Whole Watershed Act and Fund

Special Notice:
Please view our informational webinar. An overview of the Whole Watershed Fund and the recording can be found here.


The Whole Watershed Act (SB 969/HB 1165) establishes a highly collaborative, science-based approach to watershed restoration across the state promoting innovative, science-based solutions to waterway restoration efforts. The legislation will utilize existing state funds to create a new Whole Watershed Fund supporting a five-year pilot program targeting five Maryland watersheds that best represent the state’s diverse land uses, geographies, and impairments.

A direct response to the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee’s Comprehensive Evaluation of System Response (CESR) report, the pilot projects will address multiple restoration and conservation benefits, including water quality, increased public access, wildlife habitat, fisheries improvement, environmental justice and climate resiliency. Selected projects will be overseen by a State Management Team, made up of agency experts, to help find efficiencies in project permitting and funding, and to measure project results.

Click on image below to review the solicitation and all submission guidelines and requirements.​​

Whole Watershed RFP​​​

Whole Watershed FAQ

Public Feedback Submission Form

Proposal Abstracts​

Deadline
All proposals must be submitted by 11:59 pm on Tues​day, December 3, 2024.

The application process is done online, click here to begin. ​​​​
Applications CANNOT be mailed, faxed or submitted in person.​





​​

WATERSHED SELECTION CRITERIA
Map of Maryland 8-digit watersheds
Image: Maryland 8-digit watersheds: Interactive map link


The purpose of the Whole Watershed Restoration Partnership is to accelerate restoration of the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays and their watersheds by equitably focusing assistance on actions and areas that are:

  1. cost–effective;
  2. likely to demonstrate a rapid systemic response to restoration activity, including rapid de–listing of impaired streams identified under § 303(d) of the federal clean water act; and
  3. supported by the local community government

The watershed criteria and resources provided are intended to aid local governments and project sponsors to assess their 8-digit watersheds (“project”) for the best fit suite of best management practices (“actions”) to propose to the State Management Team. The State Management Team and technical review panel will be responsible for selecting up to 5 candidate watersheds, with a goal to select:

  1. One predominantly urban area
  2. One predominantly suburban area
  3. Two reducing runoff in a predominantly agricultural area
  4. One with a collaborative effort with an adjoining state

At least Two (2) of the above Five (5) watersheds / projects must be located within and provide benefit to overburdened or underserved communities.


Watershed Criteria

The State Management Team will evaluate proposals based on whether the project:

  1. is located in a watershed in which habitat restoration and pollution reduction will:
    1. result in the greatest improvements to shallow water habitat and living resources;
    2. achieve rapid de–listing of impaired streams identified under § 303(d) of the federal clean water act and published in the Department of the Environment’s triennial review of water quality standards; or
    3. generate rapidly–improving conditions in the local ecosystem;
  2. emphasizes actions that are expected to provide the greatest, most cost–effective, and measurable amount of pollution reduction;
  3. supports land use policies, conservation programs, and restoration protocols at the local level that will sustain project actions and outcomes;
  4. has documented interest from a group of affected property owners to allow restoration or conservation actions on their property;
  5. minimizes the loss of trees and other natural habitats;
  6. demonstrates opportunities to implement actions that reduce environmental disparities experienced by overburdened or underserved communities;
  7. demonstrates opportunities to foster innovation in restoration science or practices;
  8. in addition to land–based habitat restoration and water quality improvement, anticipates at least five benefits related to:
    1. the creation or restoration of wildlife habitat, riparian buffers, and wetland restoration;
    2. the restoration of aquatic resources, such as fresh water mussels, fish passage, or oyster reefs;
    3. carbon sequestration;
    4. climate change mitigation, adaptation, or resilience;
    5. local employment opportunities;
    6. improving and protecting public health; and
    7. recreational opportunities and public access to waterways and natural habitats; and
  9. creates partnership opportunities among nonprofit and for profit organizations, community organizations, all levels of government, and scientists.

