CBP/TRS 233/00
EPA903-D-00-001
MARCH2000
Small Watershed
Grants Program
FY 1998
Final Report
Sponsored by the
Chesapeake Bay Program
Administered by the
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
and the
Center for Chesapeake Communities
A
ALLIANCE
fur Ike ^*»»»
CHESAPEAKE BAY
Chesapeake Bay Program
EPA Report Collection
Regional Center for Environmental Information
U.S. EPA Region III
Philadelphia, PA 19103
-------
Regional Center for En\ ironmcntal Information
US EPA Region 111
1650 AichSt.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
o
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program.
Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 30% post-consumer
fiber using vegetable oil based inks.
-------
Small Watershed
Grants Program
FY 1998
Final Report
Sponsored by the
Chesapeake Bay Program
Administered by the
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
and the
Center for Chesapeake Communities
A
ALLIANCE
CHESA PEA^KEBAY Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY Chesapeake* aay Program
March 2000
To the Readers:
We are pleased to present this summary of the inaugural year
of the Small Watershed Grants Program. The reports of each
project demonstrate the powerful benefits of providing
relatively small amounts of funding to communities.
We are grateful to Senator Sarbanes and other members of
Congress for initiating this new program. We hope that
readers will be inspired to duplicate these projects in your
own communities, and to develop your own innovative
partnerships and projects to protect and restore your local
streams and the Chesapeake Bay.
Sincerely,
Frances H. Flanigan
Executive Director
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
L>**i
*-^^
Garyl/G. Allen
Executive Director
Center for Chesapeake Communities
-------
Contents
Introduction i
Anacostia Watershed Society 1
Bladensburg, Maryland
Arlingtonians for a Clean Environment 2
Arlington, Virginia
Baltimore City Department of Recreation and Parks 3
Baltimore, Maryland
Bel Air High School 4
Bel Air, Maryland
Bellevue Park Association 5
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Borough of Lititz 6
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Bradford County Conservation District 7
Bradford County, Pennsylvania
Brandywine Conservancy 8
Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania
Calvert County Department of Planning and Zoning 9
Calvert County, Maryland
Calvert Soil Conservation District 10
Calvert County, Maryland
Central Pennsylvania Conservancy 11
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Chesapeake Wildlife Heritage 12
Chester, Maryland
City of Annapolis 13
Annapolis, Maryland
City of Bowie 14
Bowie, Maryland
Countryside Conservancy 15
Waverly, Pennsylvania
Elizabeth River Project 16
Norfolk, Virginia
Eyes of Paint Branch 17
Silver Spring, Maryland
Fallston High School 18
Fallston, Maryland
Girl Scouts & Boy Scouts of Sinking Valley 19
Tyrone, Pennsylvania
-------
Gunpowder Valley Conservancy 20
Kingsville, Maryland
Headwaters Charitable Trust 21
DuBois, Pennsylvania
James River Association 22
Richmond, Virginia
Juniata County Conservation District 23
Juniata County, Pennsylvania
Lancaster County Conservation District 24
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Ix)i*d Fairfax Planning District Commission 25
Front Royal, Virginia
Mattaponi&Pamunkey Rivers Association 26
Manquin, Virginia
Midshore Regional Recycling Program 27
Caroline, Kent, Queen Anne, and Talbot Counties, Maryland
The Nature Conservancy 28
Chevy Chase, Maryland
Richmond County Board of Supervisors 29
Richmond County, Virginia
Richmond Recreation and Parks Foundation 30
Richmond, Virginia
SevernRiverLandTrust 31
Annapolis, Maryland
Shenandoah Valley Pure Water 2000 Forum 32
Bridgewater, Virginia
Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology 33
Alexandria, Virginia
TownofFederalsburg 34
Federalsburg, Maryland
Town of North East 35
North East, Maryland
YorkTownship 36
York County, Pennsylvania
-------
Introduction
In 1998, the Chesapeake Bay Program initiated an innovative approach to imple-
menting Chesapeake Bay restoration and protection goals at the community level. Called the
Small Watershed Grants Program, this new effort was originally proposed by U.S. Senator
Paul S. Sarbanes (D-Md.) in his Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act and supported by most of the
region's House and Senate members. The Small Watershed Grants Program paired dollars
from the Chesapeake Bay Program with worthy projects at the community and local govern-
ment scale. The Small Watershed Grants Program provided the funding vehicle; the Bay
Program set the funding parameters; local governments and citizens organizations provided
ideas, partners and often a volunteer labor force. The results, documented in this report,
demonstrate how this powerful combination of resources produced good results for the Bay
and its rivers and creeks.
The Chesapeake Bay Program is a state-federal partnership. The states played an
important role in the Small Watershed Grants Program because of their knowledge of local
needs and their experience in managing other kinds of grants programs. Each state partner
was represented on the selection committee and had the opportunity to evaluate project
proposals against the priorities of the state.
A request for proposals was issued in February 1998. In response to the RFP, 160
proposals were submitted. All were reviewed by a selection committee and ranked against
criteria approved by the Bay Program. The
selection committee ultimately chose 37 n
proposals for funding, including 17 from The Chesapeake Bay Watershed
local governments and 20 from community
organizations.
The Small Watershed Grants
Program was managed by the Center for
Chesapeake Communities and the Alliance
for the Chesapeake Bay. These organizations
provided staff liaisons to the grantees,
managed the disbursement of funds and the
required grant paperwork, and reported to
the Chesapeake Bay Program.
Why Local Governments?
Local governments are critical
partners in the effort to protect small water-
shed resources. Establishing zoning laws,
designating land use, levying local property
taxes, regulating storm water run-off, and
bearing responsibility for waste water
treatment falls under the authority
-------
of county councils, supervisors and commissioners, as well as municipal officials. These
powerful local entities are also responsible for a broad range of quality of life services from
transportation, social services, public works and economic development to local environmen-
tal resource protection.
The Bay watershed is experiencing significant growth. A local government's land
use code provides the framework for balancing the needs and concerns of citizens with
regional priorities. For these communities to restore and maintain the quality of local water-
sheds, they must seek a balance among private interests, quality of life goals and environmen-
tal benefits. The Small Watershed Grants Program provided a tool to help accomplish this.
Why Communities?
Community organizations of all kinds are organizing at the small watershed level to
address environmental problems. River organizations - often called "Friends of - exist now
on literally hundreds of tributaries in the Chesapeake watershed. In addition, service groups,
schools, community associations, land trusts, preservation groups, fishing and recreation
organizations and others are embracing the notion of participation at the local level. These
organizations bring local knowledge and passion to the work of caring for streams, woods,
community open spaces, and wildlife habitats. They also bring a remarkable ability to engage
their neighbors, their elected officials, local businesses and others in the work of protecting
valued places and resources.
The Bay Program's commitment to "move upstream" and to work at the small water-
shed scale is realized in part through the Small Watershed Grants Program. As this new pro-
gram grows and matures, it has the potential to complement other funding sources and initia-
tives, led by state governments, private foundations, and communities themselves, in the
collaborative work of protecting this region's natural resources.
Every project included in this report reflects a vision valued by the community and
supported by local government. Projects demonstrate innovation, creativity, effective communi-
cation and partner ships.
Lessons Learned
The Small Watershed Grants Program is new. The first year has been a learning
experience, affirming things already known and revealing insights unique to its start-up. As the
program grows, it will benefit from the lessons learned this first year.
Community groups and local governments can be very successful at putting
together innovative partnerships. A number of projects included partners who
had not previously been involved with an environmental project, including
traditionally non-involved urban communities.
The administrative requirements of federally funded programs are daunting,
especially to community groups, and require active engagement of a middleman
who can assist these organizations with navigating the paperwork.
The one-year time frame proved difficult for some projects, especially those that
were weather dependent. Better planning, timeliness in the decision and grant
award process, and ability to start work immediately need to be considered.
Extensions may be occasionally necessary.
Relatively small amounts of money often were successful in leveraging large
-------
contributions of volunteer time and other resources. Documenting these contri-
butions adds significant value to the program.
Implementation problems occurred in a number of projects. Scopes of work had
to be adjusted, time frames and budgets modified. These difficulties are to be
expected, and the administrative structure needs to be ready to deal with them
quickly.
Some projects turned out to be more difficult to carry out than expected. Site
visits, planning assistance, reference to training tools and other forms of support
were provided and proved crucial in bringing those projects to a successful
conclusion.
State agency staff expressed some concerns that projects were not coordinated
with state priorities. This is a potentially divisive issue which requires discussion
and collaboration.
Tangible, measurable results were achieved by all grantees. In some cases, work
accomplished helps fulfill state goals for habitat restoration. The projects also
resulted in other kinds of measurable contributions. These measurable results
need to be captured in the Bay Program data base.
Many projects included a public event of some sort and often generated good
press coverage. These opportunities need to be conveyed to Bay Program part-
ners ahead of time, and their participation encouraged.
Bay Program partners would likely benefit from interaction with the Small
Watershed Grants Program grantees as they implement their projects. Efforts
should be made to keep appropriate people informed of activities as they are
occurring.
