0% found this document useful (0 votes)

117 views

Ten Mile Creek Amendment Appendix 3 Ten Mile Creek Watershed Environmental Analysis

This document provides an environmental analysis of the Ten Mile Creek watershed in support of the Limited Amendment to the Clarksburg Master Plan. It analyzes potential impacts of development on the watershed under five scenarios, including existing conditions and four development scenarios outlined in the Clarksburg Master Plan. A variety of analytical methods were used to evaluate impacts to watershed health factors like water quality, hydrology, habitat and biology. The findings of these analyses are presented to help inform recommendations for the Clarksburg Master Plan Amendment. Attachments provide more detailed summaries, methodology descriptions and results of the watershed profile, existing conditions analysis, literature review, spatial analysis, pollutant loading modeling and hydrologic modeling that were conducted.

Uploaded by

Planning Docs

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

117 views

Ten Mile Creek Amendment Appendix 3 Ten Mile Creek Watershed Environmental Analysis

Uploaded by

Planning Docs

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 353

Ten Mile Creek Amendment

Appendix 3
Ten Mile Creek Watershed Environmental Analysis

TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis
InSupportoftheLimitedAmendmenttotheClarksburgMasterPlan

Preparedfor:

MarylandNationalCapitalPark&PlanningCommission
MontgomeryCountyPlanningDepartment

Preparedby:

July3,2013

TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis

TableofContents

1.0

2.0

3.0

Objectives.....................................................................................................................................................1
ApproachtoAnalyses...................................................................................................................................3
Findings.........................................................................................................................................................4
3.1
ExistingConditionswithintheTenMileCreekStudyArea.............................................................4
3.2
NaturalResourcesandSpatialAnalysis...........................................................................................5
3.3
PollutantLoading.............................................................................................................................7
3.4
Hydrology........................................................................................................................................8

4.0
ConclusionsandRecommendations............................................................................................................9

AttachmentA. TenMileCreekSubwatershedProfiles
AttachmentB. ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea
AttachmentC. TrendAnalysisofLittleSenecaCreekBenthicandHabitatAssessmentData
AttachmentD. EnvironmentalSiteDesignLiteratureReview
AttachmentE. SpatialWatershedAnalysis
AttachmentF. PollutantLoadModelingAssumptions
AttachmentG. PollutantLoadModelingResults
AttachmentH. HydrologyandHydraulicsAnalysisComputationsandModelOutput
forExistingConditionsandFourDevelopmentScenarios

July3,2013

TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis

July3,2013

TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis

1.0

Objectives

TheTenMileCreekwatershedinnorthwesternMontgomeryCountyisthefocusofanenvironmentalanalysis
studyinsupportoftheLimitedAmendmenttotheClarksburgMasterPlan,beingundertakenbytheMaryland
NationalCapitalParkandPlanningCommission(MNCPPC)MontgomeryCountyPlanningDepartment.This
environmentalanalysisisbeingconductedforthePlanningDepartmentbyBiohabitatsandBrownandCaldwell,
aJointVenture,withsupportfromtheCenterforWatershedProtection.Itisbeingdoneincollaborationwith
MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection(DEP)andMontgomeryCountyDepartmentof
PermittingServices(DPS).

Thepurposeofthisstudyistodocumentexistingconditionsandtoevaluatepotentialwatershedresponseto
developmentwithintheTenMileCreekwatershed.Assuch,analysesfocusonlyonsubwatershedsupstreamof
theexistingUSGSgagestationandthosethathavethepotentialtobedirectlyaffectedbydevelopment.These
subwatershedsarereferredtoastheTenMileCreekstudyarea.TheTenMileCreekstudyareadrains
approximately4.8squaremilesofprimarilyruralandforestedlandsinMontgomeryCounty,flowingfromits
headwatersjustnorthofFrederickRoadtoLittleSenecaLake.

ThePlanningDepartmentcraftedfourscenariosforfuturedevelopmentwithinthewatershed.Fivewatershed
scenarioswereanalyzed,including:

Scenario1: ExistingConditionsThebaselinefortheseanalysesisexistingconditionswithinthewatershed.
Thisincludescurrentlanduse,landcoverandwatershedinfrastructure.
Scenario2: 1994PlanThe1994ClarksburgMasterPlanrecommendationsfordensityandlandusein
Stage4,assumingfullEnvironmentalSiteDesignforthedevelopableandredevelopableproperties.
Scenario3: ReducedFootprint,SameYieldThesameasScenario2withareducedfootprintforthePulte
properties.Assumesadifferentunitmixthatwouldallowapproximatelythesamenumberofunits
permittedbythe1994Plan.
Scenario4: ReducedFootprintLowerYieldThesameasScenario3withthesameunitmixas
recommendedinthe1994PlanforthePulteproperty,resultinginfewerpotentialunitsonPulte.
Scenario5: 7%WatershedImperviousnessThesameasScenario3withreducedyieldonMiles/Coppola,
Egan,andtheCountyproperties.

ThisdocumentsetsforththefindingsoftheseanalysesandrecommendationsforthePlanningDepartmentto
considerinformulatingtheLimitedAmendment.Summariesofanalysesresultsforsubwatershedsareprovided
attheendofthismemorandum.Moredetailonanalysismethodsandresultsisprovidedindocuments
previouslyproducedforthisstudy.Theseareincludedasattachments:

AttachmentA.TenMileCreekSubwatershedProfiles(Report)
AttachmentB.ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea(TechnicalMemorandum)
AttachmentC.TrendAnalysisofLittleSenecaCreekBenthicandHabitatAssessmentData(Technical
Memorandum)
AttachmentD.EnvironmentalSiteDesignLiteratureReview(TechnicalMemorandum)
AttachmentE.SpatialWatershedAnalysis(TechnicalMemorandum)
AttachmentF.PollutantLoadModelingAssumptions(TechnicalMemorandum)
AttachmentG.PollutantLoadModelingResults(TechnicalMemorandum)
AttachmentH.HydrologyandHydraulicsAnalysisComputationsandModelOutputforExistingConditions
andFourDevelopmentScenarios(TechnicalMemorandum)

July3,2013

Page1

TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis

TenMileCreekWatershedandSubwatersheds

July3,2013

Page2

TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis

2.0

ApproachtoAnalyses

Theeffectsofdevelopmentandlandusechangeon
watershedhealthandstreamqualitycannotbemeasuredby
anysinglefactor.Fivefactorsaregenerallyconsideredwhen
evaluatingwatersheds:

Geomorphology,orstreamchannelformandstability
Waterquality
Hydrology,orstreamflow
Habitat,bothwithinthestreamanditscontributing
uplanddrainagearea
Biology

Developmentandlandusechangehavethepotentialtobothdirectlyandindirectlyimpactanyofthesefive
watershedfactors.Inaddition,thesefactorsareinterdependentwherebyimpactstoonewillinfluencethe
otherfour.Forinstance,increasingdevelopmentwithinawatershedwillincreasethevolumeofstormwater
runofftoastream.Thischangeinhydrologywillresultinhigherandfasterstreamflows,whichwillincrease
channelerosionandchangethestreamsform,orgeomorphology.Sedimentfromerodedstreamchannelswill
betransporteddownstream,decreasingwaterquality.Inaddition,thechangeinchannelformwilladversely
affecthabitatneededbyfishandotheraquaticorganismsthatliveinthestream,resultinginanimpacton
streambiology.Thehealthofawatershedisalsoinfluencedbyuplandecologiesandoverallbiodiversity.
Attributessuchasinteriorforestandecologicalhubsandcorridorscontributetoenhancedbiodiversityandasa
resultsystemresiliency,providingdegreesofprotectionagainstwatershedadjustments,suchaslanduse
change.

Duetothecomplexityofnaturalsystems,nosinglemodeloranalyticaltoolcanreliablypredicttheimpactsof
developmentonwatershedconditionsortheresultingchangesinthebiologicalcommunitieswhichprovide
indicatorsofoverallstreamconditions.Therefore,severalanalyticalmethodswereusedevaluatepotential
watershedresponsetodifferentdevelopmentscenarios,asillustratedbelow.ASpatialWatershedAnalysis
identifiedpotentialdirectimpactstoareasofhighnaturalvaluethatprovidehabitatandsupportstreamquality
andwatershedhealth.Pollutantloadmodelingassessedchangesinpollutantloadsasaresultofdevelopment.
Hydrologicmodelingpredictedpotentialchangeinstormwaterrunoffvolumesandstreamflows.Allanalyses
usedexistingconditionsasthebaselineforcomparison.Theseanalysesweresupplementedbyadetailedreview
ofexistingwatershedconditionsandaliteraturereviewofthemostrecentresearchrelatedtotheimpactsof
developmentonwatershedsandtheeffectivenessofsedimentandstormwatercontrolpractices.Thefindings
fromtheseanalysesaredescribedinthefollowingsection.

July3,2013

Page3

TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis

3.0

Findings

3.1

ExistingConditionswithintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

TheTenMileCreekwatershedislocatedintheClarksburgareaofnorthwesternMontgomeryCounty.TenMile
CreekoriginatesjustnorthofMD335(FrederickRoad)andflowsintoLittleSenecaLake,whichflowsintothe
PotomacRiver.LittleSenecaLakeservesasareservoirprovidingadditionalflowtothePotomacRiver,apublic
rawwatersupply,duringdroughtperiods(MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofParkandPlanning,1994).Ten
MileCreekanditstributariesaredesignatedasaUseIPstreamprotectionofwatercontactrecreation,
aquaticlifeanddrinkingwatersupply(MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofParkandPlanning,1994).

Aportionofthestudyarea,eastofTenMileCreekmainstemandnorthofWestOldBaltimoreRoad,islocated
withintheClarksburgMasterPlanSpecialProtectionArea(SPA).TheareawestofTenMileCreekiswithinthe
countywideAgriculturalReserve.Abasicprofileofthestudyareaisprovidedinthetablebelow.Thestudyarea
withinTenMileCreekincludes11subwatersheds.

ExistingconditionsintheTenMileCreekwereevaluatedthroughreviewofGISdataandnumerousreportsand
studiesofthewatershed,asdocumentedinthereportExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea
(BiohabitatsandBrown&Caldwell,2013).Keywatershedcharacteristics,summarizedbelow,providecontext
forthedevelopmentscenarioanalysesdescribedlaterinthissection.

TenMileCreekisareferencestreaminMontgomeryCounty.Longtermmonitoringindicatesoverall
biologicalconditionishealthyanddiverse.Sensitive'indicator'organismsthatoccurinfewotherareas
withintheCountyarefoundhere.Itispartofasmallgroupofhighqualitywatershedsstillremainingwithin
theCounty(e.g.,manyPatuxentRivertributaries,BennettCreek,andLittleBennettCreek).
Themajorityofthestreamswithinthewatershedaresmallandspringfedwithcool,cleangroundwater.
Themainstemischaracterizedbyhighconcentrationsofinteriorforestandwetlands.
Thereisnoevidenceofwidespread,longtermchannelinstabilityandfloodflowsstillaccessthefloodplain.
Inaddition,thestreambedmaterialisidealtosupportabenthicmacroinvertebratecommunity.
Thedominantlanduse/landcoverisforest,followedbyagriculture,withapproximately4%imperviousness.
Slopesaresteepandsoilsaregenerallyrocky,withshallowtomoderatedepthtobedrock.

ProfileoftheCurrentTenMileCreekStudyArea
AreainMontgomeryCounty

3,046acres(4.8squaremiles)

StreamLength

Approximately22miles(includingTenMileCreekanditstributaries)

LandUse

46%Forest,38%Rural,7%LowDensityResidential

LandCover

4%ImperviousCover,46%ForestCover
Remaininglandcoverpredominantlyamixofnonforestedperviousarea,
includingpasture,cropland,andturf

WaterQuality

UseIPStream

MajorTransportationRoutes
SignificantNaturaland
HistoricalFeatures

DwightD.EisenhowerMemorialHighway(I270),FrederickRoad(MD355)
Rusticroads,OldBaltimoreRoadstreamford,Cemeteries
(ClarksburgSchool,MoneysworthFarm,andCephasSummersHouse
ClarksburgHistoricalDistrict

July3,2013

Page4

TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis

3.2

NaturalResourcesandSpatialAnalysis

ASpatialWatershedAnalysisofexistingconditionswithintheTenMileCreekwatershedwasconductedwith
theintentofidentifyingareaswithhighresourcevaluethatsupportstreamqualityandwatershedhealth.
Naturalresourceattributesevaluatedincludesteepslopes,erodiblesoils;hydricsoils,forest,interiorforest,
100yearfloodplain,perennial&intermittentstreams,ephemeralchannels,wetlands,andsprings,seeps&
seasonalponds.

Areasofhighresourcevaluewithinthewatershedaregenerallyconcentratednearthestreams,particularlythe
mainstem,wherewetlands,floodplains,forest,springs,seepsandthestreamsthemselvesprovidecritical
watershedfunctionssuchasrainfallcaptureandrunoffreduction,pollutantfiltering,nutrientcycling,overbank
flowattenuationandreduction,andaquaticanduplandhabitat.

Areasofhighresourcevaluearealsoassociatedwithforestinterior,largelyconcentratedalongandeastofthe
mainstem,westofI270,extendingontotheCountyandPulteproperties.Inresponsetoarequestfor
informationrelatedtorare,threatenedandendangeredspecieswithinthestudyarea,theMaryland
DepartmentofNaturalResourcesstatedthatanalysisoftheinformationprovidedsuggeststhattheforested
areaontheprojectsitecontainsForestInteriorDwellingBirdhabitat.PopulationsofmanyForestInterior
DwellingBirdspecies(FIDS)aredeclininginMarylandandthroughouttheeasternUnitedStates.The
conservationofFIDShabitatisstronglyencouragedbytheDepartmentofNaturalResources.(MDDNR,2013).

TheprojectedlimitsofdisturbanceforScenario2andScenarios3&4wereoverlaidontheexistingconditions
SpatialWatershedAnalysistoidentifytheextentofpotentialimpactstonaturalresources.Scenarios3&4have
thesameprojectedlimitsofdisturbance,sothisanalysisappliestoboth.ThelimitsofdisturbanceforScenario5
areverysimilartoScenario3,soaseparateanalysiswasnotconductedassimilarresultscanbeexpected.
Naturalresourcesthroughoutthestudyareawillbedirectlyimpactedbybuildoutofthe1994MasterPlan
(Scenario2).AsignificantdecreaseinimpactsisseeninScenarios3&4.

Ofthe22milesofstreamsintheareaofthewatershedstudied,aboutahalfofamilehasthepotentialto
beimpactedbybuildoutofthe1994MasterPlan(Scenario2).Themajorityoftheseimpactswouldbeto
smallheadwatertributarieseastofI270,asaresultofconstructionoftheMD355Bypass.Constructionof
theMD355Bypassmayalsoimpactanacreofwetlandsandnineofthewatersheds149springs,seepsand
seasonalpools(asidentifiedbyMontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection).
Buildoutofthe1994MasterPlanhasthepotentialtoimpactupto9%ofthewatershedsforestabout
120acresoutof1,389acres.ThelargestimpactsareassociatedwiththePulteproperty,followedbythe
MilesCoppola;theMD355Bypass;andtheCountyproperty.
Buildoutofthe1994MasterPlanwouldalsoresultinthelossofover60acresofinteriorforest,16%of
interiorforestwithinthestudyarea.About18oftheseacresmaybedirectlyimpactedbydevelopment,
namelyontheCountyandPulteproperties.Theremaininglosswouldbeattributedtooverallreductionin
forestcover,reducingthesizeandbufferofcontiguousforest.
Approximately57acresonlandswithaslopegreaterthan15%wouldbedevelopedunderthe1994Master
Plan,with6oftheseacresonlandswithaslopegreaterthan25%.TheseincludethePulte,County,and
MilesCoppolaproperties,aswellastheMD355Bypass.
Scenarios3&4showasignificantdecreaseinimpactsareaswithhighnaturalresourcevalue.Forestimpacts
arereducedfrom120acrestoapproximately60acres,andforestinteriorimpactsarereducedfromover60
acrestoapproximately14acres.Directstreamandwetlandimpactsarereducedbyhalf,largelyduetothe
proposedrealignmentoftheMD355Bypass.

July3,2013

Page5

TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis
NaturalresourceattributesoverlainwithdevelopmentscenarioswithintheTenMileCreekstudyarea.
Darkgreenindicatesareaswiththehighestnaturalresourcevalue,andaregenerallyassociatedwiththepresenceofthe
streamsystemanditsbufferareas,forestedareas,andwetlands.Mediumgreenindicatesareaswithfewer,butstill
valuable,naturalresourceattributes,suchasinteriorforestandsteepslopes.Darkredindicatesareaswithhighecological
valuethatfallwithinproposedlimitsofdisturbanceandwillbedirectlyimpactedbydevelopment.

July3,2013

Scenario2

Scenarios3&4

Page6

TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis

3.3

PollutantLoading

AnnualpollutantloadingwasassessedusingtheWatershedTreatmentModel(CWP,2010),aspreadsheet
modelthatcalculatesannualrunoffvolumeaswellaspollutantloadsforNitrogen(TN),Phosphorus(TP)and
Sediment(TSS).Threescenarioswereanalyzed:existingconditions;the1994MasterPlan(Scenario2);andthe
constructionphase(withstateofthepracticesBMPs).TheconstructionphaseissimilartoScenario2,but
assumesthatconstructionoccursovertenconstructionseasons,sothat10%ofthedevelopablelandisinactive
construction,andadditionalfertilizerisappliedtoestablishnewlawns.Thepollutantloadmodelingalso
reflectsconversionof36septicsystemstosewer.Scenarios3,4and5werenotmodeledasitmaybeassumed
thatpollutantloadswillbereducedfromwhatisseenforScenario2,givenreducedlimitsofdisturbanceand
imperviouscover.Majorfindingsinclude:

Sedimentloadsdecreaseuniformlyafterconstruction,exceptinundisturbedwatersheds.Thisisbecause
sedimentloadsfromurbanlandaremuchlowerthanthosefrommostpredevelopedlanduses,withthe
exceptionofforest.However,modeledsedimentloadsdonotincludechannelerosion.Therefore,this
modelingunderestimatesanticipatedsedimentloadsinstreams.Sedimentloadsarehigherduring
construction.
Somesubwatershedsexperienceanincreaseinsedimentloadsduringconstruction,andatthesametime
haveadecreaseafterconstruction.Forexample,subwatershedLSTM206hasa76%increaseduring
construction,buta35%decreaseafterconstruction.Thisresultoccursbecausesedimentloadsfrom
constructionaremuchhigherthananyruralland,whileloadsfromdevelopedlandaremuchlower.
Consequently,subwatershedswithalargeareaofdisturbancewillexperienceanincreaseduring
construction,followedbyamuchlowerpostconstructionload.
Annualrunoffvolumeincreasesduringandafterconstruction.Thisresultmayseemcounterintuitive,since
thegoalofESDistogeneratehydrologyequivalenttowoodsingoodcondition,whichshouldresultinless
annualrunoffvolumethantherurallandcurrentlypresentinmuchofthelandtobedeveloped.However,
theWTMassumesthatpracticesthatqualifyasESDPracticesdonotactuallyachieve100%runoff
reduction,duetothelikelihoodthattherewillbeimpactsfromsoilcompactionduringconstructionandthat
somepracticesmaybeundersizedduetosizingmethodologyandsiteconstraintsduringconstruction.
Watershedwide,pollutantloadsfornutrients(NitrogenandPhosphorus)increaseduringconstruction,and
decreasetoslightlyaboveExistingConditionratesintheScenario2condition.

%ofExistingPollutantLoad

120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
TN

TSS

Runoff
Volume

Existing

100.0%

Scenario2DuringConstruction

105.1%

118.7%

101.5%

120.9%

Scenario2PostConstruction

103.1%

102.5%

83.4%

118.5%

ComparativeAnnualPollutantLoads(asamultipleofloadsfromforest)throughouttheDevelopmentProcess
July3,2013

Page7

TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis

3.4

Hydrology

HydrologicanalysiswasconductedusingXPSWMM2012,withthefollowingmodelingassumptionsdeveloped
inconjunctionwiththePlanningDepartment,DEP,andDPS:

Compactionofsoilswilloccurasaresultofdevelopment,andtheCountystopsoilingrequirementswillbe
implemented.
WiththeexceptionoftheproposedI270widening,developedareaswillbetreatedwithmicro
bioretention,whichwasmodeledwith9inchesofpondingdepth,3.5feetofmediadepth,adecaying
infiltrationratefrom2"perhourto0.25"perhour,aconstantinfiltrationrateof0.05perhourinto
underlyingsoils,andunderdrainsabovestonereservoirswithoverflowtosurfacewater.
NewimpervioussurfacesrelatedtoI270wideningwillbetreatedwithconventionalstormwater
management.
RedevelopmentareaswillbetreatedtoESDvolumerequirementsfor100%ofimpervioussurfaces

Themodelprovidedestimatesofrelativechangesintotalstreamflowvolume,peakstreamflow,andstreamflow
velocitypredictedtooccurasaresultofthedifferencesbetweenexistinglandcovercomparedtoeach
developmentscenario.Majorfindingsinclude:

Foralldevelopmentscenarios,themodelingresultsindicatethatthedevelopmentproposedfortheTen
MileCreekstudyareawillimpacthydrologyinallofthemodeledsubwatershedstoavaryingdegree,with
theexceptionofLSTM204,whichwasnotpredictedtobeimpacted.Streamflowchangesshowninthe
modelingresultswilloccurinsometributariesdirectlyasaresultoflandcoverchangeswithinthe
subwatershed,orinsomedownstreamlocationsindirectlyasaresultofflowchangesfromupstream
development.
Thesubwatershedspredictedtobemostimpactedfromthe1994MasterPlandevelopmentmodeledin
Scenario2includeLSTM110,LSTM111andLSTM206,withincreasedstreamflowvolumesandpeakflows
alsonotedatdownstreampointsLSTM202,LSTM302,LSTM303BandthestudyoutletpointatLSTM304.
ThesubwatershedswhichshowedmostimprovementfromthereducedfootprintsmodeledinScenario3
(comparedtoScenario2)wereLSTM110andLSTM111.Improvementswerealsoseenatdownstream
pointsLSTM303BandthestudyareaoutletatLSTM304.
Inmostsubwatersheds,thedifferencesbetweenthedevelopmentproposedunderScenario3versus
Scenario4weretoosmalltoresultinanysignificantmodelresponse.However,additionalimprovements
wereseenasaresultofthereducedimperviousnessmodeledinScenario5,withthegreatestbenefits
predictedinLSTM110,LSTM111andLSTM206.ImprovementswerealsoseeninLSTM201andatthe
downstreammodelingpointsatLSTM202,LSTM203,LSTM302,LSTM303Bandthestudyoutletpointat
LSTM304.

July3,2013

Page8

TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis

4.0

ConclusionsandRecommendations

TenMileCreekisareferencestreaminMontgomeryCounty,whosebiologicalconditionishealthyanddiverse.
Sensitive'indicator'organismsthatoccurinfewotherareaswithintheCountyarefoundhere.Itispartofa
smallgroupofhighqualitywatershedsstillremainingwithintheCounty.

Ofthefourdevelopmentscenariosevaluated,Scenario2(1994MasterPlan)hasthegreatestdevelopment
footprintandconsequentlythegreatestdirectimpacttotheTenMileCreekwatershed.Theseimpactsinclude
lossofforest,forestinterior,streamsandwetlands.Developmentwilldisturbapproximately420acresofland.
Foursubwatershedswillseethegreatestdisturbanceapproximately46%ofLSTM111,42%ofLSTM110,43%
ofLSTM206and25%ofLSTM202.Ofthese,LSTM206iscurrentlythemostdevelopedsubwatershed,with16%
imperviouscoverandfairstreamconditions.Incontrast,LSTM110andLSTM111aresmall,highquality
headwatertributariesdominatedbyforestcoverandrurallanduses.

Buildoutofthe1994MasterPlanwouldalsoresultinthelossofover60acresofinteriorforest.About18of
theseacresmaybedirectlyimpactedbydevelopment,namelyontheCountyandPulteproperties.The
remaininglosswouldbeattributedtofragmentationandoverallreductioninforestcover,reducingthesizeand
bufferofcontiguousforest.Approximately57acresonlandswithaslopegreaterthan15%wouldbedeveloped
underthe1994MasterPlan,with6oftheseacresonlandswithaslopegreaterthan25%.Theseincludethe
Pulte,County,andMilesCoppolaproperties,aswellastheMD355Bypass.

AnappreciabledifferenceinpotentialstreamandwatershedimpactsassociatedwithScenarios3,4and5isnot
uniformlynotedbytheseanalyses.Thesimilarityinlimitsofdisturbanceresultsinsimilarimpactstonatural
resources.TheexceptionisScenario5,wherearevisedMD355Bypassrealignmentreducedstreamimpacts
fromapproximately1,100feetinScenarios3and4to700feetinScenario5,andeliminateswetlandimpacts.

TheresultsofthehydrologicmodelindicatethatESDwillnotfullymitigatetheimpactsofdevelopmenton
hydrologyinthewatershed.Scenario2resultsinthelargestincreasesinvolumeofrunoffandstreamflow.In
mostsubwatersheds,thedifferencesbetweenthedevelopmentproposedunderScenario3versusScenario4
weretoosmalltoresultinanysignificantmodelresponse.Ofthefourdevelopmentscenarios,Scenario5
showedthelowestincreaseoverexistingconditionsasaresultofthereducedimperviousness,withthegreatest
benefitspredictedinLSTM110,LSTM111andLSTM206.ImprovementswerealsoseeninLSTM201andatthe
downstreammodelingpointsatLSTM202,LSTM203,LSTM302,LSTM303Bandthestudyoutletpointat
LSTM304.

Impactsfrompotentialchannelerosionresultingfromalteredhydrologywerenotexplicitlyanalyzedaspartof
thisstudy,duetouncertaintyoffuturestreamresponse.However,researchdoesindicatethatchannelerosion
canbeasignificantsedimentsource.

Giventhelevelofdevelopmentproposed,increasesinstormwaterrunoffvolumeandpeakflowcanbe
expectedinalldevelopmentscenariosdespitetheapplicationofESDpractices(CenterforWatershed
Protection,2013).LiteraturereviewofcasestudiesandmonitoringtodocumenttheeffectivenessofESDand
similarlowimpactdevelopment(LID)strategiesarelimitedanddontappeartoexistatawatershedscaleof
analysis.Wherecasestudiesdoexistatasubdivisionscale,thereisnoconclusiveevidencethatESDfully
protectsstreamhealth.

ESDrepresentsthestateofthepracticeforsiteplanningandpostconstructionstormwaterrunoffmanagement.
However,rigorousandcomprehensiveimplementationacrossorwithinwatershedshasnotoccurrednorbeen
monitoredtoestablishabaseofliteraturewherewecanconcludethatwatershedimpactswontbeobserved.
July3,2013

Page9

TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis
WhilegainingwatershedbasedknowledgeontheefficacyofESDwillbevaluable,itmaynotbeprudenttohave
initialexperienceandstudiesconductedinhighqualitywatersheds.

AdditionaldevelopmentwithintheTenMileCreekwatershedwillhaveanegativeimpactonwatershedhealth
andstreamquality.MinimizingimpacttoTenMileCreekwillrequirethefollowingmeasures:

MinimizedisturbanceofnaturalresourcesthroughouttheTenMileCreekstudyarea,especiallyforestcover
intheheadwaterareas.
ReducedevelopmentwestofI270,withanemphasisonreducingimpactstouplandforestedareasand
steepslopes.Inparticular,preserveexistingconditionsinthehighqualityheadwatersubwatershedsLSTM
110(KingSpring)andLSTM111.InLSTM202,reducetheextentofdevelopmentonCountyownedproperty
(perScenarios3,4and5)sothatexistingforestisnotdisturbed.
FocusandprioritizedevelopmenteastofI270inLSTM206.
IfdevelopmentoccursinsubwatershedsLSTM110andLSTM111,thelimitsofdisturbancesetforthin
Scenarios3,4and5shouldbeapplied.
Minimizedirectimpactstonaturalresourcesassociatedwithnewinfrastructure,namelytheMD355Bypass
andthesanitarysewerextension.
Strictlyenforceerosionandsedimentcontrolregulations,withspecialemphasisonproposedclearingand
gradinglimits.
Preserveripariancorridorsandestablishbuffersaroundzeroorderorephemeralstreamsnotcurrently
regulated.
Reducethe1994MasterPlanimperviouslevelsintheheadwaterareasofLSTM206,LSTM201andLSTM202
toprotectthoseheadwatertributariesandthemainstemofTenMileCreek.
Withinanyproposeddevelopedareas,employsiteplanningtechniquesasthefirstmeasureof
EnvironmentalSiteDesign.Prioritizepreservationandprotectionofnaturalresources;conservationof
naturaldrainagepatterns;minimizationofimperviousareas;clusteringofdevelopment;andlimitingsoil
disturbance,massgradingandcompaction.Achievecontrolofrequiredvolumesorenhancedvolumeswith
theESDtreatmentpracticesselectedtoachievethemostwatershedbenefitsbasedonevaluationofsite
specificandsubwatershedspecificconsiderations.
Designstreamoutfallstoreduceimpactsassociatedwithlargeflows(e.g.,implementsteppoolconveyances
atalloutfalls).

July3,2013

Page10

TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis

AttachmentA. TenMileCreekSubwatershedProfiles

July3,2013

TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis

July3,2013

TEN MILE CREEK

Contributing Subwatersheds:
LSTM110
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Drainage Area (acres) 211
% Impervious 2%
% Forested 45%
Stream Length (feet) 8,535
IBI (average 1994-2012) 35/good

Existing conditions

LSTM101
Subwatershed Disturbance

Scenario 2

Scenario 3&4

LEGEND
Natural Resource
Attributes
Undisturbed

Natural Resource
Attributes
Disturbed

0 Least

1-2

3 - 9 Most

3-9

LSTM110

IMPACTS ON RESOURCES

POLLUTANT LOAD ANALYSIS

LSTM110
RelativetoContributingSubwatersheds

LSTM110
RelativetoTenMileCreekStudyArea

200%

120%

180%
160%
%ofExis
ofExistingPollutantLoad

%ofExis
ofExistingPollutantLoad

100%

80%

60%

40%

140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%

20%

20%
0%

TSS

RunoffVolume

TSS

Existing

6.9%

6.6%

8.7%

5.7%

Existing

100.0%

Scenario2DuringConstruction

7.9%

10.6%

8.7%

9.7%

Scenario2DuringConstruction

115.8%

160.6%

100.1%

169.8%

Scenario2PostConstruction

7.2%

6.9%

3.6%

9.2%

Scenario2PostConstruction

104.6%

105.1%

41.3%

160.3%

120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%

Note: Scale of Peak Stream flow is 0%-400%

LSTM110

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Peak Stream Flow (cfs)

% Change from Existing

% Change From Existing

HYDROLOGY (1-YEAR, 24-HOUR STORM)

Model Scenarios

RunoffVolume

400%
350%
300%
250%
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%

Model Scenarios

Scenario 2

80%

Scenario 2

350%

Scenario 3

36%

Scenario 3

289%

Scenario 4

25%

Scenario 4

244%

Scenario 5

24%

Scenario 5

232%

TEN MILE CREEK

Contributing Subwatersheds:
LSTM111
Existing conditions

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Drainage Area (acres) 104
% Impervious 1%
% Forested 19%
Stream Length (feet) 3,273
IBI (average 1994-2012) 30/good

LSTM111
Subwatershed Disturbance

Scenario 2

Scenario 3&4

LEGEND
Natural Resource
Attributes
Undisturbed

Natural Resource
Attributes
Disturbed

0 Least

1-2

3 - 9 Most

3-9

LSTM111

IMPACTS ON RESOURCES
LSTM111
RelativetoContributingSubwatersheds

20%

100%

18%

90%

16%

80%
%ofResourceImpacted

%ofResourceImpacted

LSTM111
RelativetoTenMileCreekStudyArea

14%
12%
10%
8%
6%

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%

4%
2%

10%

0%
Wetlands
(acres)

Perennial
Stream
Buffer
(acres)

Stream
(feet)

Forest
Interior
(acres)

Forest
(acres)

Areaswith
Areaswith
Slopes>25% Slopes>15%

Wetlands
(acres)

Perennial
Stream
Buffer
(acres)

Stream
(feet)

Forest
Interior
(acres)

Forest
(acres)

Areaswith
Areaswith
Slopes>25% Slopes>15%

Scenario2

0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.0%

0.2%

0.3%

0.8%

Scenario2

1.2%

3.2%

6.7%

0.0%

12.6%

12.1%

19.0%

Scenario34

0.0%

0.1%

0.3%

Scenario34

0.0%

1.1%

5.5%

8.8%

Scenario5

0.0%

0.1%

0.3%

Scenario5

0.0%

1.1%

5.5%

8.8%

POLLUTANT LOAD ANALYSIS

LSTM111
RelativetoContributingSubwatersheds

LSTM111
RelativetoTenMileCreekStudyArea

200%

120%

180%
160%
%ofExistingPollutantLoad

%ofExistingPollutantLoad

100%

80%

60%

40%

140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%

20%

20%
0%

TSS

RunoffVolume

TSS

Existing

3.8%

4.2%

6.7%

2.8%

Existing

100.0%

Scenario2DuringConstruction

4.2%

6.1%

5.7%

4.6%

Scenario2DuringConstruction

110.7%

145.5%

85.8%

164.5%

Scenario2PostConstruction

3.8%

4.2%

2.6%

4.4%

Scenario2PostConstruction

99.6%

98.9%

38.7%

154.8%

120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%

Note: Scale of Peak Stream flow is 0%-800%

LSTM111

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Peak Stream Flow (cfs)

% Change from Existing

% Change From Existing

HYDROLOGY (1-YEAR, 24-HOUR STORM)

Model Scenarios

RunoffVolume

800%
700%
600%
500%
400%
300%
200%
100%
0%

Model Scenarios

Scenario 2

43%

Scenario 2

741%

Scenario 3

26%

Scenario 3

739%

Scenario 4

21%

Scenario 4

644%

Scenario 5

19%

Scenario 5

605%

TEN MILE CREEK

Contributing Subwatersheds:
LSTM112
Existing conditions

Scenario 2

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Drainage Area (acres) 228
% Impervious 3%
% Forested 49%
Stream Length (feet) 8,841
IBI (average 1994-2012) 30/good

LSTM112
Subwatershed Disturbance

Scenario 3&4

LEGEND
Natural Resource
Attributes
Undisturbed

Natural Resource
Attributes
Disturbed

0 Least

1-2

3 - 9 Most

3-9

LSTM112

IMPACTS ON RESOURCES
LSTM112
RelativetoContributingSubwatersheds

20%

100%

18%

90%

16%

80%
%ofResourceImpacted

%ofResourceImpacted

LSTM112
RelativetoTenMileCreekStudyArea

14%
12%
10%
8%
6%

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%

4%
2%

10%

0%
Wetlands
(acres)

Perennial
Stream
Buffer
(acres)

Stream
(feet)

Forest
Interior
(acres)

Forest
(acres)

Areaswith
Areaswith
Slopes>25% Slopes>15%

Wetlands
(acres)

Perennial
Stream
Buffer
(acres)

Stream
(feet)

Forest
Interior
(acres)

Forest
(acres)

Areaswith
Areaswith
Slopes>25% Slopes>15%

Scenario2

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

0.3%

Scenario2

0.0%

1.5%

0.2%

2.5%

Scenario34

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

Scenario34

0.0%

0.8%

0.1%

1.1%

Scenario5

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

Scenario5

0.0%

0.8%

0.1%

1.1%

POLLUTANT LOAD ANALYSIS

LSTM112
RelativetoContributingSubwatersheds

LSTM112
RelativetoTenMileCreekStudyArea

200%

120%

180%
160%
%ofExistingPollutantLoad

%ofExistingPollutantLoad

100%

80%

60%

40%

140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%

20%

20%
0%

TSS

RunoffVolume

TSS

Existing

8.3%

7.1%

11.0%

7.0%

Existing

100.0%

RunoffVolume
100.0%

Scenario2DuringConstruction

8.2%

7.6%

9.6%

7.8%

Scenario2DuringConstruction

98.6%

107.5%

87.4%

111.7%

Scenario2PostConstruction

8.2%

7.1%

8.9%

7.6%

Scenario2PostConstruction

98.8%

100.0%

80.9%

109.1%

120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%

LSTM112

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Peak Stream Flow (cfs)

% Change from Existing

% Change From Existing

HYDROLOGY (1-YEAR, 24-HOUR STORM)

Model Scenarios

120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%

Model Scenarios

Scenario 2

-1%

Scenario 2

90%

Scenario 3

98%

Scenario 4

-1%

Scenario 4

89%

Scenario 5

-1%

Scenario 5

85%

TEN MILE CREEK

Contributing Subwatersheds:
LSTM201
Existing conditions

27 0

1 2

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Drainage Area (acres) 611
% Impervious 4%
% Forested 44%
Stream Length (feet) 25,396
IBI (average 1994-2012) 31/good

LSTM201
Subwatershed Disturbance

Scenario 2
3-9

0 Least
1-2
3 - 9 Most

27 0

Scenario 3&4
1-2

1-2

3-9

3 - 9 Most

27 0

LEGEND
Natural Resource
Attributes
Undisturbed

Natural Resource
Attributes
Disturbed

0 Least

1-2

3 - 9 Most

3-9

LSTM201

IMPACTS ON RESOURCES
LSTM201
RelativetoContributingSubwatersheds

20%

100%

18%

90%

16%

80%
%ofResourceImpacted

%ofResourceImpacted

LSTM201
RelativetoTenMileCreekStudyArea

14%
12%
10%
8%
6%

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%

4%
2%

10%

0%
Wetlands
(acres)

Perennial
Stream
Buffer
(acres)

Stream
(feet)

Forest
Interior
(acres)

Forest
(acres)

Areaswith
Areaswith
Slopes>25% Slopes>15%

Wetlands
(acres)

Perennial
Stream
Buffer
(acres)

Stream
(feet)

Forest
Interior
(acres)

Forest
(acres)

Areaswith
Areaswith
Slopes>25% Slopes>15%

Scenario2

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

0.2%

Scenario2

0.0%

0.2%

0.7%

0.0%

0.4%

0.2%

1.2%

Scenario34

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

Scenario34

0.0%

0.2%

0.7%

0.0%

0.4%

0.3%

1.3%

Scenario5

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

Scenario5

0.0%

0.2%

0.7%

0.0%

0.4%

0.3%

1.3%

POLLUTANT LOAD ANALYSIS

LSTM201
RelativetoContributingSubwatersheds

LSTM201
RelativetoTenMileCreekStudyArea

200%

120%

180%
160%
%ofExistingPollutantLoad

%ofExistingPollutantLoad

100%

80%

60%

40%

140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%

20%

20%
0%

TSS

RunoffVolume

TSS

Existing

19.8%

16.8%

18.3%

19.3%

Existing

100.0%

RunoffVolume
100.0%

Scenario2DuringConstruction

21.2%

18.7%

19.5%

22.9%

Scenario2DuringConstruction

107.0%

111.1%

106.3%

118.9%

Scenario2PostConstruction

20.8%

17.0%

17.5%

22.7%

Scenario2PostConstruction

105.0%

100.9%

95.7%

117.9%

120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%

LSTM201

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Peak Stream Flow (cfs)

% Change from Existing

% Change From Existing

HYDROLOGY (1-YEAR, 24-HOUR STORM)

Model Scenarios

120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%

Model Scenarios

Scenario 2

19%

Scenario 2

28%

Scenario 3

26%

Scenario 3

30%

Scenario 4

26%

Scenario 4

30%

Scenario 5

18%

Scenario 5

TEN MILE CREEK

Contributing Subwatersheds:
LSTM206
Existing
conditions

270

Scenario 2

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Drainage Area (acres) 370
% Impervious 16%
% Forested 41%
Stream Length (feet) 13,202
IBI (average 1994-2012) 21/fair

LSTM206
Subwatershed Disturbance

270

Scenario 3&4
0

1-2

3-9

270

LEGEND
Natural Resource
Attributes
Undisturbed

Natural Resource
Attributes
Disturbed

0 Least

1-2

3 - 9 Most

3-9

LSTM206

IMPACTS ON RESOURCES
LSTM206
RelativetoContributingSubwatersheds

20%

100%

18%

90%

16%

80%
%ofResourceImpacted

%ofResourceImpacted

LSTM206
RelativetoTenMileCreekStudyArea

14%
12%
10%
8%
6%

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%

4%
2%

10%

0%
Wetlands
(acres)

Perennial
Stream
Buffer
(acres)

Stream
(feet)

Forest
Interior
(acres)

Forest
(acres)

Areaswith
Areaswith
Slopes>25% Slopes>15%

Wetlands
(acres)

Stream
(feet)

Perennial
Stream
Buffer
(acres)

Forest
Interior
(acres)

Forest
(acres)

Areaswith
Areaswith
Slopes>25% Slopes>15%

Scenario2

1.3%

2.3%

2.4%

3.4%

5.7%

2.7%

3.7%

Scenario2

8.7%

20.7%

19.1%

100.0%

52.0%

19.9%

36.2%

Scenario34

0.9%

1.0%

3.4%

4.1%

2.0%

2.4%

Scenario34

5.9%

8.2%

7.8%

100.0%

37.2%

14.6%

23.1%

Scenario5

0.1%

0.6%

0.7%

3.4%

4.0%

1.4%

2.0%

Scenario5

0.5%

4.9%

6.1%

100.0%

35.8%

10.1%

19.8%

POLLUTANT LOAD ANALYSIS

LSTM206
RelativetoContributingSubwatersheds

LSTM206
RelativetoTenMileCreekStudyArea

200%

120%

180%
160%
%ofExistingPollutantLoad

%ofExistingPollutantLoad

100%

80%

60%

40%

140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%

20%

20%
0%

TSS

RunoffVolume

TSS

Existing

11.6%

14.8%

3.7%

20.9%

Existing

100.0%

RunoffVolume
100.0%

Scenario2DuringConstruction

14.7%

20.5%

6.5%

29.0%

Scenario2DuringConstruction

126.5%

139.0%

176.4%

138.7%

Scenario2PostConstruction

14.7%

17.6%

2.4%

28.3%

Scenario2PostConstruction

126.5%

119.5%

65.1%

135.2%

120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%

LSTM206

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Peak Stream Flow (cfs)

% Change from Existing

% Change From Existing

HYDROLOGY (1-YEAR, 24-HOUR STORM)

Model Scenarios

120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%

Model Scenarios

Scenario 2

66%

Scenario 2

13%

Scenario 3

60%

Scenario 3

15%

Scenario 4

60%

Scenario 4

15%

Scenario 5

47%

Scenario 5

-5%

TEN MILE CREEK

Contributing Subwatersheds:
LSTM206 & LSTM202
Existing
conditions

27 0

Subwatershed 202

Scenario 2

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Drainage Area (acres) 613
% Impervious 11%
% Forested 52%
Stream Length (feet) 20,707
IBI (average 1994-2012) 30/good

LSTM206 & LSTM202

Subwatershed Disturbance

27 0

0
1-2
3-9

0 Least
1-2
3 - 9 Most

Scenario 3&4

27 0

LEGEND
Natural Resource
Attributes
Undisturbed

Natural Resource
Attributes
Disturbed

0
1-2
3-9
0 Leas
1-2

0 Least

1-2

3 - 9 Most

3-9

3-9M

LSTM206 & LSTM202

IMPACTS ON RESOURCES
LSTM206
& LSTM202
LSTM202
RelativetoContributingSubwatersheds

20%

100%

18%

90%

16%

80%
%ofResourceImpacted

%ofResourceImpacted

LSTM206
& LSTM202
LSTM202
RelativetoTenMileCreekStudyArea

14%
12%
10%
8%
6%

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%

4%
2%

10%

0%
Wetlands
(acres)

Perennial
Stream
Buffer
(acres)

Stream
(feet)

Forest
Interior
(acres)

Forest
(acres)

Areaswith
Areaswith
Slopes>25% Slopes>15%

Wetlands
(acres)

Stream
(feet)

Perennial
Stream
Buffer
(acres)

Forest
Interior
(acres)

Forest
(acres)

Areaswith
Areaswith
Slopes>25% Slopes>15%

Scenario2

1.3%

2.3%

2.4%

6.7%

3.1%

4.2%

Scenario2

6.2%

13.2%

10.7%

23.0%

29.4%

14.0%

22.2%

Scenario34

0.9%

1.0%

3.5%

4.2%

2.5%

2.7%

Scenario34

4.2%

5.3%

4.6%

12.1%

18.5%

11.2%

14.4%

Scenario5

0.1%

0.6%

0.8%

3.5%

4.1%

1.9%

2.4%

Scenario5

0.4%

3.1%

3.6%

12.1%

17.9%

8.4%

12.5%

POLLUTANT LOAD ANALYSIS

LSTM202
LSTM206
& LSTM202
RelativetoTenMileCreekStudyArea

LSTM202
LSTM206
& LSTM202
RelativetoContributingSubwatersheds
200%

120%

180%
160%
%ofExistingPollutantLoad

%ofExistingPollutnatLoad

100%

80%

60%

40%

140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%

20%

20%
0%

TSS

RunoffVolume

TSS

Existing

18.4%

20.9%

8.9%

27.5%

Existing

100.0%

RunoffVolume
100.0%

Scenario2DuringConstruction

20.3%

26.7%

11.2%

37.2%

Scenario2DuringConstruction

110.1%

127.8%

126.0%

135.4%

Scenario2PostConstruction

19.9%

22.4%

5.0%

36.1%

Scenario2PostConstruction

108.2%

107.3%

56.7%

131.5%

120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%

LSTM206
& LSTM202
LSTM202

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Peak Stream Flow (cfs)

% Change from Existing

% Change From Existing

HYDROLOGY (1-YEAR, 24-HOUR STORM)

Model Scenarios

120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%

Model Scenarios

Scenario 2

53%

Scenario 2

40%

Scenario 3

46%

Scenario 3

44%

Scenario 4

46%

Scenario 4

43%

Scenario 5

37%

Scenario 5

25%

TEN MILE CREEK

Contributing Subwatersheds:
LSTM206, LSTM202, LSTM201,
LSTM203, & LSTM302
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Drainage Area (acres) 1,794
% Impervious 5%
% Forested 47%
Stream Length (feet) 68,412
IBI (average 1994-2012) 35/good

27
0

Existing
conditions

Scenario 2
0

LSTM206, LSTM202, LSTM201,

LSTM203, & LSTM302
Subwatershed Disturbance

1-2
3-9

0 Least
1-2
3 - 9 Most

h d 302

S b

3 - 9 Most

LEGEND
Natural Resource
Attributes
Undisturbed

1-2

3-9

0 Least

1-2

Scenario 3&4

Natural Resource
Attributes
Disturbed

0 Least

1-2

3 - 9 Most

3-9

LSTM206, LSTM202, LSTM201, LSTM203, & LSTM302

IMPACTS ON RESOURCES
LSTM206, LSTM202, LSTM201,
LSTM302 LSTM203, & LSTM302

LSTM206, LSTM202, LSTM201,

LSTM302LSTM203, & LSTM302
RelativetoContributingSubwatersheds

20%

100%

18%

90%

16%

80%
%ofResourceImpacted

%ofResourceImpacted

RelativetoTenMileCreekStudyArea

14%
12%
10%
8%
6%

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%

4%
2%

10%

0%
Wetlands
(acres)

Perennial
Stream
Buffer
(acres)

Stream
(feet)

Forest
Interior
(acres)

Forest
(acres)

Areaswith
Areaswith
Slopes>25% Slopes>15%

Wetlands
(acres)

Stream
(feet)

Perennial
Stream
Buffer
(acres)

Forest
Interior
(acres)

Forest
(acres)

Areaswith
Areaswith
Slopes>25% Slopes>15%

Scenario2

1.3%

2.4%

2.5%

7.0%

6.8%

3.1%

4.5%

Scenario2

1.8%

4.1%

4.2%

10.6%

11.2%

5.7%

8.6%

Scenario34

0.9%

1.0%

1.1%

3.5%

4.3%

2.5%

2.9%

Scenario34

1.2%

1.7%

1.9%

5.4%

7.1%

4.6%

5.7%

Scenario5

0.1%

0.6%

0.9%

3.5%

4.2%

1.9%

2.6%

Scenario5

0.1%

1.0%

1.6%

5.4%

6.8%

3.5%

5.0%

POLLUTANT LOAD ANALYSIS

LSTM302 LSTM203, & LSTM302
LSTM206, LSTM202, LSTM201,

LSTM302LSTM203, & LSTM302

LSTM206, LSTM202, LSTM201,

RelativetoTenMileCreekStudyArea

RelativetoContributingSubwatersheds
200%

120%

180%
160%
%ofExistingPollutantLoad

%ofExistingPollutantLoad

100%

80%

60%

40%

140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%

20%

20%
0%

TSS

RunoffVolume

TSS

Existing

56.6%

55.1%

47.7%

62.4%

Existing

100.0%

RunoffVolume
100.0%

Scenario2DuringConstruction

60.1%

63.4%

51.3%

76.2%

Scenario2DuringConstruction

106.1%

115.0%

107.4%

122.2%

Scenario2PostConstruction

59.3%

57.0%

42.6%

74.8%

Scenario2PostConstruction

104.7%

103.5%

89.2%

120.0%

HYDROLOGY (1-YEAR, 24-HOUR STORM)

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Peak Stream Flow (cfs)

120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%

% Change from Existing

LSTM302LSTM203, & LSTM302

LSTM206, LSTM202, LSTM201,

% Change From Existing

LSTM302LSTM203, & LSTM302

LSTM206, LSTM202, LSTM201,

Model Scenarios

120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%

Model Scenarios

Scenario 2

30%

Scenario 2

69%

Scenario 3

30%

Scenario 3

74%

Scenario 4

30%

Scenario 4

73%

Scenario 5

24%

Scenario 5

43%

TEN MILE CREEK

Contributing Subwatersheds:
LSTM206, LSTM202, LSTM201, LSTM203,
LSTM204, LSTM110, LSTM111, LSTM302,
LSTM303B, & LSTM304
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Drainage Area (acres) 2,818
% Impervious 4%
% Forested 45%
Stream Length (feet) 107,252
IBI (average 1994-2012) 35/good

Existing conditions

270

LSTM206, LSTM202, LSTM201,

LSTM203, LSTM204, LSTM110, LSTM111,
LSTM302, LSTM303B, & LSTM304
Subwatershed Disturbance

Scenario 2

27 0

0
1-2
3-9

0 Least

Scenario 3&4

27 0

LEGEND
Natural Resource
Attributes
Undisturbed

Natural Resource
Attributes
Disturbed

0 Least

3-9

1-2

0 Least

3 - 9 Most

3-9

0
1-2

LSTM206, LSTM202, LSTM201, LSTM203, LSTM204, LSTM110, LSTM111, LSTM302, LSTM303B, & LSTM304

IMPACTS ON RESOURCES
LSTM206, LSTM202, LSTM201, LSTM203, LSTM204, LSTM110,
LSTM111, LSTM302,
LSTM303B, & LSTM304
LSTM302

LSTM206, LSTM202, LSTM201, LSTM203, LSTM204, LSTM110,

LSTM111, LSTM302,
LSTM303B, & LSTM304
LSTM302
RelativetoContributingSubwatersheds
100%

18%

90%

16%

80%
%ofResourceImpacted

%ofResourceImpacted

RelativetoTenMileCreekStudyArea
20%

14%
12%
10%
8%
6%

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%

20%

10%

0%
Wetlands
(acres)

Stream
(feet)

Perennial
Stream
Buffer
(acres)

Forest
Interior
(acres)

Forest
(acres)

Areaswith
Areaswith
Slopes>25% Slopes>15%

Wetlands
(acres)

Stream
(feet)

Perennial
Stream
Buffer
(acres)

Forest
Interior
(acres)

Forest
(acres)

Areaswith
Areaswith
Slopes>25% Slopes>15%

Scenario2

1.3%

2.5%

2.8%

15.6%

8.7%

3.6%

6.9%

Scenario2

1.3%

2.7%

3.0%

16.7%

9.4%

4.0%

7.8%

Scenario34

0.9%

1.0%

1.1%

3.5%

4.4%

2.7%

3.4%

Scenario34

0.9%

1.1%

1.2%

3.8%

4.8%

3.1%

3.8%

Scenario5

0.1%

0.6%

0.9%

3.5%

4.2%

2.1%

3.1%

Scenario5

0.1%

0.7%

1.0%

3.8%

4.6%

2.4%

3.5%

POLLUTANT LOAD ANALYSIS

LSTM206, LSTM202, LSTM201, LSTM203, LSTM204, LSTM110,
LSTM304
LSTM111, LSTM302,
LSTM303B, & LSTM304

LSTM206, LSTM202, LSTM201, LSTM203, LSTM204, LSTM110,

LSTM304
LSTM111, LSTM302,
LSTM303B, & LSTM304

RelativetoTenMileCreekStudyArea

RelativetoContributingSubwatersheds
200%

120%

180%
160%
%ofExistingPollutantLoad

%ofExistingPollutantLoad

100%

80%

60%

40%

140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%

20%

20%
0%

TSS

RunoffVolume

TSS

Existing

91.7%

92.9%

89.0%

93.0%

Existing

100.0%

RunoffVolume
100.0%

Scenario2DuringConstruction

96.9%

111.1%

91.9%

113.1%

Scenario2DuringConstruction

105.7%

119.5%

103.3%

121.6%

Scenario2PostConstruction

94.9%

95.5%

74.5%

110.8%

Scenario2PostConstruction

103.5%

102.7%

83.7%

119.2%

HYDROLOGY (1-YEAR, 24-HOUR STORM)

Total
TotalStream
StreamFlow
FlowVolume
Volume (ac-ft)
(ac-ft)

Peak
PeakStream
StreamFlow
Flow (cfs)
(cfs)

120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%

% Change from Existing

LSTM206, LSTM202, LSTM201, LSTM203, LSTM204, LSTM110,

Area
Outflow
LSTM304
LSTM111,Study
LSTM302,
LSTM303B,
& LSTM304

% Change From Existing

LSTM206, LSTM202, LSTM201, LSTM203, LSTM204, LSTM110,

Area
Outflow
LSTM304
LSTM111,Study
LSTM302,
LSTM303B,
& LSTM304

Model Scenarios

120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%

Model Scenarios

Scenario 2

28%

Scenario 2

110%

Scenario 3

23%

Scenario 3

100%

Scenario 4

22%

Scenario 4

96%

Scenario 5

13%

Scenario 5

67%

TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis

AttachmentB. ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

July3,2013

TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis

July3,2013

ExistingConditions
intheTenMileCreekStudyArea
InSupportoftheLimitedAmendmenttotheClarksburgMasterPlan

Preparedfor:

MarylandNationalCapitalPark&PlanningCommission
MontgomeryCountyPlanningDepartment

Preparedby:

April3,2013

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

TABLEOFCONTENTS

EXECUTIVESUMMARY...............................................................................................................................E1

1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................1
1.1 IntroductiontotheExistingConditionsReport........................................................................1
1.2 IntroductiontotheTenMileCreekWatershed........................................................................1

2.0 LANDUSEANDLANDCOVER..............................................................................................................4
2.1 ExistingLandUse.......................................................................................................................4
2.2 LandCover.................................................................................................................................6
2.3 ClarksburgMasterPlan.............................................................................................................8

3.0 NATURALFEATURES............................................................................................................................9
3.1 Climate......................................................................................................................................9
3.2 Topography...............................................................................................................................9
3.3 Geology...................................................................................................................................11
3.4 Soils.........................................................................................................................................11
3.5 Hydrology................................................................................................................................15
Streams...................................................................................................................................15
Wetlands.................................................................................................................................17
SpringsandSeeps....................................................................................................................18
Groundwater...........................................................................................................................18
3.6 StreamGeomorphology..........................................................................................................18
3.7 WaterQuality..........................................................................................................................23
CountywideBiologicalStreamMonitoringData.....................................................................23
SpecialProtectionAreaWaterQualityMonitoring................................................................28
SenecaLakeWaterQualityMonitoring..................................................................................29
3.8 AquaticHabitatandBiology....................................................................................................30
BenthicMacroinvertebrates...................................................................................................30
Habitat.....................................................................................................................................34
Fish..........................................................................................................................................38
Herptofauna............................................................................................................................42
BiologicalCondition................................................................................................................42
3.9 UplandHabitatandBiology....................................................................................................46
ForestCover............................................................................................................................46
Wildlife....................................................................................................................................48
3.10 Rare,Threatened,andEndangeredSpecies...........................................................................49

4.0 COMMUNITYFEATURES....................................................................................................................50
4.1 HistoricalContext....................................................................................................................50
4.2 ExistingInfrastructure.............................................................................................................52
Utilities....................................................................................................................................52
StormwaterManagement.......................................................................................................52

5.0CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................................................56

April3,2013

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea
REFERENCES

APPENDIXA.
APPENDIXB.
APPENDIXC.
APPENDIXD.
APPENDIXE.
APPENDIXF.

April3,2013

..........................................................................................................................................57
BIBLIOGRAPHYFORTHETENMILECREEKWATERSHEDENVIRONMENTALANALYSISFOR
THECLARKSBURGMASTERPLANLIMITEDAMENDMENT
DETAILEDSOILMAPUNITDESCRIPTION
HYDROLOGY:USGSDAILYMEANFLOWS&MONTGOMERYCOUNTYDEPSTENMILE
CREEKSYNOPTICFLOW
AQUATICHABITATANDBIOLOGY
RARE,THREATENED,ANDENDANGEREDSPECIESINFORMATIONREQUESTLETTERS
HISTORICANDARCHEOLOGICALPROPERTIESINFORMATIONREQUESTLETTERS

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

LISTOFFIGURES

FigureE.1.TenMileCreekWatershedandSubwatersheds......................................................................E4
Figure1.1.LittleSenecaLakeWatershed.....................................................................................................3
Figure2.1.LandUseintheTenMileCreekStudyArea................................................................................5
Figure2.2.LandCoverintheTenMileCreekStudyArea............................................................................7
Figure3.1.TenMileCreekStudyAreaTopography...................................................................................10
Figure3.2.TenMileCreekStudyAreaSoils...............................................................................................12
Figure3.3.TenMileCreekStudyAreaErodibleSoils.................................................................................13
Figure3.4.KeyHydrologicFeaturesintheTenMileCreekStudyArea.....................................................16
Figure3.5.RecentbeaveractivityalongTenMileCreeknearmonitoringstationLSTM206....................20
Figure3.6.ExampleofchanneldynamicsalongTenMileCreeknearmonitoringstationLSTM206.........21
Figure3.7.ChannelconditionsnearUSGSgage01644390downstreamofmonitoringstationLSTM304.
..................................................................................................................................................21
Figure3.8.ExampleofbardepositsalongTenMileCreeknearmonitoringstationLSTM202.................22
Figure3.9.Habitat,Biological,andGeomorphicStreamMonitoringSitesintheTenMileCreekStudy
Area...........................................................................................................................................24
Figure3.10.90%ConfidenceInterval,Maximum,andMinimumWaterTemperatureValuesforTenMile
CreekBiologicalStreamMonitoringStations.TheredlineindicatestheStateStandardfor
MaximumTemperatureinUseIPStreams(32degC)............................................................25
Figure3.11.90%ConfidenceInterval,Maximum,andMinimumforpHValuesforTenMileCreek
BiologicalStreamMonitoringStations.TheredlinesindicatetheStateStandardfor
Maximum(8.5)andMinimum(6.5)pHinUseIPStreams......................................................26
Figure3.12.90%ConfidenceInterval,Maximum,andMinimumDissolvedOxygenValuesforTenMile
CreekBiologicalStreamMonitoringStations.TheredlineindicatestheStateStandardfor
MinimumDissolvedOxygeninUseIPStreams(5mg/L)........................................................26
Figure3.13.90%ConfidenceInterval,Maximum,andMinimumforPercentSaturationofDissolved
OxygenValuesforTenMileCreekBiologicalStreamMonitoringStations..............................27
Figure3.14.90%ConfidenceInterval,Maximum,andMinimumforConductivityValuesforTenMile
CreekBiologicalStreamMonitoringStations...........................................................................28
Figure3.15.2012subwatershedbenthicIBIrating....................................................................................31
Figure3.16.AveragesubwatershedbenthicIBIrating(19942012)..........................................................32
Figure3.17.RangesofcompositeBenthicIBIscoresamongthepermanentsamplingstations(1994
2012).........................................................................................................................................33
Figure3.18.VariabilityamongBenthicIBIscoresatallsamplingstationsovertime................................33
Figure3.19.2012subwatershedhabitatconditionrating.........................................................................35
Figure3.20.Averagesubwatershedhabitatconditionrating(19942012)................................................36
Figure3.21.Rangesofcompositehabitatscoresamongthepermanentsamplingstations(19942012).37
Figure3.22.Variabilityamonghabitatscoresatallsamplingstationsovertime......................................37
Figure3.23.2012subwatershedfishIBIrating..........................................................................................39
Figure3.24.AveragesubwatershedfishIBIrating(19942012).................................................................40
Figure3.25.RangesofcompositeFishIBIscoresamongthepermanentsamplingstations(19942012).41
Figure3.26.VariabilityamongFishIBIscoresatallsamplingstationsovertime......................................41
Figure3.27.2012subwatershedbiologicalconditionrating......................................................................43
Figure3.28.Averagesubwatershedbiologicalconditionrating(19942012)............................................44
Figure3.29.RangesofcompositeBiologicalConditionscoresamongthepermanentsamplingstations
(19942012)..............................................................................................................................45

April3,2013

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea
Figure3.30.Variabilityamongbiologicalconditionscoresatallsamplingstationsovertime..................45
Figure3.31.OverviewofMDNRshubsandcorridorsandforestconnectivitydatawithintheproject
area...........................................................................................................................................47
Figure3.32.RegionaloverviewofMDNRshubsandcorridorsandforestconnectivitydata...................47
Figure4.1.HistoricandCulturalSites.........................................................................................................51
Figure4.2.ExistingStormwaterInfrastructureintheTenMileCreekStudyArea.....................................53

LISTOFTABLES

Table1.1.ProfileoftheCurrentTenMileCreekStudyArea........................................................................2
Table1.2.TenMileCreekStudyAreaSubwatersheds.................................................................................2
Table2.1.LandUseintheTenMileCreekStudyArea.................................................................................4
Table2.2.RecentDevelopmentActivityintheClarksburgSpecialProtectionArea....................................4
Table2.3.ImperviousnessandForestCoverintheTenMileCreekStudyArea..........................................6
Table3.1.SummaryofMonthlyNormals19812010...................................................................................9
Table3.2.SoilsintheStudyAreawithinTenMileCreekStudyArea.........................................................14
Table3.3.ErodibleSoilsbySubwatershed.................................................................................................15
Table3.4.WetlandCoverageinTenMileCreekStudyAreabySubwatershed.........................................18
Table3.5.StateWaterQualityStandardsforUseIPStreams...................................................................23
Table3.6.WildlifeDocumentedintheClarksburgPlanningAreaDuringtheClarksburgEnvironmental&
WaterResourcesStudy.............................................................................................................48
Table4.1.ExistingStormwaterManagementFeaturesintheTenMileCreekstudyarea........................54
Table5.1.SummaryofKeySubwatershedAttributes................................................................................56

LISTOFACRONYMS

Bestmanagementpractice(BMP)
IBI(indexofbioticintegrity)
MarylandBiologicalStreamSurvey(MBSS)
MarylandDepartmentofNaturalResources(MDNR)
MarylandHistoricalTrust(MHT)
MarylandNationalCapitalParkandPlanningCommission(MNCPPC)
MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection(DEP)
MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofPermittingServices(DPS)
Researchanddevelopment(R&D)
Sedimentanderosioncontrol(S&EC)
SpecialProtectionArea(SPA)
Stormwatermanagement(SWM)
Totalmaximumdailyload(TMDL)
Transferofdevelopmentrights(TDRs)
UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(U.S.EPA)
USDANaturalResourcesConservationService(NRCS)
Waterqualitylimitedsegment(WQLS)

NOTE:PlanimetricinformationshowninthisdocumentisbasedoncopyrightedGISDatafromM
NCPPC,andmaynotbecopiedorreproducedwithoutexpresswrittenpermissionfromMNCPPC.

April3,2013

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

TheTenMileCreekwatershedinnorthwesternMontgomeryCountyisthefocusofanenvironmental
analysisstudyinsupportoftheLimitedAmendmenttotheClarksburgMasterPlan,beingundertakenby
theMarylandNationalCapitalParkandPlanningCommission(MNCPPC)MontgomeryCountyPlanning
Department.ThisenvironmentalanalysisisbeingconductedforthePlanningDepartmentbyBiohabitats
andBrownandCaldwell,aJointVenture,withsupportfromtheCenterforWatershedProtection.Itis
beingdoneincollaborationwithMontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection(DEP)
andMontgomeryCountyDepartmentofPermittingServices(DPS).

Asthepurposeofthisstudyistodeterminethebaselineenvironmentalconditionsinordertoevaluate
potentialwatershedresponsetodevelopmentwithintheTenMileCreekwatershed,thisreportand
futureanalyseswillfocusonlyonsubwatershedsupstreamoftheexistingUSGSgagestationandthose
thathavethepotentialtobedirectlyaffectedbydevelopment(FigureE.1).Thesesubwatershedsare
referredtoastheTenMileCreekstudyarea.TheTenMileCreekstudyareadrainsapproximately4.8
squaremilesofprimarilyruralandforestedlandsinMontgomeryCounty,flowingfromitsheadwaters
justnorthofFrederickRoadtoLittleSenecaLake.

ExistingconditionsintheTenMileCreekwereevaluatedthroughreviewofGISdataandnumerous
reportsandstudiesofthewatershed.Keywatershedcharacteristicsaredescribedbelow:

TenMileCreekfeedsintoLittleSenecaLake,whichservesasareservoirprovidingadditionalflowto
thePotomacRiver,apublicrawwatersupply,duringdroughtperiods(MontgomeryCounty
DepartmentofParkandPlanning,1994).TheaquiferinthestudyareaisdesignatedasaSole
SourceAquiferpertheUnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgencys(U.S.EPA)SoleSource
AquiferProgram(Greenhorne&OMara,Inc.,1992).

Baseflowsarelowinthesummermonthsandthecreekissusceptibletolowflowsfromlackofrain.
However,eveninthedriestyearstributarieshavecontinuedtoflowandtoprovidecool,clean
waterasrefugeforthestreambioticcommunity.MontgomeryCountyDEPlocatedseepsand
springsthroughouttheTenMileCreekstudyarea,themajorityareinheadwatersoftributariesto
TenMileCreek.Botharenecessarytomaintainbaseflowsinheadwaterstreams(Montgomery
CountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection,2013).

WetlandsareconcentratedalongTenMileCreekmainstem.Thesearepredominantlypalustrine
forestedwetlandsandaregroundwaterdominated.

BeaverhavedevelopedaseriesofdamsintheupperreachesofTenMileCreekwhichprovidepools
thatactasrefugeforfish,amphibiansandreptilesduringthedriersummermonthsandhabitatfor
winteringwaterfowlandwildlifeinthewintermonths(MontgomeryCountyPlanningDepartment,
2009).Inaddition,birdsurveysin2009observedorheard12migratorynestingforestinteriorbird
speciesinStage4forestinteriorareasofTenMileCreek(MontgomeryCountyPlanning
Department,2009).

Developmentintheoverallwatershedislow,androughlyhalfofthestudyareaisforested.
Imperviousnessisapproximately4%,andtheremaininglandcoverinthestudyareais
predominantlyamixofnonforestedperviousarea,includingpasture,cropland,andturf.TenMile

April3,2013

PageE1

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea
CreeksubwatershedslabeledLSTM206andLSTM201havethehighestimperviouscoverandurban
landuses.

SubwatershedsLSTM202andLSTM201,aswellas,subwatershedsalongthemainstemhavethe
highestforestedlandcover.TheforestedcoveralongthemainstemandthroughLSTM202and
LSTM201isamajorcontiguoushublinkinghubsinBlackHillandLittleBennettRegionalParksby
corridors.MDNR(2003)defineshubsasareasthatconsistoflargecontiguoustractsofforestland
thatareintegraltotheecologicalhealthofthestateandcorridorsaslinearremnantsofthesevital
habitatsthatformlinkagesamongthehubs.Thelargestgapinforestcoveroccursinnortheast
LSTM201,northofI270whichbisectsthecorridortoLittleBennettRegionalPark.Forestedareas
withinthestudyareaarecharacterizedasuplandorbottomlandhardwoodforest.Upland
hardwoodforestisparticularlyprevalentinthewesternportionofstudyarea.Bottomland
hardwoodforestsarelocatedalongstream,floodplainsandwetlandareaswithinthewatershed.
Soilswithinthestudyareawereformedfromweatheredphyllite,ametamorphicrock,andare
generallyrockywithashallowtomoderatedepthtobedrockandsteepslopes.Basedonsoilsurvey
mapping,45percentslopesarethesteepestslopesfoundalongtheuplandstreamvalley.The
uplandsummitsrangefrom3to8percentslopes(SoilSurveyStaff,2013).Erodiblesoilswere
prevalentinsubwatershedsLSTM203,LSTM204,LSTM202,andLSTM112.Theshallowbedrock,
slopes,anderodiblesoilscouldposegeneralsitingrestrictionsforfoundations,septicsystems,
roads,basements,etc.,aswellasachallengeforerosionandsedimentcontrolduringconstruction
activities,andpostconstructionstormwatermanagement.Inaddition,disturbancetotheshallow
soils,asaresultofgradingassociatedwithdevelopment,couldalsocreatenegativeimpactstolocal
streamhabitatandbiology.
LongtermandspatiallycomprehensivegeomorphicmonitoringdataarenotavailableforTenMile
Creek.Thelimitedavailabledatasetsandfieldobservationssuggestthatthestreamsarevery
dynamic(i.e.streamsfrequentlymoveanddepositmaterialandadjusttheirshape).Evidenceof
widespreadandsignificantchanneldegradation(i.e.chronicloweringofthechannelbedwithtime),
whichisoftenobservedinhighlydisturbedwatersheds,isnotevidentintheTenMileCreek
watershed.FloodflowsalongmanyreachesofTenMileCreekstillaccessthefloodplain,sustaining
importantgeomorphicandecologicalprocesses.Streamsintheregionhavebeensubjectedtoan
extendedhistoryofchangesinsedimentsupplyandhydrologyduetolandusechanges.Likemany
streamsintheregion,TenMileCreekhasadjustedinresponsetothesehistoricchanges,and
continuestoadjusttoexistinginputsofwaterandsediment.
LongtermmonitoringofthestreamhabitatwithintheTenMileCreekwatershedbyDEP,including
measurementofthephysicalhabitatandsamplingofbiologicalcommunities(fish,benthic
macroinvertebrates,andherptofauna),indicatesthattheoverallbiologicalconditionisinthegood
range(6387)withanaveragescoreforallstationsof77.Twosubwatersheds(LSTM110and
LSTM110)scoredintheexcellentrange(>87)andtwosubwatersheds(LSTM112andLSTM206)
scoredfair(4163).
Instreamphysicalhabitatconditions(suchasstreambedandbankconditions)showsignsof
declinesince2007.Whilethechangeissubtleovertime,theseconditionsareindicativeofa
watershedthatissensitiveandisrespondingtovariousstressors.Evidenceofdeclininghabitat
conditionsincludeincreasedembeddedness(thedegreetowhichcoarsebedmaterialischokedby
finesediments),sedimentation,anddecreasedstreambankvegetation.Howeveraproportional

April3,2013

PageE2

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea
responseintheoverallbiologicalconditionhasnotbeenobserved.Longtermmonitoringdata
collectedbyDEPdoesgenerallyindicatethattheproportionofsensitivetaxa,bothfishandbenthic
macroinvertebrate,presentwithinthewatershedaredecliningwhilethetolerantindividualsare
increasinginbothnumberandrichness.

April3,2013

PageE3

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

FigureE.1.TenMileCreekWatershedandSubwatersheds

April3,2013

PageE4

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 IntroductiontotheExistingConditionsReport
InresponsetoarequestbytheMontgomeryCountyCouncil,theMontgomeryCountyPlanning
DepartmenthasaskedthePlanningBoardtoprepareaLimitedAmendmenttotheClarksburgMaster
PlantodeterminehowtoachievethePlanscommunitybuildinggoalsfortheTownCenterDistrict,
whileprotectingTenMileCreek.Theamendmentwillincludeacomprehensiveanalysisof
environmentallysensitiveareasintheTenMileCreekwatershedtodeterminewaystobalance
developmentpotentialandthecommunityobjectivesspecifiedinthe1994planwiththeneedto
protectwaterquality.ThisenvironmentalanalysisisbeingconductedforthePlanningDepartmentby
BiohabitatsandBrownandCaldwell,aJointVenture,withsupportfromtheCenterforWatershed
Protection.

ThisreportonexistingconditionswithintheTenMileCreekwatershedisthefirstproductdevelopedfor
thisanalysis.Asthepurposeofthisstudyistodeterminethebaselineenvironmentalconditionsinorder
toevaluatepotentialwatershedresponsetodevelopmentwithintheTenMileCreekwatershed,this
reportandfutureanalyseswillfocusonlyonsubwatershedsupstreamoftheexistingUSGSgagestation
andthosethathavethepotentialtobedirectlyaffectedbydevelopment.Thesesubwatersheds,
displayedinFigureE.1,willbereferredtoastheTenMileCreekstudyarea.Sections2,3and4
providemoredetailedinformationonthestudyareaslanduseandlandcover,naturalfeatures,and
communityfeatures.

Anumberofdocumentswerereviewedwhiledevelopingthisbaselineassessment;acompletelistingof
allTenMileCreekrelateddocumentsobtainedandreviewedisprovidedinAppendixA,alongwithalist
ofallGISdatasourcesusedtocreatemaps.

1.2 IntroductiontotheTenMileCreekWatershed
TheTenMileCreekwatershed(12digitwatershedcode021402080861)islocatedintheClarksburg
areaofnorthwesternMontgomeryCounty(FigureE.1).ThedrainageareaofthestudyareawithinTen
MileCreekthefocusofthisreportandfutureanalysesisapproximately3,046acres(4.8square
miles)anddrainsintoLittleSenecaLakereservoir(Figure1.1),whichflowsintothePotomacRiver.

TenMileCreekoriginatesjustnorthofMD335(FrederickRoad)andflowsintoLittleSenecaLake.Little
SenecaLakeservesasareservoirprovidingadditionalflowtothePotomacRiver,apublicrawwater
supply,duringdroughtperiods(MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofParkandPlanning,1994).Little
SenecaLake,constructedfrom1982to1985,hasasurfaceareaof505acres,ashorelineof15.7miles,
andanaveragedepthof24.7feet.Thedamwasconstructedofearthandrockandrises91feetabove
thestream(Greenhorne&OMara,1992).TenMileCreekanditstributariesaredesignatedasaUseIP
streamprotectionofwatercontactrecreation,aquaticlifeanddrinkingwatersupply(Montgomery
CountyDepartmentofParkandPlanning,1994).

AportionofTenMileCreekstudyarea,alllandeastofTenMileCreekmainstemandnorthofWestOld
BaltimoreRoad,islocatedwithintheClarksburgMasterPlanSpecialProtectionArea(SPA).TheSPAwas
developedasaresultoftheClarksburgAreaMasterPlan,adoptedin1994,andalsoincludesportionsof
LittleSenecaCreek,CabinBranch,andWildcatBranchsubwatersheds(MontgomeryCountyDepartment
ofEnvironmentalProtection,2012).Inaddition,aportionofthewatershedwestofTenMileCreekis
withinthecountywideAgriculturalReserve.Thisisaresultofthewesternportionofthewatershed

April3,2013

Page1

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea
beingdominatedbylargerparcelsandagriculturelanduses(MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofPark
andPlanning,1994).AbasicprofileofthestudyareaisprovidedinTable1.1.ThestudyareawithinTen
MileCreekincludes11subwatersheds(Table1.2andFigureE.1).

Table1.1.ProfileoftheCurrentTenMileCreekStudyArea
AreainMontgomeryCounty

3,046acres(4.8squaremiles)

StreamLength

Approximately22miles(includingTenMileCreekanditstributaries)

LandUse

46%Forest
38%Rural
7%LowDensityResidential

4%ImperviousCover
46%ForestCover
Remaininglandcoverpredominantlyamixofnonforestedpervious
area,includingpasture,cropland,andturf

WaterQuality

UseIPStream

MajorTransportationRoutes

DwightD.EisenhowerMemorialHighway(I270)
FrederickRoad(MD355)

LandCover

SignificantNaturalandHistorical

Features

Rusticroads
OldBaltimoreRoadstreamford
Cemeteries
1994ClarksburgMasterPlanIndividualSites(ClarksburgSchool,
MoneysworthFarm,andCephasSummersHouse)
1994ClarksburgMasterPlanHistoricalDistrict(ClarksburgHistorical
District)

Table1.2.TenMileCreekStudyAreaSubwatersheds
Subwatershed

WithinSpecial
ProtectionArea(SPA)

Area(acres)

Area(square
miles)

Percentof
StudyArea

LSTM110

Yes

211

0.3

LSTM111

Yes

104

0.2

LSTM112

Partial

228

0.4

LSTM201

Partial

611

1.0

20%

LSTM202

Yes

243

0.4

LSTM203

493

0.8

16%

LSTM204

544

0.8

18%

LSTM206

Yes

370

0.6

12%

LSTM302

Partial

0.1

LSTM303B

Partial

117

0.2

LSTM304

Partial

0.1

3,046

4.8

100%

TOTAL

Source:(MontgomeryCountyPlanningDepartment&MontgomeryCountyDepartmentof
EnvironmentalProtection,2013)

April3,2013

Page2

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

Figure1.1.LittleSenecaLakeWatershed

April3,2013

Page3

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

2.0 LANDUSEANDLANDCOVER

2.1 ExistingLandUse
TheprincipallanduseswithintheTenMileCreekstudyareaincludeforest,rural,andlowdensity
residential,asshowninFigure2.1andTable2.1.TheeastsideofthestudyareaiswithintheClarksburg
SPA.TheremainderiszonedRuralDensityTransfer(RDT)andisnotpartoftheSPAbecausetherural
zoningprecludessignificantdevelopmentofthearea.

Table2.1.LandUseintheTenMileCreekStudyArea
LandUse

Area(acres)

PercentofTotal

Forest

1,420

46%

Rural

1,145

38%

LowdensityResidential

203

Transportation

Institutional

BareGround

Water&Wetlands

MediumdensityResidential

Industrial

Commercial

<1%

HighdensityResidential

<1%

3,046

100%

TOTAL

Datasource:MarylandDepartmentofPlanning,2007 (MontgomeryCountyPlanning
Department&MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection,2013)

Table2.2listscompletedoractivedevelopmentprojectsaccordingtotheCountysSPAReports.As
showninthetable,constructioniscurrentlyunderwayorhasbeencompletedonseveralprojectsinthe
studyarea.

Table2.2.RecentDevelopmentActivityintheClarksburgSpecialProtectionArea
Development

Subwatershed

LandUse

Status
UnderConstructionin1998
ConstructionCompletedin2002
StormwaterConversioninApril2003

ClarksburgDetentionFacility LSTM206,LSTM202,
LSTM201&LSTM106

34acres,
Jail

StringtownRoadExtension

LSTM206

17acres, UnderConstruction2004
Roadway ConstructionCompletedinNovember2006

GatewayCommons

LSTM206

March2008,<30%underconstruction
November2008,30to60%constructed
2010,>60%completed,and30to60%
permanentlystabilized

Gateway270Corporations

LSTM206

ConstructionCompletedin2010

Datasource:DEPSPAReports,19942010

April3,2013

Page4

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

Figure2.1.LandUseintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

April3,2013

Page5

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

2.2 LandCover

FortysixpercentoftheTenMileCreekstudyarea(Figure2.2)isinforestcover,whileonly4%isin
imperviouscover.ForestcoverandimperviousnessbysubwatershedisdisplayedinTable2.3.
Remaininglandcoverinthestudyareaispredominantlyamixofnonforestedperviousarea,including
pasture,cropland,andturf.

SmallersubwatershedsalongthemainstemofTenMileCreekhavethehighestpercentageofforest
cover,includingLSTM304,LSTM303B,andLSTM302.Thelargestcontributorstoforestcoverinthe
studyareaincludessubwatershedsLSTM201,LSTM203,LSTM204,LSTM202andLSTM206.More
discussiononthestudyareasforestcover,includingforestinteriorandhabitatvalue,isprovidedin
Section3.9ofthisreport.

SubwatershedLSTM206hasthehighestpercentageofimperviousnessat16%.Itisalsothelargest
contributorofimperviouscovertothestudyareaatnearly49%ofthetotalimperviouscoveracreage,
followedbysubwatershedLSTM201at19%.BothsubwatershedsincludeI270anddevelopedareas
eastofthehighway.

Table2.3.ImperviousnessandForestCoverintheTenMileCreekStudyArea
Subwatershed

Subwatershed
ContributiontoStudy SubwatershedForest ContributiontoStudy
Imperviousness(%) AreaImperviousness(%)
Cover(%)
AreaForestCover(%)

LSTM206

16.2%

48.9%

42%

11%

LSTM201

3.8%

19.0%

44%

19%

LSTM204

2.5%

11.0%

33%

13%

LSTM203

1.9%

7.6%

41%

14%

LSTM112

2.5%

4.7%

49%

LSTM202

2.2%

4.5%

67%

12%

LSTM110

1.6%

2.7%

45%

LSTM111

1.2%

1.0%

19%

LSTM304

0.9%

0.4%

89%

LSTM303B

0.1%

77%

LSTM302

0.1%

83%

Datasource:DEPImperviousCover,2012;MCPForestCover,2008(MontgomeryCountyPlanningDepartment&
MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection,2013)

April3,2013

Page6

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

Figure2.2.LandCoverintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

April3,2013

Page7

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

2.3 ClarksburgMasterPlan
TheTenMileCreekwatershedincludespartoftheTownCenterDistrictandalloftheTenMileCreek
Areainthe1994ClarksburgMasterPlan.TheplanenvisionedtheTownCenterDistrictasastrong
centralfocusfortheentiremasterplanarea,whilealsoemphasizingtheprotectionofTenMileCreekas
asensitiveandfragilenaturalresource.Theplanenvisionslandusesanddensitiesthatwouldresultin
relativelyhighlevelsofimperviousness.MostoftheTenMileCreekareawasplacedinthelast
implementationstagetoallowevaluationofprotectionmeasuresandconsiderationofadditionalwater
qualitymeasuresandlanduseactions.

