures
to reduce nutrient pollution entering the Chesapeake Bay. Using this data, trends in
water quality and the biology of the Nanticoke will enable various agencies and
organizations to provide better management for the preservation of the river's
ecosystem.
Costs/Funding Source
A grant of $10,481.50 was made available from the National Park Service for this
Program. Participants in this project will include not only students from Salisbury State
University, but also many volunteers from the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance.
Contact
Lisa Jo Freeh
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance
11571 Riverton Wharf Road
Mardela Springs, MD 21837-9717
(410)883-3140
Pollution Prevention • 99
-------
100 • Making the Connection
-------
The Chesapeake Bay Issue
The presence of forest land cover is considered to be a critical element in the resilience
of the Chesapeake Bay watershed and is integral to an array of important Bay Program
issues: reaching nutrient and sediment reduction goals; achieving nutrient level
maintenance; protecting ecological function and health; and important economic and
social ramifications.
The last 300 years have brought significant changes to the region's forests. In 1607,
when John Smith and the first colonists arrived on the shores of the Chesapeake, they
found a vast forest covering 95 percent of the watershed. By the late 1800s, the Bay's
forest had been reduced to a low of 40 percent total forest. These changes in land use
resulted in a fragmented forest landscape that has impacted the Bay, its streams and
rivers, as well as itsfjsjifand wildlife,
Tociay, lajthough many. forests"tiave returned or have been replanted, less than 60
percent of the watershed remains forested. With 14.2 million people living in the Bay
watershed^orests are under pressure from urban expansion, lost to sub-urbanization
at an average rite of 100 acres per day.
Today's forests are irnporjfintTO maintaining a ^Healthy ecosystem for living resources,
and a qualify of life esseptial to the people of the region. As urban areas grow, ripatian
zones have .been, peManently altered or destroyed. Flood control and stormwater
control measures have resulted •iih/^^s'tantial and often irreparable damage to miles
of streams and their riparian area; ^'^
The Local Challenge %•
Local governments are a|the front lines in efforts to protect and restore the Chesapeake
Bay an3|orestland in de|p^|j|g area|,, Ofteh aHa*nd§iff1ir^ill b'emore receptive to
working with a locally-organfeil p'fograln ih the development of a qparian easement
zone. Today, watershed plans, forest consffvation programs, greenways, and other
activities supplement the traditional planning and zoning functions. These provide more
focus than e'vet befpje on the protection olffij'lronmental values and water quality.
Althoug| initiatives ^iemonsfritSlpa't 1ocafs"gSvernments have great capacity for
innovation, the range of issues they face today and will face tomorrow continues to
broaden. ^ ^ \. • '<•
Envirctnmental Indicators of Forest Conservation/Riparian Forest Protection
Chesapeake Basin Forests
GOAtSNo goal determinfd.
STATUS: The forest thai
from the 19th century to the mid-20th
century is declining.
Current losses represent permanent
conversions.
Forest quality may be as important
as quantity:
• proximity to water
• species diversity
• ecosystem sustainability
• habitat fragmentation
Forest
Conservatioi
Riparian
Forest
Protection
An Introduction
Forest Conservation/Riparian Forest Protection • 101
-------
Chesapeake Basin Forests and Water Quality
GOAL: Land use goals may be
tributary specific.
STATUS: In the 1600s, 95% of
the basin was forested. In 1992,
59% was forested.
Forests and wetlands provide natural
filtering systems that prevent pollutants
and soil from reaching the Bay.
102 • Making the Connection
-------
Difficult Run Stream Valley Park
Reforestation
Fairfax, Virginia
Background
The Difficult Run Watershed was designated as one of 134 "environmentally critical
areas" in Virginia in 1970. It is the largest watershed in Fairfax County, covering 58
square miles. The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors adopted the watershed and
began the Difficult Run Project in order to educate and involve the community to help
reduce the amount of pollution entering the stream.
Project Description
The reforestation project, which was completed in April 1995, included planting a 150
foot buffer on both sides of the stream. Sixteen hundred native seedlings were planted
with the help of volunteer groups along the one side of the stream bank at Wolf Trap
Meadows subdivisions at the intersection of Days Farm Drive and Black-Eyed Susan
Lane.
Benefits/Results
This buffer will provide wildlife corridors which allow wildlife to move safely from place
to place. The buffer vegetation is capable of slowing surface runoff which allows
sediments, nutrients and pesticides to be filtered out before the water reaches the
streams. The buffer's leaf canopy will provide shade that keeps the water cool, retains
more dissolved oxygen and encourages the growth of diatoms, nutritious algae and
aquatic insects. Leaves that fall into the stream will provide food and habitat for small
bottom dwelling creatures which are critical to the aquatic food chain. Lastly, the buffer's
woody debris (fallen trees and limbs) will serve as cover for fish while stabilizing stream
bottoms thereby preserving habitat over time.
Costs/Funding Source
Fairfax ReLeaf and the Virginia Department of Forestry received a grant from the
Environmental Protection Agency for $5,000 through the Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation to conduct the reforestation of the Difficult Run Watershed
in Fairfax County.
Contact
Peggy Williams
Fairfax Park Authority
3701 Pender Drive
Fairfax, VA 22030
(703) 893-2353
Forest Conservation/Riparian Forest Protection • 103
-------
Fairfax ReLeaf's Urban Forest
Benefits Analysis
Fairfax County, Virginia
Background
Fairfax ReLeaf, Inc. is a non-profit organization of volunteers who preserve and restore
trees and native habitat in Northern Virginia. ReLeaf is comprised of approximately 700
individuals who volunteer to plant trees on public and common lands, assist in natural
resource projects and distribute educational material about trees. Educating the public
about the importance of trees is a major component of ReLeaf s mission.
Project Description
In 1994, the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors formed the Tree Preservation Task
Force. ReLeaf felt a strong obligation to supply reliable quantitative information to the
Task Force for its use in formulating policy recommendations to the Board of
Supervisors. ReLeaf asked the Board to help purchase QuantiTree software, a computer
program developed to calculate and to value quantifiable benefits of community trees.
Using environmental and socioeconomic inputs, QuantiTree provides current dollar
values for the following tree functions: annual air pollution mitigation; annual carbon
storage; annual stormwater runoff reduction; and annual energy conservation.
ReLeaf volunteers collected data from 220 randomly selected sample plots located
within Fairfax County, the cities of Fairfax and Falls Church, and the towns of Herndon
and Vienna. To ensure quality of data used, teams were led by professional foresters,
horticulturists, and natural resource managers. The first phase of the benefits analysis
provided a baseline snapshot of the nature of Fairfax County's tree cover in terms of
health, size and number.
Benefits/Results
ReLeaf estimates that there are 57 million trees growing on 239,915 acres of Fairfax
County and associated jurisdictions. An average tree provides a total of $7.03 in
services annually for air pollution control, storage of atmospheric carbon, stormwater
runoff mitigation, and utility energy conservation. They are a vital component of
infrastructure that deliver multiple benefits to help sustain the quality of life in a
community.
Costs/Funding Source
ReLeaf is a volunteer organization. However, the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors
contributed $2,500 to help purchase the QuantiTree software.
Contact
Mike Knapp
Urban Forestry
12055 Government Center Parkway
Fairfax, VA 22035
(703)324-1729
104 • Making the Connection
-------
Headwaters Soil and Water
Conservation Service
Augusta County, Virginia
Background
The American Farmland Trust (AFT) emphasizes the urgent farmland preservation
needs in the Shenandoah Valley and other agricultural powerhouses of the nation. The
Valley is identified as an area where extremely productive farmland coincides with
population growth far above national rates. With this in mind, the protection of riparian
zones along streambanks is essential to both curbing development and growth
pressures and protecting farmland. The Headwaters Soil and Water Conservation
District (SWCD) in Augusta County, in coordination with local citizens, is working to
repair and maintain forested riparian buffers and establish a voluntary easement
program in perpetuity for long-term water quality improvement and habitat protection.
Project Description
The Headwaters SWCD riparian easement program began in 1993. Participation in the
program encourages streamlining the easement process, which now just takes thirty
days. By contrast, other easement programs may take up to one year. The landowner
releases or gives up the right to destroy the riparian zone and works with the SWCD to
develop a management plan to ensure the protection of that zone. In return, the
landowner qualifies for tax deductions as for any charitable contribution.
The focus of the management plan is to keep the streambanks vegetated and prevent
cattle from degrading the stream. Cattle are permitted in the easement zone, but must
be given alternative water sources or limited access to rivers. Headwaters SWCD
provides the technical assistance to implement the requirements.
Benefits/Results
The easement program has met with very positive results which may be attributable to
the fact that landowners feel more comfortable working with a local organization. Five
easements have been established in three counties of the Shenandoah region. The
riparian easement program prevents soil loss and flood damage which protects
resources and wildlife habitats. Over time, benefits can be increased further if
easements are placed on consecutive parcels, resulting in the establishment of riparian
buffer corridors.
Costs/Funding Source
The Valley Conservation Council and the U.S.D.A Natural Resources Conservation
Service have provided technical and financial assistance to the Headwaters SWCD.
Contact
Faye C. Cooper, Executive Director
Valley Conservation Council
P.O. Box 2335
Staunton, VA 24402
(540) 886-3541
Forest Conservation/Riparian Forest Protection • 105
-------
Herring Run Watershed Association
Baltimore County, Maryland
Background
Herring Run is a 25-mile stream system in northeast Baltimore which runs through both
the City and County. Its watershed is 45 square miles and contains 120 communities,
80 schools and 65 churches.
The Herring Run Watershed Association (HRWA) is a grassroots, volunteer-based
environmental group formed in January 1993 after a stream survey of the Herring Run
and its major tributaries was conducted by citizen volunteers. These volunteers found
that there was much to be done to restore this urban stream. Notable problems identified
in the survey included sewage overflow points, fish migration barriers, and unshaded
areas.
A primary goal of the Herring Run Watershed Association is to improve water quality in
the Herring Run and Chesapeake Bay. It is the Association's hope to restore the herring
fishery before the year 2000.
The large human population in the Herring Run watershed has placed significant stress
on this ecosystem, and has influenced the direction that the Association's restoration
efforts have taken. Initially, the Association functioned primarily as a group of volunteers
that worked together on stream clean-ups and tree plantings. Over time, however,
Association members realized that a strong education and outreach program would
more effectively promote their goal of improved water quality in the Herring Run. An
organized and effective public outreach program would reach a larger public and result
in the implementation of restoration projects. For the past year, the Herring Run
Watershed Association has been working with the Department of Natural Resources
TREE-MENDOUS Maryland and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation on a major
educational and reforestation effort in the Herring Run watershed.
Project Description
In 1995, the Herring Run Watershed Association initiated a tree nursery program. The
nursery program, run in cooperation with TREE-MENDOUS Maryland, National Tree
Trust, Baltimore Municipal Golf Corporation (BMGC), Baltimore City Department of
Recreation and Parks, and individual communities, will provide free trees to watershed
community groups committed to restoration of the Herring Run watershed.
A key aspect of the nursery program is the unique relationship between HRWA and the
Baltimore Municipal Golf Corporation — golf corporation staff care for the trees and the
HRWA provides administrative support for the program. The tree nursery program is
structured as follows:
• Seedlings are provided to the Baltimore Municipal Golf Corporation by
TREE-MENDOUS Maryland's National Tree Trust Program.
• The BMGC maintenance crew pots, weeds and waters the seedlings with
assistance from HRWA volunteers.
• HRWA promotes availability of free trees for Herring Run watershed plantings,
all of which occur on public lands.
• HRWA maintains an inventory and manages the distribution of trees.
106 • Making the Connection
-------
• HRWA advises communities on which trees are best for specified species.
HRWA has also established a Tree Planting Program which provides education and
tools needed for successful tree plantings. Mulch and special watering systems are
provided to support these volunteer planting projects.
Benefits/Results
As designed, the six-month-old tree nursery program will provide numerous benefits
both to the Herring Run watershed and the community that lives there. Through this
program, 25 acres of riparian forest buffer will be reestablished. This year alone, more
than 400 trees will be distributed to neighborhood groups committed to restoring the
ecological integrity of the watershed. Citizen groups receiving trees will be encouraged
to attend watershed educational workshops provided by HRWA members. These
educational programs include information on the values of trees, planting and
maintenance techniques, and watershed management.
The HRWA Nursery and Tree Planting programs are designed to promote the
citizen-based restoration of Herring Run. These programs encourage watershed
residents to become actively involved in restoring the resource by providing them with
the knowledge and tools necessary. The HRWA has developed other programs in this
effort including stream and watershed surveys, water quality monitoring, stream
clean-ups and a quarterly newspaper highlighting what schools are doing to help Herring
Run. A successful Walkathon and Festival to build community support and provide
education was held in the spring of 1995 with more than 1,500 people attending.
Costs/Funding Source
The Chesapeake Bay Program provided a Challenge Grant for $40,000. Other funding
sources came from: the Maryland Department of Natural Resources/TREE-MENDOUS
Maryland; Maryland Save Our Streams; Baltimore Municipal Golf Corporation; the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation; and the U.S. Forest Service.
Contact
Lynn Kramer
Herring Run Watershed Association
P.O. Box 5591
Baltimore, MD 21285
(410)668-3626
Forest Conservation/Riparian Forest Protection • 107
-------
Hollywood Branch Restoration
Montgomery County, Maryland
Background
The Hollywood Branch is located in Montgomery County, Maryland, just north of
Washington, D.C. The watershed drains approximately 1.3 square miles. Hollywood
Branch flows into Paint Branch, a major tributary of the Anacostia River that supports a
population of wild trout. The trout live upstream of the Hollywood Branch confluence.
The restoration demonstration project is located in Martin Luther King, Jr. Regional Park,
one-half mile above the confluence of Hollywood Branch and Paint Branch in a non-tidal
wetland, characterized by lush growth of rushes, sedges and other types of frequently
encountered wetland vegetation.
The predominant land use in the Hollywood Branch watershed is residential housing.
Most homes are single family dwellings on approximately 1/4-acre lots. The area is
heavily crisscrossed by roads and several large roads serve as major arteries for the
area. Because of the development in the watershed and the conveyance of stormwater
into the stream channel, streambank erosion is an obvious problem in many parts of the
watershed. Banks are vertical and sloughing into the stream. Many large trees have
exposed roots and are leaning precariously toward the stream channel. The Hollywood
Branch Restoration effort was performed by twelve environmental educators
participating in the Save Our Streams Summer Water Institute. Also participating were
Montgomery County teachers from Kensington Parkwood Elementary School and
Rockville High School.
Project Description
The restoration project, which took place on July 12, 1995, repaired approximately 110
feet of streambank. One entire day was devoted to sloping the bank and placing riprap
along the toe of the bank. During the remaining half day on July 13, volunteers planted
streambank vegetation, seeded and mulched the site and secured the streambank with
erosion control fabric. All work was performed on the south bank which is on the inside
of a curve and received the brunt of erosive force in this reach of stream.
Volunteers also planted a total of 50 black willow and silky dogwood saplings. The entire
site, including the areas disturbed by the heavy equipment were seeded with a mix of
annual and perennial rye grass. Volunteers covered the entire site with straw mulch to
provide immediate protection against rain. The straw will serve an important erosion
protection function until the grass becomes established as a permanent soil cover.
The project utilized bioengineering techniques that rely on strategically placed plant
materials to bind streambank soil, reduce erosion during storm surges and enhance the
stream's ability to support aquatic life. Unlike channelization and other "high-tech"
approaches to river management, bioengineering is comparatively inexpensive, creates
a living, self-repairing system and, with proper consultation with environmental experts,
can be executed by lay persons.
108 • Making the Connection
-------
Benefits/Results
The project will serve as a demonstration site for citizen activists, environmental
educators and others interested in natural approaches to river management.
Until the plants become well established, a process that may take two to three growing
seasons, a local Montgomery County Stream Team has been set up to water the plants.
Structurally, the maintenance requirements are minimal. The silt fence must be watched
until the grass and woody plants are established to stop any sediment-land overland
runoff from entering the stream. The woody plants may require pruning in the future to
stimulate accelerated lateral growth in the form of new roots and shoots. Eventually,
with proper management, this site can provide a large number of cuttings for future
streambank projects in the county.
Costo/Funding Source
The streambank restoration project received a grant for $8,354 from the Chesapeake
Bay Trust. In addition, Save Our Streams also received an additional $8,000 from
Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Water Resources
Planning Division. The DEP grant was awarded to support public education and
participation in county natural resource management issues.
Contact
Karen Firehock
Izaak Walton League of America
Save Our Streams
707 Conservation Lane
Gaithersburg, MD 20878-2983
(301)548-0150
(800) BUG-IWLA
(301) 548-0146 (fax)
Forest Conservation/Riparian Forest Protection • 109
-------
Riparian Buffer Initiatives
Baltimore County, Maryland
Background
Baltimore County, Maryland exemplifies a proactive local approach to the protection of
its water resources and management of its riparian forest buffers. With 2,000 miles of
streams that drain to the region's three drinking water reservoirs, tidal creeks, and the
Chesapeake Bay, the county has employed multiple mechanisms for the management
of its riparian ecosystems. The mechanisms utilized by the county include regulation,
restoration, and citizen education and participation. Baltimore County's efforts to protect
streams and forests began in the 1980s with an initiative to broaden riparian buffer
measures. The Department of Environmental Protection and Resource Management
(DEPRM) implemented buffer regulations by Executive Order starting in 1989.
Program Description
In 1991, the regulations were codified for the Protection of Water Quality, Streams,
Wetlands and Floodplains. As implied in the title, the regulations provide for the
delineation and reservation of areas along streams and their associated floodplains,
wetlands, and steep or erodible slopes. The legislation intends that the riparian areas
are left undisturbed to the extent possible in order to encourage growth of existing
vegetation. Termed "forest buffers," the sensitive riparian areas are protected through
post-construction of developments through delineation of buffer areas on record plats
and recordation of standard no-disturbance restrictive covenants.
