2017 Technical Summary of Research, Analyses, and Supporting Documents

Prince George’s County

2017 Resource Conservation Plan

Technical Summary of Research, Analyses, and Supporting Documents The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Prince George’s County Planning Department pgplanning.org

July 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Overview............................................................................................................................ 1 II. Public Input Summary................................................................................................... 1 III. Analyses of Existing Policies and Strategies.......................................................... 11 a. Status Report on the 2002 General Plan Environmental Infrastructure Chapter Implementation Strategies b. Analysis of the 2005 Green Infrastructure Implementation Strategies c. Status Report on the 2012 Priority Preservation Area Plan Implementation Strategies

IV. Social and Economic Sustainability........................................................................ 49 a. Background Paper—Resource Conservation Functional Master Plan: Planning for Human and Environmental Health b. Background Paper—Building the Green Economy in Prince George’s County: Case Studies in Green Job Creation

V. Green Infrastructure Research and Supporting Documents.............................. 91 a. 2010 Forest Canopy Assessment b. Forest Fragmentation in Prince George’s County: Measuring Forest Cores and Edges to Determine Fragmentation Trends c. Summary of Water Quality Biological Assessment Studies d. The Economic Values of Nature: An Assessment of the Ecosystem Services of Forest and Tree Canopy e. 2005 Approved Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan (web link only)

VI. Agriculture Supporting Documents.....................................................................153 a. 2012 Adopted and Approved Priority Preservation Area Functional Master Plan (web link only) b. 2009 Strategic Program for Agricultural Development (web link only) c. 2012 Urban Agriculture Study (web link only)

VII. Rural Character Background and Supporting Documents............................153 a. 2013 Conserving Significant Cultural Landscapes: Protecting the Piscataway and Accokeek Historic Communities and the Mount Vernon Viewshed (web link only) b. 2012 Rural Villages Study (web link only) c. 2012 Croom and Aquasco Roads Scenic Byway Plan Elements (web link only)

SECTION I:

Overview This Technical Summary provides the research studies and analyses, and the web links to existing approved plans, that support the policies and strategies contained in the Resource Conservation Plan (RCP). They were completed over a period of several years leading up to the preparation of the RCP Preliminary Plan. Of particular interest are the analyses of the implementation of the policies and strategies of relevant master plans over the past 15 years.

All of these documents are or were available on the Prince George’s County Planning Department’s web page, PGPlanning.org.

SECTION II:

Public Input Summary The Public Input Summary summarizes the five input sessions held from January through March of 2016.

RCP Technical Summary | 1

Resource Conservation Plan For Prince George’s County Summary of Community Input Sessions County citizens and business owners gathered to provide input on the three elements of the Resource Conservation Plan (RCP) at five public input sessions held between January and May 2016:   

January 5, 2016 January 6, 2016 February 23, 2016

 

March 30, 2016 May 4, 2016

Community Input Sessions: In the first three sessions participants were provided an overview of the RCP and asked what they wanted to see “more of” and “less of” in the context of the plan’s three elements: green infrastructure, agriculture, and rural character. The comments have been summarized, grouped, and are provided below.

Open Forum: An Open Forum was held on March 30, 2016. Participants were given an opportunity to comment on the draft maps prepared for the plan and provide additional feedback on the results of the first three input sessions. The Open Forum results are provided on pages six, seven, and eight.

Municipal Forum: A Municipal Forum was held on May 4, 2016. This provided municipal representatives and citizens the opportunity to comment on the plan’s proposals. A presentation was given regarding how the plan fits with regional conservation efforts. Participants were asked how a countywide plan could best support their efforts at the local level. The Municipal Forum results are provided on pages eight and nine.

Results of Community Input Sessions Green Infrastructure Biological and Ecological Services:         

Acknowledge the importance of connecting wildlife corridors in urban areas to improve ecosystem services.

Prioritize restoration and protection of green infrastructure inside the Beltway.

Ensure larger riparian buffers.

Restore and encourage pollinators.

Identify a percentage goal for healthy County forest cover.

Do not build “green stormwater infrastructure” in places that are forested (do not sacrifice forests for a stormwater management structure).

Target forest conservation plantings to where they are needed most.

Require that trees transplanted be native and conducive to habitat.

Prioritize areas for preservation efforts/investments similar to General Plan focus on development.

Resource Conservation Plan Summary of Community Input Sessions Page 1

2 | RCP Technical Summary

     

Track measurable objectives/ensure goals have measurable aspect.

Evaluate status of gap and evaluation areas in the green infrastructure network.

Improve water quality maps in Green Infrastructure Plan update.

Understand the correlation between the amount of tree cover and water quality.

Understand the causes of poor water quality along Patuxent River and other areas.

Remove invasive plants.

Local, Regional and Inter-jurisdictional Coordination:    

Require the hubs and corridors and/or green infrastructure from neighboring jurisdictions and counties to be considered.

Incorporate municipally-based green infrastructure plans and efforts.

Identify specific goals for all development to result in net increase in ecosystem services (net positive result).

Improve coordination between agencies and with citizenry.

Development Review Practices:             

Require developments to preserve/plant a greater percentage of trees on-site and/or within the same watershed.

Keep the tree canopy in place.

Grant fewer exemptions from the Tree Canopy Coverage Ordinance requirements.

Consider coastal and inland flooding when designing new projects and maintaining existing ones.

Pay attention to aging grey infrastructure.

Focus on specific/critical zones with specific impairments to have higher standards for development (example: green roof requirements where water quality is low).

Practice better landscape management.

Tighten water and sewer category change requirements.

Use health impact assessment tool in land-use decisions.

Exert stricter control over development/opening land before construction, such as by closing old permits/shortening the length of time they are valid.

Improve grading practices.

Account for groundwater and surface water removal.

Reduce the amount of roads necessary in parks through better design.

Inspections/Enforcement:   

Monitor regulatory (conservation) easements.

Inform people of the presence of regulatory (conservation) easements.

Enhance enforcement by enabling citizens to bring violations to the County’s attention through forming/allowing for third party/citizen inspection groups that can access development sites.

Zoning/Regulatory/Policy:   

Adopt restrictions on watering lawns from potable wells and the draw down level of aquifers.

Adopt restrictions on fracking and other unsustainable energy sources.

Revise parking standards to reduce impervious surfaces.

Resource Conservation Plan Summary of Community Input Sessions Page 2

RCP Technical Summary | 3

     

Require Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) projects to meet environmental requirements.

Consider making the Green Infrastructure network an overlay zone.

Adopt stricter regulations on areas of highly erodible soils.

Include solar in the definition of green infrastructure.

Add policies at the County level to encourage solar power (large and small scale).

Reduce solar setback requirements.

Incentives:   

More tax incentives for conservation in high-priority areas to restore/conserve more on-site.

Work with farmers to protect larger tracts of land.

Provide incentives for agricultural preservation so farmers do not have to sell their land to developers.

Agriculture Rural Agricultural Preservation/Rural-Specific:  

Prohibit the use of public sewer within the Priority Preservation Areas.

Preserve sites such as Glenn Dale Plant Introduction Station/Hospital, and private farms in that area.

Urban Agriculture/Urban-Specific:    

Support urban agriculture within the Beltway.

Preserve and make available parcels suitable for urban agriculture in or near Transforming Neighborhoods Initiative (TNI) communities.

Protect community gardens.

Use green roofs as space for rooftop farming.

Local/Regional Coordination:   

Support food processing aggregation at agriculture research center or provide other locations for processing of agricultural products.

Encourage privately-owned conservation easements.

Create stronger partnerships with University of Maryland and other programs to investigate opportunities for urban agriculture.

Development Review Practices:   

Require developments to preserve/plant a greater percentage of trees to be preserved on-site.

Sunset development plats on lots zoned for development, unless construction permits have been obtained.

Use the health impact tool to consider health benefits of local agriculture.

Resource Conservation Plan Summary of Community Input Sessions Page 3

4 | RCP Technical Summary

Inspections/Enforcement:  

Provide more or better enforcement of maintenance of septic field/systems.

Provide more enforcement of unauthorized tree cuttings (and greater fines).

Zoning/Regulatory/Policy:      

Preserve agricultural resources by changing the zoning of properties within the 2012 Priority Preservation Area to ensure ratio of septic to development stays adequately large.

Provide more balance between canopy goals and farming (place more emphasis on farming).

Make more public lands available for leasing for agriculture.

Provide better protection of M-NCPPC-owned land that is being farmed (i.e., no more ball fields).

Support backyard hens and beekeeping opportunities for individuals in neighborhoods and on larger farms.

Provide the ability to connect agricultural fields via nonpublic roads (e.g., through park land).

Incentives:     

Provide a more systematic approach to supporting local agriculture businesses/cottage farming.

It must be financially viable.

Encourage the County’s business operations (like school cafeterias) to first turn to products from County farms.

Provide incentives—such as five acres of County-donated land to each municipality—to encourage urban agriculture.

Allow for property tax abatement for land/building owners that lease space for urban agriculture ventures (refer to D.C. initiative).

Support individuals, larger farms for community gardens through zoning and financial allocations and an inventory of potential sites.

Rural Character Transportation Specific:   

Provide special bike roadways and greater bike access and bike routes on existing roads and on other rights-of-way.

Provide regulations for special roadways and protect viewsheds of scenic roadways.

Lower posted speed limits.

Environmental-Specific and Parks/Trail-Specific:   

Ensure good wildlife habitat conditions such as wildlife crossing/underpasses and signage to alert drivers of wildlife.

Provide biomass for birds.

Map wildlife corridors.

Resource Conservation Plan Summary of Community Input Sessions Page 4

RCP Technical Summary | 5

    

Provide meadows/grasslands.

Promote the use/enjoyment of land, trails, and parks to increase number of people wanting to protect areas.

Provide better access to trails.

Ensure invasive species restrictions.

Connect the Anacostia Heritage Trail to the Baltimore, Washington, and Annapolis Trail.

Agricultural-specific:  

Protect viewsheds of waterways, all historic structures, scenic byways, and cultural areas.

Encourage agricultural tourism.

Local/Regional Coordination:  

Coordinate with our rural neighbors in Anne Arundel, Charles, Calvert, and Howard Counties.

Coordinate with state trails and historic sites.

Development Review Practices:     

Protect viewsheds of scenic roadways.

Require road and sewer maintenance by developers (for example: for 50 years or put money in a trust).

Maintain current subdivision restrictions (must be conservation subdivision).

Require greater adherence to dark skies guidelines.

Provide better notification of the community of subdivisions and state projects.

Inspections/Enforcement:   

Provide more enforcement of land uses/businesses that are not following the rules.

Provide greater enforcement and monitoring for carbon monoxide and other air pollutants.

Improve roadway speed enforcement.

Zoning/Regulatory/Policy:       

Ensure improved preservation of public and private properties along/in the Rural and Agricultural Area (formerly known as the Rural Tier).

Provide restrictions on dump truck traffic.

Allow activities and uses such as bed and breakfasts, home businesses, “glamping” (glamorous camping), ecotourism, and value-added farming, flotillas, and marathons.

Maintain or increase setback requirements for development along scenic roads.

Maintain Rural and Agricultural Area (formerly known as the Rural Tier)—do not continue to shrink it.

Allow for bike trails along utility rights-of-way.

Include restrictions so that scenic and historic roads are maintained in their current configuration (not widened).

Resource Conservation Plan Summary of Community Input Sessions Page 5

6 | RCP Technical Summary

Incentives:   

Promote the use and enjoyment of historic sites, parks, trails, agricultural resources, and bikeways to increase number of people wanting to protect areas.

Incentivize (young people) new farmers.

Incentivize historic home renovation.

Results of the Open Forum Comments received during the open forum are provided below. The dots indicate whether or not a participant marked it as being of high importance. Preference dots allocated to previous input session comments are also provided.

OPEN FORUM COMMENTS RECEIVED (3/30/16)

Consider addressing the causes of climate change/sea level rise/extreme weather events.

Concerned about power plants constructed in the rural preservation areas and their longterm impact. Air quality should be included in this plan.

Consider looking into the aquifers to address water quality issues and concerns.

Definitions are really important. Define urban agriculture. Have the impression that urban is inside the Beltway. Where does urban start and where does rural start?

Touch upon the differences between urban, suburban, and rural settings (comment in regards to agriculture).

Green infrastructure is shown as an element of, rather the basis for, all other plans.

Would like to advance the concept of permaculture rather than only monoculture. How can these be constructed without so much need for additional external resources?

Consider incorporating permaculture into sustainability.

Determine what considerations can be applied to the current barriers to increase food opportunities when looking from an agricultural or food production standpoint, what considerations.

Controlled environment agriculture—current regulations have not considered soil-less and self-contained technologies.

It is important to remediate landscapes. Should look into mycroremediation using fungi (oyster mushrooms, for example) when designing rain gardens and other green methods to help this effort after all of the cars have caused degradation.

Soil fertility—we want to encourage it in urban areas, not just in rural. Richer soil retains and absorbs more water. Stormwater management plans do not capture this. We can ultimately study and include for regulatory improvements for stormwater retention.

For the woodland conservation ordinance, make sure that the process of evaluating sites does a good job of capturing all important elements and contributions (e.g., ensure the process captures trees smaller than champion trees that may be of significance).

For a property, partially in the CBCA, there should be a threshold where if over a certain percent of the property is in the CBCA, the entire property must meet CBCA requirements.

Consider incorporating physical evaluations (field work) to confirm the green infrastructure network. At the least, this may be able to occur on the municipal level.

Consider including a systemized approach of identifying the exact network rather than having to wait for parcels to come in for development review.

PREFERENCE

Resource Conservation Plan Summary of Community Input Sessions Page 6

RCP Technical Summary | 7

OPEN FORUM COMMENTS RECEIVED (3/30/16)

PREFERENCE

ABBREVIATED SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY INPUT SESSION COMMENTS: GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

PREFERENCE

ABBREVIATED SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY INPUT SESSION COMMENTS: AGRICULTURE

PREFERENCE

Cheverly is an example of a municipality that is using a grounded approach to map the green infrastructure network. In most communities, there are some individuals who can help with network effort to create more fine-tuned maps (that are verified with field work).