WestofI270,themasterplanprovisionsfortheTenMileCreekArearecommendedabalanceof
environmentalconcerns,housingneedsandemploymentusesinthehightechnologyemployment
corridor.Theprovisionsincluded:

employmentsiteswithdevelopmentcriteriatohelpaddressenvironmentalconcerns,
lowdensityresidentialuseforlandwestofMD121,
lowdensityresidential(24unitsperacre)betweenthemainstemofthecreekandShiloh
ChurchRoadwithasubstantialareaofprivateconservationareaandparkland,and
theremainingareainthewatershedinruralresidential(1unitper5acres)andagricultural
reserve.

Theresearchanddevelopment(R&D)landintheTenMileCreekAreaislimitedto15%imperviousness
andwithusestightlyclusteredclosetoI270.TheresidentialareawestofMD121isapproximately600
acresandislimitedtoamaximumof900units,withanyunitsbeyondthebasedensityrequiringthe
purchaseoftransferofdevelopmentrights(TDRs).Theplanspecifiesthatatleast70%mustbesingle
familydwellings,withtheopenspaceandconservationareasbeingundevelopedandforested.

April3,2013

Page8

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

3.0 NATURALFEATURES

3.1 Climate
Table3.1showsthenormalmonthlytemperature,precipitationandsnowfallrecordsfromthenearest
NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration(NOAA)NationalClimaticDataCenter(NCDC)
weatherstation.ThisstationislocatedinsouthwestDamascus,Maryland,butthedatais
representativeofthegeneralclimateconditionsintheTenMileCreekwatershed.Overall,theaverage
meandailytemperatureis54.5degreesFahrenheit(NCDC,2010).Theaveragemonthlyprecipitation
reachesamaximumof5.15inchesinMayandaminimumof3.01inchesinFebruary.Themean
precipitationtotalis43.9inchesandthemeansnowtotalis26.0inches(NationalClimateDataCenter,
2010).MontgomeryCountysgrowingseason,theperiodbetweenthelastkillingfrostinthespringand
thefirstinthefall,extendsfromapproximatelythebeginningofApriltotheendofOctober.The
growingseasonisapproximatedbymediandates(e.g.,50percentprobability)of28Fairtemperatures
basedonWETStablesavailablefromNRCSNationalWaterandClimateCenter(NationalWeatherand
ClimateCenter,2002).

Table3.1.SummaryofMonthlyNormals19812010
Daily
DailyMinimum
MeanPrecipitation MeanSnow
Month
Mean(F)
Maximum(F)
(F)
Totals(in.)
Totals(in.)
3.09
10.0
January
39.8
25.0
32.4
3.01
6.8
February
44.3
26.9
35.6
4.04
3.0
March
53.0
34.0
43.5
3.47
1.0
April
64.4
43.6
54.0
5.15
0.0
May
72.9
51.8
62.3
June
81.4
60.7
71.1
3.57
0.0
3.46
0.0
July
85.6
65.1
75.3
3.08
0.0
August
83.8
64.2
74.0
4.22
0.0
September
77.2
56.7
67.0
3.82
0.0
October
65.2
46.3
55.8
3.61
1.2
November
54.8
38.0
46.4
3.38
4.0
December
43.5
29.0
36.3
43.9
26.0
Total
Datasource:WeatherstationDamascus3SW,MDUS(NationalClimateDataCenter,2010).

3.2 Topography
TheTenMileCreekwatershediswithintheMt.AiryUplandDistrictofthePiedmontUplandSectionof
thePiedmontPlateauProvince(Reger&Cleaves,2008).ThissectionofthePiedmontphysiographic
provinceischaracterizedbygentlyrollinguplandoflowrelieftoveryrollingandhillytopography,with
somemajorstreamsincisedintonarrow,steepsidedvalleys.Streamnetworkpatternshavebeen
affectedbyjointsinthebedrockandinteractionsofthinsiltstonesandquartzitesthatareobliquetothe
bedrockstrike(Reger&Cleaves,2008).

WithintheTenMileCreekstudyarea,groundelevationsrangefrom390to680feetabovesealevel
(Figure3.1).Basedonsoilsurveymapping,45percentslopesarethesteepestslopesfoundalongthe
uplandstreamvalley.Theuplandsummitsrangedfrom3to8percent(SoilSurveyStaff,2013).

April3,2013

Page9

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

Figure3.1.TenMileCreekStudyAreaTopography

April3,2013

Page10

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

3.3 Geology
AvailableGISmappingshowsonepredominantbedrocklithology,phyllite,intheTenMileCreekstudy
area.Phylliteisametamorphosedrock(alteredatdepthbypressureandheat),intermediateingrade
betweenaslateandmicaschist.AdditionalmappingavailableonlinethroughtheMarylandGeological
Survey(1968)identifiestheunitastheIjamvilleFormation.TheIjamvilleFormationincludesasuiteof
rocksthatwereoriginallysedimentary(alayeredrockresultingfromconsolidationofsediment)and
underwentalterationovertime.SpecificrocktypesidentifiedbytheMarylandGeologicalSurvey(1968)
includeblue,green,orpurplephylliteandphylliticslate,withinterbeddedmetasiltstoneand
metagraywackeandlocalpumiceousblebs.Lensesofquartzrichrockshavealsobeenobservedin
bedrockoutcropsalongstreamsintheTenMileCreekstudyarea.ThebedrockgeologyofTenMile
CreekistypicalofothernearbywatershedsinMontgomeryCounty,whichareunderlainbyWestern
Piedmontmetasedimentaryrocks(sedimentaryrocksalteredbypressureandheat,MarylandGeological
Survey[1968]).ThephylliticbedrockisassociatedwithshallowsoilformationintheTenMileCreek
watershed.

3.4 Soils
AccordingtoUSDANaturalResourcesConservationService(NRCS)SoilSurveymapping,thestudyarea
withinTenMileCreekismappedwithfifteensoilmapunitsexcludingwater(Figure3.2andTable3.2)
(SoilSurveyStaff,2013).Thesoilsmapunitsmappedalongnearlylevelridgecrestsandsideslopesof
ridgesformedinresiduum(soilformedinplace)weatheredfromphylliteandschist.Thesoilseries
composingthesemapunitsareeithershallowtomoderatelydeepwitharestrictivelayeroflithic(hard
bedrockthatisnotabletobedugwithhandtools)orparalithic(bedrockthatcanbedugwithdifficulty
withhandtools)bedrock.Shallowsoilshavearestrictivelayerrangingfrom10to20inchesfromthe
soilsurface,whilemoderatelydeepsoilshavearestrictivelayerrangingfrom20to40inches.The
shallowandmoderatelydeepsoilsareevidencethatgeologyphylliteismoreresistanttoweathering
andslowertoformdeepsoils.Inaddition,thesesoilseriesaretypicallywelldrained,havesteepslopes
rangingfrom15to45percentslopes,andhaverockfragmentsonthesurfaceandthroughoutthesoil
profile.ThesoilmapunitsmappedalongTenMileCreekmainstemanditstributarieswereformedin
alluvium(soildepositedbyflowingwater)orcolluvium(soilaccumulatedbytheactionofgravity).The
soilseriescomposingthesemapunitsareeitherpoorlydrainedormoderatelywelldrainedandafew
mayexperienceflooding(SoilSurveyStaff,2013).Amoredetaileddescriptionofthesoilmapunitsand
theirsoilseriesisprovidedinAppendixB.

ThesoilsareabletosupportseveralvegetativehabitatsthroughouttheTenMileCreekstudyarea
includinguplandhardwoodforests,bottomlandhardwoodforests,andpalustrineforestwetlands,in
additiontoagriculturalpractices(i.e.pastureandcrops)(Greenhorne&OMara,1992;Montgomery
CountyDepartmentofParksandPlanning,1994).Theshallowdepthtobedrockandsteepslopesofthe
soilsdominatingthestudyareawillbethemostlimitingfactorstodevelopment(e.g.,roads,excavation,
etc.)anditsassociatederosionandsedimentcontrol.

April3,2013

Page11

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

Figure3.2.TenMileCreekStudyAreaSoils

April3,2013

Page12

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

Figure3.3.TenMileCreekStudyAreaErodibleSoils

April3,2013

Page13

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea
UsingthePlanningBoardsEnvironmentalGuidelineslistoferodiblesoils,thefollowingsoilmapunits
wereidentifiedaserodible:Blocktownchannerysiltloam,25to45percentslopes,veryrocky(116E);
BrinklowBlocktownchannerysiltloams,15to25percentslopes(16D);andHyattstownchannerysilt
loam,25to45percentslopes,veryrocky(109E)(Figure3.3)(MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofPark
andPlanning,2000;MontgomeryCountyPlanningDepartment,2013).Theshallowdepthtobedrock,
presenceofrockfragmentsonthesurfaceandwithinthesoilprofile,andsteepslopesoftheseselected
mapunitscancontributetothesoilssusceptibilitytoerosion.Thesesamethreecharacteristicsare
observedinothersoilmapunitswithinthestudyareasuchasBlocktownchanneryloam,15to25
percentslopes(116D)andHyattstownchannerysiltloam,15to25percentslopes(109D)..

SubwatershedswiththehighestpercentageoferodiblesoilswithinthestudyareaareLSTM112,
LSTM203,LSTM303B,andLSTM302(Table3.3)indecreasingorder.Thesesubwatershedstendtohave
thehighestconcentrationoferodiblesoilsbecauseeachsubwatershedslandscapeishighlydissectedby
theTenMileCreekmainstemoritstributaries,contributingtothepresenceofsteeperslopesa
contributingfactortoerodibility.Itistypicalofahighlydissectedlandscapetohavesteeperslopes.

Hydrologicsoilgroups(HSGs)helpdefinetheamountofrunoffandinfiltrationcapacityofadrainage
areaandarecategorizedintofourgroupsA,B,C,andD.Mostofthegroupingsarebasedonthe
premisethatsoilsfoundwithinaclimaticregionthataresimilarindepthtoarestrictivelayerorwater
table,transmissionrateofwater,texture,structure,anddegreeofswellingwhensaturated,willhave
similarrunoffresponses(NaturalResourcesConservationService,2009).ThefourHSGsarebriefly
definedasfollows(NaturalResourcesConservationService,2009):

GroupA:Soilwithlowrunoffpotentialandhighinfiltrationcapacity.
GroupB:Soilwithmoderatelylowrunoffpotentialandmoderatelyhighinfiltrationcapacity.
GroupC:Soilwithmoderatelyrunoffpotentialandmoderateinfiltrationcapacity.
GroupD:Soilwithhighrunoffpotentialandlowinfiltrationcapacity.

TheHSGsdictatethetypeofstormwatermanagementstrategyapplicablefordevelopmentina
particularareabasedonparameterssuchasinfiltration.Forexample,infiltrationpracticesarebest
suitedforHSGAorBsoils,whereaspracticeswithunderdrainsordetentionpracticesaremore
appropriateforHSGCorDsoils(MarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironmentandCenterforWatershed
Protection,2009).ThreeB,C,andDarewithinthestudyarea(Table3.2).Sinceinfiltrationcanvary
fromlocationtolocation,infiltrationshouldbefieldtestedpriortothestartofanydesign.

Table3.2.SoilsintheStudyAreawithinTenMileCreekStudyArea
SoilMapUnitName(Symbol)

Acresof Percentof Hydrologic

StudyArea StudyArea SoilGroup

Glenvillesiltloam,0to3percentslopes(5A)

38.2

1.3%

Glenvillesiltloam,3to8percentslopes(5B)

52.1

1.7%

Bailesiltloam,0to3percentslopes(6A)

93.3

3.1%

LinganoreHyattstownchannerysiltloams,3to8percentslopes(9B)

424.2

13.9%

LinganoreHyattstownchannerysiltloams,8to15percentslopes(9C)

493.7

16.2%

BrinklowBlocktownchannerysiltloams,3to8percentslopes(16B)

473.8

15.6%

BrinklowBlocktownchannerysiltloams,8to15percentslopes(16C)

544.3

17.9%

BrinklowBlocktownchannerysiltloams,15to25percentslopes(16D)*

140.7

4.6%

April3,2013

Page14

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea
Table3.2.SoilsintheStudyAreawithinTenMileCreekStudyArea
Acresof Percentof Hydrologic
StudyArea StudyArea SoilGroup

SoilMapUnitName(Symbol)
Occoquanloam,3to8percentslopes(17B)

129.5

4.3%

Occoquanloam,8to15percentslopes(17C)

45.5

1.5%

Hatborosiltloam,0to3percentslopes,frequentlyflooded(54A)

169.5

5.6%

Hyattstownchannerysiltloam,15to25percentslopes,veryrocky
(109D)**

264.5

8.7%

Hyattstownchannerysiltloam,25to45percentslopes,veryrocky
(109E)*

55.4

1.8%

Blocktownchannerysiltloam,15to25percentslopes,veryrocky
(116D)**

84.7

2.8%

Blocktownchannerysiltloam,25to45percentslopes,veryrocky(116E)*

34.4

1.1%

Water(W)

2.3

0.1%

*IdentifiedasMNCPPCshighlyerodiblesoils.
**Identifiedasadditionalerodiblesoilsofconcern.
Datasource:(MontgomeryCountyPlanningDepartment&MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmental
Protection,2013)

Table3.3.ErodibleSoilsbySubwatershed
Subwatershed

ErodibleSoils1
Acreage

%ofSubwatershed

LSTM110

2.2

1.1%

LSTM111

LSTM112

61.5

27.0%

LSTM201

14.7

2.4%

LSTM202

22.5

9.3%

LSTM203

65.1

13.2%

LSTM204

36.2

6.7%

LSTM206

LSTM302

9.7

12.6%

LSTM303B

15.0

12.8%

LSTM304

3.6

7.4%

Source:
1
MontgomeryCountyPlanningDepartment,2013)

3.5 Hydrology
Streams
TheTenMileCreekstudyareaiscomprisedofnearly22milesofstreams(Figure3.4).Thereareseveral
sourcesofinformationdescriptiveofthestreamhydrologyintheTenMileCreekstudyarea.Available
informationandresourcesarebrieflysummarizedbelow,andincludearelativelynewstreamgageand
resultsfromasynopticflowsurveyconductedbyDEP.However,asistypicalforawatershedofthis
size,thereisnolongterm,morecomprehensivegagenetworkorhydrologicdatasetavailable.

April3,2013

Page15

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

Figure3.4.KeyHydrologicFeaturesintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

April3,2013

Page16

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea
Thereisonegage(USGSgage01644390)locatedontheleftbankofTenMileCreekdownstreamfrom
WestOldBaltimoreRoadandapproximately0.3mileupstreamfromLittleSenecaLake,just
downstreamofDEPmonitoringstationLSTM304andthestudyarea.Theperiodofrecordisshortand
extendsbackonlytoOctober2010.Duringtheperiodofrecord,whichincludestwowateryearsof
data(theperiodbetweenOctober1stofoneyearandSeptember30thofthenext),peakflowsreached
2,180cfs(February2012,localstorm)and5,520cfs(September2011,TropicalStormLee)(United
StatesGeologicSurvey,2013).Dailymeanflowstendtofallbetween0.5and2cfsinthemonthsofJune
throughAugustand2to10cfsinthemonthsofNovemberthroughApril(AppendixC).Better
informationaboutthemagnitudeandfrequencyofflowswillbeobtainedastheperiodofrecord
extends.

MontgomeryCountyDEPhasconductedsynopticflowmeasurementsacrossthewatershedduring
baseflowconditions.Foreachsampleevent,flowmeasurementsaretakenat15locationsfrom
headwaterstojustabovethereservoironthesamecalendarday.Thepurposeistobroadlyshowthe
magnitudeandrelativecontributionsofsubwatershedstooverallwatershedbaseflowhydrologyat
(approximately)thesametime.Theflowstudywasconductedthreetimesinthesummer(Juneand
July)of2009,andonceinDecember2012.Resultsaresimilarbetweensampleeventsandyears,with
measuredflowsalongheadwatersstreamslessthan1cfs,andmainstemflowsreaching1cfsat
approximatelyhalfofthefullwatershedareaandexceeding1to3cfsatthedownstreammostsample
points(AppendixC).

AsdescribedinSection1.2,theTenMileCreekwatersheddrainsintoLittleSenecaLake.LittleSeneca
Lakewascreatedbytheconstructionofadam,whichwascompletedin1984,onLittleSenecaCreek.
LittleSenecaLakeservesasareservoirprovidingadditionalflowtothePotomacRiver,apublicraw
watersupply,duringdroughtperiods,andalsosupportsrecreationalactivities(MontgomeryCounty
DepartmentofParkandPlanning,1994).Basedonavailableinformationreviewed,thereservoirdoes
notaffectthehydrologyofTenMileCreekwithinthestudyarea(i.e.viaflowattenuationorbackwater).

Wetlands
AccordingtoGISdataprovidedbyPlanningandDEP,thestudyareainTenMileCreekwatershedhas
approximately86acresofwetlands(Figure3.4;Table3.4).Thiswetlandacreageincludeswetlands
identifiedbyCountyagencies,aswellaswetlandsidentifiedduringthe1997WetlandsStudyperformed
byC.Athanas,Ph.D.&Associates,Inc.andDewberry&Davis(1997).ThewetlandswithintheTenMile
Creekstudyareaarepredominantlypalustrineforestedwetlandsandaregroundwaterdominated
(MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofParkandPlanning,1994;Athanas&Dewberry&Davis,1997).A
palustrineforestwetlandisdefinedasanontidalwetlanddominatedbywoodyvegetationsixmetersor
taller(Cowardin,Carter,Golet,&LaRoe,1979).

ThesubwatershedswithinthestudyareawiththehighestpercentageofwetlandsareLSTM302,
LSTM303B,andLSTM304(Table3.4).AllthreesubwatershedsarelocatedalongtheTenMileCreek
mainstemandcontainaportionofthelargestcontiguouswetlandareadenotedbyPlanningandDEP
GISdata(Figure3.4)(MontgomeryCountyPlanningDepartment&MontgomeryCountyDepartmentof
EnvironmentalProtection,2013).

April3,2013

Page17

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea
Table3.4.WetlandCoverageinTenMileCreekStudyAreabySubwatershed
Subwatershed

WetlandArea(acres)

PercentofSubwatershed(%)

LSTM110

1.7

LSTM111

0.5

LSTM112

0.2

<1%

LSTM201

7.7

LSTM202

5.3

LSTM203

9.2

LSTM204

2.6

<1%

LSTM206

12.9

LSTM302

25.9

33%

LSTM303B

16.3

14%

LSTM304

4.0

TOTAL

86.3

Datasource:(MontgomeryCountyPlanningDepartment&MontgomeryCountyDepartmentof
EnvironmentalProtection,2013)

SpringsandSeeps
MontgomeryCountyDEPlocated51seepsand78springsthroughouttheTenMileCreekstudyarea
(Figure3.4),mostlyconcentratedattheheadsoftributariesandattheconfluenceoftwostreams.A
seepisdefinedasawaterfeatureexclusivelyfedbygroundwateranddoesnottypicallyflow,whereasa
springisawaterfeaturefedbygroundwaterthatflowsintermittentlyorconstantly(Montgomery
CountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection,2012).Seepsandspringsintheheadwatersof
tributariestoTenMileCreekarenecessarytomaintainbaseflowsinheadwaterstreams(Montgomery
CountyPlanningDepartment&MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection,2013).
ThesetributariesbeginatspringssuchastheKingSpring,HancockSpring,andanunnamedspring
alongFrederickRoadneartheintersectionwithClarksburgRoad.Thesespringshaveprovidedcool
cleanwaterforalongtimeasevidencedbytheuseofnativerockbyearlysettlerstoprotectthespring
head.Troutandothersensitiveaquaticspeciesrelyonthissourceofcool,cleanwater(Montgomery
CountyPlanningDepartment,2009).Ingeneral,theredoesnotappeartobeacorrelationbetweenthe
soilmappingunitandthepresenceofspringsandseeps.

Groundwater
AccordingtotheClarksburgEnvironmental&WaterResourcesStudy(Greenhorne&OMara,Inc.,
1992),thegroundwaterresourcesinLittleSenecaLakewatershed,whichcontainsTenMileCreek
watershed,aregenerallylimitedwithrespecttoavailableyields.Themajorityoftheexistingwells
produceonlyenoughwaterforasinglehouseholdandnomunicipalwellsexistwithinthestudyarea.
TheaquiferinthestudyareaisdesignatedasaSoleSourceAquiferpertheU.S.EPAsSoleSource
AquiferProgram(Greenhorne&OMara,Inc.,1992).

3.6 StreamGeomorphology
Geomorphologyisthestudyoflandforms,includinghillslopesandrivers,andtheprocessesthatshape
them.Geomorphicinformationcanbeusedtoevaluatewhycurrentlandscapeslookthewaytheydo,
andtopredictfuturechanges.Thegeomorphicstudyofriversdrawsfromfieldobservations,historical
information,andmeasurementsofchannelpatternandshape.Geomorphicstudyhelpsidentifythe

April3,2013

Page18

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea
dominantprocessesactiveinalandscape.Alongstreams,thisincludeserosionanddepositionof
sedimentalongthebedandbanks.

Thegeneralgeomorphichistoryandfluvialprocessesactivetodayinthestudyareaaretypicalofthe
MarylandPiedmontphysiographicregion.Streamsintheregionreflectacomplexlegacyofhistorical
landusepractices,withthreeperiodsofdifferinghydrologyandsedimentsupply,assummarizedby
Jacobson&Coleman(1986).Priortocolonization,floodplainswerecharacterizedbythin,fineoverbank
deposits.Followingcolonizationintheperiodfrom1730to1930,themorphology,orform,ofstreams
andfloodplainschangedinresponsetogreatlyincreasedsedimentsupplyandmoderatelyincreased
dischargesorstreamflow.Thisresultedinthick,fineoverbanksedimentdepositsonthefloodplainand
thinlateralaccretionsands.After1930,farmabandonmentandtheintroductionofsoilconservation
practicesslightlydecreasedwateryieldandsubstantiallydecreasedsedimentyield.Streamsadjusted
byreworkingfloodplainsediments,includingremovaloffinersedimentandredepositionofcoarsest
sedimentasanew,lowerinsetfloodplainsurfacealongadeeper,widerchannel.

Thesetypesofobservationsdemonstratetheroleofwatershedprocessesintheevolutionofstream
channels,aswellastherelevanceofgeomorphichistoryintheexplanationofappearanceandbehavior
ofstreams.WhilethissequenceofchanneladjustmentisbroadlyapplicabletothePiedmontstreamsof
MontgomeryCounty,TenMileCreekislikelytohavebeensubjecttoasimilarcycleofinputsand
adjustmentsinthehistoricalpast.Inaddition,streamsintheTenMileCreekstudyareahavebeen
impactedbylocalizeddisturbances,bothnaturalandmanmade.Naturalinfluencesincludevegetation
(e.g.,debrisdams)andwildlife(e.g.,beaverdamconstruction).Manmadeoranthropogenicinfluences
includestreamstraighteningandchannelization,channelcrossings(e.g.,fords,culvertsatroad
crossings)anddamconstruction(e.g.,millponds).Adetailedinventoryofthesehistoricalimpactsisnot
availablefortheTenMileCreekwatershed.However,thereareknownexamplesoftheseinfluences.
ExamplesincludecurrentevidenceofbeaveractivityinupperreachesofTenMileCreek(Montgomery
CountyPlanningDepartment,2009;Figure3.5),landowneraccountsofsmalldamsalongthechannel,
andalongtermchannelfordalongWestOldBaltimoreRoad.

Thereislittlegeomorphicdataavailabledocumentingchannelformchangeovertimeinthewatershed.
MontgomeryCountymaintainsanumberofbiologicalmonitoringstationswithintheTenMileCreek
watershed.Atamajorityofthesestations,amonumentedchannelcrosssectionwasestablishedas
earlyas1996.Resurveyofsomethesecrosssectionshasoccurredduringsomesubsequentyears(1997
and1998mostly;withafewresurveysin1999,2000,and2006;andadditionalresurveyin2013where
monumentscouldbefound).Overthis16yearperiod,thedegreeofchannelchangevaries
considerablybetweensites.Datasetsfromstationswiththemostnumerousresurveys(e.g.,fouryears
ofsurveyormore)werereviewedtocharacterizethemagnitudeandrateofgeomorphicadjustmentat
thesestations.Thestationsreviewedareasfollows:

StationLSTM106(inactive,tributaryofLSTM201):Thissmalltributary(<0.5squaremile
drainagearea)hasmaintainedthemostconsistentchannelshape,withonlyminorchannelbed
elevationchanges.
StationLSTM202andLSTM206:Crosssectionsontheseintermediatestreams(0.51square
miledrainagearea)showminorfluctuationsinbedelevation.Sectionswithsideormidchannel
sedimentbars,inwhichsedimentisstoredandremobilizedduringlargerflowevents,showthe
mostfluctuationsinchannelbedshapeandbankposition.

April3,2013

Page19

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

StationLSTM303BandLSTM304:Theselargerstreams(>3squaremiledrainagearea)showthe
channelinvertloweringaboutafootacrossthecompletesurveyrecordandsomechannel
enlargement(i.e.anincreaseincrosssectionalareabelowthefloodplainelevation).

Figure3.5.RecentbeaveractivityalongTenMileCreeknearmonitoringstationLSTM206.

Onemayexpectthepotentialforgeomorphicadjustment(bothshortandlongterm)tobegreatestin
thelargerstreams,withrelativelygreatercumulativechangesinhydrologyandsedimentsupplywith
increasingdrainagearea.Evenso,itisdifficulttodefinitivelyidentifylongtermtrendsingeomorphic
adjustmentrelativetoshorttermfluctuationsgivenlimitationsofthedataset.Amoreextended
monitoringrecordinconjunctionwithgeomorphicmappingcouldbeusedtobetterevaluatethis.

ObservationsmadeduringfieldreconnaissancewithintheTenMileCreekwatershedareconsistentwith
availablecrosssectionalsurveyinformation.ThetributariesandmainstemchannelintheTenMile
Creekwatershedareactiveandrespondtospatiallyvariableconditions(e.g.,debris,vegetation,beaver
activity,cutoffchannels).Bankerosionisapparentthroughoutthestreamsystem,sometimes
expressedalongtheouteredgeofmeanderbendsasnearlyverticalbanksthreetofourfeetinheight.
Conversely,bedmaterialisregularlymobilizedanddepositedinsideandmidchannelsedimentbars,
whoseshapeandelevationfluctuatesinresponsetofloodevents.Inmostlocations,thestream
networkisincontactwiththeadjacentfloodplain,withrecentsandydepositsanddebrislinesapparent
alongstreamsidetrees.Thatfloodplainconnectioneffectivelyreducestheshearstressesortheforce
exertedbyflowingwateronthebedandbankwithinthemainchannel,andpromotesmaintenanceofa
bankfullchannelgeometryandthusfloodplainconnection,ratherthandownwardbedincision.Figures
3.6and3.7showtwoexamplesoftypicalstreamconditionswithincreasingdrainagearea.Whileitis
notpossibletoassesswhetherthestreamsystemisinatruelongtermgeomorphicequilibriumbased

April3,2013

Page20

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea
onavailabledata,therealsoisnoclearevidencetosuggestlongtermchronicchanneladjustmentover
therecentdecadaltimescale.

Figure3.6.ExampleofchanneldynamicsalongTenMileCreeknearmonitoringstationLSTM206.

Figure3.7.ChannelconditionsnearUSGSgage01644390downstreamofmonitoringstationLSTM304.

April3,2013

Page21

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea
Thephylliticmaterialsuppliedtothechanneltendstoweathereasily,breakingintosmallfragments,
probablybecauseofnumerousplanesofweakness,andformsparticlesthatareplatyinshapeand
observableonbarswithinTenMileCreek(Figure3.8).Moreresistantquartzparticlesderivedfrom
veinsinthebedrocktendtoformlarger,moreroundedparticlesonthebed.Measurementstakenby
DEPinconjunctionwithchannelcrosssectionsbetween1996and2006demonstratethegrainsize
distributiononchannelbedmaterialalongrepresentativerifflesrangesinsizefromsandtoverylarge
cobble,withthemajorityinthecoarsetoverycoarsegravelrange.Thelimitedamountoffinematerial
(i.e.<2mmwhichincludessand,silt,andclay)observedduringsamplingoftheserifflesisconsistent
withgeneralfieldobservationsofrelativelycleanbedmaterialdominatedbygravels.Estimatesof
riffleembeddedness(thedegreetowhichcoarsebedmaterialischokedbyfinesediments)weremade
byDEPinconjunctionwiththesesamecrosssectionalmeasurementstodeterminethepercentageofa
particlessurfacesurroundedbysand,siltorclaysedimentinthestreambed.Estimatesof
embeddednessrangedbetween12and43%,butweretypicallybetween15to25%.Somedisparityin
thedegreeofembeddednesswasobservedbetweentheseestimatesandthoserecordedinconjunction
withDEPsbiologicalmonitoringreportedinthefollowingsection.Thisdisparitymaybetheresultofa
differenceinsamplingmethodologyandmayindicatethatriffleembeddednessreportedaboveislower
thanthatofa75metersamplingreach,inclusiveofrifflesandpools,reportedwiththebiological
monitoring.

Figure3.8.ExampleofbardepositsalongTenMileCreeknearmonitoringstationLSTM202.

April3,2013

Page22

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

3.7 WaterQuality
AlltributariesofTenMileCreekaredesignatedbytheStateofMarylandasUseIPstreams(water
contactrecreation,protectionofaquaticlife,andpublicwatersupply)andarepartofLittleSenecaLake,
whichservesasareservoirprovidingadditionalflowtothePotomacRiver,apublicrawwatersupply,
duringdroughtperiods(MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofParkandPlanning,1994).Table3.5below
liststheStatestandardsforUseIPstreams.TenMileCreekwasoneofthelaststreamsinMontgomery
Countytosupportbrooktrout(Salvelinusfontinalis),ahighlysensitivenativespeciesrequiringcleanand
coldwatertosurvive(MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection,2004).In2007,
StateandCountyfisheriesbiologistsdiscoveredthreeadultanonnative,moretolerantspeciesoftrout,
browntrout(Salmotrutta),somedistanceabovetheWestOldBaltimoreRoadford(Montgomery
CountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection,2009).Thesetroutrepresenteddifferentageclasses
anddidnotappeartobehatcheryraised.Thetroutwereweighed,measuredandreturnedtothecreek.
Fisheriesbiologistsreturnedandconductedawidersurveyofthecreekbutdidnotfindadditionaltrout.
ItisnotknownforcertainifthethreeadultsfoundarenaturallyoccurringtoTenMileCreekornot,but
nosignsoffishstocking,suchasfinerosion,wereobserved.Regardlessoftheoriginofthetrout,the
factthatthetroutspeciesweresurvivinginTenMileCreekareindicativeofitsexcellentwaterquality.
Browntroutwereagainfoundin2008and2009(MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmental
Protection,2012).

Table3.5.StateWaterQualityStandardsforUseIPStreams
Parameter

Standard

MaximumTotalFecalColiform

200logmeanper100mL

MinimumDissolvedOxygen

5mg/L

MaximumTemperature

32CelsiusorAmbient,whicheverisgreater

6.5to8.5

MaximumTurbidity

150NTU

MaximumMonthlyAverageTurbidity

50NTU

DataSource:DEPSPAReport,2012

WaterqualitymonitoringhasbeenperformedinTenMileCreekassociatedwiththreeseparateefforts:
(1)DEPsCountywideBiologicalStreamMonitoringProgram;(2)theClarksburgSpecialProtectionArea
monitoringprogram;and(3)MDEandWSSCwaterqualitydataassociatedwithLittleSenecaLake.

CountywideBiologicalStreamMonitoringData
Datafromthebiologicalstreammonitoringislimitedtosinglepointmeasurementsduringnonstorm
flowconditions,accordingtothestationlocationsshowninFigure3.9.Biologicalfieldcollectionof
benthicmacroinvertebratesisconductedduringthespringindexperiod(March15toApril30).Fishare
collectedinthesummerindexperiod(June1throughthemiddleofOctober).Moreinformationon
biologicalmonitoringisprovidedinSection2.8.Duringbothsamplingevents,amultiparameterprobe
isplacedinthestreamslaminarflowtomeasurewatertemperature,pH,dissolvedoxygen,percent
saturation,andconductivity.Airtemperatureandtimeofdayisalsorecordedatallstations.Thus,the
biologicalstreammonitoringdataisonlyrepresentativeofspringandsummerconditionsduringnon
stormflowconditions.Datacollectionhasoccurredforselectedsubwatershedsbetween19952012,
withanaverageof17samplespersubwatershed.

April3,2013

Page23

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

Figure3.9.Habitat,Biological,andGeomorphicStreamMonitoringSitesintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

April3,2013

Page24

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea
Watertemperatureisanimportantmeasureofstreamhealth,andhasastandardmaximumof32
degreesCelsiusforUseIPstreams.Highertemperaturescancausestressinaquaticbiota.Figure3.10
showsthewatertemperaturereadingsacrossalloftheTenMileCreeksubwatersheds,whichareall
statisticallysimilarwithamedianof16degreesCelsius.Noreadingswerehigherthan26degrees
Celsiusduringthebiologicalstreamsurveys.

WaterTemperature(DegC)

30
25
20
15
10
5
0

SubwatershedMonitoringStation

Figure3.10.90%ConfidenceInterval,Maximum,andMinimumWaterTemperatureValuesforTenMileCreek
BiologicalStreamMonitoringStations.TheredlineindicatestheStateStandardforMaximumTemperaturein
UseIPStreams(32degC).

Ingeneral,theoptimalpHrangeforaquaticlifeisbetween6.5and8.5(EIFAC1968andU.S.EPA1976).
WhilemanyaquaticspeciescantoleratepHlevelswelloutsidethisoptimalrange,waterpHinfluences
thesolubilityofmetalsandotherpollutantsthat,ifpresent,aretoxictoaquaticlife(EIFAC1968andU.S.
EPA1976).FortheTenMileCreeksubwatersheds,onesubwatershedhasconsistentlymeasuredlower
thantheStateStandardof6.5:LSTM111.Severalothersubwatersheds,LSTM110,LSTM112,LSTM201,
LSTM202,andLSTM303B,allhaveatleastonereadingbelowtheStateStandard(Figure3.11).Similar
conditionswereobservedinthe1992ClarksburgEnvironmental&WaterResourcesStudy,whereitwas
notedthatthe,lowbufferingcapacityofSenecaCreeks[includingTenMileCreeks]softwatersleads
tolargefluctuationsinthepHinthestream.ThepHlevelsvarybyasmuchas6ordersofmagnitude...
(Greenhorne&OMara,Inc.,1992).TheBiologicalStreamMonitoringdatasuggestdifferencesinthe
headwaterstreams,LSTM110andLSTM111,fromthemainstemstreamsLSTM203,LSTM204,and
LSTM206.TheprimarylanduseswithinthesubwatershedsLSTM110andLSTM111arecroplandand
pasture,withalackofacontinuousriparianbufferapparent(Figures2.1and2.2).Thereareno
stormwatermanagementfacilitiesinthesesubwatersheds(Figure4.2).

April3,2013

Page25

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

9
8.5

8
7.5
7
6.5
6

SubwatershedMonitoringStation

Figure3.11.90%ConfidenceInterval,Maximum,andMinimumforpHValuesforTenMileCreekBiological
StreamMonitoringStations.TheredlinesindicatetheStateStandardforMaximum(8.5)andMinimum(6.5)
pHinUseIPStreams.

Dissolvedoxygenisnecessaryforaerobicrespirationofaquaticlife.Fromthebiologicalstream
monitoringdata,dissolvedoxygenintheTenMileCreeksubwatershedshaveremainedabovetheState
standardof5mg/L.Nosinglesubwatershedappearssignificantlydifferent,withanaverageof9.3mg/L
(Figure3.12).

DissolvedOxygen(mg/L)

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

SubwatershedMonitoringStation

Figure3.12.90%ConfidenceInterval,Maximum,andMinimumDissolvedOxygenValuesforTenMileCreek
BiologicalStreamMonitoringStations.TheredlineindicatestheStateStandardforMinimumDissolvedOxygen
inUseIPStreams(5mg/L).

Thepercentsaturationofdissolvedoxygeninthewaterisanindirectmeasureofthebiologicaloxygen
demand.Saturationbelow100%indicatesagreaterrateofaerobicrespirationthancanbeequilibrated
withtheatmosphere.Saturationabove100%indicatesgenerationofoxygenwithinthewatercolumn,

April3,2013

Page26

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

DissolvedOxygen(%Saturation)

suchasthroughphotosynthesisofalgae.Therearenostandardsforpercentsaturation,buttheTen
MileCreeksubwatershedsareallstatisticallysimilarwithanaverageof90%saturation(Figure3.13).

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

SubwatershedMonitoringStation

Figure3.13.90%ConfidenceInterval,Maximum,andMinimumforPercentSaturationofDissolvedOxygen
ValuesforTenMileCreekBiologicalStreamMonitoringStations.

Conductivityvaluesarerelatedtothetypeandconcentrationofinorganicionsinthewatercolumn.
Examplesoftheseinorganicconstituentsincludechloride,carbonate,nitrate,sulfate,andphosphate
anionsaswellassodium,calcium,magnesium,iron,andaluminumcations.Elevatedconductivityis
commonlyassociatedwithdevelopmentandurbanizationupstreaminthewatershedandoften
attributedtorunofffromroadways(U.S.EPA,2010).However,therearecurrentlynowaterquality
standardsforconductivity,andathresholdforbiologicalimpairmenthasnotbeenclearlydefinedfor
thisparameter.Twosubwatershedshaveshownasignificantlyhigherconductivityreadinginthe
watershed:LSTM202andLSTM206.LSTM203hashadsomehighreadings,butoverallisnot
significantlydifferentfromtherestofthewatershed(Figure3.14).LSTM206hasthemostdevelopment
andhighestlevelofimperviouscover(16%)inthewatershed(Figures2.1and2.2).Theprincipalurban
landusesincludetransportation(I270),residential,institutional(ClarksburgDetentionCenter),and
somecommercial,allscatteredthroughoutthesubwatershed.LSTM206alsohasthemoststormwater
managementfacilitiesofallthesubwatersheds(Figure4.2).LSTM202ismostlyforestedandhasamuch
lowerlevelofdevelopmentthanLSTM206.However,LSTM206directlyfeedsintoLSTM202,which
couldaccountforthehigherconductivityreadings.

April3,2013

Page27

Conductivity(uS/cm)

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

SubwatershedMonitoringStation

Figure3.14.90%ConfidenceInterval,Maximum,andMinimumforConductivityValuesforTenMileCreek
BiologicalStreamMonitoringStations

SpecialProtectionAreaWaterQualityMonitoring
TheClarksburgSPAmonitoringfulfillstherequirementsinMontgomeryCountyCode,Section1967(d)
fortheeffectivenessofbestmanagementpracticesandtheobservedimpactofdevelopmentonthe
biologicalintegrityofstreamsinspecialprotectionareas,(MontgomeryCountyDepartmentof
EnvironmentalProtection,2012).Thebestmanagementpractices(BMPs)monitoredforeffectiveness
werepredominantlystructuralfacilitiessuchassedimentanderosioncontrol(S&EC)basinsthatwere
monitoredduringconstruction,andstormwatermanagement(SWM)facilitiesthatweremonitored
afterconstructionactivitywascompleted.

TheCountySPAReportsprovideinformationonyeartoyearstreamconditionsforTenMileCreekona
stationbystationbasis.DuetothedeclineinbiologicalstreamconditionsinaneasterntributaryofTen
MileCreek(mostlyeastofI270,subwatershedLSTM206)duringdevelopment,aninvestigationwas
madeintopossiblereasonsforthedecline(asreportedinthe2006SPAAnnualReport).High
conductivityreadingswerefoundthroughoutthedrainageareatothestation.Nospecificcauseforthe
highconductivityreadingscouldbeidentified,butthesensitivityofTenMileCreektochangeis
apparent(MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection,2008).

MonitoringwasrequiredduringconstructionoftheClarksburgDetentionCenter,locatedonthewest
sideofI270justnorthoftheRt.121interchangeinsubwatershedsLSTM206andLSTM201.During
construction,monitoringoccurredfrom19972003.Threegroundwaterwellsweremonitoredto
determinenutrientsandwatertableelevation.Duringthelate1970s,aparceloflandnearthe
DetentionCenterpropertywasusedforWSSCsewagesludgedisposal(MontgomeryCounty
DepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection,2010).Sludgecontainshighconcentrationsofnutrients.
Muchofthesludgewasremovedfromtheareathatwastobedisturbedduringthebeginningphaseof
construction.

Resultsofthegroundwatermonitoringshowedtheconcentrationoftotalphosphorus(TP)fromall
threewellsremainedlow,exceptforsamplesobtainedon4/2/98and8/17/99,whichcouldhavebeen
relatedtolanddisturbanceandremovaloftheburiedsewagesludge.Since8/17/99TPconcentrations

April3,2013

Page28

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea
haveremainedrelativelylow.Concentrationsdidincreaseslightlyatallthreewellson9/17/02.Nitrate
concentrationswereconsistentlyhigherinoneofthewellsdownstreamofconstruction,withvaluesas
muchasthreetimesabovetheEPAdrinkingwaterstandardof10.0mg/l.Presumably,thesewage
sludge,whichwasnotremovedfromtheareaimmediatelysurroundingthiswell,isthecauseofhigh
nitrateconcentration.Nitrateconcentrationsintheothertwowellswentdownduringtheperiodof
study,from7.2mg/lon11/24/97to0.18mg/lon9/17/02inonewell,andfrom5.25mg/lon11/24/97
to0.83mg/lon9/17/02intheother.Thedecreaseinnitrateconcentrationsinthesetwowellsislikely
duetoremovalofsewagesludgefromthesite(MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmental
Protection,2003).

TheCountySPAReportsalsoprovideinformationonstreamtemperaturemonitoring.Thestation
recordsvaryaccordingtodevelopmentinthewatershed,inordertoevaluateconditionsimmediately
downstream.TemperaturemonitoringconductedinTenMileCreekindicatedthatthewater
temperatureswerefoundtostaybelowtheMarylandUseClassIPcriterialimit.Anomalies,suchasin
lateAugust1998whenstationLSTM202begantoshowlargedailytemperatureranges,wereattributed
tothepoolinwhichthetemperatureloggerwasdeployedgettinglowenoughtoexposetheloggerto
airtemperatures.ResultsfromLSTM303Bin2003showmeanwatertemperaturewashigherthanany
otherareaintheClarksburgSPA.Thisislikelyduetodifferencesinstreamchannelcharacteristics
betweenTenMileCreekandLittleSenecaCreek.InTenMileCreekthestreamchanneltendstobe
wideandshallow.Thisallowsthestreamtowarmupmoreasthereisgreaterexposuretowarm
ambientairtemperatures.Incontrast,resultsfromLSTM112in2003showwatertemperaturewas
coolerthanmostotherareasintheClarksburgSPA.Thiswasthefirstyeardatawascollectedfromthis
fairlylargetributarytoTenMileCreek(MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection,
2004).

SenecaLakeWaterQualityMonitoring
MDEandWSSChaveperformedwaterqualitymonitoringwithintheSenecaCreekwatershedbasinin
ordertoassessimpairmentsinLittleSenecaLakeandmonitorthelakeasanimportantsourceof
drinkingwaterinMontgomeryCounty.TheLakewasidentifiedonMarylands1998listofwaterquality
limitedsegments(WQLSs)asbeingimpairedbynutrients.Ananalysisofrecentmonitoringdata(2001)
showsthatthecriteriaassociatedwithnutrientsarebeingmet,andthedesignateduseinLittleSeneca
Lakeissupported(MarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment,2006).Thisanalysissupportsthe
conclusionthatatotalmaximumdailyload(TMDL)fornutrientsisnotnecessarytoachievewater
qualityinthiscase.ATMDLisusedtodeterminethemaximumamountofapollutantawaterbodycan
receivewithoutviolatingwaterqualitystandardsforthewaterbodysdesignateduse.Thereportwas
usedtosupportthenutrientlistingchangeforLittleSenecaLakefromCategory5(waterbodies
impairedbyoneormorepollutantsandrequiringaTMDL)toCategory2(surfacewatersthatare
meetingsomestandardsandhaveinsufficientinformationtodetermineattainmentofother
standards)whenMDEproposedtherevisionofMarylands303(d)listforpublicreview.Urban
developmentisoccurringinportionsoftheLittleSenecaLakewatershed,andisexpectedtoincreasein
thefuture.Itisexpectedthatovertime,thecharacterofthewatershedmaychangeasaconsequence
oflandconversionanddevelopment.AlthoughthewatersofLittleSenecaLakedonotpresentlydisplay
signsofeutrophication,theStatereservestherighttorequirefuturecontrolsintheLittleSenecaLake
watershedifevidencesuggestsnutrientsfromthebasinarecontributingtowaterqualityproblems.

April3,2013

Page29

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

3.8 AquaticHabitatandBiology
Since1994,theMontgomeryCountyDEPhasestablishedandregularlymonitoredphysicalhabitatand
biologicalcommunitiesat11permanentsamplingstationswithintheTenMileCreekWatershedaspart
oftheClarksburgSpecialProtectionAreamonitoringprogram(Figure3.9).AteachstationDEPfield
crewsassessthephysicalstructureandconditionofhabitatandsamplethebenthicmacroinvertebrate,
fishandsalamandercommunities.

Variousmetricsdescribingthecompositionandecologyofthesebiologicalcommunitiescanbe
combinedintoamultimetricIndexofBioticIntegrity(IBI)torepresentthequalityofaparticularstream
ecosystem(Karr,1981).ThesevariousIBImetricscanthenbecomparedtothoseofknownregional
referencesitestopredicttheprobablestreamcondition(Hughes,Larsen,&Omernik,1986).TheDEP
hasdevelopedIBIsforbothfishandmacroinvertebratesthatreferencetheleastimpactedstreamsin
theCountytodeterminethestreamcondition(MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmental
Protection,2009).Additionally,thesebiologicaldatacanbecomparedwiththestatewideIBIdeveloped
bytheMarylandBiologicalStreamSurvey(MBSS),whichstratifiedbyecologicalregionandstatistically
validatedtoensurediscriminationefficiency,reduceredundancy,andimproveaccuracy(Southerlandet
al.,2005).

Thefollowingsectionsoutlinethesamplingmethodologiesandsummarizethebiologicalconditionsand
observedtrendsoverthe19yearsofdataprovidedbyDEP.Observedtrendswerenotrigorouslytested,
butderivedfromobservationsinthedataanddeterminingsimplelinearregressionsandassociated
correlationcoefficients(R2).Amoredetaileddiscussionoftheindividualmetricsforeachoftheindices
andasummarytableofavailabledataandIBIscoresfortherespectivesamplingeffortsarepresentedin
AppendixD.

BenthicMacroinvertebrates
ThebenthicmacroinvertebratecommunitieswereassessedbyDEPstaffduringspringindexperiodsof
therespectivesamplingyearsinaccordancewiththeMarylandBiologicalStreamSurvey(MBSS)
methods(Kayzak,2001).TheDEPBenthicIBIevaluates8metrics,whicharesummedtodescribethe
overallhealthofthebenthicmacroinvertebratecommunity.

The2012BenthicIBIscoresforeachsubwatershedareshowninFigure3.15.Theaverageofthe1994
2012compositeBenthicIBIscoresforeachsubwatershedareshowninFigure3.16.Theoverallrangesof
BenthicIBIscores,asshowninFigure3.17,indicatethatthebenthicmacroinvertebratecommunity
withintheTenMileCreekdrainageisingenerallygoodcondition.ApplyingtheMBSSBenthicIBItothis
datasetcorroboratesthisconclusion.BothBenthicIBIsdorankLSTM206oneconditionclasslower(e.g.
fairversusgood)thantheotherstations.Overthe15yearsStationLSTM206wasmonitored,eightyears
scoredFair,fiveyearsscoredGoodandtwoyearsscoredPoor.Thelowestscoresoccurredbetween
2005and2008withsomerecoveryafter2008,butnolongtermtrendsoffurtherdegradationor
recoverywereinterpretedfromthedata.Thisisconclusionissupportedbythetimeseriesdataforall
stationsshowninFigure3.18.

April3,2013

Page30

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

Figure3.15.2012subwatershedbenthicIBIrating.

April3,2013

Page31

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

Figure3.16.AveragesubwatershedbenthicIBIrating(19942012).

April3,2013

Page32

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

Figure3.17.RangesofcompositeBenthicIBIscoresamongthepermanentsamplingstations(19942012).

Figure3.18.VariabilityamongBenthicIBIscoresatallsamplingstationsovertime.

April3,2013

Page33

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea
AnumberofobservationsrelatedtotheindividualmetricstimeseriesdataarediscussedinAppendixD.
Otherthanminorshiftsinthebenthicmacroinvertebratecommunitystructure,thecommunityappears
tobestable.Theratesofchangeassociatedwithanyobservedtrendsaregenerallyslowandonlylikely
toinfluencetheoverallBenthicIBIscoreoverperiodofdecades,ifnaturalrecoverydoesnotoccur.
Thesetrendsindicatethetendencytowarddegradationifstressorlevelsareincreased.

Habitat
HabitatwasassessedbyDEPstaffusingthequalitativerapidhabitatassessmentprotocoldescribedby
BarbourandStribling(Gibson,1991).Thismethodreliesonvisualinspectiontoassignnumericalscores
thatrepresenttheconditionofeachoftenhabitatparameters.The2012habitatscoresforeach
subwatershedareshowninFigure3.19.Figure3.20showstheaverageofthe19942012composite
habitatscoresforeachsubwatershed.Asummaryofthecompositehabitatscoresateachstationand
overtimeispresentedinFigures3.21and3.22respectively.ThesedataindicatethatthehabitatsofTen
MileCreekareminimallytopartiallydegraded(excellent/good)andgenerallyscoreinthesuboptimal
rangeinindividualparameters(Figure3.21).Overallmoststationsscoredwithinonestandarddeviation
ofthemeanoverallhabitatscore,withtheexceptionofStationLSTM204.ThedeviationinStation
LSTM204canbeattributedtopoorscoresfortheriparianbufferparameter,whichconsequently
droppedtheoverallscorebutnottheoverallconditioncategoryforthehabitatscore.Theseconclusions
arecorroboratedbytheMBSSPhysicalHabitatIndex(Pauletal.,2003).

Whilemosthabitatparametersconsistentlyscoredinthegoodrange,individualparametersrelatedto
sedimentdepositionandbankerosionscoredmarginalandlikelyinfluencetheoverallscore.
Embeddednessscoresindicatethatthepreferredsubstrates(formostbenthicorganismstheseare
gravel,cobbleandboulder)arechokedwithfinesedimentssurrounding5075%ofthecoarsegrainsand
fillingtheinterstitialvoids.Additionally,sedimentdepositionscoresreflectanintrusionofnewly
depositedfinesediments(gravel,sandandsilt)occupying3050%ofthebottomhabitat.Marginal
scoresinbankerosionindicatealikelysourceofthesefinesediments.Thebankerosionscoresindicate
that3060%ofthesamplereachshowssignsoferosion;however,theseverityofthiserosionwas
categorizedasonlyminimaltomoderate.Lowsuboptimaltomarginalscoresinthebankvegetation
couldalsobeattributedtotheerodingbanks.

Aswouldbeexpectedwithaprogressiveproblemlikebankerosion,mostofthestationsshowdeclining
trendsintheoverallhabitatscoreovertime;however,themagnitudeofthedeclineisonly1to2total
points/yearintheoverallscorewhentheentiredatasetisanalyzed(Figure3.22).Thistrendmay
indicatethatthewatershedisstressed;however,severaldecadesmayelapsebeforetheoverallhabitat
conditiondegradesfromsuboptimaltomarginal,whichisalsoanadequatetimeframeforthestream
conditionstonaturallyrecoverorstabilize.Visualinspectionofplotsoftheparametersversustime,
whichwerenotisolatedandevaluatedindependently,indicatethattheoveralldecliningtrendmaybe
moresevereinrecentyears(after2005),butthesignificanceofthiswasnottested(Figure3.22).

April3,2013

Page34

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

Figure3.19.2012subwatershedhabitatconditionrating.

April3,2013

Page35

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

Figure3.20.Averagesubwatershedhabitatconditionrating(19942012).

April3,2013

Page36

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

Figure3.21.Rangesofcompositehabitatscoresamongthepermanentsamplingstations(19942012).

Figure3.22.Variabilityamonghabitatscoresatallsamplingstationsovertime.

April3,2013

Page37

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea
Fish
FishcommunitieswereassessedbyDEPstaffduringsummerindexperiodsoftherespectivesampling
yearsinaccordancewiththeMarylandBiologicalStreamSurvey(MBSS)methods(Kayzak,2001).The
DEPFishIBIevaluates9metricswhichareaveragedintoanoverallIBIscoreindicatingthehealthofthe
fishcommunity.ComparisonsofthesedatatothestatewidedatasetsdevelopedbyMBSScouldnotbe
usedtocorroboratethesedatabecauseoneormoreofthemetricsforthiscomparisonwasnotreadily
availableinthedataprovided.

TheDEPFishIBIindicatesthatoverallthefishcommunitywithintheTenMileCreekdrainageisingood
condition.Figure3.23showsthe2012FishIBIscoresforeachsubwatershed,andFigure3.24showsthe
averageofthe19942012compositeFishIBIscoresforeachsubwatershed.AsshowninFigure3.25,
Station206andthethirdorderormainstemstations(LSTM302,LSTM303BandLSTM304)scoredlower
thanthesecondorderstations.Thelowerscoresinthethirdorderstationscouldbedueinparttohow
theFishIBIisstratifiedbasedonstreamorder.ThelowerscoreinLSTM206,however,islikelymore
relatedtothewatershedcondition,sinceitisscoredinthesamewayastheotherstations.Asdiscussed
inprevioussections,subwatershedLSTM206containsthehighestpercentimperviouscoverandurban
landuses,whichcouldexplaintheloweroverallscoreintheFishIBI.

TheonenotableoutlierinthedatasetisStationLSTM112,whichwasonlysampledin2007andscored
poor.StationLSTM112,isafirstordertributaryandduetotheirwatershedposition,sizeandflow
characteristicsfirstordertributariestypicallylacktheabundanceanddiversitynecessarytobescored
accuratelybyanIBI(Southerlandetal.2005).

ReviewofthetimeseriesdatashowninFigure3.26indicatessomeofthevariabilityinthesampling
dataovertime.Thisvariabilityislikelyattributedtonumberofstationssampledbetweensampleyears
2000and2006.Duringthisperiod,onlyLSTM206,LSTM303BandLSTM304,whichgenerallyscored
lowerinthefishIBIonaverage,wereregularlysampled.Regimentedsamplingofalleightsampling
stationsforfishdidnotbeginuntilsampleyear2007.Thismoreregimentedsamplingcouldexplainthe
apparentrecoveryand/orstabilizingoftheFishIBIscoresshowninFigure3.26post2007.

AreviewofthetimeseriesdatafortheindividualmetricscomprisingtheDEPsFishIBIispresentedin
AppendixD.Whilethetimeseriesdataindicatesomeshiftsintheoverallcommunitystructure,thetotal
fishdiversityappearstobestable,asindicatedbythecompositeFishIBIshowninFigure3.26.

April3,2013

Page38

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

Figure3.23.2012subwatershedfishIBIrating.

April3,2013

Page39

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

Figure3.24.AveragesubwatershedfishIBIrating(19942012).

April3,2013

Page40

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

Figure3.25.RangesofcompositeFishIBIscoresamongthepermanentsamplingstations(19942012).

Figure3.26.VariabilityamongFishIBIscoresatallsamplingstationsovertime.

April3,2013

Page41

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea
Herptofauna
Reptileandamphibian,collectivelycalledherptofauna,communitieshavebeenassessedbyDEPsince
2008.MBSSdatasuggestthatherptofaunaaresensitivetovariousenvironmentalstressorsincluding
urbanization(Boward,Kayzak,Stranko,Hurd,&Prochaska,1999).Consequently,Southerlandetal.
(2004)proposedaprovisionalStreamSalamanderIBItodescribestreamsalamandercommunities
relativetowatershedcondition;however,thisIBIhasnotbeenabletoeffectivelyclassifyreferencesites
(SoutherlandandRogers2010).SoutherlandandRogers(2010)attributedthistodifferencesinsampling
methodologiesamongsitesandthenumberofreferencesiteswheresalamanderswerenotfound.For
thesereasons,aformalstreamsalamanderIBIisnotavailableforcomparison,butthepresenceor
absenceofherptofaunacanstillbeindicativeofwatershedcondition.

WithintheTenMileCreekWatershed,atotalof22herptofaunaspecieswereobserved,whichis
indicativeoflessdevelopedwatersheds(Bowardetal.,1999).Asummarytableofobserved
herptofaunaispresentedinAppendixD.Oftheobservedspecies,theslimysalamander(Plethedon
guttinosis),aterrestrial/riparianspecies,foundatstationLSTM201wouldbeconsideredintolerantto
degradedconditions.Theslimysalamanderpreferredhabitatismaturehardwoodforest,andtheslimy
salamanderalongwithmostamphibiansaresensitivetoforestclearingandlanduseconversion
(Petranka,1998).Sixofthespecieswouldbecharacterizedastolerantandtheremaining15species
wouldbeconsideredsensitive.Oneormoreofthesesensitivespecieswereobservedat10ofthe11
samplesites.Themajorityofthesesensitivespeciesrequireforestedhabitat(Strankoetal.,2010and
Petranka,1998),andwhilemanyofthesespeciesarecommon,theirdistributionwithinthestateis
limitedtorelativelyruralwatershedswithlowtomoderateimperviouscoverbetween3%and25%
(Bowardetal.,1999).LSTM111wastheonlysitewheresensitivespecieswereabsent,buttwotolerant
specieswereobserved.ThelackofsensitivespeciesinthisLSTM111islikelyrelatedtothelimited
amountofpreferredhabitat(riparianforest)withinthesubwatershedandadjacenttothesampling
station.

Thepresenceofdiversecommunityofherptofaunaincludinganumberofsensitivespeciesisindicative
awatershedthatcontainsabundantandcontiguoushabitat.Thelargetractsofinteriorforest,springs,
seeps,seasonalpools,andcleanwaterwithinthewatershedarenecessarytosupportthiscommunity.
Conservationandenhancementofcontiguousblocksofpreferredhabitat,particularlyripariancorridors,
wouldbetheprimarymanagementstrategyformaintainingadiverseandhealthycommunityof
herptofauna(Petranka,1998).

BiologicalCondition
Theoverallbiologicalconditionofthesubwatershedsisdeterminedbyaveragingthepercentmaximum
IBIscoresforthefishandbenthicmacroinvertebratesateachstation(KeithVanNess,personal
communication,February12,2013).The2012biologicalconditionsscoresforeachsubwatershedare
showninFigure3.27,andtheaverageofthe19942012biologicalconditionscoresforeach
subwatershedispresentedinFigure3.28.Thisindexindicatesthattheoverallbiologicalconditionofthe
TenMileCreekWatershedisgood,asshowninFigure3.29.

TimeseriesdatashowninFigure3.30indicatesthatthebiologicalconditionoftheTenMileCreek
samplingstationsgenerallymaintainsagoodclassification,butshowsaslightdeclinefromhighendof
thegoodtothemiddleoftherange,asobservedintheBenthicIBIdata.Thebiologicalconditionis
variablebetweensampleyears2000and2006whensamplingwasonlyperformedatalimitednumber
ofstations,asdiscussedintheFishsection.Theoverallbiologicalconditionthenstabilizesafter2007as
previouslydiscussed.

April3,2013

Page42

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

Figure3.27.2012subwatershedbiologicalconditionrating.

April3,2013

Page43

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

Figure3.28.Averagesubwatershedbiologicalconditionrating(19942012).

April3,2013

Page44

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

Figure3.29.RangesofcompositeBiologicalConditionscoresamongthepermanentsamplingstations(1994
2012).

Figure3.30.Variabilityamongbiologicalconditionscoresatallsamplingstationsovertime.

April3,2013

Page45

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

3.9 UplandHabitatandBiology
ForestCover
Typicallyinthoseundevelopedareasnotinagriculture,thevegetationintheTenMileCreekstudyarea
ischaracterizedasanuplandorbottomlandhardwoodforest.Theuplandhardwoodforestis
particularlyprevalentinthewesternportionofstudyarea.Itisdescribedasamatureforestwith
abundantgroundcoverandanearlycompletecanopyinuplandandonhillslopelandscapepositions.
Tuliptree(Liriodendrontulipifera),redmaple(Acerrubrum),redoak(Quercusrubra),andhickory(Carya
sp.)arethedominantcanopytrees(Greenhorne&OMara,1992).Bottomlandhardwoodforestsare
locatedalongstream,floodplainsandwetlandareaswithinthewatershed.Thecanopycoverageofthe
bottomlandforestsisdominatedbyredmaple,Americansycamore(Platanusoccidentalis),blackwillow
(Salixnigra),Greenash(Fraxinuspennsylvanica),tuliptree,hickory,blacklocust(Robiniapseudoacacia),
blackgum(Nyssasylvatica),blackcherry(Prunusserotina),andblackwalnut(Juglansnigra)inthe
overstorytreecanopy.Whileconcentratedinthewesternportionofthewatershed,agriculturalfields
andpasturearefoundthroughoutthewatershed(Greenhorne&OMara,1992).

MontgomeryCountyDEPrecentlymappedforestinteriorwithintheTenMileCreekwatershedbasedon
thefollowingconditions:1)aforestatleast50acresinsizewith10ormoreacresofinteriorforest
habitatoraforestgreaterthan300feetfromthenearestforestedge,or2)ariparianforestwithan
averageminimumwidthof300feetandatleast50acresinsize.Theseforestinteriorsthatcansupport
forestinteriordwellingbirdsspecies(FIDS)thatrequirelargeforestareastobreedandmaintainviable
populations(Jones,McCann,&McConville,2000).SeeFigure2.2fortheextentofforestinteriorinthe
TenMileCreekstudyarea.

InadditionMDNRhasperformedastatewideanalysisofhubsandcorridorsthatarelargeandintact
enoughtoprovideafullrangeofenvironmentalfunctions(MDNR2003).MDNR(2003)defineshubsas
areasthatconsistoflargecontiguoustractsofforestlandthatareintegraltotheecologicalhealthof
thestateandcorridorsaslinearremnantsofthesevitalhabitatsthatformlinkagesamongthehubs.As
showninFigures3.31and3.32,thelargetractofforestcentraltotheTenMileCreekWatershedhas
beendesignatedasahubbyMDNR.Thisfigurealsoshowsanimportantcorridorextendingnorthto
LittleBennettRegionalParkandsouthtoBlackHillsRegionalPark,bothMNDRdesignatedhubs.Being
insuchproximity,thesehubseachfunctiontoenhancetheintegrityandbiodiversityoftheadjacent
habitatsasamorecontiguousunit.Thecrucialgapsdocumentedinthisresourcearelocatedatthe
northeasterntipofthesubwatershedLSTM201andattheboundarybetweenLSTM302andLSTM303B.
Theprimarylandusewithinthesegapsiscurrentlydocumentedasbaregroundandagriculture.

April3,2013

Page46

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

Figure3.31.OverviewofMDNRshubsandcorridorsandforestconnectivitydatawithintheprojectarea.

Figure3.32.RegionaloverviewofMDNRshubsandcorridorsandforestconnectivitydata.

April3,2013

Page47

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea
Wildlife
IntheupperreachesofTenMileCreekbeaverhavedevelopedaseriesofdamswhichprovidedeep,
coolpoolsthatactasrefugeforfish,amphibiansandreptilesduringthedriersummermonthsand
habitatforwinteringwaterfowlandareawildlifeinthewintermonths(MontgomeryCountyPlanning
Department,2009).Inaddition,birdsurveysin2009observedorheard12migratorynestingforest
interiorbirdspeciesinStage4forestinteriorareasofTenMileCreek(MontgomeryCountyPlanning
Department,2009).

Table3.6liststhewildlifedocumentedinvarioushabitatsduringanecologicalfieldsurveythroughout
theClarksburgPlanningAreabyGreenhorne&OMara,Inc.(1992).

Table3.6.WildlifeDocumentedintheClarksburgPlanningAreaDuringtheClarksburgEnvironmental&Water
ResourcesStudy
MammalsthroughouttheClarksburgPlanningArea
Whitetaildeer(Odocoileusvirginianus)

Easternmole(Scalopusaquaticus)

Raccoon(Procyonlotor)

Woodchuck(Marmotamonax)

Graysquirrel(Sciuruscarolinensis)

Easternchipmunk(Tamiasstriatus)

Redfox(Vulpesvulpes)
BirdsinUplandHardwoodForest
Downywoodpecker(Picoidespubescens)

Scarlettanager(Pirangaolivacea)

Redbelliedwoodpecker(Melanerpescarolinus)

Whitebreastednuthatch(Sittacarolinensis)

Tuftedtitmouse(Parusbicolor)

Whippoorwill(Caprimulgusvociferous)

Kentuckywarbler(Oporornisformosus)

Eastern towhee(Pipiloerythrophthalmus)

Northernparula(Parulaamericana)

Redtailedhawk(Buteojamaicensis)

Northerncardinal(Cardinaliscardinalis)

Greatcrestedflycatcher(Myiarchuscrinitus)

Ovenbird(Seiurusaurocapillus)
BirdsinBottomlandHardwoodForest
Easternwoodpewee(Contopusvirens)

Graycatbird(Dumetellacarolinensis)

Carolinachickadee(Poecilecarolinensis)

Redeyedvireo(Vireoolivaceus)

Carolinawren(Thryothorusludoyicianus)

Americanrobin(Turdusmigratorius)

Woodthrush(Hylocichiamustelina)

Barredowl(Strixvaria)

BirdsalongForestEdgesandOpenAreas
Commonyellowthroat(Geothlypistrichas)

Barnswallow(Hirundorustica)

Redwingedblackbird(Agelaiusphoeniceus)

Americancrow(Corvusbrachyrhynchos)

Indigobunting(Passerinacyanea)

Turkeyvulture(Cathartesaura)

Northernflicker(Colaptesauratus)

Americangoldfinch(Carduelistristis)

HerptileSpeciesinBottomlandHardwoodForests(Associatedwithstreams,floodplains,andwetalnds)
Pickerelfrog(Ranapalustris)

Ringnecksnake(Diadophispunctatus)

Americantoad(Bufoamericanus)

Easternboxturtle(Terrapenecarolina)

Twolinedsalamander(Euryceabislineata)

Treefrog(Hylasp.)

Source:(Greenhorne&OMara,Inc.,1992)

Inaddition,theAudubonNaturalistSocietyhasobservedorseenevidenceofthefollowingwildlife
duringsamplingeffortsinTenMileCreekwatershed:salamanders,fish,frogs,deer,beavers,

April3,2013

Page48

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea
woodpeckers,owls,songbirds,GreatBlueherons,hawks,andvultures(AudubonNaturalistSociety,
2012).

3.10Rare,Threatened,andEndangeredSpecies
Aspeciesinformationrequestletterregardinginformationonstaterare,threatenedand/orendangered
plantandanimalspecieswithinorneartheTenMileCreekwatershedwassenttoMDNRWildlifeand
HeritageServiceinJanuary2013.Asofthedateofthisreport,aresponseletterwasnotyetreceived.
AccordingtotheUnitedStatesFishandWildlifeService(USFWS)ChesapeakeBayFieldOfficewebsite,
thewatershedislocatedonaUnitedStatesGeologicSurvey(USGS)Topographicmapdesignated
wherenofederallyproposedorlistedendangeredorthreatenedspeciesareknowntooccur.Forthis
reason,anonlinecertificationletterisadequateforfulfillingthespeciesinformationrequesttothe
USFWS(AppendixE).Inaddition,noendangeredfloraorfaunawereidentifiedduringa1990
environmentalinventoryconductedbyGreenhorne&OMara,Inc.forMontgomeryCountyPlanning
DepartmentofMNCPPC(Greenhorne&OMara,1992).

April3,2013

Page49

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

4.0 COMMUNITYFEATURES

4.1 HistoricalContext
AletterrequestinghistoricandarcheologicalpropertiesinformationwithinTenMileCreekwatershed
wassenttoMarylandHistoricalTrust(MHT)inJanuary2013(AppendixF).AMHTreviewletterdated
February8,2013,(AppendixF)concludedthereareliterallydozensofhistoricalpropertiesand
severalknownarcheologicalsites(bothprehistoricandhistoric)aswellasanumberofarcheologically
sensitiveareaslikelytocontainsignificantsitesthathavenotyetbeenidentified(MarylandHistorical
Trust,2013).TheknownhistoricalfeaturestonotewithinTenMileCreekwatershedincludethree
rusticroads,WestOldBaltimoreRoadfordcrossing,cemeteries,ClarksburgSchool,MoneysworthFarm,
CephasSummersHouse,ClarksburgHistoricalDistrict,andTenmileCreekValleyHistoricalDistrict
(Figure4.1).

TheRusticRoadProgramwasenactedbyMontgomeryCountytopreservehistoricandscenicroadways
characteristicsofthecountysagriculturalandruralorigins.Therearetwocategoriesofrusticroads
rusticroadandexceptionallyrusticroad.Thedifferenceisthatexceptionalrusticroadscontribute
significantlytothenatural,agricultural,orhistoriccharacteristicoftheCounty,haveunusualfeatures
foundonfewotherroads,andwouldbemorenegativelyaffectedbyimprovementsor
modificationsthanmostotherroadsintheRusticRoadProgram(MontgomeryCountyDepartmentof
ParkandPlanning,1994).Threeroadsinthewatershedareincludedinthisprogram.Smallportionsof
PeachTreeRoadandSlidellRoadwithinthewatershedareclassifiedasrusticroads.WestOld
BaltimoreRoad,thatbisectsthewatershedfromClarksburgRoad(MD121)toSlidellRoad,isclassified
asanexceptionalrusticroad(MontgomeryCountyPlanningDepartment,2004).

AuniquecharacteristicofWestOldBaltimoreRoadisafordcrossing,anaturalshallowpointinthe
streamthatcanbecrossedbyvehicleorpeople,throughTenMileCreekmainstem.Thisisoneofafew
fordsremaininginMontgomeryCounty.

TwohistoricalcemeteriesarelocatedinTenMileCreekoneinthenortheastandtheotherinthe
northwestClarksburgMethodistChurchCemeteryandThompsonFamilyCemetery.Clarksburg
MethodistChurchCemeteryisassociatedwiththeClarksburgMethodistChurch,establishedin1788.
Someoftheslategravemarkersaredatedlate18thtoearly19thcentury.Thecemeteryislocatedon
SpireStreetintheClarksburgHistoricDistrict.ThompsonFamilyCemetery,circa1873,islocatedwest
ofSlidellRoadjustsouthofComusRoad(MontgomeryCountyPlanningDepartment&Montgomery
CountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection,2013).

Accordingtothe1994ClarksburgMasterPlan,theMasterPlanforHistoricPreservationhasfive
individualsitesandthreeMasterPlanhistoricaldistrictswithintheClarksburgStudyArea.Three
individualsitesClarksburgSchool,MoneysworthFarm,andCephasSummersHouseandClarksburg
HistoricDistrictarelocatedentirelyorpartiallywithinTenMileCreekwatershed.Severaladditional
historicalresources,mostlyhousesandoutbuildingswithinTenMileCreekwatershedidentifiedinthe
1994MasterPlanthatwerebeingreviewedinconjunctionwiththeMasterPlaneffort,received
negativerecommendationsfromtheHistoricalPreservationCommissionandtheMasterPlan
(MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofParkandPlanning,1994).

April3,2013

Page50

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

Figure4.1.HistoricandCulturalSites

April3,2013

Page51

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea
TheNationalRegisterlistedClarksburgSchool,atworoomschoolhousebuiltin1909,aslocatedwithin
theClarksburgHistoricalDistrict(MarylandHistoricalTrust,2013;MontgomeryCountyDepartmentof
ParkandPlanning,1994).MoneysworthFarm,aMHTeasementproperty,islocatedsouthofFrederick
Road(MD355)onthegroundsoftheMontgomeryCountyCorrectionalFacility(MarylandHistorical
Trust,2013;MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofParkandPlanning,1994).TheMoneysworthFarmisa
farmsteadinwhichtheoriginalpartofthehousewasbuiltin1783withlogs.CephasSummersHouse,
datingfromthesecondquarterofthe19thcentury,isoneoftheearliestfarmhousesintheClarksburg
area.Thefarmhouse,locatedwestofClarksburgRoad,isanexampleofGreekRevivalstylearchitecture
(MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofParkandPlanning,1994;MontgomeryCountyPlanning
Department&MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection,2013).

TheNationalRegistereligibleClarksburgHistoricalDistrict,locatedalongFrederickRoad(MD355)inthe
northernpartofTenMileCreekwatershed,hasresidentialandcommercialbuildingsfromtheearly
19thtoearly20thcenturyincludingtheClarksburgSchool(MarylandHistoricalTrust,2013;
MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofParkandPlanning,1994;MontgomeryCountyPlanning
Department&MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection,2013).TheTenmile
CreekStreamValleyHistoricalDistrictislocatedbetweenRoute121andWestOldBaltimoreRoad
(MarylandHistoricalTrust,1979).AccordingtoMarylandStatearchivescompiled19781979,thearea
containspotentiallysignificantarcheologicalsites(i.e.prehistoricIndianculture)andsettlementsofthe
eighteenthcentury(e.g.,tobaccoplanters,amillsiteincludeapond,race,andhouse,aboardinghouse,
etc.)(MarylandHistoricalTrust,1979).

4.2 ExistingInfrastructure
Utilities
UtilitiesarelimitedwithintheTenMileCreekstudyarea.TheCountyCorrectionalFacilitypumps
sewagetoGatewayCenterDrive.AfewpropertiesintheHistoricDistricthaveaccesstosewerservice
viasewersintheLittleSenecawatershed,someadjacenttothetowncenterandafewwestofRoute
355(MontgomeryCountyPlanningDepartment,2009).ThemajorityofresidentswithinTenMileCreek
watershedareonwellwaterandsepticsystems.

StormwaterManagement
MontgomeryCountyhashistoricallybeenveryproactiveinrequiringstormwatermanagementof
developers,thustheexistingdevelopmentareasinTenMileCreekarelargelycontrolledbybest
managementpractices(BMPs).Duetothevariousdevelopmentperiods,theseBMPsvaryaccordingto
theirapprovaldateandwhatwasconsideredstateofthepracticeatthetimeofconstruction.
TwentyBMPsarelocatedinthreeoftheTenMileCreeksubwatershedsLSTM201,LSTM206,and
LSTM204(Table4.1andFigure4.2).Inall,theseBMPsservicefifteendrainageareas,whicharegrouped
intheTable.EighteenarelistedintheMontgomeryCountyDEPurbanstormwaterBMPdatabase.The
urbanstormwaterBMPdatabasemaintainedbyDEPisgenerallyusedfortheCountytotrackBMPs
withintheirjurisdictionformaintenance.Generally,thereisalagperiodbetweenconstructionofa
BMP,aperiodwheretheBMPismaintainedbyadeveloperorpropertyowner,andwhenthatBMP
becomesCountyresponsibility.AtleasttwoBMPsarecurrentlynotlistedintheurbanstormwaterBMP
database:apondattheClarksburgDetentionCenter,andapondattheStringtownRoadExtension.
ThesewereaddedtoTable4.1basedondatafromtheSPAreports.

April3,2013

Page52

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

Figure4.2.ExistingStormwaterInfrastructureintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

April3,2013

Page53

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea
Table4.1.ExistingStormwaterManagementFeaturesintheTenMileCreekstudyarea
Subwatershed

StructureType

Approval
Date

DrainageArea
(acres)

LandUse

LSTM201

FlowSplittertoSandFilter

2002

14.6

Route355Roadway

LSTM201

InfiltrationTrench

2000

3.9

GardenofRemembrance
CemeteryRoadway

LSTM201

FlowSplittertoDryPondw/
ExtendedDetention

1979

3.7

LittleBennettRegionalPark
Parking

LSTM201

WetPondw/ExtendedDetention1

2002

ClarksburgDetention Facility
(Institutional)

LSTM206

FlowSplittertoSandFilter

1979

3.2

LittleBennettRegionalPark
Parking

LSTM206

Bioretention

2007

1.1

WoodcrestPhase5 Medium
DensityResidential

LSTM206

InfiltrationTrench

1995

6.1

ClarksburgNursery
(Commercial)

LSTM206

Bioretention

2003

0.9

ClarksburgRidgeHigh
DensityResidential

LSTM206

SandFilter

2003

0.6

ClarksburgRidgeHigh
DensityResidential

LSTM206

WetPondw/ExtendedDetention

1989

34.5

Gateway270CorporatePark

LSTM206

Oil/gritSeparatortoUnderground
Detention

1992

3.8

Clarksburg
ElementarySchool

LSTM206

UndergroundInfiltrationtrench

1974

0.3

ClarksburgElementary
School

LSTM206

Erosion&SedimentControlPond,
tobeconvertedtoaWetPond2

2012

12.9

StringtownRoadExtension&
GatewayCommons

LSTM204

DryWell

2007

0.09

HuffmanPropertySingle
Residence

LSTM204

DryWell

2008

0.03

BranchHillSingleResidence

Source:DEPUrbanStormwaterBMPDatabase,exceptfor
1MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection,2003
2MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection,2012

ThenorthernheadwaterareaofTenMileCreek(subwatershedLSTM201)receivesrunofffrompartof
theClarksburgDetentionCenter,Route355,theGardenofRemembranceCemetery,andtheLittle
BennettRegionalPark.Insomecases,aflowsplitterisusedtoroutefirstflusheventstoinfiltration
practices,asisthecasefortheRoute355andLittleBennettRegionalParkfacilities.Theflowsplitterat
theLittleBennettRegionalParkactuallydividesflowbetweentheLSTM201andLSTM206
subwatersheds.ThepondattheClarksburgDetentionCenterwasreconstructedafterconstructionof
thejail,butwasnotlistedintheDEPUrbanStormwaterBMPdatabase(MontgomeryCounty
DepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection,2003).Thestreamhasbeenimpactedbythecrossingand
pipeddrainageassociatedwithI270.SectionsoftheClarksburgCorrectionalFacilityhavealsobeen
channelizedtoimprovedrainage.

April3,2013

Page54

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea
TheeasternheadwaterareaofTenMileCreek(subwatershedLSTM206)receivesrunofffromthenew
StringtownRoadwideningwestofRoute355,somecommercialdevelopmentintheI270Gateway
Centerarea,portionsoftheTownCenterdevelopment,apartofGatewayCommons,aswellasrunoff
fromportionsofI270.Thissubwatershedcontainsthehighestdensityofstreamcrossings,piped
drainage,andstormwatermanagementfacilities.ConstructionontheStringtownRoadExtensionhas
beencompletedsinceNovember2006,buttheSedimentBasinBMPwillnotbeconvertedtoSWMuntil
constructioniscompletedatGatewayCommons,sincethetwopropertiesbothdraintothisbasin.The
basintreats12.9acresofrunofffromStringtownRoadExtensionandGatewayCommons.Itthen
dischargestoanexistingoffsitestormwatermanagementpondtothewestofGatewayCenterDrive
(MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection,2012).

ThewesterntributaryareaofTenMileCreek(subwatershedLSTM204)containssomelowdensity
residentialdevelopment.Twooftheseprivatehomes,BranchHillandHuffman,havedrywellsto
managerunofffromtheirproperties.Somelimitedpipeddrainageoccursassociatedwiththe
residentialdevelopment.

April3,2013

Page55

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

5.0CONCLUSION

Aspresentedintheprecedingsections,theTenMileCreekstudyareaexhibitsmanyenvironmental
characteristicsthatreflectoverallhealthywatershedconditions.Subwatershedcharacteristicswithin
thestudyareaaresummarizedinTable5.1.Whereconditionsshowindicationsofimpairment,these
tendtobeassociatedwithsubwatershedswheredevelopmentalreadyexists.

Inthenextphasesofplanninganalysisanddevelopmentscenariotesting,itwillbeimportanttoassess
potentialimpactstokeyenvironmentalfeaturesthroughoutthewatershed.Spatialanalysisoverlaying
developmentscenarioswithkeyenvironmentalfeaturessuchassoils,slopes,wetlands,hydrology,and
forestcover(supplementedbywaterqualityandhydrologicmodeling)willinformtheClarksburgMaster
PlanLimitedAmendmentprocess.

Table5.1.SummaryofKeySubwatershedAttributes

LSTM110

Yes

0.3

Good

LSTM111

Yes

0.2

Good

LSTM206

Yes

0.6

12%

49%

11%

15%

Good

LSTM112

Partial

0.4

13%

Fair

LSTM201

Partial

1.0

20%

19%

25%

11%

Good

LSTM202

Yes

0.4

12%

26%

13%

Good

LSTM302

Partial

0.1

30%

Good

LSTM303B

Partial

0.2

10%

19%

Good

LSTM203

0.8

16%

14%

11%

18%

Fair

LSTM204

0.8

18%

11%

13%

15%

Excellent

LSTM304

Partial

0.1

Good

4.8

100%

TOTAL

April3,2013

ErodibleSoils

Percentof
StudyArea

ForestInterior

Wetlands

Area
(squaremiles)

ForestCover

Subwatershed

Within
SPA

Imperviousness

ContributiontoStudyAreas:

2012Benthic
IBIRating

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Page56

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

REFERENCES

Athanas,C.,Ph.D.&Associates,Inc.,&Dewberry&Davis.(1997).WetlandsStudyinClarksburg,
Maryland,FinalReport,July.MarylandNationalCapitalParkandPlanningCommission.

AudubonNaturalistSociety.(2012).AudubonNaturalistSocietymonitoringatTenMileCreek.Notes
accompanyingfieldtriponDecember13,2012.MontgomeryCounty,Maryland.

Boward,D.M.,Kayzak,P.F.,Stranko,S.A.,Hurd,M.K.,&Prochaska,T.P.(1999).Fromthemountainsto
thesea:thestateofMaryland'sfreshwaterstreams(EPA903R99023).MarylandDepartmentof
NaturalResources,MonitoringandNontidalAssessmentDivision,Annapolis,Maryland.

