that by September 2001, the set of 31 âTechnical Indicatorsâ associated with Goals 1-5 .... C. The AWRC and COG will
Anacostia Watershed Restoration Indicators and Targets for Period 2001-2010
Prepared for: The Summit Fund of Washington Prepared by: Department of Environmental Programs Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments August 2001
Anacostia Watershed Restoration Indicators and Targets for the Period 2001 – 2010
Prepared For: The Summit Fund of Washington
Prepared By: John Galli, Edward Graham, Timothy Murphy, Phong Trieu, Peter Guillozet, and Dave Shepp Department of Environmental Programs Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 777 North Capitol Street, NE Washington, DC 20002
August 2001
Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank a number of individuals for their contributions to this report. First and foremost, we thank Linda Howard and the Summit Fund of Washington for recognizing the importance of this project and providing the funding support to make it a reality. The authors are also indebted to Brenda Richardson (Earth Conservation Corps and Women Like Us), James Collier (DC-DOH and AWRC), and Jon Capacasa (US EPA) for their contributions and support. The authors are also grateful for the assistance and valuable insights provided by Maureen Hart and Chris Patterson (both Hart Environmental Data). Also critical was the leadership provided by the AWRC whose members include Cameron Wiegand (MCDEP), Larry Coffman (PGDER), Michael Marcotte (DC-WASA), George Harman and Steve Bieber (MDE), Catherine Rappe and Frank Dawson (MDDNR), Bob Lindner (COE), Pat Gleason and Gary Miller (both US EPA), and John Hale (NPS). Members of the AWRC’s Anacostia Restoration Potential Workgroup: Jon Siemen and Peter May (both DC-DOH), Dr. Mohsin Siddique (DC-WASA), Jim Cummins (ICPRB), Doug Marshall and KeithVan Ness (both MCDEP), Sharon Meigs and Dr. Mow-Soung Cheng (both PGDER), Brent Steury (NPS), Charlie Gougeon (MDDNR), Steve Pugh (COE), and Bob Turnbull and Doug Redmond (both M-NCPPC) deserved special mention, as does former COG staff member Dave Shepp. Finally, the authors wish to extend their appreciation to Stuart Freudberg (COG) who offered guidance during the course of this project.
i
Executive Summary Until the emergence, in 1987, of a concerted and focused effort to restore and protect the Anacostia watershed, local environmental concern was focused largely on the Potomac River. In the years since, local, state, regional and Federal government agencies, environmental organizations, businesses, and dedicated citizens have contributed significant resources toward restoration and protection of the Anacostia. Formal cooperation between government agencies came with the signing of the 1987 Anacostia Watershed Restoration Agreement and the establishment of the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee (AWRC) to oversee the restoration. A second restoration agreement, signed in 1991, provided greater focus to the restoration efforts by committing the signatories to a Six Point Action Plan with six specified goals focusing on: 1) reducing pollutant loads, 2) restoring ecological integrity, 3) improving fish passage, 4) increasing wetland acreage, 5) expanding forest coverage, and 6) increasing public and private participation. Recognizing the need for more specific measures of progress, the signatories reconvened in 1999 to draft a new restoration agreement. The May 10, 1999 Agreement reaffirmed and updated the six goals and added a new provision to develop “through a public participation process, a suite of specific, long-term restoration indicators and targets” and to “continue implementation of a basin-wide strategy to equitably achieve the six fundamental goals and associated targets by the year 2010”. The signatories further agreed to reconvene every two years to “assess progress, provide general direction and examine the needs and means to further the goals of the restoration effort.” That same year, the Summit Fund of Washington awarded the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) a grant for a project entitled, “Achieving a Publicly Supported Framework for Developing Indicators and Restoration Targets for Measuring the Success of the Anacostia River Restoration.” Designed to engage the AWRC and its affiliates, environmental and community groups, and public and private businesses, this “Indicators and Targets” (I & T) Project has been a highly public process resulting in the development of a suite of 50, measurable restoration indicators and related targets for guiding the restoration effort to the year 20101 . It is expected that by September 2001, the set of 31 “Technical Indicators” associated with Goals 1-5 and the 19 “Public Awareness/Stewardship” indicators for Goal 6 will be incorporated into an updated Anacostia Restoration Agreement, fulfilling the mandate from the 1999 Agreement. The principal objectives of the I & T Project were to develop, within an 18 to 24-month timeframe, a suite of measurable and publicly supportable environmental restoration indictors and companion targets for the six Anacostia restoration goals; through a partnership effort to engage and involve both the AWRC and the public in the development of restoration indicators and targets; create a framework through which comprehensive and systematic restoration monitoring, tracking, and reporting can be accomplished watershed-wide; prepare planning-level monitoring, tracking, and reporting cost estimates for each of the 50 indicators; develop easy to understand prototype products for annually reporting to elected officials and the public on restoration progress; and set the stage for the formal adoption and implementation of the restoration indicators and targets by the four Anacostia signatory jurisdictions comprised by Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, the state of Maryland, and the District of Columbia.
1
Note: Indicator 2i., Percent Impervious Surface in the Watershed, is a floating indicator, which, if included, would bring the total number of indicators to 51. Its applicability is pending and is subject to the availability of data.
ii
A summary of the major findings, elements and recommendations of the I & T project are as follows: 1. Project Management A. A Steering Committee comprised of the Summit Fund Executive Director, the AWRC member from the District of Columbia, COG’s Project Manager and the Community Outreach Coordinator (COC) provided general project oversight and direction. B. The COC was tasked with the responsibility for both ensuring effective outreach to the watershed’s diverse stakeholder groups and individuals and preparing a report on the public participation portion of the I & T project. C. Over 30 interviews and presentations for various watershed stakeholder groups and individuals were conducted between January and September 2001. D. Hart Environmental Data, a nationally recognized expert in the development of sustainable community indicators was hired to assist COG staff in the development of Goal 6 - related indicators. E. The AWRC was continuously apprised of every major development, and met three times through Special Session meetings to review critical products. F. An AWRC Anacostia Restoration Potential Workgroup, comprised of interagency technical resource staff, was formed to assist COG staff in developing key technical components in support of Goal 1-5 indicators and targets. The Workgroup met six times between June 2000 and January 2001 in accomplishing its tasks. 2. Indicators and Targets Development A. COG staff conducted both comprehensive literature searches and numerous interviews with local, state and federal watershed restoration practitioners and experts to help it identify potential restoration indicators for Goals 1-6. Over 100 candidate indicators were initially identified. Through a systematic screening and ranking process, which rated measurability as the most important criterion, a total of 50 indicators were recommended. B. 31 “technical” indicators and associated targets were developed for Goals 1-5. An additional 19 “public awareness / stewardship” indicators were developed for Goal 6, bringing the total number of restoration indicators and targets to 50. C. A subset of 16 so-called “Leading Indicators” were additionally identified to both capture the essence of the full compliment of 50 indicators and targets for Goals 1-6,while at the same time facilitating public understanding and dialog.
iii
3. Monitoring, Tracking and Reporting - Database Needs, Gaps, and Estimated Costs A. The Workgroup developed a systematic and tiered approach for monitoring, tracking and reporting on Goals 1-6 related activities, progress and problems. Three distinct levels were identified: local stream, subwatershed and watershed. B. Representative examples of the Workgroup’s recommended multi-tiered approach includes the operation of seven (7) automated water quality monitoring stations in the non-tidal, tributary stream portion of the watershed and a comprehensive, 77 tributary stream and tidal river biological community monitoring station network. C. The Workgroup developed a historical fisheries database for the tidal river and each of the major subwatersheds. This historical “yardstick” together with current number of fish taxa and Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) data, was additionally used by the Workgroup to set specific local tributary and subwatershed 2010 targets. D. As part of its permanent role and responsibility, the Workgroup will continue to monitor, track and report on restoration progress through the year 2010. In addition, it will regularly evaluate monitoring, tracking and reporting needs in the watershed, and have the lead responsibility for generating the AWRC’s annual restoration progress “Report Card”. Importantly, the Workgroup will actively seek input from key environmental, business, citizen groups, and organizations active in the watershed restoration efforts. E. Not surprisingly, several monitoring protocol and database gaps exist. Example gaps include incomplete tributary stream and tidal river physical, chemical, and biological data, wetlands utilization by wildlife, forest coverage, and watershed stewardship and recreational usage, to name a few. Included in the challenge to close these remaining gaps is the need for the generation of data from strategically located representative sites on an annual and biennial basis. Because of the inherent time lag associated with the development, funding, and implementation of monitoring and data management system protocols, programs, and initiatives, some database gaps are expected to remain for at least the next one to three years. F. The I & T monitoring, tracking, and reporting full implementation scenario cost (for the period FY 2002 – 2009) for all 31, Goals 1-5 indicators is conservatively estimated to be approximately $8,435,000. The total cost for the 19, Goal 6 indicators for the same timeframe is estimated at $334,000. This brings the overall cost for Goals 1-6 to $8,769,000. It is also recognized that considerable cost savings may be realized, especially for Goal 6, through a concerted and coordinated effort to fully utilize the watershed’s largely untapped pool of volunteers and students.
iv
4. Proposed Annual Reporting A. To both make the annual reporting of restoration progress simpler to understand and more accessible to the public, as well as providing the AWRC maximum flexibility in disseminating information to various target audiences, COG staff has developed several prototype products. These include both a one-page long Anacostia watershed restoration progress summary sheet and the more detailed companion Report Card, which outlines general progress made for each of the individual restoration indicators and targets. A conceptual watershed restoration progress rating approach is also under development. B. As currently proposed, the Report Card will feature a numerically based scoring system (i.e., 0-100 points total with associated verbal ranking categories) so as to provide a more systematic and consistent method of reporting from year to year. C. Over the coming year, the Workgroup will finalize the conceptual watershed restoration progress rating system developed by COG staff and present it to the AWRC for approval. 5. Next Steps and Implementation A. There will be a reconvening of the Anacostia restoration signatories in September 2001. At that time, it is expected that the restoration indicators and targets will be formally adopted and that a commitment to provide both the human and financial resources necessary for accomplishing the restoration objectives by 2010 will be made. It is also recognized that several of the 2010 targets are of an interim nature and subject to change over time. The Anacostia restoration signatories will reconvene biennially to “assess progress, provide general direction, and examine the needs and means to further the goals of the restoration effort.” B. Implementation of the restoration indicators and targets will require the AWRC and its affiliates to make several major program and budget decisions for FY 2002 and beyond. COG staff will continue to work with the AWRC, its affiliates, and others to help maintain restoration program and budget priority focus necessary for accomplishing the adopted 2010 targets. C. The AWRC and COG will continue to work with schools, environmental, business, and community groups and others to foster and promote greater public involvement in the restoration effort.
v
Table of Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................... vii List of Tables .....................................................................................................................viii Appendices.......................................................................................................................... ix I. Introduction................................................................................................................1 II. Anacostia Watershed Restoration Vision and Progress ............................................2 III. Anacostia Restoration Indicators and Targets Project (I & T) .................................3 A. Project Management ................................................................................................3 B. AWRC Involvement ................................................................................................5 C. Public Participation..................................................................................................6 IV. Restoration Indicators and Targets Development ....................................................7 A. Indicators Development ...........................................................................................7 B. Targets......................................................................................................................8 V. AWRC-Approved Anacostia Restoration Indicators and Targets, 2001-2010........8 A. Technical Indicators and Targets .............................................................................8 B. Public Awareness/Stewardship Indicators and Targets .........................................13 C. Leading Indicators and Targets..............................................................................13 VI. Monitoring, Tracking, and Reporting ....................................................................15 A. Database Needs and Gaps......................................................................................15 B. Anacostia Watershed Restoration and Monitoring Priority Areas ........................15 C. Multi- Tiered Approach..........................................................................................17 D. Estimated Monitoring, Tracking and Reporting Costs ..........................................17 VII. Subwatershed I & T Application – Northwest Branch Example ...........................21 A. Anacostia Fish Communities - Historical Context ................................................24 B. Existing fish Community IBI Scores .....................................................................24 C. Setting the 2010 Bar Height...................................................................................29 VIII. Tidal River .............................................................................................................29 A. Low Dissolved Oxygen..........................................................................................29 IX. Proposed Annual Reporting...................................................................................33 A. Annual Report Card Process..................................................................................34 X. Next Steps and Implementation: 2001 to 2010 ......................................................37 A. 2010 Targets, Leading Indicators, Reporting and Monitoring ..............................37 B. Revised Anacostia Agreement ...............................................................................37 C. AWRC Monitoring Program..................................................................................37 D. AWRC Restoration Program .................................................................................46 E. Community-Based Activities .................................................................................46 F. Continued Leadership ............................................................................................46 References ..........................................................................................................................47 Appendix 1 .........................................................................................................................54 Appendix 2 .........................................................................................................................57
vi
List of Figures Figure 1. Status of Restoration Projects for the Period 1987- 2000 ...................................3 Figure 2. Conceptual Anacostia Watershed Restoration Progress (Goals 1-6) ..................4 Figure 3. AWRC Restoration and Monitoring Priority areas, 1987 – Present ..................16 Figure 4. Little Paint Branch Stream Restoration at Beltsville Community Center (1999) ..................................................................................17 Figure 5. Recently Completed $4.5 Million Upper Beaverdam Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (1999).......................................................................................17 Figure 6. AWRC Restoration Workgroup-Recommended Anacostia Watershed Automated Water Sampling Station Network ..................................18 Figure 7. AWRC Restoration Workgroup-Recommended 2010 IBI Tributary, Mainstem, and Tidal River Monitoring Station Network .................19 Figure 8. Brook Trout .......................................................................................................23 Figure 9. Northwest Branch Tributary Existing Adjusted Fish IBI Ratings.....................26 Figure 10. Sample Northwest Branch Subwatershed 2010 Fish Community ‘Bar Height” .....................................................................................................29 Figure 11. Location and Relative Size of CSO Discharges into the Tidal Anacostia River................................................................................................30 Figure 12. Tidal Anacostia Automated DO Monitoring Stations .....................................30 Figure 13. Anacostia River Dissolved Oxygen Trends ....................................................31 Figure 14. Anacostia Restoration Goals 1-6: Overall Progress for Calendar Year 2002 by Major Subwatershed Area .........................................33 Figure 15. Sample ‘Summary Sheet’ Anacostia Watershed Restoration Progress for Calendar Year 2002 .....................................................................35
vii
List of Tables Table 1. Recommended Goal 6 Indicators and Targets....................................................14 Table 2. Summary: Estimated Monitoring, Tracking, and Reporting Costs Associated with Anacostia Restoration Goals 1-5 for the Period FY 2002-2009 ............................................................20 Table 3. Summary: Estimated Monitoring, Tracking and Reporting Costs Associated with Anacostia Restoration Goal 6 for the Period FY 2002-2009.........................................................................................22 Table 4. Provisional List of Resident and Migratory Fishes Collected or Expected in Northwest Branch, 1898 – 2001 .................................................24 Table 5. Summary: AWRC Workgroup Recommended 2010 Northwest Branch Biological Community Restoration Targets ..........................................28 Table 6. Sample Anacostia Watershed Restoration Indicators and Targets Progress and Status Report Card for Period 2002-2010 ........................36
viii
List of Appendices Appendix 1. Anacostia River Summit: Toward a Restored Anacostia Watershed, May 10, 1999 Appendix 2. Table 1. Anacostia Restoration Indicators: Recommended Monitoring/Tracking Level
ix
I.