Baltimore County lists four reasons why its regulations are distinctive, effective, and
innovative. First, the concepts contained in the legislation were developed through
consensus of a steering committee with broad and diverse interest. Second, the
standards apply to all streams, including intermittent and perennial, and mapped and
unmapped streams. The regulations protect the reaches most essential to the
ecological health of the river system. A third feature of the regulations is that the degree
to which forest buffers are applied to a site is dependent on the environmental sensitivity
of that site. Finally, the legislation is an integral part of Baltimore County's overall
strategy for water resource management which includes watershed management
planning; water quality monitoring; citizen education and volunteer activities; and a $24
million, six year capital program for stream restoration, stormwater retrofits, wetland
creation, forest establishment, waterway clean-ups, dredging, and shore erosion control.
Benefits/Results
The resource management planning is providing invaluable information on resource
conditions and effectiveness of regulatory and restoration components. The county is
also tracking the effectiveness of the stream buffer regulation on a resource tracking
database developed for land development projects reviewed by DEPRM. The tracking
system communicates the progress and effectiveness of the regulation to the public,
resource managers, and developers.
Contact
Don Outon
Baltimore County Department of the Environment
401 Bosley Avenue
Towson, MD21204
(410)887-5683
110" Making the Connection
-------
Riparian Greenway System
Newport News, Virginia
Background
In November 1993, the Newport News City Council adopted the Framework for the
Future as the city's new Comprehensive Plan. One of the Framework's unique qualities
is the way it features a future vision of the city's riparian greenway system on the
Comprehensive Plan Map. While many local governments include greenway, stream
corridor, and open space language in discussions of long range goals, the Framework
targets city objectives in clearer terms by placing the future greenway system on the
Comprehensive Plan Map.
Project Description
The city's treatment of greenways underscores the profound difference between stating
a goal and placing a land use element on the official Comprehensive Plan Map. While
goals stimulate discussion of land use planning principles, mapped elements become
incorporated on site plans through public and private development overtime. Elements
shown on the Frameworks Comprehensive Plan Map must be addressed in master plans
for development proposals requiring changes of zoning or conditional use permits.
Development proposals are expected to accommodate the Comprehensive Plan Map
elements in the overall design. This approach has historically been used to protect
rights-of-way for future roads, sites for parks and schools and other necessary public
facilities. Under the city's new program, this same approach is applied to riparian
greenways.
Previously acquired greenway property and easements provide the basis of the City
Greenway Plan. A number of stream segments are already protected and additional
sections will be added to the system as developments are proposed or expanded. The
system is 10 percent complete at present and is anticipated to grow approximately 10
percent per year during the coming decade. The greenways network will be expanded
primarily through easements, both donated and purchased, which will be administered
by an urban conservancy program within the Department of Planning and Development.
Public access facilities will be developed and managed by the Department of Parks and
Recreation.
The city's Greenway Plan currently incorporates the Salter's Creek Greenway which
was previously established by purchase, and is now being developed for public access
as part of the city's Waterfront Parks Master Plan. This greenway includes more than
7,000 linear feet of the stream and its banks on both sides. Plans for access facilities
along the Stony Run Creek Greenway, in the northern portion of Newport News, are
currently being designed by the Department of Planning and Development. Many
contiguous parcels are in city ownership and several easements on large adjacent
parcels should be among the first donated when the Conservancy procedures are
finalized.
Benefits/Results
The city was prompted to establish its greenways system due to concerns that, given
the degree of urbanization which has taken place, further intensive development without
Forest Conservation/Riparian Forest Protection • 111
-------
them would reduce streams to mere drainage conveyances. With the program, the city
anticipates several benefits including:
• Maintenance of wooded boundaries between neighborhoods;
• An improved recreational system with linear connections developed between
parks;
• Increased opportunities for nature study;
• A major contribution to the ecological health of the James River and
Chesapeake Bay.
Costs/Funding Source
All funding for acquisition to date has been from the Newport News General Fund. The
city expects to continue expansion of the system by receiving donated easements, or
purchasing them when necessary to connect segments. Physical improvements for
public access to riparian greenways have been funded from a variety of sources
including the general fund, bonds, and grants from state and federal agencies.
The city indicates that the task of getting a specific greenway or a network onto a newly
adopted comprehensive land use plan requires extensive public involvement.
"At some point in the development of every jurisdiction the environmental and quality of
life concerns of the resident population seek a voice in the planning of future patterns
of growth. When that time arrives, elements like greenways, bike trails, open space,
historic sites, scenic views and habitat preservation become part of the discussion.
When it appears that a lack of specific action will result in loss of these resources", the
City of Newport News contends, "the community will commit to their preservation and
impose their vision of the city on future development".
Contact
Paul F. Miller, Director
Department of Planning and Development
2400 Washington Avenue
Newport News, VA 23607
(804) 247-8761
112 • Making the Connection
-------
Riparian Task Force
Hampshire County, West Virginia
Background
The Hampshire County Riparian Task Force met for the first time in March 1992 with
one common goal: "To improve the water quality of Hampshire County, West Virginia."
Members who volunteer to serve on the task force are either local natural resource
management agency personnel, volunteers of the same agencies, or local private
organization staff who contribute significant technical assistance. The multi-agency
group has developed educational materials and demonstration sites to promote the
importance of protecting water quality in the Potomac River basin.
Hampshire County has lost an estimated 35 percent of streamside vegetation because
of human activity and natural disasters, such as floods. Expansive housing development
in forested lands, logging, and livestock grazing have all contributed to the destruction
of stream bank ecology. Without the stabilizing effect of plants, soil erosion from
streambanks reduces fish populations and adds excessive nutrients that contaminate
water supplies.
Project Description
The Hampshire County Homemakers' Environmental Committee invited the public to
meetings in order to provide educational information on best forest management
practices used by today's loggers. Presenters focused on development and use of
practices that have minimum impact on stream water quality and the environment. This
activity led to the formation of the task force.
The long range goal of the task force is to maintain a quality living environment by using,
managing, and preserving essential natural resources.
An educational program designed to give the layman an understanding of the value of
stream buffer zones is of critical importance. Many people in the general population do
not have an understanding of how buffer zones can impact water quality or wildlife and
fisheries. The task force took responsibility of pursuing the development of forest buffer
educational programs, including a brochure, a speakers bureau, and demonstration
sites.
Benefits/Results
The task force has completed the following products and activities:
• Riparian Placemats: A full color placemat was developed and distributed to
over 10,000 people.
• Riparian Brochure: A full color 4-panel brochure was distributed to over 25,000
people.
• Riparian Demonstration Site: A 1/4 mile stream bank on the Cacapon River
was replanted to woody vegetation. A 6x10 foot sign was erected along the
highway to explain the site.
• Hampshire High School Earth Day: As a result of the task force's activity, the
high school Environmental Club applied for and received a state grant to have
a one-day observance of Earth Day.
Forest Conservation/Riparian Forest Protection • 113
-------
• Hampshire High School Water Quality Monitoring and Geographical
Information System (GIS): An advanced biology class along with the
Environmental Club applied for and received a grant to 1) implement a
one-year water quality monitoring program and institute a long-term change
toward water quality education; and 2) purchase and install a GIS for school
use (water quality data, etc.).
With several agencies joining forces on the projects, the potential for educating the
general population is greatly increased. This awareness will help ensure the future of
the Potomac River basin.
Costs/Funding Source
In-kind contributions are worth approximately $50,000. Actual dollar contributions have
included: $30,000 plus match from West Virginia Education Grants; $2,000 from West
Virginia Extended Service Grants; $2,000 from U.S. Forest Service Grants; and $5,000
from Potomac Headwaters RC&D Grants.
Contact
Roger Boyer, Task Force Coordinator
Potomac Headwaters
1446-2 Edwin Miller Boulevard
Martinsburg, WV 25401-3737
(304) 267-8953
114 • Making the Connection
-------
Front Park and the Charles
Greenway
East Donegal Township, Pennsylvania
Background
East Donegal Township in Lancaster County received $25,000 from the state to
purchase 35 acres of forestland along the Susquehanna River. Working with
neighboring Marietta Borough which also received $25,000, the land is being preserved
as a natural area with a walking trail.
Project Description
The family of a deceased owner approached the township to see if it would be interested
in the land. Before the township could apply for funds from the state's Keystone
Recreation, Park and Conservation Fund (Key 93), it had to get appraisals and conduct
an engineering and land survey of the property. Besides the $50,000 the municipalities
received from the state, each had to come up with matching funds to purchase the
property.
Working in cooperation with another municipality greatly improved the chances of
receiving funding for the project, which is a part of a larger greenway project in Lancaster
County.
Benefits/Results
The township wanted to ensure that residents could continue to enjoy boating, fishing,
and recreational activities along the Susquehanna. This link in the project means that
only one segment is left for the greenway to be complete. A final link will have the
greenway running the entire length of East Donegal Township.
Costs/Funding Source
Funding came from the Pennsylvania Key 93 Grant, Lancaster County Planning
Commission, Lancaster County Commissioners, state representatives, and township
funds.
Contact
Barbara Stoner
East Donegal Township Supervisors
190 Rock Point Road
Marietta, PA 17547
(717)426-3167
(717)426-4881 (fax)
Forest Conservation/Riparian Forest Protection "115
-------
Union County Greenways
Lewisburg, Pennsylvania
Background
In Union County there are numerous natural resources that are of significance from a
local, state, and national perspective. Since the region has been experiencing steady
growth, the need has arisen to design and implement innovative measures to maintain
and enhance the environmental integrity of the region.
Project Description
The county, through its Planning Department, is in the process of developing a
comprehensive greenway plan and program to address issues related to protecting
water quality, wildlife habitat, open space for recreation, and environmentally sensitive
lands, such as wetlands and floodplains. The intention is to create and maintain
vegetated corridors that will interconnect throughout the county. The primary areas
scheduled for greenway creation will be along the major tributaries to the West Branch
of the Susquehanna River, particularly those where there is intense agricultural
production and a good deal of development pressure. In particular, Buffalo Creek,
Penns Creek, White Deer Creek, and White Deer Hole Creek. The goal is to get
voluntary participation by landowners whereby they will donate easements and/or
development rights on these future buffer areas. The property owner will determine
whether or not the property will be open for public access. The Planning Department is
currently working with the Union County Assessment Office to devise a tax schedule for
landowners who donate land to be put into a greenway.
Benefits/Results
The benefits will be to reverse decades of degradation caused from deforestation,
intense farming, and questionable development patterns which have historically exacted
a heavy toll on the small streams in the county and on the Susquehanna River and
ultimately on the Chesapeake Bay. One of the greatest problems faced in a rural county
is the issue of non-point source pollution that is attributed to increased storm water runoff
and the erosion process. Greenways or riparian zones should reduce the amount of
sediment and nutrients entering local watercourses since the plants act as natural filters.
Protected wetlands within these areas also serve a similar function.
In addition to improving water quality, these areas will provide travel routes for wildlife
and may strengthen survival rates for rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal
species that are indigenous to the aquatic ecosystem and adjacent landscape.
Moreover, there is the potential for increased recreational opportunities, as well as a
higher level of consciousness among citizens for natural resources protection.
Greenways also aid in cultural and historic resource protection as much of our early
heritage, as was the case in the majority of the nation, took place in close proximity to
the water. There are remnants of earlier civilizations and sites significant to the history
of Union County and America found along local streams and the West Branch of the
Susquehanna River.
The long range plan is to connect the stream corridor greenways to other belts of open
space throughout the county. Some municipalities are already formulating ideas as to
where greenways should extend. This process will be aided by local governments
116 • Making the Connection
-------
amending current land use ordinances to allow for more flexible types of development
that will encourage and provide incentives for contributing land to the greenway system.
Traditional zoning and land development and subdivision ordinances currently in place
in many municipalities do not allow this.
Costs/Funding Source
The initiative is being supported through the budget of the Planning Office and is utilizing
two individuals enrolled in the Federal AmeriCorps program. Local conservation and
other local government agencies have been supportive and have offered on-going
assistance for planning and implementation. Once the planning work is completed, the
county will seek additional assistance for the intensified implementation.
Contact
Shawn Mclaughlin
Union County Planning Commission
1610 Industrial Blvd., Suite 100
Lewisburg, PA 17837-1273
(717)522-1370
(717) 522-1389 (fax)
Forest Conservation/Riparian Forest Protection "117
-------
118 • Making the Connection
-------
The Chesapeake Bay Issue
There are many challenges facing the agricultural industry within the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. Farmers are faced with crop pests, eroding lands and development
pressures. Historically, we blame farmers for their disproportionate contribution of
pollutants that flow into the Chesapeake Bay. Farmers are addressing these issues
through the development of sustainable agricultural programs, agricultural best
i praar
1970, more than 40 million acres of farmland Mihe^U.S. have vanished
local farmers are bowing to the development pres^gf Jthat offer economic inc
The physical transition that occurs in corr|munities'f/pWF/rie that was a predo
farrftg area to an urbanizing district, has serioysfrarnifrcafiqffs on a local com
ecoiomy and cultural heritage. Ironically!
resjjibf environmental protection policies
This^ibvelopment limitation on environrnei
viat|Bjpption but to develop on farm larjtis.,
locajjfalersheds and the ChesapeakitjBji
imp§'fj^p,tg^eep in mind the.pjlicies ti|if||
regtois."'""" „!"«•.' ' - ^
--«•-- ' , '
^
deve
bjbprnent pressures are
f. **.£- ^-.^ can be -,
ias often leaves
; to protect and restoi
^' m
^ iriribvative farming pra
rleaid to the development of th;
Agricultural
Preservation/
Conservation
An Introduction
*^rmers with the technical assista
sees, streambank fencing (which n
riparian fdrest buffers. In ,additi<
f each of the Bay states, an
focuses on the dlttelopment of basji
individuals engagecl%i the applic
Th|^giesapeake Bay,JProgram?is:
impi|rtient agricultural bestrtfanag
nufrj||t Jgws into rivers^nd stf^if
Ch^lf ptake Bay Program is e^
Nu^|nt Managemejjftnitiative. Tli
strH|gies for ed|jiation and ^
nufflents teiagricultural arid gthe^priate and public lands. The prset incl
corfirluatiorjlof/training; progf&rrls, certification exams\|or nutrient
comulfan^^nd analysis of the test results. These activities all suppl
Prografh'sJ-O percent nutrient redubtion goal.
riculture cooperatjyes are inMflmg a
r£^^^^:the^«Jp^W!S^^ jln
i * xoin i ni£f ~~r r^p u isiM^^^W: w ' * p'^Pro© F ' &r\ d
lands. Finally, there is a concerted effort by many fe^e^il, irate
and non-profit organizations to protect and preserve the most vital farm properties.
The following case studies illustrate model Bay watershed programs and projects that
preserve agricultural lands and projects that limit the environmental effects of agricultural
activities on local water resources and the Chesapeake Bay.
enge
, private'farmers and
best
Agricultural Preservation/Conservation "119
-------
Environmental Indicators of Agricultural Preservation/Conservation
Acres Under Nutrient Management
GOAL: Establish nutrient management
measures on cropland in the Bay's
basin to reach the year 2000 nutrient
reduction goal.
STATUS: Over one million acres in
PA, MD, and VA have been placed under
nutrient management since 1985.
While this number is just 15% of the total
cropland in the Bay's basin, many farmers
have voluntarily begun nutrient management
efforts that are not accounted for.
1200,
1000
?
8
400.
200.
19«6 1987 19M 1M9 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
Year
120 • Making the Connection
-------
Agricultural Land Preservation
Program
Adams County, Pennsylvania
Background
Adams County is the fourth fastest growing county in Pennsylvania. A survey published
in 1991 expressed the preservation of farms, orchards, and the Gettysburg battlefield
as a top priority of its residents. The nine member Agricultural Lands Preservation Board
has been actively working towards preserving approximately 600 acres of farmland per
year. Programs key on clustering around currently preserved farmland, as well as on
higher quality farmland in the county.
Project Description
The Agricultural Land Preservation Board administers the Agricultural Conservation
Easement Program for the county. The Board acts to:
• protect viable agricultural lands by acquiring agricultural conservation
easements which prevent the development or improvement of the land for any
purpose other than agricultural production;
• encourage landowners to make a long-term commitment to agriculture by
offering them financial incentives and security of land use;
• provide compensation to landowners in exchange for their relinquishment of
the right to develop their private property;
• protect normal farming operations in agricultural security areas from
incompatible non-farmland uses;
• protect farming operations from complaints of public nuisance against normal
farming operations; and
• assure conservation of viable agricultural lands in order to protect the
agricultural economy of the Commonwealth.
Benefits/Results
To date, Adams County has preserved over 5,100 acres at a cost of $8.8 million. The
Board works closely with the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) to insure
that efficient conservation practices are used.
An important strategy is the modern Agricultural Zoning Ordinance, with Transfer of
Development Rights. This approach requires the commitment and leadership of
township governments. As part of its preservation program, Adams County makes
sample zoning ordinances available to interested townships and provides other technical
support.
The Board, as well as County Commissioners, are also exploring the formation of a
private, non-profit county land bank or conservancy, which will be able to accept
donations of land or easements for conservation, recreational, and other associated
purposes. Such a conservancy would provide the Board with another important tool to
use in its preservation efforts.
Agricultural Preservation/Conservation • 121
-------
Costs/Funding Source
Funding is based on county and state allocations. Currently, the county allocation is
directly out of the General Fund. The state allocation is derived from a 2 cents/pack
cigarette tax revenue.