Cowardin,L.M.,Carter,V.,Golet,F.C.,&LaRoe,E.T.(1979).ClassificationofWetlandsandDeepwater
HabitatsoftheUnitedStates.UnitedStatesFishandWildlifeService.

EIFACWorkingPartyonWaterQualityCriteriaforEuropeanFreshwaterFish.(1968).Waterquality
criteriaforEuropeanfreshwaterfish.ReportonextremepHvaluesandinlandfisheries.EuropeanInland
FisheriesAdvisoryCommission.EIFACtech.Pap.,(4):24p.,1968.

Gibson,G.(Ed.).(1991).ProceedingsofaSymposium:Biologicalcriteria:Researchandregulation(EPA
440/591005).Washington,D.C.:OfficeofWater,U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.

Greenhorne&OMara,Inc.(1992).ClarksburgEnvironmental&WaterResourcesStudy.Preparedfor
MarylandNationalCapitalPark&PlanningCommission,June30th.

Hughes,R.M.,Larsen,D.P.Larsen,&Omernik,J.M.(1986).Regionalreferencesites:Amethodfor
assessingstreampotentials.EnvironmentalManagement10,629635.

Jones,C.,McCannJ.,&McConville,S.(2000).Aguidetotheconservationofforestinteriordwelling
birdsintheChesapeakeBaycriticalarea.CriticalAreaCommissionfortheChesapeakeandAtlantic
CoastalBays.Annapolis,Maryland.Retrievedathttp://www.dnr.state.md.us/irc/docs/00009691.pdf

Karr,J.R.(1981).Assessmentofbioticintegrityusingfishcommunities.Fisheries6(6),2127.

Kayzak,P.(2001).MarylandBiologicalStreamSurveysamplingmanual.MarylandDepartmentofNatural
Resources,MonitoringandNonTidalAssessmentDivision,Annapolis,MD.

MarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment&CenterforWatershedProtection.(2009).2000Maryland
StormwaterDesignManual,VolumesI&II,Revised.MarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment.
Baltimore,MD.

MarylandGeologicalSurvey.(1968).GeologicMapofMaryland.[BasemapfromArmyMapService
sheets,1:250,000.]Retrievedfromhttp://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/geo/mon.html

MarylandHistoricalTrust.(1979).Inventoryformforstatehistoricsitessurvey.Retrievedfrom
http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/stagsere/se1/se5/016000/016500/016558/pdf/msa_se5_16558
.pdf.

April3,2013

Page57

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection(DEP).(2012).Specialprotectionarea
programannualreport2010.MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection,
DepartmentofPermittingServices,andMarylandNationalCapitalParkandPlanningCommission.

MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection(DEP).(2009).SpecialProtectionArea
ProgramAnnualReport2007.MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection,
DepartmentofPermittingServices,andMarylandNationalCapitalParkandPlanningCommission.

MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection(DEP).(2003).SpecialProtectionArea
ProgramAnnualReport2002.MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection,
DepartmentofPermittingServices,andMarylandNationalCapitalParkandPlanningCommission.

MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofParkandPlanning.(2000).Guidelinesforenvironmental
managementofdevelopmentinMontgomeryCounty.MarylandNationalCapitalParkandPlanning
Commission.SilverSpring,MD.

MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofParkandPlanning.(1994).ApprovedandAdoptedClarksburg
MasterPlanandHyattstownSpecialStudyArea.MarylandNationalCapitalParkandPlanning
Commission.

MontgomeryCountyPlanningDepartment.(2009).Attachment1:AnalysisofCurrentConditionsand
ProjectedDevelopmentinClarksburgStage4.MarylandNationalCapitalParkandPlanning
Commission.SilverSpring,Maryland.Retrievedat
http://www.montgomeryplanningboard.org/agenda/2009/documents/20090709_attachment1
analysis_clarksburg_stage4.pdf

MontgomeryCountyPlanningDepartment.(2004).RusticRoadsMap.MarylandNationalCapitalPark
andPlanningCommission.Retrievedat
http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/community/plan_areas/rural_area/rustic_roads.shtm

MontgomeryCountyPlanningDepartment&MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmental
Protection.(2013).TenMileCreekGISData[GISShapefiles].

NationalClimaticDataCenter.(2010).[PDFdocumentprovidingSummaryofMonthlyNormals1981
2010].NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministrationClimateDataOnline:InteractiveMap
Application.Retrievedathttp://gis.ncdc.noaa.gov/map/viewer/#app=cdo

NationalWeatherandClimateCenter.(2002).ClimateInformation.UnitedStateDepartmentof
Agriculture.NaturalResourcesConservationService.Retrievedfrom
http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/support/climate/wetlands/md/24031.txt

NaturalResourcesConservationService.(2009).Nationalengineeringhandbook,part630hydrology,
chapter7hydrologicsoilgroups(210VINEH).UnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture.Washington,
DC.

April3,2013

Page58

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea
Paul,M.J.,Stribling,J.B.,Klauda,R.J.,Kayzak,P.F.,Southerland,M.T.,&Roth,N.E.(2003).Aphysical
habitatindexforfreshwaterwadeablestreamsinMaryland,finalreport(CBWPMANTAEA034).
MarylandDepartmentofNaturalResources.MonitoringandNonTidalAssessmentDivision.

Petranka,J.A.(1998).SalamandersoftheUnitedStatesandCanada.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,
WashingtonandLondon.592pages.
Reger,J.P.&Cleaves,E.T.(2008).MarylandPhysiographicMapofMaryland.1:100,000scale.
MarylandGeologicSurvey.Retrievedfromhttp://www.mgs.md.gov/coastal/maps/physio.html

SoilSurveyStaff,NaturalResourcesConservationService,UnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture.
(2013).[SoilsmapofMontgomeryCounty,Maryland]WebSoilSurveyMontgomeryCounty,Maryland.
Retrievedfromhttp://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/.

Southerland,M.T.,Jung,R.E.,Baxter,D.P.,Chellman,I.C.,Mercurio,G.,&Vlstad,J.H.(2004).
StreamsidesalamandersasindicatorsofstreamqualityinMaryland.AppliedHerpetology,2,2346.

Southerland,M.,&Rogers,G.(2010).Technicalmemorandum:validationofstreamsalamanderIBIfor
Maryland:Analysisof20072009MBSSandMontgomeryCountydata.Versar,Inc.

Southerland,M.,RogersG.,Kline,M.,Morgan,R.,Boward,D.,Kayzak,P.,Klauda,R.,&Stranko,S.
(2005).DevelopmentofnewfishandbenthicmacroinvertebrateindicesofbioticintegrityforMaryland
streams.MarylandDepartmentofNaturalResources.Annapolis,MD.

Stanko,S.,Smith,S.,Erb,L.,Limpert,D.(2010).AkeytotheamphibiansandreptilesofMaryland(12
10132011532).MarylandDepartmentofNaturalResources.Annapolis,MD.

UnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey.(2013).NationalWaterInformationSystem,datafromUSGSgage
01644390TenMileCreekNearBoyds,MD.Retrievedfrom
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/nwisman/?site_no=01644390&agency_cd=USGS

UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(1976).Qualitycriteriaforwater.UnitedStates
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.Washington,D.C.

April3,2013

Page59

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

April3,2013

Page60

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

APPENDIXA.BIBLIOGRAPHYFORTHETENMILECREEKWATERSHED
ENVIRONMENTALANALYSISFORTHECLARKSBURG
MASTERPLANLIMITEDAMENDMENT

April3,2013

TENMILECREEKWATERSHEDENVIRONMENTALANALYSIS
FORTHECLARKSBURGMASTERPLANLIMITEDAMENDMENT
BIBLIOGRAPHY
UpdatedMarch29,2013
Category
Bibliography
Alberti,M.,D.Booth,K.Hill,B.Coburn,andC.Avollo.TheImpactofUrban
ESD/ESCReview
PatternsofAquaticEcosystems:AnEmpiricalAnalysisinPugetLowlandSub
Basins.LandscapeUrbanPlanning,80(4),345361
Alexander,R.,E.Boyer,R.Smith,G.SchwarzandR.Moore,2007.Theroleof
ESD/ESCReview
headwaterstreamsindownstreamwaterquality.JournalofAmericanWater
ResourcesAssociation.43(1):4159.
Athanas,C.,Associates,Inc.,&Dewberry&Davis.(1997).Wetlandsstudyin
ClarksburgPlanningArea
Clarksburg,Marylandfinalreport.MarylandNationalCapitalParkandPlanning
Commission.
AudubonNaturalistSociety.(2012).AudubonNaturalistSocietymonitoringat
TenMileCreek
TenMileCreek.NotesaccompanyingfieldtriponDecember13,2012.
MontgomeryCounty,Maryland.
AudubonNaturalistSociety.(2013).ANSSite32monitoringcomments
TenMileCreek
tributaryonTenMileCreekontheMeaseFarmadjacenttoWestOldBaltimore
Road.ReceivedonJanuary3,2013.
AudubonNaturalistSociety.(2013).BIBIcalculatorfromDanBowardofDNR
TenMileCreek
[Excelfile].ReceivedonJanuary3,2013.
TenMileCreek

AudubonNaturalistSociety.(2013).BIBIScoresforbothANSTenMileCreek
Sites,19972012,allseasons[Excelfile].ReceivedonJanuary3,2013.

TenMileCreek

AudubonNaturalistSociety.(2013).Characteristicsofsamplescollectedat
bothANSTenMileCreekSites[Excelfile].ReceivedonJanuary3,2013.

TenMileCreek

AudubonNaturalistSociety.(2013).Dominantfamilybyseason,ANSstationon
mainstemofTenMileCreek,20092012[Excelfile].ReceivedonJanuary3,
2013.
AudubonNaturalistSociety.(2013).Dominantfamilybyseason,ANSstationon
tributaryofTenMileCreek,19972012[Excelfile].ReceivedonJanuary3,
2013.
AudubonNaturalistSociety.(2013).MainstemofTenMileCreenontheMease
FarmupstreamofthefordonWestOldBaltimoreRoad.ReceivedonJanuary
3,2013.
AudubonNaturalistSociety.(2013).OrganismscollectedatANSstationon
mainstemonTenMileCreek,20092012[Excelfile].ReceivedonJanuary3,
2013.
AudubonNaturalistSociety.(2013).OrganismscollectedatANSstationon
tributaryonTenMileCreek,19972012[Excelfile].ReceivedonJanuary3,
2013.

ESD/ESCReview

Belucci,C.,2007.StormwaterandAquaticLife:MakingtheConnection
BetweenImperviousCoverandAquaticLifeImpairmentsforTMDL
DevelopmentinConnecticutStreams.Proceedings,TMDL2007,10031018

ESD/ESCReview

Benik,S.R.,B.N.Wilson,D.D.Biesboer,B.Hanse,andD.Stenlund,1998.The
efficacyoferosioncontrolproductsataMN/DOTconstructionsite.PaperNo.
982156.AmericanSocietyofAgriculturalEngineers,St.Joseph,MI

ESD/ESCReview

Benik,S.R.,B.N.Wilson,D.D.Biesboer,B.Hansen,andD.Stenlund,2003.
Evaluationoferosioncontrolproductsusingnaturalrainfallevents.Journalof
SoilandWaterConservation.58.2(MarchApril2003):p98.

Page A-1

TENMILECREEKWATERSHEDENVIRONMENTALANALYSIS
FORTHECLARKSBURGMASTERPLANLIMITEDAMENDMENT
BIBLIOGRAPHY
UpdatedMarch29,2013
Category
Bibliography
Bhardwaj,A.K.,andR.A.McLaughlin,2008.Energydissipationandchemical
ESD/ESCReview
treatmenttoimprovestillingbasinperformance.Transactionsofthe
ASABE.Vol.51(5):164516522008
BiohabitatsInc.LittleSenecawatershedmonitoringstationcrosssectiondata
TenMile&LittleSeneca
AvailabilitySummary[Excelfile].CreatedonJanuary3,2013.
BiohabitatsInc.TenMileCreeksubwatershedcrosssectiondata[Excelfile].
TenMileCreek
CollectedonDecember21,2012.
ESD/ESCReview

Booth,D.2000.Forestcover,impervioussurfacearea,andthemitigationof
urbanizationimpactsinKingCounty,WA.preparedforKingCountyWaterand
LandResourceDivision.UniversityofWashington.Seattle,WA.

ESD/ESCReview

Booth,D.,andC.Jackson.1997.UrbanizationofAquaticSystemsDegradation
Thresholds,StormwaterDetention,andtheLimitsofMitigation.Journalofthe
AmericanWaterResourcesAssociation.22(5):10771090

WatershedScience

ESDEffectiveness

ESD/ESCReview

ESDEffectiveness

Booth,D.,andD.HartleyandR.Jackson.ForestCover,ImperviousSurface
Area,andtheMitigationofStormwaterImpacts.JournaloftheAmerican
WaterResourcesAssociation.38(3):836845
BradfordA.,A.Fata,B.Gharabaghi,J.Y.Li,G.MacMillanandR.P.Rudra,2006.
Evaluationofsedimentcontrolpondperformanceatconstructionsitesinthe
GreaterTorontoArea.CanadianJournalofCivilEngineering;Nov2006,Vol.33
Issue11,p1335
Brander,K.,K.OwenandK.Potter,2004.ModeledImpactsofDevelopment
TypeonRunoffVolumeandInfiltrationPerformance.JournaloftheAmerican
WaterResourcesAssociation(2004):961969
Brander,K.E.,Owen,K.E.,&Potter,K.W.(2004).Modeledimpactsof
developmenttypeonrunoffvolumeandinfiltrationperformance.Journalof
theAmericanWaterResourcesAssociation (JAWRA)40(4):961969.

ESD/ESCReview

Britton,S.L.,K.M.Robinson,andB.J.Barfield,2001.Modelingtheeffectiveness
ofsiltfence.ProceedingsoftheSeventhFederalInteragencySedimentation
Conference,March25to29,2001,Reno,Nevada

ESD/ESCReview

Burns,M.,T.Fletcher,C.Walsh,A.LadsonandB.Hatt,2012.Hydrologic
shortcomingsofconventionalurbanstormwatermanagementand
opportunitiesforreform.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning105(2012)230240

TenMileCreek
ESD/ESCReview
ESD/ESCReview

WatershedScience

C.WisswithAudubonNaturalistSociety(2013).Personalcommunication.
Email:AdditionaldocumentsRE:ANSMonitoringatTenMileCreek.Received
onJanuary3,2013.
Cameron,Diane,2010.ProtectingTenMileCreekBasedonWatershedScience
andLocalExperience.Febrauary,2010
Cameron,Diane,2011.ImplementingtheStormwaterManagementActof
2007:DefiningPreDevelopmentForestHydrologyintheMarylandPiedmont
andBeyond,(August2011).
Cappiella,K.,Stack,W.P.,FraleyMcNeal,L.,Lane,C.,&McMahon,G.(2012).
Strategiesformanagingtheeffectsofurbandevelopmentonstreams:U.S.
GeologicalSurveyCircular1378,69p.,availableat
http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1378/.

Page A-2

TENMILECREEKWATERSHEDENVIRONMENTALANALYSIS
FORTHECLARKSBURGMASTERPLANLIMITEDAMENDMENT
BIBLIOGRAPHY
UpdatedMarch29,2013
Category
Bibliography
Cappiella,Karen,Stack,W.P.,FraleyMcNeal,Lisa,Lane,Cecilia,andMcMahon,
ESD/ESCReview
Gerard,2012,Strategiesformanagingtheeffectsofurbandevelopmenton
streams:U.S.GeologicalSurveyCircular1378,69p.
Carino,H.F.,L.B.Faucette,J.Governo,R.Governo,C.F.JordanandB.G.
Lockaby,2007.Evaluationoferosioncontrolmethodsforstormwaterquality.
ESD/ESCReview
JournalofSoilandWaterConservationVol.62.No.6.November/December
2007
CenterforWatershedProtection,2003.ImpactsofImperviousCoveron
ESD/ESCReview
AquaticSystems.EllicottCity,MD.
ChesapeakeStormwaterNetworkandBiohabitats,Inc.(2009).Montgomery
MontgomeryCounty
taskorder#7Subtask1:DefiningESDtotheMEP.MontgomeryCounty
DepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection.
ChesapeakeStormwaterNetworkandBiohabitats,Inc.(2011).Montgomery
MontgomeryCounty
taskorder#7:Implementationplanguidancedocument.MontgomeryCounty
DepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection.
ESD/ESCReview

ESD/ESCReview

ESDEffectiveness

ClarksburgMasterPlan

BiologicalConditionGradient
ESDEffectiveness
ESD/ESCReview

ESDEffectiveness

TenMileCreek

Cianfrani,C.,W.Hession,andD.Rizzo,2006.WatershedImperviousness
ImpactsonStreamChannelConditioninS.E.Pennsylvania.Journalofthe
AmericanWaterResourcesAssociation(JAWRA),42(4):941956
Clausen,J.,2007.JordanCoveWatershedProjectFinalReport,Departmentof
NaturalResourcesManagementandEngineering.UniversityofConnecticut.
Storrs,CT
Coleman,D.,C.MacRaeandE.Stein.,2005.EffectsofIncreasesinPeakFlows
andImperviousnessontheMorphologyofSouthernCaliforniaStreams.
SouthernCaliforniaCoastalResearchProject,CostaMesa,CA
Coles,J.,T.Cuffney,G.McMahon,andK.Beaulieu,2004.TheEffectsof
UrbanizationontheBiological,PhysicalandChemicalCharacteristicsofCoastal
NewEnglandStreams.
ConservationResearchInstitute,2005.ChangingCostPerceptions:AnAnalysis
ofConservationDevelopment.Preparedfor:IllinoisConservationFoundation.
Chicago,Ill.
CountyCouncil.(2012).Memorandum:Semiannualreportoftheplanning
boardClarksburgmasterplan.Addendum,Agendaitem#8,October9,2012.
Davies,S.P.&Jackson,S.K.(2006).Thebiologicalconditiongradient:A
descriptivemodelforinterpretingchangeinaquaticecosystems.Ecological
Applications,16(4),2006,pp/12511266.
Davis,A.,2008.FieldPerformanceofBioretention:HydrologyImpacts.Journal
ofHydrologicEngineering(June,2008):9095
Debusk,K.,W.HuntandD.Line,2011.BioretentionOutflow:DoesItMimic
Nonurban
WatershedShallowInterflow?J.Hydrol.Eng.(16):274279.
DeBusk,K.M.,Hunt,W.F.,andLine,D.E.(2011).Bioretentionoutflow:Doesit
mimicnonurbanwatershedshallowinterflow?JournalofHydrologic
Engineering ,ASCE,16(3),274279.DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943
5584.0000315
DepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection.(2009).Environmentallysensitive
featureswithbuffersinTenMileCreekworkingdraft.MontgomeryCounty,
Maryland.

Page A-3

TENMILECREEKWATERSHEDENVIRONMENTALANALYSIS
FORTHECLARKSBURGMASTERPLANLIMITEDAMENDMENT
BIBLIOGRAPHY
UpdatedMarch29,2013
Category
Bibliography
Dietz,M.andJ.Clausen,2008.Stormwaterrunoffandexportchangeswith
ESD/ESCReview
developmentinatraditionalandlowimpactsubdivision.Journalof
EnvironmentalManagement,87:560566
Dolan,M.(2013).MNCPPCDataforClarksburgenvironmentalstudies:Data
ClarksburgPlanningArea
deliveredbyJayMukherjee.MarylandNationalCapitalPark&Planning
Commission.
EcoNorthwest,2007.TheEconomicsofLowImpactDevelopment:ALiterature
ESD/ESCReview
Review.Eugene,OR
Faucette,L.B.,L.M.Risse,M.A.Nearing,J.W.Gaskin,andL.T.West.,2004.
Runoff,erosion,andnutrientlossesfromcompostandmulchblanketsunder
ESD/ESCReview
simulatedrainfall.JournalofSoilandWaterConservationJuly/August2004vol.
59no.4154160
Faucette,L.B.,R.A.Rowland,A.M.SadeghiandK.A.Sefton,2008.Sediment
andphosphorusremovalfromsimulatedstormrunoffwithcompostfiltersocks
ESD/ESCReview
andsiltfence.JournalofSoilandWaterConservationJuly/August2008vol.63
no.4257264
Biomonitoring

ESD/ESCReview
ESD/ESCReview
TenMileCreek

ESD/ESCReview

Fellows,C.S.,Clapcott,J.E.,Udy,J.W.,Bunn,S.E.,Harch,B.D.,Smith,M.J.,&
Davies,P.M.(2006).Benthicmetabolismasanindicatorofstreamecosystem
health.Hydrobiologia 572:7187.doi:10.1007/s1075000590016
Felton,G.(circa2007)ResearchReviewofNitrogenLossesfromTurfgrass.
PowerpointPresentationbyGaryFelton,AssociateProfessor,Universityof
MarylandAgriculturalExtension.
Fennessey,L.(undated)HydrologicBudgetsforDevelopmentScaleAreasin
Pennsylvania.
Fick,G.(1994).UseattainabilityforTenMileCreekinClarksburg,Maryland.
Firstdraft.MarylandNationCapitalParkandPlanningCommission,
EnvironmentalPlanningDivision.SilverSpring,MD.
Fifield,J,2001.DesigningEffectiveSedimentandErosionControlfor
ConstructionSites.DesigningforEffectiveSedimentandErosionControlon
ConstructionSites,SantaBarbara,CA:ForesterPress.2001

ESD/ESCReview

Freeman,M.,C.Pringle,andR.Jackson.2007.Hydrologicconnectivityandthe
contributionofstreamheadwaterstoecologicalintegrityatregionalscales.
JournaloftheAmericanWaterResourcesAssociation.43(1):514.

ESD/ESCReview

Gage,M.S.,A.Spivar,andC.J.Paradise.2004.EffectsofLandUseand
DisturbanceonBenthicInsectsinHeadwaterStreamsDrainingSmall
WatershedsNorthofCharlotte,NC.SoutheasternNaturalist.3(2):345358.

ESD/ESCReview
ESD/ESCReview

BiologicalConditionGradient

Galli,J.1990.Thermalimpactsassociatedwithurbanizationandstormwater
bestmanagementpractices.MetropolitanWashingtonCouncilof
Governments.Washington,D.C.
Garrisonetal.,2011.RooftopstoRiversII:Greenstrategiesforcontrolling
stormwaterandcombinedseweroverflows.Washington,DC
Gerritsen,J.&Jessup,B.(2007).Identificationofthebiologicalcondition
gradientforfreesonte(noncalcareous)streamsofpennsylvania.UnitedStates
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.PennsylvaniaDepartmentofEnvironmental
Protection.

Page A-4

TENMILECREEKWATERSHEDENVIRONMENTALANALYSIS
FORTHECLARKSBURGMASTERPLANLIMITEDAMENDMENT
BIBLIOGRAPHY
UpdatedMarch29,2013
Category
Bibliography
Gerritsen,J.&Leppo,E.(2005).Biologicalconditiongradientfortieredaquatic
BiologicalConditionGradient
lifeinNewJersey.UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency.NewJersey
DepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection.
Gerritsen,J.,Jessup,B.,&Stamp,J.(2010).TheNewEnglandbiological
conditiongradient(BCG)andamodelofbenthiccondition[PowerPointfile].
BiologicalConditionGradient
34thAnnualMeetingoftheNewEnglandAssociationofEnvironmental
Biologists.
Gibson,G.(Ed.).(1991).ProceedingsofaSymposium:Biologicalcriteria:
BiologicalAssessments
Researchandregulation(EPA440/591005). Washington,D.C.:Officeof
Water,U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.
ESD/ESCReview

ESD/ESCReview

ESD/ESCReview
ClarksburgPlanningArea

ClarksburgPlanningArea

ESD/ESCReview

ClarksburgPlanningArea

ESD/ESCReview

Goetz,ScottJ,etal.(2004)IntegratedAnalysisofEcosystemInteractionsWith
LandUseChange:TheChesapeakeBayWatershed.EcosystemsandLandUse
Change,GeophysicalMonograph153.AmericanGeophysicalUnion.
Goetz,ScottJ,etal.,(undatedestimated20042005)UsingIKONOSImagery
toAssessImperviousSurfaceArea,RiparianBuffersandStreamHealthinthe
MidAtlanticRegion,powerpointpresentation.
Goetz,ScottJ,IKONOSimageryforresourcemanagement:Treecover,
impervioussurfaces,andriparianbufferanalysesinthemidAtlanticregion,
(2003),RemoteSensingoftheEnvironment88,pp.195208.
GoetzRemSensEnv.03
Gomi,T.,R.Sidle,andJ.Richardson.2002.Understandingprocessesand
downstreamlinkagesofheadwatersystems.BioScience53(10):905915.
Greenhorne&OMara,Inc.(1992).Clarksburgenvironmental&water
y
pp
y
p
resourcesStudy:technicalappendix.MarylandNationalCapitalPark&
PlanningCommission.MontgomeryCountyPlanningDepartment.
Greenhorne&OMara,Inc.(1992).Clarksburgenvironmental&waterresource
study:finalreport.MarylandNationalCapitalPark&PlanningCommission.
MontgomeryCountyPlanningDepartment.
Greenhorne&O'Mara,Inc.(1992).Mapofgroundwaterpollutionpotential,
LittleSenecaLakewatershed&Clarksburgplanningarea,MontgomeryCounty,
Maryland.
Gregory,J.H.,M.D.Dukes,P.H.Jones,andG.L.Miller,2006,Effectofurbansoil
compactiononinfiltrationrate.JournalofSoilandWaterConservation61:3,
117124(2006)
Groffman,P.A.DorsetandP.Mayer,2005.Nprocessingwithingeomorphic
structuresinurbanstreams.JournalNorthAmericanBenthologicalSociety.
24(3):613625
Hayes,S.A.,R.A.McLaughlinandD.L.Osmond,2005.Polyacrylamideusefor
erosionandturbiditycontrolonconstructionsites.JournalofSoilandWater
Conservation60(4):193199
Hench,J.E.,&Schmieler,T.(1991).Clarksburgmasterplan:Recommendations
onnaturalandculturalresourcesandpublicparkandrecreationneeds.
MarylandNationalCapitalParkandPlanningCommission.Departmentof
Parks.
HolmanDobbs,J.,A.Bradley,andK.Potter.2003.Evaluationofhydrologic
benefitsofinfiltrationbasedurbanstormwatermanagement.Journalofthe
AmericanWaterResourcesAssociation39(l):205215.

Page A-5

TENMILECREEKWATERSHEDENVIRONMENTALANALYSIS
FORTHECLARKSBURGMASTERPLANLIMITEDAMENDMENT
BIBLIOGRAPHY
UpdatedMarch29,2013
Category
Bibliography
Horner,R.,H.LimandS.Burges.2003.HydrologicmonitoringoftheSeattle
ultraurbanstormwatermanagementproject.UniversityofWashington.
ESD/ESCReview
DepartmentofCivilandEnvironmentalEngineering.WaterResourcesSeries.
TechnicalReport170.
Houlahan,J.E.,andC.S.Findlay.2003.TheEffectsofAdjacentLandUseon
ESD/ESCReview
WetlandAmphibianSpeciesRichnessandCommunityComposition.Canadian
JournalofFisheriesandAquaticSciences.60(9):10781094.
Hughes,R.M.,Larsen,D.P.,&Omernik,J.M.(1986).Regionalreferencesites:A
BiologicalAssessments
methodforassessingstreampotentials.EnvironmentalManagement 10,629
635.
Hunt,W.A.Jarret,J.SmithandL.Sharkey.2006.Evaluatingbioretention
ESD/ESCReview
hydrologyandnutrientremovalatthreefieldsitesinNorthCarolina.Journalof
IrrigationandDrainageEngineering.6:600612.
Hunt,W.andW.Lord.2006.Bioretentionperformance,design,construction,
ESD/ESCReview
andmaintenance.NorthCarolinaCooperativeExtensionService.Urban
Waterways.AG58805.
Hursh,CharlesR,1944.WaterStorageLimitationsinForestSoilProfiles,Soil
ESD/ESCReview
ScienceSocietyofAmerica,Proceedings,Vol.8,(1944)
Islam,M.M.,D.Taphorn,andH.UtrataHalcomb,1998.Currentperformanceof
sedimentbasins&sedimentyieldmeasurementofconstructionsitesin
ESD/ESCReview
unincorporatedHamiltonCounty,Ohio.HamiltonCountySoilandWater
ConservationDistrict,1998
ESD/ESCReview
ESD/ESCReview
ESD/ESCReview

ESD/ESCReview

BiologicalAssessments
ESD/ESCReview

Jarrett,A,1996.Sedimentbasinevaluationanddesignimprovements.Final
completionreport.Hillsborough,N.C.:OrangeCountyBoardofCommissioners
Jarrett,A.,1999.Designingsedimentationbasinsforbettersedimentcapture.
OrangeCountyBoardofCommissioners
Jones,M.P.andW.F.Hunt.2009.BioretentionImpactonRunoffTemperature
inTroutSensitiveWaters.JournalofEnvironmentalEngineering,135(8):577
585.
Jones,M.P.andW.F.Hunt.2010.EffectofStormwaterWetlandsandWet
PondsonRunoffTemperatureinTroutSensitiveWaters.JournalofIrrigation
andDrainageEngineering.136(9):656661.
Jones,M.P.,W.F.Hunt,andR.J.Winston.2012.EffectofUrbanCatchment
CompositiononRunoffTemperature.JournalofEnvironmentalEngineering.
138(12):12311236.
Jones,R.,A.NortonandD.Morgan.1996.BioassessmentofBMPeffectiveness
inmitigatingstormwaterimpactsonaquaticbiota.inEffectsofWatershed
DevelopmentandManagementonAquaticEcosystems.ProceedingsASCEERF
Conference.Snowbird,UT.
Kalainesan,S.,R.D.Neufeld,R.Quimpo,andP.Yodnane,2008.Integrated
methodologyofdesignforconstructionsitesedimentationbasins.Journalof
EnvironmentalEngineering,Vol.134,No.8,August2008,pp.619627
Karr,J.R.(1981).Assessmentofbioticintegrityusingfishcommunities.
Fisheries 6(6),2127.
Kays,E.L.(undated)RelationshipofForestDestructionandSoilDisturbanceto
IncreasedFloodingintheSuburbanNorthCarolinaPiedmont.

Page A-6

TENMILECREEKWATERSHEDENVIRONMENTALANALYSIS
FORTHECLARKSBURGMASTERPLANLIMITEDAMENDMENT
BIBLIOGRAPHY
UpdatedMarch29,2013
Category
Bibliography
Kayzak,P.(2001).Marylandbiologicalstreamsurveysamplingmanual.
BiologicalAssessments
MarylandDepartmentofNaturalResources,MonitoringandNonTidal
AssessmentDivision,Annapolis,MD.
Kennen,J.,K.MurrayandK.Beaulieu.Determininghydrologicfactorsthat
ESD/ESCReview
influencestreammacroinvertebrateassemblagesinthenortheasternUS.
Ecohydrol.3,88106(2010)
KingCountyScienceandStormwaterServicesSections.,2012.Stormwater
ESD/ESCReview
RetrofitAnalysisandRecommendationsforJuanitaCreekBasinintheLake
WashingtonWatershedEcology.
King,R.M.Baker,D.Whigham,D.WellerandK.Hurd.2005.Spatial
ESD/ESCReview
considerationsforlinkingwatershedlandcovertoecologicalindicatorsin
streams.EcologicalApplications.15:137153.
King,R.S.,Baker,M.E.,Kazyak,P.F.,&Weller,D.E.(2011).Hownovelistoo
Biomonitoring
novel?Streamcommunitythresholdsatexceptionallylowlevelsofcatchment
urbanization.EcologicalApplications ,21(5),16591678.
King,RyanS,HowNovelistooNovel?StreamCommunityThresholdsat
ESD/ESCReview
ExceptionallyLowLevelsofCatchmentUrbanization,EcolAppl21.16591678
(1)
Kloss,2006.RooftopstoRivers:GreenStrategiesforControllingStormwater
ESD/ESCReview
andCSOs.Washington,DC
Legg,A.R.BannermanandJ.Panuska.1996.Variationintherelationofrunoff
ESD/ESCReview
fromresidentiallawnsinMadison,Wisconsin.USGSWaterResources
InvestigationsReport964194.
LichterJ.andP.Lindsey.1994.Soilcompactionandsiteconstruction:
ESD/ESCReview
assessmentandcasestudies.TheLandscapeBelowGround.International
SocietyofArborculture
Line,D.E.,2007.Monitoringtheeffectsofhighwayconstructioninthe
ESD/ESCReview
SedgefieldLakesWatershed.NorthCarolinaDepartmentofTransportation
ReportNumberFHWA/NC/200607
Line,D.E.,andN.M.White,2001.Efficienciesoftemporarysedimenttrapson
ESD/ESCReview
twoNorthCarolinaconstructionsites.TransactionsoftheASABE.Vol.44(5):
12071215.@2001
Line,D.E.,andN.M.White,2007.Effectsofdevelopmentonrunoffand
ESD/ESCReview
pollutantexport.WaterEnvironmentResearch,Volume79,Number2,
February2007,pp.185190(6)
Loperfido,J.V.,andHogan,D.M.,2012,EffectsofUrbanStormwater
ManagementStrategiesonStreamWaterQuantityandQuality:U.S.Geological
ESD/ESCReview
SurveyFactSheet20123079,2p.,availableat
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3079.
Lowrance,Richard,WaterQualityFunctionsofRiparianForestBuffersin
ESD/ESCReview
ChesapeakeBayWatersheds,LowranceetalWQFunctionsofRiparianForest
BuffersinChesapeakeBayWatersheds
MarylandDepartmentofNaturalResources(2012),River/StreamManagement
Strategy,GuidingPrinciples.
ESD/ESCReview
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/streams/pdfs/RiverStream_MgtStrat_GuidingPrin
ciples 092612.pdf
MarylandDepartmentofNaturalResources(undated)ImpactsofImpervious
ESD/ESCReview
CoveronMarylandStreams.StreamHealthFactSheet.
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/streams/pdfs/ImperviousFactSheet.pdf

Page A-7

Left bank vegetation

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994
NA
NA
NA
9.00
8.00
NA
NA
NA
4.00
9.00
8.00
7.60
1995
NA
NA
NA
9.00
8.00
6.00
4.33
NA
7.00
7.50
7.67
7.07
1996
7.00
NA
NA
8.00
8.00
9.00
4.00
NA
6.00
7.00
4.00
6.63
1997
8.50
NA
NA
8.67
7.33
NA
4.00
7.00
8.67
9.00
7.33
7.56
1998
8.00
NA
NA
9.00
6.00
NA
NA
7.00
NA
7.50
8.00
7.58
1999
NA
NA
NA
9.00
9.00
NA
NA
7.00
NA
9.00
NA
8.50
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.00
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.13
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.00
NA
8.00
NA
6.50
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.50
NA
6.00
NA
6.25
2003
7.00
NA
NA
7.00
8.00
5.50
6.00
4.50
7.00
6.00
8.00
6.56
2004
8.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.00
NA
8.00
NA
8.00
2005
NA
9.00
7.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.50
NA
7.50
8.00
7.60
2006
9.00
NA
6.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.00
NA
8.00
8.00
7.20
2007
5.00
NA
6.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.50
4.00
5.00
6.00
NA
5.39
2008
NA
NA
6.00
5.00
5.50
5.50
4.50
4.50
5.50
5.00
NA
5.19
2009
6.00
NA
7.00
5.50
4.00
5.50
4.50
5.50
4.50
4.00
NA
5.17
2010
5.00
NA
5.00
5.50
5.00
5.50
3.00
4.00
4.50
5.00
6.00
4.85
2011
5.00
4.00
5.00
4.50
4.00
4.50
3.00
3.50
9.00
4.50
5.00
4.73
2012
5.00
3.00
5.00
5.50
3.50
4.50
2.50
4.50
3.00
3.50
3.50
3.95
Average
6.68
5.33
5.88
7.13
6.33
5.67
4.03
5.59
6.06
6.79
6.83
6.55
Rsquare
0.49
1.00
0.54
0.88
0.74
0.57
0.17
0.53
0.08
0.64
0.20
0.57
Slope
0.19
0.85
0.25
0.24
0.24
0.16
0.06
0.21
0.08
0.25
0.12
0.18
N
11.00
3.00
8.00
13.00
13.00
9.00
10.00
16.00
12.00
19.00
12.00
19.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculated
parametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoran
insufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-10

AppendixD

DEPHabitatScoresforIndividualMetrics

Right bank vegetation

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994
NA
NA
NA
9.00
8.00
NA
NA
NA
4.00
9.00
7.00
7.40
1995
NA
NA
NA
8.00
8.00
5.00
4.33
NA
7.00
7.50
5.67
6.50
1996
7.00
NA
NA
8.00
10.00
7.00
4.00
NA
6.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
1997
8.50
NA
NA
9.00
7.67
NA
4.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
6.00
7.40
1998
8.00
NA
NA
9.00
7.00
NA
NA
8.00
NA
8.00
6.00
7.67
1999
NA
NA
NA
9.00
9.00
NA
NA
7.00
NA
9.00
NA
8.50
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.50
8.00
8.50
5.50
7.38
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.00
NA
8.00
NA
7.50
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.50
NA
6.00
NA
6.25
2003
7.00
NA
NA
5.00
9.00
5.50
6.00
5.00
7.00
6.00
8.00
6.50
2004
8.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.00
NA
8.00
NA
8.00
2005
NA
9.00
7.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.50
NA
7.50
6.00
7.20
2006
9.00
NA
6.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.00
NA
8.00
8.00
7.20
2007
5.00
NA
5.50
6.00
7.00
5.00
4.50
5.00
4.00
5.00
NA
5.22
2008
NA
NA
7.00
5.00
5.50
4.50
4.50
4.00
6.00
5.00
NA
5.19
2009
5.00
NA
6.00
5.50
5.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
6.00
5.50
NA
5.22
2010
6.00
NA
5.00
5.50
5.50
4.50
3.50
3.50
5.00
5.00
4.00
4.75
2011
4.00
4.00
5.00
5.50
5.00
3.50
3.50
5.00
9.00
4.50
4.00
4.82
2012
4.00
3.00
4.00
4.50
5.00
4.00
4.00
3.50
3.50
3.50
4.00
3.91
Average
6.50
5.33
5.69
6.85
7.05
5.00
4.23
5.78
6.13
6.84
5.93
6.51
Rsquare
0.53
1.00
0.65
0.80
0.67
0.43
0.05
0.72
0.03
0.65
0.29
0.57
Slope
0.23
0.85
0.34
0.24
0.21
0.11
0.03
0.28
0.04
0.25
0.12
0.17
N
11.00
3.00
8.00
13.00
13.00
9.00
10.00
16.00
12.00
19.00
12.00
19.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculated
parametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoran
insufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-11

AppendixD

DEPHabitatScoresforIndividualMetrics

Left bank stability

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994
NA
NA
NA
8.00
5.00
NA
NA
NA
4.00
8.00
8.00
6.60
1995
NA
NA
NA
7.50
6.00
7.00
6.33
NA
6.00
6.50
7.00
6.62
1996
8.00
NA
NA
8.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
NA
7.00
9.00
4.00
7.13
1997
8.00
NA
NA
8.33
6.67
NA
5.00
6.00
7.67
8.67
7.67
7.25
1998
8.00
NA
NA
8.00
6.00
NA
NA
6.50
NA
8.00
8.00
7.42
1999
NA
NA
NA
8.00
7.00
NA
NA
6.00
NA
9.00
NA
7.50
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.00
6.00
8.00
8.50
7.13
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.00
NA
9.00
NA
7.00
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
2003
8.00
NA
NA
7.00
6.00
6.50
4.00
3.50
6.50
7.00
7.00
6.17
2004
9.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.50
NA
7.50
NA
7.67
2005
NA
7.00
7.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.50
NA
7.00
8.00
6.90
2006
8.00
NA
6.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.00
NA
7.00
8.00
6.60
2007
6.00
NA
8.50
6.00
5.00
7.00
5.00
4.00
6.00
7.00
NA
6.06
2008
NA
NA
7.00
6.00
3.50
5.50
4.00
4.00
1.50
5.50
NA
4.63
2009
8.00
NA
9.00
5.00
3.00
6.50
4.00
3.50
4.00
4.00
NA
5.22
2010
6.00
NA
7.00
5.00
6.50
5.50
4.00
3.50
6.00
6.00
6.50
5.60
2011
6.00
3.00
8.00
5.50
4.00
5.00
4.00
4.50
7.00
7.50
4.00
5.32
2012
5.00
3.00
6.00
6.00
4.00
4.50
3.00
3.00
5.00
4.00
3.50
4.27
Average
7.27
4.33
7.31
6.79
5.44
6.06
4.53
4.78
5.56
7.04
6.68
6.32
Rsquare
0.46
0.98
0.00
0.85
0.42
0.59
0.76
0.62
0.06
0.42
0.20
0.49
Slope
0.15
0.60
0.01
0.17
0.14
0.12
0.14
0.19
0.06
0.18
0.13
0.13
N
11.00
3.00
8.00
13.00
13.00
9.00
10.00
16.00
12.00
19.00
12.00
19.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculated
parametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoran
insufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-12

AppendixD

DEPHabitatScoresforIndividualMetrics

Right bank

stability

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994
NA
NA
NA
9.00
9.00
NA
NA
NA
4.00
9.00
4.00
7.00
1995
NA
NA
NA
7.00
7.50
6.00
6.33
NA
6.67
8.00
5.33
6.69
1996
8.00
NA
NA
6.00
9.00
8.00
6.00
NA
7.00
6.00
6.00
7.00
1997
8.00
NA
NA
8.00
7.33
NA
5.00
6.00
6.33
8.67
5.00
6.79
1998
8.00
NA
NA
8.00
7.50
NA
NA
7.50
NA
7.50
4.00
7.08
1999
NA
NA
NA
8.00
9.00
NA
NA
8.00
NA
9.00
NA
8.50
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.50
7.00
8.00
4.50
6.50
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.00
NA
9.00
NA
8.00
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.50
NA
5.00
NA
4.75
2003
8.00
NA
NA
7.00
7.00
6.50
4.00
4.50
6.50
7.00
7.00
6.39
2004
8.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.50
NA
8.00
NA
7.50
2005
NA
7.00
7.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.50
NA
7.00
5.00
6.30
2006
8.00
NA
7.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.00
NA
7.00
6.00
6.40
2007
7.00
NA
5.50
7.00
7.00
6.00
5.50
6.00
5.00
6.00
NA
6.11
2008
NA
NA
6.00
6.00
5.50
4.00
4.50
6.00
2.50
5.50
NA
5.00
2009
6.00
NA
7.00
5.50
7.00
6.00
4.50
6.50
6.00
4.50
NA
5.89
2010
7.00
NA
5.00
6.00
7.00
5.00
4.50
5.50
6.00
6.50
5.00
5.75
2011
6.00
3.00
6.00
6.50
7.50
4.50
5.00
6.50
6.00
7.00
7.50
5.95
2012
6.00
3.00
6.00
5.00
6.50
5.00
4.50
4.50
5.50
4.50
7.00
5.23
Average
7.27
4.33
6.19
6.85
7.45
5.67
4.98
5.94
5.71
7.01
5.53
6.47
Rsquare
0.67
0.98
0.23
0.54
0.46
0.53
0.43
0.16
0.06
0.41
0.38
0.34
Slope
0.13
0.60
0.15
0.13
0.10
0.14
0.07
0.10
0.05
0.17
0.11
0.10
N
11.00
3.00
8.00
13.00
13.00
9.00
10.00
16.00
12.00
19.00
12.00
19.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwith thecalculated
parametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoran
insufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-13

AppendixD

DEPHabitatScoresforIndividualMetrics

Left bank riparian buffer

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994
NA
NA
NA
10.00
9.00
NA
NA
NA
10.00
10.00
9.00
9.60
1995
NA
NA
NA
10.00
9.50
10.00
1.00
NA
9.67
10.00
9.33
8.50
1996
7.00
NA
NA
10.00
9.00
10.00
1.00
NA
10.00
10.00
10.00
8.38
1997
9.50
NA
NA
9.67
9.67
NA
1.00
10.00
9.67
10.00
8.67
8.52
1998
10.00
NA
NA
10.00
10.00
NA
NA
9.50
NA
9.50
10.00
9.83
1999
NA
NA
NA
10.00
10.00
NA
NA
10.00
NA
10.00
NA
10.00
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.00
9.50
9.50
7.50
9.13
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.00
NA
7.00
NA
8.50
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.50
NA
9.00
NA
9.25
2003
10.00
NA
NA
10.00
10.00
9.00
2.00
8.50
9.50
9.00
8.00
8.44
2004
9.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.00
NA
10.00
NA
9.67
2005
NA
10.00
6.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.50
NA
9.50
6.00
8.20
2006
9.00
NA
6.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.00
NA
10.00
8.00
8.40
2007
9.00
NA
8.00
9.00
9.00
7.00
3.00
6.00
9.00
8.00
NA
7.56
2008
NA
NA
7.00
9.00
7.00
8.00
2.00
7.50
9.50
8.00
NA
7.25
2009
8.00
NA
8.00
8.50
6.50
8.00
3.00
8.50
8.00
9.00
NA
7.50
2010
6.00
NA
8.00
9.00
8.50
8.50
1.50
8.50
8.50
9.00
8.50
7.60
2011
9.00
9.00
8.00
9.00
8.50
9.00
1.50
9.00
9.00
8.50
8.50
8.09
2012
7.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
7.50
9.00
1.50
9.00
9.00
9.00
8.00
7.91
Average
8.50
9.33
7.50
9.47
8.78
8.72
1.75
9.03
9.28
9.21
8.46
8.54
Rsquare
0.15
0.98
0.76
0.78
0.46
0.39
0.28
0.30
0.63
0.24
0.24
0.43
Slope
0.09
0.15
0.38
0.07
0.12
0.10
0.06
0.13
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.10
N
11.00
3.00
8.00
13.00
13.00
9.00
10.00
16.00
12.00
19.00
12.00
19.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociated withthecalculated
parametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoran
insufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-14

AppendixD

DEPHabitatScoresforIndividualMetrics

Right bank riparian buffer

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994
NA
NA
NA
10.00
10.00
NA
NA
NA
10.00
9.00
9.00
9.60
1995
NA
NA
NA
10.00
10.00
10.00
1.00
NA
10.00
9.00
9.33
8.48
1996
9.00
NA
NA
10.00
10.00
10.00
1.00
NA
10.00
7.00
10.00
8.38
1997
10.00
NA
NA
10.00
10.00
NA
1.00
10.00
9.67
8.67
9.33
8.58
1998
10.00
NA
NA
10.00
10.00
NA
NA
9.50
NA
7.50
9.00
9.33
1999
NA
NA
NA
10.00
10.00
NA
NA
9.00
NA
9.00
NA
9.50
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.50
10.00
8.50
9.50
9.38
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.00
NA
9.00
NA
9.50
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.50
NA
7.00
NA
8.25
2003
10.00
NA
NA
10.00
10.00
9.00
2.00
8.50
9.50
7.50
9.00
8.39
2004
9.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.50
NA
8.50
NA
9.00
2005
NA
10.00
6.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.50
NA
9.00
9.00
8.70
2006
9.00
NA
6.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.00
NA
8.00
10.00
8.40
2007
9.00
NA
9.00
9.00
9.00
8.00
2.00
7.00
8.00
6.50
NA
7.50
2008
NA
NA
9.00
9.00
8.00
6.50
2.00
7.50
9.00
6.50
NA
7.19
2009
9.00
NA
9.00
9.50
8.50
8.50
2.00
7.00
9.00
7.50
NA
7.78
2010
10.00
NA
9.00
9.50
9.00
8.50
1.50
7.00
9.00
8.00
8.00
7.95
2011
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.50
9.00
9.00
1.50
8.00
9.00
8.50
8.50
8.18
2012
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
1.00
7.50
9.00
8.00
9.00
8.05
Average
9.36
9.33
8.25
9.65
9.42
8.72
1.50
8.63
9.35
8.04
9.14
8.53
Rsquare
0.15
0.98
0.57
0.68
0.69
0.34
0.24
0.66
0.64
0.10
0.24
0.43
Slope
0.03
0.15
0.43
0.05
0.09
0.10
0.03
0.19
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.08
N
11.00
3.00
8.00
13.00
13.00
9.00
10.00
16.00
12.00
19.00
12.00
19.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculated
parametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoran
insufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-15

AppendixD

DEPHabitatScoresforIndividualMetrics

Composite

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994
NA
NA
NA
168.00
139.00
NA
NA
NA
142.00
161.00
143.00
150.60
1995
NA
NA
NA
154.00
146.00
142.50
120.00
NA
148.33
146.00
137.00
141.98
1996 158.00
NA
NA
162.00
161.00
157.00
131.00
NA
147.00
148.00
142.00
150.75
1997 167.50
NA
NA
163.33
163.33
NA
136.00
156.00
158.67
163.33
154.00
157.77
1998 165.00
NA
NA
164.00
142.50
NA
NA
149.00
NA
147.50
138.00
151.00
1999
NA
NA
NA
161.00
157.00
NA
NA
157.00
NA
159.00
NA
158.50
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
154.50
147.00
146.50
140.50
147.13
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
152.00
NA
135.00
NA
143.50
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
142.00
NA
137.00
NA
139.50
2003 163.00
NA
NA
144.00
164.00
138.00
125.00
136.50
150.00
148.00
156.00
147.17
2004 157.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
155.50
NA
162.00
NA
158.17
2005
NA
165.00
105.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
143.00
NA
154.00
146.00
142.60
2006 150.00
NA
129.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
141.00
NA
160.00
144.00
144.80
2007 132.00
NA
138.00
152.00
132.00
135.00
123.50
133.00
133.50
137.00
NA
135.11
2008
NA
NA
143.00
144.00
123.00
125.00
115.50
134.00
120.50
124.00
NA
128.63
2009 135.00
NA
147.00
126.50
114.00
134.00
112.50
130.50
119.50
131.00
NA
127.78
2010 125.00
NA
142.00
140.50
138.00
128.50
116.50
129.00
131.00
130.50
129.00
131.00
2011 136.00
120.00
136.00
143.00
132.50
126.00
113.50
142.50
145.00
136.50
119.50
131.86
2012 121.00
98.00
120.00
129.00
116.00
119.50
105.00
121.00
109.50
122.00
119.00
116.36
Average
146.32
127.67
132.50
150.10
140.64
133.94
119.85
142.28
137.67
144.65
139.00
142.33
Rsquare
0.79
0.96
0.11
0.76
0.49
0.78
0.63
0.68
0.51
0.41
0.37
0.60
Slope
2.63
8.85
1.86
1.75
1.79
1.57
1.12
1.92
1.57
1.48
1.09
1.58
N
11.00
3.00
8.00
13.00
13.00
9.00
10.00
16.00
12.00
19.00
12.00
19.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculated
parametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoran
insufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-16

AppendixD

2.0 Fish

FishcommunitieswereassessedbyDEPstaffduringsummerindexperiodswiththerespectivesampling
yearsinaccordancewiththeMarylandBiologicalStreamSurvey(MBSS)methods(Kayzak,2001).The
DEPFishIBIevaluates9metrics,whichincludethefollowing:

Totalnumberofspecies
Totalnumberofrifflebenthicinsectivoreindividuals
Totalnumberofminnowspecies(cyprinidae)
Totalnumberofintolerantspecies
Proportionoftolerantindividuals
Proportionofindividualsasomnivores/generalists
Proportionofindividualsaspioneeringspecies
Totalnumberofindividuals(excludingtolerantspecies)
Proportionofindividualswithdisease/anomalies

Eachofthesemetricsisassignedametricscoreof1,3,or5dependingonthecalculatedvalue,stream
order,andpresence/absenceofChannerySiltLoamandtheaverageofthemetricscoresisreported
accordingtothefollowingcriteriainTableD3:

TableD3.FishIBIscoringcriteria
Conditioncategory
Score
Excellent
>4.5
Good
3.44.5
Fair
2.33.3
Poor
2.2
Source:KeithVanNess,personal
communication,January10,2013.

TheMBSShasalsodevelopedandtestedaFishIBIwhichcouldbeusedtocorroboratetheDEPFishIBI
andprovideacomparisontothestatewidedatasets;however,oneormoreofthemetricsforthis
comparisonwasnotreadilyavailableinthedataprovided.

OverallthefishcommunitywithintheTenMileCreekdrainage,asindicatedbyitsFishIBIscores,isin
goodcondition.TheDEPFishIBIaccountsforsomeofthisnaturalvariabilitybyadjustingthescoring
criteriabasedonstreamorder.TheseadjustmentsdotendtoinfluencetheoverallFishIBIscoresforthe
thirdorderstreams,butnotthenarrativerating,inthisdataset.Specificallythecalculatedvaluesfor
thenumberofminnowspeciesandnumberofintolerantspeciesweresimilaramongthirdordersites
andsecondordersitesimmediatelyupstream,buttheassignedmetricdroppedtothelowercategoryin
theassignedscore.

IninterpretingtheFishIBIdata,onefactorthatisunlikelytoimprovenaturallyisthenumberof
intolerantspecies.OnlyBlueRidgesculpin(Cottuscaeruleomentum)andanoccasionalbrowntrout
(Salmotrutta)arepresentwithinthewatershed.DuetothepresenceoftheLittleSenecaLake,itis
unlikelythatrecruitmentofnewintolerantspecieswilloccur.Thisresultsinconsistentmarginalscores
of3and1forthesecondandthirdorderstreamsrespectively.

Page D-17

AppendixD

Fish

Similarly,thenumberofminnowspeciesisstableandshowsnorecruitment,whichislikelyrelatedto
thepresenceofphysicalbarriertofishmigrationposedbytheLittleSenecaLakeDamand
impoundment.Theconsequenceofthisisaconsistentlymarginalrankingof3forthirdorderstations
andanexcellentratingforthesecondorderstations.

AnalysisoftrendsintheFishIBImetricsovertimeindicatedthefollowing:

Thetotalnumberofindividualsshowedsignificantdeclinesbetweenthemid1990sandwhen
samplingresumedin2007.Thisappearstohavestabilized,butthesestationspresentlydeclined
fromanexcellenttoagoodrating.
Thefrequencyofrifflebenthicinsectivoresinthesecondordertributariesshowmoderate
declinesintherawdata,buttherespectivemetricvaluesarestable.Thesedeclinescouldbe
relatedtoanincreaseinsedimentsupplyandembeddednessdocumentedinhabitat
assessment.
Proportionofomnivores/generalistinthesamplesstrongtoslightincreasingtrends(~1%/year)
inrawmetrics,whicharedampenedinthescaledmetric.Thesespeciesarelikelycompeting
withtherifflebenthicinsectivores,whichhaveshownsomedecline.
Proportionofpioneerspeciesshowslightincreasingtrends(~1%/year),atmoststations,which
arealsolikelycompetingwiththerifflebenthicinsectivores.
Therawnumbersoftolerantindividualsareshowingslightsignsofincreasing(1%/year),
howeverthisisnotreflectedintheassignedvalue.Somestations,particularlythesecondorder
stationsareshowinganincreaseintheproportionthatarenegativelyinfluencingtheIBIscore.
Theproportionofindividualswithdisease/anomalieshasremainedlowandnotrendswere
observed.

Otherobservationsofnoteinclude:

LSTM206consistentlyscoredlowerthanothersecondorderstationsonallmetricsexceptfor
theproportionofindividualswithdisease/anomalies,whichimprovesitsoverallscore.
LSTM204scoredthelowestonthehabitatratings,butwastheonlystationtoconsistentlyscore
excellentintheFishIBI.

Whilethetrendanalysisindicatessomeshiftsintheoverallcommunitystructure,thetotalfishdiversity
appearstobestable.Thesecondordertributaries,particularlyLSTM201,showthestrongestdeclining
trends.Thestrengthofthetrendappearstobecorrelatedtothewatershedposition,withthesmaller
drainagesexpressingstrongertrends,andindependentofhabitatcondition.Sincetheabundanceand
diversityoffishesinadrainageiscorrelatedtothestreamsize,thefishcommunityinthesmaller
channelsismoresensitivetowatershedstressors,whichmayexplainthedecliningtrends.

Thefollowingtablesthepresenttheavailablehabitatassessmentdataateachstationfortherespective
samplingyear.

Page D-18

AppendixD

FishIndividualRawMetrics

Numberofintolerantspecies

Sample
Year
LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994

1
1

1
1
1
1.00
1995

1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1.00
1997

1
1

1
1
1
1
1.00
1998

1
1
1.00
2000

1
1
1
1
1.00
2001

1.00
2002

1.00
2003

1
1
1
1
1.00
2004

1.00
2005

1
1
1.00
2006

1
1
1.00
2007
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
2

1.00
2008

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1.00
2009

1
1
1
1
1
1
2

1.14
2010

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.00
2011

1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1.00
2012

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.00
Average
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.13
1.00
1.01
NA
NA
Rsquare
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.08
NA
0.06
Slope
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
N
1
9
10
7
7
15
10
16
11
17
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociated
withthecalculatedparametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthe
datawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-19

AppendixD

FishIndividualRawMetrics

Numberofminnowspecies(Cyprinidae)

Sample
Year
LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994

5
4

6
4
6
5.00
1995

5
4
4
4

5
4
6
4.57
1997

3
3

4
4
5
4
3.83
1998

5
5
4.50
2000

3
6
5
3
4.25
2001

3.00
2002

3.00
2003

3
6
6
3
4.50
2004

3.50
2005

5
4
4.00
2006

4
3
3.33
2007
3
4
4
5
4
5
6
4

4.38
2008

3
4
5
4
3
4
6

4.14
2009

4
4
5
5
4
5
5

4.57
2010

5
4
5
4
4
7
4
5
4.75
2011

5
4
4
5
5

4
4
4.43
2012

5
5
5
4
4
6
5
5
4.88
Average
3.00
4.33
3.90
4.71
4.29
3.67
5.50
4.56
4.36
4.15
Rsquare
NA
0.00
0.33
0.28
0.09
0.04
0.05
0.01
0.09
0.01
Slope
NA
0.01
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.01
N
1
9
10
7
7
15
10
16
11
17
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociated
withthecalculatedparametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthe
datawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-20

AppendixD

FishIndividualRawMetrics

Numberofrifflebenthicinsectivorousindividuals

Sample
Year
LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994

37
34

105
48
39
52.60
1995

86
124
175
151

273
109
91
144.14
1997

105
69

95
114
132
173
114.67
1998

120

115

187
190
153.00
2000

38
79
11
27
38.75
2001

88.50
2002

10.00
2003

17
55
12
27
27.75
2004

129

85.50
2005

104
77
62.67
2006

64
23
34.67
2007
2
22
16
155
174
6
170
191

92.00
2008

31
38
145
184
32
53
63

78.00
2009

41
18
64
123
47
64
113

67.14
2010

39
35
146
261
69
154
51
108
107.88
2011

35
20
74
78
37

20
57
45.86
2012

23
38
67
501
47
154
164
158
144.00
Average
2.00
46.56
51.20
118.00
210.29
44.93
122.10
92.50
88.18
79.24
Rsquare
NA
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.11
0.17
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.01
Slope
NA
2.71
3.80
5.62
8.03
3.06
2.20
0.12
0.27
0.72
N
1
9
10
7
7
15
10
16
11
17
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociated
withthecalculatedparametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthe
datawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-21

AppendixD

FishIndividualRawMetrics

Sample
Year
LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994

57
70

50
36
46
51.80
1995

61
46
47
60

40
46
44
49.14
1997

61
53

27
40
41
39
43.50
1998

46
56
52.00
2000

69
68
81
63
70.25
2001

55.00
2002

82.00
2003

72
64
83
58
69.25
2004

55.00
2005

40
50
58.33
2006

60
68
65.33
2007
99
75
66
58
56
84
57
45

67.50
2008

69
59
64
43
82
61
53

61.57
2009

72
74
71
51
80
67
68

69.00
2010

75
72
64
54
76
67
74
45
65.88
2011

78
71
57
54
74

84
66
69.14
2012

80
78
64
59
62
63
59
49
64.25
Average
99.00
69.78
63.80
60.71
53.86
69.00
57.70
57.44
53.09
61.70
Rsquare
NA
0.92
0.50
0.58
0.10
0.31
0.53
0.24
0.13
0.32
Slope
NA
1.09
1.11
1.01
0.32
1.81
1.19
1.38
0.53
0.98
N
1
9
10
7
7
15
10
16
11
17
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociated
withthecalculatedparametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthe
datawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.
Proportionofindividualsasomnivores/generalists

Page D-22

AppendixD

FishIndividualRawMetrics

Proportionofindividualsaspioneeringspecies

Sample
Year
LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994

33
65

41
15
5
31.80
1995

43
43
35
36

26
24
8
30.71
1997

47
51

24
28
22
10
30.33
1998

27
40
42.50
2000

65
58
63
15
50.25
2001

43.50
2002

81.00
2003

70
55
70
39
58.50
2004

45.50
2005

27
25
45.67
2006

28
32
42.00
2007
99
67
58
55
31
80
46
25

57.63
2008

64
54
57
33
82
52
29

53.00
2009

69
69
67
36
80
65
53

62.71
2010

68
67
64
28
76
48
53
30
54.25
2011

72
65
48
41
73

52
38
55.57
2012

70
61
50
55
55
54
48
32
53.13
Average
99.00
59.22
58.10
53.71
37.14
67.20
47.30
37.38
24.91
49.30
Rsquare
NA
0.96
0.36
0.43
0.08
0.29
0.45
0.22
0.47
0.33
Slope
NA
1.92
0.73
1.23
0.43
1.81
1.27
1.33
1.38
1.30
N
1
9
10
7
7
15
10
16
11
17
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociated
withthecalculatedparametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthe
datawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-23

AppendixD

FishIndividualRawMetrics

Sample
Year
LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994

61
68

48
45
52
54.80
1995

50
44
36
37

31
33
24
36.43
1997

56
53

24
34
27
19
35.50
1998

39
47
47.75
2000

65
60
66
50
60.25
2001

44.00
2002

82.00
2003

72
64
75
49
65.00
2004

49.00
2005

28
28
47.00
2006

44
57
56.33
2007
99
67
60
57
55
83
55
31

63.38
2008

65
54
62
35
82
58
43

57.00
2009

69
69
69
38
80
68
59

64.57
2010

68
67
64
46
76
59
64
39
60.38
2011

72
68
57
44
73

71
57
63.14
2012

70
62
59
56
61
57
51
38
56.75
Average
99.00
64.22
59.40
57.71
44.43
68.20
53.40
46.63
41.82
55.49
Rsquare
NA
0.80
0.30
0.74
0.19
0.33
0.50
0.16
0.07
0.22
Slope
NA
0.89
0.68
1.57
0.65
1.93
1.30
1.11
0.53
0.96
N
1
9
10
7
7
15
10
16
11
17
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociated
withthecalculatedparametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthe
datawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.
Proportionoftolerantindividuals

Page D-24

AppendixD

FishIndividualRawMetrics

Proportionwithdisease/anomalies

Sample
Year
LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994

0.5
0

1.2
9.1
13.1
4.78
1995

0
0
0
0

0.4
0
0.5
0.13
1997

0.4
0

0.7
0
0.4
0.4
0.32
1998

1.5

0.2
2.7
1.10
2000

0
1.6
4.2
4.6
2.60
2001

0.00
2002

0.00
2003

0
1.8
1.7
0
0.88
2004

0.00
2005

0
0
0.00
2006

0
1.3
0.43
2007
1.8
3.6
2.4
2.8
0.1
2.1
1.7
0

1.81
2008

0
0.3
1.7
0
0.3
0.6
0.3

0.46
2009

0.4
4.3
1.9
3
0.3
9.3
3.6

3.26
2010

3
1
0.2
0
2.1
1.9
0.9
0.5
1.20
2011

0
0
0
0
0

0
4.3
0.61
2012

0
2.7
0.8
0.1
0
0.2
1.1
0.9
0.73
Average
1.80
0.88
1.22
1.06
0.46
0.37
1.87
1.34
2.57
1.08
Rsquare
NA
0.04
0.24
0.03
0.02
0.06
0.11
0.13
0.15
0.03
Slope
NA
0.04
0.10
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.13
0.15
0.23
0.04
N
1
9
10
7
7
15
10
16
11
17
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociated
withthecalculatedparametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthe
datawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-25

AppendixD

FishIndividualRawMetrics

Totalnumberoffishspecies

Sample
Year
LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994

14
9

12
12
15
12.40
1995

13
11
11
10

12
13
12
11.71
1997

11
8

9
11
12
10
10.17
1998

12
15
10.75
2000

8
12
11
12
10.75
2001

7.50
2002

7.00
2003

11
14
12
11
12.00
2004

9.50
2005

12
10
9.67
2006

9
7
7.67
2007
4
8
11
12
9
10
13
13

10.00
2008

8
11
13
10
6
10
14

10.29
2009

9
10
11
11
8
13
13

10.71
2010

10
9
12
12
8
16
10
12
11.13
2011

11
11
12
14
9

12
13
11.71
2012

9
10
10
12
12
13
13
12
11.38
Average
4.00
10.33
9.70
11.57
11.14
8.33
12.60
11.75
11.73
10.25
Rsquare
NA
0.61
0.20
0.00
0.28
0.03
0.17
0.01
0.08
0.00
Slope
NA
0.23
0.09
0.01
0.15
0.06
0.10
0.02
0.10
0.01
N
1
9
10
7
7
15
10
16
11
17
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociated
withthecalculatedparametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthe
datawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-26

AppendixD

FishIndividualRawMetrics

Totalnumberofindividuals(extolerantsp.)

Sample
Year
LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994

163
118

169
61
96
121.40
1995

296
344
265
207

370
181
156
259.86
1997

238
79

108
136
171
217
158.17
1998

137

144

252
239
193.00
2000

49
130
40
55
68.50
2001

123

110

116.50
2002

41.00
2003

42
103
30
53
57.00
2004

146

101.00
2005

137
110
86.67
2006

103
33
62.67
2007
3
63
99
217
420
55
320
227

175.50
2008

62
131
269
348
53
137
178

168.29
2009

72
85
100
244
69
116
196

126.00
2010

74
69
165
353
90
210
114
133
151.00
2011

72
59
100
131
63

58
88
81.57
2012

53
100
98
750
104
211
229
211
219.50
Average
3.00
121.44
122.10
173.43
350.43
70.80
190.20
139.56
126.45
128.68
Rsquare
NA
0.79
0.30
0.48
0.14
0.06
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
Slope
NA
10.96
6.24
9.34
13.32
1.88
1.54
1.47
1.58
1.07
N
1
9
10
7
7
15
10
16
11
17
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociated
withthecalculatedparametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthe
datawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-27

AppendixD

FishIndividualScaledMetrics
Numberofintolerantspecies

SampleYear LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994

3
3

1
1
1
1.80
1995

3
3
3
3

1
1
1
2.14
1997

3
3

3
1
1
1
2.00
1998

1
1
2.00
2000

3
1
1
1
1.50
2001

2.00
2002

3.00
2003

3
1
1
1
1.50
2004

2.00
2005

1
1
1.67
2006

1
1
1.67
2007
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
3

2.50
2008

3
3
3
3
3
1
1

2.43
2009

3
3
3
3
3
1
3

2.71
2010

3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
2.25
2011

3
3
3
3
3

1
1
2.43
2012

3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
2.25
Average
1.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
1.25
1.00
2.11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Rsquare
NA
0.08
NA
0.14
Slope
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.03
N
1
9
10
7
7
15
10
16
11
17
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociated
withthecalculatedparametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthe
datawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-28

AppendixD

FishIndividualScaledMetrics

Numberofminnowspecies(Cyprinidae)

SampleYear LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994

5
5

3
3
3
3.80
1995

5
5
5
5

3
3
3
4.14
1997

5
5

5
3
3
3
4.00
1998

3
3
4.00
2000

5
3
3
1
3.00
2001

3.00
2002

5.00
2003

5
3
3
1
3.00
2004

4.00
2005

3
3
3.67
2006

3
1
3.00
2007
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3

4.50
2008

5
5
5
5
5
3
3

4.43
2009

5
5
5
5
5
3
3

4.43
2010

5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
4.50
2011

5
5
5
5
5

3
3
4.43
2012

5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
4.25
Average
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.20
2.88
2.45
3.95
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
Rsquare
0.12
0.02
0.00
0.10
Slope
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.04
N
1
9
10
7
7
15
10
16
11
17
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociated
withthecalculatedparametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthe
datawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-29

AppendixD

FishIndividualScaledMetrics

Numberofrifflebenthicinsectivorousindividuals

SampleYear LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994

5
5

5
3
1
3.80
1995

5
5
5
5

5
5
5
5.00
1997

5
5

5
5
5
5
5.00
1998

5
5
5.00
2000

5
3
1
1
2.50
2001

5.00
2002

1.00
2003

3
3
1
1
2.00
2004

5.00
2005

5
3
3.00
2006

3
1
2.33
2007
1
3
3
5
5
1
5
5

3.50
2008

5
5
5
5
5
3
3

4.43
2009

5
3
5
5
5
3
5

4.43
2010

5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
4.75
2011

5
3
5
5
5

1
3
3.86
2012

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4.75
Average
1.00
4.56
4.40
5.00
5.00
3.93
4.20
3.75
3.18
3.84
NA
NA
Rsquare
NA
0.14
0.22
0.00
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.00
Slope
NA
0.04
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.00
N
1
9
10
7
7
15
10
16
11
17
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociated
withthecalculatedparametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthe
datawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-30

AppendixD

FishIndividualScaledMetrics

Proportionofindividualsasomnivores/generalists

SampleYear LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994

5
3

5
5
5
4.60
1995

5
5
5
5

5
5
5
5.00
1997

5
5

5
5
5
5
5.00
1998

5
3
4.50
2000

3
3
1
3
2.50
2001

4.00
2002

1.00
2003

3
3
1
3
2.50
2004

4.00
2005

5
5
3.67
2006

3
3
3.00
2007
1
3
3
5
5
1
3
5

3.25
2008

3
5
3
5
1
3
3

3.29
2009

3
3
3
5
3
3
3

3.29
2010

3
3
3
5
3
3
3
5
3.50
2011

3
3
5
5
3

1
3
3.29
2012

3
3
3
5
3
3
3
5
3.50
Average
1.00
3.67
3.80
3.86
5.00
3.00
3.60
3.38
4.09
3.52
Rsquare
NA
0.95
0.30
0.25
NA
0.20
0.72
0.20
0.01
0.18
Slope
NA
0.13
0.08
0.09
0.00
0.14
0.12
0.12
0.02
0.08
N
1
9
10
7
7
15
10
16
11
17
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociated
withthecalculatedparametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthe
datawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-31

AppendixD

FishIndividualScaledMetrics

Proportionofindividualsaspioneeringspecies

SampleYear LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994

5
3

3
5
5
4.20
1995

5
5
5
5

5
5
5
5.00
1997

5
5

5
3
5
5
4.67
1998

5
3
4.00
2000

3
3
3
5
3.50
2001

3.00
2002

1.00
2003

3
3
1
3
2.50
2004

3.00
2005

5
5
3.67
2006

3
3
3.00
2007
1
3
3
3
5
1
3
5

3.00
2008

3
3
3
5
1
3
3

3.00
2009

3
3
3
5
1
1
3

2.71
2010

3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
3.25
2011

3
3
5
5
3

3
3
3.57
2012

3
3
5
3
3
3
3
3
3.25
Average
1.00
3.67
3.60
3.86
4.71
2.47
3.00
3.63
3.91
3.31
Rsquare
NA
0.95
0.51
0.05
0.12
0.14
0.25
0.25
0.46
0.21
Slope
NA
0.13
0.10
0.04
0.05
0.09
0.07
0.10
0.11
0.07
N
1
9
10
7
7
15
10
16
11
17
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociated
withthecalculatedparametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthe
datawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-32

AppendixD

FishIndividualScaledMetrics

Proportionoftolerantindividuals

SampleYear LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994

3
3

3
3
3
3.00
1995

5
5
5
5

5
5
5
5.00
1997

5
5

5
3
5
5
4.67
1998

3
3
4.00
2000

3
3
3
3
3.00
2001

5.00
2002

1.00
2003

3
3
1
3
2.50
2004

3.00
2005

5
5
3.67
2006

3
3
3.00
2007
1
3
3
5
5
1
3
5

3.25
2008

3
5
3
5
1
3
3

3.29
2009

3
3
3
5
1
1
3

2.71
2010

3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
3.25
2011

3
3
5
5
3

1
3
3.29
2012

3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
3.25
Average
1.00
3.44
3.80
3.86
5.00
2.73
3.00
3.38
3.55
3.35
Rsquare
NA
0.47
0.30
0.25
NA
0.27
0.25
0.13
0.14
0.11
Slope
NA
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.00
0.16
0.07
0.08
0.05
0.06
N
1
9
10
7
7
15
10
16
11
17
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociated
withthecalculatedparametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthe
datawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-33

AppendixD

FishIndividualScaledMetrics

Proportionwithdisease/anomalies

SampleYear LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994

5
5

5
1
1
3.40
1995

5
5
5
5

5
5
5
5.00
1997

5
5

5
5
5
5
5.00
1998

5
5
5.00
2000

5
5
5
5
5.00
2001

5.00
2002

5.00
2003

5
5
5
5
5.00
2004

5.00
2005

5
5
5.00
2006

5
5
5.00
2007
5
3
5
3
5
5
5
5

4.50
2008

5
5
5
5
5
5
5

5.00
2009

5
3
5
3
5
1
5

3.86
2010

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4.75
2011

5
5
5
5
5

5
5
5.00
2012

5
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
4.75
Average
5.00
4.56
4.60
4.71
4.71
5.00
4.60
4.75
4.64
4.78
Rsquare
NA
0.08
0.22
0.00
0.01
NA
0.09
0.20
0.20
0.01
Slope
NA
0.04
0.06
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.06
0.08
0.08
0.01
N
1
9
10
7
7
15
10
16
11
17
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociated
withthecalculatedparametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthe
datawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-34

AppendixD

FishIndividualScaledMetrics

Totalnumberoffishspecies

SampleYear LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994

5
5

5
5
5
5.00
1995

5
5
5
5

5
5
5
5.00
1997

5
5

5
3
5
3
4.33
1998

5
5
4.50
2000

5
5
3
5
4.50
2001

3.00
2002

3.00
2003

5
5
5
3
4.50
2004

4.00
2005

5
3
3.67
2006

3
3
3.00
2007
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

4.75
2008

5
5
5
5
3
3
5

4.43
2009

5
5
5
5
5
5
5

5.00
2010

5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
4.75
2011

5
5
5
5
5

5
5
5.00
2012

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5.00
Average
3.00
5.00
4.80
5.00
5.00
4.20
4.60
4.50
4.27
4.32
NA
NA
Rsquare
NA
NA
0.09
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
Slope
NA
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
N
1
9
10
7
7
15
10
16
11
17
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociated
withthecalculatedparametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthe
datawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-35

AppendixD

FishIndividualScaledMetrics

Totalnumberofindividuals(extolerantsp.)

SampleYear LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994

5
5

3
1
1
3.00
1995

5
5
5
5

5
3
3
4.43
1997

5
3

5
3
3
5
4.00
1998

5
5
5.00
2000

3
3
1
1
2.00
2001

4.00
2002

1.00
2003

1
1
1
1
1.00
2004

3.00
2005

3
3
2.33
2006

1
1
1.67
2007
1
3
5
5
5
3
5
5

4.00
2008

3
5
5
5
3
3
3

3.86
2009

3
3
5
5
3
3
3

3.57
2010

3
3
5
5
3
5
3
3
3.75
2011

3
3
5
5
3

1
1
3.00
2012

3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4.75
Average
1.00
3.67
4.20
5.00
5.00
3.13
3.60
2.75
2.64
3.20
NA
NA
Rsquare
NA
0.95
0.10
0.02
0.07
0.03
0.00
0.00
Slope
NA
0.13
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.01
0.00
N
1
9
10
7
7
15
10
16
11
17
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociated
withthecalculatedparametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthe
datawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-36

AppendixD

FishIndividualScaledMetrics

Composite

SampleYear LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994

4.56
4.11

3.67
3.00
2.78
3.00
1995

4.78
4.78
4.78
4.78

4.33
4.11
4.11
4.43
1997

4.78
4.56

4.78
3.44
4.11
4.11
4.00
1998

4.56

4.11
3.67
5.00
2000

3.89
3.22
2.33
2.78
2.00
2001

4.33

3.22

4.00
2002

2.33

1.00
2003

3.44

2.11
2.33
1.00
2004

3.89

3.44

3.00
2005

2.33

4.11
3.67
2.33
2006

3.44

2.78
2.33
1.67
2007
2.11
3.44
3.89
4.33
4.78
2.78
3.67
4.56

4.00
2008

3.89
4.56
4.11
4.78
3.00
3.00
3.22

3.86
2009

3.89
3.44
4.11
4.56
3.44
2.33
3.67

3.57
2010

3.67
3.89
4.11
4.78
3.89
3.89
3.00
3.67
3.75
2011

3.89
3.67
4.78
4.78
3.89

2.33
3.00
3.00
2012

3.67
3.89
4.33
4.56
4.11
3.67
3.67
3.89
4.75
Average
2.11
4.06
4.13
4.37
4.71
3.61
3.47
3.36
3.30
3.20
Rsquare
NA
0.81
0.48
0.23
0.13
0.08
0.13
0.02
0.01
0.00
Slope
NA
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociated
withthecalculatedparametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthe
datawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-37

AppendixD

3.0 BenthicMacroinvertebrates

ThebenthicmacroinvertebratecommunitieswereassessedbyDEPstaffduringspringindexperiods
withtherespectivesamplingyearsinaccordancewiththeMarylandBiologicalStreamSurvey(MBSS)
methods(Kayzak,2001).TheDEPBenthicIBIevaluates8metrics,whichincludethefollowing:

TaxaRichness
BioticIndex
ProportionofDominantTaxa
ProportionofEphemeropera,Plecoptera,andTricoptera(EPT)Individuals
ProportionofHydropsyche&Cheumatopsyche
ProportionofShredders
RatioofScrapers
TotalNumberofEPTTaxa

Eachofthesemetricsisassignedametricscoreof1,3,or5dependingonthecalculatedvalue,stream
order,andpresence/absenceofChannerySiltLoamandthesumofthemetricscoresisreported
accordingtothefollowingcriteriainTableD4:

TableD4.BenthicIBIscoringcriteria
Conditioncategory
Score
Excellent
36
Good
2635
Fair
1725
Poor
<17
Source:KeithVanNess,personal
communication,January10,2013.

TheoverallBenthicIBIscoresindicatethatthebenthicmacroinvertebratecommunitywithintheTen
MileCreekdrainageisingenerallygoodcondition.AsimilarconditionisgainedusingtheMBSSscoring
criteria(Southerlandetal.2006),whichreferencesastatewidedatasetstratifiedbyecoregion.

Observationsinthebenthicmacroinvertebratecommunitydataovertimeinclude:

Datafromthe2003sampleyearincludesconsistentlylowscores.
Thepercentscrapersscoredrelativelylowwithdecliningtrendsatsomestations.
Overallthefirstorderstreamsscoredpoorinmetricswherethirdorderstreamsscoredfair.
Overallthenumberoftaxaappearstobeincreasing.
ThenumberofEphemeropterashowsomedecliningtrendsmostpronouncedatstations
LSTM201andLSTM206.Trendspersistinboththenumberofindividualsanddiversityoftaxa.
Thefirstorderstreamsscorefairtogoodonpercentintolerantwhilesecondorderscorepoor
tofair,anddatafromthirdorderstationswereinconsistent.Thereissomeindicationthatthe
scoresaredecliningovertime.
Thenumberoftaxaisincreasinginfirstorderchannelsandsomewhatconsistenttoslightly
declininginhigherorderchannels.
ThenumberofEPTweaklydeclinedatstationsLSTM110,201,and202

Page D-38

AppendixD

DEPBenthicMacroinvertebrateRawMetricScores

StationLSTM201showsanoveralldecliningtrendinmostmetrics

Otherthanminorshiftsinthebenthicmacroinvertebratecommunitystructure,thecommunityappears
tobestable.Theratesofchangeassociatedwithanyobservedtrendsaregenerallyslowandonlylikely
toinfluencetheoverallBenthicIBIscoreoverperiodofdecadesifnaturalrecoverydoesnotoccur.
Thesetrendsindicatethetendencytowarddegradationifstressorlevelsareincreased.