Resources

  • Maryland 8-digit Watersheds - All proposed actions must occur within one 8-digit watershed.
  • Achieve Delist/Rapid Response for the local ecosystem -
  • Local Government Support - Project sponsors are required to provide protection measures that ensure the benefits and improvements resulting from the actions are maintained. This could be accomplished through comprehensive planning, easements, guaranteed operation and maintenance, adaptive management plans or other mechanisms.
  • Improve Living Resources and Shallow Water Habitat - Through restoration, protection and conservation, project actions should provide benefits to improve living resources and shallow water habitat. Maryland’s Coastal Atlas has multiple data layers and tools that can identify areas for implementation. Examples include, but are not limited to:
    • Targeted Ecological Areas: Targeted Ecological Areas (TEAs) are lands and watersheds of high ecological value that have been identified as conservation priorities by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for natural resource protection. These areas represent the most ecologically valuable areas in the State: they are the "best of the best".
    • Habitat Connectivity Network​ (formally Green Infrastructure Network)​​: If you are proposing a project that could help link natural corridors or hubs, use this tool to find out if the proposed project area is adjacent to valuable natural areas.
    • Current Oyster Sanctuaries: If you are proposing an oyster restoration, it could be helpful to use this map to see if there is an Oyster Sanctuary nearby to encourage natural spat set or to enhance the benefits associated with the existing oyster population and reef community.
    • Stronghold watersheds: Tree planting efforts within these watersheds would help to fortify strongholds.
    • Wetland adaptation areas or Uplands to wetlands, as shown on Maryland’s Coastal Atlas to support the migration and survival of wetlands as sea level rises.
  • Reduce Environmental Disparities Experienced by Overburdened or Underserved Communities
    • Maryland’s Environmental Justice Screening Tool: Provides users with data to inform their decisions on siting, permitting, enforcement, and infrastructure improvements. The demographic and socioeconomic data, coupled with MDE-specific elements such as proximity to active high air emission facilities, or wastewater treatment facilities, will be used to help underserved and overburdened communities in Maryland.


​​Whole Watershed FAQ


What can be used for the match requirements?

 

Whole Watershed Fund sources can supply up to 50% of the project implementation. The remaining funding can be from any source (federal, local, private, state) that is not associated with the six Whole Watershed Fund sources identified in the Whole Watershed Act.
Project sponsors and their partners should determine the full cost of implementation and utilize Whole Watershed for 50% of the project implementation cost. Cash match is preferred but in-kind contributions are also eligible to meet match requirements. After projects are selected, the State Management Team will develop an implementation and finance plan that will stipulate the requirements for match documentation.

Can nutrient credit trading be used as matching funds?

 

No, nutrient credits generated through the trading program are not eligible as match.


Will research grants received by higher education institutes be eligible as matching funds?

 

Only if the funds are supporting implementation as the Whole Watershed Fund can only provide up to 50% of the project implementation costs.

Can federal grant funding received be used as funds to match state funding?

 

​Yes, federal funds are eligible for match.

Are all state sources ineligible for match?

 

No, state sources are eligible for match provided they are not the funding sources within the Whole Watershed Program. Those Whole Watershed Fund sources are: Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Trust Fund, Bay Restoration Fund, Clean Water Commerce Act, Waterway Improvement Fund, Maryland Agricultural Cost Share Program, and Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Fund.


We are interested in leveraging our Capital Improvement projects as a match without receiving any of the funds ourselves. All funding requests would be for our partners. Is this allowed?

 

The intent of the Whole Watershed Program is to provide one funding opportunity that encompasses a wide range of environmental outcomes to achieve shallow water habitat improvement. Each watershed will need one project sponsor to be the entity responsible for administering a project (project is defined as a collection of restoration and conservation actions coordinated by multiple entities), including accounting for funds, coordinating partners and actions and reporting on outcomes. This means that the project sponsor can develop a partnership where they receive implementation funds for actions, subaward that implementation funding to another entity, or use a combination of both. Thus, yes, all funding requests could be sub-awarded to your partners.