The green infrastructure network is missing an important element: the urban heat island effect is being studied, and we need to plan for addressing it. By increasing plant biodiversity, we will build more absorption.

Need to be aware of the timing of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations Rewrite project and make sure the RCP comments are considered.

Overindustrialization is a big threat to our rural character.

Citizens are not adequately notified of state-approved projects (e.g., power plants). We lose out on the ability to comment. Suggest that the plan recommend that state-approved projects be required to follow the same public input procedures that local projects do.

Require lands that have been used for sand, salt, and gravel mining to be restored to agricultural use or grasslands.

The plan is a policy plan. Does it look toward changing some of the rules and regulations to support and strengthen them? (Answer was yes.)

BIOLOGICAL AND ECOLOGICAL SERVICES Acknowledge the importance of connecting wildlife corridors in urban areas to improve ecosystem services.

Prioritize restoration and protection of green infrastructure inside the Beltway.

Ensure larger riparian buffers.

Do not build “green stormwater infrastructure� in places that are forested (do not sacrifice forests for a stormwater management structure).

Require that trees transplanted be native and conducive to habitat.

Remove invasive plants.

ZONING/REGULATORY/POLICY Adopt restrictions on fracking and other unsustainable energy sources.

Require WSSC projects to meet environmental requirements.

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PRACTICE Grant fewer exemptions from the Tree Canopy Coverage Ordinance requirements.

URBAN AGRICULTURE/URBAN SPECIFIC Preserve and make available parcels suitable for urban agriculture in or near Transforming Neighborhoods Initiative (TNI) communities.

LOCAL/REGIONAL COORDINATION Support food processing aggregation at agriculture research center or provide other locations for processing of agricultural products.

Encourage privately-owned conservation easements.

Resource Conservation Plan Summary of Community Input Sessions Page 7

8 | RCP Technical Summary

INCENTIVES Provide a more systematic approach to supporting local agriculture businesses/cottage farming. It must be financially viable.

Support individuals, larger farms for community gardens through zoning and financial allocations and an inventory of potential sites.

ABBREVIATED SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY INPUT SESSION COMMENTS: RURAL CHARACTER

PREFERENCE

TRANSPORTATION SPECIFIC Provide regulations for special roadways and protect viewsheds of scenic roadways.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND PARKS/TRAIL SPECIFIC Ensure good wildlife habitat conditions such as wildlife crossing/underpasses and signage to alert drivers of wildlife.

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PRACTICES Maintain current subdivision restrictions (must be conservation subdivision).

INSPECTIONS/ENFORCEMENT Provide greater enforcement and monitoring for carbon monoxide and other air pollutants.

Improve roadway speed enforcement.

ZONING/REGULATORY/POLICY Ensure improved preservation of public and private properties along/in the Rural Tier.

Allow for bike trails along utility rights-of-way.

INCENTIVES Promote the use and enjoyment of historic sites, parks, trails, agricultural resources, and bikeways to increase number of people wanting to protect areas.

Incentivize historic home renovation.

Results of the Municipal Forum Participants used their knowledge of their neighborhood, their community, and the County to provide input on areas where there are challenges and where improvements could be made. Below is a summary of the comments provided.

General Comments: 

Incorporate language that recognizes that there may be the possibility of conflict between one set of planning element standards and another (e.g., green infrastructure versus agriculture).

Green Infrastructure:  

Incentivize making the three downtown areas identified in Plan 2035 attractive places so that there is less pressure to build in rural areas.

Address ways to protect the natural areas from population pressures over the long-term.

Examples include looking at sea level rise, wetland migration/something that is happening inland due to the changes, and connecting and preserving connections of ecological areas.

Resource Conservation Plan Summary of Community Input Sessions Page 8

RCP Technical Summary | 9



Ensure wildlife is connected via waterways and corridors. That is something that does not get enough attention. Have to give wildlife a voice in this planning. Flora and fauna are absolutely necessary for each other.

Agriculture: 

No comments

Rural Character: 

Expand the Anacostia Heritage Area boundary.

Participants were asked: how can countywide conservation efforts support local and municipal conservation concerns? It was acknowledged in the discussion that it can be difficult to address sitespecific concerns in a countywide plan. The group discussed the following options.   

When master and sector plans are prepared, more consideration should be given to the conservation priorities of municipalities and include them in planning efforts.

Municipalities should continue to identify resources and areas that are priorities for conservation.

Municipalities and planners should work together to address conservation concerns when possible during the land development process.

Resource Conservation Plan Summary of Community Input Sessions Page 9

10 | RCP Technical Summary

SECTION III:

Analyses of Existing Policies and Strategies Status Report on the 2002 General Plan Environmental Infrastructure Chapter Implementation Strategies....................................................................................................................... 12 Analysis of the 2005 Green Infrastructure Implementation Strategies.................................................. 21 Status Report on the 2012 Priority Preservation Area Plan Implementation Strategies....................... 41

RCP Technical Summary | 11

12 | RCP Technical Summary

II. Revise appropriate regulations to ensure implementation of the Green Infrastructure Plan.

Completed in 2010.

Policies and Strategies Status Policy 1 Preserve, protect, and enhance the designated green infrastructure elements.

Strategies I. Prepare a countywide Green Infrastructure Plan as a Completed in 2005. functional master plan in concert with the desired development pattern in this General Plan.

An update to the 2005 Approved Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan (“GI Plan”) was initiated by the County Council on September 16, 2015. The new GI Plan will be one of three elements of the Resource Conservation Functional Master Plan. The other two are agricultural conservation and rural character preservation.

In 2010, a comprehensive package of legislation was prepared to implement a variety of strategies within the GI Plan.

Comments

1

The following table contains the strategies from the Environmental Infrastructure Chapter of the 2002 Prince George’s County Approved General Plan and a description of how they were implemented in the period from 2002 to the present. The comments column provides insight into how the strategy was implemented and/or possible barriers to implementation. While these strategies have been superseded by the strategies contained in Plan 2035, this analysis provides valuable insight to the Green Infrastructure Plan update process.

Status Report on the 2002 General Plan Environmental Infrastructure Chapter Implementation Strategies

RCP Technical Summary | 13

Water quality was addressed in Plan 2035 through a variety of recommended strategies.

Implementation of the WIP is ongoing and will be supported by policies and strategies of the new Resource Conservation Plan.

This should be carried over to the updated GI Plan.

The County is in the process of implementing its Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) that has identified the need to treat the stormwater runoff from 8,000 currently untreated acres of impervious surfaces.

Environmental existing conditions reports are prepared for each master or sector plan update and the recommendations address specific areas in need.

The County and M-NCPPC have provided funding for periodic water quality sampling.

I.

III. Periodically employ a water-quality model that evaluates existing water quality and use the results to determine where additional efforts are needed.

Prepare and implement major watershed management plans to address the preservation and restoration of ecological functions within watersheds, with an emphasis on the restoration and maintenance of water quality, protection of aquatic living resources, and the control of water quantity with consideration of the development pattern of this General Plan.

II. Include in each area/sector plan an ecosystem evaluation and comprehensive watershed management section for the area that provides guidance for preservation, enhancement, and/or protection of water-related resources.

More emphasis on water quality sampling and modeling is occurring at the state level. The cost of the sampling completed in the past may need to result in a re-evaluation of this method at the county level.

Policy 2 Preserve, protect, and enhance surface and ground water features and restore lost ecological functions.

Strategies

Comments This strategy is reflected in the GI Plan and will be carried forward in the updated plan.

Status Since 2005, almost all of the County has been part of either a revised master or sector plan.

As each plan was created, opportunities for implementation were explored and resources of local significance were identified.

Policies and Strategies III. As new master and sector plans are prepared, opportunities will be identified for implementation of the Green Infrastructure Plan.

2

14 | RCP Technical Summary Flooding continues to be a concern for flood-prone properties and places where sea level rise is anticipated.

The methods being described This strategy has been implemented. are “environmental site design� methods that are now state law. They are reflected in Subtitle 32 of the County Code.

Subtitle 32 requires reductions in impervious surfaces for certain applications.

VII. Continue implementation of available federal and state programs to control flooding and losses due to flooding without impairing water quality. Seek additional funding sources to augment current efforts.

VIII. Implement through existing ordinances the use of systems and processes for treating stormwater runoff that preserve and/or reestablish natural resources and systems, such as reducing natural vegetation removal, reducing impervious surfaces, and increasing infiltration.

IX. Evaluate current regulations that result in the construction of required impervious surfaces.

Encourage the use of innovative designs that reduce the amount of impervious surfaces.

This strategy is being implemented and can be emphasized in strategies in the updated GI Plan.

New FEMA floodplain maps will be adopted soon. These maps will help direct limited funding to address flooding in those areas most in need.

This recommendation may need to be revisited as part of the GI Plan update; additional staff have not been added to address the need for enforcement of environmental regulations.

This strategy should be carried forward in the GI Plan update.

Many new and key park properties have been acquired for conservation purposes.

V. Augment current forest conservation, sediment, and erosion control enforcement efforts.

VI. Continue parkland acquisition in key stream valleys and seek additional funding sources for acquisition and conservation easements.

Comments The effectiveness of the current minimum stream and wetland buffers will be evaluated as part of the research in preparation of the GI Plan update.

Status The minimum mandatory buffers for streams were widened in 2010. The minimum mandatory buffers for wetlands were clarified in 2010.

County agencies were reorganized to emphasize enforcement.

Policies and Strategies IV. Evaluate the effectiveness of current ordinances and regulations regarding stream and wetland buffer widths. Consider revising the current regulations to provide varying buffer widths.

3

RCP Technical Summary | 15

To date, opportunities for collaboration have been limited.

XI. Evaluate opportunities for coordination of watershed protection policies and programs with adjoining jurisdictions.

One opportunity is the Greater Baltimore Wilderness Coalition, of which M-NCPPC is a member. This project will result in the sharing of resources and data across jurisdictional boundaries.

Comments The Mattawoman watershed remains a priority for the County because of its special habitat for fish populations.

Policy 3: Preserve existing woodland resources and replant woodland, where possible, while implementing the desired development pattern.

Strategies I. Revise the Woodland Conservation Ordinance to An assessment was completed This strategy will be repeated in the GI Plan achieve the forest and tree cover objectives in 2010 to determine if the update. countywide and in each Tier. current regulations and approvals for development would result in meeting the goals in 2025. The conclusion of the assessment was that the goals can be met once the 2010 environmental regulations are fully implemented.

Status This strategy reflects current regulatory requirements.

Policies and Strategies X. Treat stormwater on site to the fullest extent possible in the Mattawoman watershed to maximize infiltration, restore the natural hydrologic system, improve water quality, and minimize run-off.

4

16 | RCP Technical Summary This strategy was completed with the 2010 WCO update.

This strategy has assisted in the preservation of more woodlands within this watershed than may have otherwise been preserved.

IV. Revise the Woodland Conservation Ordinance to place a greater emphasis on the reduction of forest fragmentation and the protection of mature forests.

V. Meet the requirements of the Woodland Conservation Ordinance on site to the fullest extent possible within the Mattawoman watershed. If off-site mitigation is required, it shall be provided within the Mattawoman watershed.

III. Revise the Woodland Conservation Ordinance to place a greater emphasis on the use of native plants in woodland reforestation and afforestation plans.

Status No recommendations for changes to the exemptions were included in the 2010 WCO update. Exemptions were evaluated and it was determined that deleting the exemptions could result in hardship for applicants in areas where development is targeted.

This strategy was completed with the 2010 WCO update.

Policies and Strategies II. Evaluate the Woodland Conservation Ordinance’s provisions for exemptions to determine their appropriateness and whether they support the forest and tree cover objectives of this plan.

More is needed in the area of preserving and restoring native plant habitats. This should be addressed in the Forest and Tree Canopy Strategy that will be part of the GI Plan update.

While the 2010 WCO update emphasized the preservation of larger blocks of forest, fragmentation continues to occur. This strategy should be addressed in the Forest and Tree Canopy Strategy that will be part of the GI Plan update.

The Mattawoman watershed remains a priority for the County because of its special habitat for fish populations.

Comments Because this strategy is in potential conflict with the desired development pattern of Plan 2035, it will not be carried over into the GI Plan update.

5

RCP Technical Summary | 17

Plan 2035 references two recent efforts related to this goal; the 2012 (draft) Climate Action Plan, and the Prince George’s County Office of Central Services’ Sustainable Energy Program. It devotes three “Energy Infrastructure” policies to specific energy goals.

Plan 2035’s “Greening the Built Environment” policy encourages green building techniques to reduce energy use; several strategies suggest revising the tax code, removing barriers in building codes and the County Code, and revising the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations to remove barriers/incentivize green buildings.

County agencies have had varying levels of success in implementing this strategy.

More work is needed in this area.

Comments

Status

II. Evaluate lighting design standards and practices for public buildings and spaces, and prepare lighting guidelines for these spaces with consideration of safety, energy conservation, and the minimization of light spill-over.

The ongoing ZOSR Rewrite project is addressing this issue.

Plan 2035 repeats this strategy word-for-word.

Policy 5 Reduce overall sky glow, minimize the spill-over of light from one property to the next, and reduce glare from light fixtures.

Strategies I. Develop lighting standards for development The ongoing ZOSR Rewrite Plan 2035 recommends amending the County review and provide standards that are project is addressing this issue. Code “to include lighting standards for appropriate for each Tier. appropriate development activities.”

II. Evaluate and update land development regulations and building codes to provide opportunities for green building and energy reducing techniques.

Policies and Strategies Policy 4: Reduce energy consumption countywide.

Strategies I. Develop a countywide energy conservation and efficiency policy with measurable objectives.

6

18 | RCP Technical Summary On-going.

III. Provide an environmental impact analysis for sand and gravel mining, rubble fill and Class III fill applications.

Policy 7: Minimize impacts of noise on residential uses during the land development process.