Contact
Ellen T. Dayhoff, Coordinator
Adams County Agricultural Land Preservation Board
Adams County Courthouse, Room 205
Gettysburg, PA 17325
(717)334-6781
122 • Making the Connection
-------
Agricultural Preservation District
Essex County, Virginia
Background
Essex County, located on Virginia's Middle Peninsula is bounded by King George
County to the north and Caroline County to the west. The northeast boundary of the
county is the Rappahannock River. The Town of Tappahannock (County seat) is
centrally located along the county's riverfront and serves as the major center of
development within a several county region of Tidewater Virginia. As part of its update
of the Comprehensive Plan in 1992, the county became concerned about the long term
protection of agricultural lands to support its agricultural industry. With 261 square miles
(167,200 acres) in land area and a county population of under 10,000 residents, the
county's character is quite rural. Most farmland protection measures are instituted in
communities where agricultural lands are threatened by substantial development
pressures and rapidly growing population. A concern for protection of farmland
resources in such a rural county is quite rare.
Project Description
In 1991, the Essex County Commissioners and Planning Commission formed a
Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee to update the County Comprehensive Plan.
Although development pressures had not been significant in the past, the Plan Advisory
Committee determined that the likelihood of future increased growth pressures was
greatest from its northwestern border. Since the northern area of the county has
traditionally been dominated by agricultural uses, the Committee elected to establish a
number of objectives to protect farmland resources. While protection of the farmland
base to support the agricultural economy was a primary objective, the county determined
that removing lands from the threat of development also supported the policy of
concentrating growth in the Town of Tappahannock where demand for public facilities
and services could be satisfied in a more cost effective manner.
To achieve its objective, the plan identified land area for application of a new Agricultural
Preservation District which included approximately 41,500 acres, representing some 26
percent of the total land area in the county. This district is located at the northern end
of the county straddling both sides of the Route 17 corridor and essentially serves as a
gateway to the county from the north. The County Plan notes, "this district is currently
dominated by agricultural use and is remote in its location from existing county
services...To minimize future impacts on the county for costs of services, and to maintain
the agricultural land base necessary to support a continued viable agricultural economy
this district substantially limits residential development." The County Zoning Ordinance
was amended in 1992 to implement plan objectives and establish provisions limiting
development within the district. Within the district, for the first twenty acres owned and
for all parcels under twenty acres in size, a property owner is permitted one homesite
for each five acres. Beyond the first twenty acres owned, the property owner is entitled
to one additional development right for each additional twenty acres owned. By way of
example, a property owner with one hundred acres would be permitted eight lots. Four
lots for the first 20 acres (1 per 5) and four homes for the remaining eighty (1 per 20).
The ordinance permits a one acre minimum lot size offering the potential to retain roughly
90 percent of the farmland in an undeveloped state even if the owner decides to fully
utilize the properties development potential.
Agricultural Preservation/Conservation • 123
-------
Results/Benefits
The Comprehensive Plan has served to increase protection of 41,000 acres of farmland,
as well as to protect wildlife resources adjacent to the Rappahannock River and several
tributary streams. This program provides the county with opportunity to minimize future
costs in infrastructure and delivery of services.
Costs/Funding Source
The program is administered as part of the County Planning program. Costs are not
appreciably greater than those associated with zoning administration absent such a
program.
Contact
Gary Allen
County Administrator
P.O. Box1079
Tappahannock, VA 22560
(804) 443-4331
124 • Making the Connection
-------
Eastern Shore Land Conservancy
Queenstown, Maryland
Background
The Eastern Shore Land Conservancy (ESLC) is a private, non-profit organization
dedicated to the preservation of productive farmland and natural resources on the
Eastern Shore. It faces the challenges of farmland conversion, sprawling urbanization
and unplanned development which are rapidly consuming the special landscape of the
Eastern Shore of Maryland. Since its inception in 1990, the ESLC has preserved over
12,000 acres of farmland and natural areas. It works towards this goal in partnership
with private landowners through community based preservation programs.
Project Description
Using voluntary land protection techniques such as conservation easements,
Maryland's farmland preservation program, and Transferable Development Rights
programs, the ESLC works with willing landowners to determine and protect the future
use of valuable agricultural, historic, scenic, natural and habitat properties. Through
conservation easements, landowners work with the Conservancy to design restrictions
that will protect the environmental and cultural resources of their property, while allowing
reasonable use for the future.
The Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation is a state funded program
which purchases restrictive easements on productive farmland. The Conservancy
works closely with county program administrators to tailor the program to individual
farmland, tax, and income needs.
Benefits/Results
Using a computer mapping system, the Conservancy has inventories of all lands on the
Eastern Shore which are exceptional for their farm soils, habitat features, scenic quality,
or historic resources. This information is helping the ESLC to focus efforts on the highest
priority conservation areas. The Conservancy's Community Stewardship Programs
promote broad based community understanding of the value of land resources and
protection mechanisms and encourage widespread participation in land use
decision-making. A variety of educational programs and activities are utilized which
encourage involvement while respecting the interests of private property owners and
fostering sound economic growth.
Costs/Funding Source
The ESLC relies on volunteers and membership dues to promote its message.
Contact
S. Justine McKnight, Community Stewardship Director
Eastern Shore Land Conservancy
P.O. Box 169
Queenstown, MD 21658
(410)827-8056
(410) 827-9039 (fax)
Agricultural Preservation/Conservation m 125
-------
Farm Link
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Background
In collaboration with the Rodale Institute and Pennsylvania Farmer magazine, the Center
for Rural Pennsylvania established the Farm Link program in 1994. The Center was
concerned that over 1,000 farms were being lost a year in Pennsylvania. The concept
is to link new or prospective farmers with landowners who are interested in ensuring that
their land remains in agricultural production. Over a period of time, the new farmer
assumes greater responsibilities, and eventually, full ownership of the farm.
Project Description
Start-up financing for new farmers is difficult to obtain. Thus, through creative
agreements designed through the Farm Link program, options are made available to
farmers wishing to enter or retire from the farming industry. Each link match is different,
but the end result will be to increase the number of new family farmers in Pennsylvania.
A workshop with over 40 participants was held in September 1993 to determine the level
of interest in the concept. Based on a strong statement of support, the Center and its
partners invited prominent agricultural leaders to participate in a task force assisting in
the establishment of an operational link.
Benefits/Results
The Farm Link database includes over 450 entering and retiring farmers and is regularly
reviewed and updated. Workshops are held throughout the state to facilitate meetings
of perspective matches.
Costs/Funding Source
Staff and funding for Farm Link are provided from the Center for Rural Pennsylvania,
the legislative agency of the Pennsylvania General Assembly. The mission of the Center
is to ensure that rural communities have their needs addressed according to their own
priorities.
Contact
Marian Bowlan, Farm Link Coordinator
The Center for Rural Pennsylvania
212 Locust Street, Suite 604
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717)787-9555
126 • Making the Connection
-------
Piedmont Reserve
Albermarle, Clarke, Culpeper, Fauquier, Greene, Loudoun,
Madison, Orange, and Rappahannock Counties, Virginia
Background
The Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC) was established in 1972 to promote positive
planning for the future of rural areas by encouraging growth when and where it is
desirable. In 1984, the PEC called for the establishment of a "Virginia Piedmont
Reserve", a permanently protected rural area of one million acres in the nine-county
region. Private landowners assumed the leadership role and by mid-1988, more than
325,00 acres of private farms and forests were designated by their owners for special
protection.
Project Description
The most utilized mechanism selected by Piedmont landowners for the protection of
land is the agricultural and forestal district. The districts are established for renewable
periods of up to ten years by contracts between groups of landowners and their county
governments.
The PEC, however, stresses that open space easements constitute the preferred
approach, since they provide permanent protection to rural land by placing development
restrictions on that land in perpetuity. These easements are created within limits set by
the Commonwealth and then donated to a government agency or private non-profit
organization. The easements limit the extent to which land may be subdivided and
developed in the future. It also puts restrictions on property use — no junkyards or
strip-mines, for example.
The creation of agricultural and forestal districts and the donation of easements are
voluntary mechanisms for protecting the countryside. They provide tax benefits to
landowners and preserve open space, wildlife habitats, watersheds, and other
community values while maintaining land in private ownership and productive use.
Benefits/Results
The Reserve has several key benefits:
• A stabilized economic base encouraging long term investments in Virginia's
three major economic sectors: agriculture, forestry, and tourism.
• Protection of local tax rates for farm and town properties alike.
• Retention of Virginia's Northern Piedmont as a special place to be enjoyed by
both residents and visitors for outdoor activities.
• Protection of local and distant natural resources - mountain slopes to
Chesapeake Bay.
Of the 400,000 acres being voluntarily protected in the Piedmont Reserve, 80,000 acres
are protected by permanent easements.
Agricultural Preservation/Conservation • 127
-------
Costs/Funding Source
Most financial support comes from annual PEC membership fees, both individual and
organizational. Foundation support plays a small role in funding and occasionally
government grants are awarded.
Contact
Robert T. Dennis, President
Piedmont Environmental Council
P.O. Box 460
Warrenton, VA22186
(540) 347-2334
(540) 349-9003 (fax)
128 • Making the Connection
-------
Remington Farms Project
Kent County, Maryland
Background
The Remington Farms Project is sponsored by Prosper (Practical Research on
Sustainable Practices and Economic Return), an organization formed by farmers,
non-profit groups, and representatives from government agencies, universities, and the
agricultural industry. The Project's objective is to build understanding and acceptance
of on-farm sustainable agricultural practices within the scientific community and among
the general public. The project's location in Kent County provides a unique opportunity
to study the effects of farming methods on water quality in conjunction with groups that
are working to preserve the delicate eco-system of the Chesapeake Bay.
Project Description
In the five-year sustainable agriculture research and demonstration project, four diverse
farming systems are compared for their impact on economics, water quality, soil
characteristics and wildlife. The four farming systems are conducted side-by-side on
ten acres and represent production options currently in use in the Mid-Atlantic region.
Each is subject to a distinct rotation scheme, tillage practices, fertility programs and
methods of pest control. All systems employ Best Management Practices (BMPs) to
help keep materials on the field and out of the water.
Each ten acre block occupies a discrete watershed, so that runoff of water, soil, nutrients,
and pesticides can be monitored. Each watershed is tested using shallow wells for
groundwater sampling. Water flumes and automatic monitoring and sampling equipment
are used to test the runoff.
A replicated, small-lot experiment is being conducted in an adjacent field of similar soil
type. This experiment compares data on yield, soil tilth and fertility, pest populations,
and nutrient movement through the soil profile. Treatments duplicate the four cropping
systems.
In order to ensure that the project adheres to real-world concerns of farmers, a farmer
advisory panel has been involved from the beginning. Local farmers offer advice as new
challenges arise.
Benefits/Results
The first year's results were reported in 1995.
October 2000.
The completion date is expected for
The long-term research and demonstration project will break new ground in the pursuit
of sustainable agriculture systems. The project will also test existing knowledge and
theories on the agronomic, economic, and environmental impacts of the crop rotation
systems. Results will be shared with farmer, scientific, and public audiences as the
information becomes available.
Agricultural Preservation/Conservation • 129
-------
Costs/Funding Source
Funding is being provided by DuPont Agricultural Products, USDA, EPA, the University
of Maryland, the University of Delaware, Cornell University and the Rodale Institute.
Contact
Raymond Forney
Project Manager
Remington Farms Project
7321 Remington Drive
Chestertown, MD21620
(410)778-0141
(410)778-6741
130 • Making the Connection
-------
Rural/Agricultural Conservation
District
Isle of Wight, Virginia
Background
Isle of Wight County is a mostly rural jurisdiction located on the western fringe of the
Greater Hampton Roads Metropolitan Area. Since its founding in 1634, it has grown at
a gradual, yet steady pace. In recent years, however, population growth and
development have been increasing in direct response to the urbanization and expansion
of the Hampton Roads area. This expansion will cause the county's population to grow
by an anticipated 46 percent during the next twenty years.
In order to effectively manage this rapid growth, a cooperative three year effort between
citizens, public officials, and staff culminated in the adoption of the Isle of Wight County
Comprehensive Plan in May 1991.
Project Description
A key element of the Plan is the designation of three strategically located Development
Service Districts which represent 30 percent of the county's land area, as well as the
designation of a Rural/Agricultural Conservation District (RAC) which represents the
remaining 70 percent of land area. Growth will be concentrated in the Development
Service Districts so that a compatible mixture of land uses can be economically provided
with utilities and services. The RAC is intended to preserve the County's rural character,
minimize conflicts between farming and rural residential development, and prevent
suburban sprawl. However, through two options of "Rural Density Incentive Zoning",
some low density residential development is allowed.
The first density option is based on a sliding scale approach. Using this option, density
is determined by the overall size of the tract to be developed. The second option
provides a property owner or developer the incentive of higher possible densities if
certain standards of rural residential development are satisfied, such as development
clustering, rural highway access controls, and conservation easements. In effect, the
greater the open space on a site and the more compact the development design, the
higher the density that can be achieved.
The designation of these planning areas and districts has evolved from a synthesis of
factors including: existing land use patterns; projected growth and development trends;
the natural capacity and suitability of the land to support development; the availability
and adequacy of infrastructure such as roads, sewer, and water; and the citizens' desire
to preserve the rural character and quality of life while accommodating growth.
Benefits/Results
By using the innovative planning approaches embodied in the Development Service
Districts and the Rural/Agricultural Conservation District, the county proposes to guide
and manage future growth in a manner which will maintain and enhance the quality and
character of the natural and man-made environments in both urban and rural settings.
As a growth management guide, the Comprehensive Plan is a flexible document utilizing
a twenty year planning period and requiring a review of the planning policies every five
years. A significant number of the goals and objectives will be realized in a short period
Agricultural Preservation/Conservation "131
-------
of time. This is because the Plan provides that the county's Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances be rewritten in order to statutorily implement its growth management
principles. Furthermore, the Plan requires the adoption of a water quality and sensitive
lands protection program.
In order to preserve and improve the environmental quality of the county, the Plan sets
forth rigorous standards for land use and development. These standards include: the
protection of sensitive lands and water quality through a local Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Area program which addresses non-point source pollution; requiring
environmental impact assessments for significant development proposals;
administration and enforcement of wetland and floodplain ordinances; and the use of
zoning incentives to promote cluster development and the preservation of open space.
Costs/Funding Source
Funds expended by the county to develop and print the Plan were approximately
$100,000. Of this amount, approximately 50 percent was funded by the Virginia Coastal
Resources Management Program under the Coastal Zone Management Act
administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Contact
R. Bryan David, AICP
Director of Planning and Zoning
County of Isle of Wight
P.O. Box 80
Isle of Wight, VA 23397
(804)357-3191
132 • Making the Connection
-------
The Chesapeake Bay Issue Land
The qualities of the Chesapeake Bay region make it attractive for new development.
Development has concentrated in sensitive waterfront and riparian areas which offer
access to the Bay and its tributaries. Close to 100,000 miles of interconnected streams,
wetlands, and their riparian areas serve as a circulatory system or natural infrastructure An Introduction
for the Bay.
Land use decision-making within the Bay region is the responsibility of local and state
governments. Local governments, private landowners, and other community interests
vigorously support the traditions of home-rule. Most local land use authorities are
designed to accommodate development.
Central to the discussions about land and water management and use of the
Chesapeake.-Bay^region i|Jbe premise that t|pChesageake Bay is viewed as a public
"comilibrifl^ril^ay's'wattfihed, howeverffs'a 'mosaic of state andjocal Jojrie-rule
jurisd|ctiongilargely within private landownership. The traditions and human|vajlues of
the regionirequire that the restoration of the Bay must be done with sensitivityflexibility
and provisions totallow people to prosper as well as protect. •-,-•
The 1|87 Chesapeake Bay Agreement includes the goal to, "Plan fofffnd manage the
adverse environmental effects of humaftp$pfllatidn growth and [ariSSevelopjnent in
.. ^ . *i ,„«* &>*<***. ,^|s cgrrjed QUt by the Bay |^ra^i_andi
^ e Subcommittee and its W||j
-------
and functions of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. Private, and public, landowners act
as "stewards" of their portion of the Bay region and work to protect characteristics of
their own land worth saving, while enjoying financial benefits as well.
The land stewardship examples which follow attempt to illustrate that protection,
restoration and enjoyment of the Chesapeake Bay region can be combined with sound
land development and management decisions.
134 • Making the Connection
-------
Annapolis Summits
Annapolis, Maryland
Background
The Alliance for Sustainable Communities was formed to educate and stimulate public
participation on issues of growth, ecological planning, ecosystem health and community
viability. Today, the Alliance has put together a partnership with the City of Annapolis,
County Planning Office, State Planning Office, Maryland Department of Natural
Resources and the Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program
Office. In 1992, the State of Maryland put into effect the Economic Growth, Resource
Protection, and Planning Act. The Act directs local and state governments to streamline
regulations to assure achievement of certain growth management and resource
protection goals. Specifically, the Act asks counties and local municipalities to revisit
their comprehensive plans to adhere to the "visions" established by the state. The
Alliance inspires participation in the planning process to create a vision for communities.
Project Description
The Alliance for Sustainable Communities projects are based on the principal that sound
ecological policies create jobs and address social issues. The Alliance has spread its
philosophy of community revitalization via the Annapolis Summits
(conference/workshops) that have brought together outstanding speakers, innovative
planners, authors, philosophers, and environmentalists. The Summits have focused on
the public process in terms of local planning issues.
The Alliance has held three summits which addressed three specific subjects that are
interconnected in the planning process. The first Summit, "Toward a Community Vision,"
gave a broad overview and discussed the philosophy of the community level movement.
It was well attended and initiated projects including "Green Gardens," which trained the
minority community the art of ecological gardening. The second and third Summits
respectively addressed "sacred cultural places" and the watershed approach. The last
two Summits were able to identify community values and sacred places and inspired
the action of the public to plan for the preservation of those community characteristics.
Smaller workgroup meetings between Summit attendees and city, county and state
planning personnel have taken place and Summit recommendations have been taken
under consideration, and in some cases incorporated, in comprehensive plans.
Benefits/Results
The Alliance for Sustainable Communities has been effective on a number of
environmental and community based fronts. The Summits have been identified as
community contributors in a number of ways including:
• Communicating the big picture to the public;
• Fostering community participation on a broad level;
• Creating alliances between groups, especially those that traditionally have not
communicated with one another; and
• Creating new ideas, concepts and visions to the community.