Can match include funded projects that are currently under active construction and either will not have closed grants until after July 1, 2025 or have maintenance needs that will not conclude after July 1, 2025?

 
​ Page 17 of the RFP states that actions that were implemented prior to July 1, 2025 are not eligible as a match. An active construction project is considered implementation and is not eligible for match. Adaptive management and/or maintenance is post-implementation thus projects undergoing adaptive management or maintenance are also not eligible for match. The intent is that only new implementation/projects that begin after July 1, 2025 are eligible as match.

Is there an upper end funding limit? Or is the State Management Team seeking proposals that seek to fund multi element proposals or projects and then determining how much funding is needed to satisfy funding requirements for qualified projects?

 

​There is no funding ceiling or floor, but the six funding programs within the Whole Watershed Fund can only account for up to half of the total project implementation costs. Ex - if the full suite of actions, aka the project, is $6M then the Whole Watershed Fund can only provide up to $3M. Project sponsors and their partners should identify the actual costs required to implement the project. A project proposal is not required to have matching funds secured as the project sponsor and partners will work with the State Management Team to develop an implementation and finance plan.​

What are the annual available funds for each project/watershed the Whole Watershed Fund will provide?

 

The act does not specify a total funding amount for the Whole Watershed Program or a funding amount per state funding source. The only annual spending directed within the act is set at $20k to support the project sponsors. The  RFP has some requirements for that $20k. Each project (MD 8 digit watershed) will have a unique cost dependent on the specific and number of practices/actions implemented. The types (sector, landownership, design elements, etc.) of practices/actions will dictate the funding source utilized by the Whole Watershed Program. This means the amount spent on the program will be determined by the awarded project details, not the other way around.​​

A project proposal is not required to have matching funds secured as the project sponsor and partners will work with the State Management Team to develop an implementation and finance plan.

Can county MS4 projects be used as part of a proposal? For example, if there are projects planned to improve the watershed, could that be the partner contribution or does it need to be new projects planned after 2025. Can planned improvements be applied t

 

Funding for planned projects may be requested from the Whole Watershed Fund or may be used as match, however, only projects that will be implemented after July 1, 2025 are eligible as grant funding and match.​

Can multiple plans be submitted for one watershed?

 

​​Yes, but only one project sponsor per watershed will be selected for funding.

Can a sponsor submit multiple plans?

 
​ Proposals may come from different sponsors from within the same watershed. However, only one project sponsor per watershed will be selected for funding.

Does the State Management Team expect to receive multiple watershed plans for each watershed, from different sponsors?

 

If there are multiple project proposals in a watershed that would be stronger together, they could be combined into a single project and single grant, if they agree. The webinar on November 7, 2024 may serve as an opportunity to meet and collaborate if that helps their proposal. ​​​

If our watershed is not selected for the program, will we become ineligible for cost-share through existing grant programs such as MACS or DNR Grants Gateway? Or will we simply be less prioritized?

 
​If your proposal is not selected for the Whole Watershed Program it does not become ineligible to receive Grants Gateway funding or MACS funding.

Will receiving Whole Watershed Act funding harm chances at receiving DNR Grants Gateway or other state funding?

 
No, receiving Whole Watershed Act funding does not influence DNR Grants Gateway funding or other state funding.

Which watersheds is the state management team selecting?

 
​The State Management Team is not selecting the 8 digit watersheds. Proposals are submitted for actions within a MD 8 digit watershed and projects will be selected from that candidate list.

Does the "underserved community" designation requirement apply to all of the census tracts in the 8-digit watershed receiving the funding or just the census tracts where the project will be located?

 
​Just the census tracts where the project(s) are located

MACS is up to 100% cost share on eligible practices. If the state is requiring 1:1 matching, does that mean farmers will have to pay up to 50% of the eligible practices? Or will the cost share rates remain the same, and 1:1 would only be required on pract

 
​MACS cost-share funding is available up to 100% for individual agricultural Best Management Practices consistent with existing program eligibility requirements. The 1:1 match is applied to the entire project implementation costs, not individual BMPs. Applicants can determine how they utilize Whole Watershed funding to implement projects and their associated action.