A network that allows for dialogue among grantees and with other like groups
could be a useful tool. The Bay Program could establish such a tool as part of its
web site.
Opportunities for sharing within the Bay watershed and beyond abound. Efforts
need to be made to publicize the Small Watershed Grants Program widely.
Funding opportunities are often difficult to learn about and confusing to those
not experienced in dealing with bureaucracies. Efforts to inform the public about
available funding need to be improved, clearly delineating the difference among
sources, requirements for eligibility, and application procedures. Within the Bay
Program, a needed service could be provided if all partners would coordinate
their grantmaking programs.
The legal authority under which the Small Watershed Grants Program operates
limits the kinds of projects that are eligible. The potential of the program to
support good projects could be greatly expanded if this issue were addressed.
Reviewing proposals and selecting projects is a very difficult task. Participation
on the review team by representatives of Bay Program committees as well as
state governments is essential to ensuring that projects are technically sound,
consistent with Bay Program goals, and compatible with other projects.
ui
-------
Anacostia Watershed Society
Bladensburg, Maryland
The Anacostia Watershed Society was fanned in
1989 to restore and protect the Anacostia River
and its tributaries. The watershed encompasses
parts of Montgomery and Prince George's
Counties in Maryland, plus half of the District
ofColumbia. It has suffered from intense urban-
ization and, as a result, the river's health has been
severely compromised by lack offarest cover and
substantial amounts of debris entering the
waterways.
THEPROJECT: To mobilize volunteer
efforts to remove trash and debris from the
river and watershed, plant trees, and stencil
stormdrains throughout the area.
THE PARTNERS: Anacostia Watershed
Society, Americorps, Greater D.C. Cares, Port
Towns Action Committee, University of
Maryland, and several civic coalitions.
THERESOURCES: $20,000 from the Small
Watershed Grants Program and the labor of
more than 2,400 volunteers, valued at ap-
proximately $140,000.
THE RESULTS:
The Anacostia Watershed Society hosted 33 clean-up events that greatly exceeded original
goals, both in the number of volunteers and the amount of restoration work completed.
Organizers had hoped to involve 550 volunteers but instead recruited 2,400.
The goal was to remove five tons of debris; instead, volunteers removed 29.44 tons of
debris and 237 tires from the river.
Five tree-planting events resulted in the installation of 185 trees.
Fifty stormdrains were stenciled with drainage signs during three volunteer work days.
-------
Arlingtonians for a
Clean Environment
Arlington, Virginia
Arlingtonians for a Clean Environment has been
at work in the FourMile Run watershed of Vir-
ginia for twenty-one years. The organization has
led many stream cleanups with immediate benefits
to Four Mile Run, but there has been little change
in the litter and pollution problems that impact
the stream. As a result, Arlingtonians for a Clean
Environment wanted to reduce those problems by
educating residents about their relationship to both
Four Mile Run and the Chesapeake Bay.
THEPROJECT: To design and install interpretive signage that would educate residents
about their relationship to the Four Mile Run watershed and, ultimately, the Chesapeake Bay.
THE PARTNERS: Arlington County Cultural Affairs Division, Arlington County Parks
Department, Arlingtonians for a Clean Environment, Arlington Mill Community Center,
Barcroft Civic Assocation, Glencarlyn Civic Association, and area residents.
THE RESOURCES: $8,831 from the Small Watershed Grants Program, and in-kind dona-
tions of personnel and office support from several departments of the Arlington County
government, Arlingtonians for a Clean Environment, Barcroft School and Civic League,
Friends of Four Mile Run, and the Glencarlyn Civic Association.
THE RESULTS:
The project expanded to include the creation of a new, passive recreation park that will
be the permanent site of the interpretive signage. The park is located in an area that has
no other green space and is home to one of Northern Virginia's most ethnically diverse
communities. Residents and day users range from recent immigrants of many nationali-
ties, to the homeless, and established working professionals. The park will feature low-
impact landscaping that demonstrates the use of native plants to minimize erosion and
runoff.
Three interpretive signs were created to build awareness of the importance of Four Mile
Run and the Chesapeake Bay. Signage was was carefully designed so that it would
communicate effectively to the park's diverse visitors. The messages include an orienta-
tion to the watershed, the human history of the area, and the importance of upstream
stewardship. Because the park is currently under development, the interpretive signs
will be temporarily installed in another park.
By forming a broad-based steering committee, including representatives from the
Hispanic and Asian communities, the development of this project created greater cohe-
sion and interaction among very diverse Arlington constituencies.
Outdoor arwork will also be installed in the park, providing an enhanced park resource
to an under-served community.
-------
Baltimore City Department of
Recreation and Parks
Baltimore, Maryland
The City of Baltimore wanted to strengthen
stewardship of the local watershed and the Chesa-
peake Bay by presenting ecology lessons and field
experiences to urban youth in a natural setting
close to their own homes. The Gwynns Falls
watershed within the city limits offers unique
environmental education opportunities at
Gwynns Falls/Leakin Park, the Carrrie Murray
Outdoor Education Center, and the Gwynns Falls
Trail, but they are under-utilized by the city
schools.
THE PROJECTS To develop hands-on outdoor education opportunities at city facilities
in parks in the Gwynns Falls watershed.
THE PARTNERS: City of Baltimore Department of Recreation and Parks, Department of
Education, and Planning Department; and Baltimore City schools'personnel, teachers, and
students.
THERESOURCES: $6,719 from the Small Watershed Grants Program and student volunteer
labor valued at more than $1,000.
THERESULTS:
Fliers were distributed to 36 schools promoting field trips to sites within the Gwynns Falls
watershed, and a one day outdoor education workshop was held for teachers. Seven
school field trips were scheduled as a result of these promotions.
More than 215 students participated in water quality analysis studies, tree plantings, and
stream clean-ups while learning about stream ecology and urban water quality and habitat
problems.
A partnership was established with the Sarah Roach Elementary School. Three times per
year, third and fifth grade students will participate in ecology studies at the Carrie Murray
Outdoor Education Center and then participate in local clean-up projects.
A comprehensive report was compiled on environmental education opportunities in
Baltimore City schools which is available to teachers and other environmental educators
throughout the city. This report will be used to determine how the Baltimore City
Department of Recreation and Parks can complement existing programs, and what
additional programs are needed.
The Baltimore City Department of Recreation and Parks will fund a part-time position to
continue work with Baltimore City schools and expand this program to include schools in
other city watersheds.
-------
Bel Air High School
Bel Air, Maryland
Bel Air High School is located in the Winters
Run watershed in Harford County, Maryland.
Students in the school's environmental club
designed this project to be a school and commu-
nity demonstration of the importance of habitat
restoration using native plants. The goal was
to reduce erosion and run-off into nearby
PlumtreeRun.
THEPROJECT: To redesign and
replant the marquee garden at the entrance to
Bel Air High School.
THE PARTNERS: Bel Air High School
Environmental Club, Bel Air High School
Environmental Science Department, and
students from the school.
THEKESOURCES: $744 from the Small
Watershed Grants Program and in-kind
donations of volunteer labor, supplies, equip-
ment, and services.
THERESULTS:
The marquee garden at Bel Air High
School was redesigned and replanted
with native plants.
A small pond was designed and installed.
Students gained new skills in plant taxonomy, habitat design, and project budgeting and
management.
A high-profile demonstration habitat project has been created that has the potential to
influence the community as well as students.
-------
Bellevue Park Association
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
The Bellevue Park Association within the City of
Harrisburg consists of more than 250 households
with more than twelve acres of commonly held
open space that includes springs, astreamand
twoponds. The Association recognized that the
watershed within its boundaries hadproblems
with erosion, stormwater run-off, and an over-
abundance of carp. The waters from these lands
eventually drain into the Susquehanna River.
TBEPROJECE To restore the ponds
and feeder stream in the Bellevue Park open
space lands.
THEPARTNERS: Bellevue Park Association, Bellevue Park resident volunteers, and the
City of Harrisburg.
THERESOURCES: $10,000 from the Small Watershed Grants Program; more than $300 from
the Bellevue Park Association; and $6,960 in volunteer labor from Bellevue Park residents and
staff.
THERESLLTS:
The upper pond was drained and its banks were stabilized with biologs to form a bench.
The bench was covered with fill dirt to prepare it for planting.
In fall 1998, more than 40 residents removed trash, thick brush, and exotic plants along the
pond and stream. They planted aquatic plants on the benches, and native grasses, sedges,
trees and shrubs along the pond bank. A second work day that fall brought out 15 volun-
teers to plant additional trees and shrubs. Native grasses, perennials, and wildflowers
were added in spring 1999 by 30 volunteers.
Twenty-three different species and more than 700 individual plants have been installed.
Bishop McDevitt High School, within walking distance of the park, is using the area as
part of its environmental science classes, and the City of Harrisburg is monitoring the
water quality of the ponds.
The Bellevue Park Association plans to restore the lower pond and additional stream
corridor on its own. It will use seeds from maturing plants at the upper pond to help
restore the lower one.
