Parris N. Glendening
Governor
 
 

Kathleen K. Townsend
Lieutenant Governor

Produced by: Clean Water Action Plan Technical Workgroup
 

Under the Guidance of:
 * Maryland Bay Cabinet,

• Department of Agriculture
• Department of the Environment
• Department of Natural Resources
• Office of Planning
• University of Maryland College of Natural Resources and Environment
• University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science

Final version: December 31, 1998

President Clinton's national Clean Water Initiative to restore and protect the streams, rivers, lakes, estuaries, and coastal bays of the United States is an effort we in Maryland wholly endorse and support as it is, in many ways, patterned after our own initiatives to preserve and protect our precious Chesapeake Bay. Therefore, we have been very pleased to note the progress we Marylanders have made to implement this strategy. We commend those who have already invested their time and energy into this initiative and we encourage those who's task it will be to implement this plan to keep in mind, that as President Clinton said that we must act now to provide "new protections to give all our children the gift of clean, safe water in the 21st century."

Parris N. Glendening         Kathleen K. Townsend
Governor                             Lieutenant Governor

For further information regarding this report, contact Dr. Paul Massicot at:
   1-877-620-8367, extension 8682 or via e-mail.
 
For additional information about the Maryland Clean Water Action Plan visit the State's Internet sites:

• MD Department of Agriculture:  http://www.mda.state.md.us
• MD Department of the Environment:  http://www.mde.state.md.us
• MD Department of Natural Resources: http://www.dnr.state.md.us

INTRODUCTION

UNIFIED WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

Purpose
Watershed Scale
Overall Goals
Watershed Assessment Methods
Category 1 (Restoration) Watersheds
Category 2 (Preventative Action) Watersheds
Category 3 (Protection) Watersheds
Category 4 Watersheds (Insufficient Data)
Results

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS

WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGIES

CONCLUSIONS

GLOSSARY

Appendix I - Relationship between State watersheds and federal basins
Appendix II - List of contacts sent requests for supplemental data
Appendix III - Summary of indicators selected to identify Category 1 and 3 watersheds
Appendix IV - Example watershed profile
Appendix V - Public outreach meetings

 1. Benchmarks/thresholds for Category 1 (Restoration) watersheds
 2. Category 1 data by Maryland watershed

• Table 2a - water quality indicators
• Table 2b - living resource indicators
• Table 2c - landscape indicators

• Table 4a - living resource indicators
• Table 4b - landscape indicators

1. Federal basins in Maryland
2. State watersheds
3. Category 1 (Restoration) watersheds
4. Category 3 (Protection) watersheds
5. Selected Category 3 (Protection) watersheds
6. Federal Category 1 (Restoration) basins
7. Category 1 Priority (Restoration) watersheds
8. Watersheds sharing Category 1 Priority and Selected Category 3 characteristics
9. Federal Category 1 Priority basins

The Clean Water Action Plan was unveiled by President Clinton in February 1998. This Plan proposes a new collaborative effort by state, federal, and local governments, the private sector and the public to restore those watersheds not meeting clean water and other natural resource goals and to sustain healthy conditions in watersheds that currently meet these goals. The Clean Water Action Plan addresses all aspects of watershed condition: water quality, including public health issues; aquatic living resources; physical habitat and the landscape. The key steps in this national effort are:

• Unified Watershed Assessment - The Unified Watershed Assessment (UWA) uses the best available information to assess the condition of each State's watersheds, identify watersheds in need of restoration, identify watersheds that need preventive action to sustain water quality and aquatic resources, and identify pristine or sensitive watersheds that need extra protection.
• Watershed Restoration Priorities - Based on the UWA, States will establish watershed restoration priorities by October 1998. This involves 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 - will identify the most important causes of water pollution and resource degradation, detail the actions needed to address these problems, and set milestones by which to measure progress. Funds available to federal agencies through the federal FY 1999 Clean Water and Watershed Restoration Budget Initiative will be used to help States implement these strategies.