What constraints, if any, are there on what entities may be a project sponsor under the act. The provision that a project must be "ENDORSED BY EACH COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL CORPORATION IN WHICH THE PROJECT WILL OCCUR" raises the question in my mind of whethe

 
​A county or municipality is an eligible project sponsor.

The RFP seems to request more detail than is practical to provide in the text boxes on the online application, which has limited formatting capabilities. Does the State Management Team expect the applicants to develop a separate written detailed proposal

 
​There is an upload feature within the application that you may use to provide additional details.

The budget table in the online form has 4 rows each titled "funding mechanism". What is each row meant to represent? Each proposed action in the watershed? If so, what should applicants do if they have more than 4 actions?

 
​The RFP states that the funding mechanism details include: "For each line item above, indicate the funding mechanism requested from the Whole Watershed Fund: reimbursable grant, pay-for-performance contract, upfront lump sum, etc." We recognize the application format is confusing and we edited the application for the budget and narrative fields to be an upload. Follow the guidance and table within the RFP when developing those files.

We would like k-12 education outreach to be a part of our proposal. Will that simply be part of the overall community engagement plan?

 

​​Please include plans to collaborate with a school program, like Envirothon for example, in the project proposal. The meetings for the SMT to discuss implementation of the project and funding plans will not involve the same audiences the proposal may intend for community outreach.

If not selected, how will this affect programs like MACS for our local agriculture community?

 
​Selection of project watersheds for Whole Watershed does not affect ability for other watersheds to apply for MACS.

Is this an additional effort beyond the WIP, or related to Beyond 2025?

 
​No, this is not an update to the WIP, but the BMPs completed through any approved project proposals will count towards the existing WIP goals for all sectors. Whole Watershed Act Program is a Maryland effort, an update to our Watershed Implementation Plans or what comes next for Beyond 2025 is a watershed-wide decision to be made by the Bay Program Partnership.

What about the use of whole watershed funding on federal property? Is that a solid yes or no, or does it depend on source fund requirements/restrictions?

 
Federal lands are eligible for implementation provided the existing Whole Watershed Fund source (the 6 mentioned above) allow funds to be implemented on federal land. Thus it is dependent on the source fund restrictions.

​​

Public Feedback

​​



Proposal Abstracts


1) ShoreRivers - Upper Choptank
The Upper Choptank Whole Watershed Project uses a holistic approach to rapidly improve local water quality conditions in the Upper Choptank River. Led by partners involved in the Envision the Choptank collaborative, the project identifies four predominantly agricultural focal areas to target investment in management practices across farmland, and address stormwater, wastewater, and habitat concerns with local governments and disenfranchised communities at a scale capable of showing water quality improvement. A defining feature of the project is involving individuals and groups who work with project partners to co-create solutions to problems of mutual interest. The community-based approach leverages local concern and motivation to accelerate implementation of durable restoration actions that range from in-field and edge-of-field practices on farms, to septic, sewer, green infrastructure, and wildlife habitat enhancements in communities and neighborhoods. Modeled practice efficiencies inform investment decisions during the planning phase, and robust field monitoring verifies results after projects are completed.

2) Coastal Bays - Newport Bay
Newport Bay watershed is varied in both landscapes and people. It contains extensive marshes, farms, forests, and towns, while encompassing the most diverse community in the Coastal Bays. This comprehensive watershed restoration addresses 1) the need for enhanced stormwater management through nature-based stream and wetland restoration 2) sea level rise and salt marsh deterioration through marsh restoration 3) agricultural runoff through outreach to farmers for conservation practices, and 4) wastewater pollution by connecting septic systems to public sewer. Ayres Creek and Trappe Creek are the largest tributaries to Newport Bay and will be focal points within the watershed due to their contributions of excess nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment from the urban/suburban parts of the watershed downstream. Newport Bay consistently scores the lowest out of the five Coastal Bays in the annual Maryland Coastal Bays Report Card, which assesses the health of the bays using four water quality indicators (nitrogen, phosphorus, chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen) and two biotic indicators (seagrass, hard clam). This multi-year restoration effort will address the key issues causing Newport Bay to be the unhealthiest of the Coastal Bays and specifically aims to improve water quality to restore shallow water habitat.