The organization has also been successful in creating an ecological business start-up
with minority communities in areas previously associated with crime and poverty. A core
Land Stewardship • 135
-------
of volunteers is increasing in all segments of the Alliances work and Summits have
averaged 150 - 200 participants. Finally, the Alliance has been successful in having
Summit and workgroup planning recommendations incorporated in the City
Comprehensive Plan, including the preservation of sacred places and innovative
transportation concepts.
Costs/Funding Source
The Alliance has received financial and technical assistance from private foundations,
the Chesapeake Bay Trust, local citizens, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
and the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office.
Contact
Anne Pearson
Executive Director
The Alliance for Sustainable Communities
5103 N. Crane Highway
Bowie, MD 20715
(410)741-0125
136 • Making the Connection
-------
Canal Place Preservation and
Development Authority
Cumberland, Maryland
Background
At the upper end of the C&O Canal lies the city of Cumberland, Maryland. The steep
terrain of the Appalachian ridges forces the river, roads, canal, and the railroad to
converge. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad and Chesapeake and Ohio Canal linked the
city with points east. With coal and iron mining in nearby valleys, Cumberland was a
thriving seat of commerce and industry in western Maryland. The decline of
manufacturing in the late 20th century resulted in the decline of the city. City, state, and
federal officials are now working to revitalize Cumberland using the C&O Canal as a
centerpiece.
Project Description
The C&O Canal and the Western Maryland Railroad Station are the focal points of the
Canal Place Project, a cooperative effort under the direction of the Canal Place
Preservation and Development Authority established in 1993 as an independent agency
of the State of Maryland. The project is working to develop the land around the historic
train station. The station has been refurbished in part and contains a C&O Canal Visitor's
Center, the Allegany Arts Council, the Allegany County Visitor's Bureau, an Industrial
and Transportation Museum, and a gift shop. The Crescent Lawn will be an open space
area used for major recreational events. The Wills Creek Esplanade will provide a major
pedestrian access point to Canal Place, linking the train station, the C&O Canal, Station
Square Plaza and Crescent Lawn with downtown Cumberland.
Benefits/Results
Canal Place is a "heritage area" combining economic development, tourism, historic
preservation, recreation and education to help revitalize Cumberland's economic
climate, utilizing the natural attractiveness of local historical and cultural resources. This
planning, along with resulting public and private investment, will rejuvenate the area and
represent a new future for downtown Cumberland.
Costs/Funding Source
Estimates to include all work associate with Canal Place during the next ten or more
years are currently being prepared. Canal Place is a partnership between the public
and the private sectors. Costs for actions such as rewatering the canal and building
roads, sidewalks and visitor facilities will be borne by a combination of federal, state,
city, and county governments. Private investment will be encouraged by publicly offered
incentives.
Contact
Richard M. Pfefferkorn, Executive Director
Canal Place Preservation and Development Authority
P.O. Box 878
Cumberland, MD21501
(301)759-6418
(301)759-6497 (fax)
Land Stewardship "137
-------
Chester River Watershed Case Study
The Chesapeake Bay Countryside Stewardship Exchange
Background
The Chesapeake Bay Countryside Stewardship Exchange is a project that provides an
opportunity for individuals who want to change aspects of their community to define
issues of concern and to find ways to implement solutions to those issues. Led by the
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay and the Countryside Institute, an international team of
experienced professionals immerse themselves in a community for a week. The team
provides an objective view of the community and the issues with which it deals. Team
members are experienced professionals who bring a fresh perspective to the
community. The mix of professional and national backgrounds stimulates creative
problem solving and facilitates the development of innovative ideas.
The team visit is just one phase of the process, however. At the heart of the Exchange
is the local organizing committee within each community. Committees are formed
involving local elected officials, county and municipal administrators, civic interest
groups, real estate interests, farmers, business interests, tourism officials, and planners.
Members volunteer their time. Their first task is to submit an application to the
Exchange. Once selected, they must define and implement the case studies. After the
visiting team leaves, the local organizers identify recommendations or ideas that are of
the most interest and should be implemented.
Project Description
The Chester River watershed in Maryland was the site of a 1994 case study. A team
of eight representatives from the United States and the United Kingdom worked with a
local organizing committee of 25 community representatives and a range of volunteers.
Local representatives expressed concern with growth patterns and economic
development and design issues. Their focus was on three issues:
• Encouraging growth patterns that preserve the rural character of the working
landscape, protect open space and wildlife habitats;
• Encouraging diversified, sustainable economic growth and the protection of
traditional, resource-based industries; and
• Creating a common vision and consensus for goals of planned land use,
economic growth, and the conservation of natural resources.
The initial findings of the team were presented at a public meeting. Among the
observations were a list of seven critical issues that the team felt were interrelated and
fundamental to developing a sustainable future for the Chester River. These issues
were:
• Recognize the clear interdependence of communities, economies and the
environment;
• Raise the level of public awareness;
• Create a shared vision;
• Dispel the perceived inability to control own destiny;
• Create a framework to support the shared vision;
138 • Making the Connection
-------
• Build better communication and cooperative approaches; and
• Change the belief that all land is a marketable commodity.
Benefits/Results
The Local Organizing Committee (LOG) prioritized recommendations and, in January
1995, met with recently elected County Commissioners from both counties to discuss
those priorities. The Commissioners reacted favorably and implemented one of the
recommendations — the appointment of a Bi-County Forum to provide a communication
link between the two counties. County planning staff who participated in the LOG have
recommended that the mission of the Forum be the implementation of the Exchange
Report.
Key LOG members will visit the New Jersey Pinelands to study projects that provide
examples of alternative incomes for farmers. The Queen Anne's County Visitor Service
and Farm Bureau are collaborating on a project at Kent Narrows to provide tourism
opportunities and to enhance the profile of the agricultural alternative crops for local
farmers. A new partnership between the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy and
Chesapeake Wildlife Heritage is resulting in a broader, more comprehensive watershed
approach to the preservation and acquisitions of agricultural land.
A steering committee of thirty government agencies and private organizations helps the
local organizing committees to implement their recommendations.
Costs/Funding Source
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program and other
government agencies and private groups have contributed funding for the Exchange
program.
Contact
Rob Etgen
Eastern Shore Land Conservancy
P.O. Box 169
Queenstown, MD 21658
(410)827-8056
Land Stewardship • 139
-------
Conservation Directory
Nanticoke River Watershed, Maryland
Background
The Nanticoke River watershed encompasses Wicomico, Dorchester, and Caroline
counties in Maryland and Sussex county in Delaware. All total, the watershed covers
approximately 400 square miles on the Delmarva peninsula. The Nanticoke River is an
exceptional natural resource which has remained clean and quiet, although subject to
non-point sources of pollution and other environmental threats. The Nanticoke
Watershed Alliance works to preserve the watershed.
Project Description
In October 1994, the Alliance, in cooperation with the National Park Service, published
the Nanticoke River Conservation Directory. The goal of the Directory is to provide a
reference guide for those interested in the conservation of the Nanticoke watershed.
The guide describes many of the public agencies and private organizations involved in
conserving the river, projects that are proposed or under way, and Nanticoke River
publications. It also outlines some of the technical and financial conservation assistance
programs available for use in the watershed. A matrix of organizations and their
activities indicates where efforts have been overlapped or ignored.
Benefits/Results
Reaction to the publication has been extremely favorable. The Directory continues to
be a valuable tool at fairs and festivals and at presentations to civic organizations,
schools, and planners. When its shelf life has expired, an update is planned.
Costs/Funding Source
The National Park Service financed the printing of the Directory. Distribution has been
handled by various member organizations of the Nanticoke River Watershed Alliance.
Contact
Lisa Jo Freeh
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance
11571 Riverton Wharf Road
Mardela Springs, MD 21837
(410)883-3140
140 • Making the Connection
-------
Cumberland County Case Study
The Chesapeake Bay Countryside Stewardship Exchange
Background
The Chesapeake Bay Countryside Stewardship Exchange is a project that provides an
opportunity for individuals who want to change aspects of their community to define
issues of concern and to find ways to implement solutions to those issues. An
international team of experienced professionals immerse themselves in a community
for a week and provide an objective view of the community and the issues with which it
deals. Team members are experienced professionals who bring a fresh perspective to
the community. The mix of professional and national backgrounds stimulates creative
problem solving and facilitates the development of innovative ideas.
The team visit is just one phase of the process, however. At the heart of the Exchange
is the local organizing committee within each community. Committees are formed
involving local elected officials, county and municipal administrators, civic interest
groups, real estate interests, farmers, business interests, tourism officials, and planners.
Members volunteer their time. Their first task is to submit an application to the
Exchange. Once selected, they must define and implement the case studies. After the
visiting team leaves, the local organizers identify recommendations or ideas that are of
the most interest and should be implemented.
Project Description
With the assistance of the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay and the Countryside
Institute, an Exchange team traveled to Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Questions
to the team focused on land use and resource protection. The team from France, Wales
and the United States delved into the issues through meetings, site visits, and
conversations. Throughout these meetings, the organizers emphasized several
recurring issues:
Water resources;
Farmland protection;
Transportation;
Sustainable economic growth;
Local government roles; and
Quality of life.
The visiting specialists looked at those issues and presented preliminary observations
and recommendations at a public meeting. The team observed a number of strengths
within the community - the pleasant countryside, fertile agricultural areas, an active
economy, sufficient water resources, a strong sense of place within the community, a
strategic geographic location, and recreational space.
However, two factors are allowing unmanaged growth in the county. First, the county
is not viewing growth management as a regional issue. It needs to be addressed as a
joint effort by the county, the townships, and the boroughs. Second, land use plans,
capitol improvement programs, resource inventories, monitoring programs, and other
growth management and resource protection programs are insufficiently developed to
match current and projected growth. The municipalities were urged to act soon to change
the situation.
Land Stewardship • 141
-------
Benefits/Results
The Cumberland County Conservation and Open Space Task Force that resulted from
the Exchange adopted the recommendations of the Exchange as part of its own
recommendation to the County Planning Commissioners. The Commissioners
expressed a commitment to hiring additional staff to implement the recommended
planning components (i.e. preserving open space, agricultural zoning, and water
resources protection).The Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs has
committed its interest in assisting Cumberland County to complete a natural resources
inventory, one of the recommendations identified as a priority. The county has
committed additional resources to planning through an increase in funding to the
Tri-County's Planning Commission. As a result, two to three new planners and a CIS
system will be provided. A member of the Local Organizing Committee, the Chesapeake
Bay Foundation, conducted a field trip for county and municipal officials to discuss
farmland preservation, visioning and Chesapeake Bay ecology.
Costs/Funding Source
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program, and other
agencies and organizations, has provided funding for the Exchange program.
Contact
Jan Jarrett
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
214 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717)234-5550
142 • Making the Connection
-------
Cypress Park Nature and Exercise
Trail
Pocomoke City, Maryland
Background
The Pocomoke River Swamp is an important feature of the Chesapeake Bay watershed,
known for its variety of plant and animal species. Several years ago Pocomoke City
purchased seventy eight acres of cypress forest and wetlands adjacent to the Pocomoke
River. All of the acreage was located within the city's corporate limits and close to the
downtown business district and park. The site was acquired with the intent of preserving
a unique cypress swamp. Subsequent site visits by environmentalists and naturalists
confirmed that a wide and unique variety of plant and animal species was present on
the site. The city was advised that no better environmental teaching tool could be found
anywhere in the region because the species present on the site were representative of
both northern and southern climactic zones. The city initiated plans for an educational
nature trail project, but economic belt tightening prompted by the last recession required
the project to be eliminated from the budget. A Pocomoke City family physician, Dr.
Ritchie Shoemaker, was not deterred by a lack of funding.
Project Description
In 1993, the city, in cooperation with volunteers from the "Pocomoke River Alliance"
(PRA) under Dr. Shoemaker's leadership, built a handicapped accessible nature trail
through the 78 acre tract. The trail features 1,000 feet of floating boardwalk, 9 exercise
stations and a 67 foot long pedestrian bridge. The trail begins in Cypress Park, linking
700 feet of cypress wetland by boardwalk, and winds its way on higher ground pathways
which circle Stevenson's Pond (a popular fishing spot). The trail crosses the bridge
(flown in and dropped by an Army Reserve Chinook helicopter from Fort Meade), leads
to a fishing pier, and culminates at Winter Quarters Boat Ramp. An optional trail loops
back along a forest canal to the Pocomoke River. With information plaques, exercise
stations, and areas for quiet observation, the Trail achieves its main functions of
education, exercise and relaxation. Guard rails and modern construction provide safety
for children and the physically disadvantaged.
In 1994, the PRA built a demonstration wetland garden, began a botanical trail in
Cypress Park, and completed a two mile cross country course. The town received a
$15,000 project open space grant to help build a combined 250 feet fishing pier and
canoe launching ramp. This unit also connects the two completed halves of the new
nature and exercise trail.
Benefits/Results
The primary goal of this project was to create environmental awareness for both visitors
and residents alike. Both the product and the innovative fund-raising efforts have served
to accomplish this objective. The exercise stations and trail itself provide recreational
benefits to its users.
Currently, the city and the Pocomoke River Alliance are seeking funding assistance to
construct a multi-purpose building that will provide a center for the trail complex and a
base for educational program modules that will be developed to present the features of
Land Stewardship • 143
-------
this unique environment and its contributions to the qualities of the Chesapeake Bay
watershed.
Cost/Funding Source
The trail was constructed on city land using private funds and volunteers. It was funded
from donations in excess of $60,000 raised under the leadership of Dr. Shoemaker.
Successful fund-raising items included two varieties of T-shirts. One features the title
"The Pocomoke is a Bloomin River" and identifies/illustrates a number of native plant
species. Additionally, a supporter could pay for a "foot of the boardwalk" with his name
on it.
The project was assisted by staff and a grant from EPA's Wetlands Protection Office
and a team of students from the Student Conservation Assistance Program.
Contact
Mayor Curt Lippoldt
City Hall, P.O. Box 29
Pocomoke City, MD 21851
(410)957-1333
or
Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker
Vice-President
Pocomoke River Alliance
P.O. Box 21
Pocomoke City, MD 21851
144 • Making the Connection
-------
Eastern Shore of Virginia Case Study
The Chesapeake Bay Countryside Stewardship Exchange
Background
The Chesapeake Bay Countryside Stewardship Exchange is a project that provides an
opportunity for individuals who want to change aspects of their community to define
issues of concern and to find ways to implement solutions to those issues. An
international team of experienced professionals immerse themselves in a community
for a week and provide an objective view of the community and the issues with which it
deals. Team members are experienced professionals who bring a fresh perspective to
the community. The mix of professional and national backgrounds stimulates creative
problem solving and facilitates the development of innovative ideas.
The team visit is just one phase of the process, however. At the heart of the Exchange
is the local organizing committee within each community. Committees are formed
involving local elected officials, county and municipal administrators, civic interest
groups, real estate interests, farmers, business interests, tourism officials, and planners.
Members volunteer their time. Their first task is to submit an application to the
Exchange. Once selected, they must define and implement the case studies. After the
visiting team leaves, the local organizers identify recommendations or ideas that are of
the most interest and should be implemented.
Project Description
A1994 case study focused on the Eastern Shore of Virginia. The local organizers sought
a strategy for defining a comprehensive vision for the Shore. The organizers identified
several key issues to address as part of that vision: sustainable economic development,
surface and groundwater protection, protection of historical and natural assets, the
declining seafood industry, and wastewater treatment.
The team participated in an intensive round of meetings, tours, lectures, and informal
opportunities to discuss the Eastern Shore, its opportunities, and its problems. The team
also facilitated a preliminary visioning session with 80 residents at the beginning of the
case study week. The residents developed a blue print for a vision, or preferred future,
that emphasizes improved employment opportunities and income while retaining the
quiet rural character of the countryside. The members of the Exchange team were
impressed by the opportunities as well as the challenges faced by the Eastern Shore of
Virginia. The team met many talented citizens with pride in their community who were
not content to merely react to developments and changing circumstances.
The Team identified five priorities with the greatest potential benefit for the Eastern
Shore:
• development of an Eastern Shore Water Management Strategy;
• development of a comprehensive Route 13 plan;
• development of an Eastern Shore Economic Development Strategy and Plan;
• development of an Eastern Shore Tourism Development Strategy and Plan;
and
• effective cooperation between the counties and towns of the Eastern Shore.
Land Stewardship • 145
-------
Benefits/Remits
Once the Exchange team completes its visit, it is the responsibility of the Local
Organizing Committee (LOG) to implement strategies for the community. The Eastern
Shore LOG has been actively pursuing funding for various projects that utilize the
recommendations of the Exchange.
The LOG has received a grant for $10,000 from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) for a "sustainable development business center" demonstration project.
The purpose of this demonstration project is to develop a process and method for the
prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution related to the development of
new small and medium-size businesses.
EPA has also completed an assessment of public and private assistance available for
groundwater protection and management.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation will determine what technical assistance will
be needed for the historic preservation area.
An architectural charette conducted by University of Virginia architecture students to
identify alternatives to constructing a new courthouse on Route 13 was a success. It
was decided that the courthouse will stay in Accomac with the possibility of being built
in vacant buildings. This was a positive result step for environmental protection, as well
as community and cultural heritage.
Costs/Funding Source
The Countryside Institute acts as the leading source of funding for the Exchange
program, with assistance from regional offices depending on the areas being examined.
Contact
Jim McGowan
Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission
P.O. Box 417
Accomac, VA 23301
(804) 824-6224
146 • Making the Connection
-------
Gwynns Falls Trail
Baltimore, Maryland
Background
"This is truly an exciting project for Baltimore and is another step incur efforts to revitalize
neighborhoods on all levels," said Mayor Kurt Schmoke at a recent Trail Master Plan
ceremony. He went on to say, "The Gwynns Falls Trail will provide new recreational
opportunities, improve the quality of life and allow Baltimoreans to experience the natural
environment in our own backyards." The trail is designed to give access and to promote
the natural beauty of Baltimore's new and old neighborhoods.