Page D-39

AppendixD

DEPBenthicMacroinvertebrateRawMetricScores

Biotic Index

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994
NA
NA
NA
4.18
4.29
NA
NA
NA
3.01
3.55
4.09
3.82
1995
NA
NA
NA
3.56
3.78
5.76
3.98
NA
3.74
3.38
3.72
3.99
1996
3.22
NA
NA
3.46
3.89
4.41
4.22
NA
2.84
3.00
3.83
3.61
1997
3.58
NA
NA
3.70
3.78
NA
5.04
5.21
4.19
3.84
3.89
4.15
1998
3.70
NA
NA
3.20
3.12
NA
NA
3.31
NA
3.81
NA
3.43
1999
NA
NA
NA
4.72
3.67
NA
NA
5.64
NA
4.17
NA
4.55
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.27
3.54
4.29
4.72
4.71
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.10
NA
3.41
NA
4.76
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.42
NA
4.82
NA
5.62
2003
3.01
3.74
3.16
3.48
5.00
4.00
5.87
5.98
3.82
3.91
NA
4.20
2004
3.10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.10
NA
3.04
NA
4.08
2005
NA
3.13
3.19
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.60
NA
3.77
NA
4.17
2006
4.97
NA
4.55
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.70
NA
3.77
NA
5.00
2007
3.41
NA
4.90
5.63
5.92
4.57
4.47
6.48
4.75
5.32
NA
5.05
2008
NA
NA
3.56
5.34
6.55
3.42
4.19
7.12
3.80
4.50
NA
4.81
2009
3.64
NA
5.01
5.16
4.82
4.01
3.96
5.40
5.80
4.23
NA
4.67
2010
3.08
NA
4.18
5.45
4.26
3.59
4.02
5.60
4.45
3.75
4.93
4.33
2011
2.94
3.50
4.04
5.16
5.10
3.97
4.85
6.18
4.04
4.10
4.96
4.44
2012
4.82
5.43
6.65
4.60
5.46
5.94
3.53
5.46
5.44
5.50
5.46
5.30
Average
3.59
3.95
4.36
4.43
4.59
4.41
4.41
5.91
4.12
4.01
4.45
4.46
Rsquare
0.04
0.36
0.44
0.58
0.49
0.08
0.06
0.12
0.52
0.28
0.85
0.31
Slope
0.02
0.14
0.25
0.10
0.10
0.04
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.06
0.08
0.06
N
11.00
4.00
9.00
13.00
13.00
9.00
10.00
16.00
12.00
19.00
8.00
19.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculated
parametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoran
insufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-40

AppendixD

DEPBenthicMacroinvertebrateRawMetricScores

Proportion of Dominant

Taxa

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994
NA
NA
NA
20.00
18.00
NA
NA
NA
12.00
13.00
15.00
15.60
1995
NA
NA
NA
20.50
43.00
29.00
32.00
NA
31.00
25.50
29.50
30.07
1996
21.00
NA
NA
27.00
12.00
23.00
22.00
NA
22.00
37.00
20.00
23.00
1997
22.00
NA
NA
32.00
33.00
NA
41.00
44.00
32.00
33.00
44.00
35.13
1998
52.00
NA
NA
49.00
45.00
NA
NA
80.00
NA
55.00
NA
56.20
1999
NA
NA
NA
40.00
52.00
NA
NA
60.00
NA
44.00
NA
49.00
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
67.00
28.00
35.00
46.00
44.00
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
78.00
NA
36.00
NA
57.00
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
81.00
NA
35.00
NA
58.00
2003
71.00
69.00
78.00
38.00
45.00
43.00
60.00
69.00
64.00
67.00
NA
60.40
2004
38.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
58.00
NA
37.00
NA
44.33
2005
NA
37.00
45.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
83.00
NA
30.00
NA
48.75
2006
31.00
NA
46.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
88.00
NA
33.00
NA
49.50
2007
44.00
NA
47.00
57.00
56.00
43.00
26.00
79.00
36.00
50.00
NA
48.67
2008
NA
NA
65.00
44.00
84.00
37.00
30.00
93.00
56.00
36.00
NA
55.63
2009
55.00
NA
37.00
43.00
23.00
43.00
49.00
37.00
68.00
46.00
NA
44.56
2010
31.00
NA
39.00
49.00
50.00
29.00
45.00
56.00
37.00
70.00
33.00
43.90
2011
36.00
73.00
59.00
48.00
40.00
25.00
39.00
57.00
48.00
53.00
36.00
46.73
2012
43.00
44.00
87.00
38.00
44.00
62.00
23.00
52.00
49.00
43.00
51.00
48.73
Average
40.36
55.75
55.89
38.88
41.92
37.11
36.70
67.63
40.25
40.97
34.31
45.22
Rsquare
0.05
0.00
0.01
0.50
0.18
0.22
0.01
0.02
0.49
0.26
0.30
0.26
Slope
0.55
0.09
0.46
1.19
1.16
0.91
0.17
0.46
1.75
1.25
0.88
1.08
N
11.00
4.00
9.00
13.00
13.00
9.00
10.00
16.00
12.00
19.00
8.00
19.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculated
parametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoran
insufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-41

AppendixD

DEPBenthicMacroinvertebrateRawMetricScores

Proportion of EPT

Individuals

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994
NA
NA
NA
59.00
32.00
NA
NA
NA
51.00
58.00
43.00
48.60
1995
NA
NA
NA
63.00
57.00
41.00
84.00
NA
35.00
49.50
62.50
56.00
1996
62.00
NA
NA
53.00
26.00
42.00
52.00
NA
44.00
37.00
44.00
45.00
1997
79.00
NA
NA
71.00
68.00
NA
34.00
38.00
55.00
72.00
75.00
61.50
1998
69.00
NA
NA
80.00
83.00
NA
NA
90.00
NA
65.00
NA
77.40
1999
NA
NA
NA
46.00
71.00
NA
NA
27.00
NA
66.00
NA
52.50
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13.00
45.00
58.00
49.00
41.25
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.00
NA
70.00
NA
44.00
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.00
NA
44.00
NA
27.50
2003
88.00
76.00
90.00
59.00
39.00
72.00
34.00
19.00
73.00
74.00
NA
62.40
2004
76.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15.00
NA
69.00
NA
53.33
2005
NA
70.00
89.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.00
NA
65.00
NA
57.50
2006
49.00
NA
40.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.00
NA
52.00
NA
36.25
2007
78.00
NA
44.00
20.00
24.00
47.00
64.00
10.00
46.00
31.00
NA
40.44
2008
NA
NA
83.00
30.00
10.00
75.00
76.00
0.00
75.00
61.00
NA
51.25
2009
77.00
NA
39.00
41.00
60.00
63.00
76.00
39.00
29.00
65.00
NA
54.33
2010
80.00
NA
67.00
20.00
67.00
64.00
77.00
30.00
62.00
80.00
57.00
60.40
2011
81.00
84.00
66.00
25.00
24.00
45.00
45.00
10.00
65.00
60.00
37.00
49.27
2012
46.00
37.00
6.00
41.00
36.00
21.00
68.00
30.00
28.00
36.00
35.00
34.91
Average
71.36
66.75
58.22
46.77
45.92
52.22
61.00
22.50
50.67
58.55
50.31
50.20
Rsquare
0.01
0.20
0.34
0.61
0.09
0.01
0.06
0.12
0.01
0.00
0.20
0.05
Slope
0.19
2.10
5.63
2.27
1.00
0.20
0.68
1.59
0.24
0.03
0.78
0.44
N
11.00
4.00
9.00
13.00
13.00
9.00
10.00
16.00
12.00
19.00
8.00
19.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculated
parametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoran
insufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-42

AppendixD

DEPBenthicMacroinvertebrateRawMetricScores

Proportion of Hydropsyche & Cheumatopsyche

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994
NA
NA
NA
9.00
21.00
NA
NA
NA
32.00
17.00
41.00
24.00
1995
NA
NA
NA
5.50
2.50
4.00
37.50
NA
4.00
9.00
7.00
9.93
1996
0.00
NA
NA
2.00
2.00
2.00
18.00
NA
5.00
0.00
28.00
7.13
1997
1.00
NA
NA
5.00
4.00
NA
1.00
5.00
3.00
8.00
13.00
5.00
1998
0.00
NA
NA
0.00
0.00
NA
NA
0.00
NA
0.00
NA
0.00
1999
NA
NA
NA
1.00
0.00
NA
NA
8.00
NA
0.00
NA
2.25
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.25
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.00
NA
2.00
NA
5.00
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.00
NA
0.00
NA
9.00
2003
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
15.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
NA
2.60
2004
1.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.00
NA
0.00
NA
3.67
2005
NA
1.00
0.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
17.00
NA
1.00
NA
4.75
2006
0.00
NA
0.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
20.00
NA
0.00
NA
5.00
2007
0.00
NA
1.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
16.00
32.00
0.00
3.00
NA
6.56
2008
NA
NA
0.00
24.00
0.00
0.00
33.00
60.00
0.00
0.00
NA
14.63
2009
0.00
NA
0.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
11.00
19.00
4.00
6.00
NA
6.11
2010
0.00
NA
0.00
6.00
2.00
2.00
18.00
19.00
9.00
1.00
13.00
7.00
2011
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
11.00
0.00
3.00
43.00
3.00
0.00
9.00
6.55
2012
3.00
2.00
0.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
6.00
0.00
2.00
17.00
3.55
Average
0.45
0.75
0.11
5.50
4.04
1.33
15.45
17.19
5.00
2.63
16.00
6.47
Rsquare
0.06
0.20
0.01
0.05
0.03
0.39
0.11
0.34
0.19
0.21
0.12
0.04
Slope
0.04
0.10
0.01
0.21
0.16
0.13
0.64
1.97
0.58
0.36
0.57
0.19
N
11.00
4.00
9.00
13.00
13.00
9.00
10.00
16.00
12.00
19.00
8.00
19.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculated
parametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoran
insufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-43

AppendixD

DEPBenthicMacroinvertebrateRawMetricScores

Proportion of Shredders

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994
NA
NA
NA
7.66
12.15
NA
NA
NA
9.66
19.69
16.82
13.20
1995
NA
NA
NA
12.66
27.43
16.15
6.25
NA
16.53
16.74
42.59
19.76
1996
30.62
NA
NA
31.00
9.24
21.90
12.68
NA
13.43
12.50
10.98
17.79
1997
23.90
NA
NA
35.50
35.41
NA
19.63
27.67
28.38
33.95
44.44
31.11
1998
57.14
NA
NA
54.63
47.06
NA
NA
80.17
NA
57.67
NA
59.33
1999
NA
NA
NA
23.46
56.14
NA
NA
15.10
NA
52.52
NA
36.81
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.08
17.41
35.63
33.65
23.69
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.75
NA
37.96
NA
22.86
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.00
NA
18.90
NA
12.45
2003
75.34
73.98
79.10
57.14
36.27
45.24
13.45
9.82
63.50
67.27
NA
52.11
2004
21.37
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.80
NA
18.03
NA
15.73
2005
NA
21.74
48.12
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.92
NA
32.28
NA
26.52
2006
30.10
NA
27.52
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.84
NA
19.27
NA
19.43
2007
56.15
NA
32.58
10.07
17.65
27.14
24.20
3.66
32.82
11.76
NA
24.00
2008
NA
NA
66.00
10.00
4.76
46.72
29.52
1.18
58.65
35.51
NA
31.54
2009
62.91
NA
26.98
10.95
19.08
44.78
50.79
2.99
17.77
46.43
NA
31.41
2010
45.88
NA
44.41
11.84
53.67
32.79
46.06
21.13
43.08
71.36
34.34
40.46
2011
43.62
74.75
61.35
5.56
16.52
28.93
27.85
2.86
48.77
53.06
27.33
35.51
2012
27.33
22.48
4.62
30.54
25.56
10.84
22.42
24.07
13.91
21.82
13.97
19.78
Average
43.12
48.24
43.41
23.15
27.76
30.50
25.29
13.94
30.33
34.86
28.02
28.08
Rsquare
0.01
0.03
0.24
0.08
0.01
0.05
0.49
0.16
0.20
0.06
0.02
0.01
Slope
0.38
1.24
3.86
0.75
0.22
0.48
1.51
1.66
1.24
0.81
0.24
0.27
N
11.00
4.00
9.00
13.00
13.00
9.00
10.00
16.00
12.00
19.00
8.00
19.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculated
parametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoran
insufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-44

AppendixD

DEPBenthicMacroinvertebrateRawMetricScores

Ratio of Scrapers

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994
NA
NA
NA
48.00
76.00
NA
NA
NA
54.00
53.00
42.00
54.60
1995
NA
NA
NA
64.50
61.50
53.00
27.00
NA
16.00
73.50
65.00
51.50
1996
69.00
NA
NA
54.00
83.00
55.00
48.00
NA
25.00
12.00
32.00
47.25
1997
80.00
NA
NA
57.00
53.00
NA
6.00
6.00
15.00
23.00
10.00
31.25
1998
98.00
NA
NA
77.00
84.00
NA
NA
84.00
NA
89.00
NA
86.40
1999
NA
NA
NA
68.00
91.00
NA
NA
57.00
NA
58.00
NA
68.50
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
71.00
68.00
60.00
3.00
50.50
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
20.00
NA
81.00
NA
50.50
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00
NA
73.00
NA
36.50
2003
0.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
43.00
57.00
47.00
12.00
14.00
20.00
NA
21.30
2004
69.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.00
NA
12.00
NA
31.00
2005
NA
4.00
32.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00
NA
55.00
NA
22.75
2006
75.00
NA
91.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00
NA
32.00
NA
49.50
2007
60.00
NA
25.00
13.00
29.00
59.00
29.00
10.00
68.00
53.00
NA
38.44
2008
NA
NA
0.00
12.00
20.00
86.00
28.00
0.00
100.00
43.00
NA
36.13
2009
54.00
NA
33.00
18.00
14.00
85.00
45.00
17.00
67.00
37.00
NA
41.11
2010
75.00
NA
20.00
9.00
5.00
34.00
24.00
4.00
18.00
6.00
17.00
21.20
2011
86.00
67.00
17.00
18.00
16.00
16.00
48.00
11.00
45.00
5.00
29.00
32.55
2012
55.00
11.00
0.00
5.00
16.00
16.00
26.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
23.00
14.73
Average
65.55
25.50
24.22
34.12
45.50
51.22
32.80
19.19
41.08
41.55
27.63
41.35
Rsquare
0.02
0.18
0.05
0.69
0.81
0.07
0.03
0.33
0.03
0.25
0.13
0.36
Slope
0.60
2.70
2.25
3.42
4.15
1.10
0.34
3.24
0.71
2.45
0.91
1.88
N
11.00
4.00
9.00
13.00
13.00
9.00
10.00
16.00
12.00
19.00
8.00
19.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculated
parametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoran
insufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-45

AppendixD

DEPBenthicMacroinvertebrateRawMetricScores

Taxa Richness

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994
NA
NA
NA
36.00
26.00
NA
NA
NA
27.00
30.00
24.00
28.60
1995
NA
NA
NA
27.50
20.50
27.00
21.00
NA
26.00
29.00
19.50
24.36
1996
26.00
NA
NA
31.00
28.00
28.00
29.00
NA
30.00
27.00
27.00
28.25
1997
30.00
NA
NA
37.00
22.00
NA
22.00
26.00
26.00
21.00
21.00
25.63
1998
30.00
NA
NA
21.00
21.00
NA
NA
13.00
NA
19.00
NA
20.80
1999
NA
NA
NA
34.00
22.00
NA
NA
25.00
NA
21.00
NA
25.50
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19.00
20.00
23.00
14.00
19.00
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14.00
NA
24.00
NA
19.00
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.00
NA
24.00
NA
18.00
2003
14.00
9.00
12.00
7.00
12.00
18.00
17.00
16.00
13.00
12.00
NA
13.00
2004
21.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19.00
NA
22.00
NA
20.67
2005
NA
13.00
17.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.00
NA
21.00
NA
15.25
2006
21.00
NA
14.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.00
NA
16.00
NA
15.25
2007
20.00
NA
16.00
17.00
23.00
22.00
35.00
21.00
23.00
25.00
NA
22.44
2008
NA
NA
16.00
18.00
15.00
18.00
33.00
5.00
18.00
16.00
NA
17.38
2009
23.00
NA
29.00
25.00
17.00
19.00
27.00
21.00
18.00
18.00
NA
21.89
2010
32.00
NA
23.00
20.00
19.00
35.00
35.00
21.00
22.00
16.00
21.00
24.40
2011
21.00
23.00
27.00
18.00
16.00
19.00
22.00
20.00
28.00
16.00
31.00
21.91
2012
28.00
23.00
17.00
23.00
24.00
18.00
26.00
16.00
19.00
23.00
26.00
22.09
Average
24.18
17.00
19.00
24.19
20.42
22.67
26.70
16.75
22.50
21.21
22.94
21.23
Rsquare
0.02
0.99
0.40
0.37
0.22
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.21
0.35
0.14
0.15
Slope
0.15
1.60
1.28
0.78
0.32
0.33
0.36
0.19
0.34
0.51
0.25
0.30
N
11.00
4.00
9.00
13.00
13.00
9.00
10.00
16.00
12.00
19.00
8.00
19.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculated
parametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoran
insufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-46

AppendixD

DEPBenthicMacroinvertebrateRawMetricScores

Total Number of EPT Taxa

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994
NA
0.00
0.00
208.84
203.44
0.00
0.00
0.00
202.67
210.24
198.91
102.41
1995
0.00
0.00
0.00
213.21
226.20
190.91
223.23
0.00
147.27
222.11
240.31
133.02
1996 225.84
0.00
0.00
218.46
178.13
193.31
201.90
0.00
160.27
142.50
178.81
136.29
1997 259.48
0.00
0.00
261.20
230.19
0.00
141.67
163.88
177.57
206.79
223.33
151.28
1998 324.84
0.00
0.00
293.83
294.18
0.00
0.00
356.48
0.00
297.48
0.00
142.44
1999
0.00
0.00
0.00
239.18
303.81
0.00
0.00
208.74
0.00
260.69
0.00
92.04
2000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
192.35
196.95
226.92
157.37
70.33
2001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
161.85
0.00
267.37
0.00
39.02
2002
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
140.42
0.00
213.72
0.00
32.19
2003 259.35
255.72
271.26
168.62
185.27
250.24
203.32
148.80
238.32
252.18
0.00
203.01
2004 242.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
134.90
0.00
174.07
0.00
50.13
2005
0.00
157.87
245.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
131.52
0.00
223.05
0.00
68.89
2006 222.07
0.00
230.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
132.54
0.00
166.04
0.00
68.25
2007 273.56
0.00
181.48
133.70
168.57
217.71
220.67
169.14
222.57
194.08
0.00
161.95
2008
0.00
0.00
244.56
149.34
147.31
277.14
251.71
166.30
324.45
207.01
0.00
160.71
2009 286.55
0.00
182.99
167.11
151.90
270.79
276.75
151.39
222.57
231.66
0.00
176.52
2010 287.96
0.00
211.59
132.29
211.93
221.38
270.08
164.73
209.53
259.11
193.27
196.53
2011 281.56
334.25
247.39
132.72
136.62
146.90
202.70
158.04
254.81
201.16
189.29
207.77
2012 227.15
159.91
129.27
160.14
165.02
143.78
185.95
144.53
131.35
149.32
187.43
162.17
Average
160.60
47.78
102.31
130.45
136.98
100.64
114.63
143.45
130.96
216.08
82.56
123.94
Rsquare
0.10
0.19
0.58
0.11
0.06
0.19
0.18
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.14
Slope
7.90
7.77
15.53
5.95
4.51
8.81
8.66
4.01
4.83
1.37
3.90
3.77
N
18.00
19.00
19.00
19.00
19.00
19.00
19.00
19.00
19.00
19.00
19.00
19.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculated
parametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoran
insufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-47

AppendixD

DEPBenthicMacroinvertebrateScaledMetricScores

Biotic Index

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994
NA
NA
NA
3.00
3.00
NA
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
3.00
3.80
1995
NA
NA
NA
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
NA
5.00
4.00
4.00
3.86
1996
5.00
NA
NA
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
1997
3.00
NA
NA
3.00
3.00
NA
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
1998
3.00
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
NA
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
NA
4.60
1999
NA
NA
NA
3.00
3.00
NA
NA
3.00
NA
3.00
NA
3.00
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
3.50
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.00
NA
5.00
NA
4.00
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.00
NA
3.00
NA
3.00
2003
5.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
NA
3.60
2004
5.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.00
NA
5.00
NA
4.33
2005
NA
5.00
5.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.00
NA
5.00
NA
4.50
2006
3.00
NA
3.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
5.00
NA
3.00
2007
3.00
NA
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
NA
3.00
2008
NA
NA
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
5.00
3.00
NA
3.00
2009
3.00
NA
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
NA
3.00
2010
5.00
NA
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
3.40
2011
5.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.18
2012
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
Average
3.91
3.50
3.44
3.23
3.23
3.00
3.00
2.88
4.00
3.89
3.38
3.51
Rsquare
0.00
0.17
0.56
0.14
0.14
NA
NA
0.13
0.41
0.08
0.21
0.18
Slope
0.00
0.09
0.23
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.10
0.05
0.04
0.04
N
11.00
4.00
9.00
13.00
13.00
9.00
10.00
16.00
12.00
19.00
8.00
19.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculated
parametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoran
insufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-48

AppendixD

DEPBenthicMacroinvertebrateScaledMetricScores

Proportion of Dominant

Taxa

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994
NA
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
NA
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
1995
NA
NA
NA
5.00
4.00
5.00
4.00
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.71
1996
5.00
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
1997
5.00
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
NA
3.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.50
1998
3.00
NA
NA
3.00
3.00
NA
NA
1.00
NA
3.00
NA
2.60
1999
NA
NA
NA
5.00
3.00
NA
NA
3.00
NA
5.00
NA
4.00
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.50
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
5.00
NA
3.00
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
5.00
NA
3.00
2003
3.00
3.00
1.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
NA
3.00
2004
5.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.00
NA
5.00
NA
4.33
2005
NA
5.00
3.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
5.00
NA
3.50
2006
5.00
NA
3.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
5.00
NA
3.50
2007
3.00
NA
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
1.00
5.00
3.00
NA
3.22
2008
NA
NA
3.00
3.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
3.00
5.00
NA
3.25
2009
3.00
NA
5.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
NA
3.89
2010
5.00
NA
5.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
4.00
2011
5.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
3.73
2012
3.00
3.00
1.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
3.36
Average
4.09
3.00
3.00
4.08
3.69
4.11
4.10
2.25
4.17
4.47
4.75
3.79
Rsquare
0.03
0.31
0.06
0.36
0.11
0.10
0.03
0.04
0.44
0.09
0.28
0.21
Slope
0.03
0.20
0.12
0.09
0.06
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.06
N
11.00
4.00
9.00
13.00
13.00
9.00
10.00
16.00
12.00
19.00
8.00
19.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculated
parametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoran
insufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-49

AppendixD

DEPBenthicMacroinvertebrateScaledMetricScores

Proportion of EPT

Individuals

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994
NA
NA
NA
5.00
3.00
NA
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
3.00
4.20
1995
NA
NA
NA
5.00
4.00
3.00
5.00
NA
3.00
4.00
5.00
4.14
1996
5.00
NA
NA
3.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
NA
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
1997
5.00
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
NA
3.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.50
1998
5.00
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
NA
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
1999
NA
NA
NA
3.00
5.00
NA
NA
1.00
NA
5.00
NA
3.50
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
5.00
NA
3.00
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
3.00
NA
2.00
2003
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
NA
4.20
2004
5.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
5.00
NA
3.67
2005
NA
5.00
5.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
5.00
NA
4.00
2006
3.00
NA
3.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
5.00
NA
3.00
2007
5.00
NA
3.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
5.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
NA
2.78
2008
NA
NA
5.00
3.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
NA
3.75
2009
5.00
NA
3.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
NA
4.11
2010
5.00
NA
5.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.40
2011
5.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
3.36
2012
3.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.82
Average
4.64
4.50
3.89
3.31
3.23
3.67
4.20
1.75
4.00
4.53
3.75
3.60
Rsquare
0.13
0.41
0.15
0.53
0.05
0.00
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.05
Slope
0.05
0.14
0.19
0.17
0.06
0.01
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.03
N
11.00
4.00
9.00
13.00
13.00
9.00
10.00
16.00
12.00
19.00
8.00
19.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculated
parametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoran
insufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-50

AppendixD

DEPBenthicMacroinvertebrateScaledMetricScores

Proportion of Hydropsyche & Cheumatopsyche

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994
NA
NA
NA
3.00
3.00
NA
NA
NA
3.00
5.00
3.00
3.40
1995
NA
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.71
1996
5.00
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
NA
5.00
5.00
3.00
4.50
1997
5.00
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
1998
5.00
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
NA
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
1999
NA
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
NA
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.00
NA
5.00
NA
4.00
2003
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
NA
4.60
2004
5.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.00
NA
5.00
NA
4.33
2005
NA
5.00
5.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.00
NA
5.00
NA
4.50
2006
5.00
NA
5.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.00
NA
5.00
NA
4.50
2007
5.00
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
NA
4.56
2008
NA
NA
5.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
NA
4.00
2009
5.00
NA
5.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
NA
4.33
2010
5.00
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.60
2011
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.64
2012
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Average
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.54
4.69
5.00
3.60
3.63
4.83
5.00
4.50
4.56
Rsquare
NA
NA
NA
0.00
0.00
NA
0.04
0.30
0.19
NA
0.30
0.00
Slope
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.14
0.04
0.00
0.07
0.00
N
11.00
4.00
9.00
13.00
13.00
9.00
10.00
16.00
12.00
19.00
8.00
19.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculated
parametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoran
insufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-51

AppendixD

DEPBenthicMacroinvertebrateScaledMetricScores

Proportion of Shredders

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994
NA
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
NA
NA
NA
3.00
5.00
5.00
4.60
1995
NA
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
NA
5.00
4.00
5.00
4.71
1996
5.00
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
NA
3.00
3.00
3.00
4.25
1997
5.00
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
1998
5.00
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
NA
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
1999
NA
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
NA
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.00
NA
5.00
NA
4.00
2003
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
NA
5.00
2004
5.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
2005
NA
5.00
5.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.00
NA
5.00
NA
4.50
2006
5.00
NA
5.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
5.00
NA
4.00
2007
5.00
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
NA
4.56
2008
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
NA
4.25
2009
5.00
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
NA
4.56
2010
5.00
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
2011
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.45
2012
5.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
4.45
Average
5.00
5.00
4.78
4.85
4.85
5.00
4.90
3.63
4.50
4.74
4.50
4.65
Rsquare
NA
NA
0.28
0.13
0.05
NA
0.28
0.27
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.07
Slope
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.03
0.02
0.00
0.03
0.19
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
N
11.00
4.00
9.00
13.00
13.00
9.00
10.00
16.00
12.00
19.00
8.00
19.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculated
parametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoran
insufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-52

AppendixD

DEPBenthicMacroinvertebrateScaledMetricScores

Ratio of Scrapers

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994
NA
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
NA
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
1995
NA
NA
NA
4.00
4.00
5.00
3.00
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.43
1996
5.00
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
1997
5.00
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
NA
1.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
1998
5.00
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
NA
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
1999
NA
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
NA
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
4.00
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
5.00
NA
3.00
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
5.00
NA
3.00
2003
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
NA
3.00
2004
5.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
5.00
NA
3.67
2005
NA
1.00
3.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
5.00
NA
2.50
2006
5.00
NA
5.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
5.00
NA
4.00
2007
5.00
NA
3.00
1.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
NA
3.44
2008
NA
NA
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
3.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
NA
2.75
2009
5.00
NA
3.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
NA
3.44
2010
5.00
NA
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
2.80
2011
5.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
1.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
2012
5.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
5.00
2.09
Average
4.64
2.00
2.11
2.77
3.23
3.89
3.60
1.75
4.67
4.68
4.50
3.64
Rsquare
0.01
0.24
0.14
0.84
0.82
0.38
0.04
0.33
0.16
0.40
0.01
0.63
Slope
0.02
0.22
0.19
0.27
0.26
0.17
0.04
0.19
0.07
0.08
0.02
0.13
N
11.00
4.00
9.00
13.00
13.00
9.00
10.00
16.00
12.00
19.00
8.00
19.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculated
parametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoran
insufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-53

AppendixD

DEPBenthicMacroinvertebrateScaledMetricScores

Taxa Richness

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994
NA
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
NA
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
1995
NA
NA
NA
5.00
4.00
5.00
4.00
NA
5.00
5.00
4.00
4.57
1996
5.00
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
1997
5.00
NA
NA
5.00
3.00
NA
3.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.50
1998
5.00
NA
NA
3.00
3.00
NA
NA
3.00
NA
3.00
NA
3.40
1999
NA
NA
NA
5.00
3.00
NA
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
NA
4.50
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
3.50
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.00
NA
5.00
NA
4.00
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.00
NA
5.00
NA
4.00
2003
3.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
NA
2.60
2004
3.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.00
NA
5.00
NA
3.67
2005
NA
3.00
3.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
5.00
NA
3.00
2006
3.00
NA
3.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
3.00
NA
2.50
2007
3.00
NA
3.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
NA
3.89
2008
NA
NA
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
NA
3.00
2009
5.00
NA
5.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
NA
3.89
2010
5.00
NA
5.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
4.20
2011
3.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
3.73
2012
5.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
4.27
Average
4.09
3.50
3.67
3.92
3.69
3.67
4.30
2.88
4.17
4.26
4.63
3.85
Rsquare
0.05
0.93
0.29
0.13
0.03
0.40
0.09
0.20
0.14
0.23
0.07
0.19
Slope
0.04
0.42
0.18
0.07
0.03
0.10
0.04
0.11
0.06
0.08
0.03
0.06
N
11.00
4.00
9.00
13.00
13.00
9.00
10.00
16.00
12.00
19.00
8.00
19.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculated
parametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoran
insufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-54

AppendixD

DEPBenthicMacroinvertebrateScaledMetricScores

Total Number of EPT Taxa

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994
NA
NA
NA
36.00
34.00
NA
NA
NA
36.00
40.00
34.00
36.00
1995
NA
NA
NA
38.00
34.00
36.00
30.00
NA
38.00
36.00
36.00
35.43
1996
40.00
NA
NA
36.00
34.00
36.00
34.00
NA
36.00
36.00
34.00
35.75
1997
38.00
NA
NA
38.00
34.00
NA
28.00
28.00
38.00
36.00
36.00
34.50
1998
36.00
NA
NA
34.00
34.00
NA
NA
32.00
NA
34.00
NA
34.00
1999
NA
NA
NA
36.00
32.00
NA
NA
30.00
NA
38.00
NA
34.00
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
28.00
36.00
36.00
28.00
32.00
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
22.00
NA
40.00
NA
31.00
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.00
NA
36.00
NA
27.00
2003
30.00
24.00
28.00
26.00
28.00
32.00
28.00
22.00
34.00
32.00
NA
28.40
2004
38.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
22.00
NA
40.00
NA
33.33
2005
NA
32.00
32.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
14.00
NA
40.00
NA
29.50
2006
32.00
NA
30.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.00
NA
36.00
NA
27.00
2007
32.00
NA
28.00
24.00
28.00
32.00
34.00
18.00
34.00
32.00
NA
29.11
2008
NA
NA
28.00
24.00
20.00
34.00
34.00
8.00
36.00
34.00
NA
27.25
2009
34.00
NA
34.00
28.00
30.00
32.00
34.00
22.00
32.00
34.00
NA
31.11
2010
40.00
NA
34.00
24.00
28.00
36.00
32.00
24.00
38.00
32.00
38.00
32.60
2011
36.00
32.00
32.00
22.00
24.00
28.00
34.00
18.00
36.00
30.00
36.00
29.82
2012
34.00
30.00
20.00
32.00
28.00
24.00
36.00
26.00
26.00
34.00
32.00
29.27
Average
35.45
29.50
29.56
30.62
29.85
32.22
32.40
21.38
35.00
35.58
34.25
31.43
Rsquare
0.09
0.34
0.03
0.69
0.64
0.41
0.37
0.24
0.27
0.28
0.01
0.48
Slope
0.17
0.50
0.24
0.75
0.53
0.41
0.26
0.70
0.26
0.28
0.04
0.37
N
11.00
4.00
9.00
13.00
13.00
9.00
10.00
16.00
12.00
19.00
8.00
19.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculated
parametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoran
insufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-55

AppendixD

DEPBenthicMacroinvertebrateScaledMetricScores

Composite

Page D-56

AppendixD

MBSSBenthicMacroinvertebrateRawMetricScores

Number
Taxa

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1995
NA
NA
NA
36.00
26.00
NA
NA
NA
27.00
30.00
24.00
28.60
1996
NA
NA
NA
55.00
41.00
27.00
42.00
NA
26.00
58.00
39.00
41.14
1997
27.00
NA
NA
31.00
29.00
29.00
30.00
NA
30.00
27.00
28.00
28.88
1998
31.00
NA
NA
38.00
22.00
NA
22.00
26.00
26.00
21.00
21.00
25.88
1999
30.00
NA
NA
21.00
21.00
NA
NA
13.00
NA
19.00
NA
20.80
2000
NA
NA
NA
34.00
22.00
NA
NA
25.00
NA
21.00
NA
25.50
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19.00
20.00
23.00
14.00
19.00
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14.00
NA
24.00
NA
19.00
2003
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15.00
NA
27.00
NA
21.00
2004
15.00
10.00
16.00
10.00
16.00
22.00
21.00
20.00
16.00
16.00
NA
16.20
2005
23.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
22.00
NA
27.00
NA
24.00
2006
NA
16.00
19.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
13.00
NA
25.00
NA
18.25
2007
24.00
NA
17.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.00
NA
19.00
NA
18.00
2008
24.00
NA
19.00
21.00
27.00
26.00
39.00
24.00
27.00
29.00
NA
26.22
2009
NA
NA
19.00
21.00
18.00
21.00
37.00
9.00
21.00
19.00
NA
20.63
2010
26.00
NA
31.00
29.00
21.00
22.00
31.00
24.00
22.00
21.00
NA
25.22
2011
35.00
NA
26.00
23.00
22.00
39.00
39.00
25.00
26.00
20.00
24.00
27.90
2012
24.00
26.00
30.00
22.00
19.00
24.00
26.00
24.00
34.00
20.00
35.00
25.82
Average
25.90
17.33
22.13
28.42
23.67
26.25
31.89
19.00
25.00
24.78
26.43
24.00
Rsquare
0.01
0.98
0.71
0.37
0.28
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.21
0.01
0.11
Slope
0.09
1.92
1.88
1.09
0.54
0.02
0.13
0.11
0.01
0.78
0.10
0.36
N
10.00
3.00
8.00
12.00
12.00
8.00
9.00
15.00
11.00
18.00
7.00
18.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculated
parametersbelowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoran
insufficientnumberofobservationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-57

AppendixD

MBSSBenthicMacroinvertebrateRawMetricScores

#EPT

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1995
NA
NA
NA
25.00
14.00
NA
NA
NA
14.00
16.00
13.00
16.40
1996
NA
NA
NA
32.00
21.00
15.00
23.00
NA
15.00
31.00
21.00
22.57
1997
14.00
NA
NA
17.00
14.00
17.00
16.00
NA
18.00
14.00
13.00
15.38
1998
20.00
NA
NA
21.00
11.00
NA
13.00
12.00
14.00
12.00
12.00
14.38
1999
15.00
NA
NA
9.00
11.00
NA
NA
6.00
NA
8.00
NA
9.80
2000
NA
NA
NA
22.00
8.00
NA
NA
11.00
NA
15.00
NA
14.00
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.00
15.00
10.00
6.00
9.75
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.00
NA
13.00
NA
11.50
2003
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.00
NA
14.00
NA
10.00
2004
8.00
4.00
9.00
4.00
5.00
10.00
11.00
7.00
7.00
8.00
NA
7.30
2005
13.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.00
NA
13.00
NA
11.00
2006
NA
8.00
11.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.00
NA
15.00
NA
9.75
2007
11.00
NA
7.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.00
NA
10.00
NA
7.75
2008
12.00
NA
11.00
8.00
10.00
14.00
22.00
7.00
12.00
15.00
NA
12.33
2009
NA
NA
11.00
6.00
7.00
11.00
18.00
NA
13.00
11.00
NA
11.00
2010
11.00
NA
13.00
15.00
10.00
12.00
15.00
10.00
14.00
9.00
NA
12.11
2011
21.00
NA
14.00
11.00
11.00
21.00
21.00
8.00
14.00
11.00
13.00
14.50
2012
11.00
9.00
13.00
10.00
8.00
10.00
13.00
8.00
13.00
10.00
15.00
10.91
Average
13.60
7.00
11.13
15.00
10.83
13.75
16.89
7.71
13.55
13.06
13.29
12.25
Rsquare
0.05
0.67
0.58
0.47
0.34
0.04
0.00
0.08
0.12
0.21
0.01
0.24
Slope
0.17
0.52
0.65
0.91
0.38
0.13
0.02
0.15
0.14
0.44
0.05
0.33
N
10.00
3.00
8.00
12.00
12.00
8.00
9.00
14.00
11.00
18.00
7.00
18.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculatedparametersbelow
thedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberofobservations
wererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-58

AppendixD

MBSSBenthicMacroinvertebrateRawMetricScores

#Ephemeroptera

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1995
NA
NA
NA
6.00
3.00
NA
NA
NA
2.00
4.00
4.00
3.80
1996
NA
NA
NA
7.00
1.00
4.00
9.00
NA
4.00
8.00
5.00
5.43
1997
6.00
NA
NA
6.00
2.00
7.00
6.00
NA
8.00
6.00
2.00
5.38
1998
8.00
NA
NA
6.00
3.00
NA
6.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
4.63
1999
7.00
NA
NA
3.00
4.00
NA
NA
1.00
NA
3.00
NA
3.60
2000
NA
NA
NA
10.00
3.00
NA
NA
3.00
NA
5.00
NA
5.25
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.25
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.00
NA
6.00
2003
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.00
NA
6.00
2004
4.00
2.00
5.00
1.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
NA
4.00
5.00
NA
3.44
2005
4.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
5.00
NA
3.33
2006
NA
2.00
4.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.00
NA
4.33
2007
5.00
NA
3.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.00
NA
4.00
2008
6.00
NA
5.00
3.00
1.00
6.00
11.00
1.00
5.00
6.00
NA
4.89
2009
NA
NA
5.00
2.00
2.00
5.00
8.00
NA
7.00
5.00
NA
4.86
2010
4.00
NA
4.00
4.00
NA
8.00
6.00
1.00
6.00
1.00
NA
4.25
2011
9.00
NA
4.00
3.00
2.00
7.00
10.00
1.00
8.00
3.00
6.00
5.30
2012
3.00
4.00
4.00
1.00
1.00
4.00
5.00
NA
8.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
Average
5.60
2.67
4.25
4.33
2.18
5.63
7.22
1.63
5.36
4.89
4.00
4.54
Rsquare
0.11
0.94
0.04
0.45
0.24
0.03
0.01
0.48
0.42
0.10
0.37
0.01
Slope
0.12
0.27
0.06
0.28
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.12
0.21
0.09
0.12
0.01
N
10.00
3.00
8.00
12.00
11.00
8.00
9.00
8.00
11.00
18.00
7.00
18.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculatedparametersbelow
thedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberofobservations
wererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-59

AppendixD

MBSSBenthicMacroinvertebrateRawMetricScores

%Intollerant

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1995
NA
NA
NA
0.51
0.39
NA
NA
NA
0.50
0.37
0.34
0.42
1996
NA
NA
NA
0.61
0.45
0.64
0.20
NA
0.65
0.62
0.37
0.51
1997
0.64
NA
NA
0.71
0.38
0.64
0.32
NA
0.75
0.75
0.50
0.59
1998
0.74
NA
NA
0.69
0.70
NA
0.33
0.40
0.55
0.64
0.65
0.59
1999
0.73
NA
NA
0.80
0.86
NA
NA
0.89
NA
0.66
NA
0.79
2000
NA
NA
NA
0.46
0.75
NA
NA
0.30
NA
0.56
NA
0.52
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.20
0.70
0.55
0.48
0.48
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.17
NA
0.78
NA
0.48
2003
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.17
NA
0.50
NA
0.34
2004
0.90
0.81
0.92
0.60
0.49
0.71
0.33
0.25
0.72
0.76
NA
0.65
2005
0.69
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.20
NA
0.67
NA
0.52
2006
NA
0.66
0.80
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.13
NA
0.73
NA
0.58
2007
0.58
NA
0.55
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.03
NA
0.70
NA
0.46
2008
0.82
NA
0.47
0.19
0.38
0.57
0.47
0.15
0.55
0.50
NA
0.46
2009
NA
NA
0.81
0.30
0.12
0.77
0.41
0.09
0.75
0.45
NA
0.46
2010
0.77
NA
0.47
0.25
0.41
0.80
0.59
0.20
0.32
0.65
NA
0.50
2011
0.79
NA
0.65
0.26
0.68
0.69
0.53
0.37
0.52
0.79
0.39
0.57
2012
0.85
0.89
0.72
0.33
0.49
0.71
0.35
0.30
0.73
0.65
0.42
0.59
Average
0.75
0.79
0.67
0.48
0.51
0.69
0.39
0.26
0.61
0.63
0.45
0.53
Rsquare
0.16
0.38
0.16
0.66
0.05
0.21
0.56
0.17
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.00
Slope
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
N
10.00
3.00
8.00
12.00
12.00
8.00
9.00
15.00
11.00
18.00
7.00
18.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculatedparametersbelow
thedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberofobservations
wererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-60

AppendixD

MBSSBenthicMacroinvertebrateRawMetricScores

%Tanytarsini

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1995
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

1996
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

1997
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

1998
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

1999
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

2003
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.09
NA
0.10
NA
0.10
2004
0.01
NA
NA
NA
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.01
NA
0.01
2005
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.02
NA
0.01
NA
0.01
2006
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.05
NA
0.03
NA
0.04
2007
0.03
NA
0.14
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.11
NA
0.06
NA
0.08
2008
0.05
NA
0.16
0.11
0.10
0.06
0.05
0.24
0.07
0.01
NA
0.10
2009
NA
NA
0.04
0.06
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.09
NA
0.04
2010
0.05
NA
0.14
0.08
0.05
0.09
0.03
0.05
0.17
0.04
NA
0.08
2011
0.05
NA
0.14
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.08
0.11
0.01
NA
0.06
2012
0.02
NA
0.01
0.08
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.09
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.04
Average
0.03
NA
0.11
0.08
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.01
0.06
Rsquare
0.16
NA
0.25
0.22
0.02
0.29
0.33
0.03
0.11
0.01
NA
0.00
Slope
0.00
NA
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
NA
0.00
N
6.00
0.00
6.00
5.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
10.00
6.00
10.00
1.00
10.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculatedparametersbelow
thedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberofobservations
wererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-61

AppendixD

MBSSBenthicMacroinvertebrateRawMetricScores

%Scrapers

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1995
NA
NA
NA
15%
30%
NA
NA
NA
32%
25%
19%
0.24
1996
NA
NA
NA
16%
6%
5%
20%
NA
6%
21%
19%
0.13
1997
11%
NA
NA
18%
31%
13%
21%
NA
6%
5%
18%
0.15
1998
13%
NA
NA
15%
14%
NA
2%
1%
3%
4%
1%
0.06
1999
17%
NA
NA
24%
11%
NA
NA
9%
NA
14%
NA
0.15
2000
NA
NA
NA
10%
14%
NA
NA
4%
NA
3%
NA
0.08
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8%
31%
8%
0%
0.12
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2%
NA
15%
NA
0.09
2003
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15%
NA
0.15
2004
NA
1%
NA
NA
6%
14%
7%
2%
1%
1%
NA
0.04
2005
8%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2%
NA
5%
NA
0.05
2006
NA
2%
6%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15%
NA
0.08
2007
3%
NA
9%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10%
NA
0.07
2008
2%
NA
3%
3%
4%
5%
7%
1%
10%
8%
NA
0.05
2009
NA
NA
NA
3%
1%
9%
13%
NA
10%
3%
NA
0.06
2010
5%
NA
4%
6%
5%
17%
13%
7%
3%
8%
NA
0.08
2011
4%
NA
2%
3%
1%
7%
8%
1%
2%
0%
2%
0.03
2012
12%
3%
2%
7%
6%
5%
9%
4%
8%
1%
7%
0.06
Average
0.08
0.02
0.04
0.11
0.11
0.09
0.11
0.04
0.10
0.09
0.10
0.09
Rsquare
0.40
0.93
0.54
0.70
0.53
0.01
0.14
0.05
0.15
0.30
0.33
0.53
Slope
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
N
9.00
3.00
6.00
11.00
12.00
8.00
9.00
11.00
11.00
18.00
7.00
18.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculatedparametersbelow
thedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberofobservations
wererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-62

AppendixD

MBSSBenthicMacroinvertebrateRawMetricScores

%Swimmers

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1995
NA
NA
NA
0.21
0.01
NA
NA
NA
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.06
1996
NA
NA
NA
0.15
0.00
0.15
0.04
NA
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.06
1997
0.11
NA
NA
0.10
0.01
0.12
0.05
NA
0.13
0.07
NA
0.09
1998
0.31
NA
NA
0.13
0.09
NA
0.06
0.04
0.13
0.15
0.09
0.12
1999
0.06
NA
NA
0.06
0.09
NA
NA
0.01
NA
0.02
NA
0.05
2000
NA
NA
NA
0.10
0.11
NA
NA
0.02
NA
0.11
NA
0.08
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.02
0.04
0.11
0.05
0.06
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.08
NA
0.08
2003
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.01
NA
0.08
NA
0.04
2004
0.08
0.03
0.08
0.01
0.02
0.13
0.09
NA
0.07
0.05
NA
0.06
2005
0.46
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.02
NA
0.09
NA
0.19
2006
NA
0.07
0.26
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.16
NA
0.16
2007
0.14
NA
0.11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.07
NA
0.11
2008
0.18
NA
0.06
0.01
0.02
0.12
0.08
0.00
0.08
0.07
NA
0.07
2009
NA
NA
0.09
0.01
0.02
0.19
0.06
NA
0.08
0.09
NA
0.08
2010
0.07
NA
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.08
0.04
NA
0.04
0.01
NA
0.04
2011
0.23
NA
0.13
0.01
0.01
0.14
0.05
0.01
0.09
0.03
0.14
0.08
2012
0.18
0.06
0.02
0.01
NA
0.07
0.03
NA
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.05
Average
0.18
0.05
0.10
0.07
0.03
0.12
0.06
0.02
0.07
0.07
0.05
0.08
Rsquare
0.00
0.27
0.20
0.80
0.07
0.10
0.01
0.45
0.01
0.03
0.13
0.00
Slope
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
N
10.00
3.00
8.00
12.00
11.00
8.00
9.00
8.00
11.00
18.00
6.00
18.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculatedparametersbelow
thedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberofobservations
wererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-63

AppendixD

MBSSBenthicMacroinvertebrateRawMetricScores

%Diptera

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1995
NA
NA
NA
0.25
0.35
NA
NA
NA
0.28
0.21
0.23
0.26
1996
NA
NA
NA
0.18
0.33
0.25
0.07
NA
0.63
0.14
0.21
0.26
1997
0.22
NA
NA
0.24
0.33
0.42
0.32
NA
0.49
0.56
0.43
0.37
1998
0.03
NA
NA
0.16
0.25
NA
0.65
0.59
0.41
0.23
0.20
0.32
1999
0.15
NA
NA
0.06
0.05
NA
NA
0.08
NA
0.16
NA
0.10
2000
NA
NA
NA
0.43
0.14
NA
NA
0.68
NA
0.31
NA
0.39
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.74
0.24
0.34
0.49
0.45
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.82
NA
0.18
NA
0.50
2003
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.88
NA
0.42
NA
0.65
2004
0.11
0.23
0.10
0.41
0.55
0.26
0.63
0.79
0.26
0.26
NA
0.36
2005
0.16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.77
NA
0.25
NA
0.39
2006
NA
0.29
0.08
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.93
NA
0.27
NA
0.39
2007
0.34
NA
0.48
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.94
NA
0.36
NA
0.53
2008
0.19
NA
0.56
0.78
0.65
0.47
0.32
0.86
0.44
0.61
NA
0.54
2009
NA
NA
0.13
0.59
0.87
0.15
0.14
0.95
0.18
0.36
NA
0.42
2010
0.17
NA
0.54
0.54
0.38
0.25
0.16
0.55
0.69
0.27
NA
0.39
2011
0.15
NA
0.31
0.78
0.31
0.27
0.16
0.68
0.35
0.19
0.41
0.36
2012
0.17
0.11
0.28
0.74
0.71
0.52
0.46
0.84
0.31
0.39
0.52
0.46
Average
0.17
0.21
0.31
0.43
0.41
0.32
0.32
0.74
0.39
0.30
0.36
0.40
Rsquare
0.08
0.75
0.12
0.80
0.37
0.00
0.03
0.19
0.02
0.05
0.46
0.21
Slope
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
N
10.00
3.00
8.00
12.00
12.00
8.00
9.00
15.00
11.00
18.00
7.00
18.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculatedparametersbelow
thedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberofobservations
wererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-64

AppendixD

NumberTaxa

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994
NA
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
NA
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
1995
NA
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
1996
5.00
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
1997
5.00
NA
NA
5.00
3.00
NA
3.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
1998
5.00
NA
NA
3.00
3.00
NA
NA
1.00
NA
3.00
NA
3.00
1999
NA
NA
NA
5.00
3.00
NA
NA
5.00
NA
3.00
NA
4.00
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
2.50
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
5.00
NA
3.00
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.00
NA
5.00
NA
4.00
2003
3.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
NA
2.60
2004
3.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.00
NA
5.00
NA
3.67
2005
NA
3.00
3.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
5.00
NA
3.00
2006
5.00
NA
3.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
3.00
NA
3.00
2007
5.00
NA
3.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
NA
4.56
2008
NA
NA
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
NA
3.00
2009
5.00
NA
5.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
NA
4.11
2010
5.00
NA
5.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
4.40
2011
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
4.45
2012
5.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.64
Average
4.64
3.50
3.67
3.92
3.77
4.33
4.60
3.13
4.33
3.95
4.25
3.84
Rsquare
0.01
0.93
0.29
0.13
0.07
0.01
0.15
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.01
Slope
0.02
0.42
0.18
0.07
0.04
0.02
0.05
0.06
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.01
N
11.00
4.00
9.00
13.00
13.00
9.00
10.00
16.00
12.00
19.00
8.00
19.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculatedparameters
belowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberof
observationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-65

AppendixD

#EPT

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994
NA
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
NA
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
3.00
4.60
1995
NA
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
1996
5.00
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
NA
5.00
5.00
3.00
4.75
1997
5.00
NA
NA
5.00
3.00
NA
3.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
3.75
1998
5.00
NA
NA
3.00
3.00
NA
NA
1.00
NA
3.00
NA
3.00
1999
NA
NA
NA
5.00
3.00
NA
NA
3.00
NA
5.00
NA
4.00
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.00
5.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.00
NA
3.00
NA
3.00
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
5.00
NA
3.00
2003
3.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
NA
2.00
2004
3.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
3.00
NA
2.33
2005
NA
3.00
3.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
5.00
NA
3.00
2006
3.00
NA
1.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
3.00
NA
2.00
2007
3.00
NA
3.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
3.00
5.00
NA
3.44
2008
NA
NA
3.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
5.00
NA
3.00
3.00
NA
2.71
2009
3.00
NA
3.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
NA
3.67
2010
5.00
NA
5.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
2011
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
3.18
2012
5.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.27
Average
3.91
3.00
3.00
3.77
3.15
3.89
4.40
2.07
4.17
3.84
3.50
3.41
Rsquare
0.14
0.69
0.12
0.15
0.32
0.30
0.01
0.02
0.08
0.07
0.14
0.12
Slope
0.07
0.31
0.12
0.09
0.11
0.09
0.02
0.03
0.06
0.05
0.07
0.05
N
11.00
4.00
9.00
13.00
13.00
9.00
10.00
15.00
12.00
19.00
8.00
19.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculatedparameters
belowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberof
observationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-66

AppendixD

#
Ephemeroptera

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994
NA
NA
NA
5.00
3.00
NA
NA
NA
1.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
1995
NA
NA
NA
5.00
1.00
3.00
5.00
NA
3.00
5.00
5.00
3.86
1996
5.00
NA
NA
5.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
NA
5.00
5.00
1.00
4.00
1997
5.00
NA
NA
5.00
3.00
NA
5.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
4.00
1998
5.00
NA
NA
3.00
3.00
NA
NA
1.00
NA
3.00
NA
3.00
1999
NA
NA
NA
5.00
3.00
NA
NA
3.00
NA
5.00
NA
4.00
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.50
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
2003
3.00
1.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
NA
3.00
5.00
NA
2.78
2004
3.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
5.00
NA
3.00
2005
NA
1.00
3.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.00
NA
3.00
2006
5.00
NA
3.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.00
NA
3.67
2007
5.00
NA
5.00
3.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
NA
3.89
2008
NA
NA
5.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
NA
5.00
5.00
NA
3.86
2009
3.00
NA
3.00
3.00
NA
5.00
5.00
1.00
5.00
1.00
NA
3.25
2010
5.00
NA
3.00
3.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
3.60
2011
3.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
5.00
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.40
2012
5.00
3.00
1.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
3.73
Average
4.27
2.00
3.44
3.46
1.83
4.33
4.80
1.44
4.00
4.16
3.75
3.61
Rsquare
0.07
0.96
0.39
0.32
0.11
0.10
0.01
0.36
0.57
0.05
0.42
0.00
Slope
0.05
0.26
0.28
0.14
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.09
0.15
0.05
0.12
0.01
N
11.00
4.00
9.00
13.00
12.00
9.00
10.00
9.00
12.00
19.00
8.00
19.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculatedparameters
belowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberof
observationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-67

AppendixD

%Intollerant

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994
NA
NA
NA
3.00
3.00
NA
NA
NA
3.00
1.00
1.00
2.20
1995
NA
NA
NA
3.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
NA
3.00
3.00
1.00
2.43
1996
3.00
NA
NA
3.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
NA
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.50
1997
3.00
NA
NA
3.00
3.00
NA
1.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.75
1998
3.00
NA
NA

5.00
NA
NA
5.00
NA
3.00
NA
4.00
1999
NA
NA
NA
3.00
3.00
NA
NA
1.00
NA
3.00
NA
2.50
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.50
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
3.00
NA
2.00
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
3.00
NA
2.00
2003
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
NA
3.20
2004
3.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
3.00
NA
2.33
2005
NA
3.00
5.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
3.00
NA
3.00
2006
3.00
NA
3.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
3.00
NA
2.50
2007
5.00
NA
3.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
NA
2.78
2008
NA
NA
5.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
NA
2.50
2009
3.00
NA
3.00
1.00
3.00

3.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
NA
2.25
2010

NA
3.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
3.00

3.00
2.50
2011
5.00
5.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.82
2012
3.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.91
Average
3.60
4.00
3.44
2.17
2.85
2.75
2.00
1.38
2.67
2.78
2.25
2.56
Rsquare
0.10
0.04
0.57
0.52
0.01
0.17
0.50
0.28
0.23
0.00
0.03
0.02
Slope
0.05
0.05
0.34
0.11
0.01
0.04
0.11
0.12
0.06
0.00
0.02
0.01
N
10.00
4.00
9.00
12.00
13.00
8.00
10.00
16.00
12.00
18.00
8.00
19.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculatedparameters
belowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberof
observationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-68

AppendixD

%Tanytarsini

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

1995
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

1996
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

1997
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

1998
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

1999
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
2003
3.00
NA
NA
NA
3.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
NA
3.29
2004
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.00
NA
3.00
NA
3.00
2005
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.00
NA
3.00
NA
4.00
2006
3.00
NA
5.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
NA
4.50
2007
5.00
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
NA
4.78
2008
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
NA
3.75
2009
5.00
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
NA
4.78
2010
5.00
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
NA
4.56
2011
3.00
NA
3.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
3.80
2012
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
Average
3.86
3.00
4.43
4.67
3.86
3.86
3.57
4.27
3.86
3.91
4.00
4.04
Rsquare
0.01
NA
0.63
0.43
0.00
0.00
0.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.01
Slope
0.04
NA
0.36
0.29
0.01
0.01
0.27
0.02
0.01
0.02
2.00
0.02
N
7.00
1.00
7.00
6.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
11.00
7.00
11.00
2.00
11.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculatedparameters
belowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberof
observationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-69

AppendixD

%Scrapers

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994
NA
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
NA
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
1995
NA
NA
NA
5.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
NA
3.00
5.00
5.00
4.14
1996
3.00
NA
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
NA
3.00
3.00
5.00
4.25
1997

NA
NA
5.00
5.00
NA
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
2.43
1998
5.00
NA
NA
5.00
3.00
NA
NA
3.00
NA
5.00
NA
4.20
1999
NA
NA
NA
3.00
5.00
NA
NA
3.00
NA
3.00
NA
3.50
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.00
5.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
5.00
NA
3.00
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
2003
NA
1.00
NA
NA
3.00
5.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
NA
2.14
2004
3.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
3.00
NA
2.33
2005
NA
1.00
3.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.00
NA
3.00
2006
1.00
NA
3.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.00
NA
2.33
2007
1.00
NA
1.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
NA
2.33
2008
NA
NA
NA
1.00
1.00
3.00
5.00
NA
3.00
1.00
NA
2.33
2009
3.00
NA
3.00
3.00
3.00
5.00

3.00
3.00
3.00
NA
3.25
2010
3.00
NA
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.60
2011

3.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
2.60
2012
3.00
1.00
NA
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.40
Average
2.75
1.50
2.00
3.33
3.15
3.44
3.44
1.83
2.67
3.11
2.75
3.04
Rsquare
0.15
0.24
0.38
0.75
0.59
0.21
0.03
0.02
0.15
0.43
0.35
0.52
Slope
0.09
0.11
0.29
0.21
0.17
0.10
0.04
0.03
0.08
0.18
0.15
0.14
N
8.00
4.00
6.00
12.00
13.00
9.00
9.00
12.00
12.00
19.00
8.00
19.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculatedparameters
belowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberof
observationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-70

AppendixD

%Swimmers

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994
NA
NA
NA
5.00
1.00
NA
NA
NA
1.00
3.00
1.00
2.20
1995
NA
NA
NA
3.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
NA
1.00
3.00
1.00
2.14
1996
3.00
NA
NA
3.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
NA
3.00
3.00
NA
2.71
1997
5.00
NA
NA
3.00
3.00
NA
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.25
1998
3.00
NA
NA
3.00
3.00
NA
NA
1.00
NA
1.00
NA
2.20
1999
NA
NA
NA
3.00
3.00
NA
NA
1.00
NA
3.00
NA
2.50
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.50
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.00
NA
3.00
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
3.00
NA
2.00
2003
3.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
NA
3.00
3.00
NA
2.56
2004
5.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00
NA
3.00
NA
3.00
2005
NA
3.00
5.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.00
NA
3.67
2006
3.00
NA
3.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.00
NA
3.00
2007

NA
3.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
NA
2.25
2008
NA
NA
3.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
3.00
NA
3.00
3.00
NA
2.71
2009
3.00
NA
3.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
NA
3.00
1.00
NA
2.25
2010
5.00
NA
3.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
2.40
2011
5.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
NA
3.00
3.00
NA
3.00
1.00
1.00
2.33
2012
3.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
2.09
Average
3.80
3.00
2.78
2.08
1.50
3.22
3.00
1.22
2.67
2.58
1.86
2.57
Rsquare
0.02
NA
0.51
0.81
0.16
0.02
NA
0.19
0.38
0.14
0.00
0.00
Slope
0.02
0.00
0.29
0.18
0.06
0.01
0.00
0.05
0.07
0.06
0.01
0.00
N
10.00
4.00
9.00
13.00
12.00
9.00
10.00
9.00
12.00
19.00
7.00
19.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculatedparameters
belowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberof
observationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-71

AppendixD

%Diptera

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994
NA
NA
NA
1.00
5.00
NA
NA
NA
5.00
1.00
1.00
2.60
1995
NA
NA
NA
1.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
NA
5.00
1.00
1.00
2.14
1996
1.00
NA
NA
1.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
1997
1.00
NA
NA
1.00
1.00
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
2.50
1998
1.00
NA
NA
1.00
1.00
NA
NA
1.00
NA
1.00
NA
1.00
1999
NA
NA
NA
5.00
1.00
NA
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
NA
4.00
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.00
NA
1.00
NA
3.00
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
2003
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
NA
3.40
2004
1.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.00
NA
1.00
NA
2.33
2005
NA
5.00
1.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
NA
4.00
2006
5.00
NA
5.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
NA
5.00
2007
1.00
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
NA
4.56
2008
NA
NA
1.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
1.00
5.00
NA
3.00
2009
1.00
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
NA
3.67
2010
1.00
NA
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
5.00
3.80
2011
1.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.27
2012
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Average
1.73
3.00
3.67
3.46
4.08
3.22
3.40
4.75
4.33
3.53
3.50
3.54
Rsquare
0.13
0.04
0.43
0.73
0.18
0.08
0.01
0.13
0.00
0.19
0.49
0.28
Slope
0.10
0.10
0.45
0.26
0.11
0.10
0.03
0.08
0.01
0.15
0.19
0.10
N
11.00
4.00
9.00
13.00
13.00
9.00
10.00
16.00
12.00
19.00
8.00
19.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculatedparameters
belowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberof
observationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-72

AppendixD

Composite

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304 Average
1994
NA
NA
NA
4.14
3.86
NA
NA
NA
3.57
3.29
2.71
3.51
1995
NA
NA
NA
3.86
3.29
3.29
3.57
NA
3.57
3.86
3.29
3.53
1996
3.57
NA
NA
3.86
3.29
4.43
4.14
NA
4.14
4.14
3.67
3.90
1997
4.00
NA
NA
3.86
3.00
NA
3.00
3.29
3.57
3.00
2.43
3.27
1998
3.86
NA
NA
3.00
3.00
NA
NA
1.86
NA
2.71
NA
2.89
1999
NA
NA
NA
4.14
3.00
NA
NA
3.00
NA
3.86
NA
3.50
2000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.43
3.29
3.29
2.43
2.86
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.20
NA
3.57
NA
2.89
2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.67
NA
4.50
NA
3.58
2003
3.00
1.86
3.33
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.25
2.33
2.75
3.25
NA
2.73
2004
3.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.00
NA
3.25
NA
2.75
2005
NA
2.71
3.29
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.60
NA
4.25
NA
3.21
2006
3.50
NA
3.25
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.60
NA
3.50
NA
3.21
2007
3.57
NA
3.50
3.00
3.25
4.25
4.25
2.50
4.00
4.00
NA
3.59
2008
NA
NA
3.57
2.25
2.00
3.25
3.75
2.50
3.00
3.50
NA
2.98
2009
3.25
NA
3.75
3.50
3.29
3.57
3.57
3.29
3.75
3.00
NA
3.44
2010
4.14
NA
3.75
2.75
2.75
4.25
3.50
2.75
4.00
2.14
3.57
3.36
2011
3.86
3.57
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.50
3.75
3.67
4.00
3.50
4.00
3.53
2012
3.86
3.25
2.43
3.35
3.02
3.36
3.93
2.13
3.40
3.11
3.06
3.17
Average
3.60
2.85
3.32
3.28
3.02
3.66
3.67
2.61
3.59
3.46
3.14
3.26
Rsquare
0.01
0.84
0.11
0.33
0.20
0.01
0.06
0.04
0.00
0.05
0.21
0.01
Slope
0.00
0.16
0.05
0.06
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.01
N
11.00
4.00
9.00
13.00
13.00
9.00
10.00
16.00
12.00
19.00
8.00
19.00
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculatedparameters
belowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberof
observationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-73

AppendixD

4.0 Herptofauna

Table45.DEPHerptofaunaPresenceData
Species

LSTM110 LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304

AmericanBullFrog

CommonRibbonsnake

EasternAmericanToad

EasternBoxTurtle

EasternGartersnake

EasternRedbackedSalamander

EasternSnappingTurtle

Fowler'sToad

GreyTreeFrog

LongtailedSalamander

NorthernDuskySalamander

NorthernGreenFrog

NorthernRedSalamander

NorthernRedbelliedTurtle

NorthernRingneckedSnake

NorthernSlimySalamander

NorthernTwolinedSalamander

NorthernWatersnake

PickerelFrog

QueenSnake

SpottedSalamander

WoodFrog

Key:
BoldItalicsnameindicatesspeciesmostsensitivetourbanization.Boldnameindicatesspeciesmoderatelysensitivetourbanization.Plaintext
nameindicatesspeciesinsensitivetourbanization.Source:Bowardetal.1999

Page D-74

AppendixD

5.0BiologicalCondition
Theoverallbiologicalconditionistheaverageofthepercentofthe
maximumvalueforthefishandbenthicmacroinvertabrateIBIs
(KeithVanNess,personalcommunication,February12,2013).
Thesedataarequalifiedaccordingtothefollowingcriteria
presentedinTableD6.Theindividualbiologicalconditionscoresare
presentedintheTableD7

TableD6.FishIBIscoringcriteria
Conditioncategory
Score
Excellent
>87
Good
>6387
Fair
>4163
Poor
41
Source:KeithVanNess,personal
communication,February11,2013.

Page D-75

AppendixD

TableD7.BiologicalConditionScores
SampleYear
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Average

LSTM110
NA
NA
1.00
0.95
0.90
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.75
0.95
NA
0.80
0.80
NA
0.85
1.00
0.90
0.85
0.89

LSTM111 LSTM112 LSTM201 LSTM202 LSTM203 LSTM204 LSTM206 LSTM302 LSTM303B LSTM304
NA
NA
0.91
0.84
NA
NA
NA
0.82
0.80
0.70
NA
NA
0.95
0.90
0.93
0.85
NA
0.91
0.86
0.86
NA
NA
0.90
0.85
0.90
0.85
NA
0.90
0.90
0.85
NA
NA
0.95
0.88
NA
0.70
0.83
0.82
0.86
0.86
NA
NA
0.85
0.88
NA
NA
0.86
NA
0.84
0.73
NA
NA
0.90
0.80
NA
NA
0.75
NA
0.95
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.74
0.77
0.68
0.63
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.71
NA
0.82
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.46
NA
0.90
NA
0.60
0.70
0.65
0.70
0.80
0.70
0.62
0.85
0.61
0.47
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.66
NA
0.84
NA
0.80
0.80
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.41
NA
0.91
0.73
NA
0.75
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.47
NA
0.73
0.47
NA
0.56
0.64
0.74
0.83
0.90
0.50
0.79
0.86
NA
NA
0.70
0.69
0.71
0.84
0.90
0.40
0.75
0.75
NA
NA
0.85
0.74
0.72
0.81
0.88
0.62
0.63
0.79
NA
NA
0.85
0.67
0.74
0.86
0.88
0.69
0.86
0.70
0.84
0.80
0.80
0.66
0.67
0.83
0.90
0.61
0.90
0.61
0.75
0.75
0.50
0.77
0.74
0.73
0.91
0.74
0.69
0.79
0.79
0.74
0.72
0.79
0.78
0.84
0.85
0.63
0.81
0.80
0.72

Average
0.81
0.90
0.89
0.86
0.84
0.85
0.71
0.77
0.68
0.68
0.82
0.73
0.64
0.74
0.72
0.77
0.81
0.77
0.75
0.77

Rsquare
0.09
0.34
0.01
0.71
0.76
0.57
0.32
0.19
0.19
0.20
0.02
0.27
Slope
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
N
11
4
9
13
13
9
10
16
12
19
12
19
Note:NAwithinthedatatableindicatesthatdatawasnotavailablefortherespectivestationforthatsampleyear.NAassociatedwiththecalculatedparameters
belowthedatatableindicatesthatavaluecouldnotbecomputedbecauseeithernovariationinthedatawasobservedovertimeoraninsufficientnumberof
observationswererecordedtocomputeavalue.

Page D-76

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

APPENDIXE. RARE,THREATENED,ANDENDANGEREDSPECIES
INFORMATIONREQUESTLETTERS

April3,2013

2081 Clipper Park Road

Baltimore, MD 21211
Tel 410.554.0156
Fax 410.554.0168
www.biohabitats.com

January 23, 2013

Lori A. Byrne
Environmental Review Coordinator
MD DNR - Wildlife and Heritage Service
Tawes State Office Building
580 Taylor Ave.
Annapolis, MD 21401

RE:

Montgomery County, Ten Mile Creek Watershed

Species Information Request

Dear Ms. Byrne:

Biohabitats, Inc. is requesting any information you may have regarding state rare, threatened and/or
endangered plant or animal species within or near Ten Mile Creek watershed in Montgomery County.
The site encompasses Ten Mile Creek watershed located in northern Montgomery County (ADC Map #12, BH, 1-9 and Map #4, B-K, 9-13). Brown and Caldwell/Biohabitats, a Joint Venture, are contracted by Maryland
- National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) Montgomery County Planning Department to
provide data and environmental analysis of Ten Mile Creek watershed. This analysis is in support of the
Planning Department undertaking a Limited Amendment to the Clarksburg Master Plan focusing on the Ten
Mile Creek area in response to a request by the County Council in October 2012. Rare, threatened and
endangered species is one piece of information being collected to assess the existing conditions of the
watershed.
Please find the enclosed vicinity map showing the watershed location. Feel free to call me at 410-554-0156
should you have any questions. Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
BIOHABITATS, INC.

___________________________________
Sarah Roberts
Environmental Scientist
Enclosure:

Map of the Ten Mile Creek watershed

Restoring the Earth and Inspiring Ecological Stewardship

Page E-1

LSTM201

LSTM206
LSTM106
LSTM203

LSTM301

LSTM204

LS3636212
LSTM302

LSTM10

LSTM202

LSTM303A
LSTM303B

LSTM110

LSTM111

LSTM304
LSTM112
LSWL103

LSWL102

Legend
Stream
Ten Mile Creek Watershed
Subwatersheds
Stage 4 Boundary
Source: Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye, Getmapping, Aerogrid,
IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community
Frederick County
Howard County

Montgomery County
Prince George's County

Ten Mile Creek

Map of Watershed

3,000
Page E-2
1 inch = 3,000 feet

6,000
Feet

Online Certification Letter

Today's date: January 22, 2013
Project: Clarksburg Master Plan Limited Amendment for the Ten Mile
Creek Watershed

Dear Applicant for online certification:

Thank you for choosing to use the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Chesapeake Bay Field
Office online list request certification resource. This letter confirms that you have reviewed
the conditions in which this online service can be used. On our website
(http://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/EndSppWeb/ELEMENTS/listreq.html) are the USGS
topographic map areas where no federally proposed or listed endangered or threatened
species are known to occur in Maryland, Washington, D.C. and Delaware.
You have indicated that your project is located on the following USGS topographic map(s)
Germantown, Montgomery County

Based on this information and in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
(87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we certify that except for occasional
transient individuals, no federally proposed or listed endangered or threatened species are
known to exist within the project area. Therefore, no Biological Assessment or further
section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required. Should project
plans change, or if additional information on the distribution of listed or proposed species
becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered.
This response relates only to federally protected threatened or endangered species under our
jurisdiction. For additional information on threatened or endangered species in Maryland,
you should contact the Maryland Wildlife and Heritage Division at (410) 260-8540. For
information in Delaware you should contact the Delaware Natural Heritage and Endangered
Species Program, at (302) 653-2880. For information in the District of Columbia, you should
contact the National Park Service at (202) 535-1739.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also works with other Federal agencies and states to
minimize loss of wetlands, reduce impacts to fish and migratory birds, including bald eagles,

Page E-3

http://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/EndSppWeb/ELEMENTS/onlineletter.html

and restore habitat for wildlife. Information on these conservation issues and how
development projects can avoid affecting these resources can be found on our website
(www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay)
We appreciate the opportunity to provide information relative to fish and wildlife issues, and
thank you for your interest in these resources. If you have any questions or need further
assistance, please contact Chesapeake Bay Field Office Threatened and Endangered Species
program at (410) 573-4527.
Sincerely,
Genevieve LaRouche
Field Supervisor

Page E-4

http://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/EndSppWeb/ELEMENTS/onlineletter.html

ExistingConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea

APPENDIXF. HISTORICANDARCHEOLOGICALPROPERTIES
INFORMATIONREQUESTLETTERS

April3,2013

2081 Clipper Park Road

Baltimore, MD 21211
Tel 410.554.0156
Fax 410.554.0168
www.biohabitats.com

January 23, 2013

Ms. Elizabeth Cole, Administrator
Project Review and Compliance - Maryland Historical Trust
100 Community Place
Crownsville, MD 21032
RE:

Montgomery County, Ten Mile Creek Watershed

Historic Properties Information Request

Dear Ms. Cole:

The purpose of this letter is to obtain information or assistance with any relevant historic and archeological
properties information in Ten Mile Creek watershed in Montgomery County, Maryland (see enclosed map for
location). Specifically, we would like to know whether or not the Maryland Historical Trusts database
includes any of the following for the project vicinity:

Inventoried historic properties,

National Register listed properties,
Prior archeological or architectural research conducted in the project vicinity,
An informed assessment of the watersheds potential for containing historic properties that have not yet
been identified.

The site encompasses Ten Mile Creek watershed located in northern Montgomery County (ADC Map #12, BH, 1-9 and Map #4, B-K, 9-13). The watershed is located on the Georgetown quadrangle 7.5-minute USGS
Topo Map. Brown and Caldwell/Biohabitats, a Joint Venture, are contracted by Maryland - National Capital
Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) Montgomery County Planning Department to provide data and
environmental analysis of Ten Mile Creek watershed. This analysis is in support of the Planning Department
undertaking a Limited Amendment to the Clarksburg Master Plan focusing on the Ten Mile Creek area in
response to a request by the County Council in October 2012. Historical and archeological properties are one
piece of information being collected to assess the existing conditions of the watershed.
Please find the enclosed vicinity map showing the watershed location. Feel free to call me at 410-554-0156
should you have any questions. Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
BIOHABITATS, INC.

___________________________________
Sarah Roberts
Environmental Scientist
Enclosure:

Map of the Ten Mile Creek watershed

Restoring the Earth and Inspiring Ecological Stewardship

Page F-1

LSTM201

LSTM106

LSTM203
LSTM301
LSTM204

LSTM10

LSTM206

LSTM202

LS3636212
LSTM302

LSTM303A
LSTM303B

LSTM110

LSTM111

LSTM304
LSTM112
LSWL103

LSWL102

Legend
Stream
Ten Mile Creek Watershed
Subwatersheds
Stage 4 Boundary
Source: Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye, Getmapping, Aerogrid,
IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community

Frederick County

Howard County

Montgomery County
Prince George's County

Ten Mile Creek

Map of Watershed

3,000
Page F-2
1 inch = 3,000 feet

6,000
Feet

Page F-3

Page F-4

TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis

AttachmentC. TrendAnalysisofLittleSenecaCreek
BenthicandHabitatAssessmentData

July3,2013

TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis

July3,2013

MEMORANDUM

Date:

To:

From:

RE:

April3,2013
MaryDolanandValdisLazdins,MontgomeryCountyPlanningDepartment
BiohabitatsandBrownandCaldwell,aJointVenture

TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis
inSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
SUBJ: TrendAnalysisofLittleSenecaCreekBenthicandHabitatAssessmentData

Theuseofanalogorreferencesitesisacommontoolusedbybiologiststoextrapolatestressor
responserelationshipstoatestsite.Inthecaseofthisstudy,thegoalistoextrapolatethelikelyimpacts
tothehabitatsandbenthicmacroinvertebratecommunitiesoftheTenMileCreekWatershed(LSTM)
usinganadjacentSpecialProtectionAreaasananalog.TheLittleSenecaCreekWatershed(LSLS)within
theClarksburgSpecialProtectionareawasselectedasananalogduetoitsproximitytothestudysite
andsimilaritiesamongthehydrology,physiographyandhistoriclanduse.Inaddition,predevelopment
benthicmacroinvertebrateindexofbioticintegrity(BIBI)andhabitatscoresfortheLSLSwatershed
generallyscoredinthegoodrangesimilartotheLSTMwatershed.Biologicalandhabitatsamplinghas
beenperformedconsistentlyinbothwatershedssince1994todocumentbaselineandpost
developmentconditions.

ThebiologicalandhabitatsamplingdatawithintheLSLSwatershedrepresentsthreedistincttime
periods(DEP2010):

Predevelopment.Thisperiodspannedfrom1994to2000whenthedominantlandusewithin
thewatershedwasagricultural.
Construction.Thisperiodspannedfrom20012007whenmostofthelandclearingandgrading
activitiesoccurred.DuringthistimeperiodonlysedimentcontrolBestManagementPractices
(BMPs)wereinplaceandnowaterqualityorquantityBMPswerefunctional.
Stabilization.Thisperiodencompasses2008topresentwhenthedeclineinthehousingmarket
significantlyslowedconstructionandthefirstsiteswerepermanentlystabilizedand
stormwaterBMPswerebroughtonline.Itshouldbenotedthattheduringthisperiod,the
declineinthehousingmarketpreventedbuildoutinatimelymanneranddelayedthe
conversionofsedimentBMPstofunctionalstormwaterBMPs.

April3,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
TrendAnalysisofLittleSenecaCreekBenthicandHabitatAssessmentData
Page2of5

ExistingBiologicalandHabitatConditions

ThebiologicalandhabitatconditionsasdeterminedbytheCountyBIBIandhabitatassessmentmetrics
arediscussedforthefullperiodofrecordandrelativetothesethreedistincttimeperiods.Agraphical
summaryoftheavailabledataispresentedinAttachmentAandtherawdataarepresentedintabular
formatinAttachmentBandC.MicrosoftExcelwasusedtodevelopstandardcorrelationcalculations
thatquantifythestrengthofrelationshipsbetweenmetrics.Resultsfromthesecorrelationanalysesare
presentedintabularforminAttachmentD.

Note:Referencestodataprovidedinthetextcorrespondtotheattachmentletterandfigure/table
number.Forexample,A1referencesAttachmentA,Figure1.

OverallTrends
ThebiologicalconditionoftheLittleSenecaCreekWatershed,asrepresentedbytheBIBIscores,is
highlyvariable.OveralltheBIBIscoresfluctuatedbetweengoodandfairwithnostrongupwardor
downwardtendency(A1).ThevariabilityinBIBIscoresamongyearsandsamplingstationsdoes,
however,increaseafterconstructionstarted.Thisincreaseinvariabilitymayreflectastressorresponse
atsomespecificsamplestations,suchasLSLS103Band103C,andmayrelatetothespecificconstruction
activitiesoccurringinagivensampleyear(A1).Thetwoindividualmetricsthatdemonstrateanoverall
decliningtrendovertimearethebioticindex(B1)andproportionofEPTindividuals(B3).Declinesin
bothofthesemetricsreflectanincreaseintheproportionoftolerantindividualswithinthewatershed.

IncontrasttotheBIBIscores,thehabitatscoresdoshowanoveralldecliningtrendovertimeand6of
the14individualstationsalsoshowadecline(A6).Theindividualmetricsshowingdeclineinclude
sedimentdeposits(C5),channelflowdiversity(C7),bankvegetation(C8andC9),andbankstability(C10
andC11).Thedeclinesinbankvegetationandbankstabilitylikelyleadtobankerosion,whichincreases
thesedimentsupply.Thisincreaseinsedimentsupplycoupledwithanincreaseoffinesediments
associatedwithconstructionactivitiescouldbeinfluencingthescoresforsedimentdepositsandflow
diversityastheexcesssedimentisstoredwithinthechannelboundariesandfillspools.

ThecorrelationanalysisshowsthattheaverageannualBIBIandhabitatmetricsarepositively
correlated.Specificallythebankstability,bankvegetationandbufferconditionhaverelativelygreater
influencesonaverageannualBIBIscorethanothermetrics(D1).

April3,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
TrendAnalysisofLittleSenecaCreekBenthicandHabitatAssessmentData
Page3of5

Predevelopment
DuringthepredevelopmentperiodboththeBIBIandhabitatscoresexperiencedrelativelylow
variabilityandscoredinthegoodandgoodtoexcellent/goodrangerespectively(A3andB9).Indications
ofagoodqualitysystemincludeslightincreasingtrendsintherawmetricsfortheProportionof
Shredders(B5),andRatioofScrapers(B6)combinedwithslightdecliningtrendsintheProportionof
Hydropsyche&Cheumatopsyche(B4).Incontrast,slightdecliningtrendsintherawNumberofEPTTaxa
(B8)andincreasesintheProportionofDominantTaxa(B2)overtimeareindicativeofadegrading
system.Overallthehabitatvaluesdidnotshowmuchvariability(A8),butthescoresforinstreamcover
showedslightincreasesduringthepredevelopmentperiod(C1).Thecorrelationanalysisindicatesthat
habitatparametersinfluencingtheBIBIscorearebankvegetation,channelalteration,epibenthic
substrateandrifflefrequency(D2).

Construction
Duringtheconstructionphase,theaverageoftheBIBIshowednostrongoveralltrend;however,the
averageBIBIscorewas4pointslowerthanthepredevelopmentperiod(A4andB9).Increasingtrends
intherawBioticIndex(B1),ProportionofDominantTaxa(B2),ProportionofHydropsyche&
Cheumatopsyche(B4)combinedwithdecliningtrendsintheProportionofEPTindividuals(B3),and
RatioofScrapers(B6)contributetothedeclineintheaverageBIBIscore(B9).Theaverageofthehabitat
scoresshowednooveralltrend,butLSLS102and413showeddecliningtrendswhileLSLS103Cand206
showimprovingtrends(A9andC14).Correlationanalysisindicatesthatbankstability,buffercondition,
instreamcoverandsedimentdepositsemergeastheimportantfactorsinfluencingtheBIBIscore(D3).

Stabilization
DuringtheStabilizationPhase,theoverallBIBIshowednostrongoveralltrend(A5andB9).Whilethe
averageBIBIscorewassimilartotheconstructionphase,thestabilizationphaseshowsthewidestyear
toyearvariability(A5andB9).TheoneobservedtrendofnotewasaslightdecreaseintheTaxa
Richness(B7),whichcorrespondstoadecreaseindiversityandcouldleadtoamorefragilesystemin
thefuture.Theoverallhabitatscoresshowdecliningtrendsat5ofthestations(LSTM102,103C,104,
109,and110)andincreasingtrendsatLSLS202,203and206(A10andC14).BothInstreamCover(C1)
andBankVegetation(C8andC9)showveryslightsignsofdeclineovertheperiodsandEmbeddedness
(C3)andRiffleFrequency(C6)showveryslightimprovementsovertheperiod.Correlationanalysis
indicatesthatthesamefactorshabitatparametersareinfluencingtheaverageannualBIBIscores;
however,thebufferconditionsandchannelalterationparametersarenegativelycorrelatedindicating
thatastheseparametersimprove,theBIBIstilldeclines(D4).

April3,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
TrendAnalysisofLittleSenecaCreekBenthicandHabitatAssessmentData
Page4of5

DataExtrapolation

Whilethedatasetsrepresentareasonableaccountofbiologicalconditionsforthepreconstruction,
construction,andstabilizationtimeperiods,severalconfoundingissuespreventthesefindingsfrom
beingextrapolatedquantitativelytotheTenMileCreekWatershed.Theseconfoundingissuesinclude:

1. TheSPAreportsdonotcontainadequatequantitativedatatoascertaintheextentof
developmentactivitiesoccurringinagivensubwatershedatagiventime.Basedonpersonal
communicationsbetweenDEPstaffandBiohabitats,itmaybepossibletodevelopamore
detailedspatialchronologyofdevelopment,buttheassociatedeffortisbeyondthescopeofthis
study.
2. Thestateoftheeconomyprolongedtheperiodfrominitialdisturbancetofinalstabilization,but
currentregulationsnowwilllimittheamountoflanddisturbancethatcanoccurbeforesite
stabilization.
3. TheClarksburgdevelopmentwasdesignedaccordingtotheMD2000SWMregulations,
whereasthenewregulationsaredesignedtobettermatchexistinghydrologyusingLID.