3) Gunpowder Valley Conservancy - Prettyboy Reservoir
The Prettyboy Reservoir Watershed is the cold-water headwaters to Prettyboy Reservoir that drains predominantly agricultural areas in Baltimore and Carroll Counties as well as the headwater in York County, Pennsylvania. This Whole Watershed collaboration will be led by the Gunpowder Valley Conservancy, a non-profit community organization whose mission is to engage, connect, and inspire people to preserve and restore the Gunpowder Watershed that includes the Prettyboy Reservoir. This program will bring together municipal and agricultural agencies with community groups to collaborate on cost-effective and science-based solutions to meet common goals of improving water quality in impaired streams, improving fisheries and wildlife habitat, and addressing environmental justice and climate resiliency. This coalition of knowledge, expertise, and resources will be able to bring real and measurable improvements to the valuable natural resources of the watershed.

4) Southern MD Resource Conservation and Development Board - Lower Patuxent River
Across the Lower Patuxent Watershed, communities recognize the need to improve water quality as part of building resilience in the region. The goals of this project are to expand on existing entities to build a collaboration infrastructure for coordination, integration, and aggregation of outcome-driven actions that would promote innovative, science-based solutions to waterway restoration efforts in the Lower Patuxent River and surrounding watershed and would inject new energy and investment in the implementation of the Patuxent River Policy Plan and the work of the Patuxent River Commission. The project will address ongoing water quality, habitat, and climate change issues while providing multiple restoration and conservation benefits, expanding equitable access to conservation resources, and enhancing climate resilience.

5) Washington College - Langford Creek
Washington College, ShoreRivers, Eastern Shore Land Conservancy, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science Horn Point Laboratory, Orchard Point Oyster Co., and The Nature Conservancy—together now known as The Langford Watershed Alliance—propose innovative and comprehensive restoration and monitoring efforts throughout Langford Creek Watershed. A tributary of the Chester River, this small and predominantly agricultural watershed struggles to meet water quality standards for nutrients, bacteria, and sediment. To restore Langford Creek, our Alliance will (1) utilize innovative best management practices (BMPs) to accelerate water quality improvements, (2) implement farm scale precision mapping for targeted BMPs installations, (3) restore nearshore habitat with native grass, wetlands, stream restoration practices and forests to support wildlife, (4) increase use of targeted in-field agricultural best practices, such as no till, cover crops, targeted fertilizer application, in areas prone to stormwater runoff, (5) rebuild and protect oyster and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation habitat, (6) install living shorelines to protect against erosion and provide increased incentives for landowners and farm operators for implementation of innovative practices, (7) identify and remediate sources of bacteria through septic remediation upgrades, (8) engage in boater education to reduce wave action, and (9) establish monitoring stations throughout the watershed to track progress. This innovative and holistic restoration of Langford Creek Watershed will serve as a model for future projects Bay wide, and we cannot do this work alone. Local communities, governments, and industries will help to guide our work to ensure the result is authentically informed by and for the communities who treasure Langford Creek the most.

6) South Baltimore Gateway Partnership - Baltimore Harbor
The Middle Branch Resiliency Initiative (“MBRI”) is a coordinated suite of nature-based infrastructure actions around the highly urban shoreline of the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River, within the Baltimore Harbor Watershed. The MBRI is the shoreline restoration arm of Reimagine Middle Branch (“RMB”), a community-driven environmental justice initiative working to restore approximately 11 miles of shoreline along the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River. The MBRI leverages and intersects with the RMB framework and local programs designed to engage community members and local stakeholders in restoration efforts, including the RMB Committees (detailed in the Partner Engagement Plan), the Chesapeake Watershed Restoration

Academy workforce development program, research collaborations, and community engagement and programming.