Project Description
The 14 mile trail is a cooperative project of the Mayor and City Council of the City of
Baltimore, the Trust for Public Lands, the Parks and People Foundation and the State
of Maryland. The trail will connect neighborhoods with each other and suburban areas
with urban areas. The design team explored a variety of issues relating to trail
development including trail alignment, neighborhood access points, water quality and
trash control, public safety and security, bridge design, incorporating community
gardens, and ideas for programming such as a science/social studies curriculum for
students from adjacent schools. The design team met with more than 40 community
organizations, public agencies and institutions to collaborate on the trail's development.
Benefits/Results
The design, partnership building, and fundraising activities associated with the 14 mile
trail are marks of success. However, there have been several activities beside the
design of the park and the community meetings that are considered significant. In the
spring of 1995, the Parks & People Foundation together with Maryland Save Our
Streams and 25 community residents conducted a stream survey of the Gwynns Falls.
The purpose of the Stream Survey was to expose residents to the area, help to identify
pollution sources and locate potential access points to the trail. The trail project
coordinator, Ellen Y. Smith, will soon begin the implementation of a neighborhood
stewardship program that will focus on volunteer activities and community participation
in park improvements. The trail is expected to be completed in three phases over the
next three years.
Costs/Funding Source
Over $1.3 million in funding the Phase I was received from the U.S. Department of
Transportation under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA).
Other construction funding was received from the City General Funds and private
funding sources. Funding for Phase II and III is still needed. The entire project will cost
an estimated $7.481 million.
Contact
The Trust for Public Land
The Mill Centre
3000 Chestnut Avenue, Suite 205
Baltimore, MD 21211
(410)243-4723
Land Stewardship • 147
-------
James River Task Force
Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico Counties and the City of
Richmond, Virginia
Background
The James River Task Force was created by the members of the Boards of Supervisors
in Chesterfield and Hanover Counties, and the Richmond City Council at their 1993
Regional Summit by formal resolution. Henrico County, while not a participant at the
first Summit Meeting, has since supported the resolution and assigned a member of the
Board of Supervisors to the Task Force. The resolution binds the localities to work
together to, "insure the best quality development, maximum utilization of resources, and
protection of the environment" along reaches of the James River in and near the
Richmond Metropolitan Area.
Chesterfield County, with approximately 30 miles of riverfront on the James, sharing
common borders with Henrico across the river and Richmond to the north, was
designated lead agency for the Task Force.
Project Description
The primary objectives of the Task Force are to:
• Preserve the major scenic and historic resources of the James River for the
entire Richmond Metropolitan area;
• Communicate plans developed by each affected locality to ensure the best
quality development, maximum utilization of resources, and protection of the
environment;
• Help to guide future development along the James River to ensure the lasting
quality of the River; and
• Cultivate the James River as a "Highway of History" tourist attraction that will
further the historic character of the region and further the City of Richmond's
riverwalk development plans.
The Task Force consists of a Regional Commission (which includes the four voting
members of the elected County Boards and City Council and an Honorary Chairman),
a Steering Committee, and local committees in each jurisdiction. The Steering
Committee is composed of the Honorary Chairman, two representatives from each
participating locality, and other representatives who have interests in the goals of the
Task Force. Emphasis in the membership of the Steering Committee is on having
representation from all stakeholders with an interest in the orderly growth, development,
and use of the James River.
The Task Force's efforts to date have focused on sponsorship of river based activities
to focus attention to the river, to educate the public in the availability of resources, and
to actively seek public support in the care and control of development and the ecology
of the river. Activities have included:
• Citie of Henricus Publick Day at the Dutch Gap park;
• James River Parade of Lights (decorated boat parade);
• Heritage Tourism Week Historic Hike at Henricus; and
• 130th Historical Re-enactment of digging of Dutch Gap Canal.
148 • Making the Connection
-------
• Sponsorship of week-long visit of the Nina, a replica of the Columbus sailing
vessel, which was docked in Richmond.
Benefits/Results
The Task Force serves as an effective forum to bring together a wide variety of interest
groups who share interests in the health and welfare of the James River. Members have
met with officials from Hopewell, Prince George's County, Colonial Heights and
Petersburg, telling them of plans for the James River, and planting the seed for a similar
cooperative effort with them for the Appomattox River.
Costs/Funding Source
Organizational costs are supported by funding from participating jurisdictions and fund-
raising activities. Chesterfield County has promised $50,000 to support a Riverfront
Study for the county if the local Chesterfield County Committee can raise matching funds
from major industries in the county.
Contact
Pauline A. Mitchell, Coordinator
Office of Special Projects
Chesterfield County, VA
P.O. Box 92
Chesterfield, VA 23832
(804) 768-7252
Land Stewardship • 149
-------
Jenkins Creek Environmental
Research Center
Crisfield, Maryland
Background
Jenkins Creek Environmental Research Center is a private, non-profit organization
dedicated to increasing public awareness of environmental issues. The seven member
board of directors consists of local businessmen and educators. The Center
successfully petitioned for grants and loans to purchase the 300 acre salt marsh in
Crisfield to be used as an environmental education and research facility for students of
all levels.
Project Description
The goal of the project is to preserve the area in its current state and make an effort to
restore some of the wildlife habitat that has been lost. As the project progresses, the
area will be made available to students and teachers for study and research and to the
general public for environmental awareness programs.
The Chesapeake Bay Trust has provided a Challenge Grant to be matched with local
money that will provide the necessary funds to begin work on the planned boardwalk,
observation platforms, and temporary office facilities. Additional grants are being written
to purchase more land, to build a permanent facility, a boat facility, a crab shanty, and
to purchase an existing structure at Jenkins Creek.
Benefits/Results
The first section of the boardwalk was installed in September 1995. The curriculum is
currently being developed for a program, "Salt Marsh - Nursery for the Bay".
Costs/Funding Source
The Center purchased the land with a revolving loan fund offered by the Maryland
Environmental Trust, a loan from a local businessman, and a grant from the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The U.S. EPA
Chesapeake Bay Program Office provided technical assistance for the toxics issue and
in fund-raising. The Chesapeake Bay Trust's Challenge grant was worth $15,000.
Contact
Michael Apperti, Operations Director
Jenkins Creek Environmental Research Center
Box 27
Crisfield, MD 21817
(410)968-2788
150 • Making the Connection
-------
Lackawanna River Corridor
Association
Lackawanna Valley, Pennsylvania
Background
The Lackawanna Valley watershed is comprised of a number of ecologically unique
resources, cultural heritage areas and a history entrenched in the nation's electric
revolution of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The relationship between the natural
systems and the region's industries has done more to characterize the Lackawanna
Valley than anything else. The interrelated complex industries of the region, including
coal mining, transportation, textile, iron/steel and diverse manufacturing, were the
staples of the early economy. These industries did much to support a strong community;
however, their effects on the region's natural system is evident in the degradation of the
watershed. The poor water quality can be attributed to years of coal mining and other
heavy industry that has lead to the leaching of old, abandoned mines which add a
disproportionate amount of acid into the water systems. This is called acid mine
drainage and, along with combined sewer overflows and urban stormwater flow
problems, has lead to the need for improvements in the Lackawanna Valley watershed.
Project Description
These water quality problems, as well as larger socio-economic and community
recreational concerns, are being addressed in a project called the Lackawanna Valley
River Basin Initiative, a partnership action lead by the Lackawanna River Corridor
Association (LRCA). The projects goals include: improving water quality by addressing
the acid mine drainage, combined sewer overflows and urban stormwater flow problems;
developing a river recreational trail from 40 miles of old abandoned rail line to restore
public ownership, improve public access and public safety and improve community
aesthetics; providing public education that focuses on the environment and the values
of the local resources; and establishing a land trust called the Lackawanna Valley
Conservancy to protect pristine natural systems in the region.
Benefits/Results
The LRCA has several successes to date and a number of future benchmarks that are
envisioned. The primary success of the project has been its ability to build partnerships
that leverage resources and expertise. In this way, the project has been able to focus
on a number of cross cutting issues. The project has initiated a citizen monitoring
program, which has been collecting significant water quality data for five years. This
data is being analyzed and trends determined so a comprehensive waterquality strategy
can soon be developed. Public involvement has been a key to the success of the project.
In addition to the citizen monitoring program, a watch dog group has been reporting
sewer overflows to the sewer authorities to ensure proper measures are taken to reduce
the effects of overflows on the river's resources. The project is also working with
community and neighborhood groups to secure a 40 mile recreational river trail.
Future benchmarks include a feasibility study and an implementation strategy that
makes specific recommendations to counter the acid mine drainage issue. Efforts past
and present will ensure that the Lackawanna Valley River Basin Initiative continues to
protect and restore the natural resources of the region, improve the local economy, and
Land Stewardship • 151
-------
build public access and participation. The Lackawanna Valley River Basin Initiative is
truly a model of land stewardship in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Costs/Funding Source
The federal, state, local and non-profit partnership comprised of the U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Park Service, Federal
Highway Administration, Lackawanna County, Heritage Authority, National Institute of
Environmental Renewal, Scranton Area Foundation and private memberships have all
contributed to the progress of the Lackawanna Valley project.
There are a number of publications that can assist communities in better understanding
the Lackawanna Valley effort including a three volume report by the U.S Army Corp of
Engineers on the River Trail, a Citizen Master Plan, and a summary entitled Lackawanna
River Guide available through the Association.
Contact
Bernie McGurl
Lackawanna River Corridor Association
P.O. Box 368
Scranton, PA 18501
(717)347-6311
152 • Making the Connection
-------
Lower Eastern Shore Heritage Plan
Princess Anne, Maryland
Background
Worcester and Somerset Counties are part of a region in the southeast corner of
Maryland known as the Lower Eastern Shore, adjacent to Delaware on the north and
Virginia on the south. Somerset County borders the Chesapeake Bay and Worcester
County lies along the Atlantic Ocean. The Pocomoke River and Sound originates in
Delaware, flows through Maryland and empties into the Chesapeake Bay.
Project Description
The residents of Worcester and Somerset Counties committed to improve the local
economy through well-planned conservation and the promotion of natural, historic and
cultural resources. Economic development through tourism was selected as a means
to preserve and enhance the Pocomoke River, one of the region's most valuable
resources. The concept generated strong interest in the public and private sectors that
has since grown into a regional partnership. A first workshop in June 1990 attracted
over 90 people, including local government officials, landowners, sportsmen, business
representatives, and recreational users. Subsequently, meetings have been held
among representatives of many public and private sector interests, leading to the
formation of the Lower Eastern Shore Heritage Committee.
Initial activities of the Committee focused on "heritage tourism" — tourism based on the
ecology and culture of different places. The Committee works for broad and continuous
community involvement based on environmental, cultural, and historical awareness in
the region.
The purpose of the planning effort by the Lower Eastern Shore Heritage Committee is
to enrich the quality of life in the region through coordination of activities among Lower
Eastern Shore citizens, organizations, and governments that 1) conserve the cultural
heritage, living resources, and natural features of the area; 2) promote an understanding
of the region's natural, cultural, and recreational attributes through a variety of passive
and active educational opportunities; and 3) enhance the economic development of the
area through community-based activities.
Benefits/Results
Since the fall of 1991, the Lower Eastern Shores Heritage Committee has been providing
"heritage tourism and conservation" services to the communities of the area. With over
100 participants, many actively serving on subcommittees dealing with education,
marketing, and consensus building, the committee has completed a variety of specific
actions. Three major workshops and follow-up activities have resulted in:
• Establishment of the Pocomoke River Alliance, a private, non-profit citizens
organization pursuing the conservation and revitalization of the Pocomoke
River and Sound;
• Funding of a newsletter, construction of a Pocomoke Nature and Exercise
Trail, and publication of a new Beach-to-Bay Indian Trail brochure;
• Assistance to Crisfield with the development and implementation of a
short-term heritage conservation plan; and
Land Stewardship • 153
-------
• Participation in the Maryland Division of Historical and Cultural Programs'
documentation of the culture of Smith Island and an effort to develop a
heritage center.
Costs/Funding Source
The project was initiated with in-kind services from local operators and a grant from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Wetland Office. The Committee has recently
received funding to carry out the plan from the Maryland Historic Preservation Office
and the National Park Service.
Contact
Lower Eastern Shore Heritage Committee
c/o The Rural Development Center, UMES
Bird Hall, Room 3102
Princess Anne, MD 21853
(410)651-6183
154 • Making the Connection
-------
Marshyhope Creek Greenway
Federalsburg, Maryland
Background
The town of Federalsburg along with the Central Federalsburg Development
Corporation completed a plan for a hike and bike trail along the Marshyhope Creek
beginning at the Federalsburg Marina and traveling north approximately 3,000 feet. The
plan is in the implementation stage with final completion due in 1996.
Project Description
The Marshyhope Creek Greenway is a multi-phase project designed to accomplish
several goals simultaneously:
• to integrate pedestrian, biking and boating activities through the town of
Federalsburg;
• to develop a trail system designed to enhance and to encourage more
recreational activities around Federalsburg;
• to promote downtown revitalization by taking advantage of an underutilized
tributary system to encourage multi-use recreational activities;
• to incorporate a non-structural erosion control system for preventing further
shoreline erosion into the trail system; and
• to incorporate the rehabilitation of a major storm stream system in the town
into the trail system for reducing storm stream sediment being discharged into
the Marshyhope Creek.
Benefits/Results
As of July 1, 1995, approximately 67 percent of the project was complete. Significant
results are the planting of 122 trees along the proposed trail system; the completion of
2,000 feet of the the trail system; the construction of two open air pavilions and a gazebo;
and the completion of the rehabilitation of the storm stream.
By December 1996, construction of the bridge over the creek will be completed. In
addition, the trail system inside the marina and the shoreline erosion control project will
be in effect.
Costs/Funding Source
Funds came from various sources including the U.S. Department of Transportation
under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), the Department of
Natural Resources, the Chesapeake Bay Trust, Program Open Space, the Maryland
Department of Environment, and town funds.
Contact
Dr. Conway Gregory
Grants Administrator
Town of Federalsburg
118 North Main Street
P.O. Box 471
Federalsburg, MD 21632
(410)754-8173
Land Stewardship • 155
-------
Monkey Bottom Wetland Walkway
Norfolk, Virginia
Background
Monkey Bottom is one of the largest man-made wetlands in Virginia. It was built in
1984-85 after the U.S. Navy dumped dredged material into the Willoughby Disposal
Area, displacing seven acres of tidal wetlands. The U.S Army Corps of Engineers and
the Norfolk Wetlands Board required the Navy to build another wetland to compensate
for the loss.
The City of Norfolk received a $20,000 Virginia Coastal Resources Management
Program (VCRMP) grant in 1988 to conduct a comparison study of the value of the
created Monkey Bottom wetland to a natural marsh located on the Lafayette River. The
study was undertaken by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science and Old Dominion
University. The final reports confirmed that the man-made wetland was functioning very
similarly to the comparative natural wetland.
In 1992, the City of Norfolk broke ground on an elevated wetland walkway and
observation platform which was dedicated in May 1994.
Project Description
The walkway extends approximately 100 feet into the wetland. Interpretative displays
detail the wetland flora and fauna, as well as providing information on the unique history
of the wetland. Signage and informational materials at the adjacent Information Center
identify the walkway for local citizens and visitors of Norfolk.
Benefits/Results
The walkway has resulted in greater public access to a unique wetland environment.
Over 13 million motorists passed by the wetland site last year. The interpretive materials
serve to educate the public on the science of wetlands creation. The current federal
issue of "no net loss" of wetlands will create pressure to compensate for unavoidable
wetland losses by creation of similar systems to the Monkey Bottom marsh. Though not
a panacea for continued development of natural wetlands, it is nevertheless important
that the public has an opportunity to view and evaluate representative
mitigation/compensation areas, such as the Monkey Bottom Wetland Walkway.
Costs/Funding Source
The project was funded by a $30,000 grant from the VCRMP under the Coastal Zone
Management Act, match funding and in-kind services from the City of Norfolk, and a
local donation from the Willoughby Civic League.
Contact
Edwin L. Rosenberg, Manager
Environmental Services Bureau, Room 403
City Hall Building
Norfolk, VA 23501
(804) 664-4373
156 • Making the Connection
-------
Revolving Loan Fund for
Acquisition of Open Space
Calvert County, Maryland
Background
In 1993, the Maryland General Assembly approved legislation giving Calvert County
Commissioners authority to set up a special fund to preserve open space. The purpose
of the bill is to:
establish a Revolving Loan Fund for non-profit land trusts;
authorize the County Commissioners to accept contributions for the Fund;
provide that money in the fund may be invested as other county revenues;
authorize the County Commissioners to adopt certain regulations;
amend a certain title and subtitle designation; and
assist land trusts to preserve open space in Calvert County.
Project Description
The Revolving Loan Fund is designed to provide funds to non-profit organizations
wishing to preserve open space within Calvert County. The goal is to assist these
organizations in meeting their objectives, while furthering the county's goals for open
space preservation and public access without the additional burden of operating and
maintaining the land.
The Revolving Loan Fund provides financial assistance for the following efforts:
• acquisition of land for active and passive recreation for the general public;
• preservation of natural areas where limited public access is allowed;
• acquisition of land which "buffers" existing county parks and natural areas; and
• preservation of historically significant land or structures where controlled public
access would be allowed.
Benefits/Results
The purchase of open space by non-profits will ensure the protection of valuable habitat,
productive and vital riparian buffer areas, and create public access areas for recreation
activities. Revolving Loan Fund acquisitions in Calvert County will support the
restoration and preservation of the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Costs/Funding Source
Funding for the initial loan was made by Calvert County. Those borrowers who can
demonstrate that leveraging funds of other private or public funds will occur will be given
priority.