Introduction
Within the greater Washington Metropolitan area, the Anacostia River has often been called “the other river” or “the forgotten river”. Prior to 1987, much of the environmental concern and focus was on the larger ailing Potomac River. However, a concerted and focused effort to restore and protect the Anacostia watershed began in earnest in 1987. During the intervening time, local, state, regional and Federal government agencies, as well as environmental organizations, businesses and dedicated citizens have contributed significant resources toward its restoration and protection. Formal cooperation between government agencies came with the signing of the 1987 Anacostia Watershed Restoration Agreement and the establishment of the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee (AWRC) to oversee the restoration. Members of the AWRC include the District of Columbia, Montgomery and Prince George’s counties in Maryland, the state of Maryland, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the National Park Service and U.S. EPA. A second restoration agreement, signed in 1991, provided greater focus to the restoration efforts by committing the signatories to a Six Point Action Plan with specified goals. The six goals are focused on: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Reduction of Pollution Loads Restoration of Ecological Integrity Improvement of Fish Passage Increase in Wetland Acreage Expansion of Forest Coverage Increase in Public and Private Participation and Stewardship
However, by 1999 the partners to the agreement, feeling the need for more specific measures of progress, drafted a new restoration agreement. The May 10, 1999 Agreement, included as Appendix 1, reaffirmed and updates the six goals and added a new provision to develop “through a public participation process, a suite of specific, long-term restoration indicators and targets” and to “continue implementation of a basin-wide strategy to equitably achieve the six fundamental goals and associated targets by the year 2010”. The signatories further agreed to reconvene every two years to “assess progress, provide general direction and examine the needs and means to further the goals of the restoration effort.” In May 1999, the Summit Fund of Washington awarded the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) a grant for a project entitled, “Achieving a Publicly Supported Framework for Developing Indicators and Restoration Targets for Measuring the Success of the Anacostia River Restoration.” From its beginning, the Indicators and Targets Project (I & T Project) has been a highly public process designed to engage both the AWRC and the public in the development of a suite of restoration indicators and related targets for guiding the restoration effort to the year 2010. After numerous public interviews and meetings and consideration by the AWRC, a set of 31 “Technical Indicators” for Goals 1-5 has been agreed to2 . In addition, 19 2
Note: Indicator 2i., Percent Impervious Surface in the Watershed, is a floating indicator, which, if included, would bring the total number of technical indicators to 32. Its applicability is pending and is subject to the availability of data.
1
“Public Awareness/Stewardship Indicators” have been identified in support of Goal 6, bringing the total number of Anacostia restoration indicators and targets to 50. These 50 indicators and targets will be incorporated into an updated Anacostia Restoration Agreement, fulfilling the mandate from the 1999 Agreement. This update to the Agreement is scheduled to occur in December 2001. For organizational purposes, the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Indicators and Targets Report has been divided into ten sections. Section I provides a brief overview of both the Anacostia watershed restoration vision and restoration progress to date. Section II describes the process and key players responsible for crafting the indicators and targets. In Sections III, IV, and V the full suite of AWRC-approved indicators and targets corresponding to restoration Goals 1-6 are described. Section VI summarizes monitoring, tracking, reporting, and database needs and gaps, as well as AWRC watershed monitoring priorities and estimated costs. In sections VII and VIII examples of the envisioned application of the indicators and targets at both the subwatershed level and for the tidal river are presented. Section IX details the proposed annual reporting, including the preparation of an annual ‘Report Card.’ Finally, in Section X, next steps, implementation challenges, and recommended strategies are outlined. II.
Anacostia Watershed Restoration Vision and Progress
The current condition of the Anacostia watershed reflects over 300 years of environmental degradation. It will require decades of change and commitment to restore conditions necessary to support a far greater ecological balance. As daunting as this may seem to some, the original 1987 vision of a clean and healthy Anacostia River and tributary system, which is the focal point for a watershed that is economically vibrant, and is a desirable place to live, work and recreate, remains. It is gratifying that, since 1987, signs of a positive environmental change are beginning to emerge, in almost every corner of the watershed. Over the past 14 years, actions taken by the AWRC, affiliated organizations, environmental and business groups, and numerous individual citizens have resulted in substantial restoration progress. Shortly after its creation the AWRC established a framework to guide long-term restoration efforts. To date the AWRC and others have identified over 700 stormwater retrofit, wetland creation, stream restoration, riparian restoration, combined sewer overflow (CSO) abatement, trash and toxics reduction and other restoration – related projects designed to correct existing environmental problems and enhance overall ecosystem quality (Figure 1). Of these, approximately one-third have either been completed or are in progress. Since 1987 roughly $35 million has been spent on restoration project implementation, with approximately $30 million additional dollars spent on land acquisition, planning, monitoring, engineering design and maintenance. In addition, $65 million has been spent on engineering controls designed to reduce the impacts of CSO’s on the tidal river and of leaking, aging sewer lines on the tributary streams. While large amounts of money have already been spent on the watershed restoration effort, it is widely recognized that far greater leadership and financial and human resources will be required to continue the restoration process and, ultimately, to achieve the ambitious goal of restoring the Anacostia watershed to a healthy condition by the year 2010 (Figure 2). 2
Stormwater Retrofit Instream Restoration Fish Passage Riparian Reforestation Wetland Creation Other Projects
0
50
100 150 200 250 300 Approximate Number of Projects
Completed or In Progress
350
400
Planned
Figure 1. Status of Restoration Projects for the Period 1987- 2001
III.
Anacostia Restoration Indicators and Targets Project (I & T)
The following section briefly describes the process, project management team and key groups and players, such as the AWRC, Community Network, and AWRC’s Anacostia Restoration Potential Workgroup, responsible for developing the indicators and targets associated with Goals 1-6. A.
Project Management
The period between the project’s beginning, in May 1999, and December 1999 was marked by a flurry of project-related planning and orientation. By January of 2000, a Steering Committee, a Project Team, and Liaison with the AWRC had been established. Each of these is described briefly as follows. Steering Committee A Steering Committee was specifically created to provide general project oversight and direction. Members include Summit Fund of Washington Executive Director, Ms. Linda Howard, the AWRC member from the District of Columbia Department of Health, Mr. James Collier, the I & T Project Manager, Dr. Edward Graham (COG), and the Community Outreach Coordinator (COC), Ms. Brenda Richardson. 3
Figure 2. Conceptual Anacostia Watershed Restoration Progress (Goals 1-6)
4
I & T Project Team Under the direction of the I & T Project Manager, work on the project was performed by both COG staff and two external consultants. Ms. Brenda Richardson, a well-known and respected Anacostia community acitivist, was enlisted as the project's COC to ensure effective outreach to the diverse stakeholder groups. In addition, Ms. Maureen Hart of the firm Hart Environmental Data was hired to assist COG staff in the development of Goal 6-related indicators based on her firm’s nationally recognized experience. B.
AWRC Involvement
From project conception, it was recognized that liaison with the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee (AWRC) and its member agencies and affiliates was key to the I & T project’s ultimate success. As previously stated, the AWRC, which is currently comprised of nine agencies with planning and implementation responsibility for Anacostia restoration, includes: • • • • • • • • •
DC-Department of Health DC-Water and Sewer Authority Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection Prince George’s County Department of Environmental Resources Maryland Department of Natural Resources Maryland Department of the Environment The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The National Park Service
The AWRC was apprised at every major step of the project and met three times over an 18month period through “Special Session” meetings to review critical products such as the set of indicators and targets and proposed monitoring strategies. The AWRC was also kept informed by I & T project presentations made by COG staff at the AWRC’s quarterly meetings. AWRC Anacostia Restoration Potential Workgroup Recognizing both the incredible breadth of technical expertise and the pivotal roles played by the AWRC membership and their affiliates, COG staff convened an AWRC Anacostia Restoration Potential Workgroup comprised of agency resource staff representatives to develop key technical components in support of the indicators and targets. Using a subwatershed approach, the Workgroup met six times to systematically address how each of the indicators would be measured, and recommended ambitious, yet achievable targets for 2010. The Workgroup also prepared a conceptual design, including cost estimates, for a comprehensive, coordinated watershed monitoring plan for consideration by the AWRC. This step alone was highly significant, representing for the first time the application of a holistic, watershed-wide approach to restoring the Anacostia River and its tributaries. 5
C.
Public Participation
Public participation in the project was ensured through the formation of a multi-jurisdictional Community Network (CN) comprised of numerous individuals and environmental, business and civic group representatives having a stake in the Anacostia watershed and who had an interest in participation. The CN grew as the project proceeded. The COC had the primary responsibility of contacting the many watershed stakeholder groups and individuals to ensure their participation in the project. Importance of the Community Interviews and Meetings The first project contact with many members of the CN was though the initial interviews. These interviews were designed to acquaint CN members with the project and to provide an initial opportunity for CN members to share their expectations and vision for a restored Anacostia watershed. Key elements for the initial interviews are a project Fact Sheet, which was prepared by Hart, and a Questionnaire also prepared by Hart Environmental Data. The COC was given responsibility for scheduling and conducting interviews with representatives of community, environmental, and business groups. The format for each interview involved prior distribution of the Fact Sheet for review by the interviewee and use of the questionnaire, at a minimum, as the basis for the interview. Over 30 interviews were conducted during the January through September 2001 time period. A representative sample of the groups and individuals interviewed includes: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
The Anacostia Watershed Society Ms. Beverly Baker, formerly of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Foundation The Anacostia River Business Coalition Mr. Carl Cole, Anacostia resident and historian Audubon Naturalist Society Wilderness Society and Anacostia River Partnership Mr. George Gurley, River Terrace resident Blacks of Chesapeake Foundation Bridges to Friendship DC Board of Trade The Eyes of Paint Branch The Anacostia Watershed Citizens Advisory Committee Concerned Citizens for the Restoration of Indian Creek The Carver Terrrace Association Hyattsville Organization for a Positive Environment
6
In addition, presentations were given to: • •
The Mayor’s Environmental Council The Steering Committee of the DC Office of Planning’s Anacostia Waterfront Initiative
A full and separate report on the public participation efforts has been prepared by the COC. IV.
Restoration Indicators and Targets Development
The following is a brief overview of the development, review, and approval of the 50, 2010 restoration indicators and targets selected by the AWRC at their Special Session meetings held on January 19 and May 24, 2000 for Goals 1-5 and on February 2, 2001 for Goals 1-6. A.
Indicators Development
Technical and Stewardship Indicators As already noted, two types of indicators were developed for the I & T project. The 31 Technical Indicators, which tend to reflect the science of the restoration efforts, are applicable to Goals 1-5. In addition, there are 19 Public Awareness/Stewardship Indicators associated with Goal 6. These reflect usage, stewardship, and advocacy. These indicators have been developed with the help of the AWRC members and their staffs, following extensive meetings with the Community Network. The development of the technical indicators built upon work previously conducted by COG before the inception of the I & T Project. The work, which was documented in a “Draft Indicators Report” prepared by COG staff and submitted to the AWRC for review, originally contained over 100 potential restoration indicators. Through a systematic winnowing process, COG staff developed a final list of 31 Technical Indicators in January 2000. As a key next step, COG staff annotated this list to indicate potential restoration targets and approaches to setting targets. This list was formally approved by the AWRC at a Special Session meeting held in May 2000. Presently, the concept of ‘Leading Indicators’ is being finalized. This responds to the concern that the full list of 50 indicators is perhaps too long to facilitate straightforward report to the lay public. COG staff has recommended that sixteen of the 50 indicators can both capture the essence of restoration progress and facilitate dialogue with the community. The concept and the specific list, while presented in this report, have yet to be formally adopted by either the AWRC or the Community Network. The 19 Public Awareness/Stewardship Indicators grew out of extensive interviews and meetings with the Community Network and discussions with the AWRC. The view that such indicators should reflect “Usage, Stewardship, and Advocacy” resulted mainly from a work session held at the Summit Fund in November 2000 that was facilitated by Hart Environmental Data. 7
B.
Targets
Targets are companions to indicators. While the indicators are the ‘measuring sticks’ for success or progress, the targets are the actual results that the restoration efforts are designed to achieve by 2010. As a precursor to setting 2010 targets, the Project Team focused on “restoration potential.” This involved a systematic review of known historical conditions, prior watershed studies, available Anacostia restoration information, and professional judgment to assess how far restoration is likely to proceed for each of the technical indicators. This assessment was made for each of the 13 major Anacostia subwatersheds, as well as for the tidal river. The methodology and, to the extent feasible, actual values, were reviewed by the AWRC in its Special Session held in May 2000. This Special Session was perhaps the single most important step in beginning to establish explicit targets. From that point forward, the AWRC Anacostia Restoration Potential Workgroup worked with COG staff in setting the restoration potential associated with each indicator. As previously stated, the Workgroup met six times to evaluate each of the Goal 1-5 restoration indicators and targets between June 2000 and January 2001. With the exception of restoration indicator 2i (Percent Impervious Surface in the watershed), all of the other AWRC-selected indicators and targets were endorsed by the Workgroup. Indicator 2i was not recommended by the Workgroup because of the current and expected inability to measure impervious surfaces watershed-wide. However, it was retained as a ‘floating’ indicator, awaiting further improvements in Anacostia GIS mapping capabilities and databases. The Workgroup also made various editorial revisions to reflect the linkage(s) between watershed restoration projects and the biological communities. V.
AWRC-Approved Anacostia Restoration Indicators and Targets, 2001-2010
The suite of 50 AWRC-approved Anacostia restoration indicators (bolded) and targets are presented by associated restoration goals below. A.