-------
Borough of Lititz
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Lititz Run in southeastern Pennsylvania flows
directly into the Susquehanna River. The portion
of the stream flowing through the Borough of
Lititz was wide and shallow with eroding
streambanks, andprovidedpoorhabitatfor fish
and wildlife. In addition, thestreampickedup
significant thermalandnutrientpolliitionfrom
Mill Pond on the Millport Conservancy lands.
LititzRun 's water quality was further degraded
by Santo Domingo Creek in Warwick Township,
which contributed the largest amounts of
stormwater run-off and sediment to the stream.
The Borough of Lititz, Warwick Township and the
LititzRun Watershed Alliance planned to address
these watershed issues with three separate projects.
THEPRQJECR To create new wetlands along Santo Domingo Creek to control sediment
and pollutants; to restore Mill Pond and the section of Lititz Run which feeds the pond; and to
restore the portion of Lititz Run which flows through the Borough of Lititz.
THE PARTNERS: Borough of Lititz, Lancaster County Conservation District, Lancaster
County Planning Commission, Millport Conservancy, Warwick School, Warwick Township,
and volunteer labor and assistance from various local nonprofit groups and citizens.
THERESOURCES: $40,000 from the Small Watershed Grants Program; more than $80,000
from state, local government and private sources; and volunteer labor and in-kind support from
municipal personnel valued at more than $15,000.
THE RESULTS:
A 2.6-acre tract along Santo Domingo Creek was turned into a natural wetland filtration
system. A rock-lined channel was constructed to direct water into an area where sediment
can settle out. Construction was completed in September 1998.
A community planting day brought out approximately 100 volunteers to install 4,000
plants in the new wetland area. The event was covered by the local press.
The Santo Domingo water quality management area is located in Warwick Linear Park
and can be viewed from the park trail. The facility is maintained by Warwick Township.
A sign explains the wetland facility.
The stream through Lititz Borough was deepened, the bank stabilized, and a riparian
buffer planted along the bank. This project restored 2700 feet of stream and was completed
in June 1999.
The Mill Pond restoration began in fall 1999 due to drought and permitting delays. The
existing dam on Mill Pond was breached to allow for a fish passage, new wetlands were
created along the pond, the stream channel was deepened, and native trees and shrubs
were planted along the stream bank.
-------
Bradford County
Conservation District
Bradford County, Pennsylvania
Bradford County lies in northeastern Pennsylva-
nia. The Towanda Creek watershed in the
southwesternpart of the county and the Sugar
Creek watershed in the central western part,
together drain more than 287,000 acres of largely
forest and agricultural lands. Both watersheds
empty into the Susquehanna River which bisects
the county. Neither watershed has a formal
managementplan.
THEPRQJECT: To hold facilitated
workshops for local landowners, government and agency officials in the Towanda and Sugar
Creek watersheds, in order to reach consensus about important watershed issues and ways to
address them.
THE PARTNERS: Bradford County Conservation District, Canaan Valley Institute, local
stakeholders, and local and regional government and agency officials.
THERESOURCES: $10,000 from the Small Watershed Grants Program and in-kind contribu-
tions from the Bradford County Conservation District for staff time and office supplies valued
at $5,487.
THE RESULTS:
Thirty significant stakeholders plus government leaders and agency personnel from each
watershed were invited to attend a facilitated workshop. Stakeholders were nominated by
local government officials.
A two-day workshop was held March 18-19,1999 in Canton to address the needs of the
Towanda Creek watershed. Thirty-eight people attended.
Forty people participated in a one-day workshop held March 31,1999 in Troy to discuss
the needs of the Sugar Creek watershed.
The workshops brought together diverse groups of people to solve community problems.
The participants discussed resource issues, trends, short and long-term goals, and possible
actions.
Reports on the sessions were distributed to workshop participants, municipalities, and
state and federal legislators. A follow-up meeting in each watershed was held to present
the information from the workshops to the general public.
The steering committees of both workgroups are now pursuing formation of an organized
watershed effort and have planned future meetings.
-------
Brandywine Conservancy
Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania
The Elk Creeks watershed includes portions of
southeastern Pennsylvania and the neighboring
northeast corner of Maryland. It is a largely
agricultural region just beginning to experience
residential'development'and'growingpains.
The Big and Little Elk Creeks form the headwaters
of the Elk River, which is a tidal freshwater river
at the head of the Chesapeake Bay. The
Brandywine Conservancy, working with the Elk
Creeks WatershedAssociation, conducted a series
of events and lectures to educate and inspire
residents in the Elk Creeks watershed to become
more active conservationists.
THEPROJEXJR To work with the Elk Creeks Watershed Association to educate land-
owners about conservation practices, restore wetlands and riparian buffers, and encourage the
adoption of ordinances that support sustainable development.
THE PARTNERS: Brandywine Conservancy and Elk Creeks Watershed Association.
THERESOURCES: $6,760 from the Small Watershed Grants Program and volunteer labor
valued at approximately $2,100.
THERESULTS:
More than 30 residents and municipal officials attended a watershed Wise Zoning lecture
in the fall 1998. In the spring, additional lectures were held on small lot management,
natural landscaping, hydrology, and sewage issues. They were also well attended.
Approximately 235 sixth-grade students attended a Stream Fair at Elk Ridge School.
An "Art in Nature "program was held in June at Fair Hill Nature Center.
A watershed-wide landowner database was created. Both Brandywine Conservancy and
the Elk Creeks WatershedAssociation will use the list for future mailings and program
promotions.
Momentum continued with a program for farmers planned for the future, titled Preserving
Open Space and Farmland for Future Generations: An Estate Planning Workshop.
The Elk Creeks Watershed Association received several requests from area landowners to
accept donations of land or easements and, as a result, has become certified as an organiza-
tion that can accept these donations.
8
-------
Calvert County Department of
Planning and Zoning
Calvert County, Maryland
Calvert County is one of the fastest growing
counties in Maryland. Its largest watershed,
Hunting Creek, includes agricultural and urban
areas and is experiencing both residential and
commercialgrowthpressures. Hunting Creek
flows directly into the PatuxentRiver which
empties into the Chesapeake Bay. The county
established a need for information on the water
quality of the tidal portion of Hunting Creek to
help it assess the impact of development on the
watershed.
THEPRQJECT: To collect baseline water quality data for the tidal portions of Hunting
Creek and to map submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) with the help of trained volunteers.
THE PARTNERS: Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Calvert County, Hunting Creek Water-
shed Task Force, and citizen volunteers.
THERESOURCES: $1,220 from the Small Watershed Grants Program and in-kind contribu-
tions of county staff time and volunteer labor valued at $1,665.
THEPROJECT:
Volunteers were trained by the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay on EPA-approved water
sampling methods and SAV identification and mapping techniques.
Ten volunteers sampled the tidal portion of Hunting Creek bi-weekly from June 7,1998
through November 21,1998, once in winter 1999, and then bi-weekly from March 1999
through October 1999. The samples were analyzed for nine parameters, including nitrates
and phosphates.
Four volunteers helped to sample, identify, and map the creek's SAV, the first information
of this type ever collected for Hunting Creek.
Data from this study will be used by the county and the Hunting Creek Watershed Task
Force to support a watershed management plan for Hunting Creek. By involving citizens
in measuring the health of their watershed, this project also broadened stewardship of
Hunting Creek.
-------
Calvert Soil
Conservation District
Calvert County, Maryland
Maryland's Patuxent River empties directly into
the Chesapeake Bay. Its watershed drains portions
ofAnneArundel, Charles, Howard, Montgomery,
Prince George's, and St. Mary's Counties.
Riparian buffers along the Patiaent and through-
out its watershed are being lost to erosion andpoor
management. Loss of these buffers result in
increased amounts of sediment andpollutants
entering the river from stormwater run-off.
THEPROJECT: To educate the land-
owners in the Patuxent River watershed about the ecological importance of riparian buffers and
now to restore and maintain them.
THEPARTNERS: Calvert County, Maryland Department of the Environment, Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, Patuxent Tributary Team, Soil Conservation Districts of the
seven counties encompassed by the Patuxent River watershed, USDA Natural Resources Con-
servation Service, and University of Maryland Cooperative Extension Service.
THE RESOURCES: $31,600 from the Small Watershed Grants Program and in-kind contri-
butions of local personnel time and office support valued at $15,555.
THE RESULTS:
A comprehensive booklet was developed called Stream Buffer and Restoration and Shoreline
Stabilization Information Guide. It includes information on riparian buffer restoration best
management practices, financial assistance programs, permitting requirements and proce-
dures, and a list of landowners using best management practices who are willing to serve
as a resource for other landowners. One thousand booklets were printed for distribution
by soil conservation officers in their work with local landowners.
A slide show and 15-minute video were produced that includes "before" and "after"
restoration pictures.
Five public workshops were held throughout the seven counties in the Patuxent River
watershed to disseminate the information. A total of 268 farmers and other landowners
attended. A highlight of the workshop was a question and answer session which ad-
dressed landowner's specific situations.