Conclusion

WhilethedatadonotindicatethattheLittleSenecaWatershedisshowingstrongsignsofdeclinein
biologicalconditionasevidencedbytheBIBIscore,thevariabilityfromyeartoyearandsitetosite
suggeststhatsomedegreeofstressorresponseisoccurringwithinthesystem.Thedatadosuggestthat
theoverallhabitatconditionsaredecliningslightlyovertime.Somecorrelationbetweenthesehabitat
parametersandtheBIBIscorewasobservedandifthehabitatcontinuestodecline,theBIBIscoresare
expectedtoultimatelyrespondaccordingly.Basedontheratesofchangeandthecontinuing
constructionwithinthewatershed,itmaytakesometimebeforethesystemstabilizesandanew
baselineisestablishedsuchthatthetrueimpactofthedevelopmentinthewatershedcanbe
determined.Giventhechangesinlanddevelopmentregulationsandchangesineconomiccondition
sincethedevelopmentplansintheLittleSenecaWatershedwereapproved,thesedatadonotprovidea
perfectanalogtodescribethemagnitudeofchangeinbiologicalconditionassociatedwithdevelopment
intheTenMileCreekWatershed.Thesedata,however,dogenerallyagreewithotherstudiesthat
suggestthatbiologicalconditiondegradesaboveacertainthresholdofimperviouscover(e.g.,Pauland
Meyer2001).TheresultsoftheLittleSenecaCreekdatareviewindicatethatdevelopmentdoes
negativelyinfluencethebiologicalconditionintheshorttermdespitetheapplicationofthebest
availabletechnologiesatthetimeofplanapproval.Thelongterminfluenceonbiologicalconditionis
uncertainatthepresenttime.

April3,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
TrendAnalysisofLittleSenecaCreekBenthicandHabitatAssessmentData
Page5of5

References

Paul,M.J.,andMeyer,J.L.,2001,Streamsintheurbanlandscape:AnnualReviewofEcologyand
Systems,v.32,p.333365.

Attachments

AttachmentA:GraphicalDataSummaries
AttachmentB:MontgomeryCountyBenthicIndexofBioticIntegrity(BIBI)DataSummary
AttachmentC:MontgomeryCountyHabitatAssessmentDataSummary
AttachmentD:MontgomeryCountyBIBIandHabitatAssessmentCorrelationAnalysis

AttachmentA
GraphicalDataSummaries

FigureA1.VariabilityamongBIBIscoresatallsamplingstationsovertime.

FigureA3.VariabilityamongpredevelopmentperiodBIBIscores

FigureA2.VariabilityamongBIBIscoresatallsamplingstationsovertime(19942012).

FigureA4.VariabilityamongconstructionperiodBIBIscores

AttachmentA
GraphicalDataSummaries

FigureA5.VariabilityamongstabilizationperiodphaseBIBIscores

FigureA7.Rangesofcompositehabitatscoresamongthepermanentsamplingstations

FigureA6.Variabilityamonghabitatscoresatallsamplingstationsovertime(19942012).

FigureA8.Variabilityamongpredevelopmentperiodhabitatscores

AttachmentA
GraphicalDataSummaries

FigureA9.Variabilityamongconstructionhabitatscores

FigureA10.Variabilityamongstabilizationperiodhabitatscores

Attachment B
Montgomery County Benthic Index of Biotic Inegrity (BIBI)
Data Summary

Table B1. Biotic Index

Time Period
Pre-development

Construction

Stabilization

Pre-development

Construction

Stabilization

Composite

Sample Year LSLS101

LSLS102
LSLS102UC LSLS103B LSLS103C LSLS104
LSLS109
LSLS110
LSLS202
LSLS203
LSLS204
LSLS205
LSLS206
LSLS303
Average
1994
4.31
4.34
4.67
3.82
4.29
1995
4.9
3.18
4
4.315
3.36
2.89
3.05
5.48
3.90
1996
6.23
4.29
4.51
4.53
3.88
4.94
3.9
6.05
4.79
1997
4.48
3.77
4.16
4.85
4.56
4.21
4.34
1998
3.14
3.8
3.22
4.04
3.86
3.63
3.21
3.07
4.61
5.71
3.83
1999
4.4
3.16
4.22
3.41
4.58
4.67
3.82
3.9
3.87
4.00
2000
4.46
3.26
4.42
3.27
4.81
4.33
6.39
4.42
2001
5.61
3.08
4.88
3.87
4.05
4.93
5.92
3.79
4.24
4.67
5.67
6.4
4.76
2002
2.88
4.62
4.82
4.22
4.35
3.96
6.05
4.41
2003
6
6.78
6.705
3.61
3.27
4.42
5.15
4.42
5.62
3.9
5.99
5.08
2004
4.13
5.42
6.66
4.785
3.94
3.56
5.37
4.35
5.08
3.68
6.52
4.86
2005
3.45
3.79
5.5
5.72
4.05
4.39
4.12
3.53
4.7
5.68
5.07
4.14
5.44
4.58
2006
5.39
3.68
6.77
6.8
6.81
5.29
3.85
4.36
6.08
6.155
6.56
4.27
6.3
5.56
2007
5.7
6.61
6.85
6.44
5.52
5.08
5.92
5.84
6.00
2008
4.08
4.84
6.14
5.94
4.9
4.61
5.39
4.92
5.08
5.10
2009
5.74
5.24
6.18
5.45
4.34
4.47
5.54
6.08
5.92
5.44
2010
2.8
3.57
5.88
4.08
5.31
3.55
4.79
3.66
5.03
4.57
5.12
4.40
2011
4.71
4.95
6.26
5.77
5.35
5.51
4.27
5.15
5.93
6.18
5.67
5.43
2012
6.24
5.9
5.52
5.62
4.31
5.53
6.39
5.22
5.86
5.98
6.34
5.26
5.68
Average
RSQ
Slope
Average
RSQ
Slope
Average
RSQ
Slope
Average
RSQ
Slope

4.89
0.32
-0.21
4.74
0.03
0.10
4.71
0.15
0.33
4.78
0.00
-0.01

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
3.74
1.00
-0.11
4.81
0.99
1.17
4.38
0.55
0.24

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
5.52
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
5.52
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!

3.47
0.17
-0.10
5.54
0.60
0.49
5.57
0.55
0.26
4.86
0.54
0.19

4.15
0.36
0.12
6.06
0.56
0.32
5.30
0.40
-0.41
5.34
0.14
0.09

3.30
0.06
0.02
4.83
0.64
0.48
5.52
0.33
-0.09
4.75
0.60
0.20

4.04
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
4.41
0.62
0.31
4.94
0.36
0.42
4.60
0.33
0.13

4.42
0.92
0.48
4.33
0.99
-0.21
4.76
0.20
0.22
4.49
0.06
0.02

4.26
1.00
0.51
4.49
0.16
-0.18
4.25
0.86
-0.48
4.37
0.01
-0.02

4.38
0.00
0.00
5.17
0.73
0.33
5.39
0.07
0.06
4.92
0.51
0.09

3.86
0.06
-0.07
4.97
0.73
0.39
5.50
0.20
0.20
4.72
0.60
0.13

3.95
0.07
-0.12
5.31
0.58
0.26
5.73
0.55
0.28
4.97
0.58
0.14

3.85
0.28
0.14
4.27
0.25
-0.19
5.47
1.00
-0.41
4.29
0.38
0.09

5.91
0.55
0.13
6.12
0.06
-0.05
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
6.03
0.10
0.03

4.22
0.01
-0.01
5.04
0.57
0.20
5.21
0.13
0.12
4.78
0.53
0.08

Table B2. Proportion of Dominant Taxa

Time Period
Pre-development

Construction

Stabilization

Pre-development

Construction

Stabilization

Composite

Sample Year LSLS101

LSLS102
LSLS102UC LSLS103B LSLS103C LSLS104
LSLS109
LSLS110
LSLS202
LSLS203
LSLS204
LSLS205
LSLS206
LSLS303
Average
1994
39
31
50
21
35.25
1995
43
15
31
41.5
38.5
36
33
55
36.63
1996
68
48
40
24
48
39
30
64
45.13
1997
36
47
38
38
29
24
35.33
1998
59
68
71
59
53
49
77
73
32
47
58.80
1999
41
84
53
61
25
34
55
42
31
47.33
2000
46
60
55
52
23
34
76
49.43
2001
60
35
47
27
32
37
68
28
35
42
71
69
45.92
2002
41
34
27
36
42
33
58
38.71
2003
68
90
66
64
79
20
45
31
57
27
45
53.82
2004
43
60
89
51
35
30
60
46
59
40
77
53.64
2005
41
54
48
43
22
39
26
53
31
53
38
41
38
40.54
2006
59
70
92
93
93
53
36
51.25
55.5
72.5
80
37
62
65.71
2007
63
86
91
68
61
40
57
59
65.63
2008
45
43
79
73
44
37
41
40
26
47.56
2009
65
43
70
58
38
37
41
62
47
51.22
2010
36
33
62
49
59
28
36
19
31
36
33
38.36
2011
35
49
68
60
55
60
29
35
49
64
62
51.45
2012
71
65
56
60
40
71
78
47
59
70
50
58
60.42
Average
RSQ
Slope
Average
RSQ
Slope
Average
RSQ
Slope
Average
RSQ
Slope

46.80
0.07
-1.60
53.57
0.01
0.64
50.40
0.04
2.20
50.65
0.01
0.29

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
62.00
1.00
16.00
49.00
1.00
16.00
54.20
0.06
-1.18

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
56.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
56.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!

52.17
0.67
9.86
63.57
0.47
8.11
55.20
0.66
5.90
57.44
0.10
1.23

53.50
0.14
3.60
65.14
0.48
8.61
59.60
0.79
-8.80
60.50
0.04
0.88

61.33
1.00
-9.50
51.57
0.35
6.96
63.20
0.02
-0.70
57.40
0.06
1.01

59.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
49.83
0.07
2.29
49.60
0.52
9.00
50.50
0.01
0.33

33.67
0.80
-15.00
29.75
0.00
-0.22
37.33
0.37
5.50
33.20
0.02
0.26

35.50
1.00
9.00
48.45
0.31
-3.48
31.00
0.75
-9.00
40.63
0.03
-0.49

37.07
0.00
-0.18
46.08
0.38
3.94
41.40
0.20
3.00
41.28
0.10
0.59

46.42
0.41
6.19
47.50
0.75
7.40
51.40
0.27
4.70
48.31
0.10
0.82

44.00
0.03
1.60
53.86
0.33
3.86
44.00
0.47
6.50
47.83
0.03
0.46

29.40
0.34
1.35
41.50
0.21
-3.80
60.00
1.00
-4.00
39.69
0.41
1.67

60.50
0.24
2.75
58.17
0.05
-1.80
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
59.10
0.00
-0.21

43.99
0.46
2.77
51.99
0.49
3.57
49.80
0.27
2.60
48.47
0.22
0.81

Table B3. Proportion of EPT Individuals

Time Period
Pre-development

Construction

Stabilization

Pre-development

Construction

Stabilization

Composite

Sample Year LSLS101

LSLS102
LSLS102UC LSLS103B LSLS103C LSLS104
LSLS109
LSLS110
LSLS202
LSLS203
LSLS204
LSLS205
LSLS206
LSLS303
Average
1994
80
77
79
71
76.75
1995
35
40
67.5
80
86
86
84
22
62.56
1996
11
59
58
64
71
43
61
20
48.38
1997
47
61
64
52
54
61
56.50
1998
82
77
86
72
72
88
90
93
39
21
72.00
1999
46
93
79
84
71
58
73
68
52
69.33
2000
53
69
60
78
54
63
6
54.71
2001
29
72
35
58
60
52
22
74
57
46
22
6
44.42
2002
62
50
67
56
53
59
10
51.00
2003
13
2
24.5
81
89
74
42
61
20
62
2
42.77
2004
45
7
2
39
56
64
31
46
23
36
9
32.55
2005
49
74
34
49
46
51
64
83
64
18
33
34
28
48.23
2006
32
77
4
6
1
37
66
67.75
20
16
13
43
19
30.90
2007
32
6
3
7
29
48
32
29
23.25
2008
59
40
12
15
39
51
47
49
58
41.11
2009
18
50
23
32
61
58
47
27
45
40.11
2010
68
61
27
65
19
53
56
66
59
53
47
52.18
2011
54
45
20
30
34
31
62
60
33
23
28
38.18
2012
4
26
29
34
58
25
7
44
25
25
24
38
28.25
Average
RSQ
Slope
Average
RSQ
Slope
Average
RSQ
Slope
Average
RSQ
Slope

38.40
0.46
5.42
37.43
0.01
-0.54
40.60
0.18
-7.40
38.65
0.00
0.16

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
75.50
1.00
3.00
44.00
1.00
-17.50
56.60
0.83
-6.22

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
29.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
29.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!

67.33
0.59
7.66
25.00
0.52
-9.21
34.20
0.33
-4.20
41.67
0.31
-2.87

70.00
0.02
-1.00
26.64
0.35
-6.91
37.60
0.47
9.90
40.91
0.19
-2.47

82.67
0.92
-4.00
41.14
0.65
-10.64
25.00
0.18
2.20
44.07
0.64
-5.13

72.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
53.67
0.53
-7.04
38.20
0.50
-9.40
48.75
0.49
-3.64

65.67
0.79
-9.00
64.00
0.25
2.03
54.00
0.43
-6.00
61.50
0.24
-0.93

62.75
1.00
-9.50
56.95
0.35
5.93
58.33
1.00
7.50
58.53
0.01
0.23

69.29
0.17
-2.54
43.83
0.45
-6.50
47.60
0.12
-3.10
54.78
0.39
-2.11

75.17
0.01
-0.71
39.60
0.75
-9.62
37.40
0.27
-4.20
52.25
0.61
-3.05

71.67
0.00
-0.46
31.00
0.41
-4.21
39.40
0.86
-9.00
46.89
0.45
-2.78

61.40
0.64
-6.67
42.67
0.00
0.11
33.00
1.00
10.00
48.38
0.44
-2.11

17.25
0.71
-2.86
12.33
0.50
3.60
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
14.30
0.03
-0.42

62.89
0.05
-1.03
39.02
0.55
-3.51
39.97
0.26
-2.77
48.06
0.56
-1.97

KEY:
1. Bold Green numbers indicate an R-square value in excess of 0.4. This would be considered a moderate to strong trend.
R:\BIO\PROJECT\12036.01 Ten Mile Creek\C. Analysis\LSLS Analysis\Data\BenthicsSummaryRAW

Attachment B
Montgomery County Benthic Index of Biotic Inegrity (BIBI)
Data Summary

Table B4. Proportion of Hydropsyche & Cheumatopsyche

Time Period
Pre-development

Construction

Stabilization

Pre-development

Construction

Stabilization

Composite

Sample Year LSLS101

LSLS102
LSLS102UC LSLS103B LSLS103C LSLS104
LSLS109
LSLS110
LSLS202
LSLS203
LSLS204
LSLS205
LSLS206
LSLS303
Average
1994
80
70
96
45
72.75
1995
5
19
31.5
69.5
28.5
13
5
20
23.94
1996
50
2
9
44
17
14
6
8
18.75
1997
7
0
2
34
23
22
14.67
1998
0
0
0
0
1
30
1
1
0
66
9.90
1999
4
0
0
0
11
22
2
3
0
4.67
2000
0
1
0
0
0
22
21
6.29
2001
0
0
0
0
2
0
13
21
2
11
3
38
7.50
2002
0
2
1
2
6
0
15
3.71
2003
7
0
1
0
0
0
19
11
18
0
50
9.64
2004
5
0
33
1.5
1
2
13
0
0
0
14
6.32
2005
0
0
59
94
42
2
1
6
59
29
49
6
91
33.69
2006
1
0
43
89
0
0
1
2.75
34.5
29
43
1
30
21.10
2007
9
33
25
17
0
17
43
59
25.38
2008
0
4
0
10
0
1
45
20
43
13.67
2009
5
26
30
3
2
5
57
72
82
31.33
2010
2
2
38
9
0
1
5
5
52
13
54
16.45
2011
6
8
61
17
4
6
4
60
37
65
9
25.18
2012
17
0
0
20
7
2
18
7
43
32
48
10
17.00
Average
RSQ
Slope
Average
RSQ
Slope
Average
RSQ
Slope
Average
RSQ
Slope

13.20
0.21
-4.56
3.14
0.20
0.79
6.00
0.70
3.50
6.94
0.06
-0.57

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
0.00
#DIV/0!
0.00
3.33
0.06
-1.00
2.00
0.21
0.52

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
0.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
0.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!

3.67
0.46
-2.74
19.57
0.55
8.57
29.80
0.25
6.70
17.11
0.36
2.40

0.50
0.60
-0.60
34.71
0.42
12.29
12.60
0.00
0.10
19.25
0.07
1.63

0.00
#DIV/0!
0.00
8.93
0.19
3.18
3.80
0.40
-1.50
5.43
0.02
0.38

0.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
0.83
0.28
-0.24
5.40
0.73
4.00
2.67
0.30
0.66

4.00
0.01
-0.50
0.50
0.83
0.24
5.33
0.43
1.00
3.00
0.06
0.17

20.25
1.00
-22.50
8.15
0.00
-0.04
3.67
0.75
2.00
9.23
0.42
-1.15

43.07
0.89
-10.11
31.58
0.36
4.79
51.40
0.00
-0.10
41.56
0.00
0.05

23.58
0.77
-11.90
14.20
0.60
5.69
34.80
0.01
-1.10
24.16
0.01
0.40

24.83
0.54
-14.09
26.57
0.68
8.89
58.40
0.01
-0.70
34.83
0.16
2.06

11.20
0.55
-6.83
1.67
0.03
0.23
9.50
1.00
1.00
6.54
0.08
-0.60

28.75
0.09
3.54
39.67
0.08
4.34
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
35.30
0.11
2.32

21.57
0.65
-8.81
15.33
0.58
4.02
20.73
0.00
0.05
19.05
0.02
-0.36

Table B5. Proportion of Shredders

Time Period
Pre-development

Construction

Stabilization

Pre-development

Construction

Stabilization

Composite

Sample Year LSLS101

LSLS102
LSLS102UC LSLS103B LSLS103C LSLS104
LSLS109
LSLS110
LSLS202
LSLS203
LSLS204
LSLS205
LSLS206
LSLS303
Average
1994
2.02
5.41
0.53
2.31
2.57
1995
21.81
14.92
31.93
11.285
42.32
31.41
32.86
3.45
23.75
1996
8.2
48.54
40.49
27.64
48.84
26.75
30.87
11.15
30.31
1997
38.24
48.45
39.1
21.99
27.74
24.84
33.39
1998
62.71
68.03
72.97
58.66
53.23
50.27
76.71
73.49
22.22
5.96
54.43
1999
16.52
85.4
53.48
61.19
25.21
31.8
55.78
42.68
18.66
43.41
2000
47.62
61.69
56.41
52.57
16.6
36.45
0
38.76
2001
4.85
36.7
7.27
26.67
32.18
22.73
9.17
28.96
27.75
21.05
9.4
1.48
19.02
2002
14.95
26
29.03
18.56
14.41
12.4
0
16.48
2003
6.73
1.77
1.39
64.44
79.47
9.52
18.92
32.43
3.67
10.68
2.04
21.01
2004
20.69
3.17
0
18.86
32.16
26.01
18.03
22.47
7.38
9.49
2.45
14.61
2005
8.11
59.84
4.59
13.76
8.94
25.22
28.03
54.89
11.65
3.48
5.36
12.26
3.45
18.43
2006
27.31
70.97
1.53
0
1.01
17.6
36.87
51.9325
6.15
2.905
2.7
19.81
0
18.37
2007
24.46
1.02
0.71
3.33
21.01
24.6
2.97
4.44
10.32
2008
46.15
5.56
5.62
0.99
36.8
39.44
1.47
13.33
3.75
17.01
2009
6.67
5.88
2.62
23.94
38.82
42.71
0.57
1.88
0.88
13.77
2010
64.78
47.59
7.03
53.61
13.45
30.52
28.41
35.66
11.43
19.83
10.78
29.37
2011
36.15
21.62
2.6
6.74
28.97
18.83
14.29
3.01
5.42
0.54
15.66
13.98
2012
1.81
19.26
17.65
16.44
42.16
10
2.65
10.37
7.14
11.11
3.88
5.84
12.36
Average
RSQ
Slope
Average
RSQ
Slope
Average
RSQ
Slope
Average
RSQ
Slope

26.48
0.28
4.14
15.30
0.52
3.03
31.11
0.12
-5.92
23.24
0.02
0.50

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
65.41
1.00
11.13
29.49
0.81
-14.17
43.86
0.83
-6.70

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
17.65
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
17.65
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!

53.62
0.68
10.25
10.68
0.66
-5.47
7.50
0.31
1.85
24.11
0.44
-3.31

54.26
0.16
3.74
7.45
0.22
-2.33
22.15
0.26
7.72
23.75
0.15
-2.03

62.24
0.99
-10.20
20.26
0.33
-5.74
15.47
0.11
2.31
27.06
0.47
-3.69

58.66
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
34.61
0.25
-5.22
25.52
0.87
-8.83
32.83
0.39
-3.00

31.68
0.91
-18.32
24.29
0.40
3.28
17.69
0.90
-9.02
24.53
0.17
-1.08

36.21
1.00
8.56
33.32
0.34
4.96
39.27
0.29
-1.89
35.68
0.05
0.59

25.92
0.65
5.96
14.45
0.98
-4.36
4.72
0.23
1.38
16.21
0.29
-1.31

42.80
0.53
9.54
17.81
0.70
-5.99
10.31
0.00
-0.09
24.84
0.34
-2.13

33.28
0.55
9.57
8.43
0.66
-2.56
3.97
0.00
-0.01
15.47
0.32
-1.87

21.38
0.04
1.17
12.34
0.48
1.44
10.75
1.00
-9.82
15.57
0.15
-0.63

5.14
0.30
-1.17
1.57
0.02
0.10
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
3.00
0.36
-0.55

32.37
0.65
6.14
16.89
0.30
-0.89
17.30
0.04
-0.91
22.70
0.15
-0.87

Table B6. Ratio of Scrapers

Time Period
Pre-development

Construction

Stabilization

Pre-development

Construction

Stabilization

Composite

Sample Year LSLS101

LSLS102
LSLS102UC LSLS103B LSLS103C LSLS104
LSLS109
LSLS110
LSLS202
LSLS203
LSLS204
LSLS205
LSLS206
LSLS303
Average
1994
22
13
12
42
22.25
1995
68
23
37
9.5
15
14
63
79
38.56
1996
36
24
33
11
9
24
73
68
34.75
1997
11
0
8
11
31
31
15.33
1998
46
57
39
73
97
13
55
38
68
52
53.80
1999
22
92
68
63
71
18
42
53
78
56.33
2000
47
12
63
44
93
38
79
53.71
2001
77
58
57
30
30
100
47
49
30
28
12
84
50.17
2002
14
83
87
46
29
100
93
64.57
2003
36
40
87.5
60
20
89
56
43
76
80
96
62.14
2004
21
83
27
28.5
15
4
29
38
78
97
73
44.86
2005
7
55
11
2
20
95
58
44
24
42
49
94
47
42.15
2006
48
0
20
0
80
64
14
61.25
58
33
25
94
73
43.87
2007
17
11
0
42
38
49
18
23
24.75
2008
75
36
13
8
22
60
36
33
29
34.67
2009
88
17
10
33
75
71
18
13
16
37.89
2010
22
0
32
7
50
50
42
64
20
30
28
31.36
2011
66
50
12
48
50
54
78
18
21
20
42
41.73
2012
2
38
0
18
3
0
75
83
36
17
27
53
29.33
Average
RSQ
Slope
Average
RSQ
Slope
Average
RSQ
Slope
Average
RSQ
Slope

36.80
0.11
-3.52
31.43
0.20
-5.04
50.60
0.52
-16.80
38.65
0.00
0.11

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
27.50
1.00
-55.00
29.33
0.53
19.00
28.60
0.00
0.58

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
0.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
0.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!

32.83
0.10
5.57
43.71
0.52
-10.57
23.00
0.39
-4.10
34.33
0.04
-1.08

49.00
0.67
17.60
37.21
0.70
-15.38
16.20
0.02
1.80
33.59
0.26
-3.49

48.67
0.04
2.50
43.79
0.06
2.29
28.20
0.00
0.10
39.57
0.10
-1.46

73.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
43.67
0.18
5.99
55.20
0.38
8.50
50.92
0.03
1.06

87.00
0.02
-2.00
65.25
0.86
-16.12
67.67
0.84
20.50
72.50
0.16
-2.15

35.00
1.00
-4.00
41.05
0.06
2.33
65.00
0.13
2.00
47.03
0.31
2.07

17.50
0.26
2.39
39.00
0.21
-3.73
25.60
0.00
0.00
26.92
0.08
0.75

27.50
0.70
8.20
37.20
0.08
0.82
22.80
0.20
-2.40
29.06
0.00
0.01

28.67
0.96
8.11
44.00
0.03
-1.79
24.00
0.00
0.00
33.33
0.00
0.04

64.80
0.65
5.43
79.50
0.42
11.69
47.50
1.00
11.00
68.92
0.00
0.28

69.50
0.01
-0.44
77.67
0.42
-6.17
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
74.40
0.00
0.06

39.25
0.50
5.32
47.50
0.63
-4.92
35.00
0.05
-0.68
41.17
0.00
-0.15

Attachment B
Montgomery County Benthic Index of Biotic Inegrity (BIBI)
Data Summary

Table B7. Taxa Richness

Time Period
Pre-development

Construction

Stabilization

Pre-development

Construction

Stabilization

Composite

Sample Year LSLS101

LSLS102
LSLS102UC LSLS103B LSLS103C LSLS104
LSLS109
LSLS110
LSLS202
LSLS203
LSLS204
LSLS205
LSLS206
LSLS303
Average
1994
17
23
14
26
20.00
1995
25
31
25
18
21.5
23
26
23
24.06
1996
15
19
18
29
25
29
27
20
22.75
1997
22
20
26
23
28
27
24.33
1998
22
13
22
17
17
16
14
17
18
18
17.40
1999
18
14
15
12
16
19
18
21
24
17.44
2000
16
22
15
19
33
23
15
20.43
2001
13
15
18
13
20
16
12
23
20
17
11
18
16.33
2002
13
15
18
14
17
13
11
14.43
2003
14
9
9.5
17
11
14
19
18
20
18
10
14.50
2004
17
13
10
12
15
21
18
17
14
19
18
15.82
2005
15
20
21
12
29
13
23
20
20
26
17
23
15
19.54
2006
12
9
12
6
11
24
17
24.75
25
15
14
22
15
15.90
2007
10
12
9
19
16
26
27
20
17.38
2008
15
31
13
18
13
23
30
32
16
21.22
2009
19
25
21
18
16
28
22
15
15
19.89
2010
21
20
18
18
19
20
25
23
22
16
18
20.00
2011
23
19
16
19
21
19
21
20
28
19
25
20.91
2012
13
15
21
21
18
13
18
22
24
15
25
14
18.25
Average
RSQ
Slope
Average
RSQ
Slope
Average
RSQ
Slope
Average
RSQ
Slope

19.20
0.31
-1.13
13.43
0.12
-0.36
18.20
0.00
0.00
16.53
0.04
-0.15

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
14.50
1.00
-11.00
18.00
0.89
-2.50
16.60
0.05
0.32

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
21.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
21.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!

21.33
0.31
-1.66
13.86
0.00
-0.11
22.20
0.59
-2.90
18.67
0.01
-0.12

17.25
0.46
-3.10
11.79
0.66
-1.73
17.80
0.18
0.80
15.03
0.00
-0.06

17.67
0.09
-1.50
16.43
0.09
0.86
17.80
0.14
-0.70
17.13
0.01
0.09

17.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
16.50
0.01
0.21
17.20
0.55
1.30
16.83
0.03
0.14

22.00
0.70
8.00
17.50
0.24
0.85
22.67
0.52
-1.50
20.40
0.04
0.22

21.50
1.00
-7.00
20.75
0.95
2.32
24.67
0.00
0.00
22.08
0.17
0.37

20.71
0.01
0.25
22.00
0.24
0.81
23.60
0.33
-1.40
21.94
0.10
0.21

21.58
0.23
-1.27
19.20
0.01
-0.19
21.20
0.17
-2.10
20.72
0.02
-0.13

21.83
0.02
0.43
17.00
0.00
0.00
18.60
0.79
2.20
19.06
0.06
-0.19

24.20
0.37
-1.07
17.67
0.92
2.46
19.50
1.00
-11.00
20.46
0.12
-0.33

19.00
0.97
-1.49
14.50
0.01
0.14
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
16.30
0.43
-0.69

20.92
0.21
-0.62
16.27
0.24
0.40
20.05
0.45
-0.49
18.98
0.06
-0.13

Table B8. Number EPT Taxa

Time Period
Pre-development

Construction

Stabilization

Pre-development

Construction

Stabilization

Composite

Sample Year LSLS101

LSLS102
LSLS102UC LSLS103B LSLS103C LSLS104
LSLS109
LSLS110
LSLS202
LSLS203
LSLS204
LSLS205
LSLS206
LSLS303
Average
1994
12
14
4
16
11.50
1995
12
16
14
8.5
13
12
11
10
12.06
1996
4
9
11
12
12
14
11
7
10.00
1997
12
9
12
15
14
15
12.83
1998
12
9
9
10
9
10
7
12
8
6
9.20
1999
9
10
8
7
9
10
8
11
13
9.44
2000
7
11
7
10
11
9
7
8.86
2001
7
6
9
9
12
8
9
15
11
9
5
6
8.83
2002
9
8
13
9
11
9
4
9.00
2003
5
2
4.5
12
8
9
11
11
6
10
2
7.32
2004
9
4
3
5.5
7
12
10
10
8
10
9
7.95
2005
3
12
9
4
14
10
14
13
10
11
8
14
4
9.69
2006
4
5
5
3
1
10
11
14.5
11
6.5
7
12
5
7.31
2007
6
4
4
5
9
16
15
11
8.75
2008
6
16
4
7
5
14
18
17
9
10.67
2009
10
15
9
8
11
13
12
5
7
10.00
2010
11
10
10
8
6
9
13
16
11
11
11
10.55
2011
8
11
8
9
10
10
12
11
14
8
17
10.73
2012
3
6
9
13
10
7
7
14
10
9
11
9
9.00
Average
RSQ
Slope
Average
RSQ
Slope
Average
RSQ
Slope
Average
RSQ
Slope

8.80
0.05
-0.38
6.14
0.24
-0.54
7.60
0.16
-0.80
7.35
0.08
-0.15

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
8.50
1.00
-7.00
9.00
0.57
-2.00
8.80
0.01
-0.11

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
9.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
9.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!

11.17
0.15
-0.54
5.43
0.03
-0.18
12.40
0.37
-1.30
9.28
0.00
-0.02

9.00
0.91
-1.60
5.79
0.52
-1.27
8.00
0.65
1.20
7.28
0.04
-0.14

8.67
0.11
0.50
7.93
0.20
-0.93
7.60
0.04
0.20
7.97
0.05
-0.16

10.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
9.33
0.09
-0.24
8.40
0.04
0.30
9.00
0.08
-0.13

9.67
0.75
1.00
10.50
0.59
0.92
13.00
0.25
0.50
11.00
0.59
0.33

12.50
1.00
-3.00
12.90
0.99
1.15
14.33
0.43
1.00
13.25
0.27
0.22

10.93
0.08
-0.29
12.00
0.01
-0.13
12.40
0.70
-1.70
11.69
0.02
0.06

11.33
0.64
-1.31
9.90
0.45
-0.68
11.20
0.06
-0.70
10.84
0.03
-0.09

11.33
0.25
1.03
8.57
0.00
0.00
9.20
0.20
0.50
9.67
0.06
-0.12

11.80
0.22
-0.67
10.00
0.78
1.43
13.00
1.00
-8.00
11.15
0.01
0.04

7.50
0.42
-0.51
5.00
0.00
0.06
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
6.00
0.30
-0.35

10.56
0.48
-0.50
8.41
0.01
-0.05
10.19
0.32
-0.26
9.67
0.09
-0.08

Table B9. BIBI Score

Time Period
Pre-development

Construction

Stabilization

Pre-development

Construction

Stabilization

Composite

Sample Year LSLS101

LSLS102
LSLS102UC LSLS103B LSLS103C LSLS104
LSLS109
LSLS110
LSLS202
LSLS203
LSLS204
LSLS205
LSLS206
LSLS303
Average
1994
32.04
29.72
32.53
28.39
30.67
1995
26.84
20.26
30.24
30.33
31.02
27.29
32.24
27.24
28.18
1996
24.80
26.73
26.75
27.02
29.34
24.34
30.35
25.53
26.86
1997
22.22
23.65
24.16
24.98
26.41
26.13
24.59
1998
35.86
36.98
37.90
36.71
38.26
32.49
40.49
38.82
23.98
27.71
34.92
1999
20.12
47.70
35.09
36.45
29.10
24.68
32.20
30.57
27.57
31.50
2000
27.64
29.99
32.60
32.36
29.43
28.72
26.30
29.58
2001
24.56
28.22
22.27
20.94
24.03
30.08
23.26
30.34
23.37
22.34
17.38
28.61
24.62
2002
19.60
27.83
30.86
23.22
22.10
28.80
24.63
25.29
2003
19.47
18.94
25.14
37.76
36.22
27.49
27.01
26.48
25.79
26.45
26.63
27.03
2004
20.60
21.95
21.33
20.14
20.64
20.32
23.05
22.98
24.31
26.90
26.12
22.58
2005
15.82
34.83
24.01
27.94
23.25
29.95
27.27
34.68
28.04
23.52
25.55
28.55
28.99
27.11
2006
23.59
29.46
23.04
25.48
24.23
26.36
23.22
34.82
27.03
22.63
23.91
29.14
26.29
26.09
2007
20.90
19.95
17.45
20.97
22.44
28.21
25.11
26.41
22.68
2008
31.28
22.55
16.60
17.24
20.59
28.76
27.98
26.16
23.73
23.88
2009
27.18
23.39
21.48
22.67
30.77
32.40
25.39
25.25
27.35
26.21
2010
28.45
22.15
24.99
26.71
21.47
24.38
26.28
29.04
26.43
22.93
25.86
25.33
2011
29.11
26.07
24.23
24.44
26.04
25.54
28.07
26.52
24.17
25.72
25.54
25.95
2012
14.76
21.90
17.27
23.51
22.81
16.69
26.51
29.07
26.25
23.14
24.40
24.14
22.54
Average
RSQ
Slope
Average
RSQ
Slope
Average
RSQ
Slope
Average
RSQ
Slope

24.32
0.02
-0.23
20.65
0.03
-0.24
26.15
0.57
-3.11
23.35
0.00
0.02

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
32.14
1.00
-5.37
23.37
0.00
-0.12
26.88
0.81
-1.57

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
17.27
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
17.27
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!

30.70
0.45
3.54
23.42
0.40
-1.05
23.73
0.22
0.28
25.93
0.12
-0.45

32.21
0.29
2.34
24.35
0.15
-0.80
22.41
0.41
1.54
25.71
0.33
-0.70

35.57
0.93
-2.77
24.36
0.02
-0.44
20.82
0.01
0.23
25.42
0.46
-1.09

36.71
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
26.61
0.03
-0.49
25.56
0.08
0.66
27.01
0.18
-0.56

32.26
0.72
-4.42
27.01
0.81
-1.15
27.81
0.97
1.40
28.83
0.28
-0.40

28.50
1.00
-3.49
28.26
0.32
1.62
30.06
0.00
0.14
28.85
0.06
0.23

28.61
0.15
-0.56
26.76
0.28
-0.61
26.51
0.16
-0.23
27.41
0.22
-0.21

31.53
0.18
1.08
23.80
0.12
-0.27
24.33
0.67
-0.71
26.86
0.41
-0.51

29.95
0.07
0.76
24.34
0.51
0.56
25.41
0.00
-0.03
26.51
0.16
-0.28

28.50
0.35
-0.89
26.20
0.49
1.67
24.84
1.00
-1.40
26.88
0.09
-0.20

26.69
0.00
-0.01
26.88
0.00
0.03
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
26.80
0.00
0.02

29.47
0.07
0.41
25.06
0.03
-0.15
24.78
0.09
-0.29
26.61
0.34
-0.33

Attachment C
Montgomery County Habitat Assessment
Data Summary

Table C1. Average of Instream Cover

Time Period
Sample Year LSLS101
LSLS102
LSLS103B LSLS103C LSLS104
LSLS109
LSLS110
LSLS202
LSLS203
LSLS204
LSLS205
LSLS206
LSLS303
LSLS413
Average
Pre-development
1994
12
8
11
14
12
16
12.17
1995
11
13
15
10
12.5
13.5
10
13
12.25
1996
15
16
16
10
14
16
11
18
14.50
1997
12
17
14
13
16
13
14.17
1998
18
15
14
16
16
15
15
12
14
14
15
14.91
1999
15
17
15
15
16
13
8
14
12
10
13.50
2000
13
16
14
14
16
13
13
15
14.25
Construction
2001
16
8
14
12.67
2002
17
15
13
10
14
13
15
13.86
2003
17
15
12
9
17
15
13
14
12
15
13
13.82
2004
14
14
16
10.5
11
14
11
12
15
15
15
13.41
2005
17
16
15
13
12
12
11
17
15
15
13
16
16
14.46
2006
15
14
16
15
7
10
13
15.7
14.5
15
14
16
15
12
13.73
2007
9
17
15
9
15
14
9
13
12.63
Stabilization
2008
12
12
15
9
11
17
12
10
15
12.56
2009
15
15
15
12
17
14
11
14
8
13.44
2010
16
9
13
15
9
12
11
13
11
9
12
11.82
2011
13
9
14
14
7
14
9
13
15
13
14
12.27
2012
8
9
12
14
10
13
12
10
10
11
15
11.27
Pre-development Average
RSQ
Slope
Construction
Average
RSQ
Slope
Stabilization
Average
RSQ
Slope
Composite
Average
RSQ
Slope

13.20
0.14
0.33
14.83
0.54
-1.23
12.80
0.26
-1.00
13.69
0.02
-0.07

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
15.00
1.00
-2.00
9.00
#DIV/0!
0.00
11.40
0.94
-1.05

15.57
0.58
0.79
15.33
0.53
0.40
13.20
0.01
-0.10
14.83
0.09
-0.10

14.50
0.00
0.00
14.00
0.30
0.46
14.60
0.75
-0.30
14.33
0.01
0.03

14.33
0.00
0.00
9.58
0.09
-0.27
9.40
0.07
-0.30
10.54
0.47
-0.39

16.00
#DIV/0!
0.00
13.00
0.07
-0.50
13.40
0.00
0.10
13.85
0.16
-0.21

14.00
0.75
-1.50
13.00
0.43
-0.86
10.67
0.11
0.50
12.56
0.54
-0.30

15.50
1.00
1.00
15.34
0.09
-0.17
14.67
0.92
-2.00
15.17
0.09
-0.08

11.00
0.21
0.57
11.75
0.11
0.45
11.40
0.08
-0.20
11.36
0.04
0.08

13.75
0.54
0.70
14.00
0.30
0.60
11.60
0.00
0.10
13.10
0.09
-0.10

13.42
0.39
-0.50
13.50
0.00
-0.03
11.80
0.03
-0.30
12.97
0.15
-0.12

11.40
0.01
0.07
15.00
0.82
0.70
14.50
1.00
1.00
13.42
0.51
0.26

15.20
0.02
-0.11
14.80
0.19
0.30
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
15.00
0.01
-0.04

15.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
13.00
1.00
-0.40
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
13.67
1.00
-0.38

13.68
0.42
0.33
13.51
0.00
0.01
12.27
0.53
-0.37
13.25
0.18
-0.08

Table C2. Average of Epibenthic Substrate

Sample Year LSLS101
LSLS102
LSLS103B LSLS103C LSLS104
LSLS109
LSLS110
LSLS202
LSLS203
LSLS204
LSLS205
LSLS206
LSLS303
LSLS413
Average
Time Period
Pre-development
1994
15
16
11
16
12
13
13.83
1995
16
13
16.5
16
13
9
14.5
13.5
13.94
1996
18
13
17
17
17
13
10
13
14.75
1997
16
17
13
18
15
12
15.17
1998
17
14
14
18
11
18
17
10
12
11
9
13.73
1999
11
16
16
16
16
14
16
13
13
16
14.70
2000
12
15
13
16
15
12
18
10
13.88
Construction
2001
16
19
16
17.00
2002
14
12
12
11
9
10
14
11.71
2003
16
12
10
14
16
13
14
11
12
8
8
12.18
2004
14
11
13
13.5
14
10
15
15
13
13
15
13.32
2005
15
15
11
13
13
17
9
16
16
16
12
12
16
13.92
2006
12
13
13
13
16
15
16
16.3
13.5
13
15
12
11
9
13.41
2007
17
10
17
17
17
17
17
13
15.63
Stabilization
2008
15
11
16
16
15
16
16
15
14
14.89
2009
13
8
12
11
15
15
14
15
13
12.89
2010
17
17
11
17
12
14
15
14
13
13
12
14.09
2011
17
17
12
15
16
16
15
17
15
13
11
14.91
2012
10
14
9
10
12
14
13
17
14
15
16
13.09
Pre-development Average
RSQ
Slope
Construction
Average
RSQ
Slope
Stabilization
Average
RSQ
Slope
Composite
Average
RSQ
Slope

14.60
0.74
-1.23
14.67
0.01
0.11
14.40
0.10
-0.60
14.56
0.03
-0.07

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
14.00
1.00
-2.00
16.00
0.75
-1.50
15.20
0.17
0.24

15.14
0.21
0.36
11.50
0.13
-0.20
10.20
0.00
0.00
12.56
0.58
-0.34

14.00
0.03
0.20
13.00
0.64
0.97
14.00
0.24
-0.90
13.60
0.00
0.03

15.33
0.75
1.00
14.08
0.78
1.01
13.40
0.04
-0.30
14.11
0.04
-0.09

16.33
0.96
-1.50
15.80
0.13
0.30
14.80
0.04
-0.10
15.54
0.24
-0.13

12.33
0.11
0.50
12.67
0.06
0.57
14.33
0.75
-1.00
13.11
0.17
0.17

16.75
1.00
0.50
15.06
0.06
0.30
15.00
1.00
-1.00
15.38
0.07
-0.10

17.00
0.29
0.25
15.75
0.15
-0.36
15.40
0.19
0.50
16.14
0.14
-0.11

14.33
0.19
0.57
13.75
0.17
0.70
14.40
0.13
-0.20
14.20
0.00
0.02

12.17
0.08
-0.37
12.33
0.58
0.80
13.40
0.08
0.20
12.59
0.08
0.09

12.90
0.16
0.45
11.00
0.40
0.80
13.50
1.00
5.00
12.21
0.01
0.03

12.10
0.89
-0.59
12.80
0.01
0.20
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
12.45
0.00
0.01

9.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
12.50
1.00
-1.40
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
11.33
0.02
-0.14

14.28
0.01
0.02
13.88
0.00
0.04
13.97
0.07
-0.16
14.05
0.01
-0.02

Table C3. Average of Embeddedness

Time Period
Sample Year LSLS101
LSLS102
LSLS103B LSLS103C LSLS104
LSLS109
LSLS110
LSLS202
LSLS203
LSLS204
LSLS205
LSLS206
LSLS303
LSLS413
Average
Pre-development
1994
14
14
16
13
15
8
13.33
1995
9.5
10
14.5
10.5
10.5
5.5
9
10
9.94
1996
14
16
15
10
14
13
12
11
13.13
1997
16
15
13
13
12
11
13.33
1998
13
14
14
16
10
15
10
13
13
12
9
12.64
1999
16
16
14
15
14
14
9
15
13
12
13.80
2000
16
17
13
14
16
12
14
15
14.63
Construction
2001
17
12
11
13.33
2002
18
16
8
16
14
8
11
13.00
2003
16
10
5
14
16
14
13
15
14
8
8
12.09
2004
14
7
9
12.5
16
9
15
15
14
16
14
12.86
2005
16
15
13
14
13
12
8
15
16
16
14
13
15
13.85
2006
16
13
15
10
12
12
10
14.7
13
6
13
14
14
9
12.26
2007
9
12
16
9
12
10
8
12
11.00
Stabilization
2008
13
2
10
10
12
9
6
12
8
9.11
2009
12
6
7
6
7
11
12
12
11
9.33
2010
13
13
6
8
7
12
9
10
10
10
4
9.27
2011
12
15
8
9
10
12
13
12
9
8
6
10.36
2012
10
16
10
8
10
11
9
10
14
7
10
10.45
Pre-development Average
RSQ
Slope
Construction
Average
RSQ
Slope
Stabilization
Average
RSQ
Slope
Composite
Average
RSQ
Slope

14.30
0.62
1.07
14.83
0.54
-1.23
12.00
0.60
-0.60
13.78
0.12
-0.17

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
14.00
1.00
-2.00
14.67
0.96
1.50
14.40
0.15
0.16

14.43
0.34
0.64
12.17
0.00
0.03
6.40
0.92
1.80
11.44
0.37
-0.46

13.50
0.00
0.00
10.33
0.63
1.71
8.40
0.08
-0.20
10.53
0.22
-0.31

14.33
0.00
0.00
12.75
0.87
-1.16
8.60
0.11
0.40
11.61
0.67
-0.55

15.33
0.00
0.00
13.60
0.75
-1.20
10.80
0.05
0.30
12.92
0.53
-0.42

12.00
0.25
1.00
10.67
0.62
-1.57
10.33
0.00
0.00
11.00
0.13
-0.16

14.75
1.00
0.50
13.14
0.25
-0.76
10.00
0.25
0.50
12.52
0.40
-0.36

12.21
0.00
0.07
12.83
0.08
-0.37
10.00
0.27
0.80
11.81
0.07
-0.12

12.92
0.03
-0.24
13.00
0.51
-2.60
11.40
0.01
0.10
12.43
0.07
-0.13

11.42
0.13
0.59
13.50
0.69
-0.37
7.60
0.10
-0.50
11.03
0.14
-0.21

12.20
0.01
-0.08
11.80
0.55
1.70
8.00
1.00
4.00
11.33
0.10
-0.17

11.20
0.96
1.05
12.40
0.51
1.30
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
11.80
0.33
0.35

9.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
10.00
1.00
-0.40
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
9.67
0.02
-0.04

12.97
0.34
0.40
12.63
0.31
-0.24
9.71
0.83
0.37
11.99
0.37
-0.19

Attachment C
Montgomery County Habitat Assessment
Data Summary

18.50
0.06
0.06
18.33
0.00
0.00
18.20
0.04
0.10
18.34
0.02
-0.02

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
18.00
#DIV/0!
0.00
17.33
0.00
0.00
17.60
0.42
-0.11

18.43
0.24
0.18
16.33
0.17
-0.46
16.80
0.37
-0.50
17.28
0.25
-0.14

18.25
0.89
-0.70
17.00
0.12
0.29
16.80
0.33
-0.40
17.27
0.19
-0.12

18.33
0.75
-0.50
17.33
0.02
0.06
17.20
0.13
0.10
17.50
0.22
-0.08

17.67
0.00
0.00
16.80
0.33
0.40
16.60
0.50
0.60
16.92
0.04
-0.05

18.67
0.00
0.00
17.33
0.18
-0.57
18.67
0.00
0.00
18.22
0.00
-0.01

18.75
1.00
0.50
17.80
0.69
-0.40
18.00
1.00
2.00
18.05
0.09
-0.07

16.57
0.15
0.14
17.83
0.49
-0.24
14.60
0.08
0.50
16.44
0.08
-0.10

17.92
0.50
0.39
16.75
0.60
0.90
16.80
0.33
-0.40
17.23
0.12
-0.07

17.33
0.17
0.11
17.00
0.07
0.23
18.80
0.13
0.10
17.65
0.20
0.10

15.70
0.54
-0.63
15.40
0.05
0.30
17.50
1.00
-1.00
15.88
0.04
0.06

16.60
0.26
0.44
18.00
0.00
0.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
17.30
0.27
0.21

16.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
16.50
1.00
-0.20
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
16.33
0.02
-0.02

17.55
0.33
0.19
17.29
0.17
-0.12
17.17
0.31
0.08
17.35
0.05
-0.02

Table C5. Average of Sediment Deposit

Time Period
Sample Year LSLS101
LSLS102
LSLS103B LSLS103C LSLS104
LSLS109
LSLS110
LSLS202
LSLS203
LSLS204
LSLS205
LSLS206
LSLS303
LSLS413
Average
Pre-development
1994
12
15
11
12
14
12
12.67
1995
8
10.5
14
11
12.5
7.5
6.5
9.5
9.94
1996
11
8
13
9
14
15
10
10
11.25
1997
15
14
12
10
11
9
11.83
1998
12
10
13
14
9
16
10
13
9
12
12
11.82
1999
14
15
14
14
14
12
6
11
10
8
11.80
2000
14
15
9
16
16
11
14
14
13.63
Construction
2001
15
8
9
10.67
2002
13
15
9
17
12
9
11
12.29
2003
15
5
6
15
16
13
13
14
14
9
13
12.09
2004
13
11
7
14.5
9
14
13
14
10
13
9
11.59
2005
15
15
3
12
9
8
15
14
16
12
10
11
15
11.92
2006
15
12
15
11
9
10
8
12.7
11.5
4
10
15
14
12
11.37
2007
9
14
8
8
11
7
11
10
9.75
Stabilization
2008
9
6
6
8
12
7
8
11
7
8.22
2009
8
7
10
9
10
7
11
9
7
8.67
2010
11
15
9
7
8
13
11
6
11
11
6
9.82
2011
9
12
11
7
8
6
6
13
9
9
6
8.73
2012
8
10
10
6
8
5
6
14
9
8
9
8.45
Pre-development Average
RSQ
Slope
Construction
Average
RSQ
Slope
Stabilization
Average
RSQ
Slope
Composite
Average
RSQ
Slope

12.40
0.58
1.06
13.33
0.17
-0.51
9.00
0.02
-0.10
11.69
0.15
-0.20

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
13.50
1.00
-3.00
12.33
0.99
-2.50
12.80
0.28
-0.37

12.36
0.44
0.79
10.50
0.03
0.49
8.60
0.84
1.20
10.69
0.08
-0.18

11.25
0.08
-0.50
8.83
0.12
0.43
7.20
0.08
-0.30
8.93
0.35
-0.31

14.33
0.96
1.50
12.08
0.90
-1.96
8.20
0.13
-0.10
11.18
0.66
-0.63

14.67
0.75
1.00
10.80
0.21
-0.90
9.20
0.64
-1.80
11.08
0.50
-0.54

10.67
0.43
1.00
12.00
0.30
-1.29
7.67
0.75
-2.50
10.11
0.24
-0.29

13.50
1.00
-1.00
12.54
0.57
-1.05
6.67
0.75
-0.50
10.97
0.53
-0.52

11.57
0.02
-0.21
12.08
0.14
0.46
11.40
0.92
1.40
11.69
0.00
0.03

11.58
0.15
-0.30
11.00
0.75
-3.20
9.80
0.33
-0.40
10.83
0.16
-0.17

11.08
0.00
0.01
11.00
0.49
-0.63
7.40
0.31
0.40
9.97
0.30
-0.24

9.50
0.24
-0.67
11.40
0.72
1.40
7.50
1.00
3.00
9.96
0.01
-0.04

11.50
0.48
0.52
12.40
0.28
0.80
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
11.95
0.21
0.22

12.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
10.50
1.00
0.60
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
11.00
0.02
0.06

11.85
0.23
0.26
11.38
0.17
-0.17
8.78
0.02
0.05
10.87
0.46
-0.19

Table C6. Average of Riffle Frequency

Time Period
Sample Year LSLS101
LSLS102
LSLS103B LSLS103C LSLS104
LSLS109
LSLS110
LSLS202
LSLS203
LSLS204
LSLS205
LSLS206
LSLS303
LSLS413
Average
Pre-development
1994
13
17
19
16
15
16
16.00
1995
17
15.5
19
16.5
16.5
10.5
13.5
13.5
15.25
1996
17
19
18
17
17
16
15
15
16.75
1997
18
18
17
19
19
16
17.83
1998
17
16
18
19
12
18
17
14
15
13
6
15.00
1999
16
17
18
17
16
16
17
16
14
13
16.00
2000
16
17
13
19
19
15
19
14
16.50
Construction
2001
19
19
9
15.67
2002
18
17
15
17
14
14
16
15.86
2003
19
13
14
16
19
16
16
14
8
15
13
14.82
2004
15
14
16
17.5
18
14
15
14
16
15
13
15.23
2005
17
18
12
18
17
17
10
17
18
17
13
13
17
15.69
2006
17
17
16
16
18
19
18
17.3
16
14
14
15
12
8
15.52
2007
18
4
15
17
17
17
14
13
14.38
Stabilization
2008
12
17
17
17
17
16
11
16
8
14.56
2009
16
14
8
17
19
14
13
13
12
14.00
2010
17
18
13
17
17
17
19
16
14
17
16
16.45
2011
17
18
14
17
18
17
18
18
16
16
14
16.64
2012
18
15
18
18
16
14
14
14
18
16
17
16.18
Pre-development Average
RSQ
Slope
Construction
Average
RSQ
Slope
Stabilization
Average
RSQ
Slope
Composite
Average
RSQ
Slope

16.80
0.44
-0.27
17.33
0.02
-0.11
16.00
0.77
1.30
16.75
0.01
-0.04

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
17.50
1.00
-1.00
17.00
0.75
-1.50
17.20
0.18
-0.18

16.64
0.27
0.46
12.67
0.45
-1.66
15.20
0.02
0.20
14.92
0.08
-0.17

16.00
0.36
-1.00
15.67
0.10
0.23
15.40
0.17
1.10
15.67
0.00
-0.02

18.00
0.25
0.50
17.08
0.20
0.16
17.00
0.05
-0.10
17.25
0.12
-0.06

18.00
0.00
0.00
18.00
0.23
-0.30
16.80
0.50
-0.80
17.54
0.21
-0.15

14.33
0.52
1.50
14.67
0.00
0.14
17.00
0.89
-2.50
15.33
0.14
0.21

18.50
1.00
-1.00
16.86
0.09
-0.23
15.33
0.00
0.00
16.73
0.45
-0.23

17.64
0.36
0.29
16.33
0.46
-0.59
14.00
0.47
1.10
16.19
0.34
-0.23

17.42
0.23
-0.33
14.75
0.07
0.30
16.00
0.35
0.70
16.23
0.15
-0.11

14.42
0.00
0.01
13.00
0.04
0.29
13.60
0.78
2.00
13.68
0.00
-0.02

14.30
0.15
-0.18
14.40
0.00
0.00
15.50
1.00
3.00
14.54
0.09
0.06

14.30
0.30
-0.28
14.20
0.09
-0.40
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
14.25
0.04
-0.07

6.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
8.50
1.00
-0.20
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
7.67
0.29
0.20

16.19
0.01
0.04
15.31
0.28
-0.13
15.57
0.60
0.59
15.70
0.07
-0.04

Attachment C
Montgomery County Habitat Assessment
Data Summary

12.20
0.64
0.79
13.17
0.00
-0.03
9.80
0.53
-0.60
11.81
0.11
-0.14

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
15.50
1.00
-3.00
13.67
0.00
0.00
14.40
0.25
-0.35

15.36
0.03
-0.04
12.83
0.05
-0.14
10.80
0.27
-1.00
13.25
0.61
-0.34

12.75
0.10
0.50
14.00
0.46
0.69
10.40
0.44
-1.10
12.47
0.12
-0.18

13.33
0.52
1.50
13.00
0.43
0.63
12.60
0.66
-1.00
12.93
0.01
-0.04

14.67
0.75
0.50
14.60
0.50
-0.60
10.40
0.62
-1.30
13.00
0.56
-0.45

14.67
0.60
2.50
13.33
0.18
-0.57
13.33
0.75
-2.00
13.78
0.06
-0.11

15.50
1.00
1.00
14.26
0.25
-0.29
10.33
0.00
0.00
13.33
0.50
-0.35

17.71
0.00
0.00
17.00
0.39
-0.51
15.20
0.13
0.70
16.78
0.22
-0.17

14.75
0.17
0.41
15.50
0.64
0.80
12.40
0.09
-0.60
14.17
0.11
-0.13

16.17
0.41
0.26
15.17
0.38
0.49
15.40
0.00
0.00
15.59
0.02
-0.04

14.90
0.04
-0.13
13.40
0.53
0.70
16.00
#DIV/0!
0.00
14.46
0.01
0.03

14.50
0.07
0.22
13.60
0.76
1.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
14.05
0.00
-0.01

17.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
17.00
#DIV/0!
0.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
17.00
#DIV/0!
0.00

15.01
0.00
-0.01
14.41
0.02
-0.10
12.35
0.21
-0.30
14.09
0.43
-0.18

Table C8. Average of Bank Vegetation

Time Period
Sample Year LSLS101
LSLS102
LSLS103B LSLS103C LSLS104
LSLS109
LSLS110
LSLS202
LSLS203
LSLS204
LSLS205
LSLS206
LSLS303
LSLS413
Average
Pre-development
1994
9
8
7
7.5
7.5
8.5
7.92
1995
7
8
8.5
7
7
6
5.25
8
7.09
1996
7
7
7
6.5
5.5
5.5
7
9
6.81
1997
5.5
6
8
5
8
4
6.08
1998
8
3
7
9
7
8
8
7
6
8
6.5
7.05
1999
8
8.5
8.5
9
9
9
8
8
6
6.5
8.05
2000
3
8
5
6
8
8
7
8
6.63
Construction
2001
8
8
6.5
7.50
2002
7
7
5
5
5.5
5
4
5.50
2003
8
5
4
4
8
8
5.5
7
5
6
8
6.23
2004
7
6
7
5
5
8
5
5
5
8
7
6.18
2005
8
9
8
8
6.5
7.5
8
8
8
8
6
7
9
7.77
2006
8
8
8
6
5.5
7
6
7.8
5.5
6.5
5.5
6
7
4.5
6.52
2007
6.5
7
7
6.5
6.5
6
4
3.5
5.88
Stabilization
2008
6
5
5
6.5
6.5
5
3.5
5
6
5.39
2009
6.5
5
5.5
3.5
8
6
5.5
5.5
4
5.50
2010
5
7.5
4.5
4
5.5
5
7
8
7
4.5
4
5.64
2011
7.5
3
5
4
4
5.5
6
5
5
5
4
4.91
2012
5
4.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
6
5.5
5
3.5
2
4
4.18
Pre-development Average
RSQ
Slope
Construction
Average
RSQ
Slope
Stabilization
Average
RSQ
Slope
Composite
Average
RSQ
Slope

6.10
0.26
-0.48
7.42
0.01
-0.04
6.00
0.02
-0.10
6.56
0.01
-0.02

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
8.50
1.00
-1.00
5.00
0.43
-1.50
6.40
0.71
-0.69

7.79
0.01
-0.04
6.83
0.25
0.31
4.40
0.53
-0.50
6.53
0.53
-0.22

6.13
0.03
-0.35
6.17
0.38
0.49
4.40
0.75
-0.45
5.57
0.13
-0.13

7.33
0.11
-0.50
5.42
0.55
0.39
4.80
0.21
-0.35
5.61
0.32
-0.18

8.67
0.75
-0.50
6.80
0.02
-0.10
6.20
0.23
-0.35
7.00
0.53
-0.22

8.00
0.25
0.50
7.33
0.57
-0.57
6.17
0.96
-0.75
7.17
0.53
-0.16

7.75
1.00
-1.50
7.56
0.40
-0.24
6.33
0.96
1.50
7.23
0.19
-0.10

7.07
0.00
0.02
6.00
0.35
-0.45
5.20
0.10
0.25
6.19
0.30
-0.14

7.25
0.32
0.30
6.63
0.02
0.15
4.70
0.53
-0.35
6.23
0.48
-0.16

6.00
0.07
-0.17
5.08
0.22
-0.21
4.20
0.56
-0.70
5.15
0.41
-0.15

6.45
0.05
-0.10
6.40
0.17
0.30
4.00
#DIV/0!
0.00
6.02
0.29
-0.12

8.30
0.19
-0.08
7.00
0.35
0.70
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
7.65
0.11
-0.11

6.50
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
5.50
1.00
-0.40
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
5.83
0.86
-0.27

7.09
0.04
-0.06
6.51
0.01
-0.05
5.12
0.64
-0.30
6.36
0.55
-0.14

Table C9. Minimum of Bank Vegetation

Time Period
Sample Year LSLS101
LSLS102
LSLS103B LSLS103C LSLS104
LSLS109
LSLS110
LSLS202
LSLS203
LSLS204
LSLS205
LSLS206
LSLS303
LSLS413
Average
Pre-development
1994
9
8
6
7
7
8
7.50
1995
7
8
8.5
6.5
6.5
6
5
7.5
6.88
1996
7
7
7
6
5
5
5
9
6.38
1997
5
6
8
5
8
3
5.83
1998
8
3
7
9
7
8
8
7
6
8
6
7.00
1999
8
8
8
9
9
9
8
8
6
6
7.90
2000
3
8
5
5
8
8
7
8
6.50
Construction
2001
8
8
6
7.33
2002
7
7
4
5
5
5
4
5.29
2003
8
5
4
4
8
8
5
7
5
6
8
6.18
2004
7
6
7
5
5
8
5
5
5
8
7
6.18
2005
8
9
8
8
6
7
8
8
8
8
6
7
9
7.69
2006
8
8
8
6
5
7
6
7.7
5.5
6
5
6
7
4
6.37
2007
6
7
7
6
6
5
4
3
5.50
Stabilization
2008
5
5
5
6
6
5
3
5
5
5.00
2009
6
4
5
3
8
6
5
5
4
5.11
2010
4
7
4
4
5
5
7
8
7
4
4
5.36
2011
7
3
5
3
4
5
6
5
5
5
4
4.73
2012
5
4
2
3
4
6
5
5
3
2
4
3.91
Pre-development Average
RSQ
Slope
Construction
Average
RSQ
Slope
Stabilization
Average
RSQ
Slope
Composite
Average
RSQ
Slope

6.00
0.23
-0.47
7.33
0.07
-0.11
5.40
0.02
0.10
6.31
0.03
-0.05

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
8.50
1.00
-1.00
4.67
0.52
-1.50
6.20
0.80
-0.74

7.71
0.03
-0.07
6.83
0.25
0.31
4.00
0.42
-0.50
6.39
0.55
-0.24

6.00
0.04
-0.40
6.00
0.49
0.63
4.00
0.90
-0.60
5.33
0.15
-0.15

7.00
0.25
-1.00
5.17
0.41
0.26
4.40
0.17
-0.30
5.29
0.37
-0.20

8.67
0.75
-0.50
6.60
0.08
-0.20
6.00
0.15
-0.30
6.85
0.56
-0.24

8.00
0.25
0.50
7.33
0.57
-0.57
6.00
1.00
-1.00
7.11
0.55
-0.18

7.75
1.00
-1.50
7.34
0.40
-0.36
6.33
0.96
1.50
7.12
0.19
-0.11

6.93
0.02
0.07
5.92
0.29
-0.42
5.00
0.20
0.40
6.06
0.26
-0.14

6.92
0.53
0.50
6.50
0.00
0.00
4.40
0.50
-0.40
5.97
0.37
-0.16

5.67
0.02
-0.11
4.83
0.24
-0.26
4.00
0.42
-0.50
4.88
0.33
-0.13

5.80
0.01
-0.03
6.40
0.17
0.30
4.00
#DIV/0!
0.00
5.75
0.11
-0.07

8.10
0.00
0.01
7.00
0.35
0.70
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
7.55
0.06
-0.08

6.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
5.00
1.00
-0.40
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
5.33
0.86
-0.27

6.85
0.00
-0.01
6.36
0.03
-0.06
4.82
0.53
-0.26
6.14
0.51
-0.14

Attachment C
Montgomery County Habitat Assessment
Data Summary

Table C10. Average of Bank Stability

Time Period
Sample Year LSLS101
LSLS102
LSLS103B LSLS103C LSLS104
LSLS109
LSLS110
LSLS202
LSLS203
LSLS204
LSLS205
LSLS206
LSLS303
LSLS413
Average
Pre-development
1994
6.5
8.5
7
7
8
6.5
7.25
1995
6.5
7.25
9
8.5
6.75
6
5.75
6.5
7.03
1996
5
6
9
7
5
6
5
8
6.38
1997
5.5
6
6
6
6
5
5.75
1998
6
3
7.5
6
6
8
7
4
5
7
5.5
5.91
1999
5.5
8
6
6
8
8
9
6
5.5
6.5
6.85
2000
3
8
5
6
7
7.5
7
7
6.31
Construction
2001
9
4.5
6
6.50
2002
4.5
6
4.5
5
5
5
3.5
4.79
2003
6
6
4
4
7
7
5
7
4
5
7
5.64
2004
7
6
7
5.25
5
7
4
4
4
7
5
5.57
2005
7
9
7
5
5.5
6
7
8
7
7
7
6
7
6.81
2006
6
8
8
4
5
5
6
8.8
5.5
7
4
7.5
5.5
5.5
6.13
2007
5.5
7
4
6
7
8
5.5
3.5
5.81
Stabilization
2008
6.5
4.5
5
6
7
7
4
7
5
5.78
2009
4.5
5.5
5
3
3.5
6
6
3.5
3.5
4.50
2010
5.5
8
6
4
5.5
5
7
8.5
6.5
5
3.5
5.86
2011
5.5
3.5
6
3.5
4
6
8
7
8
3
5
5.41
2012
6
4.5
3.5
3.5
4
4
4.5
5.5
3.5
3
3
4.09
Pre-development Average
RSQ
Slope
Construction
Average
RSQ
Slope
Stabilization
Average
RSQ
Slope
Composite
Average
RSQ
Slope

5.10
0.58
-0.48
6.00
0.08
0.14
5.60
0.00
0.00
5.59
0.02
0.03

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
8.50
1.00
-1.00
5.33
0.55
-1.75
6.60
0.67
-0.64

6.82
0.25
0.21
6.67
0.62
0.34
5.10
0.05
-0.15
6.29
0.19
-0.09

5.00
0.00
0.00
4.75
0.04
-0.13
4.20
0.88
-0.45
4.63
0.14
-0.08

6.50
0.75
-0.75
5.13
0.44
0.24
4.50
0.15
-0.30
5.20
0.37
-0.16

7.00
0.25
0.50
6.00
0.00
0.00
5.10
0.15
-0.35
5.88
0.34
-0.17

7.17
0.52
0.75
6.67
0.57
-0.29
6.50
0.48
-1.25
6.78
0.09
-0.06

9.00
#DIV/0!
0.00
8.16
0.07
-0.09
7.17
0.36
0.75
8.03
0.36
-0.12

7.71
0.03
-0.09
5.25
0.24
0.24
5.80
0.30
0.40
6.36
0.27
-0.14

6.29
0.05
-0.09
6.25
0.07
0.30
5.40
0.04
-0.25
5.98
0.07
-0.06

5.58
0.58
-0.41
4.58
0.04
-0.13
3.60
0.75
-0.45
4.65
0.52
-0.16

6.05
0.17
-0.25
6.10
0.69
0.60
4.00
1.00
-2.00
5.73
0.18
-0.10

7.00
0.06
0.06
5.60
0.18
0.40
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
6.30
0.16
-0.12

5.50
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
5.75
1.00
-0.10
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
5.67
0.02
-0.01

6.50
0.25
-0.13
5.89
0.04
0.06
5.13
0.24
-0.25
5.91
0.44
-0.10

Table C11. Minimum of Bank Stability

Time Period
Sample Year LSLS101
LSLS102
LSLS103B LSLS103C LSLS104
LSLS109
LSLS110
LSLS202
LSLS203
LSLS204
LSLS205
LSLS206
LSLS303
LSLS413
Average
Pre-development
1994
6
8
6
7
8
6
6.83
1995
6.5
7
9
8.5
6.5
6
5.5
6
6.88
1996
5
6
9
6
5
6
4
8
6.13
1997
5
6
6
6
6
4
5.50
1998
6
3
7
6
6
8
7
4
5
7
5
5.82
1999
5
8
6
6
8
8
9
6
5
6
6.70
2000
3
8
5
5
7
7
7
7
6.13
Construction
2001
9
4
5
6.00
2002
4
6
3
5
5
5
3
4.43
2003
6
6
4
4
7
7
5
7
4
5
7
5.64
2004
7
6
7
5
5
7
4
4
4
7
5
5.55
2005
7
9
7
5
5
5
7
8
7
7
7
6
7
6.69
2006
6
8
8
4
5
4
6
8.7
5.5
6
4
7
5
5
5.87
2007
5
6
4
5
6
8
4
3
5.13
Stabilization
2008
6
4
5
5
6
7
4
6
5
5.33
2009
4
4
4
2
2
5
5
3
3
3.56
2010
4
8
5
4
4
5
7
8
6
4
3
5.27
2011
5
3
6
3
4
5
8
6
8
2
4
4.91
2012
5
4
3
3
3
3
4
5
3
3
3
3.55
Pre-development Average
RSQ
Slope
Construction
Average
RSQ
Slope
Stabilization
Average
RSQ
Slope
Composite
Average
RSQ
Slope

4.90
0.73
-0.51
5.83
0.05
0.14
4.80
0.04
-0.10
5.22
0.01
-0.02

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
8.50
1.00
-1.00
5.00
0.57
-2.00
6.40
0.67
-0.71

6.71
0.42
0.29
6.50
0.20
0.20
4.40
0.00
0.00
6.00
0.27
-0.12

5.00
0.00
0.00
4.50
0.01
0.09
3.80
0.89
-0.50
4.40
0.17
-0.11

6.00
1.00
-1.00
4.83
0.15
0.09
3.60
0.08
-0.20
4.64
0.57
-0.20

7.00
0.25
0.50
5.40
0.17
-0.30
4.20
0.08
-0.30
5.31
0.48
-0.25

7.00
0.25
0.50
6.67
0.57
-0.29
6.33
0.52
-1.50
6.67
0.09
-0.07

9.00
#DIV/0!
0.00
8.14
0.08
-0.10
6.67
0.11
0.50
7.87
0.40
-0.15

7.50
0.00
0.00
4.92
0.06
0.14
5.20
0.32
0.30
6.00
0.35
-0.16

6.08
0.04
0.07
6.00
0.00
0.00
4.80
0.01
-0.10
5.63
0.11
-0.08

5.33
0.63
-0.51
4.50
0.07
-0.20
3.20
0.52
-0.50
4.41
0.48
-0.17

5.70
0.16
-0.28
6.00
0.63
0.50
3.50
1.00
-1.00
5.46
0.17
-0.10

6.80
0.20
0.16
5.40
0.14
0.40
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
6.10
0.10
-0.11

5.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
5.00
#DIV/0!
0.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
5.00
#DIV/0!
0.00

6.28
0.16
-0.10
5.61
0.02
0.05
4.52
0.15
-0.22
5.57
0.50
-0.12

Table C12. Minimum of Buffer

Time Period
Sample Year LSLS101
LSLS102
LSLS103B LSLS103C LSLS104
LSLS109
LSLS110
LSLS202
LSLS203
LSLS204
LSLS205
LSLS206
LSLS303
LSLS413
Average
Pre-development
1994
10
9
8
8
2
9
7.67
1995
9
9.5
9.5
3
7
4.5
2
8
6.56
1996
7
10
8
8
6
6
3
9
7.13
1997
9
10
9
7
7
4
7.67
1998
8
9
10
6
8
6
9
6
3
5
7
7.00
1999
10
10
10
10
7
9
8
9
5
1
7.90
2000
9
8
8
10
6
8
5
6
7.50
Construction
2001
9
5
6
6.67
2002
8
8
7
10
3
3
9
6.86
2003
10
8
5
8
7
8
6
7
8
1
10
7.09
2004
10
9
8
7
4
9
5
9
5
2
9
7.00
2005
10
10
8
8
8
4
8
9
5
9
9
2
5
7.31
2006
10
10
8
7
7
4
9
7.7
5.5
8
6
4
5
6
6.94
2007
4
5
8
6
4
9
3
8
5.88
Stabilization
2008
5
9
6
5
5
8
5
7
9
6.56
2009
5
6
7
8
5
8
6
7
7
6.56
2010
8
10
6
8
6
3
8
10
7
7
7
7.27
2011
8
9
5
6
6
3
9
7
8
6
2
6.27
2012
8
9
7
6
6
5
8
8
9
9
3
7.09
Pre-development Average
RSQ
Slope
Construction
Average
RSQ
Slope
Stabilization
Average
RSQ
Slope
Composite
Average
RSQ
Slope

8.80
0.23
0.26
8.67
0.19
-0.57
6.80
0.75
0.90
8.13
0.13
-0.13

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
10.00
#DIV/0!
0.00
9.33
0.75
-0.50
9.60
0.63
-0.14

9.36
0.33
-0.25
7.67
0.39
-0.46
6.60
0.27
-0.50
8.03
0.62
-0.23

9.00
0.10
-0.20
7.17
0.25
0.31
6.60
0.03
-0.10
7.47
0.39
-0.17

10.00
#DIV/0!
0.00
7.67
0.74
-0.63
6.20
0.00
0.00
7.64
0.74
-0.34

6.33
0.00
0.00
4.60
0.50
-0.60
4.20
0.08
-0.20
4.85
0.48
-0.20

8.33
0.00
0.00
8.33
0.57
0.29
8.33
0.00
0.00
8.33
0.00
0.01

8.75
1.00
-1.50
8.74
0.12
-0.09
8.67
0.75
1.00
8.72
0.00
-0.01

6.57
0.02
-0.14
4.92
0.28
-0.25
6.60
0.94
0.70
6.03
0.01
-0.03

7.67
0.28
0.34
8.25
0.16
0.30
7.60
0.78
0.50
7.80
0.02
0.02

5.58
0.22
-0.36
6.50
0.30
0.66
7.60
0.01
-0.10
6.50
0.21
0.14

2.20
0.04
-0.08
2.40
0.17
0.30
2.50
1.00
1.00
2.33
0.03
0.03

7.40
0.66
-0.61
7.60
0.73
-1.30
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
7.50
0.09
-0.14

7.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
6.00
#DIV/0!
0.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
6.33
0.62
-0.11

7.35
0.11
0.07
6.82
0.11
-0.07
6.75
0.09
0.08
7.00
0.21
-0.04

Attachment C
Montgomery County Habitat Assessment
Data Summary

Table C13. Average of Buffer

Time Period
Sample Year LSLS101
LSLS102
LSLS103B LSLS103C LSLS104
LSLS109
LSLS110
LSLS202
LSLS203
LSLS204
LSLS205
LSLS206
LSLS303
LSLS413
Average
Pre-development
1994
10
9
9
8.5
3.5
9
8.17
1995
9
9.75
9.5
3.25
8
4.5
2.5
8.75
6.91
1996
8
10
8.5
8.5
7
6.5
4
9
7.69
1997
9.5
10
9.5
7
8
5.5
8.25
1998
8.5
9
10
8
9
6
9.5
7
3.5
7.5
7.5
7.77
1999
10
10
10
10
8.5
9.5
8.5
9.5
5.5
2.5
8.40
2000
9
9
8.5
10
8
9
5
8
8.31
Construction
2001
9.5
5.5
7.5
7.50
2002
8.5
9
8
10
5
3
9
7.50
2003
10
8
6.5
8
8.5
9
6
8
8
3
10
7.73
2004
10
9
8.5
8
6.5
9
7.5
9.5
6
4.5
9
7.95
2005
10
10
9
8.5
8.5
6
8
9
7
9.5
9
5
7
8.19
2006
10
10
9
8
7.5
6
9.5
8
7
9
7
6
7
7.5
7.96
2007
5.5
5.5
8.5
7
6.5
9
4.5
8
6.81
Stabilization
2008
5.5
9
7.5
6.5
7
8.5
5
8
9
7.33
2009
7
7
8
8
7
8.5
7
8
7
7.50
2010
8.5
10
7
8
6.5
5.5
9
10
8
8
7.5
8.00
2011
8.5
9
6
7.5
6
6
9.5
7.5
8.5
6.5
4.5
7.23
2012
8.5
9
7.5
7
7
6.5
8.5
8
9
9
6
7.82
Pre-development Average
RSQ
Slope
Construction
Average
RSQ
Slope
Stabilization
Average
RSQ
Slope
Composite
Average
RSQ
Slope

9.10
0.21
0.16
9.00
0.19
-0.43
7.60
0.78
0.75
8.59
0.12
-0.10

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
10.00
#DIV/0!
0.00
9.33
0.75
-0.50
9.60
0.63
-0.14

9.61
0.26
-0.14
8.25
0.30
-0.41
7.30
0.33
-0.40
8.51
0.60
-0.19

9.25
0.16
-0.20
8.00
0.23
0.20
7.60
0.32
-0.15
8.20
0.44
-0.12

10.00
#DIV/0!
0.00
8.17
0.69
-0.46
6.80
0.04
-0.10
8.07
0.81
-0.29

8.17
0.00
0.00
6.70
0.47
-0.45
6.40
0.24
-0.20
6.92
0.56
-0.17

9.17
0.00
0.00
8.83
0.02
0.07
9.00
0.25
-0.25
9.00
0.02
-0.01

9.00
1.00
-1.00
8.90
0.40
-0.15
9.00
0.75
0.75
8.95
0.01
-0.01

6.75
0.02
-0.14
6.25
0.00
-0.02
7.10
0.68
0.65
6.68
0.00
0.02

8.50
0.18
0.23
9.00
0.30
0.30
8.30
0.78
0.25
8.57
0.00
0.01

6.25
0.10
-0.24
7.17
0.30
0.43
7.80
0.00
-0.05
7.03
0.21
0.11

3.20
0.06
-0.08
4.30
0.94
0.80
5.25
1.00
1.50
4.00
0.50
0.15

8.45
0.62
-0.22
8.40
0.68
-0.70
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
8.43
0.11
-0.08

7.50
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
7.50
#DIV/0!
0.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
7.50
#DIV/0!
0.00

7.93
0.27
0.13
7.66
0.01
-0.02
7.58
0.11
0.07
7.74
0.05
-0.02

Table C14. Composite Habitat Score

Time Period
Sample Year LSLS101
LSLS102
LSLS103B LSLS103C LSLS104
LSLS109
LSLS110
LSLS202
LSLS203
LSLS204
LSLS205
LSLS206
LSLS303
LSLS413
Average
Pre-development
1994
151
156
145
150
140
141
147.17
1995
135
144.5
166.5
134.5
136.5
111
109.5
135.5
134.13
1996
143
152
163
140
146
143
122
151
145.00
1997
151
159
148
144
152
124
146.33
1998
156
128
152
161
132
161
152
131
121
142
123
141.73
1999
150
167
159
160
159
157
141
149
131
119
149.20
2000
134
165
129
155
161
147
151
145
148.38
Construction
2001
170
140
133
147.67
2002
150
149
120
139
127
106
131
131.71
2003
164
123
103
128
164
153
139
143
122
111
134
134.91
2004
151
127
138
136
131
141
134
136
132
143
139
137.09
2005
162
170
133
149
138
137
125
162
160
159
135
127
158
147.31
2006
151
153
157
133
130
132
140
159.2
137.5
132
132
143
139
118
139.76
2007
130
120
141
129
144
139
121
127
131.38
Stabilization
2008
126
119
132
130
139
131
104
137
128
127.33
2009
128
110
115
113
131
133
128
123
112
121.44
2010
141
155
114
122
119
123
146
141
130
126
112
129.91
2011
138
131
119
117
117
127
138
148
137
125
112
128.09
2012
120
132
112
110
114
117
122
131
123
119
126
120.55
Pre-development Average
RSQ
Slope
Construction
Average
RSQ
Slope
Stabilization
Average
RSQ
Slope
Composite
Average
RSQ
Slope

142.60
0.00
0.22
151.33
0.32
-3.66
130.60
0.00
-0.20
142.13
0.14
-0.89

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
161.50
1.00
-17.00
139.33
0.72
-11.50
148.20
0.74
-4.58

156.36
0.77
3.25
134.83
0.02
-1.06
114.80
0.04
-0.50
137.64
0.63
-2.73

141.00
0.05
-2.60
130.67
0.44
5.89
119.20
0.63
-4.20
129.60
0.23
-1.56

155.67
0.14
1.50
133.33
0.21
-1.20
118.60
0.42
-2.80
132.86
0.87
-3.10

160.33
0.00
0.00
141.60
0.21
-3.90
127.40
0.84
-4.80
140.46
0.77
-3.07

145.33
0.36
7.50
139.33
0.39
-5.71
135.33
0.96
-12.00
140.00
0.18
-0.96

164.75
1.00
-3.50
154.24
0.36
-3.55
135.00
0.89
5.00
150.57
0.58
-2.17

146.79
0.02
0.68
138.58
0.08
-1.64
128.20
0.55
7.40
138.89
0.23
-1.15

146.75
0.44
2.07
142.50
0.01
-1.00
129.20
0.09
-1.40
139.77
0.41
-1.13

131.67
0.04
-1.54
129.17
0.14
0.94
119.20
0.01
-0.50
127.12
0.21
-0.81

122.30
0.15
-2.04
126.00
0.67
9.00
119.00
1.00
14.00
123.29
0.00
0.09

142.90
0.11
0.77
140.20
0.36
4.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
141.55
0.00
0.05

123.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
125.50
1.00
-3.00
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
124.67
0.21
-0.87

144.56
0.20
1.09
138.55
0.05
-0.73
125.46
0.07
-0.69
137.32
0.55
-1.24

Attachment D

Montgomery County BIBI and Habitat

Correlation Analysis

Ba
nk
St
ab
ilit
y
Ba
nk
St
ab
ilit
y(
Ba
m
nk
in
)
Ve
ge
ta
t
io
Ba
n
nk
Ve
ge
ta
tio
Bu
n
ffe
(m
r
in
)
Bu
ffe
r(
m
in
)
Ch
an
ne
lA
lte
ra
Ch
tio
an
n
ne
lF
lo
w
Co
m
po
si t
e
Ha
bi
Em
ta
be
tS
dd
co
ed
re
ne
Ep
ss
ib
en
th
ic
Su
In
bs
st
tra
re
am
te
Co
ve
Ri
r
ffl
e
Fr
eq
ue
nc
Se
y
di
m
en
tD
ep
os
xB
it
IB
IS
co
re
xB
io
tic
In
de
x
xN
um
be
rE
PT
Ta
xP
xa
ro
po
rt i
on
of
xP
Do
ro
m
po
in
rt i
an
on
tT
of
ax
xP
EP
a
ro
T
po
I
nd
rt i
ivi
on
du
of
xP
al
Hy
s
ro
dr
po
op
rt i
sy
on
ch
of
xR
e&
Sh
at
Ch
re
io
dd
eu
of
er
m
Sc
s
at
r
ap
op
xT
er
ax
sy
s
ch
a
Ri
e
ch
ne
ss