Purpose

The purpose of the Unified Watershed Assessment is to assess the condition of Maryland's watersheds and, based on watershed condition, classify the watersheds into the following categories:

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

NOTE: The Clean Water Action Plan and the final federal Guidelines issued on June 9, 1998, applied Category 3 only to watersheds on state or federal lands. Maryland is applying this category to all of the State's watersheds, since the identification of watersheds throughout the state that either contain pristine watershed resources or are particularly sensitive can assist many local and state programs beyond the Clean Water Action Plan, such as Rural Legacy and incentive programs for stream buffers and wetland restoration.
• Category 4 - Insufficient data

Watershed Scale

States are able to make assessments for watersheds at multiple scales under the Clean Water Action Plan, but the hydrologic unit "basins" established by the U.S. Geological Survey are to serve as the common scale for unified watershed assessments at the national level. There are portions of 20 of these federal basins in Maryland (Figure 1), with an average area in Maryland of about 500 square miles (for comparison, the average area of a Maryland county is about 400 square miles). The condition of the Maryland portion of these federal basins can be determined either directly or as a result of aggregation of assessments of smaller watersheds. Maryland has chosen the latter approach because information at smaller watershed scales will be invaluable when Watershed Restoration Action Strategies are prepared.

Figure 1 
 
Maryland has identified smaller watersheds (Figure 2) at scales that, for the most part, fall inside or "nest" within the larger federal basins. For this report, the State's assessment is focused on smaller watersheds. There are 138 of these State-defined "8-digit" watersheds in Maryland, each with an average area of about 75 square miles. The relationships between the State's Tributary Strategy watersheds, the State's "8-digit" watersheds and the federal hydrologic units are shown in Appendix I.
 
Figure 2 
 
Local governments and other agency studies may identify even smaller watersheds that nest within this Statewide system. Identifying intensive monitoring and restoration activities by state and local governments or non-governmental organizations within these sub-watersheds may be desirable when reviewing watershed priorities or establishing watershed restoration action strategies.
 

Overall Goals

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 (e.g. water chemistry), aquatic living resources and physical habitat, as well as landscape factors (e.g. buffered streams and wetland restoration).

To evaluate clean water goals, the assessment generally examined single factors that result in, or cause, a violation of the numeric/narrative water quality standards described in the Code of Maryland Regulations (§26.08.02). The State's biennial water quality report, required by Section 305(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments, is a primary source of information about water quality impairments in the State. This report provides a summary of violations of State water quality standards as well as information about defined use impairments such as shellfish harvesting closures, swimming and water contact bans, fish consumption advisories. Much of the summary data about impaired waters and violations of State water quality standards in the 305(b) report are used to develop the list of impaired waters required under Section 303(d) of the Act. The final, EPA-approved listing of impaired waters on the State's 303(d) list through 1998 was incorporated in this Unified Watershed Assessment report.
 

Other Natural Resource Goals

To evaluate other natural resource goals, multiple and cumulative impacts that prevent watersheds from achieving healthy watershed conditions were assessed using selected natural resource indicators (listed below). These indicators relate to the condition of water chemistry, aquatic living resources, physical habitat and landscape.

Initial assessments used existing data from state monitoring and assessment programs. These constitute the core data for the Unified Watershed Assessment. In addition, supplemental information was solicited from several hundred individuals and organizations, such as local governments and community watershed associations, encouraging them to submit available water quality and aquatic resource information (Appendix II). Some supplemental data was received and results were evaluated and applied to assessment and prioritization activities.
 

Watershed Assessment Methods

In this section, the term "indicator" is widely used. Assessing the condition of the State's water quality and natural resources is a difficult undertaking. Not only are these natural conditions complex, but various human activities and impacts adds to the level of complexity.

One way to present the condition of our watersheds is to develop understandable measures or indicators that provide information about these resources. Scientists, managers and the public can use this information to determine the status of these resources, determine information about the pressures that degrade environmental quality, evaluate programs or changes in behavior designed to improve the environment. Over time, indicators help us measure our progress towards meeting our goals.
 

Both the violation of water quality standards, as reflected by inclusion on the 303(d) List, as well as poor values for other natural resource indicators, are used as criteria for determining whether a watershed is classified as a Category 1 watershed "in need of restoration":

• waters that appear on the 303(d) List are identified as Category 1 watershed and require some restoration action(s) in order to meet water quality standards (some of these watersheds also may require restoration in order to meet other natural resource goals); or
• waters that are not on the 303(d) List, but require restoration in order to meet other two or more natural resource goals are identified as Category 1 watersheds.

