Executive Summary

MARYLAND CLEAN WATER ACTION PLAN

Draft 1998 Report on Unified Watershed Assessment,

Watershed Prioritization and Plans for Restoration Action Strategies

Produced by

Clean Water Action Plan Technical Workgroup

Under the Guidance of

Maryland Bay Cabinet Department of Natural Resources Department of the Environment Department of Agriculture Office of Planning University of Maryland College of Natural Resources and Environment University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science Maryland State Conservationist Representatives of Local Governments and Maryland's Tributary Teams 1 October 1998; Revised 14 October 1998

Except for this notice and modifications in formatting, this electronic document is a verbatim copy of revision 1.1 of 14 October 1998 edition of Maryland Clean Water Action Plan - Executive Summary Copyright (c) 1998 Maryland Department of Natural Resources

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Clean Water Action Plan proposes an expanded collaborative effort by state, federal, and local governments, the private sector and the public to restore watersheds not meeting clean water and other natural resource goals and to sustain healthy conditions in watersheds currently meeting those goals. Launched by President Clinton in February 1998, the Clean Water Action Plan addresses all aspects of watershed health: water quality (including public health issues), aquatic living resources, physical habitat, and the landscape.

There are three components of the State's response to the Clean Water Action Plan:

Unified Watershed Assessment used the best available information to assess the condition of each of the State's watersheds according to the following categories:

Category 1 - Watersheds not meeting clean water and other natural resource goals and needing restoration
Category 2 - Watersheds currently meeting goals that need preventive actions to sustain water quality and aquatic resources
Category 3 - Pristine or sensitive watersheds that need an extra level of protection
Category 4 - Watersheds with insufficient data to determine Categories 1, 2 or 3

Watershed Restoration Priorities are established by the State, based on the Unified Watershed Assessment. This process involved selecting those watersheds not meeting clean water and other natural resource goals that are most in need of restoration actions during the next two years.
Watershed Restoration Action Strategies identify the most important causes of water pollution and resource degradation, detail actions needed to address these problems, and set milestones by which to measure progress. Funds made available to selected agencies through the federal Clean Water and Watershed Restoration Budget Initiative (Federal Fiscal Year '99) will be used to help the State implement these strategies.

This report presents Maryland's Draft Clean Water Action Plan, describing the results of the Unified Watershed Assessment and Watershed Restoration Prioritization process and discussing plans to create Action Strategies. It was prepared by the Maryland Clean Water Action Plan Technical Workgroup, which includes representatives from state agencies, local governments, and stakeholder groups. This report was made available to the public in August 1998 and a series of six regional workshops were held in September 1998 in cooperation with the Tributary Strategy Teams and the Maryland Water Monitoring Council, to describe the plan and collect comments from the public. Following a review period and revisions based on some early comments that were received, a draft Clean Water Action Plan report was published and submitted to the federal agencies by October 1. Additional public comments will be received through October 15, 1998. After a final review, a final Clean Water Action Plan report will be submitted to the federal agencies in November 1998 and will provide the basis for the subsequent development of Watershed Restoration Action Strategies in the State.

Watershed Scale
In order to make the Unified Watershed Assessment as useful as possible in developing restoration strategies, Maryland compiled information at the smallest scale for which statewide information is readily available. There are 138 of these "Maryland 8-digit" watersheds in the State, with an average area of about 75 square miles each (Figure 1). (Where information is available, watershed assessments will contain information for smaller sub-watersheds.)

To ensure a consistent scale for watershed assessment nationwide, the federal agencies involved in the Plan (US Environmental Protection Agency - EPA and US Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service - NRCS) have requested assessment information at the hydrologic unit scale established by the U.S. Geological Survey. There are 20 of these 8-digit federal basins in Maryland, with an average area of about 500 square miles each (Figure 2). (The average area of a Maryland county is about 400 square miles.) Maryland reports on the condition of these federal basins by aggregating the assessments of the State's smaller watersheds. In aggregating this information, the larger federal basins are assigned to a selected category when the criteria are met in component smaller watersheds together comprise 15% or more of the total area of the larger watershed within the State.