Strategies I. Revise appropriate ordinances to require the The ongoing ZOSR Rewrite mitigation of existing and future transportationproject could address this generated noise levels to 65 dBA in outdoor issue. activity areas and 45 dBA in interior areas on sites with existing or proposed residential uses.

Study is currently on-going.

Completed with the 2010 WCO update.

Status Use of full cut-off optics is recommended in most master and sector plans. This method is used for street lights, mainly in rural areas.

II. Prepare a special study to analyze sand and gravel mining operations with regard to sensitive extraction and compatibility with existing communities.

Policy 6: Use existing natural resources wisely.

Strategies I. Clarify regulations with regard to timber harvesting and the protection of sensitive resources to ensure that harvesting operations are conducted in a manner that protects the resources remaining after the harvest.

Policies and Strategies III. Ensure that new roadway lighting meets the guidelines for minimization of light spill-over and sky glow.

Plan 2035 devotes one policy and strategy to noise; recommends evaluating and revising the County Code using the 2012 State of Maryland noise standards as guidelines.

This is standard practice.

Strategy is on-going.

Strategy has been implemented.

Comments Plan 2035 recommends amending the County Code, relying on LED and solar-powered lights.

7

RCP Technical Summary | 19

Status The ongoing ZOSR Rewrite project could address this issue.

Comments Plan 2035 addresses noise and locational issues under “Natural Environment,” not in the Land Use section. Recommendations focus on protection/screening/mitigation of noise effects with berms, plantings, and fencing.

III. Evaluate the costs and benefits of sustainable development practices and guidelines, and prepare an analysis for broad distribution.

While not on target with this strategy, a study of “ecosystem services” provided by forest and tree canopy coverage has been completed.

Use The Economic Values of Nature: An Assessment of the Ecosystem Services of Forest and Tree Canopy, Prince George’s County, Maryland, April 2015, to promote the dollar values associated with natural resources.

Policy 8: Promote environmental stewardship as an important element to the overall success of the environmental initiatives contained in this plan.

Strategies I. Create and promote environmental education programs that have target audiences including: • Curriculum for public and private school-age Maryland has an More work is needed in the lower grades to children (grades 1 through 8). environmental literacy develop an environmental ethic early in requirement for high school children’s lives. students.

• Public outreach to the development community The ongoing Speakers Series This effort should be continued. with emphasis on sustainable development. provides insight into sustainable development techniques.

• Workshops and continuing education events DoE provides numerous citizen- This effort should be continued. with printed materials for county residents. focused educational programs.

II. Develop an awards program for projects that are Not started.

This strategy should be included in the GI Plan developed using environmentally sensitive and/or update. energy efficient designs.

Policies and Strategies II. Recommend appropriate land uses in areas impacted by unacceptable noise levels.

8

20 | RCP Technical Summary Status Not started. DoE held a green forum in 2015 to bring sustainability partners together.

DoE has several communitybased programs.

Policies and Strategies IV. Periodically publish and update a Prince George’s County resource directory of services that promote resource conservation, environmental responsibility, and sustainable development techniques.

V. The county should partner with municipalities, civic, citizen, and neighborhood associations and other groups to promote environmental stewardship.

Continue to partner with communities to promote environmental stewardship.

Comments Continue to emphasize the value of sustainable development practices.

9

RCP Technical Summary | 21

Adding areas of local significance provided opportunities for direct citizen input.

The Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) replaced the WRAS documents that were completed in the past.

a. Refine the boundaries of the green infrastructure On-going (complete for network to reflect areas of local significance and each master or sector consider elements such as: plan that followed).

(1) Additional opportunities for connectivity (2) Corridors less than 200 feet wide (3) Historic properties with environmental significance (4) Specific areas in need of mitigation or restoration

b. Adopt recommendations contained in a Watershed Complete and ongoing.

Restoration Action Strategy if one has been developed for all or a part of the subject area.

Amend strategy to support current WIP strategies and policies.

Keep strategy and continue implementation.

Policies and Strategies Status Comments Recommendations Policy 1 Preserve, protect, enhance, or restore the green infrastructure network and its ecological functions while supporting the desired development pattern of the 2002 General Plan.

Strategies 1.1 Identify opportunities for implementation of the Green Infrastructure Plan as new master and sector plans are prepared.

1

The following table contains the strategies from the 2005 Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan and a description of how they were implemented in the period from July of 2005 to the present. The comments column provides insight into how the strategy was implemented and/or possible barriers to implementation. The recommendations column contains the suggestions for implementation and suggestions for the initial draft of the Green Infrastructure Plan Update.

Analysis of the 2005 Green Infrastructure Plan Implementation Strategies

22 | RCP Technical Summary Complete and on-going.

Complete.

d. Identify specific areas in the green infrastructure network in need of restoration, preservation and/or enhancement.

d. (1) Conduct a stream corridor assessment for major stream corridors within the green infrastructure network if an assessment has not been done within the past five years. d. (2) Update the countywide catalog of targeted mitigation sites to include identified areas. Note: When mitigation sites are identified on private property, participation shall be voluntary, except when corrections are required as the result of on-site violations.

Not started.

Status Partially complete and ongoing.

Policies and Strategies c. Evaluate the most current water quality data in conjunction with the most up-to-date land use modeling data for the area to set forth specific recommendations to help improve water quality.

The SCA layer and associated data is not configured to track changes.

Comments Modeling is now part of the WIP implementation.

Specific recommendations to improve water quality were part of master and sector plans.

Since the fall of 2011, environmental planners have been focused on field work in the sector plan areas in order to make specific recommendations for infrastructure improvements that benefit the community economically, socially and environmentally.

The Stream Corridor Assessment (SCA) data are used as the base data for this effort.

SCA was prepared and delivered.

Discuss with DoE the methods available to track mitigation projects identified, planned and completed for WIP reporting.

Coordinate with DoE on how to proceed.

Amend this strategy to address the identification of water quality and quantity project locations within the watersheds of the plan areas and identify possible funding sources.

Recommendations Amend to address integration of the WIP into the GI Plan.

2

RCP Technical Summary | 23

Complete.

Complete and on-going.

On-going.

a.(3) Minimize road impacts.

a.(4) Allow alternative designs in areas where development is targeted such as centers, corridors and the Developed Tier to maximize utilization of the property while maintaining and/or restoring the integrity of ecological systems.

Complete.

a. (2) Eliminate the use of lot-size averaging and varying lot sizes.

(1) Allow the use of conservation subdivision designs where appropriate.

a. Prepare and adopt flexible design standards per Table 3 to:

A discussion of minimizing road impacts is provided in the 2009 Approved Countywide Master Plan of Transportation (MPOT).

Applications have been evaluated and approved using this flexibility.

Conservation subdivisions are required in the Rural and Agricultural Area (RAA) and optional elsewhere.

Major subdivisions are no longer allowed in most of the RAA, where conservation subdivisions were previously mandatory.

No additional work needed.

Keep and explore other options such as the use of bottomless culvert and bridges over sensitive areas.

Keep and adjust to mesh with recommendations of Plan 2035.

Delete.

Explore options related to changes to the conservation subdivision regulations.

Policies and Strategies Status Comments Recommendations 1.2 Revise applicable ordinances to allow the use of flexible design standards in the green infrastructure network to: minimize impervious surfaces; reduce fragmentation of existing forests and habitats; establish new linkages through planting and/or restoration; minimize ecological impacts.

3

24 | RCP Technical Summary Partially complete and on-going.

Complete.

On-going.

On-going.

b.(3) Require permanent protections to be placed on areas intended for preservation.

b.(4) Ensure that the public has physical and/or visual access to the preserved areas, where appropriate, through the provision of views from an existing or proposed roadway or trail.

b.(5) Ensure that roadways are adequate to meet projected travel volumes and emergency vehicle access requirements and provide options such as pervious surfaces for areas of occasional vehicle access.

Status On-going.

b.(2) Require shared septic systems and septic systems built in areas of special concern to utilize biological nutrient reduction technology to minimize impacts to water quality.

(1) Ensure that septic systems are adequate to support any proposed flexible designs where sewer and water is not available.

Policies and Strategies b. When flexible design standards are allowed:

The 2009 MPOT addresses transportation adequacy.

The Complete Streets legislation partially addresses this option.

In the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area (1,000 feet from mean high tide), septic systems are required to use best available technology (BAT) to control nutrient run-off.

The current regulations require conservation easements to be established through the land development process.

The strategy has been used during the review and approval of site specific applications.

Comments The Health Department requires percolation tests prior to building permit issuance.

Keep to address the use of pervious surfaces in more detail.

Keep.

Evaluate where easements are needed for other protections.

Evaluate use of BAT in other areas of special concern.

Recommendations Keep and support the Health Department’s position on alternative septic disposal methods.

4

RCP Technical Summary | 25

Complete.

Complete.

c. Increase minimum regulated stream buffer widths to 75 feet except in the Developed Tier and growth centers and corridors, where minimum buffer widths remain at 50 feet.

d. Revise the Zoning Ordinance to protect environmentally sensitive areas for projects entering the development process during all types of land development proposals, not just projects entering during the preliminary plan process.

Complete.

On-going.

b. Allow impacts to regulated areas as appropriate within the Developed Tier, centers and corridors, and where needed to accommodate planned development on constrained sites. Mitigation for these impacts should be provided as close to the area of impact as possible.

e. Revise the definition of expanded stream buffers to include sensitive habitat areas countywide, not just in the Patuxent River basin.

On-going.

a. Strictly limit development impacts within the regulated areas in the Rural Tier and outside of approved growth centers and corridors in the Developing Tier to activities such as those that are absolutely necessary and unavoidable for road and utility crossings in new subdivisions.

Keep as an on-going strategy.

Added to stream buffer definition in the County Code.

Current minimum buffer widths in the County Code are: 60 feet in Developed Tier; 75 in the Developing Tier; and 100 in the Rural Tier.

County Code requires the preservation of primary management areas to the fullest extent possible.

Delete.

Delete.

Evaluate what regulations may require wider minimum buffers such as Tier II waters.

The strategy has been used Keep as an on-going during the review and strategy. approval of site specific applications. Mitigation is addressed in the County Code and the Tech Manual.

Guidance provided in the Environmental Technical Manual (Tech Manual) regarding appropriate impacts to regulated environmental features.

Policies and Strategies Status Comments Recommendations 1.3 Strengthen regulations where environmental conditions warrant and provide greater flexibility where development is targeted.

5

26 | RCP Technical Summary Not started.

On-going.

Not started.

a. Establish a voluntary transfer of development rights (TDR) program to protect elements of the green infrastructure network.

b. Establish a county program for the purchase of development rights for land within the evaluation areas of the green infrastructure network.

c. Amend appropriate regulations to allow density bonuses when projects are designed to maximize preservation of evaluation areas.

a. Reduce fragmentation of undeveloped woodlands by revising the Woodland Conservation Ordinance to place a greater emphasis on the value of retaining connected woodlands.

Complete.

Division 2 of Subtitle 25 has been revised to address this strategy.

Keep and amend to emphasize reductions in fragmentation.

1.5 Ensure that areas of connectivity and ecological functions are maintained, restored and/or established within the green infrastructure network.

Include this strategy in the discussions of the GI Plan Update.

Revise as needed to reflect current program parameters.

Revise as needed to mesh with the TDR Work Group’s recommendations.

Comments One process is now established: preserve to the fullest extent possible.

1.4 Provide incentives to encourage non-regulatory compliance with plan objectives in the evaluation areas.

TDRs of various sorts have been discussed from time to time without being implemented. A TDR Work Group has been established by the County Council to explore this idea.

The HARPP Program was established to purchase development rights. The GI network is one of the evaluation criteria for selection of parcels for participation in the program.

No progress has been made on this strategy.

Recommendations Delete.

Status Complete.

Policies and Strategies f. Apply the same review process for all stream impacts countywide.

6

RCP Technical Summary | 27

Status Not started.

On-going.

On-going.

On-going.

On-going.

Policies and Strategies b. Protect plant, fish, and wildlife habitats and maximize the retention and/or restoration of the ecological potential of the landscape by prioritizing habitat cover types in the Woodland Conservation Ordinance.

c. Evaluate connectivity within the green infrastructure network when reviewing and approving specific land use projects.

d. Strategically target off-site mitigation to restore, enhance and/or protect the green infrastructure network using the countywide catalog of mitigation sites.

e. Coordinate implementation with adjoining jurisdictions and municipalities and other regional green infrastructure efforts. If a municipality has an approved local green infrastructure plan, ensure that mitigation resulting from activities within the municipality supports the local plan.

f. Protect existing resources while providing mitigation.

Most jurisdictions do not have a GI Plan in the same format as the 2005 Approved Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan.

Need to seek ways to support smaller-scale planning efforts of the municipalities, some of which have been completed (Bowie and Cheverly).

This strategy is used during the review and approval of development applications.

This strategy is used during the review and approval of development applications.

This strategy is used during the review and approval of development applications.

Comments Prioritizing habitat cover types was not a recommendation of the team who worked on the 2010 legislation.

Keep.

Keep and amend to address support for smaller-scale GI planning efforts.

Keep.

Keep.

Recommendations Keep and amend to mesh with other recommendations.

7

28 | RCP Technical Summary On-going.

On-going.

b. Prioritize use of public funds to protect and restore SCAs and the ecosystems supporting them.

a. Seek additional funding sources for acquisition and conservation easements.

This strategy is used during the review and approval of development applications.

Keep.

Funding for land protection has become increasing difficult to obtain. Need new strategies to address.

Keep and amend as appropriate to mesh with the on-going planning efforts of DPR and County agencies that are land stewards.

Public funding for Keep. conservation in the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) has been focused on designed SCAs and supporting land features.

1.7 Continue public acquisition of land and easements in stream valleys designated in the Land Preservation, Parks and Recreation Plan.

On-going.

a. Identify critical ecological systems supporting the SCA and ensure these areas are maintained and/or protected during the development review process to provide ongoing support to the SCAs.

Comments Recommendations This strategy is used during Keep. the review and approval of development applications.

The Woodland and Wildlife Conservation Ordinance and the Landscape Manual have been amended to place a greater emphasis on the use of native plant species.