Water Chemistry

• Monitored data for nutrients (total nitrogen, total phosphorus), suspended sediments, and indicators of over-enrichment (chlorophyll a, summer bottom dissolved oxygen and Secchi depth)
• Modeled nutrient loadings (total nitrogen and total phosphorus)

• Submerged aquatic vegetation coverage and habitat requirements
• Indices of the health of tidal and non-tidal fish and benthic communities

Landscape

• Impervious surface
• Population density
• Historic wetland loss
• Unbuffered streams
• Soil erodibility

To determine if a watershed does not meet a Natural Resource Goal, one of two decision-making criteria is used:

• An indicator value does not meet an established goal or benchmark level; or
• An indicator for which there is no established goal or benchmark level has a value among the worst 25 percent of all watersheds assessed by that indicator.

Application of these criteria is described in Appendix III. Benchmarks or thresholds for each indicator are listed in Table 1 and the resulting data for each watershed are listed in Table 2.
 
Table 1. Benchmarks/thresholds for Category 1 (Restoration) watersheds

Condition of...     Indicator                                       Benchmark            
Water quality   Monitored Nutrient Concentrations:eutrophication lowest 25%
                Monitored Nutrient Concentrations:habitat        lowest 25%
                Modeled Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loading Rate     highest 25%

Aquatic Living  SAV Abundance                                    score = 1
  Resources     SAV Habitat Index                                score < 7
                Tidal Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity          score < 6
                Tidal Fish Index of Biotic Integrity             lowest 25%
                Anadromous Fish Index                            lowest 25%
                Non-Tidal Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity      score < 6 (sample n>=4)
                Non-Tidal Fish Index of Biotic Integrity         score < 6 (sample n>=4)
                Non-Tidal Instream Habitat Index                 lowest 25%

Landscape       Parameters Percent Impervious Surface            highest 25%
                Population Density                               highest 25%
                Historic Wetland Loss Density                    highest 25%
                Percent Unbuffered Streams                       highest 25%
                Soil Erodibility score ³ 0.275

Clean Water     303d List                                        presence
 Requirements
 

To identify watersheds needing preventative actions to sustain water quality and aquatic life, the application of Category 1 indicators was modified to identify these watersheds. As such, any watershed that is not on the 303(d) List and meets all or all but one of the available Category 1 benchmarks in Table 1 was placed in Category 2.
 

Indicators selected to identify watersheds needing restoration (Category 1) are not necessarily the same indicators that might be used to identify pristine or high quality (Category 3) watersheds that might need additional levels of protection.

Many data sets were examined that would provide an accurate, unique and comprehensive assessment of desired, high quality water quality, natural resource or landscape conditions. Some of the selected Category 3 living resources indicators for pristine watersheds are the same as Category 1 indicators for watersheds needing restoration while others are not. For example, there are no tidal watersheds considered to have pristine or sensitive benthic communities, so the Tidal Benthic IBI used for Category 1 watersheds is not used to help identify Category 3 watersheds.
 

Other indicators appear useful only in assessing Category 3 watersheds. For example, trout spawning areas are an indicator of relatively pristine natural conditions and is used as a Category 3 indicator. This indicator would not be useful for Category 1 watersheds as the absence of trout spawning areas does not necessarily imply that a stream is degraded - it may never have had the natural conditions that are prerequisite for trout spawning. These indicators can be clustered under key living resource and landscape issues and others address special water use needs (i.e., drinking water and fish hatchery water supply):

Living Resources

• Instream 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
Drinking water source protection watersheds, and

Fish hatchery water supply watersheds

Table 3. Benchmarks/thresholds for Category 3 (Protection) watersheds

Condition of...         Indicator                                Benchmark          
Aquatic Living Tidal Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity         highest 25%
  Resources    Non-Tidal Instream Habitat Index                highest 25%
               Non-Tidal Fish Index of Biotic Integrity        score > 8 (sample n>=4)
               Imperiled Aquatic Species Indicator             score > 0
               Migratory Fish Spawning Area                    score > 0
               Anadromous Fish Index                           highest 25%
               Wetland-Dependent Species                       highest 25%
               Trout Spawning Area                             score > 0

Landscape      %Headwater Streams in Interior Forest           highest 25%
  Parameters   %Watershed Forested                             highest 25%
               Wildland Acres                                  presence
 

Special Water  Fish Hatchery Water Supply                      presence
  Quality      Number of Drinking Water Intakes                presence
 
 
The resulting Category 1 indicator data for each watershed are listed in Table 4.
 