More than 30 landownerseach having approximately 100 feet of river frontagehave
installed buffers along their property as a direct or indirect result of this project.
10
-------
Central Pennsylvania Conservancy
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Trindle Spring Run isasmallperennialcreekthat
flows into the Conodoguinet Creek and then the
Susquehanna River. It is part of a larger riparian
area that is quickly being transformed into
residential development. Along TrindleRun is a
ten-acre conservation area, adjacent to and visible
from severalMechanicsburg subdivisions. The
Central Pennsylvania Conservancy is using the
site to improve and showcase wildlife habitat.
THEPRQJECE To create a riparian
buffer and nature trail on ten acres along
Trindle Spring Run, which is surrounded by
new development. This goal was to demon-
strate the successful coexistence of residential
development and wildlife areas.
THEPARTNERS: Central Pennsylvania
Conservancy, Howard-Hanna Detweiler
Realty, community and student volunteers.
THERESOURCES: $20,000 from the Small
Watershed Grants Program; land access
provided by Howard-Hanna Detweiler
Realty; and volunteer labor of students and
nearby residents.
THE RESULTS:
More than 500 hardwood trees were planted on the site, including black willow, black
locust, and chestnut oak. The trees enjoyed a 75% survival rate, with help from neighbors
who volunteered to water the trees during the drought.
A trail with benches has been established along the creek as a walking path for the public.
Blue bird boxes were installed along the trail and are currently in use.
Public information signage will be installed in spring 2000.
11
-------
Chesapeake Wildlife Heritage
Chester, Maryland
Water qualify is an important issue for the Chester
River, located on Maryland's upper Eastern Shore.
For this project, volunteers sampled stream
macroinvertebrates to determine water qualify and
target streams for restoration. Theprojectwas
designed to reduce run-off in targeted streams
through a combination of education, wetland
restoration, andriparian bufferplantings.
THEPRQJECR To train up to fifteen
volunteers to monitor stream quality and to
restore ten acres of wetlands, ten acres of
warm season grass riparian buffer, and ten
acres afforested riparian buffer.
THE PARTNERS: Chesapeake Wildlife Heritage, Elburn Farm, Oakleigh Farm, and
community volunteers.
THE RESOURCES: $8,830 from the Small Watershed Grants Program; $26,250 from the
Abell Foundation, Chesapeake Wildlife Heritage, Norcross Wildlife Foundation, Olin Founda-
tion, and Wildlife Forever.
THE RESULTS:
Chesapeake Wildlife Heritage held three training workshops to train thirteen volunteers in
the use of aquatic macroinvertebrate techniques to assess stream quality.
More than twenty-one acres of wetlands were restored.
More than eighteen acres of riparian buffer (mixture of warm season grasses, trees and
shrubs) will be restored along the Unicorn Branch on the Elburn Farm in spring 2000.
An added matching contribution to the project, not originally included in the proposal,
was the installation of 10,000 feet of fencing to keep cows out of the stream.
The macroinvertebrate training provides the Chesapeake Wildlife Heritage with a tool that
will improve their future efforts to target stream reaches most in need of restoration.
12
-------
City of Annapolis
Annapolis, Maryland
The College Creek watershed, within the An-
napolis city limits, flows through urbanand
residential areas before reaching the Severn River
which empties into the Bay. The city and the
Friends of College Creek (a watershed association
of residents, neighborhood associations, and
representatives from the US Naval Academy,
St. Johns College, government officials, and other
private and public organizations) wanted to
control pollutants washing off of city streets into
College Creek and to educate local residents
about watershedprotection andpreservation.
THEPRQJECT: To create and restore
tidal wetlands along College Creek to act as
a natural filter for pollutants, and to use the
area as an environmental demonstration
project for city youth.
THE PARTNERS: Chesapeake Bay
Foundation, City of Annapolis, Friends of
College Creek, Maryland Department of
Natural Resources, and community volun-
teers.
THE RESOURCES: $35,426 from the Small
Watershed Grants Program and more than
$30,000 in matching funds and in-kind services from the City of Annapolis, Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, and volunteers.
THE RESULTS:
This project created a marsh area near the headwaters of College Creek. Eroding shore-
lines were stabilized and phragniites, an exotic plant, was removed.
The project area was expanded from 800 square feet to 8,700 square feet. The project was
delayed until after the start of the 1999 fiscal year so that the city could secure additional
funds for the expanded project.
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF)will oversee the planting of marsh grasses in the
wetlands during spring 2000. Local elementary school children, participants in the CBF
Bay Saver program, and members of the Friends of College Creek and local community
will help with the plantings.
13
-------
City of Bowie
Bowie, Maryland
The Chesapeake Bay watershedcoritains more than
100,000 miles of connected streams and rivers and
oneofthese, the Patuxent River, touches Bowie.
By using less lawn andgarden chemicals and
practicing water conservation, Bowie residents
can help protect the watershed. With its grant, the
city wanted to demonstrate andpromote an
environmentally sound'landscaping'technique
called BayScapes. BayScapes emphasize native,
low maintenance, and heat tolerant plants, plant
diversify, water conservation, and the minimal
use of fertilizers andpesticides in residential
settings.
THEPRQJECT: To create andpromote a series of Bay Scapes designs at City Hall as a
model for city residents.
THE PARTNERS: Chesapeake Bay Trust, City of Bowie, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and
resident and student volunteers.
THERESOURCES: $9,750 from the Small Watershed Grants Program; $9,477 through in-
kind services from the City of Bowie staff; and $1,050 from the Chesapeake Bay Trust.
THERESULTS:
City staff and volunteers from the City's Tree Preservation/Beautification Committee were
trained by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in BayScapes techniques. A series of BayScapes
mini-gardens was designed and created for a 125 x 122 foot space behind City Hall.
Residents and 30 students from Bowie High School's environmental science classes turned
out for a Volunteer Planting Day in October 1998. A second planting day in May 1999
brought out 30 volunteers, including students and the Maryland Conservation Corps.
In late spring 1999, the gardens were open for self-guided tours. Along with trees, shrubs,
ferns, wildflowers, and other native plants, the area includes a small wetland and butterfly
garden. The city newsletter, American Planning Association magazine, and local newspa-
pers publicized the opening of the gardens. A video about the project was shown on Bowie
Cable Television.
Tours of the BayScapes gardens were given to five classes from the local elementary
school. The school's PTA is researching ways to incorporate BayScapes techniques into the
school's landscaping.
Staff and volunteers are available to assist residents who want to use BayScapes for land-
scaping their homes. City staff will use their knowledge of BayScapes to landscape a site
for a new senior center and community gymnasium planned for 2000.
In April 1999, the Bowie City Council endorsed the BayScapes program city-wide in its
"Bowie Development Review Guidelines."
14
-------
Countryside Conservancy
Waverly, Pennsylvania
The Tunkhannock Creek in northeastern
Pennsylvania drains directly into theSusque-
hannaRiver. Dairy farms have a strongpres-
encein the area, and water quality in thecreek
is most affected by nutrients that drain from
animal waste in areapastures.
THEPROJECT: To develop a
greenways plan for the Tunkhannock
Creek watershed.
THE PARTNERS: Countryside
Conservancy and 31 municipalities in
the watershed.
THERESOURCES: #20,000 from the
Small Watershed Grants Program and
$20,000 from the Willary Foundation.
THE RESULTS:
A comprehensive greenways plan
was developed for the area, including
a watershed natural resources inven-
tory and analysis, a vision statement,
and a work plan.
The Conservancy conducted thorough
public outreach and information gathering.
The group appointed steering and community resource committees with wide represen-
tation; visited 31 of the 32 municipalities in the watershed; sought more information
through mailing s and surveys; held three public meetings in the watershed to solicit
additional comments and information; and made a final public presentation on the draft
plan and its potential greenway corridors
A "special places" list, provided by the community residents and officials, identified 100
sites that would benefit from greenways protection. The list is included in the final plan
and helped to influence the siting of potential greenway corridors.
15
-------
Elizabeth River Project
Norfolk, Virginia
Habitat loss is an important issue in the Elizabeth
River watershed. Much of its watershed is located
in Norfolk, Virginia. Approximately 90% of the
land is developed, and the river is listed as a
Chesapeake Bay Program Region of Concern.
This project improved wildlife habitat, reduced
the impact of storm water run-off, and improved
community awareness about theproblems facing
the Elizabeth River.
THEPROJECT: To create a wetland
in a low income neighborhood and help
several businesses to design and implement
habitat restoration projects.
THEPARTNERS: City of Norfolk,
Elizabeth River Project, numerous area
businesses, and more than 200 volunteers,
including residents of a low-income neigh-
borhood.
THERESOURCES: $20,000 from the
Small Watershed Grants Program; more than
$18,000 from six organizations and busi-
nesses; and in-kind contributions of volun-
teer labor valued at approximately $15,000.
THE RESULTS:
A wetland was restored as an environmental justice project on Pescara Creek, a tributary
to the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River. Invasive plants and more than four truck-
loads of debris were removed along 700 linear feet of shoreline. Native marsh grasses and
shrubs were added with the help of more than 80 volunteers during "Save Pescara Creek
Day," with dignitaries and media attention. Storm water drainage features were also
improved.