Watershed Assessment
Two overarching goals were considered in the assessment of Maryland watersheds:

Clean Water Goals - Maryland watersheds should meet water quality standards, including numerical criteria as well as narrative standards and designated uses.
Other Natural Resource Goals - Watersheds should achieve healthy conditions as indicated by natural resource indicators related to the condition of the water itself, aquatic living resources, physical habitat, and other landscape factors

Category 1 - Watershed Needing Restoration
Watersheds placed in Category 1 include: a) Any watershed that appears on the list of impaired waters generated under Section 303(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments or b) Any other watershed that fails to meet two or more of the following natural resource goals:

Water Chemistry

Monitored data for nutrients (total nitrogen, total phosphorus), suspended sediments, and indicators of over-enrichment impact (chlorophyll a, summer bottom dissolved oxygen and Secchi depth)
Modeled nutrient loadings (total nitrogen and total phosphorus)
Aquatic Living Resources
Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) coverage and habitat requirements
Indices of the health of tidal and non-tidal fish and benthic communities
In-stream physical habitat

Landscape

Impervious surface
Population density
Historic wetland loss
Unbuffered streams
Soil Erodibility

Watersheds are considered to fail a natural resource goal if they do not meet an established benchmark level for a particular indicator, or if they fall in the worst 25 percent of watersheds for a relative natural resource indicator.

Category 2 - Watershed Needing Preventive Actions to Sustain Water Quality/Aquatic Resources
Any watershed that is not on the 303(d) List and that fails less than two natural resource goals listed above was placed in Category 2. Relatively few State watersheds are identified as Category 2 watersheds.

Category 3 - Pristine or Sensitive Watershed Needing Extra Protection
The following indicators were used to assign watersheds to Category 3:

Aquatic Living Resources

In-stream physical habitat
Indices of the health of non-tidal and tidal fish communities
Wetland dependent species
"Imperiled" (rare, threatened and endangered) aquatic species
Trout spawning areas
Migratory fish spawning areas

Landscape

Headwater stream systems in interior forest
Forest density
Designated State Wildlands

Fish hatchery water supply watersheds
Drinking water source protection watersheds

Any watershed with two or more of these indicators meeting Category 3 criteria was placed in this category.

Watershed Restoration Priorities
After identifying all watersheds that do not meet clean water or other natural resource goals (Category 1 watersheds), the Clean Water Action Plan calls for the selection of the set of those watersheds that are most in need of restoration during the next two years (Priority Watersheds). Priority watersheds are defined as those that failed at least half of the criteria for which data are available. This method gives the fullest consideration of watersheds statewide (since it does not "penalize" those regions for which fewer statewide data are available).

The Workgroup recognized that several other factors should be examined to see if they warranted including additional watersheds in the Category 1 Priority list. These include severity of impact (e.g. Pfiesteria outbreaks), coordination with adjacent states on interstate watersheds; and continued evaluation of new information.

On this basis, four additional watersheds were included in the draft Category 1 Priority List:

Transquaking River - This was one of the three watersheds that experienced an outbreak of the toxic microorganism Pfiesteria in 1997. The other two segments already are on the list.
Georges Creek - Some streams in this watershed have biological communities in exceptionally poor condition.
North Branch Potomac River - Some streams in this watershed have biological communities in exceptionally poor condition.
Deep Creek Lake - Some streams in this watershed have biological communities in exceptionally poor condition - this does not apply to the biological condition of the lake itself.

Watersheds identified as Category 1 Priority are listed in Table 1 and are shown in Figure 3.

Table 1. Priority Category 1 (Restoration) watersheds (NOTE: segments are ordered by watershed code)