Contact
Greg Bowen
Calvert County Planning and Zoning Department
Prince Frederick, MD 20678
(410)535-2348
Land Stewardship • 157
-------
Stoney Run Park
Baltimore, Maryland
Background
The Stoney Run Park Committee, part of the Evergreen Community Association, strives
to restore native woodland in Stoney Run Park. The park is a long, narrow, twelve acre
park on both sides of a stream in Baltimore city. It stretches from Cold Spring Lane to
Wyndhurst Avenue.
Project Description
The aim is to establish a woodland comprising of a wide variety of native trees, shrubs,
and wildflowers. In addition, the Committee attempts to enhance the community's
awareness of environmental issues through lectures, discussions and communications
on a bulletin board.
What was once a mowed park with some trees has been converted to a woodland with
200 species of native trees and shrubs, in addition to those that already grew there. The
work was done entirely by volunteers from the community. Five area schools have
begun joint projects along the stream combining environmental education with local
action.
Benefits/Results
In 1993, native plants from a woodland about to be bulldozed for a development project
were moved to Stoney Run Park. In the state of Maryland, there are approximately 400
species of native trees and shrubs which the Committee eventually hopes to represent
in Stoney Run (except for those not able to grow outside their natural range).
Costs/Funding Source
Funds were donated by residents, community associations and from solicitations in
newsletters. The Chesapeake Bay Trust awarded two grants.
Contact
Michael Beer, Chairman
Stoney Run Park Committee
4623 Wilmslow Road
Baltimore, MD 21210
(410)467-8983
158 • Making the Connection
-------
Trails and Greenways Master Plan
Prince William County, Virginia
Background
Prince William County is a rapidly urbanizing jurisdiction located less than 30 miles from
Washington, D.C. The county's land area is 347 square miles with topography ranging
from coastal plain at the Potomac River to 1,311 feet above sea level at Bull Run
Mountain. The diversity of land uses, population and topography provides an opportunity
for a comprehensive system of trails to be developed that can serve many different
functions including providing transportation and recreation opportunities to county
residents and visitors.
The goal of the project is to establish a system of trails and greenways that link the
county's natural, cultural, historic and recreational resources with residential,
commercial and community facilities for the benefit of the citizens of the county.
Project Description
In early 1992, the Planning/Engineering Division of the Prince William County Park
Authority convened a Trails Committee made up of representatives from local, state and
federal agencies and private citizens. The Committee was responsible for reviewing a
draft trails map and for developing goals and strategies. The result was a
comprehensive trails and greenways plan identifying ten possible sites for greenways
trails.
This greenways and trails system is very complex as it traverses both private and publicly
held lands through a variety of terrains. Therefore, it is expected that implementation of
the system will happen slowly and will require the cooperation of the Park Authority,
Prince William County, surrounding jurisdictions, the Virginia Department of
Transportation, local clubs, and private citizens.
The first step in implementing the plan is acquiring the land or easement. Acquisition
can occur through a variety of mechanisms including fee simple purchase, regulatory
mechanisms, and dedication mechanisms. Regulatory mechanisms include federal,
state and local laws that require open space, parkland or recreation facilities from private
developers, as well as regulations that protect natural resources and endangered
species. Dedication mechanisms include voluntary gifts of land or easements for tax
purposes.
Benefits/Results
Developers have begun to set aside stream valley land through the Virginia proffer
system. The plan concentrates open space land acquisition in the major watershed
leading to the Potomac where the Park Authority is preparing to implement the first
greenway. This trail will include open space protection, riparian restoration and public
access.
Land Stewardship • 159
-------
Costs/Funding Source
The plan was completed by in-house planning and design staff. There are several
sources of funds for the design and construction of trail facilities: Six-year Road Plan of
the Virginia Department of Transportation; Bond Referendum; Proffers; State Grant
Funds; Capital Improvement Program; and private donations.
Contact
Elizabeth Welter, AICP
Prince William County Park Authority
14420 BristowRoad
Manassas, VA 22111-3932
(703) 792-7060
(703) 791-2559 (fax)
160 • Making the Connection
-------
The Chesapeake Bay Issue
Citizens across the watershed care about the Bay, its rivers and its tributaries. In fact,
according to a recent survey of the people living throughout the watershed, nearly 90
percent of those contacted support the restoration and believe it is among the most
important public and private sector priorities — and support does not vary with distance
from the Bay. People living within 50 miles of the Bay, between 50 and 100 miles of the
Bay, and over 100 miles from the Bay, all shared a strong belief in the importance of the
Bay clean-up, Tita Chesapeake Bay Program provides:a continuous flow of resources
for people who want to. learn more about the Bay and the issues which impact its
restoration. ;
An informed and caring public is essential to a sustained Bay restoration and
preservation effort. The Chesapeake Bay Program uses a variety of toolsito help citizens
play their part In cleaning up the Bay, Educatforiai materials, community outreach, and
media relations are integrated to besUnformthf public. The Chesapeake Bay Attitudes
Survey found that, although there is high concern about pollution in the Bay, the public
perception of the Bay's proems differs from the realities. For example, the majority of
people named chemicals fr^m business and industry as the primary cause of pollution
in the Bay. Only 25 percent correctly identified nutrientpolluikmas causing the greatest
harm to the Bay and its living creatures. Only 7 percent felt that individual actions play
a major role in Bay pollution.
The Chesapeake Bay Program's Communications Subcommittee helps provide public
information and encourages involvement in the Bay restoration. The Bay Program offers
a range of educational materials, including the popular primer, Chesapeake Bay:
Introduction to art Ecosystem, and Touch the Bay, an interactive computer program. The
Bay Program also works irt: partnership wlfii tie Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay to
sponsor a variety of outreach projectsJ^cludinirvViatershed Watch, a program to help
individuals and community organizations initiate; their own projects to help local streams
and rivers; the Chesapeake Regional Information ServiceT or "CRIS." Thousands of
citizens, students, and teachers have used fine £RI$ Hotline to find a wealth of
publications, fact sheets,technical reports, referrals, and personal assistance in learning
about the Bay,::You can.repack the CRIS Hotline at 1-800-662-CRIS. Other Alliance
projects are tne Citizen Ivfonitorino; Program, which directly involves hundreds of
volunteers from local communities across the watershed in caring for their streams and
rivers; BayScapes, a program promoting landscapes and gardens that work with Mothe r
Nature, ratherthan against her. BayScaping saves time, energy, and money by requiring
less mowing, fertilizer, and pesticides — and prevents pollution that would otherwise
reach the Bay.
The Local Challenge
Local communities are utilizing information from the Bay Program to implement their own
restoration projects. The following section catalogs activities being initiated at the local
level that promote Chesapeake Bay education and public awareness.
Public
Information
and
Education
An Introduction
Public Information and Education • 161
-------
Environmental Indicators of Public Information and Education
Bay Attitudes Survey Results
Support for the Clean-Up
• 88% believe that the Bay restoration is important or one of the most important
problems government must resolve.
Support for the Living Resources and a Healthy Ecosystem
• 67% believe that the highest water quality safety priority of the restoration
should be to make the Bay safe for fish and aquatic life.
Support for Greater Effort
• 49% want more done to help restore the Bay.
Bernie Fowler's Sneaker Index
GOAL: Restore Bernie's sneaker visibility to
chest depth (57 to 63 inches).
STATUS: Nutrient-caused plankton
blooms, urban and rural sediment
runoff block sunlight bay grasses need.
White sneakers have similar visibilty to the
Secchi disk scientists use to measure
water clarity.
162 • Making the Connection
-------
Agriculture Stewardship Education
Project
Easton, Maryland
Background
The Agriculture Stewardship Education Project is administered through Pickering Creek
Environmental Center (PCEC), a conservation learning center of the Chesapeake
Audubon Society. Agricultural subjects have been identified as an important focus for
science and math curricula by the American Association for the Advancement of
Science. Research suggests that hands-on activities result in higher rates of learning
and more success in the classroom. Elements of this project will be piloted on the Eastern
Shore and eventually made available to teachers and agriculture educators throughout
the Chesapeake Bay region.
Project Description
The Agriculture Stewardship Education Project was developed by PCEC to address the
need for a comprehensive approach to educating youth through the theme of agriculture.
Pickering Creek has entered in partnership with a number of agriculture-related
organizations to facilitate this effort, including the Maryland Education Center for
Agriculture Science and Technology, Chesapeake Audubon Society, Maryland
Agricultural Education Foundation, Maryland Farm Bureau, and Regional Cooperative
Agriculture Educators' Consortium. These groups have been working together to
support three major activities:
Curriculum Development
Teacher Workshops
Pickering Creek and the Audubon Society have
been developing sustainable agriculture curricula for
elementary and secondary schools in a collaborative
effort with the Sustainable Agriculture Educators'
Consortium. The group is currently revising the
existing curricula and is beginning to develop
curricula for upper level students which deals
specifically with concepts and practices of
sustainable agriculture. Students will learn about
the balance of ecosystems in the Chesapeake Bay
region and how farming practices, among other
factors, can contribute either to the health or decline
of these ecosystems.
Pickering Creek is also working with the Maryland
Education Center for Agriculture, Science and
Technology (MECAST) to incorporate hands-on field
activities related to environmental stewardship and
resource conservation into the Center's "Ag in the
Classroom" program — a hands-on activities-based
curriculum that integrates agricultural curricula into
mathematics, science and language arts.
MECAST currently hosts summer inservice
workshops for Maryland teachers to promote "Ag in the
Classroom" curricula in public and private schools.
Public Information and Education • 163
-------
Four topic-specific regional workshops will be piloted
at PCEC with the intent to fine-tune these for
implementation at other sites. PCEC is also providing
training opportunities for other players in the field of
sustainable agriculture education. Participants in
these workshops include educators from
environmental education centers.
Field Sites The success of any broad-scale agricultural education
program may be enhanced by a diversity of field
activities and outdoor learning opportunities. Through
collaborative programs with Farm Bureau chapters
and the Sustainable Agriculture Educators'
Consortium, Pickering Creek is providing educators
who attend the "Ag in the Classroom" regional
workshops with lists of available resources to
complement their classroom activities. These include
both farms and outdoor/environmental education
centers with available facilities and/or curriculum in
sustainable agriculture. Field trips provide students
and teachers with a broad overview of a diversity of
farming practices and mitigation techniques.
Benefits/Results
PCEC will test the effectiveness of regional workshops, field programs and follow-up
activities on the Eastern Shore. Pickering Creek has signed a Memoranda of
Understanding with several education agencies on the mid-Shore, and annually serves
over 12,000 students from public and private schools. Broad-scale evaluations will be
undertaken through reviews by collaborating organizations, farmers, and regional
experts.
Costs/Funding Source
The Agriculture Stewardship Education Project was made possible through financial
support from the Northeast Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education
Program, the Chesapeake Bay Trust and matching donations from other sources. The
grant was matched with funds obtained from both federal and non-federal sources.
Contact
Pickering Creek Environmental Center
Chesapeake Audubon Society
11450 Audubon Lane
Easton, MD 21601
(410)822-4903
164 • Making the Connection
-------
Community Environmental Action
Plan
Huntingdon, Pennsylvania
Background
The Pennsylvania Bay Education Office recognized a need to create more awareness
and concern about the environment in the Huntingdon area. In the fall of 1994, it
developed a program in cooperation with Huntingdon Middle School officials to expose
all sixth graders to approximately fifty hours of environmental education. The goal of the
program is to provide solid ecological knowledge and encourage involvement in helping
to resolve community problems.
Project Description
While the major emphasis of this project was water quality, sixteen topics were
addressed throughout the school year. The students were presented with local,
meaningful issues, ranging from household pollutants and nutrient enrichment due to
agriculture to acid rain and stormwater runoff which have regional, as well as global,
implications. Much of this program involved hands-on field studies where the students
could see first hand the need for making a difference in their environment.
Benefits/Results
The benefits of this project are far reaching. By educating these students at the sixth
grade level, the belief behind the project is that the students will better examine their
lifestyle choices in relation to watershed and other environmental concerns.
Costs/Funding Source
Funding for the Community Environmental Action Plan was provided by the
Pennsylvania Bay Education Office, Center for Rural Pennsylvania, local businesses,
and private contributors.
Contact
Fredric R. Wilson
Teacher and Project Director
Huntington Area Middle School
2500 Cassady Ave.
Huntingdon, PA 16652
(814)643-2900
(814) 643-6244 (fax)
Public Information and Education • 165
-------
Connection to the Bay
Prince George's County, Maryland
Background
The Prince George's County Chesapeake Bay Education Program focuses on local
resources in the county that are vital to the Chesapeake Bay. The program is designed
to introduce students and teachers to the importance of the Bay and its resources, and
to show how each person's actions can either help protect or destroy these resources.
Prince George's County was the first county within the 64,000 mile Chesapeake Bay
watershed to put together such a specific and comprehensive program to educate its
citizens. The program introduces students to local aquatic systems, stressing the
connection between land use and water quality. Emphasis is given to the importance
of protecting sensitive coastal resources such as buffers, forests, and wetlands.
Project Description
A pilot program was implemented by staff of the Department of Environmental
Resources at Baden Elementary School during the 1991-1992 school year. Students
were given classroom lectures and were taken on field trips which provided them with
hands-on experiences with aquatic resources and ecosystems. They were taken into
a forested buffer and into a tidal and non-tidal wetland, and they collected aquatic life
from the river. A 55-gallon aquarium was set up in the classroom and stocked with the
collected fish. At the end of the program, the students were taken back to the Patuxent
River to plant a forested buffer between an agricultural field and the river. Students
planted over 500 seedlings to create a buffer that covered nearly a one acre strip of land.
Benefits/Results
To measure the effectiveness of the pilot program, identical pre-tests and post-tests
were administered to the students to question their knowledge of the Chesapeake Bay
and local resources. The test results demonstrated the success of the program. The
average score on the pre-test was 44 percent and on the post-test 87 percent. On the
pre-test not one student could name the three rivers in the county, but on the post-test
95 percent correctly identified the rivers.
The program was approved by the Board of Education in 1992 and since that time over
850 copies have been distributed within the county's school system. The program
consists of seven units. Each unit includes a lecture sheet for teachers and a handout(s)
for students. The lecture sheet lists the objective of the unit, concepts that should be
conveyed to the students, the main concept that students should gain from their
introduction to the unit, and suggested evaluation questions for the students.
The program is in its third printing which indicates that it is being well received by both
teachers and students. It is an innovative, cost effective method to provide students
with a baseline understanding of the importance of local natural systems as they relate
to the Bay.
166 • Making the Connection
-------
Costs/Funding Source
The program was developed under a one-time Coastal Zone Management grant of
$5,000 from the State of Maryland through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. The county matched this grant with $5,000 from its general fund and
continues to contribute resources through staff time for teaching and costs associated
with printing the program.
Contact
Sam Wynkoop, Director
Department of Environmental Resources
Prince George's County Government
9400 Peppercorn Place
Largo, MD 20774
(301)883-5810
Public Information and Education • 167
-------
Don't Dump - Storm Drain Stenciling
Fairfax County, Virginia
Background
The Northern Virginia Soil and Water Conservation District's (NVSWCD) Don't Dump
storm drain stenciling project is designed to be an effective, low-cost method of
educating large segments of the population about Chesapeake Bay water quality
problems. The primary objective of the stenciling project is to educate the public about
the dangers of dumping anything into a storm drain. Prior to stenciling, a mandatory
educational component must be completed that can take the form of attending a
homeowner association meeting and presenting a slide show or placing
fliers/brochures/announcements on doors of homes affected by the painting.
Project Description
Storm drains are located throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. When it rains,
the water that runs along the gutters on the street disappears down the storm drains,
but does not go to a waste water treatment plant. Anything that goes into these drains
goes directly into a local stream, which feeds into a river, and eventually empties into
the Chesapeake Bay.
The project aims to discourage the dumping of items such as antifreeze, motor oil, paint,
plastics, and yard waste into the drains. While storm drain stenciling is not necessarily
a new idea, NVSWCD has made its program more effective by including the educational
component. This educational addition to the program takes the stenciling idea one step
further by not only telling people to stop dangerous actions, but also explaining why
those actions are dangerous. People seem more willing to alter behavior when they
understand the consequences of their actions.
Benefits/Results
At the end of the project, there is a permanent, public reminder about the dangers of
dumping anything into a storm drain. This should be an immediate deterrent to throwing
litter, yard debris, pet waste, etc. into a storm drain will have a direct impact on water
quality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
In addition, several thousand people in the neighborhoods where the storm drains are
painted are educated about conservation and preservation of the Chesapeake Bay. This
leads to an increased awareness about non-point source pollution and its effect on the
Chesapeake Bay. Additionally, this could lead to a change in behavior and a
continuation of the education process, in that people may begin to educate their
neighbors and friends about the preservation of the Chesapeake Bay.
Projects may be conducted by school groups, youth groups, and homeowner
associations. The stenciling effort is one component of NVSWCD's Backyard to Bay
program. Backyard to Bay is a non-point source pollution educational effort that is
designed to cover citizens of all ages by combining various educational tools, including
lawn care demonstration projects, workshops for teachers, presentations to
homeowner/civic associations, classroom projects and technical assistance.
168 • Making the Connection
-------
Costs/Funding Source
To date, NVSWCD has received no outside funding for the project. Citizens who wish
to stencil storm drains supply all painting materials and cleaning supplies. The stencils
are loaned free of charge. The Chesapeake Bay Program donated the stencils in
exchange for NVSWCD's promotion of the program in Fairfax County.
A grant is pending from the Department of Conservation and Recreation to conduct five
stenciling projects.
Contact
Paige Alyson Shiller
Public Information and Education Specialist
Northern Virginia Soil and Water Conservation District
12055 Government Center Parkway
Suite 905
Fairfax, VA 22035-5512
(703) 324-1460
(703) 324-1421 (fax)
Public Information and Education • 169
-------
Hard Bargain Farm
Accokeek, Maryland
Background
Hard Bargain Farm is the only curriculum based environmental education center on the
banks of the Potomac River. An award-winning program more than 25 years old, the
farm welcomes thousands of schoolchildren each year.