1.6. Ensure that special conservation areas (SCAs) (Map 2) and the critical ecological systems supporting them are protected.

Status On-going and complete.

Policies and Strategies g. Protect and restore native species within Prince George’s County.

8

RCP Technical Summary | 29

On-going.

b. Minimize fragmentation when public facilities are built in the green infrastructure network and maintain ecological functions of the network.

Funding of public infrastructure is mainly driven by the CIPs of DOE and DPW&T. A strategy has not been developed for the use of limited funding resources.

This strategy is used when reviewing public projects.

Keep.

Keep and amend to address functional difficulties.

a. Develop guidelines for preferred road designs, such as bridges and wildlife passages, which should be used to minimize impacts to the green infrastructure network where transportation systems must intersect or encroach into it. Revise appropriate ordinances to support the use of recommended designs.

Not started.

Further discussions are needed to implement this strategy.

Keep.

1.9 Design transportation systems to minimize fragmentation and maintain the ecological functioning of the green infrastructure network.

On-going.

a. Strategically plan and fund public infrastructure, such as stormwater management facilities as well as sewer and water lines, to help concentrate growth outside of the green infrastructure network in so far as possible.

Comments Recommendations In the past land trusts have Keep and amend to not been active in the expand direction County. A few are provided by this becoming active and strategy. efforts have been made to reach out to them and provide support for their efforts.

1.8 When public facilities and infrastructure are constructed to support the desired development pattern of the 2002 General Plan, ensure that immediate and future impacts to the green infrastructure network are minimized, if not avoided.

Status On-going.

Policies and Strategies b. Coordinate with land trusts to achieve plan goals.

9

30 | RCP Technical Summary

Create a catalog of targeted mitigation sites.

On-going.

d. For tracking purposes, establish a central processing agency for all mitigation.

The Stream Corridor Assessment provides the platform for this database that has not been created.

The Stream Corridor Assessment provides the platform for this database that has not been created.

Work has just started on possible methods for implementation.

On-going.

On-going.

The Stream Corridor Assessment provides the platform for this database that has not been created.

Comments The MPOT was updated in 2009. While this strategy was not specifically addressed, it has been clarified in the Tech Manual under the guidance provided for appropriate impacts to regulated features.

On-going.

Status Not started.

c. Conduct stream corridor assessment surveys of major waterways and enter data into the countywide database through the master plan process.

a. Create a countywide, cross-referenced database for the identification and tracking of off-site mitigation projects for woodland conservation; stream, wetland, and ecological function restoration; and stormwater management mitigation. b. Coordinate contributions of data for possible mitigation sites from all sources (e.g., county, state and federal agencies, citizens, nonprofits, etc.).

1.10

Policies and Strategies b. Identify specific areas in the Master Plan of Transportation where trail systems would not be appropriate in the green infrastructure network due to ecological conflicts.

Keep and coordinate implementation with the WIPII team.

Keep and coordinate implementation with the WIPII team.

Keep and coordinate implementation with the WIPII team.

Keep and coordinate implementation with the WIPII team.

Recommendations Keep.

10

RCP Technical Summary | 31

On-going.

On-going.

a. With the Biennial Growth Policy Update, provide available data on progress.

b. Evaluate the progress of the Green Infrastructure Plan every five years when water quality data is available; synchronize with updates of data used for decision-making, including the forest and woodland cover data and aerial photographs.

Recommendations

Keep and amend to mesh with current terminology and reporting cycles.

Keep and address data availability.

The upcoming update of the GI Plan will be the first since its approval in 2005.

Some data necessary for updates are not being gathered on a regular basis. c. Update the action plan as needed.

Not started.

A comprehensive action Prepare an action plan was not created for plan after adoption of implementation. the updated GI Plan.

1.13 Ensure full compliance with and enforcement of all existing regulations including the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area and the Woodland Conservation Ordinance.

[There are no sub-strategies.]

On-going.

More staffing resources Keep and address are needed to address the new strategies for the enforcement of the updated plan. existing regulations.

Completed with each update prepared.

Implementation has Keep and coordinate focused on legislative with County agencies. changes needed. Action plan is needed for additional strategies that have not been implemented.

1.12 Periodically assess the progress of meeting the objectives of the Green Infrastructure Plan and update the action plan as necessary to ensure successful implementation.

On-going.

a. Who is responsible for implementing recommendations? b. What tasks need to be accomplished? c. Time frames for implementation? d. Resources needed for implementation? e. How progress will be monitored and evaluated?

Policies and Strategies Status Comments 1.11 Prepare an action plan for recommendations contained in this plan to identify:

11

32 | RCP Technical Summary Recommendations

On-going.

b. Ensure that all mitigation and/or retrofit projects in the county are appropriately credited toward meeting existing and/or future TMDL requirements.

DoE has secured a publicprivate partnership to implement the WIP. DoE has secured a publicprivate partnership to implement the WIP.

Complete.

Complete.

a. Revise the regulations to increase the minimum regulated stream buffer width to 75 feet, except in the Developed Tier and in growth centers and corridors.

b. In the Developed Tier and growth centers and corridors, maintain the current minimum regulated stream buffer width of 50 feet.

Current minimum buffer widths in the County Code are: 60 feet in Developed Tier; 75 in the Developing Tier; and 100 in the Rural Tier.

Some flexibility on allowed impacts provided in the regulations for areas within the Developed Tier and centers and corridors.

2.2 Establish and/or maintain adequate buffers to protect and/or restore water quality.

On-going.

a. Target mitigation to identified point and nonpoint pollution sources in a watershed with a TMDL.

Revise as needed to address Plan 2035.

Revise as needed to address Plan 2035.

Keep and coordinate implementation with the WIPII team.

Keep and coordinate implementation with the WIPII team.

Strategies 2.1. Help address compliance with total maximum daily load (TMDL) caps established by the state under the federal Clean Water Act for waterbodies in the county where water quality standards have not been met.

Policies and Strategies Status Comments Policy 2 Preserve, protect, and enhance surface and ground water features and restore lost ecological functions.

12

RCP Technical Summary | 33

Not started.

Complete.

b. Evaluate current regulations that result in the construction of required impervious surfaces.

Encourage the use of innovative designs that reduce the amount of impervious surfaces.

c. Manage and treat stormwater on-site to the fullest extent possible to maximize infiltration, restore the natural hydrologic system, improve water quality, and minimize run-off.

a. Implement the recommendations contained in completed Watershed Restoration Action Strategy plans.

Complete to the extent possible.

WRAS documents are being replaced with the watershed studies being done as part of the WIPII.

Keep and amend to mesh with current regulations.

Subtitle 32 of the County Keep and amend to Code now requires the use mesh with current of environmental site regulations. design to the fullest extent practicable, which includes the items listed in this strategy. d. Coordinate watershed protection policies and Not started.

Some coordination will be Keep and amend to programs with adjoining jurisdictions. needed with the WIPII mesh with current implementation. regulations.

2.4 Prepare and implement major watershed management plans to address the preservation and restoration of ecological functions within watersheds.

Keep and amend to mesh with current regulations.

Keep and amend to mesh with current regulations.

Complete.

a. Revise applicable ordinances to allow, and where appropriate require, the use of systems and processes for managing and treating stormwater runoff that preserve and/or reestablish natural resources and systems such as reducing natural vegetation removal, reducing impervious surfaces and increasing infiltration.

Subtitle 32 of the County Code now requires the use of environmental site design to the fullest extent practicable. This includes the preservation of natural areas as the first step in design.

Could be addressed during the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations update.

Recommendations

Policies and Strategies Status Comments 2.3 Manage and treat stormwater to minimize impacts to water quality and ecological systems.

13

34 | RCP Technical Summary Complete and on-going.

c. Implement the recommendations of the State’s Tributary Strategy Teams and the Patuxent River Policy Plan that are applicable to the county.

b. Periodically employ a water-quality model that evaluates how existing land uses impact water quality and use the results to determine where additional efforts and/or program changes are needed to improve water quality.

On-going.

a. Evaluate the most recent data from the Assessment On-going. of Streams and Watersheds of Prince George’s County water quality monitoring project conducted by the Prince George’s County Department of Environmental Resources and make appropriate recommendations to improve water quality.

2.5 Regularly assess water quality ratings.

Status On-going on a limited basis.

Policies and Strategies b. Include in each area/sector plan a comprehensive watershed management section for the area that provides guidance for preservation, enhancement, and/or protection of water-related resources.

Rounds 1 and 2 have been completed. Round 2 shows no measurable change in water quality since Round 1 and concludes that the time period was not long enough to measure changes.

This task is being done as part of WIPII implementation, with modeling primarily being done by the state.

Comments This strategy is implemented on a limited basis with each master/sector plan. Staff time is a limiting factor.

The only remaining tributary team is the Patuxent River Commission that has prepared a new policy plan.

Keep and coordinate with DoE.

Keep and coordinate with DoE on the water quality monitoring they are doing for the WIP.

Keep and amended as appropriate.

Recommendations Keep and amend to mesh with current regulations.

14

RCP Technical Summary | 35

Complete.

Complete.

Complete.

d. Maximize on-site conservation, especially in the Rural Tier.

e. Place increased emphasis on quality vegetation for on-site preservation.

f. Increase the minimum size for woodland conservation areas to be in conformance with the definition of woodland in the ordinance.

Complete.

Complete.

c. Ensure connectivity in both preservation and mitigation areas.

g. Evaluate the fee-in-lieu option and limit its use to appropriate parameters.

Complete.

b. Place increased emphasis on minimizing forest fragmentation.

County Code amended as noted.

County Code amended as noted.

County Code amended as noted.

County Code amended as noted.

County Code amended as noted.

County Code amended as noted.

Delete.

Delete.

Delete.

Delete.

Delete.

Delete.

Strategies 3.1 Revise the Woodland Conservation Ordinance to help preserve, protect, enhance, and restore the green infrastructure network.

[Note: strategies regarding Forest and Tree Canopy will be part of a Forest and Tree Canopy Strategy in the updated Green Infrastructure Plan.] a. Recognize the green infrastructure network as the Complete.

County Code amended as Delete. highest priority for preservation and planting. noted.

Policies and Strategies Status Comments Recommendations Policy 3 Preserve existing woodland resources and replant woodland, where possible, while implementing the desired development pattern of the 2002 General Plan.

15

36 | RCP Technical Summary Complete.

Complete and on-going.

Complete.

Complete.

Complete and on-going.

i. Require approval of a natural resources inventory prior to submission of land development applications instead of the forest stand delineation currently required.

j. Simplify the process to establish and revise mitigation banks.

k. Evaluate requirements for timber harvesting and regulations related to future land development.

l. Integrate wildlife habitat conservation principles into the ordinance and change the name of the ordinance to the “Woodland and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Ordinance.�

m. Include provisions for the removal of invasive species on sites where development is proposed.

Delete.

Delete.

Delete.

Delete.

Recommendations Delete.

County Code amended as Delete. noted. The Tech Manual needs more information on control methods for invasive plants.

County Code amended as noted.

County Code amended as noted.

County Code amended as noted.

County Code amended as noted.

Comments County Code amended as noted.

Strategies 4.1. Recognize that privately owned land, particularly working farms and forests, are an important component of the green infrastructure network.

On-going.

This strategy is fundamental to the GI Plan.

Keep.

Policy 4 Promote environmental stewardship as an important element to the overall success of the Green Infrastructure Plan.

Status Complete.

Policies and Strategies h. Allow the use of street trees within the Developed Tier as a method of meeting ordinance requirements and increasing tree canopy coverage.

16

RCP Technical Summary | 37

This strategy is fundamental to the GI Plan.

On-going.

On-going.

On-going.

Not started.

Not started.

b. Ensure information regarding the Green Infrastructure Plan is clear in that the stated goal to “protect, preserve and/or enhance� the green infrastructure network involves primarily voluntary measures implemented through the land development process.

c. Ensure program implementation does not prohibit intra-family transfers.

4.2. Publicly recognize private efforts to support the preservation, restoration, and/or enhancement of the green infrastructure network.

a. Develop a local awards program to recognize development projects that use environmentally sensitive and/or energy efficient designs.

b. Develop a local awards program to recognize exceptional efforts by private citizens to help preserve, restore and/or enhance the green infrastructure network.

An awards program is needed to recognize conservation efforts.

An awards program is needed to recognize conservation efforts.

This strategy is fundamental to the GI Plan.

This strategy is fundamental to the the GI Plan.

Comments This strategy is fundamental to the GI Plan.

Policies and Strategies Status a. Recognize the value of diverse land uses, such as On-going. woodlands, wetlands, meadows, urban forests, farms, and grassland within the green infrastructure network. Respect and encourage the diversity of land uses that comprise ecosystem networks.

Keep.

Keep.

Keep.

Keep.

Keep.

Recommendations Keep.

17

38 | RCP Technical Summary On-going.

b. Make recommendations to agencies, such as the Maryland Department of Natural Resources and the Maryland Department of Agriculture, to increase eligibility of county residents and enrollment in existing land stewardship programs, such as the Forest Conservation and Management Program and Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program.

Priority Preservation Plan has been approved.

Coordination with SCD was an integral part of this project.

This strategy is fundamental to the GI Plan.

Keep.

Keep.

Complete and on-going.

Complete.

a. When making policy and land use decisions, elevate the importance of preserving, protecting, enhancing, and restoring the green infrastructure network at the same level of concern as providing an interconnected network for transportation and/or public utilities.

b. Include in reports on land development proposals a statement regarding compliance with the Green Infrastructure Plan.

The County Code has been Keep. revised to establish the GI network as being the highest priority for preservation. Applications that require master plan conformance are evaluated using this plan.

This is standard for Keep. appropriate application types.

Strategies 5.1. View protection and restoration of the county’s green infrastructure network as a necessity and an amenity.

Policy 5 Recognize the green infrastructure network as a valuable component of the county’s Livable Communities Initiative.

On-going.

a. Coordinate with the Soil Conservation District regarding agricultural preservation programs.

Policies and Strategies Status Comments Recommendations 4.3. Partner with federal, state and local agencies to increase participation of Prince George’s County residents in land stewardship programs.