The Elizabeth River Project assisted seven "River Star" businesses with the design and
completion of wildlife habitat enhancement projects, including one wetland, three native
plant gardens, and three large naturalized landscapes.
The award-winning Birdsong Wetland was completed. More than 1,200plants and a small
intertidal oyster reef were added using volunteer labor.
16
-------
Eyes of Paint Branch
Silver Spring, Maryland
The goal of the Paint Branch Watershed Com-
munity Stewardship Program is to inform and
educate watershed residents andthegeneral
public about the importance of the Paint Branch,
its surrounding forests and wetlands, their
relation to the health of the Anacostia River, and
ultimately the Chesapeake Bay. The Paint
Branch watershed lies in Montgomery and
Prince George's counties, Maryland, and
contains metropolitan Washington's last wild
trout population. The Eyes of Paint Branch is a
nonprofit, grass-roots organization of volunteer
citizens devoted to preserving, protecting, and
restoring the Paint Branch watershed.
THEPROJECT: To produce educa-
tional materials for distribution throughout
the community, promoting awareness about
the importance of Paint Branch, its surround-
ing forests and wetlands, and its ultimate
relation to the health of the Chesapeake Bay.
THE PARTNERS: Eyes of Paint Branch,
Montgomery County Department of Environ-
mental Protection, Montgomery County
Parks Department, and the Potomac-Patuxent
Chapter of Trout Unlimited.
THERESOUROES: $8,988 from the Small Watershed Grants Program; $3,770 from Trout
Unlimited; and $6,420 from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources and the Maryland
National Capital Parks and Planning Commission.
THE RESULTS:
Eyes of Paint Branch published two issues of their newsletter, called My Backyard, and four
issues of the Backyard Bulletin.
The brochure Restoring Paint Branch was updated and 5,000 copies were printed.
Ten copies of the book Flute's Journey: The Life of the Wood Thrush, by Lynne Cherry, were
purchased for distribution to elementary schools and libraries in the watershed.
Publications were distributed to approximately 3,300 people and organizations, including
members, officials, staff of local, state, and federal agencies, and politicians at all levels of
government. They were also shared with the public at local fairs and festivals.
17
-------
Fallston High School
Fallston, Maryland
Fallston High School, in Harford County,
Maryland, is adjacent to Cougar Run, which
flows into Elbow Creek and then Winters Run.
Nonpoint source pollution related to development
has been an issue in this fast-growing county. The
Environmental Club and Fallston High School
identified an opportunity to create a buffer
between the school's athletic fields and Cougar
Run. The initiative became ayear-longproject.
THEPROJECT: To plant buffers
adjacent to the school's football and field
hockey fields to reduce stormwater run-off.
THE PARTNERS: Fallston High School
Administration, Fallston High School Envi-
ronmental Club, and Fallston High School
newspaper.
THERESOURCES: $9,338 from the Small
Watershed Grants Program and in-kind
contributions of student volunteer labor.
THE RESULTS:
Students planted white pines and pin
oaks in the fall 1998 and ornamental
grasses and shrubs in the spring 1999.
An additional planting was planned for the fall 1999 with a new class.
The school procured water testing kits, field guides, soil bores, maps, and reference books
for use in the classroom.
The club and its faculty advisor created experimental ponds behind school for future use
by biology classes.
A large publicity spread was produced for the centerfold of the high school newspaper.
18
-------
Girl Scouts & Boy Scouts of
Sinking Valley
Tyrone, Pennsylvania
Scouts from this central Pennsylvania town
aimed to curb aproblem along Sinking Creek, a
tributary to the JuniataRiver, whichjoins the
Susquehanna north ofHarrisburg. At this site on
SinkingCreek, a nearby bridge structure has
caiisedheavy erosion and sedimentation. Com-
munity support swelled as theproject moved
forward. Initially conceived of as a scout project,
the effort grew to include approximately one
hundred adult volunteers and received consider-
able assistance from the township, an added
benefit that will help ensure the site'sfuture
maintenance.
1HEPRQJECE To create a riparian
buffer along a portion of Sinking Creek and
involve area youth in a hands-on project that
would teach them conservation principles.
THE PARTNERS: Approximately 200
children and adult volunteers, including two
Girl Scout troops and one Boy Scout troop,
their parents, a church youth group, and
members of the Juniata Chapter of the Na-
tional Audubon Society.
THERESOURCES: $482 from the Small Watershed Grants Program and in-kind donations
of materials and volunteer labor valued at approximately $11,250.
THE RESULTS:
Seventy-five native trees were planted along Sinking Creek during a one-day planting
event in April 1999. A shrub buffer was also installed, along with a butterfly garden,
wildflower patches, and bluebird boxes.
The scouts did most of the work themselves, earning badges and preparing a time capsule
that was planted that same day.
Maintenance has consisted of weekly watering to help the new trees weather the drought,
a commitment by the township to refrain from mowing the wildflower areas, several
bluebirds nesting in the boxes.
More than 1,000 butterflies were counted in the garden area.
The project received prominent local TV coverage.
19
-------
Gunpowder Valley Conservancy
Kingsville, Maryland
The Gunpowder watershedprovides drinking
water, recreational fishing, and historic and
economic resources to the Baltimore region. The
Gunpowder River runs through Baltimore and
Harfordcounties, skirting densely populated
metropolitan areas. The reservoirs on the river are
the major source of drinking water for the Balti-
more region. The river is a Class I trout stream.
THEPROJECT: To increase citizen
awareness of the watershed's resources by
establishing a broad-based coalition that
would work to protect the river.
THE PARTNERS: Twenty-one organiza-
tions joined with the Conservancy to plan the
conference that was the focal point of this
project. Local governments, farm organiza-
tions, community groups, education institu-
tions, and conservation organizations joined
with the Conservancy to plan a highly suc-
cessful one-day conference.
THE RESOURCES: $7,200 from the Small
Watershed Grants Program, plus in-kind
donations and 1,827 hours of volunteer labor
valued at $22,080 from Baltimore County
Department of Environmental Protection and Resource Management, Maryland Department of
the Environment, and the Salvation Army/Camp Puh'tok.
THE RESULTS:
More than 100 people attended the Gunpowder Watershed Conference on March 20, 1999.
Topics included the history of the river, environmental problems, protection plans, and
challenges. The conference energized attendees, who spent the afternoon brainstorming on
ways to enhance the Gunpowder. Attendees represented a huge cross section of interests,
many of whom had never talked together about the river.
A Gunpowder Watershed Clearinghouse was created at www.mde.state.md.us/gw/.
The web site contains information about events, data about the watershed, resources for
teachers, and a discussion board where interested citizens can connect with one another.
A Gunpowder coalition is in the formative stages, with leaders from the conference meet-
ing monthly to map out next steps in an ongoing effort to increase public awareness of the
river, its watershed, and its resources.
20
-------
Headwaters Charitable Trust
DuBois, Pennsylvania
The Headwaters Charitable Trust, working out of
the north-central coal region ofPennsylvania, is
guiding the establishment of a greenway through-
out the Moshannon Valley. This grant furthered
the greenway project by developing a model to
organize all levels ofgovernments and all types of
nonprofit groups into cooperative roles for the
creation of the greenway. Once the greenway is
established, potential benefits to the Chesapeake
Bay include riparian buffers along a six-mile
stretch of the Black Moshannon Creek and other
smaller riparian zones throughout the valley.
THEPROJECT: To produce a model
agreement that can be adopted by nonprofits
and local governments in the Moshannon
Valley to organize themselves for the creation
of a greenways plan.
THE PARTNERS: Headwaters Chari-
table Trust and municipal governments
within the watershed.
THERESOURCES: $10,000 from the
Small Watershed Grants Program.
THERESULTS:
The Trust produced a model Cooperative Agreement that outlines roles for all levels of
government and different types of nonprofit groups in developing a greenway. It provides
legal guidance and a mock "agreement" that can serve as a template for various conserva-
tion activities.
The agreement has been distributed widely through the valley to numerous organizations
and all thirteen townships in the Moshannan Valley Council of Governments.
Area nonprofit groups have expressed enthusiasm for the model and the local Rails to
Trails chapter intends to use it in their efforts to build the greenway. The Trust anticipates
that many of the valley's municipalities, currently developing master plans, may incorpo-
rate some aspects of the agreement through this effort.
21
-------
James River Association
Richmond, Virginia
The James River Association is dedicated to the
conservation and responsible stewardship of the
natural and historic resources of the James River
watershed. This project supported the develop-
ment of Chesapeake Bay Program Tributary
Strategies, by developing and conducting water-
shedplanningandpublic outreach activities that
will help reduce nutrients and sediments in the
James River watershed.
THEPROJECE To coordinate a series
of public involvement activities focused on
developing strategies for nutrient reductions
in the James River basin, to produce Geo-
graphical Information System (GIS) maps, and to assist willing landowners with developing
riparian easements and other riparian protection measures.