Project Description
Hard Bargain Farm began its Potomac River Education Program in 1987, offering
classes such as "Rivers in Action" (erosion), "Watershed Walk" (aquatic organisms),
"Corn: Indian Ways to Nowadays" (Potomac cultures and technology). Older students
may use canoes to explore marshes and shallows of Piscataway Creek. A role-playing,
interactive game entitled, "Who Pollutes the Potomac?" has been adapted for use in
Japan and Australia.
Benefits/Results
To reach more Potomac region residents than the present site allows, the foundation
trains teachers and links up with other environmental education programs throughout
the region. The farm itself protects nearly two miles of the Potomac's shoreline in Prince
George's County.
Costs/Funding Source
The Farm is sponsored and operated by the Alice Ferguson Foundation.
Contact
Kay Powell
Alice Ferguson Foundation
2001 Bryan Point Road
Accokeek, MD 20607
(301)292-5665
(301)292-1070 (fax)
170 • Making the Connection
-------
Into the Susquehanna, Into the
Chesapeake
La Plume, Pennsylvania
Background
While many residents of the Susquehanna watershed recognize the need to protect the
Susquehanna River, many do not realize that any material that ends up in the
Susquehanna River finds its way into the Chesapeake Bay. The Northeastern
Pennsylvania Environmental Center recognized that there is a need to educate these
residents of the potentially devastating impacts their pollution may have on the wildlife
of the Bay. The goal of this program is to illustrate to Pennsylvania residents living in
the Susquehanna watershed that much of their pollution ends up in the Susquehanna
River and ultimately in the Chesapeake Bay.
Project Description
The program Into the Susquehanna, Into the Chesapeake which was first carried out in
fall 1994, had three major objectives addressed in the four workshops. The first of these
was to identify for the residents the variety of non-point sources of pollution in their
environment. Next, the program's goal was to expose the pathways pollutants take from
a typical home to the Susquehanna River, and ultimately into the Chesapeake Bay.
Finally, the effects of pollution on the Chesapeake Bay and Susquehanna River were
discussed with special attention being centered upon water quality and the wildlife
inhabitants of the areas. A major activity of the workshops was a hands-on project of
painting the sewers and drains with "Chesapeake Bay Drainage" stencils as a constant
reminder to area residents of the final destination of their pollution.
Benefits/Results
Into the Susquehanna, Into the Chesapeake was one of the first projects of this sort
available to residents in this area. The goal of the program to educate residents was
successful. Many of the smaller towns in the watershed gave permission for the painting
of stormdrains while attempts are still being made at gaining permission from the larger
cities such as Scranton and Wilkes-Barre. Long range goals of continuing education on
the issue are promising.
Costs/Funding Source
The project, which cost just under $500 was funded for by the Pennsylvania Bay
Education Office.
Contact
Alexander Soast
Northeastern Pennsylvania Environmental Center
P.O. Box 171, College Road
La Plume, PA 18440-0171
Public Information and Education • 171
-------
"Landscapes" Public Awareness
Program
Chester County, Pennsylvania
Background
Chester County is located in southeastern Pennsylvania. Approximately 20 percent of
the county falls in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Chester County's Comprehensive Planning program, entitled "Landscapes", represents
a major initiative in the county to establish a new Comprehensive Policy Plan to guide
actions related to management of the county's future growth and development. The
program has been prompted by rapid population growth (100,000 new residents in the
20 year period 1970-1990) and consumption of some 50,000 acres of once open land
for various forms of development during the same period. Though not yet complete, the
plan will be designed to provide a comprehensive review of past and projected land use
patterns to assist local and county leaders in decision-making for the future. Much of
the county's early efforts in the planning process have been committed to both an
extensive public awareness campaign and public opinion survey.
Project Description
This program balances both the needs to enhance public understanding of the range of
issues facing the community regarding growth and development and to elicit community
opinion concerning public expectations and interests regarding alternative county
futures. Substantial time and effort have been devoted to preparation of tools designed
to inform and enhance public understanding of the growth and development issues
facing the county. These include a newspaper insert entitled, "Chester County is
Disappearing — Tough Choices are Needed Now", which illustrates the effects of sprawl
through a series of three maps which reflect land area committed to development in
1950, 1970 and 1990. The insert also offers three map illustrations of alternative future
forms of more concentrated development including: "Local Development Centers",
"Community Service Centers", and "Regional Centers and Corridors" development
scenarios (see illustration). The insert contains a public opinion survey to solicit
respondent views on sprawl, and to identify resident perceptions concerning both the
positive and negative impacts of growth. Local newspapers received and distributed
about 110,000 of the inserts which included the surveys. Additional inserts and surveys
were available at all 17 public libraries in the county and at displays in the Government
Services Center and County Courthouse. Additional tools used to support the county's
public information program include a slide presentation and video used at public
informational meetings designed to stimulate public awareness regarding growth and
development issues facing the county.
Benefits/Results
Responses to the county survey reflect an overwhelming desire to change from the
current land use pattern of sprawling development. In addition to newspaper distribution
of the survey, a separate distribution to municipal officials and members of local Planning
Commissions was made to determine how their responses might compare to responses
from the general public. The response of municipal officials was consistent with that of
the public. With 73 municipalities comprising Chester County, the informational insert
172 • Making the Connection
-------
and survey have provided an opportunity to begin the process of establishing a
framework that could be used as a guide for municipal cooperation and provide a broader
context for local decision-makers to consider.
Costs/Funding Source
The project was funded through the County Planning Commission budget as part of the
"Landscapes" project to update the Comprehensive Plan. Costs for the preparation and
distribution of the newspaper insert and survey components of this project are estimated
to be $10,000 for design and $10,000 for printing and distribution.
Contact
William H. Fulton, AICP
Acting Director
Chester County Planning Commission
Government Services Center, Suite 270
601 Westtown Road
West Chester, PA 19382-4537
(610)344-6285
CHOICES: Three Examples of Concentrated Development
Local Development
Centers
Development directed to local
centers in each municipality.
45,000 additional acres
developed by 2020.
Clustered communities within
an open space network.
Community Service
Centers
Development directed to
community centers in each
school district.
30,000 adrtional acres
developed by 2020.
Concentrated development in
and around existing
development.
Regional Centers
and Corridors
Development directed
toward regional centers and
transportation corridors.
30,000 additional acres
developed by 2020.
Focus is on existing towns.
Public Information and Education • 173
-------
Living Classrooms Foundation
Baltimore, Maryland
Background
Founded in 1985, the Living Classrooms Foundation is a non-profit organization that
offers exciting educational programs on ships and on land out of Baltimore and other
ports in the Chesapeake Bay. Programs emphasize teamwork and leadership
development, elevating self esteem, career development, and fostering multi-cultural
exchange.
Project Description
Students experience living classrooms aboard the 104 foot tallship the Lady Maryland,
the Mildred Belle buy boat, and the skipjack Sigsbee. The programs focus on the
application of science and math skills, ecology, teamwork, and the region's maritime
history and economy.
In 1989, the Foundation built the Maritime Institute. It leads the way in innovative
breakthroughs in education, job-training, and historic preservation. Located on Center
Dock on Baltimore's Inner Harbor, the Institute facility features a shipyard, a boatbuilding
shop, a working marina, and an urban tidal wetland.
The Maritime Institute is committed to providing at-risk youth with the opportunity to
acquire skills and experience in maritime trades. The program utilizes a 1:5 staff to
student ratio and hands-on, experience based educational methods to build individual
student involvement and teamwork.
The Living Classrooms Outreach Program brings a variety of educational programs to
the classroom. A Foundation educator visits a school to take students on an "in class"
sailing trip on the Chesapeake Bay to learn about Bay ecology, Maryland history and
marine lore, black maritime history, and Native American culture.
The land based Stream Ecology Trek at Emory Knoll Farm takes students through farm
and forest along streams that flow into the Susquehanna River. Hands-on learning
stations explore the water cycle and the underground beginnings of streams as well as
demonstrating the watershed system. Students witness how land use affects streams,
and thereby impacts their drinking water and the Chesapeake Bay estuary.
Benefits/Results
Annual numbers of students served have grown from 1,200 in 1986 to 25,000 in 1994.
Resources and services include the three ships, a llama farm and nature center, a
lighthouse, and a marina.
The Maritime Institute facility is already serving more than three times the number of
students and staff for which it was designed. The Institute's Summer Program was
selected as a National Model by the U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department
of Labor. The new Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Education Center will house programs
and staff, a multicultural maritime library, a computer resource center, and science labs.
174 • Making the Connection
-------
Costs/Funding Source
Funding for programs is provided by the Federal Department of Health and Human
Services, Maryland Department of Juvenile Services, the Governor's Drug and Alcohol
Abuse Commission, Baltimore City Government, the Baltimore Housing Authority,
Maryland Department of Education, Baltimore City and County Schools, Baltimore Office
of Employment Development and the Washington, D.C. Department of Employment
Services. In addition, foundations, corporations, and individuals offer support.
Support and Revenue, 1994
Program Fees $721,209
Contributions, Grants,
and Special Events $901,911
Sales, Interest, and Other $35,930
Expenditures
Program Costs $1,324,499
General and Administrative $183,913
Development/Special Events $101,687
Contact
James Piper Bond, Executive Director
717 Eastern Avenue
Lighthouse at Pier 5
Baltimore, MD21202
(410)685-0295
Public Information and Education • 175
-------
Octoraro Creek
Educational/Demonstration Site
Quarryville, Pennsylvania
Background
Maintaining freshwater on the West Branch of the Octoraro for trout and other aquatic
life is essential not only for the sportsman, but also for the educational aspects of the
general public. The purpose of this project is to demonstrate to landowners and others
interested in establishing erosion control measures along streams flowing into the
Chesapeake Bay procedures which preserve and increase aquatic life through various
streambank conservation control structures.
Project Description
The Solanco Future Farmers of America and the Octoraro Watershed Association began
a streambank stabilization project on a section of the West Branch of the Octoraro. They
constructed stream deflectors and mudsills along approximately 500 feet of the creek.
The project aimed to publicize and demonstrate the value of Best Management Practices
through field trips; establish a baseline for chemical and physical parameters for the
stream through data collection; and identify invertebrates.
Benefits/Results
Twenty-four students in a Natural Resource Management course at Solanco High
School established water sampling teams. Every two weeks, the team took water
samples and tested for nitrates, phosphates, pH, dissolved oxygen, water and air
temperature and established a baseline for chemical and physical parameters for the
site. An invertebrate study was conducted and invertebrates in all three biotic classes
were found to exist. This indicates the stream is capable of supporting all forms of
aquatic life as found in the three classes and essentially provides an ideal marine
freshwater habitat.
Two field trips from local schools aided students in understanding the importance of
stream monitoring and water sampling protocol.
A final product was the publication of a brochure detailing the various activities that took
place at the demonstration site.
Costs/Funding Source
The project received a $750 mini-project grant from the Pennsylvania Chesapeake Bay
Education Office.
Contact
Arba Henry
Solanco FFA
585 Solanco Road
Quarryville, PA 17566
(717)786-2151
176 • Making the Connection
-------
Patuxent Estuary Demonstration
Programs
Bowie, Maryland
Background
The City of Bowie is located in the northeast portion of Prince George's County. The
city is 12.1 square miles and has a population of 39,000 persons.
In spring 1993, the city was awarded the Patuxent Estuary Demonstration (PED) grant.
The PED grant is designed to enhance state and local cooperation in refining and
implementing a water quality and land use management strategy for the Patuxent River
watershed. Bowie has used the grant to implement a city-wide public awareness
campaign. The goal of the campaign is to make local residents aware of water pollution
sources in the home, and ways in which changes to lifestyles can minimize pollutants
reaching the Patuxent River and ultimately the Chesapeake Bay.
Project Description
The campaign's strategy for outreach is through a series of informational articles in the
city newsletter. The articles explain proper disposal of household hazardous wastes,
car washing tips and car care, chemical free lawn care, and where rain water goes after
a storm.
The awareness campaign is supplemented by a variety of other informational aspects.
One in particular is the use and demonstration of a three dimensional, educational tool,
the EnviroScape Water Pollution Reduction model. The EnviroScape model shows a
watershed and its many uses — urban, industrial/commercial, agricultural, highway,
forest, streambank, and lake shore. Educational videos are broadcast over the city's
government cable T.V. channel and bulletin boards are displayed at City Hall and the
local library.
A third component of the public awareness campaign is the conversion of a 2.65 acre
passive park site to an environmental demonstration area. The Perrell Lane park site
teaches residents which landscaping materials are best suited to minimize yard
maintenance time and effort while reducing runoff of sediments. The concept includes
a handicapped accessible trail, a 100 x 200-foot playing field, a compost demonstration
area, awildflowerarea, and a forested area. Signage provides orientation, identification
of plant material, and explanations of how soils and plant material filter pollutants.
Volunteers assist in the development and maintenance of the park, including tree
planting, sign construction, wildlife monitoring, and program development.
Benefits/Results
Approximately 17,000 households in the city were mailed a survey in December 1993.
The survey results were used to gauge residents' lifestyles and basic understanding of
pollution sources. A second survey in late 1995 in the city newsletter will be used to
determine the effectiveness of the campaign.
The campaign within the PED grant drew to a close in December 1995. Early indications
are that the efforts have been successful. Many residents are interested in learning more
about ways to protect the environment and natural resources.
Public Information and Education • 177
-------
Costs/Funding Source
The FED grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Maryland
Department of the Environment was $10,000. The in-kind match from the City of Bowie
was $5,000.
Contact
James M. Cronk
Director of Planning & Economic Development
City of Bowie
2614 Kenhill Drive
Bowie, MD20715
(301)262-6200
(301)262-1191 (fax)
178 • Making the Connection
-------
Survey of Agriculture and
Environmental Education
Somerset County, Maryland
Background
The Somerset Soil Conservation District in association with the Maryland Department
of Agriculture and the U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS),
sponsored and taught an in-service credit course for all interested school teachers in
spring 1995. District personnel designed the course to increase the knowledge of area
agricultural and environmental concerns for local teachers. The one credit hour course,
which will be offered on an annual basis, consisted of three separate classes and one
six hour field trip.
Project Description
The course was divided into three areas of concentration. In the first class, the history
of the NRCS and the conservation districts was discussed. The roles and
responsibilities of the field offices were discussed in orderto lend a better understanding
of the need for the service.
The second class consisted of an introduction and discussion of the concepts behind
the Nutrient Management Program. Areas ranging from soil and manure testing to tests
for corn were addressed. Integrated Pest Management was also discussed, explaining
the principles and practices, pest management alternatives, safety and regulatory
aspects, as well as pesticide stewardships.
In the third class one of the focuses was on controlling soil loss, nutrient movement and
animal waste through conservation practices. The emphasis here was on the Maryland
Agriculture Water Quality Cost-Share Program and the eligible practices for the lower
Delmarva peninsula. Conservation programs and agencies which are of great service
to the Delmarva area were discussed, including the Conservation Reserve Program,
Wetland Reserve Program, and Combined Farm Services Agency.
The final meeting consisted of hands-on field visits to a variety of locations which were
incorporating conservation practices into daily operations. Included in these visits were
stops at poultry and cattle waste storage structures, waste storage lagoons, the Manokin
Public Drainage Association, sediment and water quality ponds, filter strips, aquaculture
projects and tidal and non-tidal wetlands.
Benefits/Results
The goal which the Somerset Soil Conservation District achieved through offering this
course was to better educate the area teachers on the need for proper conservation
techniques. In turn, by properly educating the teachers they can present to their own
students accurate information on how to conserve their environment.
Contact
Larry Fykes, District Manager
Somerset Soil Conservation District
30730 Park Drive
Princess Anne, MD 21853
(410)651-1575
Public Information and Education • 179
-------
Water
Loysburg, Pennsylvania
Background
Bedford County is a rural, mountain and valley, agricultural community located off the
Raystown Branch of the Juniata River. Recognizing the sciences as an area in need of
improvement, the sixth grade teachers of Northern Bedford County School District
launched a planning process during the 1993-94 school year to develop an eight-week
unit of study emphasizing the environment. The teachers chose to focus on water and
conduct an in-depth study of how local water systems impact the Chesapeake Bay. The
intention was to make students more aware of how their actions can have local, regional
and national consequences, thus stimulating them to become more globally aware and
to modify their attitudes and behavior to meet future environmental goals.
Project Description
The 1994-95 school year was the first year the program was implemented. The school
administration is committed to continued development during the 1995-96 school year.
The four goals of the study unit are: 1) Students will obtain a fundamental knowledge
of water and its properties; 2) Students will develop an understanding of their relationship
with and their effect on local water systems; 3) Students will analyze how cultural and
economic behaviors impact water quality and the general well-being of the environment;
and 4) Students will develop a global understanding of how human behavior impacts
the environment.
Within the science curriculum, students study water cycles and conduct river, aquatic,
and pollution studies. The math unit includes graphing, navigation techniques, and map
study. Social studies emphasizes environmental issues, civics and biographical studies
and language arts focuses on the related vocabulary and spelling. In addition, the
program utilizes field trips and guest speakers to achieve its goals.
Benefits/Results
Students were observed to be highly motivated toward their studies and parental
involvement increased. Through writing assignments, it was evident that students'
understanding and attitude toward the environment were positively affected by the
interdisciplinary approach.
Costs/Funding Source
Initial funding came from several sources: ACT Center for Teacher Leadership;
Northern Bedford County School Board; and Earthpreserv (a soap manufacturer).
Currently, funds are being pursued from the Pennsylvania Environmental Education
Grants Program.