Technical Indicators and Targets Goal 1 - Dramatically reduce pollutant loads, such as sediments, toxics, CSOs, other nonpoint inputs and trash, delivered to the tidal river and its tributaries to meet water quality standards and goals. (10 indicators, total)
1a. Total suspended solids - Annual load of suspended sediments to the tidal Anacostia. A turbidity “Total Maximum Daily Load” (TMDL) is going to be set for the tidal Anacostia. Work is currently being done to identify what that TMDL will be. The recommended 2010 restoration target for TSS should be proportional to the TMDL set for turbidity. The recommended interim TSS for the tidal river should be less than 80 mg/l with a goal of supporting underwater grasses. 1b. Combined sewer overflows - Frequency, and/or volume of overflow. EPA Policy defines a 8
“presumptive” approach to meeting WQ criteria for CSOs. That is, collection systems should capture 85% of the combined sewage on an average annual basis or have no more than four overflows per year. DC-WASA is in the process of completing its Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) to determine what controls will be needed. However, these controls will not be fully understood until all LTCP modeling work is completed. For the purposes of this indicators project, an ultimate 95% capture rate and the initiation of CSO system improvements before 2010 is the provisional target. This may be revised once the LTCP is approved. 1c. Total phosphorus and Total nitrogen - Annual load to the tidal river. For the 2010 target, 40% nutrient reduction consistent with the Chesapeake Bay agreement is recommended. 1d. Fecal coliform concentration/bacterial contamination - Instream concentrations. Meeting WQ standards will be a condition for the CSO LTCP and the TMDL process. For this indicators project, an 85% reduction in fecal coliform load from the CSO areas could be a potential target that is consistent with the CSO presumptive control target. Another potential target is setting a percentage of time when the River is safe for primary-contact recreation or percentage of time when boating is not contravened. 1e. Dissolved oxygen - An indicator only for the tidal river. Meeting WQ standards will be a condition for the CSO LTCP and the TMDL process. For this indicators project, the interim 2010 target would be to eliminate DO conditions that do not support aquatic life (i.e., the percentage of time the DO drops below 2 mg/L shall be reduced to 0%). In addition, a secondary 2010 target of no major fish kills in the tidal river is proposed. 1f. Biochemical oxygen demand - Annual load to the tidal river. For this indicator, it will be difficult without the results of the TMDL receiving water model to determine what reduction in BOD is required. Since BOD can be typically correlated to solids, the target should be consistent with the reduction for TSS. Stormwater and CSO loads also need to be considered. The 2010 target will be revisited when the LTCP is complete; however, a current interim target of 75% BOD reduction is proposed. 1g. Secchi depth - An indicator for the tidal river only. Current conditions in the river are eutrophic and hypereutrophic. The recommended long-term target would be to consistently get Secchi depth measurements over 1.0 meter, representing mesoeutrophic conditions. Trophic State Indices could be used to measure this condition (e.g., Secchi Depth 56.0 ìg/l = Hypereutrophic; Chl ‘a’ = 56.0 – 7.3 ìg/l = Eutrophic conditions). Goal 2 - Protect and restore the ecological integrity of the Anacostia River and its streams to enhance aquatic diversity, increase recreational use, and provide for a quality urban fishery. (11 indicators, total) 2a. Temperature. The 2010 recommended target for temperature is to meet WQ standards 100% of the time for the Anacostia and its tributaries. For the District portion of the watershed, the maximum temperature is 32.2º C (90º F). For Maryland, the maximum is 90º F, but to maintain natural trout waters, that maximum is 68º F. Also, a 75º F maximum is used for stocked trout streams. 2b. Turbidity. The recommended 2010 targets for the non-tidal Maryland portions of the river is to meet water quality standards, which is a maximum of 150 NTUs and a monthly average of no more than 50 NTUs. For the tidal portion of the river, the recommended 2010 target is to meet the TMDL, which has yet to be determined. 2c. DELTs. The recommended 2010 target is to have DELTs (i.e. deformities, fin erosions, lesions and tumors) not exceed 2-3% of the fish population. 2d. pH. The recommended 2010 target for this parameter is to meet water quality standards 100% of the time. For the District, this standard is between 6.0 and 8.5. For Maryland, this standard is 6.5-8.5 2e. Macroinvertebrate community health. Using MBSS’s Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) for the Piedmont and Coastal Plain tributary portions of the watershed, the long-term target is an improvement in the total numerical score and a minimum verbal category rating of ‘fair’ for all priority subwatersheds. In the tidal river, the recommended 2010 target is a decreasing trend in the percent dominant taxon, reflecting a shift to a more diverse community. 2f. Resident fish community health. Using MBSS’s Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) for the Piedmont and Coastal Plain tributary portions of the watershed, the long – term target is an increase in both the total numerical score and number of established fish taxa for all priority subwatersheds. In the tidal river, the 2010 goal is an increase in both the total number of taxa and relative abundance of gamefish and a decrease in the proportion of fishes having DELTs. The preceding IBI and DELT data will be used to help evaluate the anticipated positive impacts 10
of various watershed restoration projects, activities and initiatives. 2g. Stream miles restored. The recommended 2010 target is 20 additional stream miles of physical aquatic habitat restoration in the Anacostia tributary system. 2h. Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) - An ecological health indicator for the tidal river. The recommended 2010 target is the establishment of approximately 20 total acres of SAV beds in the tidal river. 2i. Percent impervious surface in the watershed. This indicator has limited ability to show restoration progress, but is important from an overall watershed quality and education perspective. No 2010 target except in the Upper Paint Branch where a 10% impervious cap is already in place. For the remainder of the Anacostia watershed, employment of various low impact development (LID) techniques for both planned and existing developed areas (with a fundamental objective of reducing the amount of directly connected impervious surfaces) is recommended. Sub-indicators could include the number of sites or projects employing LID or other imperviousness disconnecting techniques. 2j. Percent of developed land in the watershed with stormwater controls - An indicator that highlights programmatic and water quantity and quality improvements made in the watershed. The recommended 2010 target is to have approximately 25-30% of the older, developed portions of the watershed controlled. 2k. Recreational use. The 2010 target is to increase the number of people recreating in and along the river and its tributaries. Potential sub-indicators include, but are not limited to, the following: park visitation numbers, recreational boating use, level of MD DNR trout stocking, number of angler days per year, etc. Goal 3 - Restore the natural range of resident and anadromous fish to historical limits. (3 indicators, total) 3a. Percent historical anadromous fish spawning range open. The recommended 2010 target is the opening of approximately 20 additional stream miles for Alewife and Blueback herring. Sub-indicators include the number of existing fish blockages removed and/or modified. 3b. Percent anadromous fish habitat utilization. The recommended 2010 target is to have 100% utilization of available habitat. Sub-indicators include the annual relative abundances of Alewife and Blueback herring in select stream reaches. 3c. Percent tributary mainstems and major feeder streams open to resident fishes. The recommended 2010 target is to have both 100% of the mainstems and 100% of priority tributary stream areas open in each major subwatershed. Note: exceptions include both existing natural barriers such as cataracts and falls and anthropogenic ones including stormwater management pond and water supply embankments and associated structures. Sub-indicators include number of stream miles open and number of barriers removed or modified. 11
Goal 4 - Increase the natural filtering capacity and habitat diversity of the watershed by sharply increasing the acreage and quality of tidal and non-tidal wetlands. (3 indicators, total) 4a. Created/restored tidal wetland acreage - A measure of overall tidal river ecological health. The 2010 target is the creation/restoration of approximately 60 additional acres of tidal wetlands. 4b. Created/restored non-tidal wetlands (i.e., wetland marshes, green reservoirs and vernal pools) - An indicator highlighting programmatic and ecological improvements made at both the subwatershed and local tributary level. The 2010 goal is the development of 20 new non- tidal wetland projects for wildlife habitat, having a combined total acreage of approximately 15 acres. 4c. Wildlife utilization of wetlands - An indicator of the biological health and diversity of the watershed and programmatic success in restoring and creating both tidal and non-tidal wetlands. A potential 2010 goal is comprehensive physical, chemical and biological monitoring of both representative tidal and non-tidal wetland projects and systems throughout the watershed. A real target for this indicator will be determined through the development of an Anacostia wetlands IBI. Goal 5 - Protect and expand forest cover throughout the watershed and create a continuous riparian forest buffer adjacent to its streams, wetlands and river. (5 indicators, total) 5a. Miles of created riparian forest. The 2010 target is to create an additional 12 miles of forested riparian buffer in the watershed, representing approximately 45 additional acres. 5b. Percent adequate riparian buffer zone. The term ‘adequate’ is both tributary and reach specific. It is an indicator of a buffer’s ability to meet essential thermal, wildlife corridor and/or stormwater filtering objectives. MD DNR currently employs a minimum 35' wide buffer on each side of the stream for riparian buffer restoration purposes. M-NCPPC presently employs a variable width buffer system based on stream use designation and percent valley side slope. No 2010 target has been established. The development of watershed riparian forest buffer criteria in 2002 is proposed. 5c. Acres of mature hardwood forest - An indicator of forest successional stage and ecosystem quality in the watershed. The recommended long–term target is the identification, prioritization and protection of the larger, remaining mature hardwood forested tracts in the watershed. This will be accomplished through the development of an Anacostia Forest Management Protection Strategy, to be developed in 2002. 5d. Acres of created upland forest - An indicator of overall ecosystem health. The 2010 target is to not only increase upland forest acreage in the watershed, but to expand the number of “corridor” connections between upland and riparian forest areas so as to reduce habitat fragmentation. 12
5e. Number of upland, riparian and total forest as percent of watershed area - An indicator of overall ecosystem health. No 2010 target has currently been established. The development of a watershed-wide Anacostia Forest Management and Protection Strategy is proposed for the year 2002. B.
Public Awareness/Stewardship Indicators and Targets Goal 6 - Increase citizen and private business awareness of their vital role in both the cleanup and economic revitalization of the watershed, and increase volunteer and public-private partnership participation in watershed restoration activities. (19 indicators, total)
The Public Awareness/Stewardship Indicators are designed to promote achievement of Goal 6. They reflect the numerous meetings with the CN and the AWRC. Through this process, it became evident that they could be classified to reflect Usage, Stewardship, and Advocacy. The work on these indicators and targets to date is presented in Table 1. C.
Leading Indicators and Targets
The Leading Indicators comprise a subset of 16 of the 50 indicators and targets, which are designed to capture the essence of the of the full complement of indicators and targets for Goals 1-6, while at the same time facilitating public understanding and dialog. The indicators currently recommended to be Leading Indicators are listed below. Goal 1 - Reduce Pollutant Loads 1a. Total suspended solids 1b. Combined sewer overflows 1d. Fecal coliform concentration/bacterial contamination-instream concentrations 1e. Dissolved oxygen 1h. Trash index and quantity of trash removed Goal 2 - Restore Ecological Integrity 2c. Deformities, Erosions, Lesions, Tumors (DELTs) 2e. Macroinvertebrate community health 2f. Resident fish community health 2g. Stream miles restored 2j. Percent of developed land in the watershed with stormwater controls Goal 3 - Improve Fish Passage 3a. Percent historical anadromous fish spawning range open Goal 4 - Increase Wetland Acreage 4a. Created/restored tidal wetland acreage 4b. Created/restored non-tidal wetlands 13
Table 1. Recommended Goal 6 Indicators and Targets
Use
14
6-1a. Numbers of Anglers Fishing on or along the Tidal River and at other Key Public Recreation Facilities and Parks (e.g., Greenbelt Lake, Lake Artemesia, Pine Lake, Northwest Branch etc.) 6-1b. Number of Anacostia River Fishing Piers and Daily Spring-Fall Angler Use. 6-1c. Construction of Anacostia Hiker-Biker Trail System in D.C. (which connects to existing M-NCPPC (P.G. Co.) trail System). 6-1d. M-NCPPC Anacostia Waterfront Park – Construction of Pedestrian Footbridge across River (to provide linkage with Colmar Manor Local park) and HikerBiker Trail System Use. 6-1e. Number of Public Boat ramps and Usage Along the Tidal River (e.g., 4 additional small boat ramps). 6-1f. Number of Public and Private Boat Houses, Facilities, and Use Along Tidal River (e.g., 4 additional boat houses). 6-1g. Number of Annual Anacostia River Human Powered Boat Races/Regattas (e.g., 3 additional) and Attendance/Participation in an Annual “Mayors Cup” Race. 6-1h. Annual Anacostia Watershed Park System Visitation (e.g., Wheaton Regional Park, Greenbelt Park, Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens, etc.).
Stewardship 6-2a. Creation of Watershed-Based Environmental Awareness/Participation with Associated Community Service, for All Anacostia Watershed Public Schools. 6-2b. Expand Anacostia River Business Coalition (ARBC) Membership and Activities into All Three Anacostia Jurisdictions. 6-2c. Expand partnership opportunities between AWRC and Colleges, Universities, and other Institutions of Higher Learning in All Three Anacostia Jurisdictions. 6-2d. Provide Direct Anacostia Web Site Linkages for and between All Anacostia Watershed Public Schools. Create Watershed “Partner School” Program(s) between Schools in the Three Jurisdictions. 6-2e. Number of People, Business, and/or Organizations Participating in Annual Clean Up or Restoration Events (e.g., Anacostia Earth Day). 6-2f. Number of Dollars Spent Annually on Revitalization of the Anacostia Waterfront, Port Towns, and other Older Environmentally Challenged Watershed Areas and Communities.
14
Advocacy 6-3a. Establish a “Friends of …” Environmental Advocacy group in Every Major Anacostia Subwatershed. 6-3b. Expand Media Coverage, Monitoring, and reporting Efforts to More Effectively Evaluate, Integrate, and Share Restoration Progress with the Public and Elected Officials (e.g., web sites, TV and radio coverage, newsletters, reports, etc.). 6-3c. Establish and Annual Anacostia “River Herring Festival” in the Port Towns of Bladensburg, Colmar Manor, and Cottage City. 6-3d. Encourage All Local, State, and Federal Agencies and Local Municipalities and Institutions to Incorporate and Employ “Green Building” and other Environmentally Sensitive Designs into Their Development/Redevelopment Projects (i.e., no./year). 6-3e. Number of Dollars Spent Annually on the Restoration of the Anacostia River and its Tributaries.
Goal 5 - Expand Forest Coverage 5a. Miles of created riparian forest Goal 6 - Increase Public and Private Participation 6-2a. School activities 6-3a. Active “Friends of” groups VI.
Monitoring, Tracking, and Reporting
A.
Database Needs and Gaps
Among the many challenges facing the Anacostia restoration effort is the creation and maintenance of the comprehensive watershed-wide database, which permits the systematic tracking of changing physical, chemical, and biological conditions and environmental stewardship levels in the watershed, as well as the distribution of this information to watershed resource managers, policy makers, and the general public in a timely and effective manner. While most of the ‘yardsticks’ needed to measure restoration progress currently exist, both monitoring protocols and data gaps still exist (See Appendix 2, Table 1). Examples of data gaps include both tributary and tidal river physical, chemical, and biological data, as well as wetlands utilization by wildlife, forest coverage, and watershed stewardship and recreational usage, among others. Included in the challenge to close these remaining gaps is the need for the generation of data from strategically located representative sites within the watershed on an annual and biennial basis. To address these needs and gaps, the AWRC’s Anacostia Restoration Potential Workgroup will assume the lead role in identifying potential monitoring locations and strategies, as well as in collecting, analyzing, and distributing restoration-related information to the AWRC and the general public. It should be noted that because of the inherent time lag associated with the development, funding, and implementation of monitoring and data management system protocols, programs, and initiatives, some database gaps are expected to remain for at least the next one to three years. B.