THE PARTNERS: James River Association, James River Council, James River Technical
Review Committee, and Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Several hundred people have been
involved in workshops, meetings, conference, and receipt of information. Partnerships were also
formed with several stakeholder groups, including academics, landowners, local officials, and
soil and water conservation district representatives. Many volunteers will be involved with
buffer plantings.
THE RESOURCES: This is a large, multi-year project with numerous funding sources. Funds
for 1999 included $38,000 from the Small Watershed Grants Program and $103,000 in matching
funds.
THE RESULTS:
The James River Watershed Council was formed to exchange information about tributary
strategies and watershed planning. The council sponsored a 1998 James River Watershed
Conference and held two public meetings in the spring 1999 to educate citizens about the
tributary strategy process and options.
The James River Association worked closely with a variety of stakeholders on the James
River Technical Review Committee to develop the goals and strategies for nutrient and
sediment reduction.
GIS maps were produced for the entire James River watershed. They were distributed to
local governments, planning district commissions, and soil and water conservation districts.
The James River Association initiated a Riparian Lands Restoration Program. Two work-
shops were held for landowners, several dozen of whom are now involved with specific
actions to protect and restore their buffers. An extensive planting was held in fall 1999.
A future workshop is planned on Watershed Planning and Site Design, to be conducted by
the Center for Watershed Protection and targeting local government representatives and
developers.
22
-------
Juniata County
Conservation District
Juniata County, Pennsylvania
The Juniata River in western Pennsylvania is a
major tributary to the Susquehanna River,
draining a largely agricultural area with many
dairy andbeef livestock operations. Sediment
pollution from streambank erosion and nutrient
pollution, both caused by livestock entering
streams, wasaproblem in the watershed. The
Juniata County Conservation District wanted to
establish a local'streambank fencingprogram to
supplement minimal funding available from the
state.
THE PROJECTS To engage landowners in stream fencing and forested riparian buffer
habitat restoration programs.
THEPARTNERS: Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Chesapeake Bay Program, Ducks Unlim-
ited, Juniata County, Juniata County Conservation District, and USDA Natural Resource Con-
servation Service's Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program.
THEKESOURCES: $37,500 from the Small Watershed Grants Program, and $33,586 in
matching funds from the project partners.
THE RESULTS:
Over 2 7,000 feet of fencing was installed along five miles of stream.
Seventeen livestock stream crossings and five drinking accesses were installed.
Nine property owners participated in the project, and at least ten are on a waiting list for
future fencing programs.
Participants voluntarily agreed to allow a forested riparian buffer to reestablish itself along
the stream, and agreed to maintain the fencing for ten years.
23
-------
Lancaster County
Conservation District
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
The Pequea and Mill Creek watershed drains more
than 135,000 acres or22% of the land in
Lancaster County, eventually dumping its waters
into the Susquehanna River. This heavily fanned
area lies in the heart of Pennsylvania 'sAmish
farm community and supports the highest density
of dairy cows in the state. Nutrient and sediment
pollution caused by livestock is a significant
problem in the watershed. Thisprojectbuilds on
the success of a larger initiative, thePequeaMill
Creek Hydrologic Project, which improved water
quality in Pequea and Mill Creeks by fencing
streamsandplantingriparianbuffersalongthe
streams 'tributary headwaters.
THEPRQJECT: To construct a trout
nursery raceway with the goal of reintroduc-
ing trout to a once-degraded tributary of Mill
Creek, demonstrating the benefits of best
management practices and convincing other
landowners to participate in stream fencing.
THE PARTNERS: Lancaster County
Conservation District, Pequea Mill Creek
Project Office, US Fish and Wildlife Service, local Amish landowners and volunteers.
THE RESOURCES: $9,800 from the Small Watershed Grants Program and in-kind contribu-
tions of services, materials, and office supplies valued at $18,139.
THE RESULTS:
A trout nursery raceway was constructed adjacent to an unnamed tributary of Mill Creek.
It consists of two check dams and a sediment trap in the upper end of the stream, piping to
divert water into two holding tanks, a pipe to return water to the creek, and fencing to
enclose the raceway area. Fingerling trout were purchased and the Amish landowner
raised them in the raceway until they were large enough to be released. The first batch of
trout died because of low water conditions during summer 1998. Survival of a second
group was much improved.
On the day 70 trout were released into the stream, a Field Day was held that was well
attended by the local community and covered in the local Amish newspaper.
This project demonstrated the importance of good conservation practices that have restored
the trout fishing potential of Mill Creek. Property owners are encouraged to copy the
conservation practices on their own lands. Subsequent to this project, at least seven addi-
tional nearby landowners have fenced their stream properties.
£rx
-------
Lord Fairfax Planning District
Commiss ion
Front Royal, Virginia
The Town ofStrasburg, in western Virginia, is an
older community of mixed uses. TheStrasburg
High School Agricultural Department owns nine
acres along the North Fork of the Shenandoah
River. The land is prone to flooding, erosion, and
hadpoor wildlife habitat. Expanding existing
wetlands, creating forested riparian buffers, and
developing an environmental educational resource
for the community were the goals of this project.
THEPROJECE To develop a nine-acre
riparian wetland for land management and
ecology education adjacent to Strasburg High School.
THE PARTNERS: Columbia Gas and Transmission, Lord Fairfax Planning District,
Massanutten Garden Club, National Wild Turkey Federation, Strasburg High School Agricul-
tural Department, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Virginia Department of
Game and Inland Fisheries, Wal-Mart, and 110 student volunteers.
THERESOURCES: $33,800 from the Small Watershed Grants Program and $26,340 in
matching funds and in-kind contributions, including approximately 2,420 hours of volunteer
labor valued at $24,200.
THERESULTS:
Wildlife viewing areas were created by sculpting the land to form a shallow pond, ex-
panded wetlands, and seven "islands" of higher ground. A trail winds through the area
where walkers can view wetlands, wooded areas and open fields. Observation decks,
plank bridges, bird habitat and informational signposts were installed.
Mixed grasses were planted in the wetlands and open areas to provide feed for wildlife
during different seasons of the year, and extensive forest edge habitat, created along the
natural edges of the "islands" provided improved wildlife habitat.
Native trees and shrubs were planted along the river and a river access to the area was
formed to accommodate boaters.
In 1999, Strasburg High School offered its first ecology class in conjunction with the
management area.
In total, 110 Future Farmers of American (FFA) students donated approximately 2,420
hours of labor to the project. FFA and general ecology students will help maintain the
trails and plantings. As students apply the riparian land management lessons they learn to
their own lands and farms, the project's water quality impacts will be multiplied.
25
-------
Mattaponi & Pamunkey
Rivers Association
Manquin, Virginia
The Mattaponi and Pamunkey Rivers Association
works to protect the two rivers that join to form
the York River. Synoptic stream surveys were
conducted along three distinct York basin
subwatersheds: agricultural, forested, andurban.
The selected streams were designated as "water
quality limited" in a 1998 report issued by the
state of Virginia. Since many of the streams'
impairment sources are unknown, this project
gathered information that will be useful for future
restoration strategies. The project also asserted
that citizens can contribute to watershedplanning.
THEPROJECT: To train volunteers to
conduct rapid stream assessments and de-
velop management recommendations in three
targeted subwatersheds of the York River.
THE PARTNERS: Chesapeake Bay
Foundation (York Chapter), Chesapeake Bay
Local Assistance Department, Lake Anna
Advisory Committee, Lake Anna Property
Association, Mattaponi and Pamunkey Rivers
Association, Virginia Institute of Marine
Science (the Center for Coastal Management and Policy and the Comprehensive Coastal Inven-
tory), and the seven soil and water conservation districts covering the York River watershed.
THERESOURCES: $38,000 from the Small Watershed Grants Program and contributions of
supplies, staff time, and volunteer labor, valued at approximately $30,000.
THERESULTS:
Four workshops were conducted, during which 30 volunteers were trained in Maryland
Department of Natural Resources protocol for rapid stream assessments; 40 additional
volunteers were recruited for future stream assessments.
Approximately 15 miles of three impaired stream segments (TMDL priority waterbodies)
were assessed and photographed. The assessment took approximately 25 full days and
allowed volunteer teams to observe and describe physical conditions, habitat elements, flow
velocity, and adjacent land use.
The Association convened three community landowner meetings and presented information
gathered during the assessments. The attendees provided specific recommendations and
plan to form ad-hoc citizen committees to seek funding to implement the recommendations.
The project also raised awareness in communities located near the impaired streams.
26
-------
Midshore Regional
Recycling Program
Caroline, Kent, Queen Anne, and
Talbot Counties, Maryland
Maryland's Midshore Region extends from the
Sassafras to the Choptank River on the Eastern
Shore. Its 1,300 square miles encompass Caroline,
Kent, Queen Anne, and Talbot Counties and
include more than 3,100 miles of shoreline along
the Chesapeake and Eastern Bays, six rivers, and
numerous streams and creeks. The Midshore
Regional Recycling Program, apartnershipofthe
four midshore county governments, provides
recycling programs to the 117,000 residents of this
region of mostly small towns and rural lands.