`MD 8-digit`	`Watershed Name`	`MD 8-digit`	`Watershed Name`
`02130102`	`Assawoman Bay`	`02130903`	`Baltimore Harbor`
`02130103`	`Isle of Wight Bay`	`02130904`	`Jones Falls`
`02130105`	`Newport Bay`	`02130905`	`Gwynns Falls`
`02130202`	`Lower Pocomoke River`	`02131002`	`Severn River`
`02130203`	`Upper Pocomoke River`	`02131003`	`South River`
`02130208`	`Manokin River`	`02131102`	`Patuxent River middle`
`02130301`	`Lower Wicomico River`	`02131103`	`Western Branch`
`02130304`	`Wicomico River Head`	`02131104`	`Patuxent River upper`
`02130308`	`Transquaking River`	`02131105`	`Little Patuxent River`
`02130405`	`Tuckahoe Creek`	`02140104`	`Breton Bay`
`02130503`	`Wye River`	`02140111`	`Mattawoman Creek`
`02130506`	`Langford Creek`	`02140203`	`Piscataway Creek`
`02130507`	`Corsica River`	`02140204`	`Oxon Creek`
`02130509`	`Middle Chester River`	`02140205`	`Anacostia River`
`02130511`	`Kent Island Bay`	`02140206`	`Rock Creek`
`02130603`	`Upper Elk River`	`02140207`	`Cabin John Creek`
`02130604`	`Back Creek`	`02140208`	`Seneca Creek`
`02130610`	`Sassafras River`	`02140302`	`Lower Monocacy River`
`02130611`	`Stillpond-Fairlee`	`02140303`	`Upper Monocacy River`
`02130701`	`Bush River`	`02140305`	`Catoctin Creek`
`02130704`	`Bynum Run`	`02140502`	`Antietam Creek`
`02130706`	`Swan Creek`	`02140504`	`Conococheague Creek`
`02130803`	`Bird River`	`02141004`	`Georges Creek`
`02130807`	`Middle River-Browns Ck`	`02141005`	`Upper N Br. Potomac R.`
`02130901`	`Back River`	`05020203`	`Deep Creek Lake`
`02130902`	`Bodkin Creek`

Many of the other watersheds not included in this list also warrant restoration actions and will be addressed in future years under subsequent revisions to the Clean Water Action Plan that are expected.

Although there is no required prioritization of Category 3 watersheds, those identified with four or more indicators meeting Category goals 3 rating were highlighted as "Selected Category 3 Watersheds". These are listed in Table 2 and are shown in Figure 4.

Table 2. Selected Category 3 (Protection) watersheds. (NOTE: segments are ordered by watershed code)

`MD 8-Digit Code`	`Watershed Name`	`MD 8-Digit Code`	`Watershed Name`
`02120201`	`Lower Susquehanna River`	`02140111`	`Mattawoman Creek`
`02120202`	`Deer Creek`	`02140208`	`Seneca Creek`
`02120204`	`Conowingo Dam Susq Run`	`02140302`	`Lower Monocacy River`
`02130202`	`Lower Pocomoke River`	`02140303`	`Upper Monocacy River`
`02130305`	`Nanticoke River`	`02140502`	`Antietam Creek`
`02130503`	`Wye River`	`02140507`	`Tonoloway Creek`
`02130603`	`Upper Elk River`	`02140510`	`Sideling Hill Creek`
`02130608`	`Northeast River`	`02140511`	`Fifteen Mile Creek`
`02130806`	`Prettyboy Reservoir`	`02140512`	`Town Creek`
`02130905`	`Gwynns Falls`	`02141001`	`Potomac River Lower N Br.`
`02130907`	`Liberty Reservoir`	`02141002`	`Evitts Creek`
`02131101`	`Patuxent River Lower tidal`	`02141004`	`Georges Creek`
`02140102`	`Potomac River Middle tidal`	`02141005`	`Potomac River Upper N Br.`
`02140103`	`St. Mary's River`	`02141006`	`Savage River`
`02140107`	`Gilbert Swamp`	`05020201`	`Youghiogheny River`
`02140109`	`Port Tobacco River`	`05020204`	`Casselman River`
`02140110`	`Nanjemoy Creek`

Overlap between Categories 1 and 3
A number of watersheds fall into both Categories 1 and 3. These watersheds show signs of stress or degradation but still contain pristine or sensitive natural resources. This is not unexpected, since the land use in a watershed may vary considerably. For example, a watershed may have undisturbed headwaters but be significantly developed at its mouth. The Category 1 Priority Watersheds that also qualify as Selected Category 3 Watersheds are shown in Figure 5. These watersheds may deserve special attention in order to reverse or slow degradation before the pristine resources are lost.

Public Involvement Process
A Steering Committee - made up of representatives from the US Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Departments of Natural Resources, Environment, and Agriculture, the Office of Planning, river commissions, Tributary Teams and local governments - was formed to guide the Clean Water Action Plan process. In addition, a Technical Workgroup representing a diverse group of interests was formed to review existing information on watershed conditions and draft the Unified Watershed Assessment.