Anacostia Watershed Restoration and Monitoring Priority Areas
Since the signing of the 1987 Anacostia Restoration Agreement, the AWRC and local, state, and federal stakeholders have often had to make difficult decisions as to how and where to best employ limited monitoring and restoration resources. As shown in Figure 3, whereas only 10 out of the 14 major subwatershed areas have received a priority restoration designation, all have been targeted for physical, chemical, and/or biological monitoring. Also, it is important to note that even lower priority restoration areas such as Little Paint Branch, Upper Beaverdam Creek, Still Creek, and Brier Ditch have generally experienced some level of improvement over 1987 conditions as a result of various restoration-related projects and initiatives such as stormwater retrofitting, wetland creation, riparian reforestation, sewage treatment plant upgrades, and stream restoration (Figures 4 and 5).
15
Figure 3. AWRC Restoration and Monitoring Priority areas, 1987 – Present
Location/Subwatershed
Designated AWRC Priority Restoration Areas
Local, State, Federal Priority Restoration Areas
Monitoring Priority Physical
Chemical
Biological
16
1.
Sligo Creek
Yes
Yes
2.
NW Branch
Yes
Yes
•
•
•
3.
Paint Branch
Yes
Yes
•
•
•
4.
Little Paint Branch
No
No
5.
Indian Creek
Yes
Yes
•
•
6.
Upper Beaverdam Creek
No
No
•
•
7.
Still Creek
No
No
•
•
8.
Brier Ditch
No
No
9.
NE Branch
No
Yes
•
•
•
10. Lower Beaverdam Creek
Yes
Yes
•
•
•
11. Watts Branch
Yes
Yes
•
•
•
12. Hickey Run
Yes
Yes
•
•
13. Fort Dupont
No
Yes
•
•
•
Yes
Yes
•
•
•
4
14. Anacostia Tidal River
3 4
•
•
•
Lower Priority Areas appear lightly shaded Includes Kenilworth Marsh, Kingman Lake, CSO outfall areas etc.
16
3
Figure 5. Recently Completed $4.5 Million Upper Beaverdam Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (1999)
Figure 4. Little Paint Branch Stream Restoration at Beltsville Community Center (1999)
C.
Multi-Tiered Approach
Both the AWRC and its Anacostia Restoration Potential Workgroup recognized early on that, wherever possible, monitoring tracking and reporting activities should address Goal 1-6-related progress and problems at three distinct levels: • • •
the ‘local stream’ level (e.g., sub-subwatershed such as Bel Pre Creek of the Northwest Branch subwatershed); the subwatershed level (i.e., at the level of one of the 14 major Anacostia subwatersheds, including the tidal river); and the watershed level.
Subsequently, the Workgroup developed a comprehensive multi-tiered approach for realistically addressing watershed water quality, aquatic and terrestrial habitat and biological monitoring data needs for Goals 1-5. While it is beyond the scope of the report to describe these in detail, much of the pertinent information has been summarized in Appendix 2. In addition, representative examples of this multi-tiered approach, as exemplified by the Workgroup’s recommended seven (7) automated water quality and 77 tributary stream and tidal river biological monitoring station networks, have been included as Figures 6 and 7. D.
Estimated Monitoring, Tracking and Reporting Costs
Included as one of the major Workgroup and COG staff tasks was a planning-level estimation of monitoring, tracking, and reporting costs associated with each of the 50, Goals 1-6 restoration indicators. This information together with potential funding sources is summarized in Tables 2 and 3. As shown in Table, 2, the projected “full implementation” scenario cost for the period FY 2002 – 2009 (which runs from mid-2001 through mid – 2010) for the 31, Goals 1-5 indicators is 17
Figure 6. AWRC Restoration Workgroup-Recommended Anacostia Watershed Automated Water Sampling Station Network
18 18
Figure 7. AWRC Restoration Workgroup-Recommended 2010 IBI Tributary, Mainstem, and Tidal River Monitoring Station Network
19
Table 2. Summary: Estimated Monitoring, Tracking, and Reporting Costs Associated with Anacostia Restoration Goals 1-5 for the Period FY 2002-2009 Goal No. 1.
2.
1a. • NE & NW Branch @ USGS Gauging Stations Automated Monitoring (Priority) • 4 NE/NW Branch Watershed Automated Monitoring Stations • Lower Beaverdam Creek Sub-total 1b. CSO1 1c. TP/TN
$800,000 $1,600,000 $800,000 $3,200,000 $3,000,000
DCDOH, DCWASA, MCDEP, PGDER, MDE, EPA, AWTA Ditto 1a. PGDER EPA, DCWASA, DCDOH Ditto 1a. DCDOH,MCDEP,PGDER, MDE,EPA DCWASA, DCDOH, EPA Ditto 1a. DCDOH COG
$506,250
1e. Tidal River DO Monitoring 1f. BOD 1g. Secchi Depth 1h. Trash Index 1i. Toxics • NE & NW Branch USGS Gauging Stations • Fish Tissue • Tributaries 1j. Chl ‘a’ Sub-total Total
$192,000 $10,000 $120,000 $144,000 $100,000 $24,000 $10,000 $4,106,250 $7,306,250
AWRC/AWATA DCDOH/EPA/AWATA AWRC/AWATA DCDOH
2a. Temperature
$14,400
MCDEP, MDDNR, M -NCPPC, NPS, COE Ditto 1a. MCDEP, PGDER, MDDNR, M NCPPC,MDE, DCDOH, EPA MCDEP, PGDER, DCDOH, MDE, MDDNR, M -NCPPC, EPA, NPS Ditto 2e. Ditto 2e. AWRC MDDNR, COE, DCDOH AWRC, M -NCPPC AWRC M -NCPPC, NPS, MDDNR, DCDOH, *
2b. Turbidity 2c. DELT’s
2d. pH
Macroinvertebrates 3 Fish Community 4 Stream Miles Restored SAV Percent Imperviousness Percent of Developed Land Controlled by SWM
$103,200 $240,800 $12,000 $128,000 $16,000
2k. Recreational Use
$15,000
Total 3a. Percent Historical Anadromous Fish Spawning Range
$529,000
3b. Percent Anadromous Fish Habitat Utilization
$240,000
$40,000
3c. Percent Major Feeder Streams Open to Resident Fishes Total 4.
Potential Funding Source(s)
1d. Fecal DNA Tracing (15 station network) 2
2e. 2f. 2g. 2h. 2i. 2j.
3.
Estimated 2002-2009 Total Cost ($)
Restoration Indicator
4a. Created/Restored Tidal Wetlands 4b. Created/Restored Non-Tidal Wetlands 4c. Wildlife Utilization Total
$280,000 $24,000 $16,000 $100,000 $140,000
20
AWRC, * COE, MDDNR, PGDER, M -NCPPC, MCDEP, NPS, DCDOH, * COE, MDDNR, MCDEP, M -NCPPC, PGDER, NPS, DCDOH, * AWRC, M -NCPPC, * Ditto 4a. Ditto 4a.
Table 2. Summary: Estimated Monitoring, Tracking, and Reporting Costs Associated with Anacostia Restoration Goals 1-5 for the Period FY 2002-2009 Goal No. 5.
Restoration Indicator 5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Riparian Buffer Created-Annual Tracking Buffer Inventory (Triennial) Acres of Mature Hardwood Forest Acres of Created Upland Forest No. of Upland, Riparian & Total Forest Acres Total
Estimated 2002-2009 Total Cost ($) $24,000 $30,000 $80,0006 $16,000 $30,000 $180,000
Potential Funding Source(s) AWRC AWRC, MNCPPC, * Ditto 5b. Ditto 5b. Ditto 5b.
Total Cost for Goals 1-5 = $8,435,250 Includes modeling 2 Assume $11,250/site/yr = 5 storm & 10 baseflow samples 3 86 Stations total; biennial monitoring 4 Ditto 3 * = Grant funding 5 Cost includes both Anacostia and Potomac River shoreline surveys. 6 Cost includes development of comprehensive watershed-wide forest protection and management plan. 1
conservatively estimated to be approximately $8,435,000. The estimated total cost for the 19, Goal 6 indicators for the same period is roughly $334,000. While these estimated monitoring, tracking, and reporting costs may appear quite high to some, they are dwarfed by the realization that dealing with the Anacostia River’s CSO problem alone may cost over 600 million dollars. Also, with particular respect to the Goal 6 indicators, considerable cost savings may be realized through a concerted and coordinated effort to fully utilize the watershed’s largely untapped pool of volunteers and students. VII.
Subwatershed I & T Application – Northwest Branch Example
Without question, the health of the Anacostia River is inextricably linked to both the health of its subwatersheds and the overall quality of the smaller tributaries that comprise them. As such, knowledge of existing conditions at the local stream, subwatershed, and watershed levels is key to understanding how the Anacostia River ecosystem works and how to restore its health. The following sections provide an example of the intended application of the indicators and targets at the subwatershed and local stream level. Both biological community indicators and the Northwest Branch subwatershed were intentionally selected on the basis of data availability and overall watershed condition representativeness. It is envisioned that the Indicators and Targets process will ultimately address the following three questions central to the restoration effort: 1) What is the current condition or level of impairment relative to earlier and healthier historical conditions? 2) Where are we now on the restoration continuum relative to the beginning of the restoration effort circa 1987? 3) Based on current scientific and watershed knowledge, what realistic level of restoration can be expected by year 2010? 21
Table 3. Summary: Estimated Monitoring, Tracking and Reporting Costs Associated with Anacostia Restoration Goal 6 for the Period FY 2002-2009 Estimated Total Cost1 ($)
Restoration Indicator
Potential Funding Source(s)2
6-1. Usage 1a. No. of Anglers
$30,000
DC-DOH, MD-DNR, M-NCPPC, NPS, AWRC, SFI, Grants, Private Business
1b. No. of Fishing Piers and Usage
$20,000
DC-DOH, NPS, Private Business, COE, Grants, SFI
1c. DC Anacostia Hiker-Biker Trail and Usage
$16,000
DC, Private Business
1d. Colmar Manor / Bladensburg Footbridge
$2,000
M-NCPPC, MSHA
1e. No. of Public Boat Ramps and Usage
$16,000
DC, Private Bus., NPS, COE
1f. No. of Boat Houses
$10,000
DC, M-NCPPC, Private Business, Grants
1g. No. of Annual Regattas and Participation
$8,000
DC, PG, MD, Private Business
1h. Annual Park Visitation
$24,000
M-NCPPC, NPS, Private Business
DC-P&R,
Grants,
2a. School Activities
$64,000
MC/PG/DC/ Public Schools, grants Private Business
AWRC,
2b. ARBC Membership
$2,000
ARBC
2c. AWRC-University Partnerships
$24,000
AWRC, Local Universities
2d. Anacostia School Web Linkages
$16,000
MC/PG/DC/ Public Schools, Grants, Private Business
2e. Stewardship Events
$24,000
AWRC, AWTA, Grants, Private Business
2f. Revitalization Expenditures
$16,000
MC, PG, DC, EPA
3a. Active ‘Friends of’ groups
$16,000
Grants, Private Business, EPA, AWRC
3b. Media Coverage
$10,000
MC, PG, DC
3c. Herring Festival and Participation
$4,000
Grants, Private Business, SFI, AWRC
3d. Government by Example
$16,000
MC, PG, DC
3e. Restoration Expenditures
$16,000
MC, PG, DC
6-2. Stewardship
AWRC,
6-3. Advocacy
Total Cost = $334,000 1
Costs shown based on expected costs if work performed by government agencies or consultants. Considerable cost savings could be realized through concerted effort to employ watershed volunteer groups, schools and individuals. 2 Funding sources shown are for representative purposes, only.
22
A.
Anacostia Fish Communities - Historical Context
While it would be impossible to say with certainty what species comprised the historical fish communities of the Anacostia River and its subwatersheds, research conducted by the AWRC’s Anacostia Restoration Potential Workgroup has shed considerable light on the subject. In response, the Workgroup has prepared provisional lists of resident and migratory fishes collected or expected in both the River and all of its major subwatersheds between 1898 and 2001. An example of part of this data set, highlighting fisheries information for the Northwest Branch subwatershed is included as Table 4. It is expected that this type of data will provide one of the critical yardsticks for measuring restoration progress against. The list, coupled with the understanding of the ecological requirements of individual fish species, watershed conditions, and quantifiable fish community monitoring information in the form of Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) scores, will help in projecting what 2010 fish community conditions could be and what species assemblages the restoration effort should target. While no one should expect that the pollution intolerant and temperature sensitive Brook trout (Figure 8) will ever again call the Northwest Branch home, the removal of existing fish blockages and improvement in habitat quality associated with watershed restoration activities are expected to produce a healthier and more diverse fish community with greater numbers of species and individuals than under current Figure 8. Brook Trout conditions. B.
Existing fish Community IBI Scores
Similar to macroinvertebrate (i.e., animals without backbones that are larger than the size of a pencil dot) community conditions, the make up and overall condition of the fish community provides valuable insight into stream health. Beginning in the mid-1990's Anacostia watershed natural resource agencies have been monitoring stream fish community health using an IBI approach. Like the macroinvertebrate IBI, the reference stream-based fish IBI incorporates geographical, ecosystem, community, and population, as well as distribution and abundance variables that account for differences in waterbody size, type, and region of occurrence. While many gaps currently exist in the Anacostia macroinvertebrate and fish community IBI databases, available data have proven invaluable in areas such as problem stream identification, restoration progress assessment, downstream trend development, stormwater management facility performance evaluations, and general stream health characterization. For example, the adjusted IBI summary data included for the Northwest Branch subwatershed (Figure 9) show that many of the tributaries in the middle and lower portions of the subwatershed are either in fair or poor condition. Conversely, the majority of headwater streams generally fall into either the good or excellent categories. IBI data also show that along much of its length, the Northwest Branch mainstem fish community is generally in the fair range. 23
Table 4. Provisional List of Resident and Migratory Fishes Collected or Expected in Northwest Branch, 1898 – 2001 Species Origin Status Piedmont Coastal Plain Lampreys (Pteromyzontidae) 1. American brook lamprey 2. Least brook lamprey 3. Sea lamprey Eels (Anguillidae)
N N N
R R M
P P P
H P P,
4. American eel Herrings (Clupeidae)
N
M/R
H,
H,
5. Gizzard shad 6. Blueback herring 7. Alewife 8. Hickory shad 9. American shad Pikes (Esocidae)
N N N N N
R M M M M
P, P, P, P, P
10. Chain pickerel Mudminnows (Umbridae)
N
R
P
11. Eastern mudminnow Minnows (Cyprinidae)
N
R
P
12. Common carp 13. Goldfish 14. Silverjaw minnow 15. Cutlips minnow 16. River chub 17. Golden shiner 18. Rosyside dace 19. Ironcolor shiner 20. Bridle shiner 21. Swallowtail shiner 22. Comely shiner 23. Rosyface shiner 24. Spotfin shiner 25. Satinfin shiner 26. Common shiner 27. Spottail shiner 28. Steelcolor shiner 29. Eastern silvery minnow 30. Bluntnose minnow 31. Blacknose dace 32. Longnose dace 33. Northern creek chub 34. Fallfish 35. Fathead minnow 36. Central stoneroller Suckers (Catostomidae)
I I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I N
R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R
37. 38. 39. 40.