THE PROJECT: To fund two household hazardous waste collections, the first ones ever for
the residents of Maryland's midshore counties.
THE PARTNERS: Caroline, Kent, Queen Anne, and Talbot Counties; Chesapeake Bay Trust;
Maryland Department of the Environment, Maryland Environmental Services, Midshore Regional
Recycling Program; local newspapers, libraries, solid waste facilities, and recycling stations; and
hundreds of residents who participated in the program.
THERESOURCES: $38,000 from the Small Watershed Grants Program; $600 from the Chesa-
peake Bay Trust; and in-kind contributions of county and state staff time valued at $18,456.
THE RESULTS:
The first-ever household hazardous waste collection day for midshore residents was held
September 26,1998, at the Midshore Regional Solid Waste Facility near Easton, Maryland.
Two-hundred sixty-one people dropped off more than twelve tons of materials.
A second collection day was held June 12,1999, at the Nicholson Waste Transfer Station near
Chestertown, where 205 residents brought in 4.5 tons of household hazardous waste.
Household hazardous waste such as fuels, paints, solvents, pesticides, and lawn and garden
chemicals were collected, sorted, and packaged for disposal at sites designed and regulated
for hazardous materials. In addition, non-household hazardous waste materials such as
motor oil, automobile lead-acid batteries, propane tanks, and latex paint were accepted for
disposal or recycling through existing outlets.
Three storage shelters were purchased to house household hazardous waste that can be
dropped off by residents unable to make collection days, or to safely store waste left at
county recycling facilities.
Building on the success of the project, all four midshore counties approved funds to continue
the collection program in 2000, and are committed to a spring and fall collection day each
year at varying locations. They are also considering a battery recycling program, lawn and
garden product exchange, and building materials exchange.
27
-------
The Nature Conservancy
Chevy Chase, Maryland
The Nature Conservancy is a nonprofit organiza-
tion that seeks topurchase and maintain sensitive
environmental'areasforthepurposeofpreserva-
tion and education. The watershed of SidlingHUl
Creek inAllegany County, Maryland, a tributary
to the Potomac River, has suffered from illegal
dumping, exotic/invasive species, andgeneral
erosion due to human activities. However, this
stream has never been dammed, ditched, or
otherwise had its channel altered. TheNature
Conservancy conducted a restoration project to
returnpart of Sidling Hill Creek watershed to a
morepristinecondition.
THEPROJECE To mobilize volun-
teers for clean-ups and building demolition,
weed control, riparian forest buffer plantings,
and trail construction to ease foot traffic
impacts.
THE PARTNERS: Chesapeake Bay Trust,
Curtis and Edith Munson Foundation, and
the Nature Conservancy.
THERESOURCES: $22,721 from the Small
Watershed Grants Program; $10,000 from the
Chesapeake Bay Trust; $2,000 from the Curtis
and Edith Munson Foundation; and in-kind,
volunteer contributions valued at $11,700.
THE RESULTS:
The Nature Conservancy hosted more than a dozen volunteer days consisting of weed
control and monitoring on the Bellegrove Shale Barren.
In September 1998, the Nature Conservancy worked with Environmental Quality and
Standards of Cumberland, Maryland, to demolish buildings that were environmentally
hazardous due to asbestos-lined walls. They also salvaged and recycled scrap glass, metal
or wood, hauled the larger trash items to the dump, and regraded the area to a near-
natural contour in order to support native vegetation.
A two-mile trail loop was created on the fLoodplain and through the hills of the preserve.
Thirty-one volunteers planted more than 1,100 trees to create a riparian buffer.
28
-------
Richmond County
Board of Supervisors
Richmond County, Virginia
Lancaster andMorattico Creeks drain more than
twenty square miles in Richmond and Lancaster
Counties and empty into the Rappahanock River,
an important shellfish growing area. The water-
shed, which is largely forested and20%farmed,
has significant residential development close to
the mouths of the two creeks. Basic data on the
water quality of Lancaster andMorattico Creeks
is needed to help in overall watershed planning
efforts and to assess the impact of the creeks'
waters on the shellfish fishery.
THEPROJECT: To monitor water quality and survey submerged aquatic vegetation in
Lancaster and Morattico Creeks, and to provide community outreach on watershed protec-
tion.
THE PARTNERS: Lancaster/Morattico Creek Watershed Partnership, Richmond County
Board of Supervisors, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and community volunteers.
THE RESOURCES: $9,660 from the Small Watershed Grants Program and in-kind contribu-
tions of volunteer labor, Richmond County staff time and office supplies valued at $9,725.
THE RESULTS:
Ten sites in the Lancaster/Morattico Creek watershed were sampled every two months for
one year by the Rappahannock River Resource Council. An additional three sites were
sampled weekly by volunteers.
In July 1998, members of the Lancaster/Morattico Creek Watershed Partnership surveyed
submerged aquatic vegetation along the entire navigable sections of Morattico and
Lancaster Creeks.
Brochures providing information on watershed protection were printed and distributed to
permit applicants and others through the Richmond County Building and Zoning Offices.
The Watershed Partnership conducted a clean-up effort over two weekends in spring 1999.
Forty-five volunteers collected more than 20,000 pounds of trash, including the removal of
pieces of seven old boats and motors.
The Lancaster/Morattico Creek Watershed Partnership holds regular meetings that are
open to landowners in the watershed. The Partnership plans to use the baseline data from
this project to make specific recommendations to landowners and policy makers in the
months ahead.
29
-------
Richmond Recreation and
Parks Foundation
Richmond, Virginia
BryanPark, CheswickPark, and Spring Park are
part of the Chickahominy watershed in urban
areas of Richmond, Virginia. Park advocates
decided to develop master plans for environmen-
tal stewardship. They wanted to demonstrate that
balancing conservation with recreation improves
overall park quality, reduces maintenance costs,
and delivers benefits to both local and regional
waterquality.
THEPROJECT: To develop model
environmental maintenance guidelines and staff training for Bryan Park, Cheswick Park, and
Spring Park, and to produce a guidebook for use by other groups and municipalities.
THE PARTNERS: City of Richmond, Henrico County, Richmond Recreation and Parks
Foundation, and several volunteer groups from the community.
THE RESOURCES: $39,800 from the Small Watershed Grants Program; $13,000 through an
Elmwood Foundation grant to the Friends of Bryan Park; additional funds and in-kind
contributions from Richmond Recreation and Parks Foundation, volunteers, and others,
valued at $53,750.
THE RESULTS:
A maintenance guidebook was produced and used to train staff on identifying sensitive
resources, setting goals and objectives, and developing individual park plans to protect
natural resources and water quality.
Park staff established three Public Park Master Plans, which serve as models for other
parks.
Seven demonstration projects were created with the help of volunteers, showcasing
streambank stabilization, erosion control, riparian buffer restoration, improved water
access, and environmental education.
Bryan Park staff is now demonstrating 21st-century resource protection and water
quality improvement strategies to local governments, volunteer groups, and the general
public.
Best management practices for parks and recreation maintenance departments of Rich-
mond and Henrico County were revised to incorporate natural resource protection,
improvement of water quality, and reduction of maintenance costs.
A training workshop was held for Richmond and Henrico County parks and recreation
personnel on watersheds, erosion and sedimentation, stormwater management and
pond maintenance, wildlife habitat, and funding sources.
30
-------
Severn River Land Trust
Annapolis, Maryland
The Severn River is a state-designated Scenic
River that flows directly into the Chesapeake Bay
near Annapolis, Maryland. To balance develop-
ment pressures, the Severn River Land Trust
encourages voluntary techniques by private
landowners to preserve land in the watershed.
Their goal is to ensure that current and future
generations may enjoy the benefits of private
landownership while employing protective
stewardshippractices.
THEPRQJECT: To involve private
landowners in stewardshippractices that
protect riparian forest and reduce run-off in
two targeted subwatersheds of the Severn River.
THE PARTNERS: Anne Arundel County, Maryland Department of Agriculture, Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Office of Planning, Natural Resource Conserva-
tion Service, Severn River Association, Severn River Land Trust, and Trust for Public Land.
THE RESOURCES: #4,500 from the Small Watershed Grants Program and $18,750 from the
Chesapeake Bay Trust.
THE RESULTS:
A list of 300 landowners was completed and merged with property data and information
on current easement activity. The landowners were added to the Trust's mailing list,
through which they receive information on stewardship options, conservation easements,
and profiles of neighbors engaged in those activities.
The Trust improved outreach tools targeting private landowners. They hosted a field trip,
launched a web site, redesigned their newsletter and increased publication from twice
yearly to quarterly.
The Trust advanced protection strategies for two key areas of the watershed by developing
detailed, targeted GIS maps and working with landowners to apply for federal funds
through the Forest Legacy program.
Stronger ties with the local media helped to enhance community awareness. The Trust
received coverage for two key projects and for its tenth anniversary.
A series of five landowner stewardship guides were created and distributed. Topics
included controlling erosion, attracting birds, restoring and improving riparian forest
buffers, reducing run-off, and alternatives to pesticides.