18

RCP Technical Summary | 39

On-going.

Not started.

a. Identify vacant lots in need of restoration within the green infrastructure network and provide incentives for either restoration and/or development.

a. (1) Include the areas in the catalog of potential restoration sites and allow the area to be used as a sending area for the transfer of development rights once the area is restored.

This strategy was in concert with strategies in the 2002 General Plan that directed infrastructure investments.

b. Make public investments that enhance the public infrastructure in areas outside of the green infrastructure network to improve livability and encourage development in those areas.

On-going.

These are the goals for all properties within the designated network.

a. (2) If these sites are to be developed, encourage Complete and on-going. the integration of the green infrastructure network into the design to maximize economic, environmental, and livable community benefits.

Because of limited staff resources, the ability to address this strategy within master and sector plans has been limited.

The catalog of sites has not been established and TDRs are not currently an option.

Keep and amend to mesh with the recommendations of Plan 2035.

Keep.

Keep and refine to provide more direction on when and how to do this.

Keep and refine to provide more direction on when and how to do this.

This strategy is Keep. fundamental to the GI Plan. b. Prioritize developed areas for restoration potential. Not started.

The updated GI Plan Keep and amend to provides an opportunity to mesh with the address restoration recommendations of through green stormwater Plan 2035. infrastructure.

5.3. Utilize the goal of the Green Infrastructure Plan to help revitalize and restore deteriorated areas within existing communities.

On-going.

a. Encourage projects to be designed to utilize the green infrastructure network as an amenity.

Policies and Strategies Status Comments Recommendations 5.2. Market the green infrastructure network as an asset to attract and retain residents and businesses to the county.

19

40 | RCP Technical Summary Status Not started.

Comments This strategy was in concert with strategies in the 2002 General Plan that directed infrastructure investments.

Recommendations Keep and amend to mesh with the recommendations of Plan 2035.

87%

12

Not started

PERCENT IMPLEMENTED

43

On-going

80

11

Completed and ongoing

TOTAL IMPLEMENTED

26

92

Completed

Total Strategies

20

During the first ten years of plan implementation, 80 of the 92 strategies (87%) are either completed or on-going.

The 2005 Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan contains 92 strategies grouped under five policies. Like most comprehensive plans, this plan has a 20-year implementation cycle.

Scorecard

Policies and Strategies c. Provide incentives to encourage infill development and the reuse of abandoned buildings.

RCP Technical Summary | 41

Strategies Status Comments Recommendations Policy 1 Seek opportunities to increase the value of farm and forest land used for agricultural production, agritourism, and agricultural support services.

Strategies Status Comments Recommendations a. The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Ongoing.

Information on the land Keep strategy and Commission should strive to clarify the application processes for preservation programs is continue provided online on pp. 3-9 implementation. land preservation programs, and how or whether multiple programs can be utilized on a single property. of the Technical Bulletin.

Clarify in the updated plan which programs are compatible. b. Forest certification programs, landowner cooperatives, tree Ongoing.

As opportunities arise, Keep strategy and planting, and other innovative practices should be promoted to information is distributed continue increase worth and minimize forest loss. about programs and implementation. practices. c. Remove restrictions and broaden guidelines that define Ongoing.

Updates to the County Code Keep strategy and acceptable farm and forest enterprises. have addressed this to some continue extent. implementation.

Work with key stakeholders as the uses in the new Zoning Ordinance are defined.

The following table contains the strategies from the 2012 Priority Preservation Plan and a description of how they were implemented in the period from July of 2012 to the present. The comments column provides insight into how the strategy was implemented and/or possible barriers to implementation. The recommendations column contains the suggestions for implementation and suggestions for the initial draft of the new countywide Agriculture Plan that will be part of the new Resource Conservation Plan.

Status Report on the 2012 Priority Preservation Area Plan Implementation Strategies

1

42 | RCP Technical Summary Not started.

e. Consider a tax credit as an incentive for the landowner who volunteers land for a conservation easement, but is allowed to remain on the land.

Comments Since June 2012, thirteen new woodland conservation banks have been established and six more banks are under review.

Properties that are agriculturally assessed are taxed at a lower rate.

Keep strategy and investigate implementation options.

Recommendations Keep strategy and continue implementation.

Policy 2 Seek available federal, state, local, and other sources of funding to achieve preservation of 80 percent of eligible lands.

Strategies Status Comments Recommendations a. The Soil Conservation District should continue to pursue state Completed.

Maryland Agricultural Land Amend this strategy certification of the agricultural land preservation program, Preservation Foundation to address how signifying the importance to the county of preserving high-value certification achieved in MALPF funding farm and forest land and the agriculture industry.

2014. should be used. b. Work with the local land trusts and nonprofit organizations to Ongoing.

Work on this strategy is Keep strategy and increase their role in preserving land in the PPA and ongoing through workshops continue disseminating information about conservation tax credits and and direct contacts. implementation. other tax incentives. c. An installment purchase agreement option should be Not started.

This strategy may no longer Amend this strategy established for farm and forest landowners to obtain easement be viable given the County is as needed after funds as a sustained income stream over time while deferring at its bond cap. discussions with tax payment. appropriate staff. d. Increase the use of funding in a variety of programs to Ongoing.

SCD works on this as part of Keep strategy and preserve agricultural land and retain healthy forests, in private its work program. continue ownership in the PPA, adjacent to parcels that have already implementation. been preserved or that are eligible for preservation funds based on soil characteristics and other qualities.

Status Ongoing.

Strategies d. Promote woodland conservation banking as a way to preserve valuable forest infrastructure, supporting the private market including fee-in-lieu requirements which comparatively make banking a less expensive alternative.

2

RCP Technical Summary | 43

Ongoing.

f. Research and prepare an analysis of methods to pursue dedicated funding sources, or other sources of funds, for the purpose of preserving farmland countywide.

Comments Continuing to fund HARPP has been challenging.

Relying solely on funding from M-NCPPC is not sustainable.

Some research has been conducted, no recommendations have been made.

CR-24-2014 established the TDR Work Group. Their work is on-going.

Keep strategy and continue implementation.

Recommendations Keep strategy and continue implementation.

g. Pursue options for establishing a transfer of development Ongoing.

Keep strategy and rights (TDR) program that can maintain property owners’ continue development rights. implementation.

Policy 3 Minimize development in areas of prime farm and forest acreage to preserve critical masses of the agricultural land base.

Strategies Status Comments Recommendations a. Continue to implement, strengthen, and enforce the Right-to- Ongoing.

Discussions have been onKeep strategy and Farm provisions to encourage agricultural preservation. going about how to continue implement the new Rightimplementation. to-Farm legislation. b. The conservation subdivision regulations for the O-S and R-A Not started.

Major subdivisions (more Conservation Zones should be evaluated to determine if it is feasible to than seven lots) are no subdivision increase the amount of area required for preservation or longer allowed in the provisions will be conservation without changing density. majority of the area where evaluated as part of conservation subdivisions the Zoning were previously mandatory. Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations rewrite project.

Status Not started.

Strategies e. Strengthen the county HARPP easement process by evaluating the feasibility of a dedicated source of general funds for agricultural preservation and expediting the application process.

3

44 | RCP Technical Summary Status Completed.

Ongoing.

Not started.

Ongoing.

Ongoing.

Strategies c. Adopt the Right-to-Farm legislation’s definition of a “farm/agricultural operation� for the PPA.

d. Identify all agricultural (farm and forest) land in the Developed and Developing Tiers that is worthy of preservation, with the intention of conceptualizing a separate plan and preservation program that speaks to the need to protect, preserve, and enhance agricultural land in the Developed and Developing Tiers.

e. Conduct a detailed analysis of the non-PPA portion of the Rural Tier to determine where there are large parcels that should be included in the PPA.

f. Review the zoning categories to identify ways to stabilize and maximize preservation of agricultural land through zoning, such as making improvements to the Conservation Subdivision Ordinance.

g. Encourage and promote exploration of agricultural preservation options in a timely manner.

In 2012 when the PPA boundaries were created, the boundaries met the state criteria. Amendments to the boundaries cannot be made if the criteria are not met and parcels that meet the criteria are required to be included.

The Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations rewrite project will evaluate the conservation subdivision provisions.

Options are being considered to shorten the process.

Properties have not been identified, but this idea has been evaluated conceptually.

Comments The definition has been provided.

Keep strategy and continue implementation.

Keep strategy and evaluate need when writing plan.

Delete this strategy.

Recommendations Delete this strategy and determine if there are other provisions of the Right-to-Farm Act that need to be implemented.

Keep strategy and continue implementation.

Amend to match the nomenclature of Plan 2035.

4

RCP Technical Summary | 45

Strategies Status Comments Recommendations h. The county should, in accordance with the provisions of HB 2 Ongoing.

This will be accomplished Keep strategy and (2006), continue to update the Plan every three years to allow through the Agriculture Plan continue that will be part of the implementation. regular opportunities for examination or reevaluation of Resource Conservation Plan. potentially affected properties and to ensure appropriate inclusion or exclusion as a result of tier boundary changes or other land use decisions.

Policy 4 Preserve farm and forest land as important natural resources for their environmental and economic value. a. Continue to utilize various county and other programs and Ongoing.

As opportunities arise this Keep strategy and policies such as the woodland conservation ordinance, to strategy is implemented. continue Carbon credits are not on implementation. encourage protection of the PPA, obtain carbon credits, and maximize carbon sequestration. the market yet. b. Maintain, strengthen, and expand markets for renewable Not started.

Biomass energy production Keep strategy and energy production, such as bio-energy and bio-based forest is being discussed at the continue state level. implementation. products such as fuelwood, timber, or pulpwood, and explore the viability of innovative markets for other sustainable, woody biomass forest products.

Policy 5 Identify valuable mineral resources, seek methods to protect and manage access, and reclaim these areas where possible for future farm or forest enterprises, or agricultural support services. a. For sand and gravel mines in the PPA, reclamation plan Ongoing.

A study is being completed Keep strategy and requirements should be enforced to allow for the best use of to evaluate the existing continue reclaimed mines including the preservation of land for compliance of sand and implementation. appropriate farm and forest enterprises, other community uses, gravel mines. Appropriate uses of properly reclaimed recreational and environmental needs. mines need to be determined.

5

46 | RCP Technical Summary Not started.

c. For unextracted mineral resources, perform surveys to determine where mineral resources exist in the PPA.

Comments Environmental impact reports that include analyses of impacts on surrounding communities are required to be prepared for all sand and gravel mine applications. A study is being completed to evaluate the existing compliance of approved mines and to determine appropriate reuses.

Determining where resources exist requires access to properties and extensive soil sampling.

Funding is not available to complete this task.

Delete this strategy.

Recommendations Keep strategy and continue implementation.

Policy 6 Support profitable agricultural operations by encouraging new farm and forest enterprises that complement the existing agricultural industry. a. The county should consider including the economic viability of Ongoing.

The Food Equity Council Keep strategy and farm and forest enterprises as a vital part of its overall (FEC) is addressing the continue economic viability of implementation. economic development strategy. agriculture. b. The Soil Conservation District should continue to coordinate Ongoing.

Staff from SCD actively seek Keep strategy and the federal and state activities with respect to best best practices and make continue management practices, support services, and preservation recommendations were implementation. activities with the various governmental entities and nonappropriate. profits.

Status Ongoing.

Strategies b. Assess the effectiveness and adequacy of reclamation plan regulations and report on the feasibility of utilizing regulatory tools (that correspond with the location of the remaining unexploited sand and gravel deposits) to ensure that sand and gravel mine applications address all impacts on surrounding communities, including standards that retain topsoil for future agricultural use.

6

RCP Technical Summary | 47

Ongoing.

e. Complete efforts to create and launch a “one-stop shop� where farmers and producers can access services from the Soil Conservation District, Farm Service Agency, University of Maryland Extension, and other local and federal agencies that provide technical assistance to them or regulate their activities. f. Explore tools to support urban agriculture as a way to increase locally grown produce and provide new market opportunities for farmers in the PPA.

g. Develop a work plan to provide complete information about preservation benefits, and to increase the participation of farm and forest landowners, among small (50 acres or less) and minority-owned farms constituting 33 percent of the total acreage goal of 24,823 acres preserved by the year 2027.

Ongoing.

d. Institutionalize the agricultural marketing specialist position by securing permanent funding, and providing on-going support for University of Maryland Extension to obtain grant funding and providing assistance to farmers and producers for bringing their products to urban and regional direct and wholesale markets.

Not started.

Ongoing.

Status Ongoing.

Strategies c. Designated PPA should be prioritized for renewable energy production, i.e., wind, biomass, and solar energy production using available farmland.

Comments Several renewable energy projects are currently under consideration in the Rural and Agricultural Area of the County.

Currently, the agricultural marketing specialist is a contract position requiring renewal every year.

Assistance continues to be provided to farmers and producers through this position.

This is being addressed by the Soil Conservation District. A number of state and federal agencies are housed there.

In 2012, a study of urban agriculture was conducted.

It contains a variety of strategies for implementation.

The benefits of preserving agricultural land need to be better expressed. UME is working on programs that are designed to show these benefits.

Keep strategy and continue implementation.

Keep strategy and continue implementation.

Keep strategy and continue implementation.

Keep strategy and continue implementation.

Recommendations Keep strategy and continue implementation.

7

48 | RCP Technical Summary

32 2 22 8

Total Completed On-going Not started

The 2012 Countywide Priority Preservation Area Plan contains 32 strategies grouped under six policies. During the first three years of plan implementation, 24 of the 32 strategies (75%) are either completed or on-going.