Contact
Jerry W. Young, Northern Bedford Elementary School
HCR1, Box200A
Loysburg, PA 16659
(814) 766-2221
(814) 766-3772 (fax)
180 • Making the Connection
-------
Watts Branch Educational Show
Washington, D.C.
Background
The Watts Branch watershed is located in the northeastern part of the District of
Columbia and the southern part of Prince George's County, Maryland. Watts Branch is
the largest tributary to the Anacostia River located inside the District boundaries. The
lower section of the stream is tidally influenced. The watershed is 3.53 square miles or
2,300 acres. Approximately one-half of the watershed is in the District. About 1,200 feet
of the stream was diverted into underground conduits as part of streambank restoration
efforts in the 1950s.
Except for the small southeastern part of the city near Oxon Run, the entire eastern part
of the District is drained by several tributaries such as Watts Branch. Super-urbanization
of the city along these tributaries has choked their fragile habitat. Some streams have
been paved over by human inhabitation; others have lost their natural mouths and are
connected to the Anacostia via underground pipes and concrete conduits. The District
of Columbia government wants to stop the destruction of these tributaries and restore
their habitat as part of a larger effort to clean up the Anacostia River.
Project Description
As the first step toward the goal of educating the public about Watts Branch, the District's
Water Quality Monitoring Branch has developed an interactive software package. It is
designed to educate the public in a simple and colorful manner and has many
illustrations and graphics to keep younger audiences interested. Environmental phrases
and subjects are described in simple language and made available in a variety of
categories.
The purpose of the show is to:
• Share environmental concerns with the public, at the school level;
• Extend an invitation to watershed residents to become part of the solution
rather than the cause of Watts Branch water quality problems;
• Offer an educational tool to understand basic environmental terminologies and
subjects;
• Raise the level of environmental consciousness among those who come to
visit the District's Aquatic Education Center in Anacostia Park by making the
software accessible; and
• Educate and raise interest among DC teachers by taking the software to their
schools, so that they will be able to further educate students and children.
Several inter-office demonstrations have been arranged to test the software.
Constructive ideas will make the next version an even more informative educational tool.
Benefits/Results
The most significant characteristic of this software is the fact that it can easily be adapted
to other watersheds within the District of Columbia and elsewhere. The future of this
software lies in public schools, public libraries, and centers for educational programs.
The most important targets of this program, however, will be the residents of the Watts
Branch watershed.
Public Information and Education • 181
-------
Costs/Funding Source
The project is funded through a Clean Water Act-Section 319(h) Non-Point Source
Implementation Grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Contact
Massoud Massoumi
Government of the District of Columbia
Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
Environmental Regulation Administration
2100 Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20020-5732
(202)645-6601 ext. 3215
182 • Making the Connection
-------
Youth Eco Patrol
Washington, D.C.
Background
As part of the Anacostia/Congress Heights Partnership, the Youth Eco Patrol is a project
aimed at educating at-risk youths on the environment and its impact on their own
neighborhoods. Children from the Stanton Dwellings public housing complex form the
patrol that is based on the concept that improving the environment can be a learning
adventure.
Project Description
Every Wednesday during the summer, twelve to thirty youths actively participate in their
community by planting trees, tending gardens, taking nature hikes, or helping the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation analyze the toxicity of fish from the Anacostia River. It is
hoped that enough enthusiasm will be generated among the children to bring the
message home to their parents.
The youths learn to identify environmental issues as they relate to their own lives. Prior
to being a member of the patrol, most of the children had never planted a tree or set foot
on a boat. Their experiences have prompted many of them to express an interest in
environmental careers.
Benefits/Results
Projects include stenciling drains with the message, "Don't Dump - Anacostia River
Drainage" and participating in clean-up days of plots of land or stretches of river. Last
year the patrol received a $1,500 grant under the mayor's Youth Initiative. These funds
will be used to tape six programs featuring the children talking about various issues
concerning conservation and the environment.
Costs/Funding Source
The Youth Eco Patrol is administered by the Anacostia/Congress Heights Partnership,
a non-profit group that coordinates services for public housing residents.
Contact
Brenda Lee Richardson, Executive Director
Anacostia/Congress Heights Partnership
2301 Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20020
(202)889-2102
(202) 678-3866 (fax)
Public Information and Education • 183
-------
184 • Making the Connection
-------
Financial and Technical Assistance
Resources
MARYLAND LOCAL ASSISTANCE
Maryland Office of Planning
Resource or Program Description
Maryland's Office of Planning is providing local governments with informational and
technical assistance in an effort to support sound land use decisions at the local level.
In 1992, the State of Maryland adopted the Economic Growth, Resource Protection and
Planning Act. The Planning Act creates a statewide approach to land management and
environmental protection. It provides the state, counties and towns with a framework
for establishing their own planning approaches to meet future land, infrastructure, and
service demands. In support of the Act, the Office of Planning created a publication
series entitled Models and Guidelines which is aimed at assisting local decision-makers
in implementing the Planning Act. The Office of Planning continues to provide practical
solutions and innovative techniques to the challenges being faced by local governments.
Contact
Maryland Office of Planning
301 West Preston Street
Baltimore, MD 21201-2365
(410) 225-4550
Stream Protection for Private Landowners
Resource or Program Description
This guide for Soil Conservation Districts, Stream Protection for Private Landowners,
prepared by the Maryland Department of Agriculture catalogs financial and technical
assistance programs from state and federal resources that provide assistance to restore
and protect water quality and natural habitat. The guide catalogs twelve Financial
Assistance Programs and offers alternative financial and technical assistance programs
that can support specific Best Management Practices for stream protection.
Contact
Maryland Department of Agriculture
Office of Resource Conservation
50 Harry S. Truman Parkway
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410)841-5700
Financial and Technical Assistance • 185
-------
PENNSYLVANIA LOCAL ASSISTANCE
Pennsylvania Rivers Conservation Program
Resource or Program Description
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through the Department of Environmental
Protection, has undertaken a new initiative to cooperate with local citizens, organizations
and municipalities who are interested in river resource conservation activities. The
program provides technical and financial assistance for local river conservation planning
and implementation activities.
Contact
Pennsylvania Rivers Conservation Program
Program Planning and Development
P.O. Box 8475
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8475
(717)787-2316
The Center for Rural Pennsylvania
Resource or Program Description
The Center for Rural Pennsylvania is a legislative agency of the Pennsylvania General
Assembly. The Center was created to look at the long-term future for Pennsylvania's
small towns and rural areas and to provide local officials and interested citizens with the
information they need to make sound decisions. The mission of the Center is to ensure
that rural communities have their needs addressed according to their own priorities. This
is accomplished by acting as an advocate and source of information for state policy
makers to encourage specific actions that benefit rural communities and to make sure
other actions taken by the state do not inadvertently hurt rural interests. The Center
provides grant awards annually.
Contact
Center for Rural Pennsylvania
212 Locust Street, Suite 604
Harrisburg, PA 17101-1510
(717)787-9555
186 • Making the Connection
-------
VIRGINIA LOCAL ASSISTANCE
Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department
Resource or Program Description
The Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department provides local governments in
Tidewater Virginia with financial and technical assistance to implement the Chesapeake
Bay Preservation Act. The Act requires the counties, cities, and towns of Tidewater to
incorporate general water quality protection measures into their comprehensive plans,
zoning ordinances, and subdivision ordinances and that those localities protect certain
lands called Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas, which if improperly developed may
result in substantial damage to the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries. The assistance allocations provided by the Chesapeake Bay Local
Assistance Department have averaged just under $1.3 million annually in the past five
fiscal years.
Contact
Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department
805 E. Broad Street, Suite 701
Richmond, VA 23219
(804) 225-3440
Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program
Resource of Program Description
The Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program is a network of state agencies
and local governments which administer coastal laws and policies to manage
subaqueous lands, tidal wetlands, primary sand dunes, fisheries, point and non-point
air and water pollution, and shoreline sanitation, as well as numerous geographic areas
of particular concern such as barrier islands, significant wildlife habitat, and waterfront
redevelopment areas. The Program is administered by the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) and receives about $2.7 million per year in federal funds
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resources Management under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as
amended. DEQ makes these funds available to state agencies and local governments
through an annual Requests for Proposals.
Contact
Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program
Department of Environmental Quality
629 East Main Street, P.O. Box 10009
Richmond, VA 23240-0009
(804) 762-4323
Financial and Technical Assistance • 187
-------
REGIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
Watershed Watch
Resource or Program Description
Watershed Watch is a comprehensive guide that provides community associations and
local governments with informational tools to address environmental activities that
support the restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay. The goal of Watershed
Watch is to give communities the resources to initiate their own efforts to help the Bay
watershed. The guide includes homeowner education materials, contacts from key state
agencies, a river directory and much more.
Contact
The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
6600 York Road
Baltimore, MD 21212
(800) 662-CRIS
Environmental Finance Center
Resource or Program Description
The Environmental Finance Center is supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and was created to assist local communities in realizing the goal of full
compliance with environmental and health regulations. The Center is part of the Coastal
and Environmental Policy Program at the University of Maryland. The Center promotes
alternative and innovative ways to manage the cost of environmental activities, provides
training and development opportunities in environmental leadership and management,
and works to increase the public and private sector's awareness of the benefits
associated with sound environmental management policies.
Contact
Elizabeth Mickey, Coordinator
Environmental Finance Center at the University of Maryland
0112 Skinner Hall
College Park, MD 20742
(301)405-6383
The Chesapeake Bay Program's Catalog of Assistance Programs
Resource or Program Description
The Catalog of Assistance Programs is a compilation of technical and financial
assistance programs that support Bay Program goals and objectives. The catalog
includes federal, non-profit/private and state assistance programs. The catalog's goal
is to provide local governments, citizen organizations, and the private sector with a
resource that enables these groups to leverage assistance to complete Bay restoration
and protection projects. The catalog has over 80 programs listed.
188 • Making the Connection
-------
Contact
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109
Annapolis, MD 21403
(800) YOUR-BAY
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Development Policies and
Guidelines
Resource or Program Description
In 1989, the Chesapeake Bay Program's Executive Council adopted the "Chesapeake
Bay Watershed Development Policies and Guidelines: Agreement Commitment
Report". The technical information report outlines a process for developing land in a
manner that preserves the quality of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. The Report
provides information to assist local governments and community groups in their local
efforts to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay.
Contact
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109
Annapolis, MD 21403
(800) YOUR-BAY
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB)
Resource or Program Description
The ICPRB, in cooperation with many other local, state, and federal agencies and public
and private organizations, undertook the Potomac Visions Project. The Project was
created to help achieve a focus on ways to protect and enhance the water quality of the
Potomac River. As a first step in citizen involvement, the Project team developed a
directory of local projects, and technical and financial assistance programs available in
the Potomac watershed. The directory also lists local and state agencies with natural
resources responsibilities and public and private groups working on the watershed.
Other products related to the Project are: 1) a booklet, Potomac River Greenways: A
Shared Agenda, which highlights efforts at stream valley and watershed protection,
heritage tourism, economic development, environmental education, habitat
enhancement, recreational trails and access, and water supply and quality; and 2) a
video, Potomac Visions, which reports on efforts to preserve the water and cultural
resources of the basin.
Contact
James D. Cummins
Associate Director, Living Resources
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
Suite 300
6110 Executive Boulevard
Rockville, MD 20852-3903
(301)984-1908
Financial and Technical Assistance • 189
-------
INDEX OF LOCAL PROGRAMS
State Page
m.
Agricultural Land Preservation Program, Adams County
Agricultural Preservation District, Essex County
Agriculture Stewardship Education Project, Easton
American Shad Restoration, Nanticoke Watershed
Anacostia Watershed Society
Annapolis Summits
Big Annemessex Non-Tidal Wetlands Watershed
Management Plan, Somerset County
Canal Place Preservation and Development Authority,
Cumberland
Chesapeake CARE, Octoraro Creek Basin
Chesconessex Watershed Project, Accomack County
Chester River Watershed Case Study
Chickahominy Watershed Project
Citizens Water Quality Handbook, Fairfax County
City island and Riverfront Park, Harrisburg
Coastal Program Special Area Management Plan,
Northampton County
Community Environmental Action Plan, Huntingdon
Connection to the Bay, Prince George's County
Conservation Directory, Nanticoke Watershed
Conservation District, Adams County
Cumberland County Case Study
Cypress Park Nature and Exercise Trail, Pocomoke City
Development Evaluation Process, Arlington
Development Guidance System, Charles County
Difficult Run Stream Valley Park Reforestation, Fairfax County
PA
VA
MD
MD
DC
MD
MD
MD
PA
VA
MD
VA
VA
PA
VA
PA
MD
MD
PA
PA
MD
VA
MD
VA
121
123
163
79
39
135
40
137
42
80
138
43
65
9
11
165
166
140
67
141
143
13
14
103
+
•
•
+
•
•
•
•
•
+
+
•
•
•
•
+
•
*
•
+
+
•
•
+
-------
State Page
Donegal Creek Restoration Project, Lancaster County
Don't Dump - Storm Drain Stenciling, Fairfax County
Dragon Run Watershed
Eastern Shore Land Conservancy, Queenstown
Eastern Shore of Virginia Case Study
Environmental Guidelines, Gaithersburg
Environmental Resources Plan, Carroll County
Evitts Creek Watershed Restoration Project, Bedford County
Fairfax ReLeaf s Urban Forest Benefits Analysis, Fairfax
County
Farm Link, Harrisburg
Geographic Information System, Adams County
Gut Road Clean-up Project, East Manchester Township
Gwynns Falls Trail, Baltimore
Hard Bargain Farm, Accokeek
Headwaters Soil and Water Conservation District, Augusta
County
Herring Run Watershed Association, Baltimore County
Hollywood Branch, Montgomery County
Instream Flow Incremental Methodolgy, Front Royal
Into the Susquehanna, Into the Chesapeake, La Plume
James River Task Force
Jenkins Creek Envrironmentlal Research Center, Crisfield
Kenilworth Marsh Restoration
Lackawanna River Corridor Association, Lackawanna Valley
Landscapes Public Awareness Program, Chester County
PA
VA
VA
MD
VA
MD
MD
PA
VA
PA
PA
PA
MD
MD
VA
MD
MD
VA
PA
VA
MD
DC
PA
PA
69
168
44
125
145
45
15
71
104
126
17
93
147
170
105
106
108
47
171
148
150
82
151
172
•
+
•
•
+
•
•
•
+
+
4
+
+
•
+
•
•
+
4
•
•
•
+
4
-------
State Page
Living Classrooms Foundation, Baltimore
Lower Eastern Shore Heritage Plan, Princess Anne
Marshyhope Creek Greenway, Federalsburg
Model Zoning Regulations for the Lackawanna Valley
Monkey Bottom Wetland Walkway, Norfolk
Muncipal Solid Waste Co-Composting Project, Adams County
Neighborhood Planning for the Future, Manheim Township
Nonpoint Source Pollution, HRPDC
Non-Tidal Wetlands Protection Program, Prince George's
County
Northridge, Prince George's County
Octorara Creek Educational/Demonstration Site, Quarryville
Park Progress... For the Next Generation, Fairfax County
Parkers Creek Watershed Management Plan, Calvert County
Patuxent Estuary Demonstration Projects, Bowie
Piedmont Reserve
Primary Development Boundary, Spotsylvania County
Quarter Century Committee, Wicomico County
Rappahannock River Watershed Plan, Fredericksburg
Regional Septic Pump-Out Notification and Tracking Project,
Fredericksburg
Remington Farms Project, Kent County
Revolving Loan Fund for Acquistition of Open Space, Calvert
County
Riparian Buffer Initiatives, Baltimore County
Riparian Greenway System, Newport News
Riparian Task Force, Hampshire County
MD
MD
MD
PA
VA
PA
PA
VA
MD
MD
PA
VA
MD
MD
VA
VA
MD
VA
VA
MD
MD
MD
VA
WV
174
153
155
18
156
95
20
97
84
21
176
22
49
177
127
23
25
51
72
129
157
110
111
113
•
+
•
•
•
+
•
•
+
•
+
+
•
+
•
•
•
•
+
•
•
•
4
•
-------
State Page
River Front Park and the Charles Greenway, East Donegal
Township
Rural/Agricultural Conservation District, Isle of Wight
Rural Clustering & Density Exchange Option, Howard County
Rural Village Community Design Guidelines, Loudoun County
Sand Filter for Urban Runoff Control
Small Habitat Improvement in Urban Areas
Stoney Run Park Committee, Baltimore
Stream & Buffer Protection Overlay Zone, Charles County
Stream Team, Lancaster County
Survey of Agriculture and Environmental Education, Somerset
County
Sustainable Technologies Industrial Park, Northampton County
Swan Creek Restoration Initiative, Harford County
Terrapin Park Wetlands Project, Stevensville
Tiber-Hudson Watershed Partnership, EllicottCity
Trails and Greenways Master Plan, Prince William County
Transfer Development Rights Program, Calvert County
Transit District Overlay Zone, Prince George's County
Ulmstead Point Oyster Reef/Sanctuary, Anne Arundel County
Union County Greenways, Lewisburg
Upper Susquehanna Coalition, Bradford County
Vegetative Practices to Reduce Nutrient Runoff, HRPDC
Water Connections, Loysburg
Water Quality Monitoring Program, Nanticoke Watershed
Watershed Action Team, Elizabeth River Watershed
PA
VA
MD
VA
DC
DC
MD
MD
PA
MD
VA
MD
MD
MD
VA
MD
MD
MD
PA
PA
VA
PA
MD
VA
115
131
27
29
98
85
158
87
53
179
31
73
74
54
159
33
34
89
116
56
75
180
99
58
+
+
+
+
+
•
•
+
•
•
+
+
•
•
•
•
•
•
+
+
•
+
•
+
-------
State Page
Watershed Management Program, Prince William County
Watts Branch Educational Show
Woodlake Residential Community, Richmond
Youth Eco Patrol
VA
DC
VA
DC
60
181
35
183
•
•
•
•
•U.S. Government Printing Office: 1996 - 719-346/82734
-------
|