Table D1. Overall (1994-2012) Correlation Table

Bank Stability
Bank Stability (min)
Bank Vegetation
Bank Vegetation (min)
Buffer
Buffer (min)
Channel Alteration
Channel Flow
Composite Habitat Score
Embeddedness
Epibenthic Substrate
Instream Cover
Riffle Frequency
Sediment Deposit
BIBI Score
Biotic Index
Number EPT Taxa
Proportion of Dominant Taxa
Proportion of EPT Individuals
Proportion of Hydropsyche & Cheumatopsyche
Proportion of Shredders
Ratio of Scrapers
Taxa Richness

1.00
0.97
0.88
0.86
0.22
0.34
0.00
0.79
0.78
0.44
0.42
0.16
0.15
0.47
0.50
-0.55
0.24
-0.39
0.58
0.31
0.22
-0.03
0.26

1.00
0.88
0.88
0.29
0.41
0.03
0.80
0.82
0.53
0.31
0.27
0.18
0.58
0.53
-0.61
0.16
-0.36
0.59
0.19
0.31
0.09
0.19

1.00
0.99
0.37
0.46
0.04
0.79
0.86
0.64
0.26
0.40
0.03
0.63
0.63
-0.62
0.05
-0.32
0.64
0.23
0.32
0.19
0.01

1.00
0.39
0.47
0.06
0.79
0.86
0.67
0.23
0.43
0.03
0.67
0.64
-0.63
-0.01
-0.29
0.63
0.16
0.35
0.26
-0.05

1.00
0.93
0.18
0.35
0.57
0.62
-0.16
0.36
0.50
0.62
0.34
-0.39
-0.06
-0.22
0.40
0.00
0.37
0.07
-0.05

1.00
0.13
0.38
0.61
0.60
-0.17
0.30
0.57
0.64
0.45
-0.60
0.14
-0.43
0.61
0.04
0.42
0.04
0.09

1.00
0.27
0.39
0.39
0.44
0.37
0.54
0.16
-0.04
-0.21
0.12
-0.08
0.04
-0.50
0.48
0.03
0.23

1.00
0.89
0.68
0.56
0.31
0.23
0.58
0.34
-0.35
0.00
-0.15
0.39
0.10
0.24
0.00
0.02

1.00
0.87
0.35
0.54
0.41
0.80
0.51
-0.58
0.03
-0.31
0.56
0.03
0.44
0.14
0.06

1.00
0.06
0.63
0.40
0.89
0.38
-0.41
-0.23
-0.14
0.37
-0.10
0.32
0.32
-0.22

1.00
-0.17
0.21
-0.21
-0.12
0.03
0.31
-0.06
-0.01
0.01
0.10
-0.38
0.35

1.00
0.05
0.64
0.43
-0.32
-0.23
0.02
0.24
-0.30
0.56
0.42
-0.10

1.00
0.31
0.03
-0.32
0.41
-0.45
0.28
-0.05
0.26
-0.24
0.42

1.00
0.50
-0.55
-0.21
-0.24
0.51
-0.04
0.37
0.38
-0.23

1.00
-0.68
0.10
-0.14
0.83
0.15
0.63
0.35
0.06

1.00
-0.40
0.67
-0.91
0.07
-0.62
-0.24
-0.24

1.00
-0.71
0.49
0.41
0.03
-0.62
0.86

1.00
-0.62
-0.24
-0.03
0.15
-0.50

1.00
0.22
0.52
0.11
0.29

1.00
-0.54
-0.56
0.31

1.00
0.33
0.13

1.00
-0.63

1.00

KEY:
1. Bold Green numbers indicate an R value in excess of 0.4. This would be considered a moderate to strong trend.
R:\BIO\PROJECT\12036.01 Ten Mile Creek\C. Analysis\LSLS Analysis\Data\LSLS_CorrelationSummary

Attachment D

Montgomery County BIBI and Habitat

Correlation Analysis

Table D2. Pre-development Period Correlation Table

Bank Stability
Bank Stability (min)
Bank Vegetation
Bank Vegetation (min)
Buffer
Buffer (min)
Channel Alteration
Channel Flow
Composite Habitat Score
Embeddedness
Epibenthic Substrate
Instream Cover
Riffle Frequency
Sediment Deposit
xBIBI Score
xBiotic Index
xNumber EPT Taxa
xProportion of Dominant Taxa
xProportion of EPT Individuals
xProportion of Hydropsyche & Cheumatopsyche
xProportion of Shredders
xRatio of Scrapers
xTaxa Richness

1.00
0.98
0.78
0.70
-0.22
-0.01
-0.91
0.14
-0.13
-0.29
-0.35
-0.88
-0.42
-0.17
0.15
-0.14
0.11
-0.42
0.44
0.61
-0.68
0.00
-0.09

1.00
0.80
0.75
-0.29
-0.09
-0.88
0.01
-0.21
-0.35
-0.39
-0.84
-0.53
-0.24
0.23
-0.26
0.03
-0.32
0.44
0.48
-0.55
0.15
-0.14

1.00
0.98
0.10
0.24
-0.85
0.33
0.14
-0.01
-0.32
-0.54
-0.56
0.00
0.59
-0.36
-0.24
0.03
0.73
0.42
-0.27
0.30
-0.63

1.00
0.12
0.23
-0.79
0.24
0.12
-0.01
-0.38
-0.46
-0.64
0.02
0.70
-0.50
-0.33
0.17
0.77
0.28
-0.10
0.45
-0.73

1.00
0.95
0.18
0.83
0.96
0.94
0.30
0.29
0.51
0.82
0.08
0.26
-0.29
0.13
0.11
-0.05
0.13
0.03
-0.44

1.00
0.02
0.89
0.93
0.82
0.41
0.06
0.53
0.67
-0.04
0.24
-0.10
-0.10
0.17
0.08
-0.06
-0.11
-0.35

1.00
-0.22
0.14
0.28
0.54
0.81
0.58
0.09
-0.42
0.30
-0.08
0.27
-0.72
-0.76
0.64
0.02
0.30

1.00
0.87
0.74
0.27
-0.08
0.47
0.64
-0.03
0.40
0.00
-0.22
0.26
0.46
-0.37
-0.33
-0.29

1.00
0.96
0.34
0.30
0.54
0.79
0.01
0.46
-0.35
0.12
-0.02
-0.01
0.05
0.02
-0.40

1.00
0.22
0.46
0.50
0.88
0.07
0.47
-0.49
0.30
-0.11
-0.13
0.19
0.14
-0.42

1.00
0.27
0.78
-0.19
-0.68
0.43
0.33
-0.32
-0.50
-0.32
0.11
-0.40
0.39

1.00
0.26
0.27
0.09
0.25
-0.53
0.71
-0.45
-0.69
0.79
0.32
-0.21

1.00
0.29
-0.80
0.71
0.35
-0.43
-0.60
-0.09
-0.13
-0.58
0.51

1.00
0.22
0.30
-0.44
0.25
0.08
0.08
0.03
0.13
-0.43

1.00
-0.60
-0.65
0.71
0.71
0.00
0.36
0.68
-0.91

1.00
-0.01
-0.22
-0.70
0.11
-0.30
-0.39
0.41

1.00
-0.88
0.01
0.45
-0.59
-0.87
0.74

1.00
0.06
-0.58
0.82
0.82
-0.71

1.00
0.48
-0.16
0.11
-0.63

1.00
-0.90
-0.60
0.10

1.00
0.68
-0.42

1.00
-0.68

1.00

Attachment D

Montgomery County BIBI and Habitat

Correlation Analysis

Table D3. Construction Period Correlation Table

Bank Stability
Bank Stability (min)
Bank Vegetation
Bank Vegetation (min)
Buffer
Buffer (min)
Channel Alteration
Channel Flow
Composite Habitat Score
Embeddedness
Epibenthic Substrate
Instream Cover
Riffle Frequency
Sediment Deposit
xBIBI Score
xBiotic Index
xNumber EPT Taxa
xProportion of Dominant Taxa
xProportion of EPT Individuals
xProportion of Hydropsyche & Cheumatopsyche
xProportion of Shredders
xRatio of Scrapers
xTaxa Richness

1.00
0.93
0.93
0.90
0.33
0.16
0.26
0.80
0.86
0.33
0.63
0.02
0.11
-0.30
0.28
0.09
0.25
0.04
-0.03
0.65
0.26
-0.45
0.78

1.00
0.92
0.93
0.61
0.46
0.10
0.71
0.86
0.46
0.36
0.28
0.18
0.01
0.43
-0.07
0.10
-0.05
0.09
0.57
0.45
-0.25
0.68

1.00
0.99
0.48
0.39
0.39
0.77
0.97
0.63
0.52
0.16
0.39
-0.04
0.39
-0.28
0.37
-0.30
0.31
0.44
0.47
-0.15
0.68

1.00
0.58
0.49
0.35
0.75
0.98
0.68
0.44
0.23
0.41
0.06
0.42
-0.34
0.30
-0.33
0.34
0.39
0.53
-0.08
0.62

1.00
0.95
0.05
0.09
0.55
0.70
-0.40
0.77
0.59
0.71
0.56
-0.52
-0.13
-0.33
0.41
0.10
0.64
0.34
0.15

1.00
-0.03
-0.02
0.44
0.73
-0.54
0.83
0.61
0.88
0.68
-0.68
-0.10
-0.51
0.63
-0.07
0.77
0.60
-0.03

1.00
0.37
0.55
0.52
0.50
-0.28
0.70
-0.17
-0.14
-0.33
0.36
-0.31
0.24
-0.19
0.09
0.03
0.09

1.00
0.76
0.18
0.78
-0.41
-0.01
-0.44
0.04
0.13
-0.04
0.14
-0.10
0.15
0.32
-0.26
0.34

1.00
0.72
0.50
0.14
0.54
0.02
0.35
-0.37
0.32
-0.35
0.35
0.30
0.51
-0.05
0.56

1.00
-0.04
0.50
0.86
0.56
0.39
-0.89
0.47
-0.83
0.78
-0.08
0.54
0.42
0.25

1.00
-0.73
-0.15
-0.83
-0.40
0.30
0.33
0.18
-0.31
0.24
-0.26
-0.60
0.49

1.00
0.46
0.85
0.74
-0.50
0.07
-0.43
0.55
0.25
0.51
0.42
0.12

1.00
0.55
0.40
-0.77
0.34
-0.70
0.72
-0.18
0.50
0.50
0.01

1.00
0.63
-0.72
-0.10
-0.58
0.71
-0.28
0.64
0.80
-0.32

1.00
-0.34
-0.04
-0.34
0.62
0.25
0.83
0.51
0.04

1.00
-0.42
0.95
-0.90
0.39
-0.50
-0.70
0.09

1.00
-0.64
0.43
0.34
-0.25
-0.19
0.63

1.00
-0.93
0.24
-0.39
-0.59
-0.06

1.00
-0.26
0.66
0.77
-0.09

1.00
-0.18
-0.68
0.86

1.00
0.71
-0.22

1.00
-0.68

1.00

Attachment D

Montgomery County BIBI and Habitat

Correlation Analysis

Table D4. Stabilization Period Correlation Table

Bank Stability
Bank Stability (min)
Bank Vegetation
Bank Vegetation (min)
Buffer
Buffer (min)
Channel Alteration
Channel Flow
Composite Habitat Score
Embeddedness
Epibenthic Substrate
Instream Cover
Riffle Frequency
Sediment Deposit
xBIBI Score
xBiotic Index
xNumber EPT Taxa
xProportion of Dominant Taxa
xProportion of EPT Individuals
xProportion of Hydropsyche & Cheumatopsyche
xProportion of Shredders
xRatio of Scrapers
xTaxa Richness

1.00
0.98
0.65
0.71
-0.14
-0.08
-0.09
0.83
0.97
-0.52
0.84
0.06
0.17
0.41
0.32
-0.78
0.90
-0.84
0.79
-0.40
0.68
0.19
0.80

1.00
0.50
0.56
-0.15
-0.06
0.09
0.89
0.96
-0.40
0.90
-0.09
0.27
0.33
0.17
-0.72
0.84
-0.75
0.67
-0.52
0.63
0.13
0.75

1.00
0.99
-0.04
-0.08
-0.79
0.28
0.54
-0.89
0.23
0.63
-0.42
0.45
0.67
-0.72
0.72
-0.86
0.89
0.14
0.61
0.26
0.63

1.00
-0.03
-0.08
-0.75
0.30
0.62
-0.83
0.29
0.58
-0.30
0.53
0.72
-0.76
0.78
-0.90
0.93
0.15
0.66
0.30
0.65

1.00
0.98
-0.30
-0.41
-0.07
-0.07
-0.50
-0.56
0.33
0.65
-0.30
-0.46
-0.45
-0.23
0.24
-0.35
0.60
-0.83
-0.68

1.00
-0.20
-0.27
-0.03
-0.09
-0.41
-0.63
0.33
0.57
-0.44
-0.47
-0.44
-0.23
0.21
-0.52
0.60
-0.91
-0.65

1.00
0.33
0.01
0.75
0.41
-0.61
0.54
-0.47
-0.56
0.47
-0.17
0.55
-0.64
-0.39
-0.45
0.00
-0.07

1.00
0.74
-0.32
0.93
-0.05
0.07
-0.13
-0.10
-0.39
0.71
-0.43
0.33
-0.60
0.27
0.15
0.77

1.00
-0.32
0.83
-0.09
0.40
0.53
0.35
-0.77
0.86
-0.81
0.76
-0.36
0.71
0.21
0.70

1.00
-0.10
-0.55
0.63
-0.22
-0.29
0.64
-0.48
0.72
-0.72
0.12
-0.53
0.07
-0.47

1.00
-0.06
0.29
-0.01
0.13
-0.34
0.81
-0.42
0.34
-0.39
0.23
0.39
0.82

1.00
-0.80
-0.22
0.68
0.08
0.40
-0.17
0.24
0.67
-0.21
0.65
0.52

1.00
0.48
-0.13
-0.19
-0.01
-0.05
0.01
-0.31
0.30
-0.15
-0.21

1.00
0.42
-0.79
0.27
-0.73
0.76
-0.04
0.87
-0.20
-0.05

1.00
-0.27
0.62
-0.49
0.57
0.72
0.21
0.75
0.52

1.00
-0.57
0.96
-0.94
0.41
-0.98
0.25
-0.34

1.00
-0.74
0.72
0.00
0.44
0.58
0.95

1.00
-0.99
0.20
-0.90
-0.02
-0.54

1.00
-0.09
0.89
0.06
0.51

1.00
-0.41
0.68
0.02

1.00
-0.35
0.18

1.00
0.66

1.00

TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis

AttachmentD. EnvironmentalSiteDesignLiteratureReview

July3,2013

TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis

July3,2013

MEMORANDUM

Date:

To:

From:

RE:
SUBJ:

April3,2013
MaryDolanandValdisLazdins,
MontgomeryCountyPlanningDepartment
CenterforWatershedProtection

8390 Main Street, 2nd

Floor
Ellicott City, MD 21043
410.461.8323
FAX 410.461.8324
www.cwp.org
www.stormwatercenter.ne

TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis
inSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
EnvironmentalSiteDesignLiteratureReview

1. IntroductionandBackground

Stage4oftheClarksburgMasterPlanisplannedtooccurintheheadwatersofTenMileCreek,a
verysensitiveandhighqualitytributaryofLittleSenecaCreeklocatedinMontgomeryCounty,
Maryland.Althoughthepreviousthreestagesofdevelopmentweredevelopedwithrelativelystringent
stormwatercriteriaoftheSpecialProtectionArea,therewassomedegradationinthehydrology,stream
morphology/habitat,waterqualityandbiologyinthetributariesofLittleSenecaCreekthatthese
projectsimpacted,particularlyduringtheconstructionphase(MCDEP,2012).InanticipationofStage4,
itiscriticaltounderstandthepotentialforstreamdegradationinTenMileCreek,aswellastheabilityof
currentstormwatermanagementtechnologiestomitigatetheseimpacts.

Thememosummarizesthehydrologic,waterquality,habitat/geomorphicandbiologicalimpactsof
developmentandtheeffectivenessofsedimentandstormwatercontrolpracticesinfollowingfour
sections:
PostConstructionImpactssummarizestheimpactsofstormwaterrunoffandthebuilt
environmentonwaterresources.Theimpactsdescribedinthissectionfocuson
developmentwithoutstormwatercontrolsinplace.
StormwaterManagementidentifiesthebenefitsofstormwatermanagementcontrols,with
afocusondifferencesbetweentraditionalstormwatermanagementandEnvironmentalSite
Design.
ConstructionImpactsdescribesimpactsoccurringduringtheconstructionprocess,and
ErosionandSedimentControl(ESC)reviewstheeffectivenessofESCpracticesinmitigating
theseimpacts.

TenMileCreek:Development,ESDandESC

2. PostConstructionImpacts
Theimpactsoflandusechangeonwaterresourceshavelongbeendocumented.Whilemany
differentlandcoverparametershavebeenlinkedtostreamdegradation,imperviouscoverhasbeen
usedasameasureinmanystudiesduetoitseaseofmeasurementanditsreliabilityasapredictorof
thehealthofwaterresources.ThemodelwasoriginallypresentedbySchueler(1994),asa
managementtoolandasalinearrelationshipbetweenstreamqualityandwatershedimperviouscover.
Overtheyears,thismodelhasbeentestedand,whileithasbeensupportedbymanystudies,
ReformulatedImperviousCoverModel(Schueleretal.,2009;Figure1)wasproposedin2009based
onnewerstudies.Inthismodel,imperviouscoverrepresentsarangeofstreamquality.Thisis
particularlytrueatlowerlevelsofimperviouscover,whereperviouslandcover,locationofland
development,andotherissuesexertastrongerinfluence.

Figure1.ReformulatedImperviousCoverModel(Schueleretal.,2009)

InMontgomeryCountyasawhole,datahavebeensupportiveofthismodelofstreamhealth(Figure
2).Whilethereisawiderangeofvariabilityatlowlevelsofimperviouscover,noExcellentstreams
arefoundabove~12%imperviouscover,noGoodstreamsarefoundabove~20%imperviouscover,
andnoFairstreamsarefoundabove~37%imperviouscover.Thesedatasuggestthatimpervious
coverisanimportantdriverinMontgomeryCounty,butalsothatstreamhealthmustbeinfluencedby
otherfactors,particularlyatlowlevelsofimperviouscover.

Page|2

TenMileCreek:Development,ESDandESC

Figure2.RelationshipBetweenStreamConditionandImperviousCoverinMontgomeryCounty
Streams(MCDEP,2003)

HydrologicImpacts
Whileimperviouscoverisausefultool,othermeasuresofwatersheddevelopment,someofwhichare
stronglycorrelatedwithimperviouscover,havealsobeenevaluatedaspredictorsofstreamcondition
(Table1).Someofthesemeasuresarehighlyspecific,andmaybeimportanttoourunderstandingof
developmentinTenMileCreek.Forexample,GISmetricssuchastheclumpiness,(arepresentationof
howcontiguouseachlanduseis)orpatchiness(whichindicatesfragmentedlanduse)ofdifferent
classesoflandcovercanhelpunderstandtheimportanceofthelocationoflanddisturbance.Forest
covermaybeimportant,particularlyatlowlevelsofdevelopment,wherethepresenceofagricultural
landmayresultinstreamdegradation.Forexample,anevaluationofMontgomeryCountystreams
(Goetzetal.,2003)demonstratedcorrelationsbetweenimperviouscover,watershedtreecover,and
ripariantreecoveronstreamhealth(Figure3).Basedontheseresults,theauthorsofthisstudy
suggestedthatguidelinesforexcellentstreamhealthratingwerenomorethan6%imperviouswithat
least65%forestedbuffers,andnomorethan10%imperviouswithatleast60%bufferedforaratingof
good.

Page|3

TenMileCreek:Development,ESDandESC

Table1.MeasuresofLandDevelopmentOtherthanImperviousCover
SoilDisturbanceorcompaction
EffectiveImperviousCover
ForestCover
DevelopedLandorUrbanLand
PopulationDensity
RoadDensity
Numberofstreamcrossings
Forest/Disturbed/Imperviouscoverinriparianbuffer
PatchinessorClumpinessofforestorurbanlandcover
Agriculturalorcroplandcover
PopulationDensity
LandCoverClass
LandUseCategory

Figure3.RelationshipofLandCovertoStreamHealth(Goetzetal.,2003)

Page|4

TenMileCreek:Development,ESDandESC
Whilethesedatasupportthenotionthatlandcoverotherthanimperviousnessisimportant,
researchershavecometodifferentconclusionsregardingtherelativeimportanceofeachcomponentof
landcover.Onechallengeofinterpretingthesedataisthattheselandusemeasuresareoften
correlatedwithoneanother.Forexample,furtherstudyinMontgomeryCountyfoundanegative
correlationbetweenriparianbufferforestcoverandwatershedimperviouscover,andapositive
correlationbetweenriparianforestcoverandwatershedwideforestcover(Snyderetal.,2005).Asa
result,researchershaveattemptedtoteaseouttheimportanceofeachlandcoverindetermining
waterquality.Ofparticularinteresttothewatershedmanageristheinfluenceoftheripariancorridor
inmitigatingdevelopmentimpacts.

RiparianCorridor
Streambuffersareanintegralpartofwatershedplanning,andprovidedirectbenefitstostreamhabitat.
However,thebenefitofstreambuffersappearstobeoverwhelmedbywatershedfactorssuchas
intensedevelopment.Whilesomeresearchersfindingbenefitsofripariancorridoratalllevelsof
development(e.g.,MooreandPalmer,2005),othersfindthataforestedbufferismosteffectivein
combinationwithwatershedwideforestcoverorlimitedimperviouscover.Thisparticularlytrueinthe
steepPiedmontregion,wherechannelizedflowscanbypassthebuffer.Forexample,Royetal.(2007),
inastudyofGeorgiastreams,foundthatriparianbuffersaremosteffectiveatimprovingfishdiversityat
imperviouscoverof15%orless.Others,suchasSnyderetal.(2005),foundarelationshipbetween
ripariancorridorcomposition(e.g.,forestedversusurban),butfoundthatwatershedvariablessuchas
imperviouscoverorforestedcoverintheentiredrainageareaareamorepowerfulpredictorofstream
health.Fitzpatrick(2005)foundnorelationshipbetweenripariancoverandhabitatorhydrologic
characteristics,citingpossiblechannelizationandpointsourcedischargesasapossibleconfounding
factor.Otherstudieshavereachedsimilarconclusions,citingripariancorridorasacopredictor,along
withurbanlanduseofinstreamqualityoranecessaryelementbutnotaguaranteeofgoodquality
(e.g.,Urbanetal.,2006,Booth,2002,Kratzeretal.,2006,Ourso,2003).

Page|5

TenMileCreek:Development,ESDandESC

2.1

HydrologicImpacts

Hydrologicimpactsoriginatefromashiftinthehydrologiccyclethatoccurswithlanddevelopment
(Figure4).Thisshifttypicallyresultsinamodifiedhydrographincludinghigherrunoffvolumes,
flashierhydrology,anddecreasedbaseflow.Inadditionquantifyingtheseimpacts,recentresearch
hasfocusedonunderstandinghowthesehydrologicimpactsinturncausedegradationinstreamhabitat
andmorphology,aswellasinstreambiology.

Figure4.ChangeinWaterBalancewithDevelopment(Colesetal.,2012)

IncreasedRunoffVolume
Severalstudieshavedocumentedincreasedstormwaterrunoffvolumesresultingfromland
development.Thisincreaseinrunoffvolumeisaresultoftheintroductionofimperviouscovertothe
landscape,compactionduringandafterconstruction,andlossofforestcover.Hydrologicmodels(e.g.,
NRCS,1986)havedocumentedtheinfluenceoflandcoverandsoiltype.Inthefirstthreestagesofthe
Clarksburgdevelopmentplan,therunoffcoefficientincreased(Figure5),andintheamountof
infiltrationandevaporationdecreased(Figure6),asimperviouscoverandlandclearingoccurredinthe
watershed.Inthecorrespondingyears,acorrespondingundisturbedstream,SopersBranch,didnot
experiencethesechangesinhydrology.

Theeffectsofimperviouscoverandchanginglandcoveronrunoffvolumeappeartobemost
pronouncedattheverysmallcatchmentscale.Forinstance,DietzandClausen(2008)measuredan
increaseinannualrunoffvolumefrom0.1cm/yearto50cm/yearwhena4.2acresuburban
developmentincreasedfrom0%to30%imperviouscover,withalogarithmicincreaseinrunoff
coefficient.Atthelargerwatershedscale,theseeffectsaresomewhatdampened.TheSimple
Method(Schueler,1987),basedondataatthecatchmentscale,findsalinearratherthanlogarithmic
relationshipbetweenstormwaterrunoffandwatershedimperviouscoveratthecatchmentscale.

Page|6

TenMileCreek:Development,ESDandESC

Figure5.ComparisonofrunoffcoefficientinadevelopingtributaryofLittleSenecaCreek
(Clarksburg)versusacontrolstreamSoperBranch(MCDEP,2012)

Figure6."RunoffReduction"volumeinadevelopingLittleSenecatributary(Clarksburg)

Page|7

TenMileCreek:Development,ESDandESC
Anotherphysicalchangethatmaycompoundtheimpactofdevelopmentonhydrologyisthe
compactionanddisturbanceofsoilsduringandaftertheconstructionprocess.Theimpactsofsoil
compactionarewelldocumented(Table2),yetthespecificresponsetosoilcompactionisdependenton
anumberoffactorssuchassoiltextureandorganicmatter(SaxtonandRawls,2006),anddepthofthe
soilprofile(Hursch,1944).Thesestudiespointtotheneedtobetterunderstandsoilcompactionwhen
sizingstormwatermanagementpractices(seeSection3ofthisreport).

Table2.StudiesDocumentingtheImpactsofSoilCompaction
Finding
Study
Findsthatlawnsconstructedearlierthan2000
Woltemade,2010
hadlowercurvenumberthanthosebuiltpost
2000,andthatbothhadlowercurvenumbers
thandisturbedsoils.
Disturbedsoilshaveinfiltrationrates<2.0cm/hr,
Kaysetal.,1980
comparedto32cm/hrforforestedlands.
Storageintheagriculturalsoilprofileisabout1/3
Hursch,1944
asmuchindisturbedforestduetostrippingof
uppersoillayers
Constructionactivityorcompactiontreatments
Gregoryetal.,2006
reducedinfiltrationrates70to99percent.
Infiltrationrateisinverselyrelatedtosoil
Pittal.,2005
compactioninsandysoils.Inclayeysoils,soil
moistureisalsoanimportantparameter.

Flashiness
Flashiness(Figure7)isanimportanthydrologicmetricbecauseofitsinfluenceonstreamhabitatand
biology.Itoccursasaresultoftheincreasedrunoffvolume,combinedwithincreasedrunoffvelocity,or
shortertimeofconcentration.Whiletherearemanyspecificmetricsusedtodescribeflashiness,the
resultingstreamhydrologyhasfourbasiccharacteristics(Colesetal.,2012):1)Increasedmagnitudeof
thepeakdischarge;2)decreaseddurationofpeakflows;3)increasedrateofdeclineorrecession,and4)
increasedfrequencyofhighflowevents.Flashinesshasbeendocumentedatvaryingdegreesof
urbanization(Table3).IntheearlystagesofdevelopmentintheClarksburgSPA,MCDEP(2012)
documentedadecreaseinstreamflashiness,aswellastimeofconcentration,orthetimerequiredfora
dropofwatertotravelfromthemosthydrologicallyremotepointinthesubcatchmenttothepointof
collection(Figure8).

Page|8

TenMileCreek:Development,ESDandESC

Figure7.StreamFlashiness(Colesetal.,2012)

Table3.SelectedStudiesofStreamFlashiness
MeasureofFlashiness
2yearpeak

Source
Fitzpatrick,2005

Flashiness

Jarnagin, 2007

Flashiness

Royetal.,2005

PeakFlows

Moglenetal.(2004)1

1:AsreportedinODriscoll(2010)
IC:ImperviousCover

Page|9

Result
Atlessthan30%IC,2yearpeak
increasedlinearly.Atgreaterthan
30%IC,resultsweredependenton
otherwatershedcharacteristics.
Watershedswithlessthan20%'urban'
developmentdisplayedbackground
levelsofstreamflashinessandmean
flashinessincreasedwithurban
developmentdensitythereafter
Increasedimperviousnesswas
positivelycorrelatedwiththe
frequencyofstormeventsandratesof
therisingandfallinglimbofthe
hydrograph
(i.e.,stormflashiness)duringmost
seasons.
AstudyintheMarylandPiedmont:
~65%urbancatchmentshad34times
greater2yrpeakflowsthanin
forestedcatchment.

TenMileCreek:Development,ESDandESC

Figure8.TimeofConcentrationislowerinthedeveloped"Tributary104"versusundevelopedSopersBranch

Decreaseinbaseflow
Naturalbaseflowsaretypicallycorrelatedwithhealthymacroinvertebrateandfishcommunities.
Moststudiesindicatethatstreambaseflowdecreaseswithincreasedlanddevelopment(e.g.,Moglen,
2004),althoughsomestudiescontradictthisclaim(e.g.,Colesetal.,2004).Becausethisimpactis
somewhatlesswelldocumented,ongoingmonitoringinTenMileCreekshoulddocumentchangesin
baseflowovertime.TenMileCreekappearstobelosingsomeupstreambaseflowthroughinfiltration
backintogroundwaterinthelowerreachesclosertoLittleSenecaLake.(VanNess,2013)Thebaseflow
inTenMileCreekis,however,remarkablyreliable,withbaseflowtypicallycontinuinginmostdrought
events.ThebiologicalcommunitiesinTenMileCreekappeartobewelladaptedtocurrentbaseflow
conditions,andanyalterationofthoseconditionswouldbeexpectedtohavenegativeimpactson
streamhealth.

2.2

ImpactsonWaterQuality

Concentrationsofpollutantsinurbanrunoffconcentrationsaresignificantlyhigherformany
pollutantscomparedtotypicalconcentrationsinnonurbanlanduses.Thistypicallyresultsinhigherin
streampollutantconcentrationsinurbanareasaswell.Urbanstreamstypicallyhavehigher
concentrationsofnutrients,metals,hydrocarbons,andbacteriathantheequivalentsizeagriculturalor
forestedwatershed(CWP,2003).Sourcesofthesepollutantsincludevehicles,sewage(intheformof
illicitdischarges),fertilizers,andevenatmosphericdepositionontopavedsurfaces.

Urbanizingwatershedsoftencontributetohigherinstreamtemperatures.Forexample,Urban
(2006),foundasignificantcorrelationbetweenurbanlanddevelopmentandinstreamtemperaturesin
astudyofConnecticutstreams.Atthesitelevel,JonesandHunt(2010)documentedhighrunoff
temperaturesonurbanparkinglots.EarlymonitoringintheSPAsofMontgomeryCountyreflectslittle
thermalimpactonthemajorityofsitesmonitored.Thismayreflecttheeffectivenessofinstalled
practicesatthesesitesatreducingdownstreamtemperatures(MCDEP,2012),whichincludea
significantamountofinfiltrationpractices.

Page|10

TenMileCreek:Development,ESDandESC

2.3

ImpactsonHabitatandStreamMorphology

Streammorphologyandhabitatqualityarealsoimpactedbythechangesinstreamhydrologythat
resultfromlanddevelopment,combinedwiththedirectimpactstothestreamcorridor.Theprimary
driverforchangesinstreammorphologyisthealteredhydrologyresultingfromincreasedimpervious
coverandlossofnaturalsoilsandforest.Theresultingchangeinhydrologyincreasesstreampower,
andconsequentlyresultsinerosionandenlargementofstreamchannels.Ataslowas710%
imperviouscover,westarttoseedestabilizationandacceleratederosionofstreams,asevidencedbyan
enlargedcrosssectionalprofile,includingbothstreamwideninganddowncutting.Thisphenomenon
hasbeendocumentedinTributary104ofSenecaCreek(MCDEP,2012),withdatashowingadecreasein
streamcrosssectionalareafollowingsedimentdepositionfromconstruction,followedbychannel
enlargement,foranet15%increaseinchannelareafrom2002to2010.Thechanneldepthincreased
byover50%duringthistimeperiod.

Thecombinationofthisactivechannelerosionanddirectimpactstotheripariancorridorand
streambedresultindegradedstreamhabitat.Whiletheseresultsarenotuniversal,typicalimpactsof
imperviouscoverincludestreamstraightening(i.e.,decreaseinsinuosity),aswasalsodocumentedin
Tributary104ofSenecaCreek(MCDEP,2012),increaseinembeddednessofchannelsediment,and
decreaseindepthdiversity.Often,theseandothermeasuresareintegratedintoacombinationmetric
suchasfishhabitat.Whiletherelationshipbetweenurbandevelopmentandchannelgeometryare
fairlyconsistent,habitatfactorsarelessreliablyinfluencedbywatershedurbanization.Onereasonfor
thisresultisthathighlylocalizedeffects,suchasriparianvegetation(Cianfrani,2006),paststream
alteration(Fitzpatrick,2005),orgeologicfeaturessuchasstreamslope(Fitzpatrick,2005)canstrongly
influencethesehabitatmetrics.

Page|11

TenMileCreek:Development,ESDandESC

Table4.SomeStudiesofGeomorphologyandHabitatImpacts
Study
Colemanetal.,2006

MeasureofHabitatQuality
Channelenlargement

Cianfranietal.,2006

bankfullgeometry,sediment
grainsize,largewoodydebris

Booth,2000

Fishhabitat

Moglenetal.,2004
Booth,2000

ChannelEnlargement/Channel
Erosion
ChannelStability

Colesetal.,2004

89Habitatmetrics

Ourso,2006

Rangeofmetrics

Fitzpatrick,2005

Severalhabitatmetrics

IC:ImperviousCover

Finding(s)
Channelenlargementratioisrelated
toICbyalogarithmicrelationship.In
easternstreams,impactsbeginICat
about710%
Thesevariableswerepositively
correlatedwithIC.Studyconcludes
thatlocalfactors(e.g.,riparian
vegetation)alsoinfluencehabitat
metrics.StreamswithIC<13%and
>24%respondeddifferentlyto
urbanization.
Atgreaterthan10%IC,most
observedfishhabitatis
degraded.Anintactriparian
corridorisnecessary,butnot
sufficienttopreservefishhabitat
At20%IC,channelerosionaccounts
for40%ofannualsedimentloads.
Atgreaterthan10%impervious,
moststreamchannelsareunstable.
Only11ofthe89individualmetrics
respondedtourbanization.However
integratedhabitatscoresshowed
declinewithurbanization.
Sinuosity,embeddedness,and%
bankerosioncorrelatedwithIC
Nosignificantrelationship,possibly
duetopastdisturbance.

ImpactstoandLossofHeadwaterandZeroOrderStreams
Anotherimpactoflanddevelopmentisthelossofheadwaterandzeroorderstreams.Headwater
streamsaretypicallyfirstorder,intermittenttoperennialstreamsthatoriginateinuplandareas.Zero
orderstreamsareephemeralchannelsthatservetoconveyconcentratedsurfacerunoffduringstorm
eventstotheheadwaterstreams.InTenMileCreekmanyoftheheadwaterstreamsarefedbycool
waterspringsandseeps,whichhelptomaintainflowandsupporthealthyanddiversestream
communities.ThisisparticularlyimportantforStage4oftheClarksburgMasterPlan,whichoccurs
primarilyintheheadwatersofasensitivestreamsystem.Thesestreamsarecrucialtostream
hydrology,chemistry,andbiology,andareoftenchannelizedorotherwiseeliminatedduringthe
developmentprocess.Inaddition,thesestreamsarethemostvulnerabletotheimpactsofchannel
erosion,sincehydrologicflashinessismostpronouncedatthesmallcatchmentscale.Headwater
streamsareimportanttothehydrologicandnutrientbalancesinstreamsystems.Theycomprise70%of
watervolumeand65%ofnitrogento2ndorderstreams,and55%ofwatervolumeand40%ofnitrogen
to4thandhigherorderstreams(Alexanderetal.,2007).Inaddition,theysupportdiverseaquaticbiota.
Forexample,inastudybyMeyeretal.(2007),threeunmapped(i.e.,zeroorder)streamssupported
Page|12

TenMileCreek:Development,ESDandESC
over290macroinvertebratetaxa.Headwaterstreamsprovidebenefitsdownstreambyofferingarefuge
fromtemperatureandflowextremes,competitors,predators,andintroducedspecies;servingasa
sourceofcolonists;providingspawningsitesandrearingareas;beingarichsourceoffood;andcreating
migrationcorridorsthroughoutthelandscape(Meyeretal.,2007).

2.4

Biology

Ofallstreamindicators,biologicalindicatorsaremostreliablypredictedbychangesinurban
development(Table5),largelybecausetheyintegrateimpactstohydrology,habitatandchemistry.One
underlyingsourceofthesechangesistheshiftinfoodsource.Sinceurbanlandtypicallyhashigher
nutrientloadsthanforestedland,andcanresultinlessforestcoverinthewatershedandriparian
corridor,weseeashiftfromparticulatetodissolvedorganiccarbonasafoodsource,resultinginashift
inthemacroinvertebratecommunity.Ofthefivefunctionalfeedinggroupsusedtodescribe
macroinvertebratesinMontgomeryCounty(shredders,scrapers,predators,collectorsandfilterers),
shreddersrepresenthighlysensitivetaxathatrelyonintactplants(usuallyintheformofleaves)to
survive.Asdevelopmentoccurs,thefoodsourcesswitchesfromparticulatetodissolvedorganiccarbon,
andsheddersarereplacedbycollectors,filterersandpredators.

Themodifiedflowregimeoftheurbanenvironmentalsoresultsindirectimpactstofishand
macroinvertebratethroughthesheerenergyofthemodifiedflowregime.This,coupledwithchannel
degradationandsedimentloadsthatsmotherinstreamhabitats,combinetoreducediversityofboth
macroinvertebrateandfishpopulations.Thereducedsinuosityanddepthdiversityresultingfrom
modificationstostreamhydrologyaredamagingtofishinparticular.Finally,fish,amphibiansand
aquaticareimpactedbydirectimpactstothestreamsystemsuchasroadcrossings,andlossof
headwaterstreamsandsmallwetlands.

Asurbanizationoccurs,themostsensitivetaxabegintodisappearfirst(Colesetal.,2012).InTenMile
Creek,itwillbeimportanttounderstandhowthecommunitychangesovertimewithdevelopment.
BiologicalmonitoringinMontgomeryCountyhasbeenongoingfordecades,andincludesasuiteoffish
andmacroinvertebratemetrics.ThesemetricsareassembledintoanIndexofBioticIntegrity(IBI),
whichintegratesseveralindividualscores(e.g.,richnessordiversity).Anotherapproachthatmaybe
validinthecountyistodevelopaBiologicalConditionGradient,whichintegratesseverallocation
specificmetricstodevelopasixtiergradientofstreamsfromNativeConditiontoSevereAlteration
ofStructureandFunction.ThisapproachmaybehelpfulinfuturemonitoringofSPAstodetector
reportsmallchangesincommunitystructureassensitivespeciesbegintodisappear.

Page|13

TenMileCreek:Development,ESDandESC

Table5.ImpactstoStreamBiology
Study
Albertietal.,2007
Belucci,2007
Booth,2000

MeasureofBiological
Condition
BIBI
Macroinvertebrate
%ofcommunity1
BIBI

Colesetal.,2004

126macroinvertebrate
metrics,92fish,164algae

DeGasperi,2009

BIBI

Fitzpatrick,2005
Houlahan,2003
Kennen,2010

FishIBI
AmphibianSpeciesRichness
Macroinvertebrates

Ourso,2006

Measuresof
macroinvertebraterichness,
abundance,andshredder
abundance
Salamanders/brooktrout

MDNR,ND

Morganand
Cushman,2005

FishIBI

Miltneretal.,
2003
Royetal.,2007

BIBI

Mooreand
Palmer,2005

Macroinvertebrate:EPT
Richness,TotalRichness,
FFGRichness
Macroinvertebrate:EPTand
speciesrichness

Urbanetal.,2006

Robboand
Kiesecker,2004

Measuresoffishassemblage

AmphibianLarvaeRichness

IC:ImperviousCover

Page|14

Findings
In a study of 42 streams, the number of road crossings and
patchsizewerebetterpredictorsofIBIthanICalone.
Atgreaterthan12%IC,nostreamsmetConnecticutscriteria
forstreambiology.
AtupperlevelsofIC,thereissteadydeclineinIBI,but
degradationcanoccuratlowerlevelsofIC.
Ofthese,metrics,about20%werestronglycorrelatedwith
anurbanlandindex
CorrelatedwithurbanlandandIC,andnegativelycorrelated
withforestcover
Stronglycorrelatedwithurbanland
Correlatedwithlandusew/in3000feetofawetland.
Urbanland,roaddensity,ameasureofforestcontiguousness
andpercenturbanlandinthebufferareallpredictiveofan
integratedmeasureofmacroinvertebratehealth.
Significantcorrelationfortheseparameters.Taxarichness
beginstodeclineatICaslowas1.2%.

Ataslowas0.3%ICcanlosesomeverysensitivespecies.
Abouthalfofthesalamanderspeciesremainingat2%IC.
Brooktroutaffectedabove4%IC
RelatesfishIBIscorestourbandevelopmentincoastalplain
andEasternPiedmontMDstreams.InEasternPiedmont,we
seebreakpointsat10%and25%urbanizedareas.Some
differencebetween1st3rdorderstreams,butseeadeclinein
all.
Significantdeclineat13.8%urbanlanduse,andsecond
inabilitytomeetaquaticlifecriteriaat27%urbanland
Somemetricsbestpredictedby%urbanland,but%forest
coverinthestreamreachimportantforsomemetricsat
<15%IC
Biodiversitydeclineddirectlywithincreasesinurban(versus
agricultural)landuse.Riparianbufferleadtohigherlevelsof
diversityatallsites
Halfofthetaxadisappearedatadensityof10houses/ha,
andsensitivespecies(EPT)declinedfrom34%to11%oftotal
population.
Numberofamphibiansinuplandwetlandsdecreasedas%
forest(w/in1km)decreased.Alsoinfluencedbywetland
hydroperiod

TenMileCreek:Development,ESDandESC

2.5

RelationshipbetweenHydrologyandHabitat/Biology

AsindicatedinFigure1,hydrologyisanimportantdriverindeterminingstreamhealth,andhasa
directinfluenceonwaterquality,streammorphology/habitatandbiology.Sinceoneoftheprimary
goalsofstormwatermanagement,andEnvironmentalSiteDesigninparticular,istorestorenatural
hydrology,weneedtounderstandhowhydrologyisrelatedtostreamhealth.Thatistosay,ifwe
managehydrologycorrectly,willweinturnminimizedegradationinthedownstreamchannel?
Whilethisreviewfocusesondiscretetypesofimpacts(e.g.,impactstobiologyversusimpactsto
hydrology),itisimportanttounderstandthattheseimpactsactcollectivelysothat,whilemitigatingone
impactwillinfluenceinstreamcondition,acomprehensiveapproachisneededtounderstandthe
streamsystemasawhole.RecentworkbytheUSGS(Kashuba,2012)presentsaninformative
frameworkforunderstandingtheseimpacts(Figure9).ThemodelwasdevelopedwithdatafromNew
Englandstreams,andishelpfulinpredictingtherelativecertaintyofattainingagiveninstreamresult
bymanagingimpactssuchashydrologyandwaterquality.Unfortunately,themodeldoesnotaccount
forESDpractices,andonlylookedatverylargewatersheds(around200squarekilometersandup).
Whilethespecificdatainthismodelcannotbedirectlyusedtopredictinstreamresponseto
developmentinTenMileCreek,theresultservesasaframeworkforunderstandingwatershed
response.Forexample,whilehydrologicimpactsarerelatedtoinstreamhabitatandwaterquality,
thesefactorsarealsodirectlyimpactedbylandcover.

Figure9.NetworkDescribingNortheastStreamConditions(Kashuba,2012;figurefromColesetal.,2012).

Page|15

TenMileCreek:Development,ESDandESC

Severalstudies,particularlyinrecentyears,haveattemptedtotheimpactsofimperviouscoverfromthe
impactsoftheresponsestoimperviouscover(Table6).Forexample,severalstudieshaveseparated
hydrologyasanindependentvariabletodetermineitsimpacts.InKashubas(2012)model,theoutput
istheprobabilityofachievingagivencondition(e.g.,probabilityofachievingagivenBCGscore).This
modelcouldbeusedtopredict,forexample,howcontrollinghydrologyfromdevelopmentwould
increasethelikelihoodofagoodoutcomeintermsofbiologicaldiversity.Whilenosuchspecificmodel
hasbeendevelopedforstreamsoutsideofNewEngland,theconceptcanbeappliedelsewhere.Todo
so,however,wouldrequiremodifyingtheNewEnglandmodeltoaccountforESD,andtorecalibrateit
toaccountforlocalwatershedsizesandconditions.Takenasawhole,itappearsthathydrologyplaysa
verystrongroleoninstreamhabitat,butdoesnotaccountforalloftheimpactstoinstreambiologythat
occurwithurbanization.

Table6.StudiesrelatingHydrology,WaterQuality,HabitatandBiology
Study
Kingetal.,2011

RelationshipsIdentified
Ripariancover,acidity,conductivityandwoody debris(acombinationofhabitatandwater
qualityvariables)predictedmacroinvertebratecommunity,butmeasuresofurbanland
explainedsomevariabilitynotpredictedbythesevariablesalone.

Royetal.,2007

Specificmetricsoffishdiversitywereimpactedbyhydrologicvariablesincluding:alteredstorm
flowsinsummerandautumn,%finebedsedimentinriffles.Overall,hydrologicvariables
explained22to66%ofthevariationinfishassemblagerichnessandabundance.

Kennenetal.,
2010

Studyof67northeasternstreamsdevelopedmodelstopredictmacroinvertebrateassemblage,
aswellaspresenceofspecifictaxabasedonhydrologicvariables.Themostimportantvariables
aremeanAprilflow,durationofhighflows,andseasonallowflows.

InKingCounty,WA,analyzed15hydrologicvariablestofindthosethataresuccessfulin
predictinginstreambiology.SelectedvariablesincludedHighPulseCountandHighPulse
Duration
DevelopedrelationshipsbetweenFishIBIandseveralhydrologicorhabitatvariables,butfound
thaturbanlandwasabetterpredictorthananyofthesederivativevariables.

DeGasperietal.,
2009
Fitzpatrick(2005)
Colemanetal.,
2005

Studyreportsarelationshipbetweenflowandchannelgeometry

Page|16

TenMileCreek:Development,ESDandESC

3. StormwaterManagementandEnvironmentalSiteDesign
DevelopmentinStage4oftheClarksburgMasterPlanwillberequiredtouseEnvironmentalSite
Design(ESD).Ifthisstormwatermanagementtechniqueissuccessful,itislikelythatsomeofthe
impactstypicallyassociatedwithlanddevelopmentcanbereduced.Thereareveryfewlargescale
applicationsofESDandconsequentlywecouldfindnodirectevidenceoftheimpactsofESDonin
streambiota.However,severalstudieshaveevaluatedESD,aswellasindividualpractices,forbenefits
tohydrologyandwaterquality.

3.1WhatdoesESDMeaninMaryland?
MarylandstatelawdefinesEnvironmentalSiteDesign(ESD)asusingsmallscalestormwater
managementpractices,nonstructuraltechniques,andbettersiteplanningtomimicnaturalhydrologic
runoffcharacteristicsandminimizetheimpactoflanddevelopmentonwaterresources.

Inpractice,theMarylandStormwaterDesignManualhaslaidoutaprocessforachievingthisgoal
thatusesthe1yearrainfall(about2.6),asatargetstormevent.Inthestandards,ESDpracticessuch
asraingardens,permeablepavementandgreenroofs,arethefirstchoicetocaptureenoughofthis
eventsothatthecurvenumberfromthesiteisequivalenttothecurvenumberfromwoodsingood
condition.Thismeansthatasitewithverylittleimperviouscoverwouldhaveasmallerdesignstorm
thanapavedsite.IfitisimpossibletomeettheserequirementswithalistofESDpracticesdefinedin
themanual,thentraditionalstormwatermanagementcanbeusedtodetaintheremainingstorm
volume.So,althoughthegoalistoreducetherunofffromthe2.6stormeventtotheequivalentrunoff
ofwoodsingoodcondition,thiscanbeaccomplishedbycapturingaslittleastherunofffromthe1
storm.

Inadditiontositeplanningthatminimizesdisturbanceandconservesnaturalareas,theMaryland
StormwaterManual(MDE,2009)identifiesalistofESDPractices(Table7)thatincludethreemajor
categories:AlternativeSurfaces,NonstructuralPracticesandMicroScalePractices.Allofthese
practicessharetwocharacteristicsthatmakethemdifferentfrommosttraditionalstormwater
practices:treatingstormwaterclosertoitssource,andreducingthevolume(ratherthanonlythepeak)
ofstormwaterrunoff.

WhiletheMarylandStormwaterManualdoesaddresssoilcompactionforpractices,itdoesnot
introduceafactorofsafetyoraccountforchangesinthestorageandinfiltrationratesofsoilsinthe
landscapeduetodisturbanceandalterationduringconstruction.Analysisconductedasapartof
thisstudyshouldconsidersoilcompaction,andsoilrestorationmeasuresshouldperhapsbe
requiredasapartofthestormwaterplan.Foranexample,consultNewYorkStatesStormwater
Regulations(NYSDEC,2010),whichexplicitlyrequiresoilrestorationoroversizingofstormwater
practicestoaccountforrunofffromcompactedsoils.Goingbeyondtherequirementsofthe
MarylandStormwatermanagementManual,suchasprovidingdeep(24inch)soildecompaction
withorganicmatteramendment,isapotentialstrategytoprovideextraprotectionforhighquality
orsensitivewatersheds.

Page|17

TenMileCreek:Development,ESDandESC

Table7.ESDPractices(MDE,2012)
AlternativeSurfaces
A-1. Green Roofs
A-2. Permeable Pavements
A-3. Reinforced Turf
NonStructuralPractices

N-1. Disconnection of Rooftop Runoff

N-2. Disconnection of Non-Rooftop Runoff
N-3. Sheetflow to Conservation Areas
MicroScalePractices
M-1. Rainwater Harvesting
M-2. Submerged Gravel Wetlands
M-3. Landscape Infiltration
M-4. Infiltration Berms
M-5. Dry Wells
M-6. Micro-Bioretention
M-7. Rain Gardens
M-8. Swales
M-9. Enhanced Filters

3.2CanIndividualESDPracticesTheoreticallyReproduceaNatural
Hydrograph?
Inordertoreproduceanaturalhydrograph,astormwaterpracticeneedstofirstreducethevolumeof
runoff.Thisisastarkdifferencefromtraditionalstormwatermanagement,whichfocuseson
reproducingthepeakrunoffforarangeofstormeventsratherthantherunoffvolume.Areviewof
stormwaterBMPeffectivenessliteratureevaluatedtherunoffreductioncapabilityofarangeof
practices.Theresults,asindicatedinTable8,indicatethattheESDpracticesaremuchmoreeffective
thanmosttraditionalstormwaterpracticesatreducingthevolumeofstormwaterrunofffromagiven
stormevent.

ThedatainTable8representaverageeffectivenessatrunoffreductionbasedonaliteraturereviewof
availableBMPstudies.Thesedatarepresentaveragevaluesfromavailableindividualpracticestudies.
Inthesedata,runoffreductionincludesevaporation,infiltrationandextendedfiltration,which
wouldbeexemplifiedbyveryslowrelease,perhapsfromanunderdrainbelowafilteringpracticesuch
asbioretention.

Itisunclear,however,ifreducingrunoffvolumealoneisenoughtoreproduceanaturalhydrograph.
Tworecentstudiesofbioretentionpracticescametodifferentconclusionsregardingthisquestion.In
NorthCarolina,Debusketal.(2011)foundnosignificantdifferencebetweenoutflowfroma
bioretentioncellandthehydrographofanearbynaturalstreamsystem.InMaryland,ontheother
hand,OlszewskiandDavis(2013)performedvirtuallythesameexperimentandfoundthatthe
bioretentioncelldidmeetvolumetricgoals,butfailedtoreproducethenaturalhydrographsshapedue
todifferingflowduration.Thispaperproposesusingflowdurationcurvesfromnaturalstreamsasa
designtoolforESDpractices.

Page|18

TenMileCreek:Development,ESDandESC
Table8.RunoffReductionofStormwaterPractices
(Hirschmanetal.,2008)
Practice

RunoffReduction(RR)(%)

GreenRoof
RooftopDisconnection

45to60
25to50

RaintanksandCisterns
PermeablePavement
GrassChannel
Bioretention
DrySwale
WetSwale

40
45to75
10to20
40to80
40to60
0

Infiltration

50to90

EDPond
SoilAmendments
SheetflowtoOpenSpace
FilteringPractice
Wetland/WetPond

0to15
50to75
50to75
0
0

3.3CanESDPracticesRemovePollutants?
Recently,theChesapeakeBayProgramconvenedapanelofexpertstoestimatepollutantremoval
effectivenessofRunoffReductionversusStormwaterTreatmentpractices.Theresultsindicatethat
practicesthatreducethevolumeofrunoffaretypicallymoreeffectiveatremovingpollutantsaswell.
AlthoughESDcanincorporatebothStormwaterTreatmentandRunoffReductionpractices,one
distinctionofESDisthatitsapproachincorporatespracticesthatreducerunoffvolumeonthesite.The
curveinFigure10representsthepresumedphosphorusreductionbasedonthestormcapturedby
thesepractices.Itisimportanttonotethat,whileMarylandsstandardtargetsabouta2.7storm,the
actualcaptureinESDpracticesmaybelower,sothatamixedefficiencymightbettercharacterizethe
site.ThebumpachievedbyESDpracticesissomewhatlessimpressiveforsediment,whichis
effectivelyremovedbytraditionalstormwaterpractices,andfornitrogen,whichismobileinground
water,andthuspresumedtobelesseffectivelyremovedbyinfiltrationpractices.Otherpollutantsthat
aremobileingroundwater,suchasdeicingsalt,willmoveunimpededintoshallowgroundwater,and
couldposelongtermproblemsforlocalstreams.

Page|19

TenMileCreek:Development,ESDandESC

Figure10.PhosphorusRemovalCurveforRunoffReduction(i.e.,ESD)versustraditionalstormwater
management(SchuelerandLane,2012)

When compared with traditional stormwater practices, ESD practices are in general superior
at reducing downstream temperature increases. For example, according to Galli (1990) and
Jones and Hunt (2010), stormwater ponds increase runoff temperatures. Results for ESD are
more encouraging. Jones and Hunt (2008) showed that bioretention cells, and especially small
cells, were able to reduce runoff temperatures. According to Winston et al. (2011), filter strips
can also reduce runoff temperatures. Finally, Jones and Hunt (2012) found that landscape
measures such as tree canopy, using light colored or less pavement, and use of underground
conveyances can reduce runoff temperatures.

3.4WhatareImportantProgramComponentsforImplementingMarylands
ESDRegulationsinTenMileCreek?
TherearetwopotentialissuesthatneedtobeaddressedtoeffectivelyimplementESDinTenMile
Creek.First,thesiteinfiltrationandrunoffcalculationsshouldconsidersoilcompactionand,second,
maintenance,orlackthereof,shouldbeaccountedfor.
SiterunoffvolumecomputationsintheMDEstormwatermanual(MDE,2010)arederivedfroma
combinationofsoiltypeandimperviouscovercalculations.Thesecalculationsdonotaccountforsoil
compactionand,althoughthemanualdoesdiscussinfiltrationtestingandsoilrestorationforpractices,
thereisnorequiredmethodtoeffectivelyaddresssoilcompactioninthelandscape(e.g.,openfields
thatarecompactedbyconstruction.TheStateStormwaterManualrequiresonlyafewinchesofsurface
Page|20

TenMileCreek:Development,ESDandESC
scarificationofcompactedsoils.MontgomeryCounty,however,requiresabout6inchesoftillingfor
compactedsoils,with4inchesoftopsoiladded.ThisprovidesgreaterbenefitsthantheStateManual
requirements,butstillfallsshortofthebenefitsprovidedbydeep(24inches)soildecompactionwith
organicmatteramendment.Theanalysisconductedasapartofthisstudyshouldconsidersoil
compaction,andapossibleregulatorytoolwouldbetorequiresoilrestorationasaconditionofsite
development.(SeeNewYorkStatesStormwaterManagementDesignManual(NYSDEC,2010)asan
example.Inaddition,theEquivalentCurveNumbermethodologyusedatthestatelevelshouldbe
modeledforthisstudytoensurethathydrologicassumptionsareconsistent.
Maintenanceisachallengeforanystormwaterpractice.Forexample,Hirschmanetal.(2009),ina
fieldsurveyofBMPsintheJamesRiverBasinfoundthatatleast50%ofallstormwaterBMPswerein
needofmaintenance.WiththeadventofESD,moreandmoresmallpracticeswillbeimplementedat
thesitelevel.AnalysesshouldassumethatsomefractionofBMPstorageislostovertime,withthe
potentialconsiderationofoversizingpracticestoaccountforthisloststorage.Programmatically,
assurancesshouldbemadetoensurethatpracticesaremadethroughchainofcustodyagreements,
inspections,andstronglegalagreementsforsmallpracticesonprivateproperty.

3.5WhenEntireSitesorCatchmentsImplementESD,WhatIstheResult?
Whileitisusefultounderstandtheimpactofindividualpractices,ESDshouldreallybeimplemented
thewholesiteorcatchmentlevel,andincludeamixofsiteplanningtechniquesandsmallmicroscale
stormwaterpractices.Acombinationofmodelingandmonitoringstudiesprovidesomeinsightintothe
hydrologicalandwaterqualityperformanceofESDasawholesitepractice(Table9).Mostofthese
studiesaremodelbased,butboththemodelbasedstudiesandmonitoringstudiespointtosomeofthe
sametrends.ESDisingeneralfarsuperiortotraditionalstormwatermanagementatreproducing
naturalstreamflows.However,ESDhassomelimitations.Forexample,tightsoilsorsoilcompaction
appearstobeamajorlimitationforinfiltrationpracticesinthemodelingstudies.Inaddition,both
modelingandmonitoringstudiespointtothefactthatESDismosteffectiveforsmallstormevents.In
SelbigandBannerman(2008),acoupleofsmallstormsaccountedforamuchhigherpollutantloadin
theESDsystem.Further,itappearsfromseveralofthestudiesthat,whileinfiltrationpracticescanbe
veryeffective,theseshouldbecombinedwithlandcovercontrolsthatreducedisturbanceand
imperviouscover.AlthoughthesestudiesshowhydrologyrelatedESDbenefits,asindicatedearlier,
streamhealthdependsonmorethangoodhydrology.Asaresult,thefindingsofthesestudiescannot
beusedtoestimatetheeffectsofESDonreceivingstreambiologicalcommunitiesandecosystems.
Similarly,whilethesestudiesshowimprovementsinwaterqualityusingESD,onlyafewofthe
pollutantsthatcomefromdevelopedlandaretypicallymodeledormonitored.Aswiththeresultsof
thehydrologystudies,thewaterqualityresultscannotbeusedtoestimateESDimpactstobiological
andoverallstreamecosystemhealth.

Page|21

TenMileCreek:Development,ESDandESC
Table9.ResultsofESDDevelopmentorCatchmentScaleStudies
Study

StudyCharacteristics

Branderet
al.,2004

ModelingStudy:Evaluatesfoursitelayouts,
includingaclusterdevelopmentagrid
pattern,andtwoothers.

Comparesrunoffvolumesfordesignstorms

Findings

Studycompareshydrographsofaforested
andanadjacenturban(28%IC)watershed.
Followsthiswithmodelingoftheurban
Burnsetal., watershedwithtraditionaloronlot
stormwaterpractices.
2012

Dietzand
Clausen,
2008.

Holman
Dobbset
al.,2003

JordanCove:Monitoredtwosidebyside
developments.TheESDdevelopment
utilizeddistributedrunoffcontrols
throughoutandhad20%(versus45%)IC.

Modelsstreamflowandannualrunoff
volumeforvariousstormeventscomparing
apredeveloped,highimpact(50%IC,no
stormwatermanagement)andlow
impactdevelopment(50%IC,infiltration
practices)

Infiltrationpracticesaremosteffectiveforsmall
stormeventsandonsoilswithhighinfiltrationrates.

Selbigand
Bannerman
,2008

Monitoringstudyoftwosidebyside
developments.TheESDsitehassimilarIC,
bututilizesinfiltration,includingswalesand
aninfiltrationbasin.

Zimmerma
netal.,
2010

Monitorsrunofffromaneighborhood
retrofitwithraingardens,andagreenroof.

IC: Impervious Cover

Page|22

Clusterdesignsthatpreserveopenspacecreatethe
leastrunoff.
Strategicplacementofinfiltrationpracticescan
reducerunoffforanydevelopmenttype.
Soilcompactionduringconstructioncanhamper
effortstoachieverunoffreductions.
Infiltrationpracticesmosteffectiveforsmallstorm
events.
Theuncontrolledrunofffromtheurbanwatershed
hadthreetimesasmuchannualrunoffandsummer
andwinterbaseflow.
Modelingtheurbanwatershedwiththeuseofa
wetlandsystemwasineffectiveatreproducingthe
naturalhydrograph.
Modelsoftheuseofonsitepracticesshowedmore
promiseforproducingthenaturalhydrograph.
Astheconventionaldevelopmentwasimplemented,
therewasanexponentialriseinrunoffvolume,
whiletherewasnorelationshipbetweenrunoff
volumeandICintheESDsubdivision.
Thesamepatternsheldfornutrientexport.

Averageannualrunoffwassignificantlylowerforthe
ESDsite,andinfiltrationwasmosteffectivefor
smallerstormevents.
WhiletheESDsitetypicallybetteratpollutant
removal,thereweretwoyearswherepollutant
loadingfromtheESDsitewashigherduetooneor
twoverylargestormeventsthatwerenotcaptured
byonsitepractices.
TemperaturefromtheLIDsitewassomewhat
elevated,butitisunclearifthereducedvolumes
combinedwiththistemperatureresultinlower
thermalloadings.
Forbothapplications,significantrunoffreduction
canbeachievedforsmallstormevents.
Resultsforwaterqualityweremixed,withloads
fromboththegreenroofandtheretrofit
neighborhoodhavinghigherloadsthanconventional
landuseforsomepollutants.

TenMileCreek:Development,ESDandESC

3.6InStreamEffectsfromanESDDevelopment:NorthCreek,CityofSurrey,
BC,Canada
ThereareveryfewexamplesdocumentingtheinstreamimpactsresultingfromESD
development.However,NorthCreek,intheCityofSurrey,BC,Canadaofferssomevaluable
insights(PageandLilley,2010).TheEastClaytonneighborhoodwastransformedfromvery
lowdensityrurallandtohighdensityresidentialovertheperiodfrom1999to2009,
incorporatingafullsuiteofESDpractices,aswellastraditionaldetention.Theneighborhood
drainstoNorthCreek,whichwasintensivelymonitoredthroughoutthedevelopmentperiod.

Results:Hydrology
ThehydrologicresultsindicatethatESDpracticeshavereducedstormflows,butincreased
meanannualflow.Thisimpliesthattheinnovativestormwaterpracticeswereeffectiveat
increasingbaseflow,andinfactincreasedbaseflowbeyondpredevelopedconditions.

Results:ChemistryandBiology
Specificconductivityincreasedsignificantlyoverthemonitoringperiod.Thestudy
authorsconcludethatthismeasuremaybeasurrogateforotherurbanpollutants.

Temperatureincreasedoverthestudyperiod,probablyduetothepresenceofalarge
stormwaterpondattheoutletofthedevelopment.
Turbiditywasrelativelyconstantbutincreasedduringtheinitialclearingandgrading
phase.
Lossofsensitivetaxaoverthe10yearperiod.
BIBI(BenthicIndexofBiologicalIntegrity)increased,butthisincreasewaslargelydriven
byabundanceofTurbellarianflatworms.ThiseffectontheBIBImasksanoverall
declineinbiologicalhealth,asindicatedbythelossofsensitivetaxa.Asaresult,
documentingtheeffectsofESDonstreambiologymayrequiretheuseofmorespecific
indicesofbiologicalintegrity,suchasfunctionalfeedinggroup,orindividualtaxa
metrics.
Thestudyiscurrentlyatthehalfwaypoint,andfurthermonitoringwillbeneededto
determineifthedeclineinstreambiologicalhealthobservedsofarwillcontinue,or
whetherrecoverywilloccuroveralongerperiodoftime.

4. ConstructionImpacts
InadditiontothesoilcompactiondiscussedinSection2ofthisreport,constructionimpactsstream
systemsthroughincreasedsoildisturbanceandresultingsedimentloadsandturbidity.Concentrations
ofsedimentinconstructionsiterunoffaresignificantlyhigherthaninrunofffromurbanorforested
lands.InthestudybypageandLilley(2010)describedabove,instreamturbidityincreasedduring
constructioneventhoughtheCityofSurreywasimplementinginnovativestormwatercontrols.Some
studieshavedocumentedinstreamresponsestodevelopment.Forexample,Gageetal.(2004)
reportedchangesinalkalinity,dissolvedoxygen,andmacroinvertebratecommunityinresponseto
disturbanceinurbanizingwatershedsinNorthCarolina.Miltneretal.(2003)reportedasimilarresult,
withadecreaseinmacroinvertebrateIBIataslowas4%imperviouscoverduringthelanddevelopment
process.Thisdeclinewasattributedtolanddisturbanceduringtheconstructionprocess.
Page|23

TenMileCreek:Development,ESDandESC
AsimilartrendwasfoundintheearlystagesoftheClarksburgPlan.Duringthepeakconstruction
period(20032007),IBIscoresdeclinedandbegantorecoveragain(Figure11).Atthesametime,
functionalfeedinggroupswereaffectedduringtheconstructionperiod,withalossofalmostall
shredderspecies,andadramaticincreaseincollectorsandsubstantialincreaseinpredators.After
construction,therehasbeensomerecoveryinshredderpopulations,withacorrespondingdeclinein
shredders.ItisunclearifeithertheIBIorthespeciescompositionwillreturntopredevelopmentlevels.

Figure11.BenthicIBIScoresdeclineduringthepeakconstructionperiodinClarksburg,andbegin
torecover(MCDEP,2010).

Page|24

TenMileCreek:Development,ESDandESC

Figure12.FunctionalFeedingGroupsswitchedduringconstruction,withadramaticlossinshredderspecies,and
significantincreasesincollectorsandpredators(MCDEP,2010).

5. ErosionandSedimentControl(ESC)Practices
Currently,theChesapeakeBayProgramestimatesthatESCpracticesremove25%ofTN,and40%of
TSSandTP(Baldwin,2007).Onthesurface,theseestimatesofsedimentremoval,inparticular,seem
lowcomparedtopublishedvalues,particularlyforEnhancedESCpractices.Forexample,recent
researchontheuseofpolyacrylamideincombinationwithsedimenttraps(McLaughlin,2009)andFilter
Socks(Faucette,2008)areveryencouraging,suggestinggreaterthan90%reductioninturbidityfor
sedimenttraps,andbetterthan90%sedimentreductionforfiltersocks.Initialmonitoringfrom
constructionsitesintheSPAsofMontgomeryCountyalsodemonstratedhighremovalefficiencies,with
anaverageremovalrateofapproximately70%TSS.
Althoughthesepracticescanbeeffectiveindividually,thegreatestchallengestoimplementing
effectiveESCpracticesarerelatedtositecompliance.InaninterestingstudybyReiceandCarmin
(2000)inNorthCarolina,instreammacroinvertebrates(EPT)weremeasuredupstream,atthesite,and
downstreamofconstructionsitesinthreecounties,withvaryingstrictnessofESCregulations.While
EPTvalueswerelowerattheconstructionsitethanupstreaminallcases,thedeclinewassignificantly
lowerinhighlyregulatedcounties.
AnotherchallengeofimplementingeffectiveESCpracticesistheuncertaintysurroundingrainfall
patterns.Therateoferosionisdramaticallyincreasedduringlargestormevents,andintensesummer
Page|25

TenMileCreek:Development,ESDandESC
stormscanaccountasignificantamountofannualsedimentload,andcanoverwhelmstormwater
practicesinstalledonsite.Gradinglimitsthatareproposedtobeineffectduringtheconstructionof
Stage4oftheClarksburgPlanwillhelptominimizetheriskassociatedwithlargeareasofexposedsoil,
andshouldbestrictlyenforcedduringtheconstructionofStage4.

ConclusionsandRecommendations

ImpactsofStormwaterRunoffandLandDevelopment

InadditiontothresholdsidentifiedbytheImperviousCoverModel(e.g.,10%),availabledata
suggestthatdegradationinstreambiologybeginstohappenatmuchlowerlevelsofimpervious
cover.
Ripariancorridorpreservationisaveryusefultoolforprotectinginstreamhabitatandbiology,
butappearstobethemosteffectivewhencoupledwithwatershedimperviouscoverof15to
20%orless.
Headwaterandzeroorderstreamsareextremelyimportant,particularlygiventhehighquality
natureofTenMileCreek,andpresenceofimportantamphibianspecies.
TheBIBIiscurrentlyusedtoclassifystreamsinMontgomeryCountyandwhilethisisan
excellentindicatorofgeneralstreamhealth,othermetricsshouldbeconsideredfortracking
subtlechangesinthequalityofstreambiologyinTenMileCreek.
Therelationshipbetweenhydrologyandinstreamaquaticbiotahasbeendocumented,butno
modelhasbeencalibratedtoMontgomeryCountysdata.Ananalysisofspecificflow
characteristicsandmeasuresofinstreambiologywouldbeveryhelpfulinunderstandingfuture
developmentinTenMileCreekandelsewhereinMontgomeryCounty.
Ongoingmaintenanceisachallengeforanystormwatermanagementpractice,andanalyses
shouldconsiderlossoffunctionandstorageinstormwaterBMPsovertime.
HydrologicassumptionsinherentinMDEsstormwaterregulationsshouldbemodeledatasite
leveltoensureconsistency,andaccountforsoilcompaction.
AlthoughMDErequirementsallowforthecombinationofESDtechniquesandtraditional
stormwaterdetention,detentionpracticesshouldbeavoidedifpossibleduetopotentialstream
warmingeffects.

ImpactsofConstructionandESC

Adecreaseinstreamhabitatandbiologyduringconstructionhasbeendocumentedinseveral
studies.Biologicalmonitoringshouldbeconductedimmediatelydownstreamofconstruction
sitestodetectinitialindicationsofstreamdegradation.
ESCregulationsshouldbestrictlyenforced,withspecialemphasisonproposedclearingand
gradinglimits.
ThescientificliteratureindicatesthatESDshouldperformbetterthantraditionalstormwater
management,butwillstillnotbesufficienttomitigateallofthenegativeenvironmentalimpacts
fromdevelopment.
ESDcanbesupplementedwithmorestringentsitedesigncriteria,and/orcombinedwithland
usebasedmeasuresthatreducedevelopmentfootprintandimpervioussurfaces,toprovide
additionalprotectionforhighqualityorsensitivewatersheds.

Page|26

TenMileCreek:Development,ESDandESC
References
Alberti,M.,D.Booth,K.Hill,B.Coburn,andC.Avollo.TheImpactofUrbanPatternsofAquatic
Ecosystems:AnEmpiricalAnalysisinPugetLowlandSubBasins.LandscapeUrbanPlanning,80(4),345
361
Alexander,R.,E.Boyer,R.Smith,G.SchwarzandR.Moore,2007.Theroleofheadwaterstreamsin
downstreamwaterquality.JournalofAmericanWaterResourcesAssociation.43(1):4159.
Baldwin,A.,2007.UrbanErosionandSedimentControlBestManagementPracticeDefinitionand
NutrientandSedimentReductionEfficienciesForuseincalibrationoftheChesapeakeBayPrograms
Phase5.0WatershedModel:Draft.Preparedfor:ChesapeakeBayProgramUrbanStormwater
Workgroup.Anapolis,MD
Belucci,C.,2007.StormwaterandAquaticLife:MakingtheConnectionBetweenImperviousCover
andAquaticLifeImpairmentsforTMDLDevelopmentinConnecticutStreams.Proceedings,TMDL2007,
10031018
Booth,D.2000.Forestcover,impervioussurfacearea,andthemitigationofurbanizationimpactsin
KingCounty,WA.preparedforKingCountyWaterandLandResourceDivision.Universityof
Washington.Seattle,WA.
Booth,D.,andD.HartleyandR.Jackson,2002.ForestCover,ImperviousSurfaceArea,andthe
MitigationofStormwaterImpacts.JournaloftheAmericanWaterResourcesAssociation.38(3):836845
Brander,K.,K.OwenandK.Potter,2004.Modeledimpactsofdevelopmenttypeonrunoff
volumeandinfiltrationperformance.JournaloftheAmericanWaterResourcesAssociation(2004):961
969
Burns,M.,T.Fletcher,C.Walsh,A.LadsonandB.Hatt,2012.Hydrologicshortcomingsof
conventionalurbanstormwatermanagementandopportunitiesforreform.LandscapeandUrban
Planning.105(2012)230240
CenterforWatershedProtection,2003.ImpactsofImperviousCoveronAquaticSystems.Ellicott
City,MD.
Cianfrani,C.,W.Hession,andD.Rizzo,2006.WatershedImperviousnessImpactsonStream
ChannelConditioninS.E.Pennsylvania.JournaloftheAmericanWaterResourcesAssociation(JAWRA),
42(4):941956
Coleman,D.,C.MacRaeandE.Stein.,2005.EffectsofIncreasesinPeakFlowsandImperviousness
ontheMorphologyofSouthernCaliforniaStreams.SouthernCaliforniaCoastalResearchProject,Costa
Mesa,CA
Coles,J.,T.Cuffney,G.McMahon,andK.Beaulieu,2004.TheEffectsofUrbanizationonthe
Biological,PhysicalandChemicalCharacteristicsofCoastalNewEnglandStreams.
Coles,J.F.,McMahon,Gerard,Bell,A.H.,Brown,L.R.,Fitzpatrick,F.A.,ScudderEikenberry,B.C.,
Woodside,M.D.,Cuffney,T.F.,Bryant,W.L.,Cappiella,Karen,FraleyMcNeal,Lisa,andStack,W.P.,2012,
EffectsofurbandevelopmentonstreamecosystemsinninemetropolitanstudyareasacrosstheUnited
States:U.S.GeologicalSurveyCircular1373,138p.
Debusk,K.,W.HuntandD.Line,2011.BioretentionOutflow:DoesItMimicNonurban
WatershedShallowInterflow?J.Hydrol.Eng.(16):274279.

Page|27

TenMileCreek:Development,ESDandESC
DeGasperi,C.,H.Berge,K.Whiting,J.Buckley,J.CassinandR.Fuerstenberg,2009.Linking
hydrologicalterationtobiologicalimpairmentinurbanizingstreamsofthePugetLowland,Washington.
JournaloftheAmericanWaterResourcesAssociation,45(2):512533
Dietz,M.andJ.Clausen,2008.Stormwaterrunoffandexportchangeswithdevelopmentina
traditionalandlowimpactsubdivision.JournalofEnvironmentalManagement,87:560566
Faucette,L.B.,L.M.Risse,M.A.Nearing,J.W.Gaskin,andL.T.West.,2004.Runoff,erosion,and
nutrientlossesfromcompostandmulchblanketsundersimulatedrainfall.JournalofSoilandWater
ConservationJuly/August2004vol.59no.4154160
Fitzpatrick,F.,M.Diebel,andM.Harris,2005.Effectofurbanizationonthegeomorphology,habitat,
hydrology,andfishindexofbiologicalintegrityofstreamsintheChicagoarea,IllinoisandWisconsin.
AmericanFisheriesSocietySymposium(47):87115.
Gage,M.S.,A.Spivar,andC.J.Paradise.2004.EffectsofLandUseandDisturbanceonBenthic
InsectsinHeadwaterStreamsDrainingSmallWatershedsNorthofCharlotte,NC.Southeastern
Naturalist.3(2):345358.
Galli,J.1990.Thermalimpactsassociatedwithurbanizationandstormwaterbestmanagement
practices.MetropolitanWashingtonCouncilofGovernments.Washington,D.C.
Goetz,ScottJ,IKONOSimageryforresourcemanagement:Treecover,impervioussurfaces,and
riparianbufferanalysesinthemidAtlanticregion,(2003),RemoteSensingoftheEnvironment88,pp.
195208.
Gregory,J.H.,M.D.Dukes,P.H.Jones,andG.L.Miller,2006,Effectofurbansoilcompactionon
infiltrationrate.JournalofSoilandWaterConservation61(3):117124
Hirschman,D.,K.CollinsandT.Schueler,2008.TechnicalMemorandum:TheRunoffReduction
Method.Preparedby:CenterforWatershedProtectionandChesapeakeStormwaterNetwork.Ellicott
City,MD
Hirschman,D.,L.WoodworthandS.Drescher,2009.StormwaterBMPsinVirginiasJamesRiver
Basin:AnAssessmentofFieldConditions&Programs.CenterforWatershedProtection.EllicottCity,
MD.
HolmanDobbs,J.,A.Bradley,andK.Potter.2003.Evaluationofhydrologicbenefitsofinfiltration
basedurbanstormwatermanagement.JournaloftheAmericanWaterResourcesAssociation39(l):205
215.
Houlahan,J.E.,andC.S.Findlay.2003.TheEffectsofAdjacentLandUseonWetlandAmphibian
SpeciesRichnessandCommunityComposition.CanadianJournalofFisheriesandAquaticSciences.
60(9):10781094.
Hursh,CharlesR,1944.WaterStorageLimitationsinForestSoilProfiles,SoilScienceSocietyof
America,Proceedings,Vol.8,(1944)
Jarnagin,S.T.2007.Historicalanalysisoftherelationshipofstreamflowflashinesswithpopulation
density,imperviousness,andpercenturbanlandcoverintheMidAtlanticregion(PDF)(103pp,5.7MB)
InternalReportAPM408.UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,OfficeofResearchand
Development,EnvironmentalPhotographicInterpretationCenter(EPIC),RestonVA,September2007,
EPA/600/X07/021,100p.
Jones,M.P.andW.F.Hunt.2009.BioretentionImpactonRunoffTemperatureinTroutSensitive
Waters.JournalofEnvironmentalEngineering,135(8):577585.
Page|28

TenMileCreek:Development,ESDandESC
Jones,M.P.andW.F.Hunt.2010.EffectofStormwaterWetlandsandWetPondsonRunoff
TemperatureinTroutSensitiveWaters.JournalofIrrigationandDrainageEngineering.136(9):656661.
Jones,M.P.,W.F.Hunt,andR.J.Winston.2012.EffectofUrbanCatchmentCompositiononRunoff
Temperature.JournalofEnvironmentalEngineering.138(12):12311236.
Kashuba,Roxolana,McMahon,Gerard,Cuffney,T.F.,Qian,Song,Reckhow,Kenneth,Gerritsen,
Jeroen,andDavies,Susan,2012,LinkingurbanizationtotheBiologicalConditionGradient(BCG)for
streamecosystemsintheNortheasternUnitedStatesusingaBayesiannetworkapproach:U.S.
GeologicalSurveyScientificInvestigationsReport20125030,48p.
Kays,E.L.,1980.RelationshipofForestDestructionandSoilDisturbancetoIncreasedFloodingin
theSuburbanNorthCarolinaPiedmont.Metro.TreeImpr.Alliance(METRIA)Proc.3:118125.
Kennen,J.,K.MurrayandK.Beaulieu.Determininghydrologicfactorsthatinfluencestream
macroinvertebrateassemblagesinthenortheasternUS.Ecohydrol.3,88106(2010)
King,RyanS,HowNovelistooNovel?StreamCommunityThresholdsatExceptionallyLowLevelsof
CatchmentUrbanization,EcolAppl21.16591678(1)
Kratzer,E.,J.Jackson,D.Arscott,A.Aufdemkampe,C.Dow,L.Kaplan,J.Newbold,andB.Sweeney.
2006.MacroinvertebrateDistributioninRelationtoLandUseandWaterChemistryinNewYorkCity
DrinkingWaterWupplyWatersheds.J.N.Am.Benthol.Soc.25(4):954976.
MarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment(MDE),2009.MarylandStormwaterDesignManual.
Availableat:
http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/StormwaterManagementProgram/MarylandStormwater
DesignManual/Pages/programs/waterprograms/sedimentandstormwater/stormwater_design/index.asp
x
MarylandDepartmentofNaturalResources,2012.River/StreamManagementStrategy,Guiding
Principles.
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/streams/pdfs/RiverStream_MgtStrat_GuidingPrinciples_092612.pdf
MarylandDepartmentofNaturalResources(undated)ImpactsofImperviousCoveronMaryland
Streams.StreamHealthFactSheet.
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/streams/pdfs/ImperviousFactSheet.pdf
MclaughlinR.A.,S.E.KingandG.D.Jennings,2009.Improvingconstructionsiterunoffqualitywith
fibercheckdamsandpolyacrylamide.JournalofSoilandWaterConservationMarch/April2009vol.64
no.2144154
Meyer,J.,D.Strayer,J.Wallace,S.Eggert,G.HelfmanandN.Leonard.2007.Thecontributionof
headwaterstreamstobiodiversityinrivernetworks.JournalofAmericanWaterResourcesAssociation
43(1):86103
Miltner,R,D.White,andC.Yoder.2004.TheBioticIntegrityofStreamsinUrbanandSuburbanized
Landscapes.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning.69.
Moglen,G.E.;Nelson,K.C.;Palmer,M.A.;Pizzuto,J.E.;Rogers,C.E.;Hejazi,M.I.Hydroecologic
responsestolanduseinasmallurbanizingwatershedwithintheChesapeakeBayWatershed.In
EcosystemsandLandUseChange;DeFries,R.,Asner,G.P.,Houghton,R.A.,Eds.;AGUGeophysical
MonographSeries:WashingtonDC,USA,2004;Volume153,pp.4160.
MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection(MCDEP).2003.CountywideStream
ProtectionStrategy,2003Update.
Page|29

TenMileCreek:Development,ESDandESC
MCDEP,2012.SpecialProtectionAreaProgramReport,2010.Availableat:
http://www6.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/dep/downloads/spa_reports/2010_SPA_Report.pdf
Moore,A.andM.Palmer.2005.Invertebratediversityinagriculturalandurbanheadwaterstreams.
EcologicalApplications.15:11691177.
Morgan,R.P.,andS.F.Cushman.2005.UrbanizationEffectsonStreamFishAssemblagesin
Maryland,USA.J.N.Am.Benthol.Soc.24(3):643655.
ResourcesConservationService(NRCS).1986.TechnicalRelease55:UrbanHydrologyforSmall
Watersheds,2ndEdition.Washington,D.C.
NewYorkStateDepartmentofEnvironmentalConservation(NYSDEC),2010.NewYorkState
StormwaterManagementDesignManual.Avaialbleat:http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/29072.html
ODriscoll,M.,S.Clinton,A.Jefferson,A.MandaandS.McMillan,2010.UrbanizationEffectson
WatershedHydrologyandInStreamProcessesintheSouthernUnitedStates.Water2010,pp605648.
www.mdpi.com/20734441/2/3/605/pdf
Olszewski,J.andA.Davis,2013.ComparingtheHydrologicPerformanceofaBioretentionCellwith
PredevelopmentValues.JournalofIrrigationandDrainageEngineering,139:124130
Ourso,R.,andA.Frenzel.2003.IdentificationofLinearandThresholdResponsesinStreamsalonga
GradientofUrbanizationinAnchorage,Alaska.Hydrobiologia.501:117131.
Page,N.andP.Lilly,2010.AnalysisofStreamflow,WaterQuality,
andBenthicCommunityChangesinNorthCreek(19992009).Preparedfor:CityofSurrey,British
Columbia
Pitt,R.S.Chen,S.ClarkandJ.Lantrip.2005.Soilstructureeffectsassociatedwithurbanizationand
thebenefitsofsoilamendments.WorldWaterandEnvironmentalResourcesCongress.Conference
Proceedings.AmericanSocietyofCivilEngineers.Anchorage,AK.
Pitt,R.,T.BrownandR.Morchque.2004.NationalStormwaterQualityDatabase.Version2.0.
UniversityofAlabamaandCenterforWatershedProtection.FinalReporttoU.S.Environmental
ProtectionAgency.
Reice,S.2000.RegulatingSedimentationandErosionControlintoStreams:WhatReallyWorksand
Why.In:NationalConferenceforUrbanWaterResourceManagementandProtection.Chicago,IL.Pp.
291295
Roy,A.,B.FreemanandM.Freeman.2007.Riparianinfluencesonstreamfishassemblagestructure
onurbanizingstreams.LandscapeEcology.
Roy,A.,M.Freeman,B.Freeman,S.Wenger,J.Meyer,W.Ensign.2006.ImportanceofRiparian
ForestsinUrbanCatchmentsContingentonSedimentandHydrologicRegimes.Environmental
Management.37(4):523539
Roy,A.,M.Freeman,B.Freeman,S.Wenger,W.EnsignandJ.Meyer.2005.Investigating
hydrologicalterationasamechanismoffishassemblageshiftsinurbanizingstreams.J.N.Am.Benthol.
Soc.,24(3):656678
Rubbo,M.J.,andJ.M.Kiesecker.2005.AmphibianBreedingDistributioninanUrbanizedLandscape.
ConservationBiology.19:504511
Saxton,K.andW.Rawls,2006.SoilWaterCharacteristicEstimatesbyTexture
andOrganicMatterforHydrologicSolutions.SoilSci.Soc.Am.J.70:15691578.
Page|30

TenMileCreek:Development,ESDandESC
Schueler,T.,L.FraleyMcNealandK.Cappiella,2009.IsImperviousCoverStillImportant?:Review
ofRecentResearch.JournalofHydrologicEngineering,14(4):309315.
Schueler,T.,1994.TheImportanceofImperviousness.WatershedProtectionTechniques,1(3):
100111.
Schueler,T.1987.ControllingUrbanRunoff:APracticalManualforPlanningandDesigningUrban
BestManagementPractices.MWCOG.Washington,D.C.
Schueler,T.andC.Lane.2012.RecommendationsoftheExpertPaneltoDefineRemovalRatesfor
NewStateStormwaterPerformanceStandards.ChesapeakeStormwaterNetwork,EllicottCity,MD
Selbig,S.R.andBannerman,R.T.(2008)Acomparisonofrunoffquantityandqualityfromtwosmall
basinsundergoingimplementationofconventionalandlowimpactdevelopment(LID)strategies:Cross
Plains,Wisconsin,wateryears19992005:USGeologicalSurveyScientificInvestigationsReport2008
5008,57p.
Snyder,C.D.,J.A.Young,R.Villela,andD.P.Lemarie.2003.InfluencesofUplandandRiparianLand
UseonStreamBioticIntegrity.LandscapeEcology18:647664.
Urban,M.,D.Skelly,D.Burchsted,W.PriceandS.Lowry.2006.Streamcommunitiesacrossarural
urbanlandscapegradient.DiversityandDistributions.12:337350
VanNess,K.2012.PersonalCommunication.
Winston,R.J.,W.F.Hunt,andW.G.Lord.2011.ThermalMitigationofUrbanStormwaterbyLevel
SpreaderVegetativeFilterStrips.JournalofEnvironmentalEngineering.137(8),707716.
Woltemade,ChristopherJ.,2010.ImpactofResidentialSoilDisturbanceonInfiltrationRateand
StormwaterRunoff.JournaloftheAmericanWaterResourcesAssociation(JAWRA)46(4):700711.
Zimmerman,M.J.,Waldron,M.C.,Barbaro,J.R.,andSorenson,J.R.,2010.EffectsofLowImpact
Development(LID)PracticesonStreamflow,RunoffQuantity,andRunoffQualityintheIpswichRiver
Basin,Massachusetts:ASummaryofFieldandModelingStudies.USGSCircular136

Page|31

TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis

AttachmentE. SpatialWatershedAnalysis

July3,2013

TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis

July3,2013

MEMORANDUM
Date:

To:

From:

RE:

June13,2013
MaryDolanandValdisLazdins,MontgomeryCountyPlanningDepartment
BiohabitatsandBrownandCaldwell,aJointVenture

TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis
inSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
SUBJ: SpatialWatershedAnalysis

TheTenMileCreekwatershedinnorthwesternMontgomeryCountyisthefocusofanenvironmental
analysisstudyinsupportoftheLimitedAmendmenttotheClarksburgMasterPlan,beingundertakenby
theMarylandNationalCapitalParkandPlanningCommission(MNCPPC)MontgomeryCountyPlanning
Department.ThisenvironmentalanalysisisbeingconductedforthePlanningDepartmentbyBiohabitats
andBrownandCaldwell,aJointVenture,withsupportfromtheCenterforWatershedProtection.Itis
beingdoneincollaborationwithMontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection(DEP)
andMontgomeryCountyDepartmentofPermittingServices(DPS).