The federal Clean Water Action Plan created another classification for watershed that do not have enough data to classify the watershed into Categories 1, 2 or 3; these are Category 4 - Insufficient Data. Although the data available for different watersheds varies, the Workgroup determined that there was sufficient data to classify all State watersheds as Category 1, 2 or 3.
 

Results - State Watershed Level

The assessment results are summarized below. Category 1 (Restoration) watersheds are shown in Figure 3 and listed in Table 5. Watersheds with, at most, one indicator exceeding goals and not being identified on the State's 303(d) list, were identified as Category 2 (Preventative Action) watersheds (clear areas in Figure 3). Category 3 (Protection) watersheds are listed in Table 6 and shown in Figure 4. Watersheds with four or more indicators meeting Category 3 goals were listed as "Selected Category 3 Watersheds" (Table 6 and shown in Figure 5). All watersheds had sufficient data to allocate them to Category 1, 2 or 3 - thus, there are no Category 4 watersheds.

Because the selection criteria used for Category 1 (Restoration) and Category 3 (Preservation) watersheds are not the same and because land use and related factors may vary considerably within such a large watershed, many of the State's watersheds are identified as both Category 1 and 3 watersheds. These watersheds show signs of stress or degradation but still contain pristine or sensitive natural resources. For example, a watershed may have undisturbed headwaters but be significantly developed at its mouth. Unless watersheds are assessed at a scale where the land use is relatively homogeneous, Category 1 and Category 3 classifications are not mutually exclusive.
 

Figure 3 
 
 
Members of the Technical Workgroup and others observing the process suggested that some watersheds with special characteristics should be considered for listing as Protection watersheds in addition to those identified using the selected indicators. After publication of the August 1998 draft report, the following was added to the Category 3 watershed list:

• Seneca Creek - Data submitted by Montgomery County as well as State data indicates that Seneca Creek has exceptionally pristine headwater streams

• Chincoteague Bay - This waterbody is part of the Coastal Bays National Estuary Program, a boundary area of the National Wildlife Refuge that remains relatively pristine and undisturbed, and;
• Zekiah Swamp - Designated as a State Scenic River, this watershed has unique ecological characteristics and remains relatively undisturbed, but adjacent to an urbanizing area.

Members of the Technical Workgroup and some public comments received on the draft report suggested that watersheds that serve as part of significant public drinking water supplies also should be considered for restoration and protection. A committee of selected representatives of State and local government agencies examined these issues and recommended to the Workgroup that several watersheds be added to the Category 1 and 3 lists. The Workgroup reviewed this list and added one watershed to the Category 1 (Restoration) list:

• Brighton Dam (Triadelphia Reservoir) - This reservoir supplies water through Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission system to the Maryland suburban area of Washington, DC. The watershed is included in the recent Patuxent River Reservoir protection agreement.

• Loch Raven Reservoir - This reservoir provides water to Baltimore City and to some of the surrounding suburban areas. The reservoir is included in the Reservoir Protection Agreement designed to protect and restore water quality for this significant drinking water source.
• Rocky Gorge Dam (Duckett Reservoir)- This reservoir provides water through the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission to the Maryland suburban area of Washington, DC. The watershed is included in the Patuxent River Reservoir protection agreement.
• Brighton Dam (Triadelphia Reservoir) - This reservoir is part of the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission water supply system on the Patuxent River (see description above).

Figure 4 

Table 6. Category 3 (Protection) watersheds.
(NOTE: Highlighted watersheds are "Selected Category 3" watersheds. Segments are ordered by watershed code)
 