N N N N
R R R R
Creek chubsucker White sucker Northern hogsucker Shorthead redhorse
24
H P H, H, P, H,
H, H H, H, H, H, H H, H, H, H, H,
H,• P P, P, P P, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, P H, H, H, H, H, H, P
H,
H, H,
P H, H, P
Species 41. Quillback sucker Catfishes (Ictaluridae)
Origin N
Status M/R
Piedmont
Coastal Plain P,•
42. Yellow bullhead 43. Brown bullhead 44. Tadpole madtom 45. Margined madtom Trouts (Salmonidae)
N N N N
R R R R
H, H, P H,
H, H, P H,
46. Brook trout 47. Brown trout 48. Rainbow trout Trout-Perches (Percopsidae)
N I I
R R/Stocked Stocked
P H, P,
P,
49. Trout-perch Silversides (Atherinidae)
N
R
P
50. Inland silversides 51. Atlantic Silverside Killifishes (Fundulidae)
N N
R M
P P,•
52. Mummichog 53. Banded killifish Livebearers (Poeciliidae)
N N
R R
P, P,
54. Eastern mosquitofish Sculpins (Cottidae)
N
R
P
55. Mottled sculpin 56. Potomac sculpin Striped Basses (Moronidae)
N N
R R
57. White perch 58. Striped bass Sunfishes (Centrarchidae)
N N
R R
59. Rock bass 60. Green sunfish 61. Bluegill sunfish 62. Redbreast sunfish 63. Longear sunfish 64. Pumpkinseed sunfish 65. Largemouth bass 66. Smallmouth bass 67. Black crappie Perches (Percidae)
I N IP N N N I I N
R R R R R R R R R
P H, H, H, H, H, H,
R R R R R
H, H, P
68. 69. 70. 71. 72.
Fantail darter N Tessellated darter N Shield darter N Log perch N Yellow perch N Total No. of Historical/Current Species
H, P
P, P, P H, H, H, H, H, H, P
44/33
Key Abbreviations: N = native; I = introduced; IP = probably introduced; R = resident; M = migratory; H= historical presence documented; P = probable historical presence; l = collected since 1988
25
P P
H, P H, 64/47
Figure 9. Northwest Branch Tributary Existing Adjusted Fish IBI Ratings
26
C.
Setting the 2010 Bar Height
Employing available historical and with best professional judgment, established 2010 restoration targets. with relatively few exceptions, the number of taxa and IBI scores subwatershed levels.
current macroinvertebrate and fish community data together the AWRC's Anacostia Restoration Potential Workgroup As shown in Table 5 and graphically depicted in Figure 10, Workgroup felt that marked improvements in both the total were generally achievable at both the local stream and
VIII. Tidal River The tidal Anacostia River, like so many urban rivers, suffers from overall poor water quality attributable to a myriad of factors. Due to intense development, a high percentage of impervious surfaces, and high stormwater runoff volumes, it receives large amounts of pollutants including sediment, excess nutrients, toxics, trash, and debris. Additionally, with almost every significant rainfall event, it experiences combined sewer and stormwater overflows (Figure 11), which discharge sewage and other pollutants directly into the river. Many of these factors contribute to chronically low dissolved oxygen levels that frequently violate water quality standards and threaten aquatic life, high bacterial levels that make swimming and wading unsafe, and toxic contaminated sediments which negatively impact biota, necessitating the issuance of fish consumption advisories. Unfortunately, because the Anacostia River functions much like a tidal lake, it is a very efficient pollutant trap. The following sections have been included to illustrate how it is envisioned that the indicators and targets would be applied to one of the tidal river's biggest problems - low dissolved oxygen levels. A.
Low Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen (DO) is the amount of oxygen in water and is measured as the number of milligrams of oxygen dissolved in a liter of water (mg/l). It is widely recognized that aquatic life including macroinvertebrates, fish, crustaceans, mollusks, and other organisms generally require DO concentrations of 5 mg/l or higher to remain healthy. As DO levels drop below 5 mg/l, aquatic organisms become increasingly predisposed to various environmental stresses such as pollution or disease. Sustained DO concentrations at or below 2 mg/l often result in the death of many aquatic organisms. As seen in Figure 12, DO levels are continuously monitored at three river station locations. Two of these monitoring sites, Benning Road and Seafarer's Marina, have been in continuous operation since 1988. In addition, DC-DOH performs bi-weekly water quality/DO grab sampling at over 40 river sites during the warmer months of the year. The combined data set provides a good picture of DO levels along the entire length of the river. Current data show that river DO levels are less than 5.0 mg/l 75 percent of the time and less than 2.0 mg/l 5-6 percent of the time. Despite these sub-optimal levels, DO concentrations at the Seafarer's Marina station 27
Table 5. Summary: AWRC Workgroup Recommended 2010 Northwest Branch Biological Community Restoration Targets 1,2,3 Mainstem/Tributary Area
Existing Monitoring Existing Total Program No. of Taxa4
Macroinvertebrates (Spring) Existing Proposed Proposed Adjusted Adjusted Total Taxa IBI IBI Score Score Range Mainstem 16-24 (Good) 23.2 (Fair) 27-35 (Good)
Fish (Resident) Existing Proposed Existing Total Total Adjusted IBI No. of Taxa Score Taxa
Proposed Adjusted IBI Score Range
Upper (above Old Randolph Rd.)
MCDEP
41
29
30-35
34.4 (Fair)
35-46 (Good)
Middle (Old Randolph Rd. to New Hampshire Ave.)
MCDEP
27
10-20 (Fair/Good)
19.8 (Fair)
17-26 (Fair)
23
30-35
34.7 (Fair)
35-46 (Good)
Lower (New Hampshire Ave. to Anacostia River)
PGDER
8
16-24 (Good)
ND
17-26 (Fair)
36
40-45
34.3 (Fair)
35-46 (Good)
48
≥25 (Excellent)
21.2 (Fair)
17-26 (Fair)
41
45-50
32.9 (Fair)
35-46 (Good) 35-46 (Good)
Sum Total
Tributary Batchellors Forest Tributary
MCDEP
40
≥ 25 (Excellent)
34.0 (Good)
NC (Good/Excellent)
21
20-25
42.8 (Good)
Sandy Spring NW
MCDEP
20
16-24 (Good)
20.0 (Fair)
20-27 (Fair/Good)
6
5-10
20.0 (Poor)
21-34 (Fair)
Sandy Spring West
MCDEP
20
16-24 (Good)
24.0 (Fair)
24-27 (Fair/Good)
13
15-20
40.0 (Good)
NC (Good/Excellent)
Bel Pre Creek
MCDEP
11
11-15 (Fair)
8.5 (Poor)
12-17 (Poor/Fair)
16
15-20
26.5 (Fair)
26-34 (Fair)
Wheaton Park Tributary
MCDEP
7
8-15 (Fair)
10.0 (Poor)
NC
10
10-15
36.0 (Good)
NC (Good/Excellent)
Lamberton Drive
MCDEP
4
7-10 (Poor/Fair)
18.0 (Fair)
NC
2
2-4
10.0 (Poor)
10-15 (Poor)
Lockridge Drive Tributary
MCDEP
4
7-10 (Poor/Fair)
8.0 (Poor)
8-16 (Poor)
0
2-3
10-15 (Poor)
Old Orchard Tributary
MCDEP
16
16-24 (Good)
34.0 (Good)
NC (Good/Excellent)
12
10-15
Bryants Nursery
MCDEP
28
≥ 25 (Excellent)
36.0 (Excellent)
NC
9
10-15
Rolling Stone Tributary
MCDEP
23
16-24 (Good)
36.0 (Excellent)
NC
9
10-15
10.0 (Poor) 50.0 (Excellent) 48.0 (Excellent) 28.0 (Fair)
Chillum Road Tributary
PGDER
2
7-10 (Poor/Fair)
ND
TBD
ND
TBD
TBD
1
General interpretation for the number of macroinvertebrate taxa: $ 25 = Excellent, 16-24 = Good, 8-15 = Fair, 0-7 = Poor. 2 Adjusted macroinvertebrate and fish IBI scores are adjusted to MCDEP rating scale. 3 Sum total is an aggregate of mainstem and tributary adjusted IBI scores. 4 All Chironomids aggregated to the Family level of Chironomidae. ND = No data, NC= No change, TBD = To be determined
28 28
NC (Good/Excellent) NC (Good/Excellent) 28-35 (Fair/Good) TBD
Figure 10. Sample Northwest Branch Subwatershed 2010 Fish Community ‘Bar Height’
29 29
have shown statistically significant increases since 1988. This trend toward increasing DO levels is largely attributable to the decrease in organic loadings to the river associated with the operation of DC-WASA's Swirl Concentrator, located near RFK stadium. Another positive sign is that there has been a major reduction in both the number and severity of fish kills in the tidal river since 1992. As part of its 2010 restoration target setting tasks, the AWRC's Anacostia Restoration Potential Workgroup recommended two achievable DO-related targets: • Figure 11. Location and Relative Size of CSO Discharges into the Tidal Anacostia River
•
DO levels will be maintained above 2.0 mg/l at all times, and No major fish kills.
Figure 12. Tidal Anacostia Automated DO Monitoring Stations
30
The Workgroup will additionally track progress being made in achieving the District of Columbia's Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) reductions for Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and other identified pollutants. It will also monitor progress made by DC-WASA in implementing its CSO Long Term Control Plan, as well as new river modeling and monitoring developments. As illustrated by Figure 13, it is anticipated that with the concerted implementation of CSO controls and other pollution reduction measures across the watershed, the observed gradual trend toward increasing river DO levels will continue into the future.
DO Concentration (mg/l)
Mean DO Concentrations at Seafarer's Marina Station 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1990
1994
1999
2010 2010 Projected
Year Figure 13. Anacostia River Dissolved Oxygen Trends
IX.
Proposed Annual Reporting
In an effort to make the ongoing annual reporting of restoration progress simpler to understand and more accessible to the public, COG staff has developed both a one-page long Anacostia watershed restoration progress summary sheet and a more detailed companion 'Report Card' outlining general progress made for each of the 50 individual restoration indicators and targets5 . As currently proposed, a numerically based scoring system (i.e., 0-108 points total with associated verbal ranking categories) will be employed to provide a more systematic and consistent method of reporting from year to year.
5
Note: Indicator 2i., Percent Impervious Surface in the Watershed, is a floating indicator, which, if included, would bring the total number of indicators to 51. Its applicability is pending and is subject to the availability of data.
31
A breakdown of the maximum total number of points associated with each of the six restoration goals and associated verbal ranking categories of restoration progress is as follows:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Restoration Goal No.
Maximum Points (pts)
Reduce Pollution Loads Restore Ecological Integrity Improve Fish Passage Increase Wetland Acreage Expand Forest Cover Increase Public and Private Participation
29 29 9 9 10 22 108 Total
Total Point Interpretation: 81.1 – 108 = Excellent 54.1 – 81.0 = Good 27.1 – 54.0 = Fair 0.0 – 27.0 = Poor
(i.e., exceeding restoration target and schedule) (i.e., meeting restoration target and schedule) (i.e., partially meeting restoration target and schedule) (i.e., not meeting restoration target and schedule)
It is envisioned that the responsibility for generating the annual restoration progress 'Report Card' rest with the AWRC's Anacostia Restoration Potential Workgroup, and that the Workgroup actively seek input from key environmental, business, citizen groups, and organizations active in the watershed restoration effort. The envisioned annual Report Card process is outlined in the following section. A sample prototype bar graph depicting annual restoration progress at the major subwatershed level is included as Figure 14. The draft example Summary Sheet and Report Card are also included as Figures 15 and Table 6, respectively. The diversity of reportingrelated products was intentional, and is designed to give the AWRC maximum flexibility in disseminating restoration information to various target audiences. A.
Annual Report Card Process
As previously noted, the AWRC’s Anacostia Restoration Potential Workgroup will in all likelihood have the lead responsibility for preparing the annual Report Card. The process for creating this critical product is outlined as follows: 1) 2) 3)
AWRC Workgroup comprised of Technical and Environmental Community Representatives Ongoing COG role of Workgroup coordinator and facilitator 2-3 Workgroup meetings/yr held at COG to: • review current and long-term restoration trend data, at local stream, subwatershed/tidal river, and watershed levels; • identify and evaluate Restoration Goals 1-6 monitoring priorities, protocols, data gaps, and report card scoring criteria; • develop, where necessary, new monitoring approaches and metrics (e.g., Tidal River Index of Biotic Integrity); 32
Figure 14. Anacostia Restoration Goals 1-6: Sample Overall Progress for Calendar Year 2002 by Major Subwatershed Area 100 90 Excellent
70 Good
60 50 40 Fair
30
No Data
20 10
33
0
Sligo Creek
NW Branch
Paint Branch
Little Paint Branch
Indian Creek
Upper Beaverdam Creek
Still Creek
No Data
Restoration Progress (%)
80
Brier Ditch
33
NE Branch
Lower Beaverdam Creek
Watts Branch
Hickey Run
Poor
Fort Dupont
Tidal Anacostia River
• •
4) 5)
through a consensus building review process, assign individual score to each of the 50 indicators and tally both for each of the six restoration goals and in aggregate; and prepare draft calendar year summary sheet, report card, and subwatershed restoration progress information and present report to AWRC for review and approval (March-April).
AWRC reviews and approves annual Report Card and associated products (May) Report Card information is finalized and distributed to elected officials, watershed restoration program managers, major land owners, environmental groups, and general public via electronic and hard copy formats (June)
X.
Next Steps and Implementation: 2001 to 2010
A.
2010 Targets, Leading Indicators, Reporting and Monitoring
Remaining steps include: (1) finalizing the 2010 targets; (2) completing the Leading Indicators; (3) preparing a recommended ongoing public reporting process; and (4) finalizing the conceptual design of an ongoing monitoring program. B.