The1994ClarksburgMasterPlanallowsfordevelopmentintheeasternportionofthewatershed.This
memorandumpresentsaSpatialWatershedAnalysisofbothexistingconditionsandimplementationof
the1994MasterPlan.Theintentofthisanalysisistoidentifyareasthathavehighresourcevalueand
supportwatershedhealth.Thismemorandumisintendedtoprovideadescriptionofthatanalysis,the
methodsused,supportingmaps,andadescriptionoftheresults.

NOTE:PlanimetricinformationshowninthisdocumentisbasedoncopyrightedGISDatafromM
NCPPC,andmaynotbecopiedorreproducedwithoutexpresswrittenpermissionfromMNCPPC.

June13,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
SpatialWatershedAnalysis
Page2of22

METHODS

TheconceptualbasisofthisanalysisiscenteredonGeographicalInformationSystem(GIS)information
thatcanbeusedtomapimportantwatershedhealthcharacteristicsorattributessuchasforestedareas,
wetlands,streams,andgreeninfrastructure,etc.Theareas(orinGISterminologypolygons)inthe
watershedwheretheseimportantattributesoccurwereassignedavalueof1point,andtheareas
wheretheydidnotoccurwereassignedavalueof0.Theseattributemapswereoverlaidoneachother
andanalyzedtohelpidentify,definethearealextentof,andmeasureanddescribeareasthat
contributetowatershedhealth.

AttributeData
AvailableexistingGISdatapertainingtonaturalresourceattributesthatareimportantforwaterquality
andecologicalhealthwerecollected.ThesedatawereprovidedbytheMontgomeryCountyPlanning
DepartmentandDEP.MappingsummarizingtheseattributesisincludedinthereportExisting
ConditionsintheTenMileCreekStudyArea,insupportoftheLimitedAmendmenttotheClarksburg
MasterPlanpreparedforthePlanningDepartmentbytheJointVenture.

Theattributedatausedinthisanalysisincludes:

SteepSlopes,>15%
SteepSlopes,>25%
ErodibleSoils
HydricSoils
Forest
InteriorForest
100YearFloodplain
Perennial/IntermittentStreamswithassociated175Buffer
EphemeralChannelswithassociated25Buffer
Wetlandsandassociated25Buffer
Springs,Seeps&SeasonalPondswithassociated25Buffer

TheattributesselectedforthespatialanalysisalignwithMontgomeryCountysEnvironmental
GuidelinesandDEPsdefinitionofenvironmentallysensitiveareas(MontgomeryCountyDepartmentof
ParkandPlanning,2000).ToprovideforgrowthwhileprotectingMontgomeryCountysnatural
resources,allproposalsfordevelopmentinMontgomeryCountyarereviewedintermsof
environmentalimpactandprotectionbeforebeingapprovedbytheplanningBoard.TheGuidelinesfor
EnvironmentalManagementofDevelopmentinMontgomeryCountyprovidesguidanceregarding
appropriatetechniquestoprotectnaturalresourcesduringthedevelopmentprocess(Montgomery
CountyDepartmentofParkandPlanning,2000).Theseguidelinesareappliedtoprotectsensitive
environmentalfeaturesondevelopmentplans(MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofParkandPlanning,
2000).Sensitiveareasincludestreamsandtheirbuffers,100yearfloodplains,habitatofthreatenedand
endangeredspecies,erodiblesoilsandsteepslopes(MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofParkand
Planning,2000).

June13,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
SpatialWatershedAnalysis
Page3of22

Inaddition,anydevelopmentactivitywithinaSpecialProtectionArea(SPA),unlessexempted,mustgo
throughawaterqualityreviewprocessbycompletingmonitoringandreportingaccordingtothe
approvedWaterQualityPlanandcountyregulations.AnelementoftheWaterQualityPlanincludesthe
preservationofenvironmentallysensitiveareasandpriorityforestconservationareas.Environmentally
sensitiveareasreferstoareashavingbeneficialfeaturestothenaturalenvironment,includingbutnot
limitedto:steepslopes;habitatforFederaland/orStaterare,threatened,andendangeredspecies;100
yearultimatefloodplains;streams;seeps;springs;wetlands,andtheirbuffers:priorityforeststands;
andothernaturalfeaturesinneedofprotection(MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmental
Protection,2012).

DataLayersCreatedinGISInformationInventory
Foreachattributeincludedinthisanalysis,adatalayerwascreatedinGIStodisplayconditionswithin
thestudyarea.Allattributelayerswerethenoverlaidandcombinedforuseinonemaptocontainall
availablebaselinedataandensurethatalldatawouldbecompatibleintheanalysis(e.g.,interiorforest
andbufferboundaries).Thatmaprepresentsaninventoryofinformationavailableforthisanalysis.

Belowisadescriptionofeachattributeusedinthisanalysis.

SteepSlopes>15%and>25%:Steepslopesareasensitiveenvironmentalfeatureaddressedinthe
GuidelinesforEnvironmentalManagementofDevelopmentinMontgomeryCountyandcan
influencebufferwidthsofothersensitiveenvironmentalfeaturesand/orcanprohibitcertain
developmentactivities.Steepslopesaredefinedashavingagradientequaltoorgreaterthan25
percent.However,inSPAs,steepslopesareslopesgreaterthan15percent.Theguidelines
recommendthatsteepslopesshouldbeincorporatedintoopenspaceand/orremainundisturbed
(MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofParkandPlanning,2000).

ErodibleSoils:ErodiblesoilsaresoilclassifiedashavingseverehazardoferosionbytheNRCSin
the1995SoilSurveyofMontgomeryCounty(MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofParkand
Planning,2000).AsmentionedintheGuidelinesforEnvironmentalManagementofDevelopmentin
MontgomeryCounty,erodiblesoilsshouldbeincorporatedintoopenspacewhenpossibleand
managedappropriatelyduringconstruction.Erodiblesoilsinconjunctionwithsteepslopescan
influencethebufferwidtharoundnaturalresources(i.e.streamsandwetlands)(Montgomery
CountyDepartmentofParkandPlanning,2000).

HydricSoils:Hydricsoilsaresoilsthatformedunderconditionsofsaturation,flooding,orponding
longenoughduringthegrowingseasontodevelopanaerobicconditionsintheupperpart(Soil
Survey,2013).Thehydricsoilcategoryratingofasoilmapunitindicatestheproportionofamap
unitthatmeetsthehydricsoildefinition(SoilSurvey,2013).Thepresenceofhydricsoilsindicatesa
potentialconditionforawetlandresourceandapotentiallimitationwithrespecttodevelopment
(i.e.depthtosaturatedzoneandslowwatermovement)(SoilSurvey,2013).

Forest:Aforest,asdefinedbytheCountysForestConservationLaw(1992L.M.C.,ch.4,1),isa
biologicalcommunitydominatedbytreesandotherwoodyplants(includingplantcommunities,
theunderstory,andforestfloor)coveringalandareawhichis10,000squarefeetorgreaterandat
least50feetwide.Amongthenumerousecosystemservicesforestsprovidearefoodandcoverfor

June13,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
SpatialWatershedAnalysis
Page4of22

wildlife,temperatureregulation,carbonsequestrationandnutrientcycling.Allforestpolygonswere
includedinthespatialanalysis.

InteriorForest:MontgomeryCountydesignatesinteriorforestas1)contiguousforesttracts
consistingofaminimumof50acresinsizewith10ormoreacresofforestmorethan300feetfrom
thenearestforestedge,or2)ariparianforestwithanaverageminimumwidthof300feetandat
least50acresinsize.Theseforestinteriorsthatcansupportforestinteriordwellingbirdsthat
requirelargeforestareastobreedandmaintainviablepopulations(Jones,McCann,&McConville,
2000).
100yearFloodplain:The100yearfloodplainisthelandareawithinthelimitsofthe100yearstorm
flowwaterelevationwhichhavea1percentannualchanceofoccurring.Floodplainguidelinesin
theGuidelinesforEnvironmentalManagementofDevelopmentinMontgomeryCountyarebased
onexistingStateandCountyregulationsthatgoverndevelopmentactivitiesintheseareas
(MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofParkandPlanning,2000).Theguidelinesrestrictoreven
prohibitnewdevelopmentwithinthe100yearfloodplaintopreventfloodhazardsandconserve
habitats(MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofParkandPlanning,2000).
Perennial/IntermittentStreams:Streamsconsistofeitherperennial(continuallyflowing)or
intermittent(seasonallyflowing)channelsthatconveyconcentrationsofgroundwaterand
stormwaterrunoffalongwithvariousdissolvedandsuspendedmaterialsacrossthelandscape.
Streamsandtheirripariancorridor(terrestrialareatransitioningfromawaterbodytoanupland)
performvariousbiophysicalandbiogeochemicalprocesses,includinguptakeofnutrientsand
pollutantsandprovideotherecosystemservices,suchasfreshwaterandhabitatforwildlife.The
importanceofstreamsandtheirassociatedripariancorridorisrecognizedinstreambuffer
requirementsdescribedintheCountysEnvironmentalGuidelines(MontgomeryCounty
DepartmentofParkandPlanning,2000),andisrepresentedinthespatialanalysistheDEPstream
layerandassociated175footbufferalongeachsideofthestream.
EphemeralChannels:Ephemeralchannelsaredefinedchannelsthatareabovethegroundwater
tableandconveyflowonlyduringandshortlyafterarainevent.Thesechannelsaresituatedatthe
topofawatershedwherewaterfirstconcentratesandtypicallyhavedirectconnectionstoastream
channel.Asaconduitintoperennial/intermittentstreams,protectionofthequalityofthese
channelsisanimportantcomponentofstreamhealth.EphemeralchannelsareregulatedbytheU.S.
ArmyCorpsundertheauthorityoftheCleanWaterAct(1972)andarerepresentedinthespatial
analysisastheregulatedstreamchannelandincludeanunregulated25footbufferstriptoaccount
fortheirroleinstreamhealth.Thebasisforthe25footbufferisconsistentwiththeminimum
bufferaroundnontidalwetlandsregulatedbyMarylandDepartmentofEnvironment(MDE)and
U.S.ArmyCorpsguidanceonmaintainingbufferstripsforwaterqualityconsiderations(Fischerand
Fischenich,2000andFischer,2002).
Wetlands:Awetlandisanareainundatedorsaturatedbysurfaceorgroundwateratafrequency
anddurationsufficienttosupport,andthatundernormalcircumstancesdosupport,aprevalenceof
vegetationtypicallyadaptedforlifeinsaturatedsoilconditions(EnvironmentalLaboratory,1987).
Someenvironmentalbenefitsthatwetlandsprovideincludewaterpurification,floodprotection,
groundwaterrechargeandstreamflowmaintenance,andwildlifehabitat.Wetlandsarealsoa

June13,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
SpatialWatershedAnalysis
Page5of22

naturalresourcethatmaybesubjecttoregulatoryjurisdictionunderSection404oftheCleanWater
ActorSection10oftheRiversandHarborsAct(EnvironmentalLaboratory,1987).Froma
regulatoryperspective,environmentalprotectionandpermittingrequirementsareinplaceatthe
federalandstatelevelforconstructionrelatedactivitieswithinoradjacenttowetlandresources.In
theGISanalysis,abufferof25feetwasassignedaroundmappedwetlands.The25footbufferis
regulatedbyMDEundertheauthorityoftheMarylandNontidalWetlandsProtectionAct(1989).

Springs,Seeps,andSeasonalPools:Aseepisdefinedasawaterfeatureexclusivelyfedby
groundwateranddoesnottypicallyflow,whereasaspringisawaterfeaturefedbygroundwater
thatflowsintermittentlyorconstantly(MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmental
Protection,2012).SeepsandspringsintheheadwatersoftributariestoTenMileCreekare
necessarytomaintainbaseflowsinheadwaterstreamsandtoprovidehabitatfortroutandother
sensitiveaquaticspeciesthatrelyoncool,cleanwater(MontgomeryCountyPlanningDepartment&
MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection,2013).

Aseasonalpoolorvernalpoolisasmall,temporarybodyofwaternotdirectlyconnectedtoa
flowingstream.Seasonalpoolsareimportantbecausetheysupportuniquehabitatforamphibians
andaquaticinvertebrates(Stanko,et.al.,2010).

SpringsseepsandseasonalpoolsareregulatedbyMDEundertheauthorityofMarylandNontidal
WetlandsProtectionActandwerebufferedby25feetasdiscussedforthewetlands.IntheGIS
analysis,abufferof25feetwasassignedaroundmappedsprings,seeps,andseasonalpools.

AttributeConversiontoMetricsScoringMethodology
Eachattributeincludedinthisanalysishasassociatedwithitabenefittowatershedhealth.Inorderto
allowtheGISsoftwaretohelpidentifyareaswithimportantwatershedhealthcharacteristics,numerical
valuesareassignedtodifferentattributeareas,usingasimplepresence/absenceapproach(Table1).If
anattributehasapositiveeffect,thentheareasinwhichthatattributearepresentareassignedavalue
ofone.Areaswheretheattributedoesnotoccurareassignedavalueofzero.

Forinstance,researchhasshownthatforestedareasenhancetherateofrunoffinfiltration,filterand
cleansepollutantsfromstormwater,andprovidehabitatformanyspeciesofplantsandanimals.These
characteristicsarebeneficialtowatershedhealth.Therefore,forestedareas(andthemappedpolygons
orareasassociatedwiththeminGIS)areassignedanumericalvalueofoneintheforestattributeGIS
layer.Areasthatarenotmappedasforestedareassignedavalueofzero.

Thestrategyofusingthesamenumericalvalueofoneforthepresenceofeachoneofthebeneficial
attributesisintentional.Thisanalysisisintendedtoidentifyareasthatareimportanttowatershed
health,withoutnecessarilyweightingoneattributesvaluemorethananothers.Usingthezero/one
rankingstrategyassignsthesamevalueofbenefittoeachattribute.Rankingwatershedattributesand
documentingtheirrelativevaluesinthescientificliteratureisbeyondthescopeofthisanalysis.

June13,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
SpatialWatershedAnalysis
Page6of22

Table1.AttributeSummaryandMetricScores
Attribute
SteepSlopes,>15%presence/absence
SteepSlopes,>25%presence/absence
ErodibleSoilspresence/absence
HydricSoilspresence/absence
Forestpresence/absence
InteriorForestpresence/absence
FEMA100YearFloodplainpresence/absence
Perennial/IntermittentStreamspresence/absence
EphemeralChannelspresence/absence
Wetlandspresence/absence
Springs,Seeps,andPoolspresence/absence
MaximumPossibleScore

Score
Present
Absent
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
11

CompositeMap
UsingGIS,attributelayerscanbeoverlaintodisplayontopofoneanother,andalsocombinedand
summedsuchthatattributevaluesarestackedupineachareaofthemap.Whenthelayersare
overlain,allthevaluesassociatedwitheachattributelayerareassignedtheircorrespondingpointon
thegroundinthewatershed.Theresultingcompositemapwillhavealltheboundariesofevery
attribute,whichcreatesnumerousintersectingboundariesandcreatesmanyareaswheremultiple
attributesmayoverlap.Thepolygonscreatedwhenalltheattributesareoverlaincontainallofthe
valuesforalltheattributesthatpertaintothatparticularareainthewatershed.GISsumsallthevalues
oftheattributesforeachpointonthegroundandtheattributesumisassignedtoeachpolygon
created.Theresultisamapwithmanypolygonsorareas.Eachpolygonhasanattributetotalscore
associatedwithit.Thelowestpossiblescoreforamappedareaiszero(noattributespresent)The
highestpossiblescoreforamappedareaisequaltothenumberofattributesusedintheanalysisis11.

AnalgorithminArcGISsoftware(NaturalBreaksJenksClassification)wasusedtocreatestatistical
categoriesfortherangeofpossiblevalues.Thealgorithmcombinestwomethods.ThefirstisNatural
Breaks,wherethedataispartitionedintocategoriesbasedonnaturalgroupsindistribution(lowpoints
inthedatahistogram).ThesecondistheJenksClassification,amethodofstatisticaldataclassification
thatpartitionsdataintoclassesusinganalgorithmthatcalculatesgroupingsofdatavaluesbasedonthe
datadistribution.Jenksoptimizationseekstoreducevariancewithingroupsandmaximizevariance
betweengroups.ThenumberofcategoriesthattheNaturalBreaksJenksClassificationalgorithm
computesisdeterminedbytheuser.Forthisanalysis,thedatawasadditionallyanalyzedusingthree
andfivecategories.GISwasthenusedtocreateamapwithdifferentcolorshadesforeachthreeand
fivecategoryanalysis.

AlternativeAnalysisForestInteriorNotIncluded
Analternativeanalysisusingthemethodologydescribedabovewasconductedwiththeforestinterior
layerremoved.Thisalternativeanalysishadamaximumpotentialscoreof10versus11.Thereasoning
behindthisalternativeanalysiswastomoredirectlyevaluatestreamqualityasopposedtooverall
watershedhealth.

June13,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
SpatialWatershedAnalysis
Page7of22

RESULTS

ExistingConditions
ThecompositenaturalresourceattributescoresfortheTenMileCreekstudyareaaresummarizedin
Figure1,Figure1aandTable2.Figures1and1autilizeadifferentshadeofgreentorepresentthetotal
numberofattributesthatoccuratapointonthelandscapeintheanalysis.Thedarkergreenareashave
highernumbersofattributespresentandaregenerallyassociatedwiththepresenceofthestream
systemanditsbufferareas,forestedareas,andwetlands.

Whenincludingforestinterior,11naturalresourceattributeswereanalyzedandthemaximumnumber
ofattributespresentatanylocationinthestudyareaisnine.Withoutforestinteriorthemaximum
numberofnaturalresourceattributespresentatanylocationiseight.Thetotallandareaoccupiedby
naturalresourceattributesissummarizedinTable2.

Table2.SummaryofLandAreaandNaturalResourcesAttributeScores
Attribute/NaturalResourcesScore

WithForestInterior

WithoutForestInterior

Area(Acres)

%ofStudy Area

Area(Acres)

%ofStudy Area

1,154.6

38%

1,154.6

38%

683.4

22%

821.7

27%

515.3

17%

475.2

16%

319.9

11%

305.1

10%

216.9

181.5

105.3

92.5

44.0

14.1

6.3

<1%

1.6

0.7

<1%

<0.

<1%

<0.1

<1%

N/A

Figure2(withforestinterior)andFigure2a(withoutforestinterior)arecompositemapsthatusethe
NaturalBreaks/JenksClassificationtocreatethreestatisticalcategories;thebaselineattributedatais
groupedaccordingly,andillustratedusingthreedifferentshadesofgreen.Thedarkergreenindicatorsa
higherpresenceofnaturalresourceattributes.Theconsolidationofthedataintofewergroupsmaybe
helpfulindifferentiatingareasofsomewhatsimilarscorevalues.Thetotallandareaoccupiedbynatural
resourceattributesissummarizedTable3.

Table3.NaturalResourcesAttributeScores,GroupedintoThreeCategories,andtheirCorrespondingAreas
AttributeScores/Categories

WithForestInterior

WithoutForestInterior

Area(Acres)

%of Study Area

Area(Acres)

%ofStudy Area

1,154.6

38%

1,154.6

38%

1to2

1,198.7

39%

1,296.9

43%

3to9

693.0

23%

594.7

20%

June13,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
SpatialWatershedAnalysis
Page8of22

Figure1a.NaturalResourcesAttributeScoresforExistingConditions,ForestInteriorIncluded

June13,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
SpatialWatershedAnalysis
Page9of22

Figure1b.NaturalResourcesAttributeScoresforExistingConditions,ForestInteriorNotIncluded

June13,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
SpatialWatershedAnalysis
Page10of22

Figure2a.NaturalResourcesAttributeScoresforExistingConditions(GroupedintoThreeCategories),Forest
InteriorIncluded

June13,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
SpatialWatershedAnalysis
Page11of22

Figure2b.NaturalResourcesAttributeScoresforExistingConditions(GroupedintoThreeCategories),Forest
InteriorNotIncluded

June13,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
SpatialWatershedAnalysis
Page12of22

DevelopmentScenarioAnalysis

ThePlanningDepartmentcraftedfourscenariosforfuturedevelopmentwithinthewatershed,
including:

Scenario2: 1994MasterPlanThe1994ClarksburgMasterPlanrecommendationsfordensityand
landuseinStage4,assumingfullEnvironmentalSiteDesignforthedevelopableand
redevelopableproperties.

Scenario3: ReducedFootprint,SameYieldThesameasScenario2withareducedfootprintfor
thePulteproperties.Assumesadifferentunitmixthatwouldallowapproximatelythe
samenumberofunitspermittedbythe1994Plan.

Scenario4: ReducedFootprintLowerYieldThesameasScenario3withthesameunitmixas
recommendedinthe1994PlanforthePulteproperty,resultinginfewerpotentialunits
onPulte.

Scenario5: 7%WatershedImperviousnessThesameasScenario3withreducedyieldon
Miles/Coppola,Egan,andtheCountyproperties.

TheprojectedlimitsofdisturbanceforScenario2andScenarios3&4wereoverlaidontheexisting
conditionsSpatialWatershedAnalysistoidentifytheextentofpotentialimpactstonaturalresources.
Scenarios3&4havethesameprojectedlimitsofdisturbance,sothisanalysisappliestoboth.Thelimits
ofdisturbanceforScenario5areverysimilartoScenario3,soaseparateanalysiswasnotconductedas
similarresultscanbeexpected.Inaddition,ruralresidentialpropertieswestofTenMileCreekwerenot
includedinthisanalysis.Itisassumedthatwhendevelopmentoccursbuildingsandinfrastructurewill
beplacedwithinexistingopenfieldsandthatnaturalresourcedisturbancewillbeminimal.

Scenario2:1994MasterPlan
ThePlanningDepartmentdevelopedprojectedpotentiallimitsofdisturbanceassociatedwithbuildout
ofthe1994MasterPlan.Theprojectedlimitsofdisturbanceareapproximately422acres,or14%ofthe
TenMileCreekstudyarea.TheselimitsofdisturbancewereoverlaidontheexistingconditionsSpatial
WatershedAnalysis,withandwithouttheinteriorforestattribute,toidentifyextentofpotential
impactstonaturalresources.

Nomorethansevennaturalresourceattributeswereidentifiedatanylocationwithintheprojected
limitsofdisturbance.Figure3andTable4displaytheresultsofthisanalysis,withtheattributesgrouped
intothreecategories.Thedarkerredareasinthefigureshavethehighnumbersofnaturalresource
attributespresentthatwouldbeimpactedbyimplementationofScenario2.

Table4.AttributeCategory(Three)AreasthatwillbeImpactedbyScenario2
WithForestInterior
WithoutForestInterior
AttributeScores/Categories
Area(acres) %ofDisturbedArea Area(acres) %ofDisturbedArea
0
258.9
61%
258.9
61%
1to2
143.8
34%
148.6
35%
3to9
19.7
5%
14.9
4%

June13,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
SpatialWatershedAnalysis
Page13of22

Figure3a.NaturalResourceAttributeAreasthatwillbeImpactedbyScenario2(groupedintoThreeCategories),
ForestInteriorIncluded

June13,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
SpatialWatershedAnalysis
Page14of22

Figure3b.NaturalResourceAttributeAreasthatwillbeImpactedbyScenario2(groupedintoThreeCategories),
ForestInteriorNotIncluded

June13,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
SpatialWatershedAnalysis
Page15of22

Scenarios3and4:ReducedFootprint

ForScenarios3and4,thePlanningDepartmentreducedthefootprintofdevelopmentforselected
properties.Theprojectedlimitsofdisturbanceareapproximately307acres,or10%oftheTenMile
Creekstudyarea.TheselimitsofdisturbancewereoverlaidontheexistingconditionsSpatialWatershed
Analysis,withandwithouttheinteriorforestattribute,toidentifyextentofpotentialimpactstonatural
resources.

Nomorethansixnaturalresourceattributeswereidentifiedatanylocationwithintheprojectedlimits
ofdisturbance.Figure4andTable5displaytheresultsofthisanalysis,withtheattributesgroupedinto
threecategories.Thedarkerredareasinthefigureshavethehighnumbersofnaturalresource
attributespresentthatwouldbeimpactedbyimplementationofScenarios3and4.

Table5.AttributeCategory(Three)AreasthatwillbeImpactedbyScenario2
WithForestInterior
WithoutForestInterior
AttributeScores/Categories
Area(acres) %ofDisturbedArea Area(acres) %ofDisturbedArea
0
221.3
72%
221.3
72%
1to2
79.1
26%
79.3
26%
3to9
7.0
2%
6.9
2%

June13,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
SpatialWatershedAnalysis
Page16of22

Figure4a.NaturalResourceAttributeAreasthatwillbeImpactedbyScenarios3and4(groupedintoThree
Categories),ForestInteriorIncluded

June13,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
SpatialWatershedAnalysis
Page17of22

Figure4b.NaturalResourceAttributeAreasthatwillbeImpactedbyScenarios3and4(groupedintoThree
Categories),ForestInteriorNotIncluded

June13,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
SpatialWatershedAnalysis
Page18of22

DISCUSSION

Areasofhighresourcevaluewithinthewatershedaregenerallyconcentratednearthestreams,
particularlythemainstem,wherewetlands,floodplains,forest,springs,seepsandthestreams
themselvesprovidecriticalwatershedfunctionssuchasrainfallcaptureandrunoffreduction,pollutant
filtering,nutrientcycling,overbankflowattenuationandreduction,andaquaticanduplandhabitat.

Areasofhighresourcevaluearealsoassociatedwithforestinterior,largelyconcentratedalongandeast
ofthemainstem,westofI270,extendingontotheCountyandPulteproperties.Inresponsetoarequest
forinformationrelatedtorare,threatenedandendangeredspecieswithinthestudyarea,theMaryland
DepartmentofNaturalResourcesstatedthatanalysisoftheinformationprovidedsuggeststhatthe
forestedareaontheprojectsitecontainsForestInteriorDwellingBirdhabitat.Populationsofmany
ForestInteriorDwellingBirdspecies(FIDS)aredeclininginMarylandandthroughouttheeasternUnited
States.TheconservationofFIDShabitatisstronglyencouragedbytheDepartmentofNatural
Resources.(MDDNR,2013).

Naturalresourcesthroughoutthestudyareawillbedirectlyimpactedbybuildoutofthe1994Master
Plan(Scenario2).AsignificantdecreaseinimpactsisseeninScenarios3&4(Figure5and6).

Ofthe22milesofstreamsintheareaofthewatershedstudied,aboutahalfofamilehasthe
potentialtobeimpactedbybuildoutofthe1994MasterPlan(Scenario2).Themajorityofthese
impactswouldbetosmallheadwatertributarieseastofI270,asaresultofconstructionofthe
MD355Bypass.Constructionofthe355Bypassmayalsoimpactanacreofwetlandsandnineofthe
watersheds149springs,seepsandseasonalpools(asidentifiedbyMontgomeryCounty
DepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection).
Buildoutofthe1994MasterPlanhasthepotentialtoimpactupto9%ofthewatershedsforest
about120acresoutof1,389acres.ThelargestimpactsareassociatedwiththePulteproperty,
followedbytheMilesCoppola;theMD355Bypass;andtheCountyproperty.
Buildoutofthe1994MasterPlanwouldalsoresultinthelossofover60acresofinteriorforest,
16%ofinteriorforestwithinthestudyarea.About18oftheseacresmaybedirectlyimpactedby
development,namelyontheCountyandPulteproperties.Theremaininglosswouldbeattributed
tooverallreductioninforestcover,reducingthesizeandbufferofcontiguousforest.
Approximately57acresonlandswithaslopegreaterthan15%wouldbedevelopedunderthe1994
MasterPlan,with6oftheseacresonlandswithaslopegreaterthan25%.TheseincludethePulte,
County,andMilesCoppolaproperties,aswellastheMD355Bypass.
Scenarios3&4showasignificantdecreaseinimpactsareaswithhighnaturalresourcevalue.Forest
impactsarereducedfrom120acrestoapproximately60acres,andforestinteriorimpactsare
reducedfromover60acrestoapproximately14acres.Directstreamandwetlandimpactsare
reducedbyhalf,largelyduetotheproposedrealignmentoftheMD355Bypass.

June13,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
SpatialWatershedAnalysis
Page19of22

Figure5.PotentialforDisturbanceofNaturalResourceAttributesinScenarios2,3and4
(ForestInteriorIncluded)

June13,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
SpatialWatershedAnalysis
Page20of22

Figure6.PotentialforDisturbanceofNaturalResourceAttributesinScenarios2,3and4
(ForestInteriorNOTIncluded)

June13,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
SpatialWatershedAnalysis
Page21of22

REFERENCES

Czech,BandP.R.Krausman.(1997).DistributionandCausationofSpeciesEndangermentintheUnited
States.Science277(5329):11161117.

EnvironmentalLaboratory.(1987)."CorpsofEngineerswetlandsdelineationmanual,"TechnicalReport
Y871,U.S.ArmyEngineerWaterwaysExperimentStation,Vicksburg,MS.,NTISNo.ADA176912.

Fischer,R.A.andJ.C.Fischenich.(2000).DesignRecommendationsforRiparianCorridorsand
VegetatedBufferStrips.EMRRPTechnicalNotesCollection(ERDCTNEMRRPSR24),U.S.Army
EngineerResearchandDevelopmentCenter,Vicksburg,MS.www.wes.army.mil/el/emrrp

Fischer,R.A.(2001).SuggestionstoassistSection404permitdecisionsinvolvinguplandandriparian
bufferstrips,WRAPTechnicalNotesCollection(ERDCTNWRAP0106),U.S.ArmyEngineer
ResearchandDevelopmentCenter,Vicksburg,MS.www.wes.army.mil/el/wrap

MarylandDepartmentofNaturalResources(DNR).(2013).EnvironmentalReviewfortheTenMileCreek
WatershedExistingConditions,MontgomeryCounty,Maryland.ResponseLetter.

MontgomeryCountyDepartmentofParkandPlanning.(2000).Guidelinesforenvironmental
managementofdevelopmentinMontgomeryCounty.MarylandNationalCapitalParkandPlanning
Commission.SilverSpring,MD.

Schueler,T.R.andH.K.Holland.(2000).ThePracticeofWatershedProtection.CenterforWatershed
Protection.EllicottCity,MD.

Stanko,S.,Boward,D.,Kilian,J.,Becker,A.Ashton,M.,Schenk,A.,Kazyak,P.(2010).MarylandBiological
StreamSurveySamplingManual:FieldProtocols.CBWPMANTAEA0701(Publication#122162007
190).MarylandDepartmentofNaturalResources,Annapolis,MD.

Weber,T.(2001a).SWGIGapshpGreenInfrastructureGapswithData(v5.1).MarylandDepartmentof
NaturalResources.Annapolis,MD.http://www.dnr.state.md.us/greenways/gi/gi.html(lastaccessed
February22,2013)

June13,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
SpatialWatershedAnalysis
Page22of22

Weber,T.(2001b).SWGIHubCorShpGreenInfrastructureHubsandCorridorsShapefile(v5.1).
MarylandDepartmentofNaturalResources.Annapolis,MD.
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/greenways/gi/gi.html(lastaccessedFebruary22,2013)

Weber,T.(2003).MarylandsGreenInfrastructureAssessment:AComprehensiveStrategyforLand
ConservationandRestoration.MarylandDepartmentofNaturalResources.Annapolis,MD.
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/greenways/gi/gi.html(lastaccessedFebruary22,2013)

TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis

AttachmentF. PollutantLoadModelingAssumptions

July3,2013

TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis

July3,2013

MEMORANDUM

8390 Main Street, 2nd Floor

Date: March15,2013
Ellicott City, MD 21043

410.461.8323
To:
MaryDolanandValdisLazdins,
FAX 410.461.8324
www.cwp.org
MontgomeryCountyPlanningDepartment
www.stormwatercenter.net

From: CenterforWatershedProtection

RE:
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis
inSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
SUBJ: PollutantLoadModelingAssumptions

Overview
PollutantloadmodelingofTotalNitrogen(TN),TotalPhosphorus(TN)andTotalSuspendedSolids(TSS)
andannualrunoffvolume(inacreft)wasconductedusingtheWatershedTreatmentModel(WTM;
CWP,2010),asimplespreadsheetmodeldevelopedbytheCenterforWatershedProtection.This
memooutlinesthekeyassumptionsandmodificationstothemodelusedtosimulateexistingandpost
developedconditionsintheTenMileCreekwatershed.TheWTMuseseveralspreadsheettabsto
summarizeloadsandpractices,andthefollowingtabswereusedforthismodelingexercise:
PrimarySources:Summarizespollutantloadsfromstormwaterrunoffthatcanbedescribedby
landcharacteristicsalone.
SecondarySources:Describesothersourcesofpollution,suchassepticsystemloadsand
channelerosion.
ExistingManagementPractices:Describesboththestructural,nonstructuralandprogrammatic
practicesinplacewithinthewatershed.
RetrofitWorksheet:Aworksheetusedtoenterindividualstormwatermanagementpractices.
Thiswasoriginallyintendedtomodelstormwaterretrofitpractices,butisusedtosimulateall
stormwatermanagementpracticesforthemodelinginTenMileRun.
LoadstoGroundwater:ThisisnotaseparatesectionoftheWTM,butwascalculatedseparately
forthisproject.

PrimarySources
Keyinputsforthistabincludeannualrainfall,runoffcoefficients,stormwaterpollutantconcentrations
andannualpollutantloadingrates.

AnnualRainfall
Annualrainfallwasassumedtobe40.4inchesperyear(source:
http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/USMD0093).

March15,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
WaterQualityModelingAssumptions
Page2of8

Soils
IntheWTM,soilsareaggregatedonasubwatershedbasis,byHydrologicSoilGroup(HSG),as
determinedfromGISdataavailablefromtheMontgomeryCountyDepartmentofPlanning.

LandUseCategories
LandusesprovidedbytheMontgomeryCountyPlanningDepartmentweregroupedintobroaderland
useclassificationsforsomeoftheanalysesdescribedhere.ThesearesummarizedinTable1.

Table1.LandUseClassification
Classification

LandUseCategoriesIncluded
LowDensityResidential
MediumDensityResidential
HighDensityResidential
Commercial
Industrial
Transportation
OpenUrbanLand
Institutional
Cropland
Pasture
LargeLotSubdivisionAgriculture
LargeLotSubdivisionForest
DeciduousForest
EvergreenForest
WetlandsForested
WetlandsNonforested
MixedForest
Brush
BareGround

Residential
Commercial
Transportation
Municipal

Rural

Forest

BareGround

RunoffCoefficients
Runoffcoefficientsforturf,forest,andimperviouscoverusedWTMdefaults,anditwasassumedthat
croplandhadthesamerunoffcoefficientsasturfandpasturehasthesamerunoffcoefficientsasforest.
TheresultingrunoffcoefficientsarepresentedinTable2.

Table2.RunoffCoefficientsforLandCoverTypes
Hydrologic
SoilGroup
A
B
C
D

.15
.20

LargeLot
Subdivision
Agriculture
.02
.03

LargeLot
Subdivision
Forest
.02
.03

.22
.25

.04
.05

Impervious

Turf

Forest

Pasture

Bare
Ground

Cropland

.95

.95
.95
.95

.15
.20

.02
.03

.5
.5

.22
.25

.04
.05

.5
.5

March15,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
WaterQualityModelingAssumptions
Page3of8

Therunoffcoefficientforeachlandusecategorywasdeterminedbyintersectinglandcover,impervious
coverandforestcoverlayers.Inurbanlandusecategories,alllandcoverthatwasnotclassifiedas
forestorimperviouscoverwasassumedtobeturf.

PollutantConcentrations
Forurbanlanduses,pollutantloadsarecalculatedbymultiplyingarunoffconcentrationbyanannual
runoffvolume.ConcentrationsweretakenfromPittetal.(2004),whichsummarizedNPDESmonitoring
datainthenortheasternUnitedStates.ConcentrationsareincludedinTable3.

Table3.UrbanRunoffPollutantConcentrations(mg/l)

TN
TP
Residential
2
0.3
Commercial
2.1
0.26
Transportation
2.3
0.3
Municipal
1.8
0.22

TSS
59
73
53
18

AnnualLoadingRates
Pollutantloadingfromnonurbanlandisestimatedasanannualloadinpoundsperacre.LoadsforTN
andTPweretakenfromtheChesapeakeBayProgramPhase5.3ModelDocumemntation(USEPA,2010;
Table4).ForTSS,theedgeoffieldloadsfromthisdocumentation(alsoTable5.3)weremultipliedbya
deliveryratiobasedonwatershedsize,alsousedintheBayModel,asdefinedbythefollowing
equation:
DR=.417762A0.1349580.127097
Where:
DR = SedimentDeliveryRatio

A
= WatershedArea(squaremiles)

March15,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
WaterQualityModelingAssumptions
Page4of8

LoadsfromLargeLotSubdivision(bothLargeLotSubdivisionAgricultureandLargeLotSubdivision
Forest),werecalculatedasanareaweightedaverageofPastureandForestloads,dependingonthe
forestcoverinthatlandusecategory,suchthat:
LRLLS= (f)(LRF)+(1f)(LRP)
Where:

LRLLS,F,P = LoadingRatesfromLargeLotSubdivision,Forest,andPasture,respectively
f
= FractionofLLSlanduseinforestcover

Table4.AnnualPollutantLoadingfromRuralLand
TN
TP
Erosion

(lb/year)
(lb/year)
(tons/acre/year)
Cropland
23.4
1.02
4.7
Pasture
7.3
0.94
1.2
Forest
3.6
0.14
0.36
BareGround
29.5
9.7
24.4
Notes:
1: CroplandisanaverageofvaluesforHaywithNutrientManagement
andConservationTillagewithNutrientManagement
2: PastureisthevalueforPasturewithNutrientManagement

SecondarySources
IntheWTM,SecondarySourcesincludepointsourcesorotherpollutantloadsthatcannotbe
determinedsolelybasedonlanduse.Inthisphaseofmodeling,septicsystemsweretheonlysecondary
sourcesaccountedfor.IllicitdischargesandSSOsmaybesignificantsourcesofnutrients,but
insufficientdatawereavailabletoadequatelymodelthesesourcesatthistime.

SepticSystems(OnSiteSewageDisposalSystems)
SepticsystemsweremodeledusingWTMdefaults,andwiththefollowingassumptions:
1)

Septicsystemefficiencyisequivalenttoconventionalsepticsystems.

Depthtogroundwaterisgreaterthan5feet.

Septicsystemdensityislessthanonesystemperacre

Septicsystemsareappliedonclayormixedtexturesoils(i.e.,notsandysoils)

Maintenanceisaverage

March15,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
WaterQualityModelingAssumptions
Page5of8

ExistingManagementPractices
Inthismodelrun,turfmanagementwastheonlymanagementpracticemodeled.TheWTMestimates
loadsfromturfbasedonnutrientapplicationratesandfertilizermixture.Itwasassumedthatfertilizer
wasapplied1.1timesperyear,at150lbsofNperacre,andthatthefertilizerwasaphosphorusfree
product.TheWTMadjuststurfrunoffcoefficientandloadingratesbasedonothercharacteristicsof
urbanland.Inthefutureconditions,itisassumedthatturfonallnewpropertiesiscompactedandon
homes<5yearsold.

StormwaterRetrofitWorksheet
AlthoughthissheetoftheWTMwasoriginallyintendedforimplementingindividualretrofitpractices,it
isused,andslightlycustomized)inthismodelingexerciseasitallowsforflexibilityinaccountingfor
designvariationsofindividualpractices.ThefollowingmodificationsweremadetothedefaultWTM
spreadsheet:

LoadstothePractice
IntheWTM,loadstoeachpracticeareestimatedusinganaverageconcentrationforurbanland.For
thismodelingeffort,theloadswereinsteaddeterminedusingconcentrationsspecifictothelanduseon
whichthepracticeisapplied.Forexample,theloadtoapracticeappliedonresidentiallandwillbe
calculatedusingtheconcentrationsforresidentialland.

Intheexisting(butnotfuture)condition,theimperviouscoverdrainingtothepracticewasunknown.
Asaresult,theaverageimperviouscoverforthelandusethatthepracticetreatedwastypicallyapplied.
Therewerethreeexceptionstothisrule,includingthefollowing:1)Drywellsappliedonresidential
landwereassumedtotreatrooftop(100%impervious);2)PracticesthatarenotetotreatRoadwayor
ParkingLotareassigned100%imperviouscover,regardlessofthelanduse.3)Onelargepondwas
designedtotreatClarksburgDetentionFacility.Forthispractice,theimperviouscoverwasestimated
fromaerialphotographyat40%.

Forfutureconditions,theimperviouscoverwithineachlandparcelisprovided,andassumedtobe
consistentacrosssubwatersheds.

March15,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
WaterQualityModelingAssumptions
Page6of8

PracticeEfficiencies
TobeconsistentwithpreviousworkcompletedforMontgomeryCounty,practiceefficiencieswere
determinedfromvaluesreportedinSchuelerandLane(2012)andHirschmanetal.(2008),asfollows:

Table5.EfficienciesforUrbanBMPs(%)
(SchuelerandLane,2012andRunoffReductionfromHirschmanetal.,2008)

TSS

RunoffReduction

DryWaterQuantityPond
DryExtendedDetentionPond
WetPondorWetland
Filters

5%
20%
20%
40%

10%
20%
45%
60%

10%
60%
60%
80%

InfiltrationPractices

80%

85%

95%

BioretentionA/BSoils
BioretentionC/DSoils

80%
25%

85%
45%

95%
55%

0%
15%(A/BSoilsonly)
0%
0%
90%(A/Bsoils)
50%(C/DSoils)
80%
40%

In this iteration, Environmental Site Design (ESD) is modeled as Bioretention, applied on the entire site.

DominantSoilTypes
IntheWTM,adominantsoiltypeisassignedtoeachstormwaterBMPsdrainagearea.Intheexisting
conditions,allstormwaterBMPswereinwatershedsdominatedbyBsoils,soBsoilswereassignedto
eachpractice.Inthefutureconditions,itwasassumedthatsoilcompactionduringtheinitialphasesof
development.Asaresult,thedominantsoiltypeformostpropertieswasCsoils.Oneexceptionwasthe
NewPulte(4)propertywhichwasdominatedbyDsoils.

CaptureDiscount
Sincepracticesdonotcapturethevolumeofstormwaterrunoffforallrunoffevents,enlargingor
undersizingapracticeaffectsitsoverallpollutantcapture.ThedatapresentedinTable5arebasedon
captureoftherunofffroma1stormevent,withundersizedpracticesprovidinglessannualpollutant
removal,andlargerpracticesprovidingimprovedremovalrates.TheCapturediscountismultipliedby
theefficienciespresentedinTable5todetermineactualpollutantremovals.

CC=10^0.277*Log(PCapture)

Where:
CC = CaptureDiscount
Pcapture = RainfalleventcapturedbythestormwaterBMP(inches)

ExistingConditions
Intheexistingconditions,practicesizingdatawereunavailable,soitwasassumedthatpracticeswere
sizedtotreatthe1stormevent(i.e.,1CCvalueof1.0)

March15,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
WaterQualityModelingAssumptions
Page7of8

FutureConditions
Inthefuturecondition,practicesaresizedusingtablesprovidedintheMarylandDepartmentofthe
Environments(MDEs)StormwaterManagementDesignManual,usingthetablesinChapter5.
Practicesizingwasbasedonthesoiltypewithineachproperty/watershedintersection(inthecurrent
condition)aswellastheimperviouscoverforecastfortheproperty.Resultingpracticesizingis
presentedinTable6.
Table6.SizingforProposedDevelopmentSites
Property/Development
Impervious Cover
Scenario
EganMattlynLoad
FireStation
HammerHill
MD355Load
MD121Interchange
MilesCoppolaAlone
NewPulte_Load
NewPulte_Load4

50%
37%
30%
100%
30%
60%
33%
42%

SoilTypes
(existing)
B/C
B
B
B/C
B/C
B/C
B/C
B/C

Target
Precipitation
Event(inches)
1.8
1.8
1.6
2.6
1.6
2
1.8
1.8

SubsurfaceLoads
TheWTMisnotagroundwatermodel,butdoesmodelsupplementalloadstogroundwaterfromthree
sources:1)septicsystems;2)leachingurbanlawns;and3)infiltrationfromstormwatermanagement
practices.Whiletheloadsfromrurallandareassumedtoincludeallpathwaystothestream(i.e.,they
representaninstreamload),loadsfromurbanlandinthebasecalculationsonlyincludesurfacerunoff.
TheloadscalculatedbytheWTMassumesomefiltrationbyunderlyingsoils,sothatsubsurface
phosphorusandsedimentloadsaremodeledas0lbs/year.However,nitrogenismoremobile.Itis
assumedthat40%ofallloadstogroundwaterreachthestream.Thisisthesameassumptionmadefor
EdgeofStreamloadsintheChesapeakePhase5.3model(USEPA,2010).

References
CenterforWatershedProtection(CWP),2010.TheWatershedTreatmentModel2010.EllicottCity,MD
Hirschman,D.,K.CollinsandT.Schueler,2008.TechnicalMemorandum:TheRunoffReduction
Method.Preparedby:CenterforWatershedProtectionandChesapeakeStormwaterNetwork.
EllicottCity,MD
MarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment(MDE),2009.MarylandStormwaterDesignManual.
Availableat:
http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/StormwaterManagementProgram/MarylandStor
mwaterDesignManual/Pages/programs/waterprograms/sedimentandstormwater/stormwater_d
esign/index.aspx

March15,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
WaterQualityModelingAssumptions
Page8of8

Pitt,R.,T.BrownandR.Morchque.2004.NationalStormwaterQualityDatabase.Version2.0.
UniversityofAlabamaandCenterforWatershedProtection.FinalReporttoU.S.Environmental
ProtectionAgency.
Schueler,T.andC.Lane.2012.RecommendationsoftheExpertPaneltoDefineRemovalRatesforNew
StateStormwaterPerformanceStandards.ChesapeakeStormwaterNetwork,EllicottCity,MD
USEPA(U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency).2010.ChesapeakeBayPhase5.3CommunityWatershed
Model.EPA903S10002CBP/TRS30310.U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,Chesapeake
BayProgramOffice,AnnapolisMD.December2010.

TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis

AttachmentG. PollutantLoadModelingResults

July3,2013

TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis

July3,2013

MEMORANDUM

8390 Main Street, 2nd Floor

Date: March15,2013
Ellicott City, MD 21043

410.461.8323
To:
MaryDolanandValdisLazdins,
FAX 410.461.8324
www.cwp.org
MontgomeryCountyPlanningDepartment
www.stormwatercenter.net

From: CenterforWatershedProtection

RE:
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis
inSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
SUBJ: PollutantLoadModelingResults

ModelingScenarios
Waterqualitycanbeimpactedbylanddevelopment,bothduringthedevelopmentprocess,andinthe
postdevelopedcondition.AnnualpollutantloadingwasassessedusingtheWatershedTreatment
Model(CWP,2010asimplespreadsheetmodelthatcalculatesannualrunoffvolumeaswellas
pollutantloadsforNitrogen(TN),Phosphorus(TP)andSediment(TSS).Threescenarioswereanalyzed.
ThebaseconditionsscenariorepresentsconditionsastheyarebeforeimplementationoftheMaster
Plan.Thepostconstructionscenariomodelsthe1994MasterPlanwiththeimplementationof
EnvironmentalSiteDesign(ESD)ESD.Finally,theduringconstructionscenarioissimilartothepost
constructionscenario,butassumesthatconstructionoccursovertenconstructionseasons,sothat10%
ofthedevelopablelandisinactiveconstruction,andadditionalfertilizerisappliedtoestablishnew
lawns.Thewaterqualitymodelingalsoreflectsconversionof36septicsystemstosewer.Results
includeannualrunoffvolume,aswellasannualrunoffloadsforTN,TPandTSS.

Adetaileddescriptionofthemodelingassumptionsareprovidedunderseparatecover(SeeWTM
ModelAssumptions).However,afewoftheseassumptions,especiallythoseregardingESD
implementation,areusefulforunderstandingthemodelingresults.EnvironmentalSiteDesign(ESD)has
thegoalofachievingthehydrologyofWoodsinGoodConditionfortheoneyearstormeventin
Maryland.IntheMarylandStormwaterDesignManual(TheStormwaterManual),thisisgoalis
presumedtobeachievedbyassigningaTargetRainfalleventdependingonthepostconstruction
conditionandrequiringthattherunofffromthisrainfalleventbecapturedinanESDpractice.Forthis
modelingexercise,itisassumedthatESDimplementationincludesthefollowing:
1) DesignersselectatargetrainfalleventfromlookuptablesintheMarylandStormwater
DesignManual(StormwaterManual;MDE,2010).(Thistargeteventrangesbetween1.0
and2.6forthesitesmodeled).
2) ThevolumecapturedbystormwaterpracticesiscalculatedusingtheShortCutSizing
methodologydescribedintheStormwaterManual,whichsizesstormwaterpracticesbased
solelyontheimperviouscoverintheareadrainingtothepractice.
3) Duringconstruction,soilsarecompactedsothattherunofffromurbansoilsisslightly
elevated.
4) ESDpracticesarerepresentedbybioretentionwithanunderdrain.Thispracticereducesthe
annualrunoffvolumeby40%.

March15,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
PollutantLoadModelingResults
Page2of9

Streamchannelerosionisnotmodeled,sinceinsufficientdatawereavailabletoadequatelymodelthis
source.Itisimportanttonote,however,thatchannelerosioncanbeasignificantsourceofsedimentin
urbanstreams,representingupto2/3ofthesedimentload(CroninandLangland,2003).

WatershedWidePollutantLoad
Watershedwide,pollutantloadsfornutrients(NitrogenandPhosphorus)increaseduringconstruction,
anddecreasetoslightlyabovepredevelopedratesinthepostdevelopedcondition(Figure1).Annual
runoffvolumeincreasesduringconstructionandcontinuestohaveasignificantincreaseinthepost
developedcondition.Thisresultatfirstseemscounterintuitive,sincethegoalofESDgenerate
hydrologyequivalenttowoodsingoodcondition,whichshouldresultinlessannualrunoffvolume
thanthecroplandcurrentlypresentinmuchofthelandtobedeveloped.However,sizingusingthe
ShortCutMethoddefinedintheStormwaterManual,combinedwiththeimpactsofsoilcompaction,
mayleadtopracticessizedbelowthenecessaryvolumeneededtoachievethegoalofproducing
hydrologyequivalenttowoodsingoodcondition.Inaddition,manyofthepracticesthatqualifyasESD
PracticesintheManualdonotactuallyachieve100%runoffreduction,andthepracticeselectedfor
thismodelingexercisetypicallyreducesrunoffby40%.

Asdescribedinthenextsectionofthismemorandum,theapparentdecreaseinTSScanbeexplainedby
theagriculturalusesdominantinmuchofthewatershed.ThisTSScalculationmayunderrepresentTSS,
however,sinceTSScalculationsdonotincludechannelerosion,whichmayincreaseasthewatershed
urbanizes,bothduetoincreasedrunoffvolumeanddecreaseinsedimentsourcestothestream
channel(byconvertingcropland)inthewatershed.

Figure1.ComparativePollutantLoadsThroughouttheDevelopmentProcess

March15,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
PollutantLoadModelingResults
Page3of9

SourcesofPollutants
Inthecurrentconditions,thewatershedisdominatedbyrurallandandforestcover,withurbanland
comprising15%ofthetotalwatershedarea,increasingto25%inthepostconstructionconditions
(Figure2).Thisincreaseinurbanlandisachievedbeconvertingbothruralandforestedland,sothat
theselandusesdecreaseby7%and3%,respectively.

EachofthelandusesrepresentedinFigure2generatespollutantsandrunoffatdifferentrelativerates
(Figures26).Forexample,forestedlandresultsinthelowestpollutantexportofalllanduses,
comprising45%ofthelandcoverbutnomorethan15%ofanypollutantintheexistingconditions
(Figures26).Ruralland,urbanland,andactiveconstruction,ontheotherhand,generaterelatively
highpollutantloadsorrunoffvolumes,dependingonthepollutant.Rurallandgenerates
disproportionateamountsofallpollutants,aswellasrunoffvolume,inallphasesofdevelopmentwith
oneexception.Inthepostdevelopedcondition,rurallandgeneratesrunoffalmostexactlyequaltoits
landcoverinthewatershed(i.e.,33%urbanlandgenerating34%oftotalrunoffvolume).Urbanland
producesdisproportionateamountsofpollutantswiththeexceptionofTSS,whichisdominatedbyrural
landinallphasesofdevelopment.Activeconstructionisonlypresentinasmallfractionofthe
watershed(2.5%),butdisproportionatelycontributestorunoffvolume(5%),andpollutantloadsofTP
(13%)andTSS(18%).

Ingeneral,pollutantswiththegreatestincreasearethosewhereurbanlandisarelativelyhighpollutant
source.Forexample,runoffisgeneratedprimarilybyurbanland,andrunoffvolumeshowsasignificant
increase.Bycontrast,TSS(excludingloadsfromchannelerosion)actuallydecreasesasdevelopment
proceeds,andrurallandisthedominantsedimentsourceinallphasesofdevelopment.

March15,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
PollutantLoadModelingResults
Page4of9

Figure2.LandUse:Current,DuringConstructionandPostConstruction
TN ExistingConditions

TN MasterPlanDuringConstruction

TN MasterPlanPostConstruction

SepticSystems

UrbanLand

RuralLand

Forest

RuralLand

Forest

Forest
Active
Construction

Figure3.TNSources:Current,DuringConstructionandPostConstruction
TP ExistingConditions

TP MasterPlanDuringConstruction

TP MasterPlanPostConstruction
SepticSystems

SepticSystems

UrbanLand

RuralLand

UrbanLand

RuralLand

RuralLand
Forest

Forest

Active
Construction

Forest

Figure4.TPSources:Current,DuringConstructionandPostConstruction
TSS ExistingConditions

TSS MasterPlanDuringConstruction

TSS MasterPlanPostConstruction

UrbanLand

UrbanLand
Forest

UrbanLand

Active
Construction

Forest

Forest
RuralLand
RuralLand

RuralLand

Figure5.SedimentSources:Current,DuringConstructionandPostConstruction
RunoffVolume ExistingConditions

UrbanLand

RuralLand

RunoffVolume
MasterPlanDuringConstruction

RuralLand

RunoffVolume MasterPlanPost
Construction

RuralLand
UrbanLand

Forest

UrbanLand
Forest

Active
Construction

Figure6.SourcesofRunoffVolume:Current,DuringConstructionandPostConstruction

March15,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
PollutantLoadModelingResults
Page5of9

PollutantLoadbySubwatershed
Responsetodevelopmentisnotuniformacrossthewatershed(Tables14),andisalsopollutant
specific.Forexample,subwatershedLSTM206hasthelargestincreaseinTSSduringconstruction
(76%),butonlyamodest(7%)increaseintotalphosphorus.Inaddition,subwatershedsthatarehighly
impactedduringconstructioncanhaverelativelylowpostconstructionloads.Forexample,even
thoughLSTM206showedatremendousincreaseinsedimentloadsduringconstruction,thesediment
loadsfromthissubwatershedinthepostdevelopedconditionareactually35%lowerthanexisting
conditions.

TotalNitrogen
Totalnitrogenincreasesmoderatelythroughouttheconstructionprocessinthewatershedasawhole,
withdramaticallydifferentresultsbysubwatershed.LSTM202showsasignificantdeclineinTN,while
LSTM206,302and302Bhaveincreasesofgreaterthan10%.Thisdifferenceisprimarilyexplainedby
thefactthatlandconversioninLSTM202isprimarilyfromcroplandtourbanland,andcroplandhasa
veryhighnitrogenloadingrate.Incontrast,landinLSTM206,302and303Bisconvertedprimarilyfrom
forestandpastureland.Duringconstruction,theloadsareslightlyhigherthanpostconstructionloads
inallsubwatersheds.

Table1.AnnualLoadTotalNitrogen(lb/year)
Existing
Conditions

1994Masterplan
(during
construction)

Change
(%)

LSTM110

2,406

2,786

16%

1994
Masterplan
(After
Construction)
2,516

LSTM111

1,327

1,469

11%

1,322

LSTM112

2,902

2,862

2,866

LSTM201

6,955

7,443

7,301

LSTM202

2,370

1,941

18%

1,820

23%

LSTM203

6,083

LSTM204

7,928

LSTM206

4,079

5,160

27%

5,159

26%

LSTM302

364

436

20%

426

17%

LSTM303B

637

732

15%

725

14%

LSTM304

179

35,229

37,019

36,326

Subwatershed

Watershed

Change
(%)
5%

March15,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
PollutantLoadModelingResults
Page6of9

TotalPhosphorus
Whilethemagnitudeoftheloadsandthepercentchangeareslightlydifferentforphosphorusthanfor
nitrogen,thepatternsaregenerallythesame(i.e.,thesubwatershedswithsignificantincreasesor
decreasesinnitrogentendtohavesimilarchangesforphosphorus),withoneexception.InLSTM303B,
theincreaseinphosphorus(3%),ismuchlowerthanthe14%increaseinnitrogeninthesame
subwatershed.Inthissubwatershed,developmentislocatedprimarilyonpasturelandwhichhasavery
lownitrogenload,butaphosphorusloadsimilartocropland.Loadsforphosphorusaremuchhigher
duringconstruction.

Table2.AnnualLoadTotalPhosphorus(lb/year)

Subwatershed

Existing
Conditions

Change
(%)

1994
Masterplan
(After
Construction)

Change
(%)

LSTM110

137

220

60%

144

LSTM111

128

45%

LSTM112
LSTM201
LSTM202

147
351
128

158
390
129

8%
11%
1%

147
354
100

1%
1%
22%

LSTM203

346

LSTM204

427

LSTM206

308

428

39%

368

19%

LSTM302

75%

27%

LSTM303B

137

220

60%

144

LSTM304

1,991

2,304

16%

2,038

Watershed

1994
Masterplan
(during
construction)

March15,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
PollutantLoadModelingResults
Page7of9

TotalSediment
Sedimentloadsdecreaseuniformlyafterconstruction,exceptinundisturbedwatersheds.Thisis
becausesedimentloadsfromurbanlandaremuchlowerthanthosefrommostpredevelopedland
uses,withtheexceptionofforest.Sedimentloadsaremuchhigherduringconstruction,withthe
sedimentloadincreasing,onaverage,about2%duringtheconstructionperiod.Somesubwatersheds
experienceadramaticincreaseduringconstruction,andatthesametimehaveanextremedecrease
afterconstruction.Forexample,subwatershedLSTM206hasa76%increaseduringconstruction,buta
35%decreaseafterconstruction.Thisresultoccursbecausesedimentloadsfromconstructionaremuch
higherthananyruralland,whileloadsfromdevelopedlandaremuchlower.Consequently,
subwatershedswithalargeareaofdisturbancewillexperienceadramaticincreaseduringconstruction,
followedbyamuchlowerpostconstructionload.Itisimportanttonotethatthesemodeledloadsdo
notincludechannelerosion.

Table3.AnnualLoadTotalSediment(lb/year)

Subwatershed

Existing
Conditions

LSTM110

258,706

1994
Masterplan
(during
construction)
258,850

LSTM111

198,599

170,314

LSTM112

327,212

286,048

LSTM201

545,924

LSTM202

Change
(%)

1994Masterplan
(After
Construction)

Change
(%)

106,872

59%

14%

76,908

61%

13%

264,780

19%

580,117

522,271

154,454

139,261

10%

78,496

49%

LSTM203

570,708

LSTM204

700,426

LSTM206

109,852

193,819

76%

71,488

35%

LSTM302

39,981

42,664

23,788

40%

LSTM303B

70,061

78,948

13%

66,209

LSTM304

15,820

2,991,740

3,036,972

2,497,765

17%

Watershed

March15,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
PollutantLoadModelingResults
Page8of9

AnnualRunoffVolume
Annualrunoffvolumeincreasesineverysubwatershedexceptthosethatarenotdisturbed(LSTM203,
LSTM204andLSTM304).Subwatershedswiththegreatestincreasewerealmosttheinverseofresults
forsedimentloading,withthegreatestincreasesinLSTM110and111,whichwouldhavethehighest
fractionoflanddisturbedforlanddevelopment.Runoffincreasesareslightlyhigherduringthe
constructionphase,sincebaregroundhasahighrunoffcoefficient,butnocontrolsthatreducerunoff
volume.

Table4.AnnualRunoffVolume(acreft/year)

Subwatershed

Existing
Conditions

LSTM110

1994
Masterplan
(during
construction)
107

LSTM111

LSTM112

Change
(%)

1994Masterplan
(After
Construction)

Change
(%)

69%

101

59%

67%

55%

12%

LSTM201

212

252

19%

250

18%

LSTM202

25%

19%

LSTM203

161

LSTM204

226

LSTM206

230

319

39%

311

35%

LSTM302

46%

40%

LSTM303B

31%

28%

LSTM304

1,106

1,337

21%

1,310

18%

Watershed

March15,2013
TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysisinSupportoftheClarksburgMasterPlanLimitedAmendment
PollutantLoadModelingResults
Page9of9

Summary
WaterqualitymodelingresultsforimplementingStage4of1994MasterPlanLandUsewithFullESD
indicatethattherewouldbeaslightincreaseinnutrientloadsbothduringandfollowingconstruction,a
significantincreaseinflowvolumes.Sedimentloads,excludingstreambankerosion,wouldincrease
slightlyduringtheconstructionphase,andthendecreaseinthepostdevelopedcondition.The
potentialfortheincreaseinannualrunoffvolumeisthemostsignificantresult,asitcouldpotentially
leadtogreaterchannelerosionordirectlyimpactinstreambiota.

Sometechniquesfordecreasingtheseimpactsincludethefollowing:
1) Sizestormwaterpracticestocapturerunofffrombothimperviousandpervioussurfaces.
2) Designthesitetominimizedisturbance,preserveoraddforestcover,andreduceimpervious
cover.
3) Decreasedisturbance,andselectivelydisturbtheleastpermeablesoils.Usetheseareasto
promoteinfiltration.
4) Decompactdisturbedsoilstoreducerunoffgeneratedbyurbanpervioussurfaces.

References
CenterforWatershedProtection(CWP),2010.TheWatershedTreatmentModel2010.EllicottCity,MD
Langland,M.J.,andCronin,T.M.,eds.,2003,AsummaryreportofsedimentprocessesinChesapeake
Bayandwatershed:U.S.GeologicalSurveyWaterResourcesInvestigationsReport034123,109
pp.
MarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment(MDE),2009.MarylandStormwaterDesignManual.
Availableat:
http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/StormwaterManagementProgram/MarylandStor
mwaterDesignManual/Pages/programs/waterprograms/sedimentandstormwater/stormwater_d
esign/index.aspx

TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis

AttachmentH.HydrologyandHydraulicsAnalysisComputationsandModelOutput
forExistingConditionsandFourDevelopmentScenarios

July3,2013

TenMileCreekWatershedEnvironmentalAnalysis

July3,2013

Memorandum
4061 Powder Mill Road, Suite 400
Beltsville, MD 20705
T: 301.479.1250
F: 301.479.1300

Prepared for:

Montgomery County Planning Department

Project Title:

Ten Mile Creek Watershed Environmental Analysis for the Clarksburg Master Plan
Limited Amendment

Subject:

Hydrology and Hydraulics Analysis Computations and Model Output for Existing
Conditions and Four Development Scenarios

Date:

June 12, 2013

To:

Mary Dolan and Valdis Lazdins, Montgomery County Planning Department

From:

Biohabitats and Brown and Caldwell, a Joint Venture

Section 1: Introduction
One of the chief means by which development can impact a stream is by hydrologic alteration. In the
absence of stormwater controls, an increase in impervious cover can lead to higher peak streamflows
and current velocities. This in turn can lead to increased erosion and sedimentation both on the land
surface and within the stream system, and subsequent impacts to biota. One of the major goals of
environmental site design (ESD) is to maintain natural hydrology and prevent adverse hydrologic and
hydraulic (H&H) impacts. This technical memorandum presents the methods and preliminary results of
a planning-level modeling analysis to evaluate the potential H&H effects of the Clarksburg Master Plan
on Ten Mile Creek prepared as part of an environmental analysis being conducted for the MarylandNational Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) Montgomery County Planning Department
by Biohabitats and Brown and Caldwell, a Joint Venture, with support from the Center for Watershed
Protection. The work was authorized under Change Order 2 to Purchase Order No. PQ008435 with
notice to proceed (NTP) issued May 14, 2013, and the analysis was completed in collaboration with
Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and Montgomery County
Department of Permitting Services (DPS).
The sections below provide descriptions of the computations and detailed output for analyses
conducted for the Existing Conditions and four development scenarios requested by the
Planning Department in May 2013. This work was in addition to prior analyses conducted in March 2013
of Existing Conditions and development proposed under the 1994 Master Plan1.
For the May 2013 analyses, the Planning Department crafted four scenarios for future development
within the watershed. Five watershed scenarios were analyzed, including:
Scenario 1: Existing Conditions The baseline for these analyses is existing conditions within the
watershed. This includes current land use, land cover and watershed infrastructure.
Scenario 2: 1994 Plan The 1994 Clarksburg Master Plan recommendations for density and land use
in Stage 4, assuming full Environmental Site Design for the developable and
redevelopable properties.
Scenario 3: Reduced Footprint, Same Yield The same as Scenario 1 with a reduced footprint for
the Pulte properties. Assumes a different unit mix that would allow approximately the
same number of units permitted by the 1994 Plan.
Scenario 4: Reduced Footprint Lower Yield The same as Scenario 2 with the same unit mix as
recommended in the 1994 Plan for the Pulte property, resulting in fewer potential units
on Pulte.
Scenario 5: 7% Watershed Imperviousness The same as Scenario 3 with reduced yield on
Miles/Coppola, Egan, and the County properties.

1 Prior work was documented in Technical Memorandum 1: Preliminary Results of the Hydrology and Hydraulics Analysis,
dated April 2, 2013; Amendment A to Technical Memorandum 1: Revised Environmental Site Design Modeling Scenario,
dated April 3, 2013; and an additional documentation in Memorandum: Hydrology and Hydraulics Analysis Computations
and Model Output for Existing Conditions and 1994 Master Plan Model Scenarios, dated April 11, 2013.

Section 2 describes the methodology used to model these development scenarios, Section 3 discusses
results and findings of the H&H analysis, and model output data are tabulated in Appendix A. Additional
supporting documents are provided in Appendices B through D.

Section 2: Methods
The primary tool used for the analysis was XP-SWMM 2012, a commercial modeling package developed
by XP Solutions. XP-SWMM is a dynamic rainfall-runoff model that was originally developed as a
graphical user interface to the USEPA Stormwater Water Management Model (EPA SWMM). For this
project, the model is being used to predict H&H impacts to Ten Mile Creek that would result from the
completion of the Clarksburg Master Plan implemented with full ESD in accordance with State and
County regulations.

2.1 Model Set-Up and Base Conditions Scenario

XP-SWMM offers several options for the simulation of rainfall-runoff. For this project, the SWMM
Runoff Non-Linear Reservoir method was selected because it provides the most flexibility for simulating
ESD practices. The model was set up to simulate a 1-year, 24-hour storm (2.6 inches) and a 2-year, 24hour storm (3.2 inches) and assuming an SCS Type II distribution. The 1-yr and 2-yr storm events were
chosen to analyze the effects of development on the existing stream condition due to the ability of
these storm events to influence the shape and form of natural channels. The model domain consists of
the Ten Mile Creek watershed upstream of Little Seneca Lake. The watershed was conceptually divided
into 16 runoff nodes that represent areas draining to Ten Mile Creek. The runoff nodes are listed in
ascending order starting from the most downstream node. The main Ten Mile Creek itself was
represented in the model as 30 hydraulic links, parameterized as natural channels using cross-sectional
survey data provided by the County. Links are labeled according to their upstream node and have the
prefix LN, for example link LN102 conveys flows from node 102 to node 101. A link node diagram of the
study area is provided in Appendix A.
The model set up described above is similar to the structure used in the prior analyses, which were
documented in the April 2013 memoranda mentioned above. However, several refinements were made
prior to evaluating the May 2013 scenarios. These included:

Creation of new subcatchment areas representing drainage to conventional BMPs to model

existing stormwater BMPs explicitly. This was a change from prior model runs which had
modeled existing stormwater BMPs implicitly by increasing the subcatchment width to
represent increased time of concentrations and peak discharge lags associated with existing
stormwater management facilities.
Addition of 5 runoff nodes and 13 hydraulic links to incorporate the additional catchments (as
compared to 11 nodes and 17 links used in the prior analyses).
Adjustments to the model structure to prevent water loss from the system during flooding.
These included adjustments of model node cross-sections and allowance of ponding at all model
nodes.

BMPs providing stormwater management within the Ten Mile Creek study area were identified through
review of Montgomery County GIS data, and are listed below. The existing BMPs modeled in the revised
May 2013 existing conditions scenario are listed in Table 1.
Table 1 Existing BMPs Included in Model
Asset
Number

11512
N/A
13700
UNK

Structure
Type

PDWTED
PDWTED
SF
2
SF

Property Name

Gateway 270 Corporate Park

SHA MD121/I-270 Southbound
High Point Farm (MD355)
Clarksburg Detention Facility

Drainage
Area

34.5
7.6
14.6
35

Data Source

Sub Watershed

DEP BMP Database

MDE Storm Print
DEP BMP Database
Montgomery Co DEP

206
206
201
201

GIS analysis was conducted to determine the acres of impervious surfaces draining to each type of BMP.
The existing Wet Pond BMP (Asset 11512) was modeled by limiting the discharge of the Channel
Protection Volume (CPv) to ensure a 24-hour detention in accordance with the requirements of the
Maryland Stormwater Design Manual. Asset 13700 at High Point Farm and the existing BMPs at the
Detention Center were modeled as surface sand filters using cross section information from as-built
records.
Pre-treatment, water quality and structures treating less than five acres were excluded due to assumed
negligible hydrologic impact. The excluded practices are listed in Table 2.
Table 2 Existing BMPs Excluded from the Model
Asset
Number

Structure
Type

Basin3

PDWTED

10387

INF

11212
12412
UNK
10337
14407
14406
12742
10701
UNK

PDQNED
SF
BR
IT
BR
SF
UG
INFU
DW

UNK

Property Name

Stringtown Road Extension &

Gateway Commons
Garden of Remembrance
Cemetery
Little Bennett Regional Park
Little Bennett Regional Park
Woodcrest Phase 5
Clarksburg Nursery
Clarksburg Ridge HOA
Clarksburg Ridge HOA
Clarksburg Elementary School
Clarksburg Elementary School
Huffman Property Single Family
Residence
Branch Hill Single Family
Residence

Drainage
Area

Data Source

Sub Watershed
3

12.9

Montgomery Co DEP

206

3.9

DEP BMP Database*

201

3.7
3.2
1.1
6.1
0.9
0.6
3.8
0.3
0.09

DEP BMP Database

DEP BMP Database*
DEP BMP Database*
DEP BMP Database*
DEP BMP Database*
DEP BMP Database*
DEP BMP Database
DEP BMP Database*
DEP BMP Database*

201
206
206
206
206
206
206
206
204

0.03

DEP BMP Database*

204

*Water quality BMP

Per as-built data, Detention Center SWM provided by sand filters and a dry pond.
County Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) (2012). Per 2010 Special Protection area program annual
report, sediment control structure not yet converted to a SWM facility, considered part of 11512 drainage area.
3Montgomery

The approach described above was used to create a revised base conditions model scenario to
represent the Ten Mile Creek watershed under existing conditions, prior to development described in
the Master Plan and the other development scenarios provided by the Planning Department.
To characterize the runoff characteristics of each subwatershed, each runoff node was assigned
acreages of pervious and impervious land based on available GIS data. Infiltration on pervious land
covers was modeled using the SCS Curve Number method. Composite curve numbers were calculated
for each runoff nodes based on land use and hydrologic soil group (HSG). The methods for developing
the composite curve numbers are described in Appendix C.

2.2 Development Scenarios

To represent the development scenarios, the base conditions model was altered in two manners. First,
the runoff nodes were parameterized to represent the land use and land cover conditions proposed in
the development scenarios provided by the Planning Department. This step required GIS-based analysis
and additional calculations to quantify how the proposed development (including a new utility
easement and highway interchange) would change the existing land cover and alter the existing
composite curve numbers. To account for construction impacts on soil, it was assumed that the
hydrologic soil groups (HSGs) of disturbed areas would be reduced by one category (e.g., B soils became
C soils; C soils became D soils). It was further assumed that development would be in compliance with
County topsoiling requirements; therefore curve numbers were adjusted by taking an average of the
curve numbers obtained from the existing HSGs and the reduced HSGs described above. Additional
changes to land use and land cover conditions were made outside the Planning Departments
development limits of disturbance (LODs) that occurred within the Special Protection Area (SPA). These
changes reflect the assumption that existing pasture and cropland between the limits of disturbance and
the stream would be replanted as forest. However, due to the time required to generate forest growth,
the pasture and cropland polygons were modeled using a runoff curve number representing meadow in
good condition. After GIS analysis of the land use changes associated with each of the development
scenarios, composite curve numbers were calculated for each model subcatchment area. Additional
description of the runoff curve numbers used for the development scenarios is provided in Appendix C.
Secondly, the base scenario model was altered to conceptually direct runoff from new development to
treatment practices. For the purposes of this screening-level analysis, with the exception of the
proposed I-270 widening discussed below, all development was assumed to be treated using microbioretention as a representative ESD practice. The required area and storage volume of microbioretention was calculated based on the new impervious surface of each subwatershed, using the
procedures of the Maryland Stormwater Design Manual and guidelines provided by Montgomery
County DEP. Each micro-bioretention filter was modeled with 9-inches of storage above the filter media,
with a decaying infiltration rate to model the available storage within the soil media as if it were initially
dry with a constant infiltration rate. The Horton method was utilized in XP-SWMM to represent both the
decaying infiltration of the ponded area and the constant infiltration from the soil media. A maximum
infiltration rate of 2 in/hour and a minimum (asymptotic) infiltration rate of 0.25 in/hour with a decaying

rate of 0.0015/sec were utilized in the model to represent the decaying infiltration rate. A constant
infiltration rate of 0.054 inch per hour was used to represent the infiltration from the soil media.
The available storage within the soil media was computed by assuming that the soil media cross section
would be 3-ft deep with a 40% void ratio. This depth of storage was combined with the assumed 3-inch
thick stone reservoir, also with a 40% void ratio, to arrive at the total storage available within the
conceptualized micro-bioretention cross section. The micro-bioretention filters were also assumed to
have underdrains that would be placed above the level of the stone reservoir and discharge to surface
water.
Although design standards allow larger micro-bioretention storage volumes than those used for in the
H&H modeling analyses, constructed practices cannot be assumed to function at maximum design
performance at all locations throughout the development, or at all times through a range of storm
events. Therefore, the parameters selected for modeling represent a more moderate level of
performance which allows for a margin of safety appropriate for this planning-level analysis.
In addition to the conceptual ESD practices, the development scenario model structure included a new
subcatchment to represent the drainage from the new impervious surface proposed as part of I-270
widening, which was modeled with conventional stormwater management to control the required
volumes. These model parameters were developed for the May model scenarios in conjunction with the
Planning Department, Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and
Montgomery County Department of Permitting Services (DPS) based on feedback received after
presentation of the earlier model results documented in the April 2013 memoranda mentioned above.
For each development scenario, each of the subwatersheds within the Ten Mile Creek Study Area was
represented in the model by five individual subcatchments. As described in more detail in Appendix C,
GIS files provided by the Planning Department were utilized to determine the composite runoff curve
number for each of the subcatchments based on land use and hydrologic soil groups (HSG).
Subcatchments #1 and #3 were the primary subcatchments utilizing curve numbers for the model
analysis to represent the infiltration capacity of the soils. Within each subwatershed, subcatchment #1
was used to represent all the land outside the proposed development area as defined by the LOD
provided by the Planning Department. A composite curve number was computed for subcatchment #1
based on the existing land use and underlying soil types. Subcatchments #2 and #3 were used to
represent the impervious and pervious portions of the proposed development, respectively.
Subcatchment #2 was used to combine all of the impervious areas of the proposed development, and
was assigned a curve number of 98. A composite curve number was computed for subcatchment #3
based on the proposed pervious land uses and underlying soil types. Summaries of the curve numbers
used for the model runs are provided in Appendix C.