Six regional public meetings, hosted by Maryland's Tributary Teams, were held around the State in September 1998. At these meetings, more than 300 people, including representatives of local governments, soil conservation districts, watershed organizations, educators, and citizens were provided information about the Plan and comments were recorded and reviewed. A draft executive summary of the report was sent out to approximately 500 people and much of the information about the Clean Water Action Plan was made available through the Department of Natural Resources web site: www.dnr.state.md.us/cwap.

Many of these comments received will be considered in the development of Action Strategies and implementation. Public comments on this report are being accepted until October 15, 1998, and will be considered in final revisions to this draft.

Watershed Restoration Action Strategies
The State's long term objective is to have Watershed Restoration Action Strategies (WRAS) that are comprehensive, and address all aspects of watershed condition: water quality, including public health; aquatic living resources; physical habitat and the landscape. These Strategies will provide information and guidance that will help the public, watershed organizations, and federal, state and local agencies focus their staff and monies in areas and on issues identified as important to the public, and that will result in measurable environmental improvement. The overall goal is to coordinate and focus ongoing watershed conservation and restoration programs and activities, and potential new federal funds, and make them cost-effective and complementary.

The strategies may be drawn from existing assessment and targeting efforts such as a county's comprehensive plan, stormwater and sewer plans, master plans, capital budgets, greenways and open space plans, watershed stewardship programs, site design standards/BMPs, erosion and sediment control plans, soil conservation district watershed work plans and other efforts. A comprehensive strategy will include:

a watershed-wide assessment of existing and anticipated future conditions that significantly affect water quality and natural resources;
measurable environmental and programmatic goals, sources of funding and a timeframe for achieving significant milestones/accomplishments;
a public involvement process which provides mechanisms for informing the public, identifying the issues and incorporating their concerns and priorities;
a process for targeting individual projects for preventive or remedial activities (e.g. identifying appropriate areas to implement best management practices) that will maximize the achievement of clean water and other natural resource goals;
a water quality and natural resources monitoring element that utilizes existing and supplemental data sources to document current and future changes occurring in the watershed; and
a process to routinely evaluate the effectiveness of projects and/or systems and their progress toward achieving environmental and programmatic goals.

WRAS need to be developed for watersheds in need of protection and restoration. The State has a number of "strategies" that can form the foundation for strengthened, more comprehensive strategies that will maximize benefits for water quality and natural resource goals in a holistic, coordinated manner.

Strategy actions will be supported through new funds authorized by the Clean Water Action Plan and channeled through existing programs such as the Clean Water Act §319, as well as through other State and local programs. These strategies will be encouraged to:

maximize water quality, habitat protection or restoration and other natural resource activities for multiple benefits;
coordinate restoration strategies with TMDL's;
address locally defined geographic priorities at smaller scales than the 134 watersheds evaluated in the Assessment;
address an issue of statewide concern, such as nutrient reduction;
rely on a partnership approach, including work with Tributary Teams and the Coastal Bays Program; and
use Coastal Zone Management Act §6217 management measures.

Over the longer term, the Steering Committee will address such outstanding issues as the potential for targeting additional funds to the Priority watersheds, future revisions to the Priority listings and the need to further coordinate the State's watershed restoration and protection efforts.

The Lower Eastern Shore has been selected as a pilot area for the development of the State's first Clean Water Action Plan Strategy. The purpose of this strategy is to coordinate and help to focus both ongoing restoration and conservation activities and potential new restoration funding available under the federal program. The Lower Eastern Shore Action Strategy is being coordinated through the Lower Eastern Shore Tributary Team with the assistance of State agencies. Local governments, the Tributary Team, Delaware state agencies, and other interested citizens and organizations will also be involved in strategy development and implementation.

Conclusions
The federal Clean Water Action Plan has stimulated a comprehensive statewide assessment of Maryland's watersheds including a diverse set of factors addressing all aspects of watershed condition. This assessment has involved a broad spectrum of participants from local, state and federal agencies and representatives of many private organizations.

The potential benefits of this approach for Maryland's watersheds are significant. The results of this process will ultimately provide a comprehensive framework which other programs can utilize to conduct coordinated activities on individual watershed issues. These benefits will only increase with the further evolution of the Clean Water Action Plan's Watershed Approach.