Scorecard

8

SECTION IV:

Social and Economic Sustainability Background Papers— Resource Conservation Functional Master Plan: Planning for Human and Environmental Health............................................................................................................... 50 Building the Green Economy in Prince George’s County: Case Studies in Green Job Creation................................................................................................. 77

RCP Technical Summary | 49

The Resource Conservation Functional Master Plan: Planning for Human and Environmental Health

50 | RCP Technical Summary

Table of Contents

I. Introduction .............................................................................................................................3 II. Human Health Challenges and Initiatives ...........................................................................4 a. Human Health Challenges ....................................................................................................4 b. Human Health Initiatives .....................................................................................................5 III. Environmental Challenges and Solutions ...........................................................................6 a. Equitable Distribution of Green and Open Spaces ...............................................................6 b. Disconnected Communities ...............................................................................................10 c. Poor Air Quality .................................................................................................................11 d. Poor Surface Water Quality ...............................................................................................12 e. Environmental Hazards ......................................................................................................13 f. Noise Pollution ...................................................................................................................14 g. Light Pollution ...................................................................................................................14 h. Access to Healthy Food .....................................................................................................15 IV. Health Impact Assessments ...............................................................................................16 a. Health in All Policies .........................................................................................................16 b. Current HIA Requirements and Processes .........................................................................18 V. Recommendations ................................................................................................................18 a. Green Infrastructure ...........................................................................................................18 b. Agriculture .........................................................................................................................19 c. Rural Character...................................................................................................................19 Note: all the pictures in this report are either part of the public domain or are used here with permission.

2

RCP Technical Summary | 51

I. Introduction Human and environmental health are closely connected—improving one can benefit both.

Incorporating health and environmental considerations into more aspects of decision-making can help promote awareness of the broad range of policies and decisions that impact the health of County residents and the natural environment.

Health impact assessments are a useful tool for evaluating ways in which policies and proposed development could better serve residents’ and workers’ health. The health of Prince Georgians cannot be ensured by any one County agency alone, such as the Health Department, but must be an integral consideration of every agency whose daily decisions impact the health of people and the environment. The broad goal of ensuring healthy communities can be achieved by considering how each policy contributes to or detracts from the health of County residents.

Many policies, strategies, and initiatives in Prince George’s County addressing human health and environmental issues are currently in place thanks to County leadership, government agencies, and the efforts of nonprofits and other organizations and community groups. Guiding documents such as the Plan Prince George’s 2035 Approved General Plan (Plan 2035) repeatedly emphasize the numerous benefits of ensuring healthy people and healthy environments, and the fact that health begins where we live, work, play, and learn.

The Prince George’s County Health Improvement Plan 2011 to 2014 identifies the County’s current healthrelated assets and challenges. The plan “addresses our County’s most pressing and immediate health needs as well as overarching concerns of the health stakeholder community as a whole. Collectively, the priorities, objectives, and strategies are ambitious and cover a broad array of health issues.”1 The Health Improvement Plan and the policies and strategies of Plan 2035 demonstrate the importance of a comprehensive approach to improving health, and underscore the fact that there is much room for progress toward a healthier County.

One of the primary benefits of the implementation of the Countywide Resource Conservation Functional Master Plan (RCP) will be the improved health of citizens and workers through the enhancement and appropriate conservation of green areas, the provision of healthy foods close to home, and the preservation of opportunities for getting in touch with nature and the County’s rich history.

Prince George’s County Health Improvement Plan 2011 to 2014: Blueprint for a Healthier County, pg. 4.

1

3

52 | RCP Technical Summary

II. Human Health Challenges and Initiatives Human Health Challenges Prince George’s County covers 485 square miles, has a population of 863,4202 people, and contains a wide variety of community types, from urban and suburban communities where tree canopy has immense value, to rural areas where natural and agricultural resources abound. The County has made significant progress to ensure that its residents have healthy places to live, work, play, and learn. However, as a large, populous, and diverse County in a growing metropolitan region, there are numerous challenges to achieving optimal human and environmental health outcomes.

Multiple measurable indicators reveal the human health challenges that Prince George’s County currently faces, including but not limited to:    

A large population over the age of 65 and younger than 18, age groups which are considered to be at higher risk for respiratory illness.3 o Related environmental concern: air pollution.

A high proportion of residents classified as being at-risk for health disparities (minority, low-income, and/or uninsured people).4 o Related environmental concern: equitable access to green space.

80,000 residents without health insurance.5 o Related environmental concern: residents and workers have little money or time to enjoy the health benefits of clean air, clean water, or a walk in the woods.

High rates of overweight and obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.6 o Related environmental concerns: healthy food access, green and connected communities.

2010 U.S. Census.

American Lung Association, State of the Air Report 2013.

4 CDC. (2015). Race & Ethnic Minority Populations. Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/minorityhealth/populations/remp.html.

5 Plan 2035, 2014 pg. 163.

6 Prince George’s County Health Improvement Plan 2011 to 2014: Blueprint for a Healthier County.

2 3

4

RCP Technical Summary | 53

One of the County’s most prominent health problems is obesity and obesity-related illnesses, which can be exacerbated by sprawling, fragmented development that limits access to healthy foods and recreational opportunities, and encourages driving and sedentary behavior over active transportation such as walking or cycling.

Driving is also a major contributor to air pollution, and so car use can contribute to respiratory illnesses, obesity, and obesity-related illnesses.

While many factors contribute to health issues beyond environmental concerns, conserving natural resources and encouraging sustainable, connected communities are important measures that can provide opportunities for healthy communities, improved decision-making, and healthier lifestyles.

Human Health Initiatives Prince George’s County residents and workers benefit from a number of initiatives focused on ensuring that everyone can live, play, work, and learn in safe and healthy environments. These include efforts by County and local agencies, nonprofit organizations, and private enterprises, as well as programs at the State and national scales. The Prince George’s County Health Department, the Department of the Environment (DoE), and The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) are key players in advancing health-related policies and initiatives. Continued collaboration among these and other influential entities is key to addressing health and environmental issues in a holistic and sustained way.

In 2012, the Institute for Public Health Innovation (IPHI) was awarded a two-year Community Transformation Small Communities Program Grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The IPHI work focused on three communities in Prince George’s County which are also designated as Transforming Neighborhoods Initiative areas. Their efforts engaged a number of local partners to implement strategies in the areas of Healthy Eating Active Living, High Quality Clinical Preventive Services, and Healthy and Safe Physical Environments. These included initiatives such as the creation of a Food Equity Council, increasing use of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design measures, and encouraging the incorporation of Safe Routes to Play into more communities. This effort was led by the Office of the County Executive and supported by the Prince George’s County Council, M-NCPPC, the Board of Education, and the 5

54 | RCP Technical Summary

Police Department, among others. This collaboration was key to the program’s success, as noted by one member of the leadership team: “The value of CTG [Community Transformation Grant] is that it has brought people together. The County has always addressed things in silos. The grant has shown the need for connectedness [among] silos in the way of having healthy communities…. Having police officers [work] with recreation people and health people has shaped thinking in the County around advancing social change.”7 Initiatives such as these have paved the way for future collaborative efforts toward advancing positive health outcomes and equity for Prince Georgians and improving the health and safety of the County’s built and natural environments.

III. Environmental Challenges and Solutions Equitable Distribution of Green and Open Spaces Experiencing green space has been shown to provide significant human health benefits, even with as little contact as seeing trees from a window or a plant in a workplace. Green spaces of many different types, from green roofs to community gardens and parks to street trees, can reduce stress,8 mental illness,9 and crime.10 The entire County benefits from the extensive amount of large open and green spaces that are primarily located in areas where public water and sewer service is not available (generally east of US 301 and in some portions of north and south County, also called the Rural and Agricultural Area in Plan 2035, formerly known as the Rural Tier). However, the distribution of, and direct access to, green spaces from the most populated areas of the County can be limited. This is not surprising given the fact that some inner-beltway communities were built in the 1940s and 1950s, and some later in the 1960s and 1970s, when agricultural lands were converted to housing and forests were clear-cut to expand

http://www.institutephi.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/CTG-Highlights-Brochure_LoRes_112414.pdf.

Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Roger S. Ulrich, R.F. Simons, B. D. Losito, E. Fiorito, M. A. Miles, M. Zelson. Journal of Environmental Psychology, Volume 11, Issue 3, September 1991, Pages 201-230. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494405801847.

9 Nature experience reduces rumination and subgenual prefrontal cortex activation. G. N. Bratman, J. P.Hamilton, K. S. Hahn, G. C. Daily, and J. J. Gross. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 112 no. 28, 85678572, http://www.pnas.org/content/112/28/8567.abstract.

10 The relationship between residential yard management and neighborhood crime: An analysis from Baltimore City and County. A. Troy, A. Nunery, J. M. Grove. Landscape and Urban Planning 147 (2016) 78-87. http://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2016/nrs_2016_troy_001.pdf?

7 8

6

RCP Technical Summary | 55

the suburbs. The Capital Beltway was built to provide extensive vehicular access to places previously inaccessible, resulting in even more consumption of green spaces by development.

The absence of public green spaces in communities that need them is also not surprising because of how the suburbs grew: in a fragmented, “leapfrog” manner, with frequent use of culs-de-sac instead of through streets, leaving both communities and ecosystems disconnected. In order to make better use of land in existing developed areas, landscapes need to become multifunctional, maximizing their potential benefits. For example, streets can serve as paths for cars, bicycles, and pedestrians, while lined with green elements such as bioswales and tree pits that capture stormwater, improve aesthetics, provide cool and clean air, and can even produce fresh foods. Parks and community gardens offer outdoor recreational opportunities while strengthening green Source: The Economic Values of Nature. infrastructure networks and connecting ecosystems. Recognizing the potential for landscapes to be multifunctional and widely beneficial helps maximize the human and environmental health benefits even small spaces can provide.

Excessive impervious surfaces increase urban temperatures, resulting in what is called the “the urban heat island effect,” which can negatively impact human and environmental health in multiple ways. Higher temperatures increase the likelihood of extremely hot and humid conditions, which can threaten the health of vulnerable populations such as children and older adults.11 Heat islands also increase the need to use air conditioning to cool homes and cars, increasing air pollution from the burning of fossil fuels for these high levels of energy consumption. Tree canopy, green roofs, and other vegetated areas around buildings and in community green spaces can reduce building energy use by 25 percent, and can result in localized “oasis” cooling effects of 9 to 13 degrees Fahrenheit.12

11

https://www.epa.gov/heat-islands/heat-island-impacts.

The Economic Values of Nature: An Assessment of the Ecosystem Services of Forest and Tree Canopy, p. 9.

12

7

56 | RCP Technical Summary

As one tool to combat the urban heat island effect, Prince George’s County has set a “no net loss” goal of preserving the current forest and tree canopy coverage of 52 percent of the land area (of which forested area is 44 percent and tree canopy is 8 percent). In order to meet this goal and support healthy communities, strategies are needed to address the preservation, enhancement, and restoration of forest and tree canopy coverage. Improving the tree canopy coverage in communities where it is needed most can bring the benefits of living and working near trees: better air quality, a reduced heat island effect, more attractive and enjoyable landscapes, and cleaner waterways. Tree planting programs and regulations should ensure the proper planting and maintenance for community trees.

This map shows the “urban heat island” impacts on innerbeltway communities that have lower tree canopy coverage. Red represents areas most in need of additional forest and tree canopy coverage to reduce the urban heat island effect.

Plan 2035’s goals include not only maintaining the County’s current 52 percent forest and tree canopy, but also building upon the current green infrastructure plan to address the need for new ways to incorporate green space into developed areas, as described here:

“The County’s development pattern has resulted in a greater need for carefully planned and designed green and open spaces.

These public and semi-public spaces can provide multiple ecosystem services such as improving water and air quality, reducing the urban heat island effect, and reducing light pollution. They should be designed as multifunctional landscapes that can serve as gathering places while providing opportunities for the arts, urban agriculture, transportation facilities, and other community uses.”13

Plan 2035, p. 168.

13

8

RCP Technical Summary | 57

The County has many and varied natural assets throughout, providing a variety of recreational and respite opportunities. Some of the preserved recreational and ecological areas include Bladensburg Marina on the Anacostia River, Fort Washington Park on the Potomac River, and Jug Bay Natural Area and Merkel Wildlife Management Area on the Patuxent River. The total parkland managed by The MarylandNational Capital Park and Planning Commission in Prince George’s County comprises more than Jug Bay Natural Area 27,000 acres including both natural areas and developed parks. Other park resources include multiple State and Federal lands including Piscataway National Park. Having this multitude of natural areas close by contributes to the health and well-being of County residents, workers, and visitors.

In the Rural and Agricultural Area (RAA), the area where public water and sewer services are not provided, green areas and open spaces are abundant; however, some areas are already subdivided but not built upon, and most of the RAA is in private ownership. In these areas the land is covered primarily with agricultural uses and forests, along with single-family residential homes in a low density pattern, some scattered, and some in subdivisions. Some of the forests are productive for timber harvesting; however, most areas are kept wooded for the enjoyment of the residents. This development pattern is consistent with Plan 2035’s vision for the Rural and Agricultural Area: “Our Rural Areas are home to low-density residential communities served by well and septic, significant natural resources, and important historic scenic roads and viewsheds.

Plan 2035 recommends Rural Areas remain low-density residential or support park and open space land uses and focuses new investment on maintaining existing infrastructure and stabilizing small-scale neighborhood-oriented commercial activities that support the areas’ rural lifestyle and character. …Plan 2035 defines Agricultural Areas as areas suitable for agricultural activities and forestry preservation. Plan 2035 recommends continuing to protect these areas in order to preserve the agricultural sector and the land base on which it depends.”14 However, with much of the County’s green and open space located in rural areas, the relationship between residential areas and green space availability needs to be addressed—the current locations of green and open spaces may not provide location-specific health benefits equally to all residents. Maintaining the valuable rural and ecological areas while increasing tree canopy and green areas in more populated areas of the County will maximize the benefits trees can provide for the health of people and the environment.

Plan 2035, pg. 20.

14

9

58 | RCP Technical Summary

All three elements of the Resource Conservation Plan (RCP) are related to increasing green space, but the Green Infrastructure Plan update will most directly address the County’s green space needs.

Disconnected Communities Communities are physically disconnected by a variety of factors: steep slopes, lack of transportation access, and different adjacent land uses. Another way they can be separated is because of the desire to protect environmental features. While these features are assets to the adjacent residents and the community as a whole, they can be viewed as barriers to community connectivity.