MD 8-Digit Code	Watershed Name	MD 8-Digit Code	Watershed Name
02120201	Lower Susquehanna River	02131003	South River
02120202	Deer Creek	02131004	West River
02120203	Octoraro Creek	02131005	West Chesapeake Bay
02120204	Conowingo Dam Susq Run	02131101	Patuxent River Lower tidal
02120205	Broad Creek	02131102	Patuxent River Middle tidal
02130105	Newport Bay	02131103	Western Branch
02130106	Chincoteague Bay	02131105	Little Patuxent River
02130201	Pocomoke Sound	02131107	Rocky Gorge Dam
02130202	Lower Pocomoke River	02131108	Brighton Dam
02130203	Upper Pocomoke River	02140101	Potomac River Lower tidal
02130204	Dividing Creek	02140102	Potomac River Middle tidal
02130205	Nassawango Creek	02140103	St. Mary's River
02130206	Tangier Sound	02140104	Breton Bay
02130207	Big Annemessex River	02140105	St. Clements Bay
02130208	Manokin River	02140106	Wicomico River
02130301	Lower Wicomico River	02140107	Gilbert Swamp
02130302	Monie Bay	02140108	Zekiah Swamp
02130303	Wicomico Creek	02140109	Port Tobacco River
02130305	Nanticoke River	02140110	Nanjemoy Creek
02130306	Marshyhope Creek	02140111	Mattawoman Creek
02130307	Fishing Bay	02140201	Potomac River Upper tidal
02130308	Transquaking River	02140202	Potomac River MO County
02130401	Honga River	02140203	Piscataway Creek
02130404	Upper Choptank	02140205	Anacostia River
02130405	Tuckahoe Creek	02140206	Rock Creek
02130503	Wye River	02140208	Seneca Creek
02130506	Langford Creek	02140302	Lower Monocacy River
02130508	Southeast Creek	02140303	Upper Monocacy River
02130509	Middle Chester River	02140304	Double Pipe Creek
02130510	Upper Chester River	02140305	Catoctin Creek
02130601	Lower Elk River	02140501	Potomac River WA County
02130602	Bohemia River	02140502	Antietam Creek
02130603	Upper Elk River	02140503	Marsh Run
02130604	Back Creek	02140504	Conococheague Creek
02130606	Big Elk Creek	02140505	Little Conococheague
02130608	Northeast River	02140506	Licking Creek
02130609	Furnace Bay	02140507	Tonoloway Creek
02130702	Lower Winters Run	02140508	Potomac River AL County
02130703	Atkisson Reservoir	02140509	Little Tonoloway Creek
02130801	Gunpowder River	02140510	Sideling Hill Creek
02130802	Lower Gunpowder Falls	02140511	Fifteen Mile Creek
02130804	Little Gunpowder Falls	02140512	Town Creek
02130805	Loch Raven Reservoir	02141001	Potomac River Lower N Br.
02130806	Prettyboy Reservoir	02141002	Evitts Creek
02130901	Back River	02141003	Wills Creek
02130903	Baltimore Harbor	02141004	Georges Creek
02130905	Gwynns Falls	02141005	Potomac River Upper N Br.
02130906	Patapsco River	02141006	Savage River
02130907	Liberty Reservoir	05020201	Youghiogheny River
02130908	S Branch Patapsco	05020202	Little Youghiogheny River
02131001	Magothy River	05020203	Deep Creek Lake watershed
02131002	Severn River	05020204	Casselman River

 
 
 

Figure 5 
 
 

Results - Federal Basin Level

In aggregating information from the smaller Maryland watersheds to the larger federal basins, the Clean Water Action Plan guidance was followed. Thus, federal Category 1 basins include those where the area of component Maryland Category 1 watersheds comprise at least 15 percent of the area of the federal basin (in Maryland). In following this guidance, all of the federal basins in Maryland with any significant size are identified as Category 1 watersheds.

The State's interpretation of the Unified Watershed Assessment guidelines is that a federal basin can be placed in only one of the four Categories. If a federal basin has characteristics of both Category 1 and Category 3, it will be listed as Category 1 in the federal compilation. This same decision rule is applied to Category 2 watersheds as well as Category 4 watersheds (of which there are none in Maryland). Therefore, for purposes of reporting results aggregated to the level of the federal basins, we place each federal basin only in one category, Category 1 (Table 7; Figure 6).
 

Table 7. Federal Category 1 (Restoration) basins (NOTE: segments are ordered by watershed code)
 

Federal HUC	Basin Name	Federal HUC	Basin Name
02050301	Lower Susquehanna	02060006	Patuxent
02060010	Chincoteague	02070011	Lower Potomac
02060009	Pocomoke	02070010	Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan
02060007	Blackwater-Wicomico	02070008	Middle Potomac-Catoctin
02060008	Nanticoke	02070009	Monocacy
02060005	Choptank	02070004	Conococheague-Opequon
02060002	Chester-Sassafras	02070003	Cacapon-Town
02060003	Gunpowder-Patapsco	02070002	North Branch Potomac
02060004	Severn	05020006	Youghiogheny

 
 
 

Figure 6 
 
 

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 these watersheds that are most in need of restoration during the next two years. These are defined as Category 1 Priority Watersheds. Furthermore, the schedule for these restoration and protection actions must be coordinated with the State's schedule to determine Total Maximum Daily Loads for pollutants from watersheds on the Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.