31
-------
Shenandoah Valley
Pure Water 2000 Forum
Bridgewater, Virginia
The Shenandoah Valley Pure Water2000Forum
works to improve water quality and to promote
riparian restoration activities and environmental
education throughout the Shenandoah Valley of
Virginia. For this project, the Forum planted
riparian buffers at two sites: on the North River, a
tributary to the Shenandoah, where a 1996 flood
had destroyed the underbrush and left exposed soil
along the river's banks, and at Cook's Creek, a
tributary to the North River.
THEPROJECK To implement
BayScaping and streambank stabilization at
two sites: the North River in Wildwood Park
and Cook's Creek in Cook's Creek Arbore-
tum.
THEPARTNERS: Bridgewater College,
John Wayland Elementary School,
Shenandoah Valley Pure Water 2000 Forum,
Town of Bridgewater, Turner Ashby High
School, and Virginia Native Plants Society.
THERESOURCES: $7,484 from the Small
Watershed Grants Program; $6,458 in finan-
cial and in-kind support from the town of
Bridgewater; $7,250 in volunteer labor; and a $2,500 in-kind match from Bridgewater College
and Turner Ashby High School.
THERESULTS:
Three workdays were held at Wildwood park. The Forum planted a total of 700 native
plants along a 600 foot riparian buffer that ranged from 30 to 100 feet wide along the
North River. The Forum also planted a corridor from the riparian area into the upland area
of the park.
One of the Wildwood Park work days included an Environmental Fair. During the fair,
students installed plants and learned about a variety of environmental topics, including
erosion and native plants.
At Cook's Creek Arboretum, high school students supplemented previous plantings with
more than forty native trees and shrubs along the eroding stream bank.
An education brochure on the stream restoration and plantings at Cook's Creek was
printed and is now available to Arboretum visitors.
32
-------
Thomas Jefferson High School for
Science and Technology
Alexandria, Virginia
This project is part of a larger undertaking at the
Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and
Technology, called Constructing Connections.
The goal is to teach secondary school students
how to protect the local streams and water that
affect the Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay.
Thisparticularprojectfocused on wetland
construction. Ittookplace in Greenland Spring
Gardens Park, an areathat has suffered from the
intense development of the area surrounding it.
The students 'work directly affects Turkey Cock
Run, a tributary to the Potomac.
THEPROJECE To design and build,
with the help of students, rain gardens to act
as bioretention facilities on the school cam-
pus, and to provide training on the use of
environmental projects for team-teaching
across disciplines.
THE PARTNERS: Environmental
Concern, Fairfax County Public Schools,
Greenspring Farms Park (Fairfax County
Parks Department), Mt. Vernon High School,
Northern Virginia Soil and Water Conserva-
tion District, Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology and US Coast Guard.
THERESOURCES: $10,000 from the Small Watershed Grants Program and volunteer labor
and other matches valued at $208,250.
THERESULTS:
Students and teachers worked together on the design and construction of a wetland in the
neighboring park and four ponds on school grounds.
' Teachers received training in wetland functions, ecology, and remediation. They incorpo-
rated this into a curriculum for the students.
' Teachers created an interdisciplinary approach through which biology, English, and
technology instructors collaborated to form the curriculum.
150 students and teachers collaborated with professionals who manage nearby wetlands.
Students conducted wetland monitoring.
33
-------
Town of Federalsburg
Federalsburg, Maryland
TheMarshyhope Creek flows through the Town of
Federalsburg in southern Caroline County on its
way to the Nanticoke River. Thecreekbed
through the town was channelized in the 1960's
andthewetiandareawasfilledandmaintainedas
an open mowed field. In 1995, the town began
work on a recreational'trail'and'shoreline stabili-
zation project along the northern section of
Marshyhope Creek. This is a multi-yearproject
with funding from many different sources. For
the southern section, the town wanted to return
the creek to its natural state. Restoring the
wetlands along Marshyhope Creek would help to
control nutrient andsedimentpollution from
stormwater run-off.
THEPRQJECT: To restore wetlands along Marshyhope Creek and create a nature trail
through the restored area, and to connect this area to the northern part of the creek to form the
Marshyhope Creek Greeenway.
THE PARTNERS: Caroline County Board of Education, Chesapeake Bay Trust, Town of
Federalsburg, State Highway Administration through the Symms National Trail Act, and many
federal, state, and local agencies and private groups who contributed funds, materials, and/or
personnel to the wetland construction project.
THEKESOURCES: Funding from the sources above totaling more than $200,000, including
$38,000 from the Small Watershed Grants Program.
THERESULTS:
12.32 acres of wetlands were restored along Marshyhope Creek by excavating three sites in
the previously filled area. Approximately 45,000 cubic yards of fill material was removed
to create the wetlands.
A nature trail with interpretive signs, footbridges, and a boardwalk was built to connect
the three sites.
A boardwalk will be built in 2000 to connect the nature trail, which lies to the south of
town, with a recreational trail along the channelized stream in the north. This will form
one integrated trail called the Marshyhope Creek Greenway. People will be able to com-
pare the impact of stream channelization in the north and the restored creek's natural
elements to the south.
The Caroline County Board of Education developed curriculum utilizing the restored
wetlands for teaching children about the importance of wetlands in the local ecology and
their importance to the Chesapeake Bay.
Established 3,000 feet afforested riparian buffers along Marshyhope Creek.
34
-------
Town of North East
North East, Maryland
The Town of North East lies along the North
East River near the northern edge of the Chesa-
peake Bay. Ford's Run flows through the town
and into the North East River, which empties its
waters directly into the Chesapeake Bay. The
town wanted to reduce the amount of sediment
entering Ford's Run from streambank erosion
andstormwater run-off, and to improve the
stream 'sfish and wildlife habitat.
THEPRQJECE To educate local
landowners about the importance of riparian
buffers and to engage their help in planting
trees and shrubs along Ford's Run.
THE PARTNERS: Maryland Critical Areas Commission, Maryland Office of Planning,
Town of North East, and local landowners,.
THERESOURCES: $10,000 from the Small Watershed Grants Program; $23,545 in matching
funds from the Town of North East; in-kind contributions of office supplies valued at $2,154;
and donations of volunteer labor and state resource personnel time.
THERESULTS:
A workshop was held to educate landowners about the ecological importance of riparian
buffers, and to solicit their help in planting trees and shrubs along Ford's Run.
Seven landowners took part in the project. Before any plantings took place, they removed
trash and removed or controlled multiflora rose along the streambank. They planted a
total of 158 native trees and shrubs during late spring, or due to delays caused by the
drought, fall 1999. The landowners will continue to monitor and maintain the plantings.
Along with the direct benefit of new riparian buffers, this project promoted stewardship
values and activities by giving local landowners the opportunity to participate in improv-
ing the health of a local waterway, and implement best management practices on their
properties as a model for other landowners.
In conjunction with this project, the town installed a stormwater outfall on Ford's Run.
35
-------
York Township
York County, Pennsylvania
York Township is a 26-square mile community
lying outside the City of York in south central
Pennsylvania. It has apopulation of more than
22,000people living in older and newer subdivi-
sions along the primary travel corridors. Two
major roads, 1-83 and Route 74, bisect the
township. Although York Township is growing,
there still exist large tracts ofwoodlands and
agricultural open space. Mill Creek, Tyler Run,
and Lake Redman watersheds flow through the
area into Codorus Creek, which in turn empties
into the Susquehanna River. The Township
wants to manage development pressures to
preserve open space and protect the health of its
watersheds.
THEFRQJECT: To inventory York Township's open space and develop a greenway plan
for the community.
THEPARTNERS: Dallastown Area High School, York Township, York Water Company,
and student volunteers.
THERESOURCES: $10,000 from the Small Watershed Grants Program; $20,640 in matching
funds from York Township; and in-kind contributions from the York Water Company and
student volunteers.
THERESULTS:
The township was surveyed using aerial photography. This information was plotted
and then mapped using digitized GIS technology.
A preliminary greenway plan linking parks, wetlands, agricultural and forested lands,
and other open space areas was developed and is under review by the York County
Planning Commission. At the same time a review of the township's open space and
development ordinances is taking place.
In the months ahead the township will work to officially adopt the greenway plan as
part of the township's official plan, and will work to revise zoning ordinances and to
adopt an open space/conservation ordinance. Changing the township ordinances is
critical to preserving open space areas.
More than 20 meetings have taken place to discuss the future growth of York Township,
including public forums to discuss farmland preservation, neighborhood commercial
areas, and alternative land development methods.
In August 1998, February 1999, and summer 1999,22 students from Dallastown Area High
School's Environmental Club collected water samples from ten locations within the water-
sheds to begin a database of water quality information. The York Water Company
conducted the analyses. This monitoring program will continue in the future.
36
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
For more information, contact:
Chesapeake Bay Program
410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109
Annapolis, MD 21403
1-800-YOUR BAY
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/bayprogram/
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
410 Severn Ave., Suite 109
Annapolis, MD 21403
------- |