Plan 2035’s guiding principles emphasize the need to connect communities through transportation infrastructure improvements, and also the need to restore and protect natural resources: Plan 2035 commits to improving mobility and connectivity by investing in our transportation infrastructure (including sidewalks and trails), building on our underutilized transit network, and coordinating land use and growth management with transportation improvements…[and to] to proactively greening our built environment, restoring degraded resources, and promoting a more sustainable development pattern that reduces our reliance on driving and shifts development pressures away from our greenfields.15 However, Plan 2035 does not specifically address the ways in which communities could become more connected. The RCP should recommend ways to better Minimal impact stream connect the built environment while ensuring that ecosystems crossings allow ecological remain healthy and connected as well. Environmentally sensitive connections to be preserved or community connections accomplish Plan 2035’s goals and provide restored where human crossings are necessary. Some numerous human and environmental health benefits. examples include: -

Arched culverts Bottomless culverts Wildlife bridges Vehicle bridges Trail bridges

Plan 2035, pg. 16.

15

10

RCP Technical Summary | 59

The most common method for crossing streams is the placement of concrete pipes called “culverts” in the stream and placing fill over the top of the pipes and the stream banks. These pipes provide narrow openings for streams to pass through while allowing a road or trail to be built overhead. While this is a comparatively inexpensive construction method, culverts create poor connections for the organisms that live in streams and the wildlife that uses the stream valley to travel. Standard culverts frequently are not properly maintained resulting in areas where the water undermines the structure, increasing maintenance and replacement costs, or where a drop in the water level occurs as the water enters or leaves the culvert causing other damages to the structure. The best solutions for minimizing long-term structural maintenance needs and improving water quality and wildlife habitat are bridges or bottomless or arched culverts. These designs allow streams to flow naturally and result in fewer maintenance and reconstruction costs over the life of the structure. Crossing streams in environmentally sensitive ways allows for people to pass through and enjoy natural areas while minimally impacting the integrity and health of the stream system.

Improving the connectivity of the built environment is an important step in reducing air pollution by shortening automobile trips and encouraging alternative modes of transportation; however, enhancing street connectivity does not have to be achieved at the expense of healthy waterways and ecosystems. Environmentally sensitive infrastructure options such as bridges and bottomless culverts provide an ideal balance between the goals of improving water quality and connecting communities. The RCP should address the connectivity of both ecological systems and human systems for the benefit of both.

Poor Air Quality The mid-Atlantic region, and Prince George’s County in particular, suffer from unfortunate geography with regard to the prevailing winds and air pollution. The Washington D.C. metropolitan area is located to the east of a regional producer of poor air quality (poor air quality and acid rain from coal mining to the west and north west of the region for example) and to the east of a producer of localized poor air quality (Washington D.C.). With winds blowing generally west to east the entire region suffers from poor air quality, but especially Prince George’s County.

The region and the County have consistently received failing grades for air pollution from the American Lung Association, particularly for ozone levels, which is a pollutant associated with industrial facilities and motor vehicle emissions. Ozone can contribute to respiratory illnesses such as asthma and can harm sensitive ecosystems.16 Prince George’s County’s current grade for https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution.

16

11

60 | RCP Technical Summary

air quality is an “F.” While air quality is a regional issue that cannot be contained within jurisdictional boundaries, every County can contribute to improving air quality, and can work to shield residents from the harmful effects of existing air pollution through the strategic planting and maintenance of trees throughout the built environment and most especially in undercanopied communities (places where the canopy coverage drops below 20 percent).

Green features, especially trees, help filter pollutants from the air and improve air quality. Trees reduce concentrations of not only ozone, but other harmful pollutants such as particulate matter (dust and small particles in the air), carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide.

Improvements in air quality associated with increased tree cover in populous areas has resulted in reduced incidences and severity of Figure 1. 2010 Forest Canopy Assessment Net Woodland respiratory illnesses.17 Recent studies have Loss shown that Prince George’s County’s current 52 percent forest and tree canopy removes more than 5,100 metric tons of pollutants from the air every year.18 However, both tree loss and forest fragmentation threaten the integrity of the County’s current forest and tree canopy. Two important studies, the County’s 2010 Forest Canopy Assessment and the Forest Fragmentation Study, have shown that annual forest losses have been significant and the fragmentation of forest patches is increasing.

Planting additional trees in urban areas as well as conserving existing forests and trees will be vital to maintaining the County’s overall tree canopy coverage. Focusing planting in urban areas will not only help the County’s overall tree canopy coverage, but will ensure that the benefits of living near trees and green space are shared by all residents. Maintaining and reconnecting continuous forests are also key factors in providing adequate wildlife habitat and ensuring healthy, resilient forest ecosystems.

Poor Surface Water Quality The County has a total of 621 miles of known streams spanning three major river basins, the Anacostia, Patuxent, and Potomac, all of which lead to the Chesapeake Bay. The health of this nationally significant ecosystem as well as the health of Prince Georgians relies on improving the quality of waterways in the County. To this end, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Maryland Department of the Environment have established pollution limits that are below current pollution levels. The main pollution source is untreated stormwater runoff from

https://enviroatlas.epa.gov/enviroatlas/Tools/EcoHealth_RelationshipBrowser/index.html.

The Economic Values of Nature: An Assessment of the Ecosystem Services of Forest and Tree Canopy, p. 1.

17 18

12

RCP Technical Summary | 61

impervious surfaces such as concrete and asphalt. This includes most development that occurred prior to the 1980s.

Table 1. Water Quality Ratings for the County’s 42 Watersheds

Water Quality No. of Rating Watersheds Good 0

Percent of Watersheds 0

Fair

4

10%

Poor

22

52%

Very Poor

16

38%

or very poor.19

According to water quality assessments, Prince George’s County is in need of increased efforts to improve its stream health. Water quality is measured based on the Maryland Biological Stream Survey’s Benthic-Index of Biotic Integrity, or B-IBI. The results of assessments using this measure show that the vast majority of watersheds in the County are rated as poor

There are a number of factors that can impact stream and water quality, from point source pollution (a pipe) and nonpoint-source pollution (runoff from pavement and bare ground), to soil erosion, to piping of streams under roadways, to artificially blocked and disconnected streams.

The Department of the Environment is busy addressing water quality issues through the Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) and the Rain Check Rebate Program.

Growing sources of degradation such as impervious development can outpace efforts to restore stream health, so although much work has been done, increased efforts are necessary to reduce activities that threaten watershed health. Ensuring clean surface water is key to maintaining a thriving natural environment and protecting people from contaminants and other far-reaching health effects of degraded water bodies.

Environmental Hazards Environmental hazards can be anything from waste disposal sites to sources of point source pollution, such as a pipe. At the site scale, this measure often relates to preventing construction activity from harming nearby residents, but can also include areas such as the EPA Superfund sites or waste disposal activities. The EPA’s Cleanup in My Community website indicates 11 cleanup sites in the County, both past and current, including Superfund sites, brownfield sites, and others. Land use data indicates that there are approximately three square miles of solid waste landfill in the County. The Capital Beltway is a designated hazmat route, which may pose a risk to nearby development. Certain land uses such as those identified as industrial can also produce externalities which can impact air or water quality. While these factors may pose risks, their effect on human health and environmental health can be minimized by monitoring and mitigating any potential impacts on surrounding communities.

Summary of Water Quality Biological Assessment Studies Conducted in Prince George’s County, Maryland, p. 10.

19

13

62 | RCP Technical Summary

Noise Pollution One of the major goals of planning efforts has long been to protect residential areas from uses deemed incompatible, such as heavy industry, which can have observable externalities like air and water pollution. Less obvious are the effects of living near sources of noise such as roadways which can impact health slowly over long periods of time. Studies have shown that noise levels of 65 dBA Ldn and greater can effect hearing, sleep, cardiovascular functioning, psychophysiologic health, psychiatric health, and fetal development.20 Noise levels of 65 dBA Ldn are generally accepted as the threshold for outdoor activity areas, with 45 dBA Ldn as the threshold for indoor areas where people sleep.

Typically, development applications are required to either place new development outside areas where noise levels reach 65 dBA Ldn or greater or noise mitigation measures can be provided such as special building materials or barriers to reduce outdoor levels to 65 dBA Ldn or less and indoor noise levels to 45 dBA Ldn or less.

As research in this area grows, and as the desired development pattern of Plan 2035 becomes a reality, methods are needed to reduce noise impacts. Site-specific health impact assessments currently assess noise concerns based on the proximity of a proposed development to identifiable, measureable noise sources such as airports, freight rail lines, roadways classified as arterial and greater, and specific uses such as concrete recycling facilities. Noise concerns from the construction phases of development are also a concern. Noise control measures are recommended to mitigate the potential effects of construction on nearby residential areas.

Light Pollution Lighting levels are not currently quantified at the County scale, and are more feasible to assess on a site-by-site basis.

Current planning and assessment efforts aim to reduce the spillover of light from new development to the maximum extent possible. The rural character element of the RCP includes recommendations to adopt design standards in rural areas in order to minimize the visual impact of development on the landscape, which include the use of full-cut off optics on all lighting fixtures. The spreading of unhealthy light levels is also a concern in residential communities throughout the County.

Planted noise barrier.

Source: FHWA.

Green features have long been used as a form of barrier from noise and light. Expanding built and preserved green infrastructure in residential areas experiencing high levels of ambient noise can help reduce disturbances that may result from this noise. There is also the potential for permeable pavement to not only treat stormwater on roadways, but to reduce noise from vehicle http://www.hiaguide.org/sectors-and-causal-pathways/pathways/noise-pollution.

20

14

RCP Technical Summary | 63

travel.21 Permeable pavement has been shown to create less noise than traditional pavement.

While not yet fully feasible in the high-volume environments that create traffic noise, there is potential for permeable pavement to improve both water quality and reduce noise impacts of roadways.

Access to Healthy Food Prince George’s County contains many areas in which access to healthy food is limited. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines a food desert as “a low-income census tract where a substantial number or share of residents has low access to a supermarket or large grocery store.”22 According to the USDA food desert statistics, Prince George’s County has relatively low levels of food access compared to the nation as a whole, and most of the County’s food deserts are located within the Capital Beltway. Food desert information provides a useful starting point for further investigating local food systems and ways to improve healthy food access. For example, Prince George’s County has a relatively low proportion of large supermarkets, but contains many smaller food outlets. Relying on food desert metrics might lead to opening more large grocery stores in order to decrease the incidence of food deserts, while it may be more appropriate or feasible to increase the capacity of existing, smaller stores to provide healthy and affordable food. This improvement would not show up in food desert statistics, but might have significant local impacts.

Figure 2: USDA Food Desert Map

21 The Application of Permeable Pavement with Emphasis on Successful Design, Water Quality Benefits, and Identification of Knowledge and Data Gaps. National Center for Sustainable Transportation. June 2015. http://ncst.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/06-25-2015-NCST-SR-Permeable-Pavement-FINALv4.pdf.

22 USDA Food Access Research Atlas Documentation, http://www.ers.usda.gov/dataFiles/Food_Access_Research_Atlas/Download_the_Data/Archived_Version/archived_ documentation.pdf.

15

64 | RCP Technical Summary

Two recent studies have conducted in-depth reviews of the County’s food systems: Urban Agriculture: A Tool for Creating Economic Development and Healthy Communities in Prince George’s County, MD, 2012, and Healthy Food for All Prince Georgians: An Assessment of Access to Healthy Food in Prince George's Figure 3. Food Stores by Type County, Maryland, 2015. These studies have shown that many households located within “food deserts” may not be close to large supermarkets, but often meet their food needs through smaller food stores and/or restaurants.

Access to healthy food can be increased by encouraging food outlets such as these, where residents already shop, to stock healthier options, while increasing resident knowledge about healthy eating habits.

Expanding urban agriculture in the County is also important to increased availability of healthy, fresh food. Incorporating agricultural activity into populated areas increases visibility and knowledge of ways to grow and eat healthy food; involves community members in active outdoor activity; providing additional health benefits; strengthens connections among County farmers; and provides opportunities for local farmers to sell produce to local small grocery stores, restaurants, and farmers markets.

IV. Health Impact Assessments Health in All Policies Currently, human health outcomes are not integrated into land use planning decision-making.

The need to expand the use of health impact assessments to evaluate land use decisions is identified in many policy documents at the local, state, national, and international levels. The “Health in All Policies” approach is being widely adopted by many entities such as the World Health Organization and American Public Health Association. In Maryland, the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene’s State Health Improvement Process, or SHIP, provides a framework for advancing health-related goals statewide, an effort which is supported in Prince George’s County by the Health Department’s Health Improvement Plan. Health in All Policies is described in the World Health Organization’s Adelaide Statement on Health in All Policies as assisting “leaders and policymakers to integrate considerations of health, well-being and equity during the development, implementation and evaluation of policies and services.”23 Consideration of health in policymaking must extend beyond behavioral factors and access to healthcare facilities, but should include environmental factors, acknowledging that “the Health in All Policies Guide, pg. 1. http://www.phi.org/uploads/files/Health_in_All_PoliciesA_Guide_for_State_and_Local_Governments.pdf.

23

16

RCP Technical Summary | 65

environments in which people live, work, study, and play shape their health outcomes.”24 This approach recognizes that while personal lifestyle choices are important contributors to health, they alone cannot ensure health. For example, walking to work or school is healthier than driving, but if residents are not able to live near where they work or study, or if adequate pedestrian facilities are not available, this is not a viable choice. Options must be provided and promoted to produce better health outcomes.

Plan 2035 devotes a plan element to “Healthy Communities,” and incorporates health-oriented policies and strategies throughout the plan. One of these policies is to “integrate community health into the master plan and development review processes,” and related strategies identify the need for collaboration and evaluation of current processes to better address multiple aspects of community health.25 One of the goals of currently conducted health impact assessments is “…evaluating the proposal for conformance with the priorities outlined in the Prince George’s County Health Improvement Plan 2011 to 2014.”26 Priority 5 of this plan is to “Ensure that Prince George’s County physical environments are safe and support health, particularly in at-risk communities.”27 Several objectives that fall under this priority could potentially be addressed in plans at or above the sector plan level, such as increase access to healthy food and venues for physical and recreational activity, reduce pedestrian injuries on public roads, and reduce hospital emergency department visits from asthma.28

Growing healthy communities is everyone’s responsibility.