Results - State Watershed Level

The Clean Water Action Plan Technical Workgroup reviewed a number of methods for identifying Priority Watersheds. As results generated for each method was examined, it was determined that the different methods produced similar results when selecting priority watersheds. This produced confidence that the overall approach actually reflects the condition of the watersheds (and their need for restoration) and not just the particular method selected.

Category 1 Priority Watersheds were defined as watersheds that failed to meet at least half of their goals; i.e., at least half of the indicators had values failing to meet Category 1 benchmarks listed in Table 1. This method gives full consideration of all watersheds (since it does not "penalize" regions for which fewer statewide data are available, such as the Coastal Bays) and it is simple to calculate. The principal drawback is that this method equally weighs all 17 indicators. As a result, if there are more indicators that relate to a particular aspect of watershed health; e.g. biological integrity, these areas could carry more weight in the ranking process.

The Technical Workgroup recognized that other factors also should be examined to see if they warrant including additional watersheds in the Category 1 Priority list. These included severity of impact (e.g. Pfiesteria outbreaks) and evaluation of new data. For these reasons, three additional watersheds were included in the Category 1 Priority list in the August draft report:

• Transquaking River - One of the three watersheds that experienced an outbreak of the toxic microorganism Pfiesteria in 1997 (the Manokin and Lower Pocomoke already are listed).
• Georges Creek - 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.

Comments received at public hearings held in the State in September and in writing were considered by the Technical Workgroup. The Department of Agriculture had identified the Upper Choptank River watershed as a priority watershed for potential nutrient loading to Chesapeake Bay. As other priority watersheds already were identified as Category 1 Priority watersheds, the Workgroup added this watershed after the October 1 draft report was produced.

Members of the Technical Workgroup and some public comments received on the draft report suggested that watersheds that serve as part of significant public drinking water supplies also should be considered for restoration and protection. A committee of selected representatives of State and local government agencies examined these issues and recommended to the Workgroup that several watersheds be added to the Category 1 and 3 lists. The Workgroup reviewed this list and added five water supply watersheds as Category 1 Priority watersheds:

• Loch Raven, Prettyboy and Liberty Reservoir watersheds - These reservoirs provide water to Baltimore City and to some of the surrounding suburban areas. These watersheds are included in the Reservoir Protection Agreement designed to protect and restore water quality.
• Rocky Gorge Dam (Duckett Reservoir) and Brighton Dam (Triadelphia Reservoir) - These reservoirs provide water to the Maryland suburban area of Washington, DC through the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission. These watersheds are included in the Patuxent Reservoir agreement to protect water quality.

Table 8. Category 1 Priority (Restoration) watersheds (NOTE: segments are ordered by watershed code)
 

MD 8-digit Code	Watershed Name	MD 8-digit Code	Watershed Name
02130102	Assawoman Bay	02130902	Bodkin Creek
02130103	Isle of Wight Bay	02130903	Baltimore Harbor
02130105	Newport Bay	02130904	Jones Falls
02130202	Lower Pocomoke River	02130905	Gwynns Falls
02130203	Upper Pocomoke River	02130907	Liberty Reservoir
02130208	Manokin River	02131002	Severn River
02130301	Lower Wicomico River	02131003	South River
02130304	Wicomico River Headwaters	02131102	Middle Patuxent River - tidal
02130308	Transquaking River	02131103	Western Branch
02130404	Upper Choptank	02131104	Patuxent River upper
02130405	Tuckahoe Creek	02131105	Little Patuxent River
02130503	Wye River	02131107	Rocky Gorge Dam
02130506	Langford Creek	02131108	Brighton Dam
02130507	Corsica River	02140104	Breton Bay
02130509	Middle Chester River	02140111	Mattawoman Creek
02130511	Kent Island Bay	02140203	Piscataway Creek
02130603	Upper Elk River	02140204	Oxon Creek
02130604	Back Creek	02140205	Anacostia River
02130610	Sassafras River	02140206	Rock Creek
02130611	Stillpond-Fairlee	02140207	Cabin John Creek
02130701	Bush River	02140208	Seneca Creek
02130704	Bynum Run	02140302	Lower Monocacy River
02130706	Swan Creek	02140303	Upper Monocacy River
02130802	Lower Gunpowder Falls	02140305	Catoctin Creek
02130803	Bird River	02140502	Antietam Creek
02130805	Loch Raven Reservoir	02140504	Conococheague Creek
02130806	Prettyboy Reservoir	02141004	Georges Creek
02130807	Middle River-Browns Ck	02141005	Potomac River U N Branch
02130901	Back River	05020203	Deep Creek Lake watershed