Revised Anacostia Agreement
Planning is under way to revise the 1999 Agreement to reflect the indicators and 2010 targets. It is expected that there will be a signing ceremony, in December 2001, involving the key signatories (i.e., the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Governor of Maryland and the County Executives of Montgomery and Prince George's Counties). There will most likely be a fall meeting of the Chesapeake Bay Program's Executive Council (EC) in the District of Columbia at about the same time. Mayor Williams is the current EC Chair. These two events will most likely have to be coordinated, as many of the same participants would be expected to attend both. C.
AWRC Monitoring Program
As previously noted, the AWRC recognized the necessity of a coordinated monitoring program in support of continued measurement of progress. This will require reprioritization and far greater human and financial resources. This will be further refined to enable the AWRC members to make appropriate program and budget decisions for FY 2002 and beyond.
34
Figure 15. Sample ‘Summary Sheet’ Anacostia Watershed Restoration Progress for Calendar Year 2002
Overall Progress (Goals 1-6):
GO OD ( 5 5 . 5 p t s )
Interpretation: 0.0 - 27.0 pts = Poor, 27.1 - 54.0 = Fair, 54.1 - 81.0 = Good,
Narrative: Excellent – exceeding restoration target and schedule Good – meeting restoration target and schedule Fair – partially meeting restoration target and schedule Poor – not meeting restoration target and schedule
35
81.1 = Excellent
Table 6. Sample Anacostia Watershed Restoration Indicators and Targets Progress and Status Report Card for Period 2002-2010 Progress 2010 Indicator and Maximum Point Value (pts) Significance 2001 Baseline Status Target 2002 Goal 1 – Reduce Pollution Loads (29 pts total) 1a. Total Suspended Solids (annual load to the river) (TSS)
F 3 1b. Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO)
Indicative of levels of eroded soil particles and organic material present in the water column. Cuts down on light penetration; can damage gills of fish and other aquatic organisms. Indicative of water pollution including human sewage, chemicals, bacteria and soil.
Highly variable. Modeling in process completion by summer 2001.
Two main nutrients contributing to algal blooms.
Modeling in process completion by summer 2001.
Indicative of presence of animal or human waste and water contact safety level.
Virtually zero compliance watershed-wide w/ 200 MPN std. under either baseflow or stormflow conditions.
Current voluntary 2010 target is to achieve 85% reduction for tidal river and tributary compliance with water quality standards 75% of the time.
Levels $ 5 mg/l generally needed to maintain healthy aquatic communities.
• 5-6% of time < 2 mg/l. • 75% of time < 5 mg/l.
Current interim voluntary 2010 target is to maintain DO levels above 2 mg/l at all times. No fish kills.
Measure of amount of oxygen consumed by decomposition of organic matter.
Modeling in process completion by summer 2001.
Current voluntary 2010 target is to achieve 75% reduction.
Measure of water clarity and nutrient enrichment levels. Indirect indicator of environmental stewardship level and watershed quality. Direct indicator of aesthetic quality and potential recreational use.
Approx. ≤ 0.5 m.
Greater than 1.0 meter average. Watershed trash levels in the ‘light’ range. Decreasing trend level(s) in annual river tonnages removed.
F
Typically > 30 CSO events/yr. and > 1 billion gallons of untreated sewage discharged.
3
1c. Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen (annual load to the river) 3 1d. Fecal Coliform Concentration/ Bacterial Contamination
F 3 1e. Dissolved Oxygen (DO) May – Oct. levels.
F 3 1f. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) (annual load to the river) 3 1g. Secchi Depth 3 1h. Trash Index and Quantity of Trash Removed
F 2
F= ‘Leading Indicator’ for general public. 36
• Highly variable. Generally in ‘moderate’ or ‘high’ index categories; • Approx. 700 tons removed by DCWASA.
Current interim voluntary 2010 target is to reduce annual average concentration to less than 80 mg/l, with a goal of supporting underwater grasses. Long-term Control Plan will determine ultimate target. Current target is to initiate long-term CSO system improvements before 2010 with an ultimate capture of 95% of the overflows. Current voluntary target is to achieve the 40% Chesapeake Bay reduction goal.
Indicator and Maximum Point Value (pts)
1i. Toxics and Metals (annual load to the river) 3 1j. Chlorophyll ‘a’ 3 Sub Total Score: XX
2001 Baseline
A major stressor on aquatic life. Can bioaccumulate in tissue of fish and other aquatic organisms.
AWTA load modeling completion by summer 2001.
Elimination of all fish consumption advisories.
Measure of algal population densities.
Insufficient data.
Current voluntary 2010 target is to attain Mesotrophic levels.
Insufficient data.
Meet water quality standards 100% of the time. Less than 50 NTU average. DELTs found on less than 3 % of fish community.
Verbal Ranking: XXXX
Goal 2 – Restore Ecological Integrity (29 pts total) 2a. Temperature Controls the metabolic rate in 3 fish and other aquatic life. 2b. Turbidity 3 2c. Deformities, Erosions, Lesions, Tumors (DELTS)
F
Measure of amount of light scattering particles in water. Indicative of chronic water pollution conditions associated with the presence of hydrocarbons, metals, pesticides, etc.
3 2d. pH 3 2e. Macroinvertebrate Community Health
F
Measure of a waterbody’s acidity or alkalinity level. Leading indicator of overall stream quality. Aquatic ‘bugs’ provide insight into a stream’s physical, chemical, and biological condition.
3 2f. Resident Fish Community Health
Leading indicator of general stream quality, particularly for larger streams and rivers.
F 3 2g. Stream Miles Restored
F 3
1
2h. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) 3 2i. Percent Impervious Surface in the Watershed 1 Note: Floating Indicatorapplicability pending
2010 Target
Significance
Measure of restoration progress. Improves both physical aquatic habitat and can reduce downstream sediment and pollutant loads.
Insufficient data. Generally not a major problem in most of the tributary system. High % of sentinel species w/anomalies in tidal river (i.e., > 40%). Variable. Generally not a major problem. Highly variable. Typically decreasing health from ‘fair/good’ IBI scores in Anacostia headwater areas to ‘fair/poor’ in lower reaches. Highly variable. Generally poor or fair numerical IBI scores for older, highly developed portions of watershed. Fair/Good for tidal river and headwaters. Approx. 15 miles total since 1987.
Meet water quality standards 100% of the time. Better than ‘fair’ for all subwatersheds. Decrease in percent dominant taxon for tidal river.
Increasing numerical IBI scores throughout watershed.
Twenty additional miles.
Indicative of improving water quality and habitat in the tidal river.
Approx. 5 – 7 acres.
Twenty acres total.
Indicative of local stream and subwatershed quality and general pollutant loads.
Highly variable. Ranges from < 10% to > 50%.
Increase in watershed acreage featuring Low Impact Development (LID) techniques.
37
Progress Status 2002
Indicator and Maximum Point Value (pts)
2j. Percent of Developed Land w/SWM Controls
F 3 2k. Recreational Use 1
Sub Total Score: XX
2010 Target
Significance
2001 Baseline
Measure of restoration progress and ability to reduce downstream water quantity and quality problems.
Approx. 15 - 18% of older developed areas presently controlled.
Approximately double the amount of older watershed areas controlled.
Indirect indicator of both improving watershed quality of life conditions and public perception.
Insufficient data.
Increase in multiple categories.
Reflects progress made in restoring river herring and other migratory fish species to the historical ranges.
Approx. 14 – 15 miles open.
Twenty additional stream miles.
Indicative of quality of habitat present and strength of herring runs.
Approx. 70%.
100% utilization of available habitat.
Indicative of return to a more natural open stream system.
•
100% of all mainstem areas. 100% of all ‘priority’ tributaries.
Verbal Ranking: XXXX
Goal 3 – Improve Fish Passage (9 pts total) 3a. Percent Historical Anadromous Fish Spawning Range Open
F 3 3b. Percent Anadromous Fish Habitat Utilization 3 3c. Percent Tributary Mainstems and Major Feeder Streams Open to Resident Fishes 3 Sub Total Score: XX
•
Mainstems – approx. 60 – 70 % open. Major feeder streams – approx. 50 – 60% open.
Verbal Ranking: XXXX
Goal 4 – Increase Wetland Acreage (9 pts total) 4a. Created/Restored Reflects progress made Tidal Wetland toward regaining lost tidal Acreage emergent wetland. Indicator of improving fish and wildlife habitat conditions and rivers’ ‘filtering’ abilities. 3
Approx. 75 acres of emergent wetland created since 1987.
Sixty additional acres of emergent wetland.
Approx. 25 acres created since 1987.
Twenty new projects. Approximately fifteen additional acres.
F
4b. Created/Restored Non-Tidal Wetlands
F
Reflects progress made toward restoring lost nontidal wetlands, wildlife habitat and, ecosystem filter indicator.
3
38
Progress Status 2002
Indicator and Maximum Point Value (pts)
4c. Wildlife Utilization of Wetlands
Significance
2001 Baseline
Indicator of habitat quality and ability to support amphibians, reptiles, birds, and other wildlife.
Insufficient data (except Kenilworth Marsh). Kingman Lake studies underway.
Develop Anacostiaspecific IBI by end of 2002.
Riparian or streamside forests help protect rivers and streams from sediment, fertilizers, and other pollutants washing off the land, while also regulating water temperature and providing optimum habitat for both plant and animal communities. Indicative of buffer widths present and general ability to provide water quality and wildlife habitat benefits.
Approx. 12 miles representing ± 100 acres, since 1987.
Twelve additional miles. Approximately fortyfive additional acres.
Highly variable. Major tributaries range from approx. 20 - 87%.
Develop watershedwide buffer criteria by 2002.
Measure of both remaining high quality wildlife habitat and ecologically critical areas.
Insufficient data. Mont. Co. baseline under development.
Develop watershed forest management protection strategy by 2002.
Indicative of both wildlife habitat and potential watershed quantity and quality benefits.
Insufficient data.
Represents total forested area remaining in watershed as a % of area.
Insufficient data. Was approx. 25% in 1990.
Prepare inventory by 2002. Develop watershed forest management protection strategy by 2002. Address under targets for 5a through 5d.
3 Sub Total Score: XX
Verbal Ranking: XXXX
Goal 5 – Expand Forest Cover (10 pts total) 5a. Miles of Created Riparian Forest
F 3
5b. Percent Adequate Riparian Buffer 2 5c. Acres of Mature Hardwood Forest 2 5d. Acres of Created Upland Forest 1 5e. No. of Upland, Riparian and Total Forest as Percent of Watershed Area 2 Sub Total Score: XX
Verbal Ranking: XXXX
Goal 6 – Increase Public and Private Participation (22 pts total) 6-1 Usage 6-1a. No. of Anglers Recreational use and public perception indicator. Indirect measure of 1 improving watershed conditions. 6-1b. No. of Fishing Piers and Usage 1
2010 Target
Recreational use indicator.
39
Insufficient data. Qualitative creel survey data for tidal river, only.
Watershed-wide increase.
None.
Construct three new piers.
Progress Status 2002
Indicator and Maximum Point Value (pts)
6-1c. D.C. Anacostia Hiker-Biker Trail and Usage 1 6-1d. Colmar Manor/ Bladensburg Footbridge 1 6-1e. No. Public Boat Ramps and Usage
Significance
2001 Baseline
2010 Target
Recreational use and watershed ‘connectivity’ indicator.
Early planning stage.
Complete linkage with Maryland system.
Hiker-biker trail system and recreation facilities ‘connectivity’ indicator.
Planning stage.
Construct footbridge.
Measure of river water sport accessibility.
Two ramps @ Bladensburg & Anacostia River Park. Canoe launches @ Dueling Creek & Kenilworth Park.
Four additional small boat ramps.
6-1f. No. of Boat Houses 1
Indicator of river usage.
Two boat houses.
Four additional boathouses.
6-1g. No. of Annual Regattas 1 6-1h. Annual Park Visitation 1 6–2 Stewardship 6-2a. School Activities
Tidal river public participation indicator.
One AWS sponsored event.
Three additional per year.
Measure of recreational use and visitation in the watershed.
Insufficient data. Est. > 1.0 million.
Increase throughout.
Direct measure of effectiveness of Anacostia outreach and stewardship initiatives.
Insufficient data.
Increase in all watersheds emphasizing meaningful local stream, river or bay experiences.
Increase business participation throughout watershed.
Active in D.C. portion of watershed, only.
Expand into Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties
Direct measure of the level of engagement of institutions of higher learning in restoration effort. Direct measure of accessibility to Anacostia restoration information.
AWRC/University of Maryland, only.
Expand opportunities in all jurisdictions.
Insufficient data. Survey currently underway.
Link all public schools. Create ‘partner’ school program.
Direct measure of physical participation in restoration activities such as tree plantings, stream cleanups, storm drain stenciling, invasive plant control, kiosk building, etc.
Approx. 30 – 50 projects watershedwide.
Increase throughout watershed.
Direct measure of commitment by both government and private interests.
Insufficient data.
Increase throughout watershed.
1
F 2 6-2b. ARBC Membership 1 6-2c. AWRCUniversity Partnerships 1 6-2d. Anacostia School Web Linkages 1 6-2e. Stewardship Events 2
6-2f. Revitalization Expenditures 2
40
Progress Status 2002
Indicator and Maximum Point Value (pts)
2010 Target
Significance
2001 Baseline
Measure of community involvement in the restoration effort and environmental advocacy.
Active subwatershed groups present in Sligo, NW Branch, Paint Branch, Little Paint Branch, Indian Creek, and Pope Branch.
Establish active advocacy groups in every major subwatershed.
Indirect measure of interest in Anacostia restoration-related activities.
Insufficient data.
Increase overall coverage and promote greater public awareness and a more positive image.
6-3c. Herring Festival 1
Indirect measure of community involvement.
Proposed Initiative.
Establish as an annual event.
6-3d. Government by Example 1 6-3e. Restoration Expenditures
Direct measure of government’s willingness to lead and become ‘greener.’ Direct measure of the ‘bottom line.’
Insufficient data.
Expand current efforts.
Approx. $5-6 million.
Increase in all three jurisdictions.
6-3 Advocacy 6-3a. Active “Friends of” Groups
F 1 6-3b. Media Coverage 1
Progress Status 2002
1 Sub Total Score: XX $16,43355,000
Verbal Ranking: XXXX
Total
Example Summary ‘Report Card’ for the period 2002-2010 Goal No. 1. Reduce Pollution Loads
2002 10.0
2.
Restore Ecological Integrity Improve Fish Passage
17.0
Increase Wetland Acreage Expand Forest Cover
4.0
Increase Public and Private Participation
14.5
3. 4. 5. 6.