MBRI actions will improve water quality; increase riparian and aquatic habitat function, value, and diversity; reduce risk of coastal hazards and impacts of climate change; restore public access to enhanced waterfront greenspace; improve public health and welfare; and actively engage community members in the stewardship of their environment, ensuring that legacy residents are the primary beneficiaries of all improvements. This Project is in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River, the area that continues to experience the worst environmental injustices in the Baltimore Harbor Watershed. Developed over four years of community engagement through the RMB planning process, actions under the MBRI include shoreline stabilization, habitat restoration, stormwater management, flood risk reduction, recreational access improvements, and community engagement within historically underserved communities in South Baltimore.


7) Resilience Authority of Annapolis and Anne Arundel County - Severn River
The Severn River, a 14-mile tidal estuary in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, is a critical tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. Its 81-square-mile watershed supports diverse aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems but faces challenges due to urban development and environmental degradation. To address these issues, the Severn Engagement and Vital Ecosystem Restoration Network (The SEVERN) adopts a whole watershed approach that integrates innovative, nature-based restoration and conservation practices with robust, targeted community outreach and engagement. The SEVERN emphasizes the restoration of shallow water habitats, wetlands, and shorelines to enhance ecosystem resilience, support productive fisheries, and improve habitat for key species. By aligning efforts with the recommendations of leading Chesapeake Bay scientists, The SEVERN demonstrates scalable, science-based solutions to regional ecological challenges. Through dynamic partnerships among local citizens, businesses, non-governmental organizations, and watershed groups, The SEVERN exemplifies the collaborative spirit envisioned in the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Agreement and Maryland’s Whole Watershed Act. This approach not only strengthens the Severn River’s ecosystem but also fosters community resilience to climate hazards, setting a precedent for localized, impactful Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts.

8) The Nature Conservancy - Anacostia
Anacostia Watershed Restoration Partnership will bring together a diverse group of partners from the governmental, non-profit, private, and academic sectors with the common goal of a healthier Anacostia Watershed for the river and its surrounding communities. The watershed, home to over 800,000 people, 43 fish species, and 200 bird species, has been heavily urbanized, losing 6,500 acres of wetlands and 70% of its forest cover due to over 25% impervious surface cover increase. The communities in the watershed face significant economic challenges, including low employment rates, high poverty rates, and poor health indicators. This proposal focuses on Sligo Creek and the Northwest Branch to improve conditions for underserved communities, enhancing collaboration among Montgomery County, Prince George’s County, and the District of Columbia. Projects under this proposal include green infrastructure, stormwater management facilities, innovative technology integration, tree and native habitat planting, community education, workforce development, and community outreach, supported by a robust monitoring plan to demonstrate the impact of this collaborative effort and the team’s long-standing history of environmental work in the region.

9) Catoctin Land Trust - Antietam Creek
The Antietam Creek Restoration Collaborative (ACRC) consists of Federal, State, Local and nonprofit partners working together to identify, design, and implement BMP’s, throughout the watershed in a predominantly agricultural setting with underserved, overburdened communities in rural areas as well as cities such as Hagerstown, MD and Waynesboro, PA. Partners will conduct community outreach and implement conservation practices to improve water quality and quantity with the goal of delisting stream segments from the dirty waters list with restoration practices such as: urban tree plantings, riparian forest buffers, cattle stream exclusion fencing, row crop conversion to pasture, stormwater management, and stream restoration to provide boat access and in-stream fisheries habitat for recreation. The Heart of Maryland Collaborative will convene project partners quarterly, coordinating community outreach and documenting conservation implementation to reach the project's goal. Many of the ACRC partners have been working together off and on since 2005 when a Maryland watershed group, Beaver Creek Watershed Association and the Antietam Watershed Association in Pennsylvania convened the four Bishops leading the Washington MD & Franklin County PA Mennonite Church, as this community owns or leases 60 percent of the farmland in the Antietam Creek watershed. ACRC will reunite and expand this partnership crossing state boundaries to take a true Whole Watershed approach for water quality, biodiversity and community resilience.