 

Figure 7 
 

As discussed in a previous section, because of different criteria, some State watersheds qualify as both Restoration and Protection watersheds. Fewer watersheds are identified both as Category 1 Priority watersheds and Selected Category 3 watersheds (Table 9; Figure 8). The State considers that these watersheds deserve special attention in order to address degradation that already is experienced in some areas before the pristine resources in the watershed are lost.
 

Table 9. Watersheds sharing Category 1 Priority and Selected Category 3 characteristics
(NOTE: segments are ordered by watershed code)
 

The committee reviewing proposals for Federal FY1999 and FY2000 Clean Water Action Plan funds will consider projects located in watersheds sharing both Category 1 Priority and Selected Category 3 listings identified in this report as a high priority. Projects located in a Category 1 Priority watersheds will be considered as a second priority for funding. There are other criteria that will be used to review projects for funding including: maximizing water quality, habitat protection/restoration and other natural resource goals; addressing locally defined geographic priorities at scales smaller than the 138 watersheds evaluated in the Unified Watershed Assessment; using Section 6217 (Coastal Zone Management) measures that are a required part of the coastal nonpoint source pollution program; addressing issues of statewide concern (e.g., nutrient management, habitat goals for wetlands, siting/operation of septic systems, acid mine drainage, growth management); help achieve water quality standards in areas listed on Maryland's 303(d) list; partnering (support/endorsement) with Tributary Teams; implement recommendations contained in an existing watershed restoration strategy; and located within or supporting an EQUIP priority area.
 
 

Figure 8 
 
 

Results - Federal Basin Level

In terms of identifying federal Category 1 Priority basins, the same procedure used to identify federal Category 1 basins was used to aggregate information from the smaller Maryland watersheds to the larger federal basins. In following the federal Clean Water Action Plan guidance federal Category 1 Priority basins include those where the area of the State's Category 1 Priority watersheds comprise at least 15 percent of the area of the federal basin (within Maryland). In following this guidance, nearly all of the federal basins in Maryland with any significant size are identified as Category 1 Priority basins (Table 10; Figure 9).

Table 10. Federal Category 1 Priority basins (NOTE: Segments are ordered by watershed code)
             

Figure 9 
 
 
Results - Interstate Comparison

A review of draft Clean Water Action Plan assessment reports from most every adjoining State (Delaware, Pennsylvania and West Virginia) and the District of Columbia, showed that, in spite of differing assessment methods, many of the federal watersheds that Maryland shares with these States are consistently identified as Category 1 (Restoration) watersheds. Assessment information from Virginia's draft report, which would address nearly half of the seventeen interstate federal watersheds, was not provided for analysis. Differences between State interpretation of watershed assessment categories were principally related to the amount of assessment information available.

Identifying Category 1 Priority watersheds in these draft reports showed considerably more variability between States as a result of regional water quality issues, local priorities and different approaches to prioritization. Pennsylvania had not completed their prioritization process. Delaware's prioritization process is governed by a formal consent decree with the US Environmental Protection Agency rather than water quality and other natural resource goals. It is expected that the federal Clean Water Action Plan report to Congress will address interstate variability in the assessment.

An example of a potential impact of different assessments of interstate watersheds was demonstrated in comments received from the Susquehanna River Basin Commission on the Maryland's draft Unified Watershed Assessment report. The letter noted that Pennsylvania might identify the Lower Susquehanna River basin as a Category 1 Priority watershed while Maryland identified its portion of the watershed as a Category 1 (Protection) watershed but not as a Category 1 Priority watershed.

This difference is mainly due to watershed scale and differences in land use with Maryland's portion of the Lower Susquehanna River basin being one of the smallest in the State. Maryland does recognize the importance of upstream activities to Susquehanna River water quality conditions that affect Chesapeake Bay and would support designation of the Lower Susquehanna River basin as a federal Category 1 Priority basin if funding opportunities for activities and discharges in the larger upstream portion of the watershed in Pennsylvania and New York would be affected by this designation. The State would consider similar support for other interstate basins where State assessment categories differ.