Total Points
Summary: Anacostia Restoration Progress, 2002-2010 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
7.0
SAMPLE
3.0
55.5 Good
Total Point Interpretation: 81.1 – 108 = Excellent 54.1 – 81.0 = Good 27.1 – 54.0 = Fair 0.0 – 27.0 = Poor
(i.e., exceeding restoration target and schedule) (i.e., meeting restoration target and schedule) (i.e., partially meeting restoration target and schedule) (i.e., not meeting restoration target and schedule)
41
2008
2009
2010
D.
AWRC Restoration Program
Beginning with the 1987 Agreement, each of the AWRC member agencies and affiliates has made substantial restoration progress. Throughout the 2001-2010 implementation period, it is envisioned that these agencies will focus their restoration program and budget priorities to achieve the adopted 2010 targets. E.
Community-Based Activities
As restoration of the tidal Anacostia River and its tributaries progresses, much greater usage, stewardship, and advocacy is anticipated. This is at the heart of the Goal 6, Public Awareness/Stewardship indicators. Several of these indicators are designed to help focus the outreach efforts of the AWRC. Others will help the AWRC promote conditions to encourage greater public involvement. Perhaps most importantly, others are designed to measure community-based efforts that are essential to sustain the restoration efforts. F.
Continued Leadership
Needless to say, continued leadership at the signatory, AWRC, and affiliated agency and organization levels is paramount to the successful realization of the 2010 targets and the vision of a healthy and restored Anacostia watershed. In addition, without full community and business support and involvement, many of the Goal 1-6 targets will be difficult if not impossible to attain.
42
References American Rivers. 1994. North America’s Most Endangered and Threatened Rivers of 1994. Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee (AWRC). 1996. Summary Report on Anacostia Trash. Prepared by: Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee Trash Workgroup. December 1996. Bean, B.A. and A.C. Weed. 1911. Recent Additions to the Fish Fauna of the District of Columbia and Vicinity. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. Vol. XX IV, pp. 171-174. Breder, C.M. and D.R. Crawford. 1922. The Food of Certain Minnows. Zoologica (2) : 287-327. Britt, D.L., R. J. Lewis, and C. Cooper. 1993. Rock Creek Fisheries Study, Final Report. Prepared for the National Park Service, National Capital Region. Prepared by Dynamac Corp. and International Science and Technology. CH2M Hill. 1982. Anacostia: Technical Watershed Study Draft. Prepared For: Montgomery County Planning Board: Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. May 1982. Cummins, J.D. 1987. Index and Field Identification Guide to the Fishes of the District of Columbia. DC Dept. of Consumer and Reg. Affairs, Envio. Control Division. Oct 1987. 31 pp. Cummins, J.D. 1988. Comparison List of Fishes Known to Inhabit the Waters of the District of Columbia and Vicinity. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. Rockville, MD 4 pp. Cummins. J.D. 1989. 1988 Survey and Inventory of the Fished in the Anacostia River Basin, Maryland. Submitted to: Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Baltimore, MD. Cummins, J.D., J. Ducnuigeen , P. Trieu, J. Dimissia, B. Grillo, C. Weinkam, S. Williamson, G. Jellick and D. Smith. 1991. 1999 Assessment of the Upstream Progress of Migratory Fishes in the Anacostia Watershed. Prepared by Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments and Coastal Resources, Inc. Prepared for Potomac Crossing Consultants, Alexandria , Va. 16 pp. Cummins, J.D., J.B. Stribling. 1995. Biological Responses to Stream Habitat Restoration in the Sligo Creek Watershed, Maryland. Submitted to: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Washington, DC. Cummins, J.D., J.B. Stribling and J. Galli. 1997. Biological Responses to Habitat Rehabilitation in Sligo Creek Watershed, Maryland. Prepared for MD Dept. of the Envio, Baltimore, MD. 97 pp. Cummins, J.D., J.B. Stribling and P.D. Thaler. 1991. 1990 MD Anacostia River Basin Study – Part I: Habitat, Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Water Quality, Part II: Fisheries Rapid 43
Bioassessments and the “Drop-in-the-Bucket-Brigades”. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, Rockville, MD. ICPRB Report No. 91-2. Dietemann, A.J. and A. Giraldi, 1973. Resource Identification Study for the Anacostia River Basin, Volume IV, 1948 vs. 1972 Fish Distributions. University of Maryland Civil Engineering Dept. Prepared for MD Dept. of Nat. Res. 89 pp. Dietmann, A. 1975. A Provisional Inventory of the Fishes of Rock Creek, Little Falls Branch, Cabin John Creek and Rock Run, Montgomery County, Maryland. Prepared for the MarylandNational Capital Park and Planning Commission. Silver Spring, MD. 40 pp. District of Columbia Dept. of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. 1984. Biological Sampling of Anadromous and Resident Fishes of Potomac and Anacostia. District of Columbia Dept. of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. 1990. Biological Sampling of Anadromous and Resident Fishes of Potomac and Anacostia. District of Columbia Dept. of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. 1991. Biological Sampling of Anadromous and Resident Fishes of Potomac and Anacostia. District of Columbia Dept. of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. 1992. Biological Sampling of Anadromous and Resident Fishes of Potomac and Anacostia. District of Columbia Dept. of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. 1993. Biological Sampling of Anadromous and Resident Fishes of Potomac and Anacostia. District of Columbia Dept. of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. 1994. Biological Sampling of Anadromous and Resident Fishes of Potomac and Anacostia. District of Columbia Dept. of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. 1995. Biological Sampling of Anadromous and Resident Fishes of Potomac and Anacostia. District of Columbia Dept. of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. 1996. Biological Sampling of Anadromous and Resident Fishes of Potomac and Anacostia District of Columbia, Department of Environmental Services. 1981. Combine Sewer Overflow Study: Potomac-Anacostia River System. Washington, D.C. Edmondson, S.A. 1988. 1987 Macroinvertebrate Census of the District of Columbia. Prepared for: District of Columbia, Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. Washington, D.C. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Pensacola Ecosystem Management Plan: Environmental Indicator System. Prepared for Florida Center for Public Management. Galli, J. 1983. A compendium of the Water Resources for Paint Branch, Montgomery County, 44
Maryland. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, Silver Spring, MD. 34 pp. Galli, J., K Corish and C. Gougeon . 1997. Coordinated 1996 COG and MDDNR Paint Branch Baseline Monitoring Survey, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC). Phase I – Baseline Stream Condition Evaluation. Prepared for Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee. Metro. Wash. Council of Govts. Wash., DC. 38 pp. Galli, F.J. and L. Herson. 1989. Prince Georges’s County Anacostia Watershed Retrofit Inventory. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Washington, D.C. Galli, F.J. and L. Herson. 1989. Montgomery County Anacostia Watershed Retrofit Inventory. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Washington, D.C. Gibbons, S 1997. 1997 Migratory Fishes in the Anacostia River. M.S. Thesis (unpublished, Biology Dept, American University, Washington, DC). Gibbons, S. and J.D. Cummins. 1996. Report on 1996 Migratory Fish Monitoring in the Anacostia River Watershed, Maryland. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers MIPRB # E86960023. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. ICPRB Report No. 96-3. Gougeon, C. 1986. Unpublished Notes. MDDNR Coldwater Fisheries. Gougeon, C. 1996. Unpublished Notes. MDDNR Coldwater Fisheries. Gougeon, C. 1997. Unpublished Notes. MDDNR Coldwater Fisheries. Gougeon, C. 1998. Unpublished Notes. MDDNR Coldwater Fisheries. Gougeon, C. 1999. Unpublished Notes. MDDNR Coldwater Fisheries. Hart, M. 1999. Guide to Sustainable Community Indicators, Second Edition. Hart Environmental Data, North Andover, MA Hazelwood, B., Ibrahim, B. 1997. Potomac and Anacostia Rivers Draft Water Quality Data Report: 1991-1995. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Department of Environmental Programs. December 1997. Herson-Jones, L.M., A.T. Warner, B. Jordan, and K. Hagan. 1994. Anacostia Water Quality Report: 1987-1990. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Washington, D.C. Hittman-Ebasco Associates, Inc. 1989. Pesticide and PCB Analysis for the National Park Service at Kenilworth Marsh and the Anacostia River. Prepared for: National Park Service. Washington, D.C. Howden, H. F. 1948. An Ecological Study of the Distribution of the Fish in the Anacostia River 45
Tributaries in Maryland. M.S. thesis (unpublished, Dept. of Zoology, University of Maryland). Hughes, D 1979. Unpublished Notes. MDDNR Coldwater Fisheries. Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality. 1995. The Strategy for Improving Water-Quality Monitoring in the United States. Final Report. Technical Appendixes. February 1995. Johnson, B. 1989. 1988 Rapid Bioassessment of Streams in the District of Columbia. Prepared for: District of Columbia, Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. Washington, D.C. Lee, D.S., S.P. Platania, C.R. Gilbert, R. Frantz and A. Norden. 1981. A Revised List of the Freshwater Fishes of Maryland and Delaware. Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings. Vol. 3 (3), Oct.,1981. pp. 10. Maryland Department of the Environment, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Maryland’s Environmental Indicators: A Discussion Draft Report. February 1997. May, P. 2000. Unpublished Notes. D.C. Dept. of Health-Environmental Health Administration. Medford, K. 1950. A Distributional Survey of the Fished of Rock Creek. M.S. Thesis, University of Maryland, Dept. of Zoology. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 1994. Blueprint for the Restoration of the Anacostia Watershed, 2nd Edition. Urban Watershed Planning Section, Department of Environmental Programs. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 1995. Recycling Directory 1995: A Guide to Local Government Programs in the Metropolitan Washington Region. Department of Environmental Programs. September 1995 Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 1994. Anacostia Watershed Water Quality Report: 1987-1990. Department of Environmental Programs. Final Report. November 1994. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 1991. A Commitment to Restore Our Home River: A Six-Point Action Plan to Restore the Anacostia River. Department of Environmental Programs. Mintz, Andrew, D. Plummer, and B. Brumbley. 1997. Anacostia Watershed Riparian Forest Buffer Study, Summer 1997. Maryland Department of Natural Resources-Forest Service. Nemura, A.D., T. An, and E. Pontikakis-Coyne. 1991. Water Quality Benefits of Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement in the Tidal Anacostia River: 1988-1991 Data Report. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, D.C. 46
Nemura, A.D. and E. Pontikakis-Coyne. 1991. Water Quality Benefits of Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement in the Tidal Anacostia River: Final Report. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, D.C. Northern Virginia Planning District Commission. 1983. Washington Area Urban Runoff Demonstration Project. Prepared for Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Washington, D.C. O’Brien and Gere, Inc. 1991. CSO Abatement Program Segment I Performance Evaluation. Prepared for: Water and Sewer Utility Administration. Washington, D.C. Olsenholler, S.M. 1992. Chesapeake Bay Basin Urban Nutrient Loadings and Reduction Estimates. Prepared for: U.S. EPA, Region III, Chesapeake Bay Program Office. Annapolis, MD. Olsenholler, S.M. 1992. Annual Loading Estimates of Urban Toxic Pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay Basin. Prepared for: U.S. EPA, Region III, Chesapeake Bay Program Office. Annapolis, MD. Redmond, D. 1996. Unpublished Notes. M-NCPPC Natural Resources Division. Redmond, D. 1997. Unpublished Notes. M-NCPPC Natural Resources Division. Redmond, D. 1998. Unpublished Notes. M-NCPPC Natural Resources Division. Redmond, D. 1999. Unpublished Notes. M-NCPPC Natural Resources Division. Roth, N., et.al. 1997. Maryland Biological Stream Survey: Development of a Fish Index of Biotic Integrity. Versar Inc. Columbia, Maryland. Rowe, P., K. Van Ness, L. Darr, M. Curtis, K. Brown, M. Haddayway, D. Jordahl, D. Marshall, and D. Redmond. 1988. Montgomery County - Countywide Stream Protection Strategy. Prepared by Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection, In Cooperation with Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. MCDEP, Rockville, MD. Schueler, T.R. and D.L. Shepp. 1993. The Quality of Trapped Sediments and Pool Water Within Oil Grit Separators in Suburban Maryland. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Washington, D.C. Prepared for: Maryland Department of the Environment. Baltimore, Maryland. Schueler, T.R. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Washington, D.C. Shepp, D.L. and T.J. Murphy. 1999. A Proposed System of Ecological Indicators for the 47
Anacostia Watershed. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Prepared for: Bereau of Environmental Quality, D.C. Department of Health. Washington, D.C. Shepp, D.L. 1995a. Characterization of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Concentrations Observed in Runoff From Discrete, Automotive-Intensive Land Uses. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Washington, D.C. Prepared for: WEF Watershed ‘96 Conference. Baltimore, Maryland. Shepp, D.L. 1995b. A Monitoring Study of Urban Subwatersheds in the Anacostia Watershed. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Washington, D.C. Prepared for: D.C. Department of Public Works. Washington, D.C. Shepp, D.L. 1991. Hickey Run Subwatershed Action Plan. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Washington, D.C. Prepared for: District of Columbia, Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. Washington, D.C. Shepp, D.L. and J. Watkins. 1990. District of Columbia Anacostia Watershed Restoration Inventory. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Washington, D.C. Prepared for: District of Columbia, Department of Public Works. Washington, D.C. Smith, H.M. and B. A. Bean. 1898. List of Fishes Known to Inhabit the Waters of the District of Columbia and Vicinity. Bull. U.S. Fish. Com. Vol. 18 (1898), pp. 179-187. Stribling, J.B., M.G. Finn, P.D. Thaler, D.M. Spoon and J.D. Cummins. 1990. Nineteen Eightynine Maryland Anacostia River Study. Part I: Habitat, Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Water Quality, Part II: Evaluation of Blockages to Migratory Fishes. Estimates of Gamefish Distribution Population and Biomass. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, Rockville, MD. ICPRB Report No. 91-2. Tilak, R. and M.J. Siemien. 1995. 1994 Biological Survey of the Anadromous and Resident Fishes of the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers with the District of Columbia. District of Columbia, Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. Washington, D.C. Trieu, P. 2000. Personal Communication Governments Washington, DC.
(Biologist). Metropolitan Washington Council of
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States. Fact Sheets. EPA 841-F-96-001. June 1996. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Chesapeake Bay Program. 1992. Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Habitat Requirements and Restoration Targets: A Technical Synthesis. Annapolis, Maryland. December 1992. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Chesapeake Bay Program. 1995. Environmental Indicators: Measuring Our Progress. Draft Presentation Package and Speaker’s 48
Notes. Annapolis, Maryland. January 1995. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Chesapeake Bay Program. 1995. CBP Environmental Indicators. Nutrient Subcommittee Review and Recommendations. General Comments and Review Criteria. Annapolis, Maryland. October 1995. Warner, A., D. Shepp, K. Corish, and J. Galli. 1997. An Existing Source Assessment of Pollutants to the Anacostia Watershed. Final Report. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Department of Environmental Programs. Washington, D.C. Prepared for: Environmental Regulation Administration, Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, District of Columbia. Williams, G.P. 1977. Washington, DC’s Vanishing Springs and Waterways. US Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey. Circular 753. Reston, Virginia. 19 pp.