4 Changed from the (0.025/hr rate specified in the Statement of Work SOW during the MNCPPC weekly check-in call on
5/6/13.

The XP-SWMM Runoff Non-Linear Reservoir method was used to simulate the runoff from
subcatchments #2 and #3 and route the runoff through the modeled ESD practices, which were
represented in the model as subcatchments #4 and #5. Subcatchment #4 represented the available
storage for ponding above the soil media for the conceptualized micro-bioretention cross section, and
subcatchment #5 represented the available storage in the soil media and conceptualized stone reservoir
at the base. The required areas and storage volumes of micro-bioretention practices were calculated
based on the new impervious surface areas of each subwatershed, using the procedures outlined in
Chapter 5 of the Maryland Stormwater Design Manual (including the target rainfalls values listed in
Table 5.3) and the micro-bioretention guidelines provided by Montgomery County DPS. The analysis
assumed that the rainfall targets will be met and Channel Protection Volume (CPv) requirements will be
satisfied, therefore negating the need for any additional stormwater management practices for the
development areas routed to ESD practices.
The required areas of ESD practices for each development were then calculated using Montgomery
Countys micro-bioretention guidelines, and the ESD areas for all developments proposed within the
subwatershed were summed and entered into the model. The ESD calculations are provided in Appendix
D.
Due to the limited amount of space within the I-270 Right-of-Way, the increase in impervious area
associated with the proposed I-270 widening was assumed to be treated with a conventional
stormwater treatment practice in the model. A wet pond was represented in the model as a storage
node with its discharge limited to the required Channel Protection storage volume in accordance with
Appendix D.11.1 of the Maryland Stormwater Design Manual.

Section 3: H&H Model Results and Findings

The model provided estimates of relative changes in total streamflow volume, peak streamflow and
streamflow velocity predicted to occur as a result of differences between existing land cover compared
to each development scenario. Results are tabulated in Appendix A. Major findings include:

The subwatersheds predicted to be most impacted from the 1994 Master Plan development
modeled in Scenario 2 include LSTM110, LSTM111 and LSTM206, with increased streamflow
volumes and peak flows also noted at downstream points LSTM202, LSTM302, LSTM303B and
the study outlet point at LSTM304.

The subwatersheds which showed most improvement from the reduced footprints modeled in
Scenario 3 (compared to Scenario 2) were LSTM110 and LSTM111. Improvements were also
seen at downstream points LSTM303B and the study area outlet at LSTM304.

In most subwatersheds, the differences between the development proposed under Scenario 3
versus Scenario 4 were too small to result in any significant model response. However,
additional improvements were seen as a result of the reduced imperviousness modeled in
Scenario 5, with the greatest benefits predicted in LSTM110, LSTM111 and LSTM206.
Improvements were also seen in LSTM201 and at the downstream modeling points at LSTM202,
LSTM203, LSTM302, LSTM303B and the study outlet point at LSTM304.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The H&H model was used as one of several planning-level tools in the environmental analysis of the Ten
Mile Creek Watershed conducted in support of the Clarksburg Master Plan Limited Amendment. The
purpose of the analysis was to compare the results of different scenarios within each modeled
subwatershed, and not for precise predictions of future health of Ten Mile Creek. There are no models
that can determine the impacts of development with proposed Environmental Site Design (ESD)
practices on the biological and ecosystem health of a receiving stream, and the model used for this
analysis was not calibrated to the downstream gauge so does not produce absolute value of the
modeled parameters. Rather, the model was used in this study to estimate relative discharge to the
model nodes to as one means of predicting the potential watershed impacts resulting from changes
between existing conditions and the modeled development scenarios.
The model responses represented the total change occurring in each subwatershed as a result of each
development scenario, including new impervious acres, reductions in existing forest cover and other
existing land use acreage, post-development runoff curve numbers, and the total area of ESD practices
required by the Maryland Stormwater Design Manual to manage runoff from the total acres of new
development. The H&H analysis was conducted at a scale that necessitated relatively large
subcatchment areas, and the configuration of new development within the Planning Departments LODs
was not spatially represented in the model, nor were the ESD structures, which in practice will be
required to be distributed throughout the development per Montgomery County and Maryland design
requirements. A more detailed assessment conducted at a smaller subcatchment scale to reflect
proposed development configuration and site-specific ESD techniques may be better able to simulate
the extent of stream response to proposed developments, however, the results of the planning scale
analysis indicate that ESD will not fully mitigate the impacts of development on the hydrology in the Ten
Mile Creek watershed.
Given the level of development proposed and the strong correlation between the extent of
development and model responses, increases in stormwater runoff volume and peak flow can be
expected in all development scenarios despite the application of ESD practices (Center for Watershed
Protection, 2013). Literature review of case studies and monitoring to document the effectiveness of
ESD and similar low impact development (LID) strategies are limited and dont appear to exist at a

watershed scale of analysis. Where case studies do exist at a subdivision scale, there is no conclusive
evidence that ESD fully protects stream health.
So although ESD may be able to mitigate the impacts of development to some degree, the findings of
the analysis indicate that additional development within the Ten Mile Creek watershed will have a
negative impact on stream hydrology. In order to minimize impacts to Ten Mile Creek, it is
recommended that disturbance of natural resources throughout the Ten Mile Creek study area be
minimized, especially forest cover in the headwater areas, and that existing conditions in the high
quality headwater subwatersheds of LSTM110 and LSTM111 be preserved. If development occurs in
these subwatersheds, the limits of disturbance should be minimized, such as the LODs represented in
Scenarios 3, 4 and 5.
In addition, within any developed areas, it is recommended that site planning techniques be employed
as the first measure of Environmental Site Design to preserve and protect natural resources; conserve
natural drainage patterns; minimize impervious areas; cluster development; and limit soil disturbance,
mass grading and compaction. Required volumes should be controlled with ESD treatment practices
selected to achieve the greatest watershed benefits based on evaluation of site-specific and
subwatershed-specific considerations.

Appendix A
Model Results

Stream Flow Velocity (fps)

2-yr, 24-hr
Peak Stream Flow (cfs)
Storm

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Stream Flow Velocity (fps)

1-yr, 24-hr
Peak Stream Flow (cfs)
Storm

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Model Parameter:

Model Scenarios

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

Model Scenarios

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

% Change from Existing Conditions

2-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Stream Draining LSTM110

Total Stream Flow Volume, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

20%

40%

60%

80%

4.4
42.6
1.1
5.7
79.8
1.5

9.9
54.7
2.8
15.7
95.2
3.4

5.5
12.2
1.8
10.1
15.5
1.9

80%
350%
62%
56%
516%
78%

% Change

100%

200%

300%

400%

500%

600%

36%
289%
63%
23%
420%
67%

Model Scenarios

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

% Change from Existing Conditions

2-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Stream Draining LSTM110

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

% Change from Existing Conditions

1-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Peak Stream Flow, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

100%

200%

300%

400%

2.0
35.1
1.1
2.3
65.0
1.3

7.5
47.2
2.9
12.4
80.5
3.2

% Change

6.9
41.8
2.8
11.6
72.9
3.0
25%
244%
57%
15%
371%
61%

% Change

Hydrographs, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

Hydrographs, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

1.4
29.7
1.0
1.6
57.4
1.2

Net Impact
(Change)

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness
Developed
Conditions

Change compared to Existing Conditions

Net Impact
(Change)

Developed
Conditions

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

Stream Draining LSTM110

Peak Stream Flow, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

Net Impact
(Change)

Developed
Conditions

Scenario 2: Revised 1994

Master Plan

Existing Conditions

Existing
Conditions

Clarksburg Master Plan Limited Amendment for the Ten Mile Creek Watershed

% Change from Existing Conditions

1-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Stream Draining LSTM110

Total Stream Flow Volume, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

drains to link 71

Model
Results

Storm
Event:

LSTM110

H-H Modeling Results

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Peak Stream Flow (cfs)

6.8
40.4
2.7
11.6
70.8
3.0

Developed
Conditions

1.3
28.2
1.0
1.5
55.3
1.1

Net Impact
(Change)

24%
232%
56%
15%
357%
60%

% Change

Scenario 5: Seven Percent

Overall Imperviousness

May 2013

Stream Flow Velocity (fps)

2-yr, 24-hr
Peak Stream Flow (cfs)
Storm

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Stream Flow Velocity (fps)

1-yr, 24-hr
Peak Stream Flow (cfs)
Storm

Model Scenarios

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

Model Scenarios

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

% Change from Existing Conditions

2-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Stream Draining LSTM111

Total Stream Flow Volume, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

% Change from Existing Conditions

1-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Stream Draining LSTM111

1.5
29.2
1.1
1.8
47.4
1.3

5.0
33.1
1.8
7.9
56.9
2.1

3.472
3.9360
0.7
6.0
9.5
0.9

43%
741%
151%
30%
497%
145%

% Change

100%

200%

300%

400%

500%

26%
739%
155%
17%
485%
145%

% Change

Model Scenarios

Stream Draining LSTM111

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

% Change from Existing Conditions

2-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Model Scenarios

4.2
29.3
1.7
6.8
49.7
2.0
21%
644%
141%
13%
421%
132%

% Change

Hydrographs, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

Hydrographs, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

0.7
25.3
1.0
0.8
40.2
1.2

Net Impact
(Change)

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness
Developed
Conditions

Change compared to Existing Conditions

0.9
29.1
1.1
1.0
46.2
1.3

Net Impact
(Change)

% Change from Existing Conditions

1-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Peak Stream Flow, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

200%

400%

600%

800%

4.4
33.0
1.8
7.0
55.8
2.1

Developed
Conditions

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

Stream Draining LSTM111

Peak Stream Flow, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

Net Impact
(Change)

Developed
Conditions

Scenario 2: Revised 1994

Master Plan

Existing Conditions

Existing
Conditions

Clarksburg Master Plan Limited Amendment for the Ten Mile Creek Watershed

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Model Parameter:

Total Stream Flow Volume, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

drains to link 61

Model
Results

Storm
Event:

LSTM111

H-H Modeling Results

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Peak Stream Flow (cfs)

4.1
27.8
1.7
6.8
47.7
2.0

Developed
Conditions

0.7
23.8
1.0
0.7
38.2
1.1

Net Impact
(Change)

19%
605%
137%
12%
400%
130%

% Change

Scenario 5: Seven Percent

Overall Imperviousness

May 2013

Stream Flow Velocity (fps)

2-yr, 24-hr
Peak Stream Flow (cfs)
Storm

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Stream Flow Velocity (fps)

1-yr, 24-hr
Peak Stream Flow (cfs)
Storm

Model Scenarios

-5%

10%

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

Model Scenarios
Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

% Change from Existing Conditions

2-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Stream Draining LSTM112

Total Stream Flow Volume, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

-5%

10%

% Change from Existing Conditions

1-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Stream Draining LSTM112

0.0
15.5
0.3
-0.2
31.2
0.1

5.7
32.9
2.2
10.3
53.0
2.1

5.7
17.3
1.9
10.5
21.8
2.1

-1%
90%
14%
-2%
143%
3%

% Change

120%

130%

140%

150%

160%

170%

2%
98%
14%
0%
163%
3%

% Change

Model Scenarios

Stream Draining LSTM112

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

% Change from Existing Conditions

2-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Model Scenarios

5.7
32.7
2.1
10.3
53.4
2.2
-1%
89%
12%
-2%
145%
5%

% Change

Hydrographs, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

Hydrographs, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

0.0
15.4
0.2
-0.2
31.6
0.1

Net Impact
(Change)

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness
Developed
Conditions

Change compared to Existing Conditions

0.1
17.1
0.3
0.0
35.6
0.1

Net Impact
(Change)

% Change from Existing Conditions

1-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Peak Stream Flow, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

5.8
34.4
2.2
10.5
57.4
2.1

Developed
Conditions

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

Stream Draining LSTM112

Peak Stream Flow, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

Net Impact
(Change)

Developed
Conditions

Scenario 2: Revised 1994

Master Plan

Existing Conditions

Existing
Conditions

Clarksburg Master Plan Limited Amendment for the Ten Mile Creek Watershed

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Model Parameter:

Total Stream Flow Volume, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

drains to link 21

Model
Results

Storm
Event:

LSTM112

H-H Modeling Results

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Peak Stream Flow (cfs)

5.7
32.1
2.1
10.2
52.2
2.2

Developed
Conditions

-0.1
14.8
0.2
-0.3
30.4
0.2

Net Impact
(Change)

-1%
85%
11%
-3%
139%
7%

% Change

Scenario 5: Seven Percent

Overall Imperviousness

May 2013

Stream Flow Velocity (fps)

2-yr, 24-hr
Peak Stream Flow (cfs)
Storm

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Stream Flow Velocity (fps)

1-yr, 24-hr
Peak Stream Flow (cfs)
Storm

Model Scenarios

10%

15%

20%

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

Model Scenarios

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

% Change from Existing Conditions

2-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Stream Draining LSTM201

Total Stream Flow Volume, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

% Change from Existing Conditions

1-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Stream Draining LSTM201

3.2
15.2
0.2
4.3
50.0
0.5

20.5
68.7
1.8
34.9
116.9
2.3

17.2
53.5
1.7
30.7
66.9
1.8

19%
28%
10%
14%
75%
25%

% Change

20%

40%

60%

80%

26%
30%
10%
20%
78%
26%

% Change

Model Scenarios

Stream Draining LSTM201

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

% Change from Existing Conditions

2-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Model Scenarios

21.7
69.4
1.8
36.7
119.1
2.3
26%
30%
10%
20%
78%
26%

% Change

Hydrographs, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

Hydrographs, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

4.4
16.0
0.2
6.1
52.2
0.5

Net Impact
(Change)

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness
Developed
Conditions

Change compared to Existing Conditions

4.4
15.8
0.2
6.1
52.0
0.5

Net Impact
(Change)

% Change from Existing Conditions

1-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Peak Stream Flow, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

21.7
69.3
1.8
36.7
118.9
2.3

Developed
Conditions

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

Stream Draining LSTM201

Peak Stream Flow, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

Net Impact
(Change)

Developed
Conditions

Scenario 2: Revised 1994

Master Plan

Existing Conditions

Existing
Conditions

Clarksburg Master Plan Limited Amendment for the Ten Mile Creek Watershed

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Model Parameter:

Total Stream Flow Volume, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

drains to link 110

Model
Results

Storm
Event:

LSTM201

H-H Modeling Results

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Peak Stream Flow (cfs)

20.3
57.1
1.7
35.0
95.1
2.1

Developed
Conditions

3.0
3.6
0.0
4.3
28.2
0.2

Net Impact
(Change)

18%
7%
1%
14%
42%
13%

% Change

Scenario 5: Seven Percent

Overall Imperviousness

May 2013

Stream Flow Velocity (fps)

2-yr, 24-hr
Peak Stream Flow (cfs)
Storm

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Stream Flow Velocity (fps)

1-yr, 24-hr
Peak Stream Flow (cfs)
Storm

Model Scenarios

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

Model Scenarios

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

% Change from Existing Conditions

2-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Stream Draining LSTM202

Total Stream Flow Volume, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

% Change from Existing Conditions

1-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Stream Draining LSTM202

13.0
39.6
0.2
17.0
102.5
0.5

37.6
137.9
2.7
56.2
229.5
3.2

24.6
98.3
2.5
39.2
127.0
2.7

53%
40%
8%
43%
81%
16%

% Change

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

46%
44%
9%
37%
79%
16%

% Change

Model Scenarios

Stream Draining LSTM202

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

% Change from Existing Conditions

2-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Model Scenarios

35.8
140.4
2.7
53.6
225.6
3.2
46%
43%
9%
37%
78%
15%

% Change

Hydrographs, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

Hydrographs, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

11.2
42.1
0.2
14.4
98.6
0.4

Net Impact
(Change)

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness
Developed
Conditions

Change compared to Existing Conditions

11.3
43.5
0.2
14.4
100.3
0.4

Net Impact
(Change)

% Change from Existing Conditions

1-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Peak Stream Flow, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

35.8
141.8
2.8
53.7
227.3
3.2

Developed
Conditions

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

Stream Draining LSTM202

Peak Stream Flow, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

Net Impact
(Change)

Developed
Conditions

Scenario 2: Revised 1994

Master Plan

Existing Conditions

Existing
Conditions

Clarksburg Master Plan Limited Amendment for the Ten Mile Creek Watershed

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Model Parameter:

Total Stream Flow Volume, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

drains to link 101

Model
Results

Storm
Event:

LSTM202

H-H Modeling Results

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Peak Stream Flow (cfs)

33.6
122.4
2.7
50.7
195.1
3.0

Developed
Conditions

9.0
24.1
0.2
11.5
68.0
0.3

Net Impact
(Change)

37%
25%
8%
29%
54%
10%

% Change

Scenario 5: Seven Percent

Overall Imperviousness

May 2013

Stream Flow Velocity (fps)

2-yr, 24-hr
Peak Stream Flow (cfs)
Storm

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Stream Flow Velocity (fps)

1-yr, 24-hr
Peak Stream Flow (cfs)
Storm

Model Scenarios

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

Model Scenarios

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

% Change from Existing Conditions

2-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Stream Draining LSTM203

Total Stream Flow Volume, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

% Change from Existing Conditions

1-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Stream Draining LSTM203

17.7
81.2
0.4
23.3
156.7
0.5

71.3
196.9
2.5
115.5
323.8
2.9

53.7
115.7
2.1
92.2
167.1
2.4

33%
70%
20%
25%
94%
23%

% Change

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

32%
70%
22%
24%
95%
23%

% Change

Model Scenarios

Stream Draining LSTM203

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

% Change from Existing Conditions

-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Model Scenarios

70.6
196.1
2.5
114.6
324.5
2.9
32%
69%
21%
24%
94%
23%

% Change

Hydrographs, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

Hydrographs, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

17.0
80.4
0.4
22.4
157.4
0.5

Net Impact
(Change)

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness
Developed
Conditions

Change compared to Existing Conditions

17.0
80.8
0.5
22.5
159.0
0.5

Net Impact
(Change)

% Change from Existing Conditions

1-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Peak Stream Flow, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

20%

40%

60%

80%

70.7
196.5
2.5
114.7
326.1
2.9

Developed
Conditions

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

Stream Draining LSTM203

Peak Stream Flow, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

Net Impact
(Change)

Developed
Conditions

Scenario 2: Revised 1994

Master Plan

Existing Conditions

Existing
Conditions

Clarksburg Master Plan Limited Amendment for the Ten Mile Creek Watershed

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Model Parameter:

Total Stream Flow Volume, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

drains to link 90

Model
Results

Storm
Event:

LSTM203

H-H Modeling Results

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Peak Stream Flow (cfs)

67.0
161.6
2.3
109.8
272.6
2.8

Developed
Conditions

13.3
45.9
0.3
17.6
105.5
0.4

Net Impact
(Change)

25%
40%
13%
19%
63%
19%

% Change

Scenario 5: Seven Percent

Overall Imperviousness

May 2013

Stream Flow Velocity (fps)

2-yr, 24-hr
Peak Stream Flow (cfs)
Storm

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Stream Flow Velocity (fps)

1-yr, 24-hr
Peak Stream Flow (cfs)
Storm

Model Scenarios

-25%

-15%

-5%

15%

25%

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

Model Scenarios
Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

% Change from Existing Conditions

2-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Stream Draining LSTM204

Total Stream Flow Volume, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

-25%

-15%

-5%

15%

25%

% Change from Existing Conditions

1-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Stream Draining LSTM204

0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
1.2
-0.2

15.9
47.7
2.7
28.6
61.5
2.5

15.9
47.4
2.6
28.6
60.3
2.7

0%
1%
2%
0%
2%
-6%

% Change

5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
-1%
-2%
-3%
-4%

0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
-6%

Model Scenarios

Model Scenarios
Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

% Change from Existing Conditions

2-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Stream Draining LSTM204

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

% Change from Existing Conditions

1-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Peak Stream Flow, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
-1%
-2%
-3%
-4%

0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
1.3
-0.2

15.9
47.5
2.6
28.6
61.6
2.5

% Change

15.9
47.5
2.6
28.6
61.5
2.5
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
-5%

% Change

Hydrographs, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

Hydrographs, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
1.2
-0.1

Net Impact
(Change)

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness
Developed
Conditions

Change compared to Existing Conditions

Net Impact
(Change)

Developed
Conditions

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

Stream Draining LSTM204

Peak Stream Flow, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

Net Impact
(Change)

Developed
Conditions

Scenario 2: Revised 1994

Master Plan

Existing Conditions

Existing
Conditions

Clarksburg Master Plan Limited Amendment for the Ten Mile Creek Watershed

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Model Parameter:

Total Stream Flow Volume, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

drains to link 041

Model
Results

Storm
Event:

LSTM204

H-H Modeling Results

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Peak Stream Flow (cfs)

12.1
46.4
2.6
23.0
58.4
2.5

Developed
Conditions

-3.8
-0.9
0.0
-5.6
-1.9
-0.2

Net Impact
(Change)

-24%
-2%
-1%
-20%
-3%
-6%

% Change

Scenario 5: Seven Percent

Overall Imperviousness

May 2013

Stream Flow Velocity (fps)

2-yr, 24-hr
Peak Stream Flow (cfs)
Storm

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Stream Flow Velocity (fps)

1-yr, 24-hr
Peak Stream Flow (cfs)
Storm

Model Scenarios

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

Model Scenarios

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

% Change from Existing Conditions

2-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Stream Draining LSTM206

Total Stream Flow Volume, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

% Change from Existing Conditions

1-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Stream Draining LSTM206

10.8
11.2
0.1
14.3
53.1
0.1

27.3
98.4
2.6
39.5
161.1
2.8

16.5
87.2
2.5
25.2
108.0
2.7

66%
13%
3%
57%
49%
4%

% Change

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%
15%
4%
52%
49%
4%

% Change

Model Scenarios

Stream Draining LSTM206

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

% Change from Existing Conditions

2-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Model Scenarios

26.4
99.9
2.6
38.2
161.0
2.8
60%
15%
4%
52%
49%
4%

% Change

Hydrographs, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

Hydrographs, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

9.9
12.8
0.1
13.1
53.0
0.1

Net Impact
(Change)

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness
Developed
Conditions

Change compared to Existing Conditions

9.9
12.7
0.1
13.0
52.9
0.1

Net Impact
(Change)

% Change from Existing Conditions

1-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Peak Stream Flow, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

-10%

-5%

10%

15%

26.4
99.9
2.6
38.2
160.9
2.8

Developed
Conditions

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

Stream Draining LSTM206

Peak Stream Flow, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

Net Impact
(Change)

Developed
Conditions

Scenario 2: Revised 1994

Master Plan

Existing Conditions

Existing
Conditions

Clarksburg Master Plan Limited Amendment for the Ten Mile Creek Watershed

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Model Parameter:

Total Stream Flow Volume, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

drains to link 102

Model
Results

Storm
Event:

LSTM206

H-H Modeling Results

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Peak Stream Flow (cfs)

24.3
82.6
2.5
35.5
130.0
2.7

Developed
Conditions

7.8
-4.6
0.0
10.3
22.0
0.0

Net Impact
(Change)

47%
-5%
-2%
41%
20%
-1%

% Change

Scenario 5: Seven Percent

Overall Imperviousness

May 2013

Stream Flow Velocity (fps)

2-yr, 24-hr
Peak Stream Flow (cfs)
Storm

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Stream Flow Velocity (fps)

1-yr, 24-hr
Peak Stream Flow (cfs)
Storm

Model Scenarios

10%

15%

20%

25%

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

Model Scenarios

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

% Change from Existing Conditions

2-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Stream Draining LSTM302

Total Stream Flow Volume, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

% Change from Existing Conditions

1-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Stream Draining LSTM302

17.2
77.8
0.3
22.5
155.3
0.4

73.5
190.3
1.8
119.5
322.5
2.1

56.3
112.5
1.5
96.9
167.2
1.7

30%
69%
21%
23%
93%
21%

% Change

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

30%
74%
23%
23%
95%
22%

% Change

Model Scenarios

Stream Draining LSTM302

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

% Change from Existing Conditions

2-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Model Scenarios

73.4
194.5
1.8
119.5
325.3
2.1
30%
73%
22%
23%
95%
22%

% Change

Hydrographs, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

Hydrographs, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

17.1
81.9
0.3
22.5
158.1
0.4

Net Impact
(Change)

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness
Developed
Conditions

Change compared to Existing Conditions

17.1
83.1
0.3
22.6
159.5
0.4

Net Impact
(Change)

% Change from Existing Conditions

1-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Peak Stream Flow, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

20%

40%

60%

80%

73.5
195.7
1.8
119.5
326.7
2.1

Developed
Conditions

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

Stream Draining LSTM302

Peak Stream Flow, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

Net Impact
(Change)

Developed
Conditions

Scenario 2: Revised 1994

Master Plan

Existing Conditions

Existing
Conditions

Clarksburg Master Plan Limited Amendment for the Ten Mile Creek Watershed

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Model Parameter:

Total Stream Flow Volume, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

drains to link 80

Model
Results

Storm
Event:

LSTM302

H-H Modeling Results

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Peak Stream Flow (cfs)

69.7
160.7
1.7
114.6
274.4
2.0

Developed
Conditions

13.3
48.1
0.2
17.7
107.2
0.3

Net Impact
(Change)

24%
43%
14%
18%
64%
18%

% Change

Scenario 5: Seven Percent

Overall Imperviousness

May 2013

Stream Flow Velocity (fps)

2-yr, 24-hr
Peak Stream Flow (cfs)
Storm

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Stream Flow Velocity (fps)

1-yr, 24-hr
Peak Stream Flow (cfs)
Storm

Model Scenarios

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Model Scenarios

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

% Change from Existing Conditions

2-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

35%
115%
18%
26%
129%
27%

% Change

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

29%
107%
17%
22%
117%
25%

% Change

Model Scenarios

Stream Draining LSTM303B

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

% Change from Existing Conditions

2-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Model Scenarios

87.3
216.8
2.3
143.1
376.6
2.9
28%
102%
15%
21%
114%
24%

% Change

Hydrographs, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

Hydrographs, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

19.2
109.3
0.3
24.7
200.4
0.6

Net Impact
(Change)

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness
Developed
Conditions

Change compared to Existing Conditions

19.9
114.7
0.3
25.8
205.6
0.6

Net Impact
(Change)

% Change from Existing Conditions

1-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Peak Stream Flow, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

88.1
222.2
2.4
144.2
381.8
2.9

Developed
Conditions

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

Stream Draining LSTM303B

Peak Stream Flow, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

23.8
124.1
0.4
30.8
226.5
0.6

91.9
231.6
2.4
149.2
402.7
2.9

68.1
107.5
2.0
118.4
176.2
2.3

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

Stream Draining LSTM303B

Total Stream Flow Volume, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

% Change from Existing Conditions

1-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Stream Draining LSTM303B

Net Impact
(Change)

Developed
Conditions

Scenario 2: Revised 1994

Master Plan

Existing Conditions

Existing
Conditions

Clarksburg Master Plan Limited Amendment for the Ten Mile Creek Watershed

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Model Parameter:

Total Stream Flow Volume, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

drains to link 50

Model
Results

Storm
Event:

LSTM303B

H-H Modeling Results

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Peak Stream Flow (cfs)

83.3
183.7
2.3
138.0
328.9
2.7

Developed
Conditions

15.2
76.2
0.3
19.6
152.6
0.4

Net Impact
(Change)

22%
71%
14%
17%
87%
18%

% Change

Scenario 5: Seven Percent

Overall Imperviousness

May 2013

Stream Flow Velocity (fps)

2-yr, 24-hr
Peak Stream Flow (cfs)
Storm

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Stream Flow Velocity (fps)

1-yr, 24-hr
Peak Stream Flow (cfs)
Storm

Model Scenarios

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

10%

15%

20%

25%

Model Scenarios

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

% Change from Existing Conditions

2-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Stream Draining Study Area Outflow

Total Stream Flow Volume, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

% Change from Existing Conditions

1-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Stream Draining Study Area Outflow

23.8
120.2
0.4
30.8
228.8
0.6

109.4
229.6
2.6
180.7
423.0
3.2

85.6
109.4
2.2
149.9
194.2
2.6

28%
110%
20%
21%
118%
25%

% Change

105.5
219.0
2.6
175.5
398.8
3.2

Developed
Conditions

Model Scenarios

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Model Scenarios

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

% Change from Existing Conditions

2-yr, 24-hr Storm
Scenario 2: Revised

Stream Draining Study Area Outflow

Scenario 5: Seven
Percent Overall
Imperviousness

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

1994 Master Plan

% Change from Existing Conditions

1-yr, 24-hr Storm Scenario 2: Revised

Peak Stream Flow, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

23%
100%
18%
17%
105%
21%

% Change

104.7
214.0
2.6
174.5
393.2
3.1
22%
96%
18%
16%
102%
20%

% Change

Hydrographs, 2-yr, 24-hr Storm

Hydrographs, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

19.1
104.6
0.4
24.6
199.0
0.5

Net Impact
(Change)

Scenario 4: Reduced
Imperviousness
Developed
Conditions

Change compared to Existing Conditions

19.9
109.7
0.4
25.7
204.6
0.6

Net Impact
(Change)

Scenario 3: Reduced
Footprint

Stream Draining Study Area Outflow

Peak Stream Flow, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

Net Impact
(Change)

Developed
Conditions

Scenario 2: Revised 1994

Master Plan

Existing Conditions

Existing
Conditions

Clarksburg Master Plan Limited Amendment for the Ten Mile Creek Watershed

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Model Parameter:

Total Stream Flow Volume, 1-yr, 24-hr Storm

drains to link 30

Model
Results

Storm
Event:

STUDY AREA OUTFLOW

H-H Modeling Results

Total Stream Flow Volume (ac-ft)

Peak Stream Flow (cfs)

96.9
182.6
2.6
163.7
335.4
2.9

Developed
Conditions

11.3
73.3
0.4
13.9
141.2
0.3

Net Impact
(Change)

13%
67%
17%
9%
73%
13%

% Change

Scenario 5: Seven Percent

Overall Imperviousness

May 2013

Appendix B
Link Node Diagram

Appendix C
Calculation of Runoff Curve Numbers

The XP-SWMM hydrologic model uses a standard Curve Number method as part of its calculation of
runoff during storm events. Curve numbers correspond to runoff characteristics of different hydrologic
soil groups and land cover types, with higher curve numbers corresponding to soil groups and land cover
types that are less permeable and contribute more stormwater runoff. The process of generating
composite curve numbers for each of the modeled subcatchments is described below.
Curve numbers were be established from the United States Department of Agricultures Urban
Hydrology for Small Watersheds, TR-55, tables 2-2a, 2-2b, and 2-2c. Land uses in the Ten Mile Creek
study area were used to assign a representative TR-55 cover description then an associated curve
number based on soil infiltration characteristics. The study area land use descriptions, representative
TR-55 cover descriptions and curve numbers utilized in the model scenario are provided in Table C-1.
Table C-1: Runoff Curve Numbers
Curve Numbers for
Hydrologic Soil Group

Land Cover Type

Study Area Land Use

Representative TR-55 Cover Description

Impervious

Wetlands

Impervious

Water

Impervious

Cropland

Small Grain, Good

Bare Ground

Fallow, Bare Soil

Large Lot Subdivision (ag)

Pasture, Grassland, Good Condition

Pasture

Pasture, Grassland, Good Condition

Large Lot Subdivision (forest)

Woods, Good

Forest

Woods, Good

Low Density Residential

Residential Districts, 2 acres

Medium Density Residential

Residential Districts, 1/2 acre

High Density Residential

Residential Districts 1/8 acre

Transportation Right of Way

Open Space, Good Condition

Utility Right of Way

Open Space, Good Condition

Institutional

Open Space, Fair Condition

Industrial

Commercial

Commercial and Business

Land conversions outside SPA

3
LODs

Meadow

Land conversions inside Rural

4
Parcel LODs

Open Space, Good Condition

2.
3.
4.

Representative TR-55 Cover Description and Curve Numbers synthesized from tables: 2-2a, 2-2b, and 2-2c from USDA NRCS Urban
Hydrology for Small Watersheds TR-55.
A hydrologic condition of good assumed for all appropriate cover descriptions
Conversions of unforested land to Meadow were processed between the stream and LODs in the SPA, as described in Section 2.
Conversions to of undeveloped and unforested land to Open Space were processed for development in the rural parcels.

For the base (existing conditions) model scenario, the overall runoff characteristics to each model node
were characterized by calculating acreages for each combination of existing land use and HSG category
based on unions of the GIS land cover, land use and hydrologic soil group (HSG) data provided for the
study. Each of the resulting land use/HSG combinations was then assigned a TR-55 curve number from
Table C-1, then the data polygons were combined through weighted averages to produce one composite
curve number representing overall runoff characteristics for each subcatchment area. Data sources
used for the analyses were provided by the Planning Department.
During development, heavy equipment used to grade land for construction compacts soils within the
Limits of Disturbance (LOD), which increases the runoff from these areas along with the associated curve
number. One method of modeling to account for the soil compaction that occurs during development is
to assume that a soil moves from its original hydrologic soil group to the next less permeable soil group
as a result of compaction.
In addition to state ESD requirements, Montgomery County requires a toposoiling or decompaction
procedure for soils in grassed and landscaped (pervious) areas with the LOD. This procedure involves
tillage to a depth from 8 to 10 inches, with 4 inches of topsoil added. A more rigorous procedure that
involves a deeper tillage of 2 feet with organic material mixed in to amend the soil typically is sufficient
to bring the soil approximately back to its original curve number. Because the Countys requirements
involve tillage to almost half the depth of the more rigorous procedure, and includes topsoil, a moderate
assumption for the effect of the Countys soil decompaction method is a final curve number halfway
between the original soil curve number and the compacted soil curve number. This assumption was
used to represent the Countys soil decompaction requirements in the XP-SWMM hydrologic model.
For the May 2013 development scenarios, as described in Section 2, in each subwatershed,
subcatchment #1 was used to represent all the land outside the proposed development area as defined
by the LODs provided by the Planning Department. After separating out the areas within the
development LODs, the composite curve number within subcatchment #1 was recalculated based on the
remaining acreages of existing land use and underlying soil type combinations, using the same land use
categories and associated TR-55 curve numbers as were used to calculate the CNs for the base (existing
conditions) model scenario. Subcatchments #2 and #3 were used to represent the impervious and
pervious portions of the new development, respectively. Subcatchment #2 was used to combine all of
the impervious areas of the proposed development, and assigned a curve number of 98. A composite
curve number was computed for subcatchment #3 based on the proposed pervious land uses after the
conversion process described above, and the underlying soil types. The TR-55 curve numbers for existing
soil HSG and the next less permeable HSG were averaged to represent each post-development pervious
land use polygon. For example, a polygon converted to High Density Residential in a B soil HSG would
be assigned a curve number of 87.5, or the average between the B soil CN of 85 and the C soil CN of 90.
The data used to generate the composite curve numbers for the development scenarios included the
TR-55 curve numbers listed in Table C-1, along with existing land use data, the shapefiles representing
proposed development parcels, and numerous other data files provided by the Planning Department.
Table C-2 provides a summary of CNs calculated for each model scenario.

Table C-2: Composite Curve Numbers used for Model Scenarios

Scenario 1

LSTM
110
111
112
201
202
203
204
206
302
303B
304

Existing
Conditons
66
69
65
66
69
66
68
65
69
65
67

SC = Subcatchment

Scenario 2

SC1 Undeveloped
65
64
61
66
66
66
68
67
64
65
67

SC3 Developed
Pervious
72
75
77
71
78
79
76
69
73
70
NA

Scenario 3

SC1 Undeveloped
62
63
61
66
64
66
68
65
70
64
67

SC3 Developed
Pervious
77
78
78
71
84
79
76
72
68
76
NA

Scenario 4

SC1 Undeveloped
62
63
61
66
64
66
68
65
70
64
67

SC3 Developed
Pervious
77
78
78
71
84
79
76
72
68
76
NA

Scenario 5

SC1 Undeveloped
62
63
61
60
64
66
68
65
70
64
67

SC3 Developed
Pervious
77
78
78
69
86
79
76
72
68
76
NA

Scenarios 2-5 also included subcatchment 2 to represent all post-development impervious area, with a curve number of 98.

Appendix D
Environmental Site Design Calculations

SCENARIO 2

Sub Basin 110 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)

Sub-Basin
Development
110
Pulte Residential
110
Pulte Residential
Sub Basin 111 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
111
Pulte Residential
111
Pulte Residential
Sub Basin 112 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
112
Pulte Residential
Sub Basin 201 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
201
Egan/Mattlyn
201
Egan/Mattlyn
201
Developable Private Rural
201
Developable Private Rural
201
I-270 Median
201
I-270 Median
Sub Basin 202 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
202
MD 121
202
Pulte Residential
202
Pulte Residential
202
Pulte County Site
202
Pulte County Site
202
Pulte County Site
Sub Basin 203 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
203
Developable Private Rural
Sub Basin 204 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
204
Developable Private Rural
Sub Basin 206 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
206
Developable Private Rural
206
Egan/Mattlyn
206
Fire Station
206
Hammer Hill
206
Historic Area Commercial
206
Historic Property Vacant
206
Historic Property Vacant
206
MD 121
206
MD 121
206
MD 121
206
MD 355
206
MD 355
206
MD 355
206
Miles Coppola
206
Miles Coppola
206
Miles Coppola
206
Pulte County
206
Pulte County
206
I-270 Median
206
I-270 Median
206
I-270 Median
206
Historic District Residential
206
Towne Center Redev
Sub Basin 302 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
302
Pulte Residential
302
Developable Private Rural
302
Developable Private Rural
Sub Basin 303B (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
303b
Developable Private Rural
303b
Developable Private Rural
303b
Pulte Residential
303b
Pulte Residential

HSG Area (Acres)

B
85.43
C
1.74

Rv
Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3) Af (Mont Co) sf Total Af (acres)Mont. Co Af (Acres)
Area (ft2) RCN RCN* Impervious (%)
3721209.64 55
55
33.02
0.34718 1.8
0.62 197736.68
101403.43
2.33
3.74
75796.38
70
1.6

HSG Area (Acres)

B
42.76
C
1.05

Rv
Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3) Af (Mont Co) sf Total Af (acres)Mont. Co
Area (ft2) RCN RCN* Impervious (%)
1862633.22 55
55
33.02
0.34718 1.8
0.62 99376.13
50962.12
1.17
45620.54
70
1.6

Af (Acres)

HSG Area (Acres)

B
21.73

Area (ft2)
946588.72

Rv
Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3) Af (Mont Co) sf Total Af (acres)Mont. Co
RCN RCN* Impervious (%)
55
55
33.02
0.34718 1.8
0.62 49295.50
25279.74
0.58

Af (Acres)

HSG Area (Acres)

B
35.04
C
0.00
B
20.35
C
0.71
B
1.59
D
0.12

Rv
Pe (in)
Area (ft2) RCN RCN* Impervious (%)
1526330.654 55
55
50.15
0.50135 1.8
198.9206325 70
1.8
55
886381.9597 55
1.8
56
43.00
0.437
30944.87133 70
1.8
60
69112.15949 55
2.6
57
100.00
0.95
5280.754543 77
2
77

Qe (in) ESDv (ft3) Af (Mont Co) sf Total Af (acres)Mont. Co

0.90 114798.84
58871.20
2.24

HSG Area (Acres)

B
1.60
B
31.96
C
0.21
B
10.88
C
12.59
D
4.47

Rv
Pe (in)
Area (ft2) RCN RCN* Impervious (%)
69683.28
55
55
100.00
0.95
2.6
1392109.30 55
55
33.02
0.34718 1.8
9256.57
70
1.6
473781.66
55
65
41.56
0.42404 1.8
548274.12
70
1.8
194796.67
77
1.6

Qe (in) ESDv (ft3) Af (Mont Co) sf Total Af (acres)Mont. Co

2.47 14343.14
7355.46
1.94
0.62 72978.93
37425.09

HSG Area (Acres)

B
2.334415982

Area (ft2)
101687.16

RCN RCN* Impervious (%)

55 #REF!
43.00

0.437

HSG Area (Acres)

B
1.494632774

Area (ft2)
65106.20

RCN RCN* Impervious (%)

55 #REF!
43.00

0.437

1.88

0.93
Af (Acres)

2.17

0.79

60130.77

30836.29

1.14

2.47

15312.54

7852.59

0.29

77399.12

0.27
1.38

39691.85

1.46

Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3) Af (Mont Co) sf Total Af (acres)Mont. Co

1.8
3418.25
0.79 6665.59
0.08

Af (Acres)

Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3) Af (Mont Co) sf Total Af (acres)Mont. Co

1.8
2188.57
0.79 4267.71
0.05

Af (Acres)

Rv
Pe (in)
0.437
1.8
0.50135 1.8
0.383
1.8
0.32
1.6
0.77
2.2
0.1886
1

0.76

Af (Acres)

Qe (in) ESDv (ft3) Af (Mont Co) sf Total Af (acres)Mont. Co

0.79
350.27
179.63
5.87
0.90 71322.45
36575.62
0.69 10217.28
5239.63
0.51 2498.58
1281.32
1.69 4475.86
2295.31
0.19 3001.43
1539.19

0.13

0.08
Af (Acres)

HSG Area (Acres)

B
0.12
B
21.77
B
4.08
B
1.34
B
0.73
B
4.38
D
0.08
B
3.67
C
0.39
D
0.01
B
28.61
C
2.87
D
6.93
B
37.04
C
4.75
D
0.67
B
5.64
C
12.15
B
1.63
C
0.08
D
0.15
B
5.88
B
17.55

Area (ft2) RCN RCN* Impervious (%)

5343.57
55
55
43.00
948405.34
55
50.15
55
177846.53
55
37.00
55
58560.40
55
30.00
55
31706.23
55
80.00
55
190970.95
55
15.40
55
3345.58
77
159854.42
55
56
100.00
16896.48
70
501.97
77
1246204.78 55
60
30.40
125117.89
70
302056.71
77
1613561.64 55
57
60.03
207086.40
70
28977.35
77
245654.62
55
65
41.56
529282.01
70
71154.70
55
57
100.00
3524.98
70
6501.34
77
256177.22
55
55
15.40
764429.49
55
55
53.69

HSG Area (Acres)

B
5.08
B
2.72
C
0.00

Area (ft2)
221215.36
118680.56
39.71

Rv
Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3) Af (Mont Co) sf Total Af (acres)Mont. Co
RCN RCN* Impervious (%)
55
55
33.02
0.34718 1.8
0.62 11520.23
5907.81
0.14
55
1.8
55
43.00
0.437
0.79 7782.11
3990.83
70

Af (Acres)

HSG Area (Acres)

B
3.18
C
0.01
B
5.22
C
0.05

Area (ft2)
138628.24
506.07
227379.34
2151.24

Rv
Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3) Af (Mont Co) sf Total Af (acres)Mont. Co
RCN RCN* Impervious (%)
55
43.00
1.8
55
0.437
0.79 9120.25
4677.05
0.11
70
55
55
33.02
0.34718 1.8
0.62 11953.26
6129.88
70
1.6

Af (Acres)

0.95

0.3236

0.59027

0.42404
0.95

0.1886
0.53321

2.6
2.2
2
1.6
1.6
1.2
2
2
1.8
1.8
1.8
2.6
2.2
2
1
2

0.01
1.35
0.19
0.05
0.08
0.06

2.47

32903.37

16873.52

0.62

0.52

53769.58

27574.14

1.02

1.18 181963.06

93314.39

3.44

0.76

49290.62

25277.24

0.93

2.47

16709.76

8569.11

0.32

0.19
1.07

4026.25
67933.57

2064.74
34837.73

0.22
0.15

0.17
0.23

Sub Basin 110 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)

Sub-Basin
Development
110
Pulte Residential
110
Pulte Residential
Sub Basin 111 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
111
Pulte Residential
111
Pulte Residential
Sub Basin 112 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
112
Pulte Residential
Sub Basin 201 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
201
Egan/Mattlyn
201
Egan/Mattlyn
201
Developable Private Rural
201
Developable Private Rural
201
I-270 Median
201
I-270 Median
Sub Basin 202 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
202
MD 121
202
Pulte Residential
202
Pulte Residential
202
Pulte County Site
202
Pulte County Site
202
Pulte County Site
Sub Basin 203 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
203
Developable Private Rural
203
Developable Private Rural
Sub Basin 204 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
204
Developable Private Rural
204
Developable Private Rural
Sub Basin 206 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
206
Developable Private Rural
206
Egan/Mattlyn
206
Fire Station
206
Hammer Hill
206
Historic Area Commercial
206
Historic Property Vacant
206
Historic Property Vacant
206
MD 121
206
MD 121
206
MD 121
206
MD 355
206
MD 355
206
MD 355
206
Miles Coppola
206
Miles Coppola
206
Miles Coppola
206
Pulte County
206
Pulte County
206
I-270 Median
206
I-270 Median
206
I-270 Median
206
Historic District Residential
206
Towne Center Redev
Sub Basin 302 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
302
Developable Private Rural
302
Developable Private Rural
Sub Basin 303B (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
303b
Developable Private Rural
303b
Developable Private Rural
Sub Basin 304 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
304
Developable Private Rural
304
Developable Private Rural

SCENARIO 3

Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3)

Af (Mont Co) sf
58046.26

Total Af (acres)Mont. Co
1.33

Af (Acres)

Af (Mont Co) sf
44284.46

Total Af (acres)Mont. Co
1.02

Af (Acres)

86354.70

Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3)

1.8
0.74 57771.14

Af (Mont Co) sf
29626.23

Total Af (acres)Mont. Co
0.68

Af (Acres)

Af (Mont Co) sf
59909.51

Total Af (acres)Mont. Co
2.26

Af (Acres)

116823.55
60130.77

30836.29

1.14

15312.61

7852.62

0.29

ESDv (ft3)
14343.12
50706.65

Af (Mont Co) sf
7355.45
26003.41

64188.57

32917.22

HSG Area (Acres)

B
42.25
C
0.00

Area (ft2) RCN

1840346.81 55
144.44
70

RCN*
55

Impervious (%)
40.00

0.41

HSG Area (Acres)

B
31.09
C
1.14

Area (ft2) RCN

1354277.32 55
49864.11
70

RCN*
56

Impervious (%)
40.00

0.41

HSG Area (Acres)

B
21.56

Area (ft2)
939368.15

RCN
55

RCN*
55

Impervious (%)
40.00

Rv
0.41

HSG Area (Acres)

B
35.62
C
0.04
B
20.35
C
0.71
B
1.59
D
0.12

Area (ft2) RCN

1551720.55 55
1732.45
70
886381.96
55
30944.87
70
69112.46
55
5280.80
77

RCN*
55
55
56
60
57
77

Rv
Pe (in) Qe (in)
Impervious (%)
50.15
0.50135 1.8
0.90
1.8
1.8
43.00
0.437
0.79
1.8
2.6
100.00
0.95
2.47
2

HSG Area (Acres)

B
1.60
B
18.87
C
0.05
B
4.14
C
14.63
D
4.39

Area (ft2)
69683.18
822155.07
2343.38
180370.12
637345.77
191443.21

RCN
55
55
70
55
70
77

RCN*
55
55

Impervious (%)
100.00
40.00

41.56

HSG Area (Acres)

B 2.334415982
C
0

Area (ft2)
101687.16
0.00

RCN
55
70

RCN*
55

Impervious (%)
43.00
43.00

HSG Area (Acres)

B 1.494632774
C
0

Area (ft2)
65106.20
0.00

RCN
55
70

RCN*
55

Impervious (%)
43.00

HSG Area (Acres)

B
0.12
B
28.45
B
4.08
B
1.34
B
0.73
B
4.76
D
0.08
B
3.67
C
0.39
D
0.01
B
10.09
C
0.97
D
1.36
B
43.14
C
4.97
D
0.76
B
1.48
C
0.02
B
1.63
C
0.08
D
0.15
B
5.88
B
17.68

Area (ft2) RCN

5343.57
55
1239168.42 55
177622.25
55
58560.43
55
31706.37
55
207264.60
55
3354.65
77
159854.33
55
16896.54
70
501.98
77
439324.87
55
42132.27
70
59175.37
77
1879059.79 55
216646.86
70
33094.84
77
64485.40
55
996.68
70
71154.37
55
3525.04
70
6501.28
77
256177.17
55
770193.16
55

RCN*
55
55
55
55
55
55

HSG Area (Acres)

B
2.72
C
0.00

Area (ft2)
118680.56
39.71

HSG Area (Acres)

B
3.18
C
0.01
HSG Area (Acres)
B
0.00
C
0.00

1.8
1.8

0.74 113190.21

Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3)

1.8
1.8

0.74

Rv
0.95
0.41

Pe (in) Qe (in)
2.6
2.47
1.8
0.74
1.8
0.42404 1.8
0.76
1.8
1.6
Rv

ESDv (ft3)

Total Af (acres)Mont. Co
1.52

2.14

1.63

1.09

2.21

Af (Acres)

0.27
0.96
1.21

Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3)

1.8
0.79 6665.59
1.8

Af (Mont Co) sf
3418.25

Total Af (acres)Mont. Co
0.08

Af (Acres)

0.437

Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3)

Af (Mont Co) sf
2188.57

Total Af (acres)Mont. Co
0.05

Af (Acres)

4267.71

Rv
Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3)
Impervious (%)
43.00
0.437
1.8
0.79
350.27
50.15
0.50135 1.8
0.90 93188.56
37.00
0.383
1.8
0.69 10204.40
30.00
0.32
1.6
0.51 2498.58
80.00
0.77
2.2
1.69 4475.88
15.40
0.1886
1
0.19 3257.51

Af (Mont Co) sf
179.63
47789.01
5233.02
1281.32
2295.32
1670.52

Total Af (acres)Mont. Co
5.52

Af (Acres)

0.437

100.00

0.95

30.40

0.3236

60.03

0.59027

41.56

0.42404

100.00

0.95

55
55

15.40
53.69

0.1886
0.53321

RCN
55
70

RCN*
55

Impervious (%)
43.00

0.437

Area (ft2)
138628.24
506.07

RCN
55
70

RCN*
55

Impervious (%)
43.00

0.437

Area (ft2)
0.00
0.00

RCN
55
70

RCN*
NA

Impervious (%)
43.00

0.437

1.8
1.8

2.6
2.2
2
1.6
1.6
1.2
2
2
1.8
1.8
1.8
2.6
2.2
2
1
2

0.79

16873.51

0.62

0.52

18955.40

9720.72

0.36

107398.94

3.96

1.18 209427.94

0.76

4165.05

2135.92

0.08

2.47

16709.69

8569.07

0.32

0.19
1.07

4026.25
68445.78

2064.74
35100.40

0.79

7782.11

0.79

9120.25

Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3)

1.8
1.8

0.01
1.76
0.19
0.05
0.08
0.06

32903.35

Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3)

1.8

0.08

2.47

Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3)

1.8

0.13

0.79

0.00

Af (Mont Co) sf
3990.83

Total Af (acres)Mont. Co
0.09

Af (Acres)

Af (Mont Co) sf
4677.05

Total Af (acres)Mont. Co
0.11

Af (Acres)

Af (Mont Co) sf
0.00

Total Af (acres)Mont. Co
0.00

Af (Acres)

0.15

0.17

0.00

SCENARIO 4

Sub Basin 110 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)

Sub-Basin
Development
110
Pulte Residential
110
Pulte Residential
Sub Basin 111 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
111
Pulte Residential
111
Pulte Residential
Sub Basin 112 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
112
Pulte Residential
Sub Basin 201 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
201
Egan/Mattlyn
201
Egan/Mattlyn
201
Developable Private Rural
201
Developable Private Rural
201
I-270 Median
201
I-270 Median
Sub Basin 202 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
202
MD 121
202
Pulte Residential
202
Pulte Residential
202
Pulte County Site
202
Pulte County Site
202
Pulte County Site
Sub Basin 203 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
203
Developable Private Rural
203
Developable Private Rural
Sub Basin 204 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
204
Developable Private Rural
204
Developable Private Rural
Sub Basin 206 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
206
Developable Private Rural
206
Egan/Mattlyn
206
Fire Station
206
Hammer Hill
206
Historic Area Commercial
206
Historic Property Vacant
206
Historic Property Vacant
206
MD 121
206
MD 121
206
MD 121
206
MD 355
206
MD 355
206
MD 355
206
Miles Coppola
206
Miles Coppola
206
Miles Coppola
206
Pulte County
206
Pulte County
206
I-270 Median
206
I-270 Median
206
I-270 Median
206
Historic District Residential
206
Towne Center Redev
Sub Basin 302 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
302
Developable Private Rural
302
Developable Private Rural
Sub Basin 303B (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
303b
Developable Private Rural
303b
Developable Private Rural
Sub Basin 304 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
304
Developable Private Rural
304
Developable Private Rural

HSG Area (Acres)

B
42.25
C
0.00

Area (ft2) RCN

1840346.81 55
144.44
70

RCN*
55

Impervious (%) Rv Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3) Af (Mont Co) sf Total Af (acres)Mont. Co
33.02
0.35 1.8
0.62 95847.26
49152.44
1.13
1.8

Af (Acres)

HSG Area (Acres)

B
31.09
C
1.14

Area (ft2) RCN

1354277.32 55
49864.11
70

RCN*
56

Impervious (%) Rv Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3) Af (Mont Co) sf Total Af (acres)Mont. Co
33.02
0.35 1.8
0.62 73123.47
37499.22
0.86
1.6

Af (Acres)
1.38

HSG Area (Acres)

B
21.56

Area (ft2)
939368.15

RCN
55

RCN*
55

Impervious (%) Rv Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3) Af (Mont Co) sf Total Af (acres)Mont. Co
33.02
0.35 1.8
0.62 48919.48
25086.91
0.58

Af (Acres)

HSG Area (Acres)

B
35.62
C
0.04
B
20.35
C
0.71
B
1.59
D
0.12

Area (ft2)
1551720.552
1732.449268
886381.9597
30944.87133
69112.46001
5280.800442

RCN
55
70
55
70
55
77

RCN*
55
55
56
60
57
77

Impervious (%) Rv Pe (in) Qe (in)

50.15
0.50 1.8
0.90
1.8
43.00
0.44 1.8
0.79
1.8
100.00
0.95 2.6
2.47
2

Af (Acres)

HSG Area (Acres)

B
1.60
B
18.87
C
0.05
B
4.14
C
14.63
D
4.39

Area (ft2)
69683.18
822155.07
2343.38
180370.12
637345.77
191443.21

RCN
55
55
70
55
70
77

RCN*
55
55

Impervious (%) Rv Pe (in) Qe (in)

100.00
0.95 2.6
2.47
33.02
0.35 1.8
0.62
1.6
41.56
0.42 1.8
0.76
1.8
1.6

HSG Area (Acres)

B 2.334415982
C
0

Area (ft2)
101687.16
0.00

RCN
55
70

RCN*
55

Impervious (%) Rv Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3) Af (Mont Co) sf Total Af (acres)Mont. Co
3418.25
43.00
0.44 1.8
0.79 6665.59
0.08
1.8
43.00

Af (Acres)

HSG Area (Acres)

B 1.494632774
C
0

Area (ft2)
65106.20
0.00

RCN
55
70

RCN*
55

Impervious (%) Rv Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3) Af (Mont Co) sf Total Af (acres)Mont. Co
2188.57
43.00
0.44 1.8
0.79 4267.71
0.05
1.8

Af (Acres)
0.08

HSG Area (Acres)

B
0.12
B
28.45
B
4.08
B
1.34
B
0.73
B
4.76
D
0.08
B
3.67
C
0.39
D
0.01
B
10.09
C
0.97
D
1.36
B
43.14
C
4.97
D
0.76
B
1.48
C
0.02
B
1.63
C
0.08
D
0.15
B
5.88
B
17.68

Area (ft2) RCN

5343.57
55
1239168.42 55
177622.25 55
58560.43
55
31706.37
55
207264.60 55
3354.65
77
159854.33 55
16896.54
70
501.98
77
439324.87 55
42132.27
70
59175.37
77
1879059.79 55
216646.86 70
33094.84
77
64485.40
55
996.68
70
71154.37
55
3525.04
70
6501.28
77
256177.17 55
770193.16 55

RCN*
55
55
55
55
55
55

Impervious (%)
43.00
50.15
37.00
30.00
80.00
15.40

Rv Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3) Af (Mont Co) sf Total Af (acres)Mont. Co

0.44 1.8
0.79
350.27
179.63
5.52
0.50 1.8
0.90 93188.56
47789.01
0.38 1.8
0.69 10204.40
5233.02
0.32 1.6
0.51 2498.58
1281.32
0.77 2.2
1.69 4475.88
2295.32
0.19
1
0.19 3257.51
1670.52

Af (Acres)
0.01
1.76
0.19
0.05
0.08
0.06

100.00

0.95

30.40

0.32

60.03

0.59

41.56

0.42

100.00

0.95

55
55

15.40
53.69

0.19
0.53

HSG Area (Acres)

B
2.72
C
0.00

Area (ft2)
118680.56
39.71

RCN
55
70

RCN*
55

Impervious (%) Rv Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3) Af (Mont Co) sf Total Af (acres)Mont. Co
43.00
0.44 1.8
0.79 7782.11
3990.83
0.09

Af (Acres)
0.15

HSG Area (Acres)

B
3.18
C
0.01

Area (ft2)
138628.24
506.07

RCN
55
70

RCN*
55

Impervious (%) Rv Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3) Af (Mont Co) sf Total Af (acres)Mont. Co
43.00
0.44 1.8
0.79 9120.25
4677.05
0.11

Af (Acres)
0.17

HSG Area (Acres)

B
0.00
C
0.00

Area (ft2)
0.00
0.00

RCN RCN* Impervious (%) Rv Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3) Af (Mont Co) sf Total Af (acres)Mont. Co
55 #DIV/0!
43.00
0.44 1.8
0.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
70
1.8

Af (Acres)
0.00

2.6
2.2
2
1.6
1.6
1.2
2
2
1.8
1.8
1.8
2.6
2.2
2
1
2

ESDv (ft3) Af (Mont Co) sf Total Af (acres)Mont. Co

59909.51
2.26

116823.55

1.81

0.92

2.21

60130.77

30836.29

1.14

15312.61

7852.62

0.29

ESDv (ft3) Af (Mont Co) sf Total Af (acres)Mont. Co

14343.12
7355.45
1.43
42937.41
22019.18

64188.57

32917.22

Af (Acres)
0.27
0.81

1.21

0.13

2.47

32903.35

16873.51

0.62

0.52

18955.40

9720.72

0.36

107398.94

3.96

1.18 209427.94

0.76

4165.05

2135.92

0.08

2.47

16709.69

8569.07

0.32

0.19
1.07

4026.25
68445.78

2064.74
35100.40

ub Basin 110 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)

Sub-Basin
Development
110
Pulte Residential
110
Pulte Residential
ub Basin 111 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
111
Pulte Residential
111
Pulte Residential
ub Basin 112 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
112
Pulte Residential
ub Basin 201 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
201
Egan/Mattlyn
201
Egan/Mattlyn
201
Developable Private Rural
201
Developable Private Rural
201
I-270 Median
201
I-270 Median
ub Basin 202 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
202
MD 121
202
Pulte Residential
202
Pulte Residential
202
Pulte County Site
202
Pulte County Site
202
Pulte County Site
ub Basin 203 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
203
Dev Private Rural
203
Dev Private Rural
ub Basin 204 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
204
Developable Private Rural
204
Developable Private Rural
ub Basin 206 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
206
Developable Private Rural
206
Egan/Mattlyn
206
Fire Station
206
Hammer Hill
206
Historic Area Commercial
206
Historic Property Vacant
206
Historic Property Vacant
206
MD 121
206
MD 121
206
MD 121
206
MD 355
206
MD 355
206
MD 355
206
Miles Coppola
206
Miles Coppola
206
Miles Coppola
206
Pulte County
206
Pulte County
206
I-270 Median
206
I-270 Median
206
I-270 Median
206
Historic District Residential
206
Towne Center Redev
ub Basin 302 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
302
Developable Private Rural
302
Developable Private Rural
ub Basin 303B (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
303b
Developable Private Rural
303b
Developable Private Rural
ub Basin 304 (1 yr 24 hr Storm)
Sub-Basin
Development
304
Developable Private Rural
304
Developable Private Rural

SCENARIO 5

HSG Area (Acres)

B
42.25
C
0.00

Area (ft2) RCN

1840347 55
144
70

RCN*
55

Impervious (%) Rv Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3) Af (Mont Co) sf Total Af (acres)Mont. Co Af (Acres)
31.00
0.33 1.8
0.59 90828.24
46578.5861
1.069297202
1.72
1.8

HSG Area (Acres)

B
31.09
C
1.14

Area (ft2) RCN

1354277 55
49864
70

RCN*
56

Impervious (%) Rv Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3) Af (Mont Co) sf Total Af (acres)Mont. Co
31.00
0.33 1.8
0.59 69294.38 35535.57914
0.815784645
1.6

Af (Acres)

HSG Area (Acres)

B
21.56

Area (ft2) RCN

939368 55

RCN*
55

Impervious (%) Rv Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3) Af (Mont Co) sf Total Af (acres)Mont. Co
31.00
0.33 1.8
0.59 46357.82
23773.2402
0.545758499

Af (Acres)

HSG Area (Acres)

B
35.62
C
0.04
B
12.50
C
0.44
B
1.59
D
0.12

Area (ft2)
1551721
1732
544496
19009
69112
5281

RCN
55
70
55
70
55
77

RCN*
55
55
56
58
57
77

Impervious (%) Rv Pe (in)

32.60
0.34 1.8
1.8
42.11
0.43 1.8
1.8
100.00
0.95 2.6
2

Qe (in) ESDv (ft3) Af (Mont Co) sf Total Af (acres)Mont. Co

0.62 80018.36
41035.0585
1.54915207

Af (Acres)

HSG Area (Acres)

B
1.60
B
18.87
C
0.05
B
4.14
C
14.63
D
4.39

Area (ft2)
69683
822155
2343
180370
637346
191443

RCN
55
55
70
55
70
77

RCN*
55
55

Impervious (%) Rv Pe (in)

100.00
0.95 2.6
31.00
0.33 1.8
1.6
0.00
0.05 1.8
1.8
1.6

Qe (in) ESDv (ft3) Af (Mont Co) sf Total Af (acres)Mont. Co

2.47 14343.12 7355.446956
0.73698304
0.59 40689.00 20866.15311

HSG Area (Acres) Area (ft2) RCN

B
1.434009171 62465
55
C
0
70

RCN*
55

Impervious (%) Rv Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3) Af (Mont Co) sf Total Af (acres)Mont. Co
2061.106607
42.11
0.43 1.8
0.77 4019.16
0.047316497
1.8

Af (Acres)

HSG Area (Acres) Area (ft2) RCN

B
0.918138464 39994
55
C
0
70

RCN*
55

Impervious (%) Rv Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3) Af (Mont Co) sf Total Af (acres)Mont. Co
1319.64376
42.11
0.43 1.8
0.77 2573.31
0.030294852
1.8

Af (Acres)

HSG Area (Acres)

B
0.08
B
28.45
B
4.08
B
1.34
B
0.73
B
4.76
D
0.08
B
3.67
C
0.39
D
0.01
B
10.09
C
0.97
D
1.36
B
43.14
C
4.97
D
0.76
B
1.48
C
0.02
B
1.63
C
0.08
D
0.15
B
5.88
B
17.68

Area (ft2)
3283
1239168
177622
58560
31706
207265
3355
159854
16897
502
439325
42132
59175
1879060
216647
33095
64485
997
71154
3525
6501
256177
770193

RCN
55
55
55
55
55
55
77
55
70
77
55
70
77
55
70
77
55
70
55
70
77
55
55

RCN*
55
55
55
55
55
55

Impervious (%)
42.11
32.60
37.00
30.00
80.00
15.40

0.43
0.34
0.38
0.32
0.77
0.19

100.00

0.95

48.39

0.49

40.90

0.42

0.00

0.05

100.00

0.95

55
55

15.40
53.69

0.19
0.53

HSG Area (Acres)

B
1.67
C
0.00

Area (ft2) RCN

72904
55
24
70

RCN*
55

Impervious (%) Rv Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3) Af (Mont Co) sf Total Af (acres)Mont. Co
42.11
0.43 1.8
0.77 4692.39
2406.352329
0.055242248

Af (Acres)

HSG Area (Acres)

B
1.95
C
0.01

Area (ft2) RCN

85158
55
311
70

RCN*
55

Impervious (%) Rv Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3) Af (Mont Co) sf Total Af (acres)Mont. Co
42.11
0.43 1.8
0.77 5499.25
2820.126414
0.064741194

Af (Acres)

HSG Area (Acres)

B
0.00
C
0.00

Area (ft2) RCN RCN* Impervious (%) Rv Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3) Af (Mont Co) sf Total Af (acres)Mont. Co
0
55 #DIV/0!
42.11
0.43 1.8
0.77
0.00
0
0
0
70
1.8

Af (Acres)

0.88

1.51

0.77

36257.10

18593.38375

0.69

2.47

15312.61

7852.621936

0.29

0.09

7568.69

3881.381144

Pe (in) Qe (in) ESDv (ft3) Af (Mont Co) sf Total Af (acres)Mont. Co

1.8
0.77
211.20
108.3093172
4.518769634
1.8
0.62 63829.57 32733.11051
1.8
0.69 10204.40 5233.024801
1.6
0.51 2498.58
1281.322159
2.2
1.69 4475.88
2295.324061
1
0.19 3257.51
1670.517229
2.6
2.2
2
1.6
1.6
1.2
2
2
1.8
1.8
1.8
2.6
2.2
2
1
2

1.31

Af (Acres)
0.27
0.77

0.14

0.08

0.05

Af (Acres)

0.00
1.21
0.19
0.05
0.08
0.06

2.47

32903.35

16873.51305

0.62

0.78

28438.02

14583.59931

0.54

0.84 148341.98

76072.81206

2.80

0.09

491.12

251.8541542

0.01

2.47

16709.69

8569.073196

0.32

0.19
1.07

4026.25
68445.78

2064.744219
35100.40121

0.09

0.10

0.00

Watershed Guidelines DENR
100% (2)
Watershed Guidelines DENR
37 pages
DMC 2008-05
No ratings yet
DMC 2008-05
38 pages
Geological Processes On Earth
No ratings yet
Geological Processes On Earth
6 pages
Clarksburg Limited Master Plan For The Ten Mile Creek Watershed Scope of Work I. Purpose
No ratings yet
Clarksburg Limited Master Plan For The Ten Mile Creek Watershed Scope of Work I. Purpose
7 pages
Attachment 1: Analysis of Current Conditions and Projected Development in Clarksburg Stage 4
No ratings yet
Attachment 1: Analysis of Current Conditions and Projected Development in Clarksburg Stage 4
26 pages
Patuxent Reservoir Watershed Planning MTG
No ratings yet
Patuxent Reservoir Watershed Planning MTG
1 page
A Strategic Framework: Plans
No ratings yet
A Strategic Framework: Plans
7 pages
Water Resources: Planning Board Draft Funcional Plan (May, 2010)
No ratings yet
Water Resources: Planning Board Draft Funcional Plan (May, 2010)
57 pages
Ten Mile Creek Amendment Appendix 8 Carbon Footprint Analysis Updated October 2013
No ratings yet
Ten Mile Creek Amendment Appendix 8 Carbon Footprint Analysis Updated October 2013
2 pages
Next Steps
No ratings yet
Next Steps
32 pages
SEPAChecklist Package
No ratings yet
SEPAChecklist Package
14 pages
Pollution Prevention: Methodology, Technologies and Practices
From Everand
Pollution Prevention: Methodology, Technologies and Practices
Kenneth L. Mulholland
No ratings yet
Multi Page
No ratings yet
Multi Page
190 pages
Water Resources: Appendix
No ratings yet
Water Resources: Appendix
2 pages
Intercounty Connector: Staff Draft
No ratings yet
Intercounty Connector: Staff Draft
44 pages
Carr's Creek Watershed Characterization-Final Report - 2012!09!18
No ratings yet
Carr's Creek Watershed Characterization-Final Report - 2012!09!18
61 pages
LittleTenmileWBP
No ratings yet
LittleTenmileWBP
108 pages
Great Seneca Science Corridor: Master Plan
No ratings yet
Great Seneca Science Corridor: Master Plan
137 pages
Intercounty Connector Limited Functional Master Plan Amendment
No ratings yet
Intercounty Connector Limited Functional Master Plan Amendment
45 pages
Intercounty Connector Limited Functional Master Plan Amendment
No ratings yet
Intercounty Connector Limited Functional Master Plan Amendment
14 pages
Intercounty Connector Limited Functional Master Plan Amendment
No ratings yet
Intercounty Connector Limited Functional Master Plan Amendment
45 pages
Clarksburg Master Plan Limited Amendment For The Ten Mile Creek Watershed
No ratings yet
Clarksburg Master Plan Limited Amendment For The Ten Mile Creek Watershed
19 pages
Template For ESA
No ratings yet
Template For ESA
1 page
Intercounty Connector Limited Functional Master Plan Amendment
No ratings yet
Intercounty Connector Limited Functional Master Plan Amendment
35 pages
Interagency and Public Land Managers Green Infrastructure Focus Group Meeting
No ratings yet
Interagency and Public Land Managers Green Infrastructure Focus Group Meeting
9 pages
Countywide Green Infrastructure: Purpose and Outreach Strategy Report
No ratings yet
Countywide Green Infrastructure: Purpose and Outreach Strategy Report
36 pages
Marana Regional Sports Complex: Draft Environmental Assessment
No ratings yet
Marana Regional Sports Complex: Draft Environmental Assessment
85 pages
Draft - NH-70 - EIA HP - 4-8-23
No ratings yet
Draft - NH-70 - EIA HP - 4-8-23
249 pages
Es Executive Summary: BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project Environmental Assessment
No ratings yet
Es Executive Summary: BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project Environmental Assessment
9 pages
Wake Stone DEQ Letter
No ratings yet
Wake Stone DEQ Letter
7 pages
EIA-Coal Washery Raigarh1
100% (1)
EIA-Coal Washery Raigarh1
198 pages
Section 4.9.5. Clarksburg West Environmental (CWE) Overlay Zone A. Purpose
No ratings yet
Section 4.9.5. Clarksburg West Environmental (CWE) Overlay Zone A. Purpose
2 pages
Soapstone Watershed Quarry Gladwyne
No ratings yet
Soapstone Watershed Quarry Gladwyne
67 pages
November 2009
No ratings yet
November 2009
182 pages
Grow in Concert with Nature: Sustaining East Asia's Water Resources Management Through Green Water Defense
From Everand
Grow in Concert with Nature: Sustaining East Asia's Water Resources Management Through Green Water Defense
Xiaokai Li
No ratings yet
EMP KBT Vol 5-B July 2006 PDF
No ratings yet
EMP KBT Vol 5-B July 2006 PDF
196 pages
SNNP - ESIA Report - Revised November 2020 Revised June 2022
No ratings yet
SNNP - ESIA Report - Revised November 2020 Revised June 2022
358 pages
Roadmap To Sustainability: Green Building, Smart Infrastructure and Behavior
No ratings yet
Roadmap To Sustainability: Green Building, Smart Infrastructure and Behavior
11 pages
SRFR Brochure
No ratings yet
SRFR Brochure
2 pages
2016-7802 Referral-AttachB-Enviro Scoping Report
No ratings yet
2016-7802 Referral-AttachB-Enviro Scoping Report
24 pages
EIA 1 Chpter 1 - To - 11
No ratings yet
EIA 1 Chpter 1 - To - 11
179 pages
Draft EIA MVR - Compressed
No ratings yet
Draft EIA MVR - Compressed
248 pages
Tina Schneider Otto Condon
No ratings yet
Tina Schneider Otto Condon
36 pages
9ab-Tt, T: Loc?Dd3
No ratings yet
9ab-Tt, T: Loc?Dd3
15 pages
Improving Transparency, Integrity, and Accountability in Water Supply and Sanitation: Action, Learning, Experiences
From Everand
Improving Transparency, Integrity, and Accountability in Water Supply and Sanitation: Action, Learning, Experiences
María González de Asis
No ratings yet
Commercial Development Gaithersburg Route 124 and Warfield
No ratings yet
Commercial Development Gaithersburg Route 124 and Warfield
119 pages
CEM Wah Pynkon 13.58 Ha. LST EMP
No ratings yet
CEM Wah Pynkon 13.58 Ha. LST EMP
121 pages
Summary
No ratings yet
Summary
35 pages
Envoirmental Mughalsarai Bhaupur
No ratings yet
Envoirmental Mughalsarai Bhaupur
254 pages
EIA Presentation
No ratings yet
EIA Presentation
45 pages
Iee 739 740
No ratings yet
Iee 739 740
104 pages
Environmental Screening Form
No ratings yet
Environmental Screening Form
14 pages
Water Resources: Appendix
No ratings yet
Water Resources: Appendix
9 pages
Hay Grant Application
No ratings yet
Hay Grant Application
6 pages
GWP ComfortStationFINAL SEPA Checklist Signed
No ratings yet
GWP ComfortStationFINAL SEPA Checklist Signed
14 pages
Putting Tanzania's Hidden Economy to Work: Reform, Management, and Protection of its Natural Resource Sector
From Everand
Putting Tanzania's Hidden Economy to Work: Reform, Management, and Protection of its Natural Resource Sector
World Bank
No ratings yet
Annex 2 - 11-Revised
No ratings yet
Annex 2 - 11-Revised
4 pages
Construction Environmental and Social Management Plan (CESMP)
No ratings yet
Construction Environmental and Social Management Plan (CESMP)
108 pages
ESMP-Kalar Kahar-Final Version_0
No ratings yet
ESMP-Kalar Kahar-Final Version_0
103 pages
Quarterly Environmental Audit Report Sep 2019 - Dec 2019
No ratings yet
Quarterly Environmental Audit Report Sep 2019 - Dec 2019
38 pages
Unnamed Creek Visual Assessment
No ratings yet
Unnamed Creek Visual Assessment
4 pages
HPC WORKSESSION - 7:00 P.M. in Third Floor Conference Room HPC MEETING - 7:30 P.M. in MRO Auditorium
No ratings yet
HPC WORKSESSION - 7:00 P.M. in Third Floor Conference Room HPC MEETING - 7:30 P.M. in MRO Auditorium
2 pages
HPC WORKSESSION - 7:00 P.M. in Third Floor Conference Room HPC MEETING - 7:30 P.M. in MRO Auditorium
No ratings yet
HPC WORKSESSION - 7:00 P.M. in Third Floor Conference Room HPC MEETING - 7:30 P.M. in MRO Auditorium
2 pages
Planning Board Draft September 14, 2016
No ratings yet
Planning Board Draft September 14, 2016
36 pages
HPC WORKSESSION - 7:00 P.M. in Third Floor Conference Room HPC MEETING - 7:30 P.M. in MRO Auditorium
No ratings yet
HPC WORKSESSION - 7:00 P.M. in Third Floor Conference Room HPC MEETING - 7:30 P.M. in MRO Auditorium
2 pages
Development Review Committee Monday, October 3, 2016 9:30 A.M
No ratings yet
Development Review Committee Monday, October 3, 2016 9:30 A.M
1 page
Orange: Yellow
No ratings yet
Orange: Yellow
10 pages
Label - Name Type Ftype - Name From - TO - Mplan RW MP - Class
No ratings yet
Label - Name Type Ftype - Name From - TO - Mplan RW MP - Class
2 pages
Untitled
No ratings yet
Untitled
36 pages
About ZTA 16-03: BACKGROUND: Planning Board Recommendation
No ratings yet
About ZTA 16-03: BACKGROUND: Planning Board Recommendation
1 page
Distinct Topics:: 1 - Preliminary Program of Requirements - Notes
No ratings yet
Distinct Topics:: 1 - Preliminary Program of Requirements - Notes
6 pages
T I A C P & G
No ratings yet
T I A C P & G
28 pages
Appendix G:: Parks
No ratings yet
Appendix G:: Parks
15 pages
Agenda: White Flint Sector Plan Implementation Advisory Committee
No ratings yet
Agenda: White Flint Sector Plan Implementation Advisory Committee
1 page
Orange: Yellow
No ratings yet
Orange: Yellow
10 pages
Retail Planning Study: Appendix D
No ratings yet
Retail Planning Study: Appendix D
241 pages
Transportation: Appendix E
No ratings yet
Transportation: Appendix E
63 pages
Environment: Appendix F
No ratings yet
Environment: Appendix F
41 pages
Bethesda: Downtown Plan
No ratings yet
Bethesda: Downtown Plan
65 pages
2016 Subdivision Staging Policy: Planning Board Recommendation Summary
No ratings yet
2016 Subdivision Staging Policy: Planning Board Recommendation Summary
33 pages
Bicycle Master Plan Community Advisory Group Agenda Meeting #8 September 7, 2016 - 7:30 To 9:00 PM Montgomery County Planning Department
No ratings yet
Bicycle Master Plan Community Advisory Group Agenda Meeting #8 September 7, 2016 - 7:30 To 9:00 PM Montgomery County Planning Department
1 page
Rental Housing Study: Financial Analysis and Swot Findings
No ratings yet
Rental Housing Study: Financial Analysis and Swot Findings
43 pages
Rental Housing Study: Financial Analysis and Swot Findings
No ratings yet
Rental Housing Study: Financial Analysis and Swot Findings
43 pages
Vicinity Map: Owner/Applicant / Master Developer
No ratings yet
Vicinity Map: Owner/Applicant / Master Developer
7 pages
Montgomery Planning Department - Robert Kronenberg
No ratings yet
Montgomery Planning Department - Robert Kronenberg
3 pages
HPC WORKSESSION - 7:00 P.M. in Third Floor Conference Room HPC MEETING - 7:30 P.M. in MRO Auditorium
No ratings yet
HPC WORKSESSION - 7:00 P.M. in Third Floor Conference Room HPC MEETING - 7:30 P.M. in MRO Auditorium
4 pages
Development Review Committee Monday, September 19, 2016 9:30 A.M
No ratings yet
Development Review Committee Monday, September 19, 2016 9:30 A.M
1 page
Untitled
No ratings yet
Untitled
2 pages
LEAD: John Marcolin: 320170010, Westwood Shopping Center Sketch Plan DRC Comments Summary Area Team 1
No ratings yet
LEAD: John Marcolin: 320170010, Westwood Shopping Center Sketch Plan DRC Comments Summary Area Team 1
12 pages
Loop Trail: 15% Concept Design
No ratings yet
Loop Trail: 15% Concept Design
39 pages
PDF Psat NMSQT Practice Test 1
No ratings yet
PDF Psat NMSQT Practice Test 1
9 pages
IVAMAURO
No ratings yet
IVAMAURO
42 pages
Bottle Gourd: Site Selection and Soil Type
No ratings yet
Bottle Gourd: Site Selection and Soil Type
2 pages
Trees Plantation by - : Terra Walker Drilling Pvt. LTD
No ratings yet
Trees Plantation by - : Terra Walker Drilling Pvt. LTD
10 pages
Cultural Landscapes
No ratings yet
Cultural Landscapes
5 pages
Project Proposal 2
No ratings yet
Project Proposal 2
54 pages
Water Budget Equation
No ratings yet
Water Budget Equation
9 pages
Water Resources and Karst
No ratings yet
Water Resources and Karst
18 pages
Types and Techniques of Budding
100% (2)
Types and Techniques of Budding
21 pages
Ferdinal Bac
No ratings yet
Ferdinal Bac
112 pages
157 - Group Assignment
No ratings yet
157 - Group Assignment
10 pages
Shoreland Vegetation - Buffer - Standards by County in Wisconsin
No ratings yet
Shoreland Vegetation - Buffer - Standards by County in Wisconsin
29 pages
Defying Disappearance: Cosmopolitan Public Spaces in Hong Kong
No ratings yet
Defying Disappearance: Cosmopolitan Public Spaces in Hong Kong
22 pages
Scan 8 Oct 2022
No ratings yet
Scan 8 Oct 2022
8 pages
Soil Texture and Textural Class: Laboratory #3
No ratings yet
Soil Texture and Textural Class: Laboratory #3
16 pages
255gongyuan Road, Suzhou City, P.R.C: YI Xueling Director of Suzhou Gardens and Landscaping Administration Bureau
No ratings yet
255gongyuan Road, Suzhou City, P.R.C: YI Xueling Director of Suzhou Gardens and Landscaping Administration Bureau
10 pages
Bearing Capacity Calculation: Description of Strata
No ratings yet
Bearing Capacity Calculation: Description of Strata
8 pages
Understanding and Producing Chrysanthemums
No ratings yet
Understanding and Producing Chrysanthemums
6 pages
Principle of Soil Conservation and Management
No ratings yet
Principle of Soil Conservation and Management
19 pages
Geotechnical Chapter 1
No ratings yet
Geotechnical Chapter 1
53 pages
2B Weekly Sales Online Sales
50% (2)
2B Weekly Sales Online Sales
2 pages
Weed Control in Groundnut
No ratings yet
Weed Control in Groundnut
112 pages
Matthew Marajh Geo SBA 2.0
No ratings yet
Matthew Marajh Geo SBA 2.0
14 pages
Mughal Gardens
No ratings yet
Mughal Gardens
46 pages
Cluster Housing Concept
No ratings yet
Cluster Housing Concept
10 pages
Drainage Manual 2020
100% (2)
Drainage Manual 2020
144 pages
Agriculture Activity Notebook
100% (1)
Agriculture Activity Notebook
23 pages
Stormwater Harvesting Bioretention System - Sydney Australia
No ratings yet
Stormwater Harvesting Bioretention System - Sydney Australia
1 page
Unit 4 Irrigation Canals
No ratings yet
Unit 4 Irrigation Canals
25 pages