A Steering Committee has been formed to guide the Clean Water Action Plan process in Maryland. The Committee - made up of representatives from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Environment, the Department of Agriculture, the Office of Planning, river commissions, Tributary Teams and local governments - outlined the principles that are guiding the State's development of Watershed Restoration Action Strategies.

In addition, a Technical Workgroup was formed to review existing information on watershed conditions and draft the Unified Watershed Assessment. The workgroup included a diverse group of interests: State agencies, local governments, Tributary Teams, environmental and watershed organizations, the Farm Bureau and others.

Outreach included six regional public meetings (Appendix V), hosted by Maryland's Tributary Teams, held around the State that reached over 300 people, including representatives of local governments, soil conservation districts, watershed organizations, educators, and citizens. Press releases were sent out to local newspapers, and meeting notices were sent to every county library in the State. Briefings have also been provided to the Tributary Teams, the Chesapeake Bay Program, watershed organizations, and other groups upon request.

In addition, the executive summary of the report was sent out to approximately 500 people. The executive summary and the report, background material, summary of comments and links to other Clean Water Action Plan sites are available to the public on the Department of Natural Resources web site: www.dnr.state.md.us/cwap. A mirror site also will be available on the Department of the Environment's Internet site.

Public comments received to date have touched on a range of issues. Common concerns have included:
the future impacts of growth on watersheds;

• the need to coordinate the many programs that address water quality and natural resources;
• the need to coordinate programs and restoration efforts across State boundaries;
• the need to better enforce existing regulations;
• the need for additional monitoring information on water bodies;
• the importance of protecting watersheds in good condition;
• the importance of public education on watershed restoration and protection;
• the importance of involving local governments that are responsible for making land use decisions; and
• site specific concerns about watershed conditions, water quality, and living resources.

The State's long term objective is to have Watershed Restoration Action Strategies (WRAS) that are comprehensive, and address all aspects of watershed condition and water quality, including public health; aquatic living resources; physical habitat and the landscape.

A WRAS 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 important to the public and that will result in measurable environmental improvement.

The strategies may be drawn from existing assessment and targeting efforts such as a county's comprehensive plan, stormwater and sewer 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 includes the following:

• A watershed-wide assessment of existing and anticipated future conditions that significantly affect water quality and natural resources. The assessment should identify the principal sources and relative contributions of point and nonpoint source pollution; major sources of habitat loss; and threats to drinking water; aquatic life, and natural resources critical to maintaining the integrity of the watershed.
• Measurable environmental and programmatic goals and a timeframe for achieving significant milestones/accomplishments.
• A public involvement process that provides mechanisms for informing the public 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 and buffer strips 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.
• A process to routinely evaluate the effectiveness of projects and/or systems and their progress toward achieving environmental and programmatic goals.

Many strategies contain recommended "on the ground" implementation efforts to improve water quality and meet other natural resource goals such as aquatic health and habitat. Strategy actions will be supported through new funds authorized by the Clean Water Action Plan and channeled through existing programs such as §319, as well as through other State and local programs.

Watershed restoration strategies will be encouraged to:

• 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.

Pilot Lower Eastern Shore Conservation and Action Strategy

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.

The initial phase the action strategy will take the analysis in the Unified Watershed Assessment to a more detailed scale, comparing watersheds within the region to identify those most in need of restoration action, those with the greatest conservation values, and opportunities for restoration and protection. Such opportunities might include economic development interests, tourism and recreation initiatives, or the presence of a watershed association already involved in related activities. Since specific local water quality problems require specific solutions, the second phase of strategy development will be to match appropriate tools and new federal funding to particular projects in the impacted watersheds.

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.

Much additional work to refine our assessment procedures remains to be done, since the time provided to accomplish this initial assessment has been very brief, given the magnitude of the undertaking. As mentioned above, review and evaluation of the available data, some of which is preliminary, will continue. In addition, these data will be supplemented by comments and suggestions from the public workshops, additional local and regional watershed data, and data obtained through mutual exchange with surrounding jurisdictions for interstate watersheds. As a result, the findings and conclusions contained in this report, including watershed restoration priorities, can be expected to undergo modification in the future.

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.