49
Appendix 1
Anacostia River Summit
Toward a Restored Anacostia Watershed
May 10, 1999
Appendix 2
Appendix 2 Table 1. Anacostia Restoration Indicators: Recommended Monitoring/Tracking Level Restoration Indicator Goal # 1 1a. Total Suspended Solids (annual load to the river)
Minimum Monitoring/ Tracking Level
Current Status
Lead Group(s)
Estimated Cost ($)
Workgroup Recommendation(s)
a.
Annual automated monitoring @ NE & NW Branch USGS gauging stations (highest priority) of approximately 1012 stormflow and 10-12 baseflow events each.
a.
a.
a.
100 K/yr.
a. & b. Pursue DC-DOH, DCWASA, MCDEP, PGDER, MDE, COE and EPA funding support.
Annual automated monitoring (minimum of 2-3 years) for 10-12 stormflow and 5-10 baseflow events @ each of the following station locations: • NW Branch @ Old Randolph Rd (MC Co); • Lower Sligo Creek @ Green Meadow Park (PG Co); • Paint Branch @ BARC ( PG Co); • Indian Creek @ Sunnyside Ave/BARC (PG Co); c. Lower Beaverdam Creek @ Beaver Rd (PG Co).
b.
Not being monitored
b.
200 K/yr. (includes full nutrient, BOD, sediment, metals, and EPA priority pollution scans).
c.
Currently monitored by PGDER.
1b. Combined Sewer Overflows
Annual monitoring/modeling of overflow events and capture efficiencies.
DC-WASA
1c. Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen (annual load to the river) 1d. Fecal Coliform Concentration/ Bacterial Contamination
Ditto 1a.
Overflow monitoring/modeling has recently begun. Capture efficiency work also underway. Ditto 1a.
100 K/yr. (includes 1 Mainstem and two “trib” stations). 2000-3000K.
DC-WASA, COG, MCDEP, PGDER
Included through 1a.
a.
a.
Being monitored in tidal river, only.
DC-WASA, DCDOH, WSSC, MDE, MCDEP, PGDER
0.75 K/DNA sample analysis.
b.
Partial baseline assessment currently planned.
b.
Annual stormflow & baseflow monitoring of tidal river and major tributaries. Note: tributary monitoring sites to correspond to recommended biological monitoring station network (35 core stations) b. Triennial DNA tracing for tidal river and major tributaries
Discontinued - not being monitored.
& b. DC-WASA, ICPRB, DCDOH COG, MCDEP, PGDER, MDE
c. PGDER
c.
c. Maintain current level of effort.
Implement recommendations of DCWASA “Long-term Control Plan”. Ditto 1a.
Pursue tributary initiative between DC-DOH, DCWASA, MCDEP, PGDER, WSSC and MDE. DNA monitoring: 5 storm events and 10-12 baseflow events per site.
Appendix 2 Table 1. Anacostia Restoration Indicators: Recommended Monitoring/Tracking Level Restoration Indicator
Minimum Monitoring/ Tracking Level
Current Status
Lead Group(s)
Estimated Cost ($)
Workgroup Recommendation(s)
1e. Dissolved Oxygen
Annual monitoring of tidal river (Three automated stations). Ditto 1a.
Being monitored via both grab sampling and continuous monitors. Ditto 1a.
24 K/yr.
Maintain current level of effort. Ditto 1a.
Annual monitoring of tidal river.
Being monitored bi-weekly.
DC-DOH, COG, DC-WASA DC-WASA, COG, MCDEP, PGDER DC-DOH, NPS
1h. Trash Index and Quantity of Trash Removed
Annual tributary system and tidal river shoreline. Annual river total trash tonnage removed.
On-going tributary system surveys. River shoreline trash counts not done. On-going skimmer boat trash tonnages.
DC-WASA, COG, PGDER
15 K/yr.
1i. Toxics and Metals
a.
Annual monitoring @ NE & NW Branch USGS gauging stations of approximately 5-10 stormflow and 3-5 baseflow events @ each station. b. Annual tidal river gamefish fish tissue analysis. c. Selective tributary system monitoring every 3-5 years.
a.
DC-DOH, MDE, AWTA, EPA
a.
18 K/yr.
b.
10 K/yr.
Annual monitoring of tidal river.
Being monitored.
DC-DOH
Annual monitoring of priority tributary streams and select tidal river stations. Annual monitoring @ NE & NW Branch stations and annual monitoring of tidal river.
Being monitored in Upper Paint Branch and tidal river. Currently tidal river monitoring, only .
MDDNR, MCDEP, DC-DOH DC-WASA, DCDOH
2c. DELT’s
Annual monitoring of tidal river and priority tributaries.
Annual monitoring of tidal river & Paint Branch. Note: DELT’s will become part of standard watershedwide IBI monitoring protocol.
DC-DOH, MDDNR, MCDEP
2d. pH
Annual spot grab sampling in tidal river and major tributaries.
Being monitored in tidal river and Mont. Co. portion of watershed.
DC-DOH, MCDEP
1f. Biochemical Oxygen Demand 1g. Secchi Depth
1j. Chlorophyll ‘a’ Goal # 2 2a. Temperature 2b. Turbidity
Not currently being monitored.
b.
Tidal river fish tissue analysis being done. c. Not being done.
Included through 1a. 1 K/yr.
1.2 K/ monitoring site. 1K/yr.
Maintain current level of effort. Implement Anacostia Trash Committee plan. Enlist greater use of volunteers for survey work. Consider forming an AWRC/AWTA monitoring consortium.
c.
0.3 K/stream station/yr. NE & NW Branch included through 1a. Included as part of 2f.
Included as part of 2e & f.
Maintain existing funding levels. Consider greater use of volunteer monitors. Maintain funding for tidal river work. Ditto 1a. for tributaries. Expand monitoring into other priority tributary areas. Develop DELT databases. Use brown bullhead as sentinel species. Perform as part of biological monitoring/IBI work.
Appendix 2 Table 1. Anacostia Restoration Indicators: Recommended Monitoring/Tracking Level Restoration Indicator 2e. Macroinvertebrate Community Health
Minimum Monitoring/ Tracking Level Biennial ‘IBI’ monitoring (spring) of benthic community for priority tributaries and select tidal river stations. Note: A total of 4 tidal river, 35 “core” mainstem and 47 tributary stations proposed.
Current Status
Lead Group(s)
Only Upper Paint Branch SPA being done (i.e., 1x/yr). No benthic sampling of tidal river except Kenilworth Marsh and Kingman Lake
MCDEP, PGDER, DC-DOH, NPS, COE M-NCPPC, MDDNR
2f. Resident Fish Community Health
a.
a.
Only Paint Branch and Sligo Creek monitored annually. b. Only Upper Paint Branch. All other priority tributaries on 3-5 yr. monitoring cycles. c. Being performed. d. Not being performed.
MDDNR, MCDEP, PGDER, M-NCPPC, DCDOH, ICPRB, COG
0.7K/station /yr.
b. c. d.
Annual one-pass electrofishing of priority tributaries. Biennial ‘IBI’ monitoring of 35 core mainstem and priority tributary areas. Annual electrofishing and seine hauling @ 4 core tidal river stations. One-pass electrofishing of larger, nonpriority streams once every 3-5 years.
Estimated Cost ($) 0.3 K/station /yr.
Workgroup Recommendation(s) Additional macroinvertebrate sampling to be met through current monitoring programs. Actual macroinvertebrate identification to be outsourced (@ approx. $200/sample). Develop IBI for tidal river. Additional monitoring to be met through current programs. Develop IBI for tidal river.
2g. Stream Miles Restored
Annual tracking and reporting of restoration project status.
Restoration projects on-going. Annual reporting requirement being met.
MCDEP, PGDER, COE, MDE, DC-DOH, M-NCPPC, NPS, COG
2-5 K/yr.
Maintain current level of effort.
2h. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)
Annual survey of entire tidal river.
Partially met. Monitoring below railroad bridge, only.
USGS, COG, DCDOH
16K/yr for Potomac/ Anacostia shoreline survey.
Increase Potomac SAV Harvesting Program funding level by approx. $5 K/yr. Maintain DC-DOH effort.
Appendix 2 Table 1. Anacostia Restoration Indicators: Recommended Monitoring/Tracking Level Restoration Indicator
Minimum Monitoring/ Tracking Level
Current Status
Lead Group(s)
2i. Percent Impervious Surface in the Watershed
a.
a.
Being met.
b.
P.G. Co., only.
M-NCPPC, MDE, DC-DOH, MCDEP, PGDER
Estimated
Workgroup Recommendation(s)
Cost ($)
b.
c.
Annual tracking and reporting in Upper Paint Branch. Annual reporting on no., size and type of LID-related projects implemented in the watershed. Watershed-wide tracking & reporting every 5-10 yrs.
c. Mont. And PG Co. updates every 5 years. Statewide land use updates approx. every 10 yrs., only. No current DC tracking.
2j. Percent of Developed Land w/SWM Controls
Annual tracking and reporting in all three jurisdictions by major subwatershed.
‘Controlled’ sites tracked by local SWM agencies by major watershed.
2k. Recreational Use
a.
a.
b. c.
Goal # 3 3a. Percent Historical Anadromous Fish Spawning Range Open 3b. Percent Anadromous Fish Habitat Utilization
Annual tracking of both key park facility use and rowing clubs/boaters using the tidal river. Annual reporting on no. of trout stocked in the watershed. Anacostia watershed angler/creel surveys of tidal and non-tidal areas approx. every 3-5 yrs.
b. c.
No. of visitors tracked @ limited park sites. No formal tracking of river boating use. Being done by MDDNR.
MCDPS, PGDER, DC-DOH, MCDEP, MDE M-NCPPC, NPS, MDDNR, DC-DOH
5 K/survey.
Very difficult to monitor watershed-wide and should therefore not be used as a watershed-wide indicator. Mont. Co. pilot study may provide future methodology & data for larger watershed-wide studies. Continue to generate data, where possible, and integrate into watershed-wide GIS mapping system. Needs to be fully integrated into watershedwide GIS mapping systems. Pursue additional funding for tracking and survey development in non-tidal areas.
Not being done in non-tidal portion. Annual creel surveys for tidal river being done by DCDOH.
Annual tracking and reporting on no. of fish blockages removed/modified and miles of stream opened.
Being done.
COG
3-5 K/yr.
Maintain funding to continue GIS mapping and reporting.
Annual electrofishing surveys of the Northwest and Northeast Branch systems to determine strength and geographical limit of runs and migratory fish diversity/habitat.
Being done for 5 yrs. through funding from Woodrow Wilson Bridge Replacement mitigation.
ICPRB/COG
30 K/yr.
Pursue optional funding mechanisms for survey years 6-10 (e.g., COE/206 program).
Appendix 2 Table 1. Anacostia Restoration Indicators: Recommended Monitoring/Tracking Level Restoration Indicator
Minimum Monitoring/ Tracking Level
Current Status
Lead Group(s)
Estimated
3c. Percent Tributary Mainstems and Major Feeder Streams Open to Resident Fishes Goal # 4 4a. Created/Restored Tidal Wetland Acreage
Annual tracking and reporting on no. of fish blockages removed/modified and miles of stream opened.
Watershed-wide fish blockage inventory completed. Annual tracking and reporting to begin in FY 2001.
COG
Cost ($) Part of 3a.
Annual tracking and reporting.
Being done by individual agencies. More timely data sharing needed.
COE, DC-DOH, NPS, M-NCPPC, MCDEP, PGDER, COG
2-3 K/yr.
4b. Created/Restored Non-Tidal Wetlands
Annual tracking and reporting.
Being done by individual agencies. More timely data sharing needed.
MCDEP, PGDER, MNCPPC, COE, DC-DOH, NPS, COG
1-2 K/yr.
4c. Wildlife Utilization of Wetlands
Annual monitoring of representative tidal and non-tidal wetland projects in the watershed.
Being done @ Kenilworth Marsh and Kingman Lake, only. Informal surveys in Sligo Creek and other parts of watershed.
NPS, COE, M-NCPPC, COG
3-25 K/study.
Annual tracking and reporting.
Being done by government agencies, only.
MDDNR, M-NCPPC, NPS, DC-DOH, COE, PGDER, COG
2-3 K/yr.
Goal # 5 5a. Miles of Created Riparian Forest
Workgroup Recommendation(s) Maintain funding levels.
Monitoring priority should be herps. Develop IBI. Needs to be fully integrated into watershedwide GIS database. Monitoring priority should be herps. Use species richness until Anacostia IBI system developed. Needs to be fully integrated into watershed-wide GIS Databases. Ditto 4b. Consider forming monitoring/tracking consortium. Enlist assistance from local universities, Frog Watch, etc. Create comprehensive watershed-wide GIS database.
Appendix 2 Table 1. Anacostia Restoration Indicators: Recommended Monitoring/Tracking Level Restoration Indicator
Minimum Monitoring/ Tracking Level
Current Status
Lead Group(s)
Estimated
5b. Percent Adequate Riparian Buffer
Watershed-wide riparian buffer inventory every 3-5 yrs. to examine survivability functional value, etc.
Not being done.
MDDNR, MNCPPC, MCDEP, PGDER, NPS, DC-DOH, COG
5c. Acres of Mature Hardwood Forest
a.
a.
Inventory work underway.
b.
Being done in Mont. Co., only.
MDDNR, M-NCPPC, NPS, MCDEP, PGDER, DCDOH, COG
50-80K for comprehensive , watershedwide forestry plan.
M-NCPPC, NPS, MDDNR, DC-DOH, MCDEP, PGDER, COG MDDNR, M-NCPPC, NPS, DC-DOH, MCDEP, PGDER, COG
Included through 5c.
Workgroup Recommendation(s)
Cost ($)
b.
Identification and prioritization of remaining mature hardwood forest in the watershed. Development of protection strategy.
5d. Acres of Created Upland Forest
Biennial tracking and reporting.
Not being done. Note: currently very limited upland reforestation work being done in the watershed.
5e. No. of Upland, Riparian and Total Forest as Percent of Watershed Area
Tracking and reporting approx. every 5 yrs.
Not being done.
Consider forming monitoring/tracking consortium.
Increase funding levels for watershed-wide inventory and GIS mapping work and development of Anacostia protection/management strategy by 2002. Ditto 5c. Expand current agency tracking, reporting and coordination.
Ditto 5d.