This plan is designed to align with the Maryland SHIP, or State Health Improvement Process, which in turn aligns with Healthy People 2020, a program of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Ensuring that new plans and plan updates address Health Department goals such as these identified in the Health Improvement Plan will reinforce the need for addressing policies and strategies through a health and equity lens.

Prince George’s County’s ability to complete health impact assessments is currently limited by the amount of resources available to assist with the process. Expanding the use of health impact assessments as a tool to gauge the extent to which policies contribute to improving the health of the County should take these limitations into consideration, and strive for a solution that maximizes the effectiveness of the assessments while minimizing the need for time-intensive evaluations.

24 Health in All Policies Guide, p. 102. http://www.phi.org/uploads/files/Health_in_All_PoliciesA_Guide_for_State_and_Local_Governments.pdf, 25 Plan 2035, p. 225.

26 HIA Checklist Tools Standard Statements, n.p., Prince George’s County Health Department.

27 Prince George’s County Health Improvement Plan 2011 to 2014, pg. 50.

28 Prince George’s County Health Improvement Plan 2011 to 2014, pg. 50–51.

17

66 | RCP Technical Summary

Current HIA Requirements and Processes Health impact assessments (HIA) are a tool used to approach policymaking in an inclusive, evidence-based way that looks at the health effects of different policy scenarios in a holistic way.

They can take different forms depending on local context, needs, and resources, but in general, a complete HIA consists of six steps: screening, scoping, assessment, recommendations, reporting, and monitoring.29 Screening and scoping are important steps, in that they evaluate whether a HIA is feasible and useful, and if so, determine its direction and methodology. This can result in a more efficient process and impactful product.

Currently, health impact assessments are completed by the Prince George’s County Health Department for development application plans only, “in order to better focus limited resources and produce more meaningful outcomes.”30 These assessments cover eight major topics related to environmental impacts and human health, including: air quality, water quality, new construction/environmental hazards, food facilities, noise levels, lighting levels, connectivity (transit/walkability/bike-ability), and green and open spaces (including community gardens and recreational facilities).

While these assessments are useful for identifying potential environmental impacts in the area immediately surrounding a given development, health impact assessments can also be effective at a larger scale by providing a framework that avoids development patterns with negative health impacts before they become a problem, and directing interventions that improve health to where they are needed most.

V. Recommendations Green Infrastructure

29 30



Ensure equitable provision of green and open spaces.



Reduce the construction of new impervious surfaces to improve water quality and human health.



Consider impacts on human and environmental health when evaluating areas for green infrastructure preservation or restoration, locating it, when possible, in areas that would provide the greatest human health benefit.

Human Impact.org HIA Toolkit, pg.15, http://www.humanimpact.org/capacity-building/hia-tools-and-resources/.

HIA Checklist Tools Standard Statements, n.p., Prince George’s County Health Department.

18

RCP Technical Summary | 67



Integrate green infrastructure into more aspects of the built environment by promoting green building techniques, urban tree canopy expansion, and on-site stormwater management methods to maximize human and environmental health benefits in densely populated areas.



Improve air quality by connecting communities to reduce vehicle miles traveled and encourage walking and biking.



Connect communities and ensure stream health by requiring that all stream crossings are either arched/bottomless culverts or bridges.



Promote a Health in All Policies approach in all applicable County operations.



Consider establishing an interdisciplinary team to promote health considerations and address the need for HIA.



Encourage applicants to address health issues in development submissions, either via checklists or by integrating health assessment elements into environmental site assessments/natural resource inventories.



Coordinate with the Health Department and other relevant agencies to develop an interdisciplinary and streamlined health impact assessment process.

Agriculture 

Identify in master and sectors plans areas suitable for urban agriculture, community gardens, and food retailers of all scales.



Improve access to land for growing and selling local, healthy food.



Expand land acquisition and preservation programs to include smaller land parcels in all areas of the County, encouraging colocation of residential areas and green space suitable for urban agriculture.

Rural Character 

Encourage new development in the rural and agricultural area to use natural materials to promote visual continuity with the landscape as well as incorporating green building principles to ensure minimal impacts on the land and a healthy indoor environment.



Adopt “dark sky” lighting policies along roads in the rural and agricultural area and require all new development to minimize the spillover of lighting fixtures.



Use native vegetation wherever replanting is necessary along roadways or adjacent to new development to support ecosystem health and landscape continuity.

19

68 | RCP Technical Summary

Building the Green Economy in Prince George’s County: Case Studies in Green Job Creation

Prince George’s County Green Job Fair

RCP Technical Summary | 69

Introduction Prince George’s County, Maryland is in the midst of preparing the first-ever countywide Resource Conservation Plan to address the three topics of green infrastructure planning and agricultural and rural character conservation. As part of this project, the team is focusing on how the plan can support green jobs as part of the new green economy. Promoting green infrastructure of all types, traditional and innovative agriculture, and protection of rural and historic resources encourages sustainable business practices, workforce development, and green job creation through Photo credit: Growing Home. entrepreneurship and business expansion. The broad term “green jobs” can include work related to anything from constructing green buildings to locally sourcing materials to rural and urban farming. Green jobs generate economic value from the practice of resource conservation, relating to all three RCP themes.

Green job creation results in numerous community benefits such as job training for the emerging green market, matching the available workforce with green jobs requiring complementary skillsets, and bringing needed revenue into the economy with limited upfront private or public expenditure. Green businesses generally do not require large infrastructure investments like those of conventional companies. They also produce fewer externalities, making them healthier and more desirable neighbors and workplaces. Most green businesses rely on easily provided resources such as available land with accommodating zoning, a trained or trainable workforce, and supportive policies that make such businesses attractive and viable.

In order to be sustainable, communities must embrace and promote all three areas of sustainability: social, economic, and environmental. Green job creation and workforce training support all three elements and are key to building a more resilient economy. This paper explores the many ways that green businesses can support the social structure of a community, while providing economic and environmental benefits at the same time. The companies featured are starting and expanding in the County and in similar communities nationwide, and are illustrated as inspiration for how green job growth can be promoted. While the following case studies provide examples of the wide variety of businesses and organizations that contribute to the green economy, the list provided is not exhaustive as there are the countless dedicated and creative people working to build a sustainable economy in and around Prince George’s County and across the country.

Aiding the shift toward a green economy are organizations like Prince George’s Green, an organization that works to grow the green economy by providing support for green business development, connecting certified businesses to Green America’s Green Business Certification network, and providing training and placement services to help connect workers with green jobs.

Support services and networks for green businesses are key to green job growth in Prince George’s and contribute to a strong, sustainable economic future for the County.

2

70 | RCP Technical Summary

Green Infrastructure and Green Jobs Prince George’s County is a national leader in green infrastructure policy and implementation, both in the area of ecological green infrastructure and green stormwater infrastructure, and is well-positioned to support economic activities related to expanding and maintaining its green infrastructure network. Green stormwater infrastructure is an important contributor to the goals of effectively managing stormwater and promoting green building practices. Green infrastructure’s impact on job creation comes from long-term implementation needs and spans multiple industries related to design, construction, and maintenance. These can include companies related to engineering, surveying, and land use planning, all of which hire employees specifically to address stormwater and environmental issues. Many green infrastructure initiatives are relatively new, and so job creation statistics come in the form of predictions and models that give an idea of the scope of green infrastructure’s potential to influence local economies.

In the Resource Conservation Plan, the definition of “green infrastructure” not only includes both ecological and stormwater methods, it also includes green buildings and green energy. This broad spectrum definition results in addressing “green” from rooftops to the Chesapeake Bay.

3

RCP Technical Summary | 71

Case Study: Clean Water Partnership Prince George’s County, MD Prince George’s County’s innovative Clean Water Public-Private Partnership (P3) with contractor Corvias Solutions aims to retrofit impervious surfaces using green stormwater infrastructure methods. The partnership will occur in stages, beginning with a County investment of $100 million to retrofit 2,000 acres. If successful, Bioswale this partnership will continue, making significant headway toward the County’s overall goal of Photo credit: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. retrofitting 15,000 acres by 2035 (as required by the EPA). The P3 has dual goals of meeting the County’s stormwater permit requirements and driving inclusive local economic development by using County-based small and minority-owned businesses for at least 30 to 40 percent of the retrofit projects.1 There is also an educational component of the partnership. This includes an Urban Watershed Restoration Contractor Training Course, which is offered at Prince George’s Community College and taught by instructors from the Low Impact Development Center, a local leader in green infrastructure and stormwater management strategies. The course will provide instruction on the construction, operation and maintenance of stormwater management retrofit projects, and will assist in developing a robust workforce to advance the County’s stormwater infrastructure.2 The Clean Water Partnership has been recognized by the White House Council on Environmental Quality for its innovative approach to stormwater management and “…potential to revitalize communities, develop small business, and create jobs.”3

CWP FAQ: http://www.princegeorgescountymd.gov/sites/StormwaterManagement/Documents/CWP_FAQ.pdf. http://www.princegeorgescountymd.gov/sites/EnvironmentalResources/News/Pages/WhiteHouseEPA.aspx.

3 http://www.princegeorgescountymd.gov/sites/EnvironmentalResources/News/Pages/WhiteHouseEPA.aspx.

1 2

4

72 | RCP Technical Summary

Case Study: Stormwater Projects Los Angeles County, CA The County of Los Angeles passed three ordinances in 2008 as part of their Green Building Program. These include a Green Building Ordinance, a Drought-Tolerant Landscaping Ordinance, and a Low Impact Development Ordinance. The ordinances were accompanied by manuals and building and sustainability guidelines to shape new development.4 This led to an increase in County investment in green stormwater infrastructure and green building projects.

Bioswale in Los Angeles Photo credit: Haan-Fawn Chau.

Stormwater projects between 2009 and 2011 in Los Angeles produced an estimated 2,075 total jobs.5 This surge in job creation came as the result of $166 million in investment, 74 percent of which was spent locally, and 73 percent of the workers employed by the resulting stormwater projects were from businesses within Los Angeles County.6

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/climate/docs/resources/la_green_infrastructure.pdf.

Using a Jobs Frame to Promote the Use of Green Infrastructure. Urban Water Sustainability Leadership Conference, 10-17-2012, Green for All. 6 6 http://www.wearepowershift.org/sites/wearepowershift.org/files/resources/Green-Stormwater-Jobs-.pdf.

4 5

5

RCP Technical Summary | 73

Case Study: Conservation Technology Baltimore, MD

Conservation Technology, also known as Resource Conservation Technology, is a company that offers advanced green building technology and products that support green roofing, rainwater harvesting, pond and wetland construction, energy-efficient building, and Green roof example: U.S. EPA Region 8 office. waterproofing. Conservation Technology is http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/region8/images/green the North American distributor for roof_terrace.jpg Optigreen, a world leader in green roof systems, products, and accessories.7 They primarily sell products wholesale, but provide some products directly to end users as well.8 The company has roughly 10 employees, and generates an estimated $1,700,000 in revenue yearly.9 Technologies such as green roofs and rainwater harvesting systems can provide significant payback due to their durability, low cost of maintenance, and help in avoiding wear and tear on infrastructure, such as protecting building foundations from water infiltration. This can help minimize the need for structural maintenance and repair, and can extend the life of existing buildings and reducing the need for new construction. Rainwater capture for use in building water systems and irrigation can reduce the costs of water consumption as well. Conservation Technology’s systems are even able to provide clean drinking water from captured rainwater.

Website: http://www.conservationtechnology.com/

http://www.greenroofs.com/premium.php?sid=149#.Vl8ojHarS70. http://www.conservationtechnology.com/general_purchase.html.

9 http://www.buzzfile.com/business/Conservation-Technology-410-366-1146.

7 8

6

74 | RCP Technical Summary

Case Study: Stormwater Pollution Controls Montgomery County, MD Stormwater and green infrastructure projects are generating job growth in Montgomery County and across the region. According to a study by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Economic Policy Institute, stormwater pollution control projects in Montgomery County will create 3,300 construction and engineering jobs within the County over the next 3.5 years.10 This is thanks to a $305 million investment in new infrastructure, much of which consists of green stormwater infrastructure and low-impact development measures such as bioswales, native landscaping, and porous pavement.

Bump out construction Photo credit: Chesapeake Bay Foundation/cbf.org.

In an interview with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the manager of a construction firm working in Montgomery County, Mike Peny, reports that his company recently boosted employment by 12 percent in one year. This increase consisted of 10 workers who were hired to keep up with County efforts to meet pollution control requirements. The company’s projects have included rebuilding onceeroded streams such as Booze Creek.

As Peny says: “This really creates jobs for us….These types of projects are what drive our ability to hire and stay in business.”11

Debunking the “Job Killer” Myth: How Pollution Limits Encourage Job Growth in the Chesapeake Bay Region.

Chesapeake Bay Foundation http://www.cbf.org/document.doc?id=1023.

11 http://cbf.typepad.com/bay_daily/2012/01/as-traffic-rushes-past-on-a-road-in-montgomery-county-marylandthree-men-work-in-ditch-one-swinging-a-sledge-hammer-and-th.html.

10

7

RCP Technical Summary | 75

Case Study: Montgomery County Green Buildings Law Montgomery County, MD

The Montgomery County Green Buildings Law, Bill 17-06, became effective in 2007. It requires that all new commercial or multifamily construction projects and major renovations over four stories in height and 10,000 square feet in size meet LEED-NC (new construction) or CS (core and shell) standards. All new construction or major renovations of buildings over 10,000 square feet in the public sector, generally County-owned or funded buildings, must achieve LEED Silver Plans for the LEED-certified White Oak Community standards.12 While buildings do not need to be Recreation Center officially LEED certified by USGBC, they must http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DGSeither show proof of certification or have standards BDC/Resources/Images/White_Oak_CRC.jpg verified by County officials. In some cases, nonLEED certifications are considered if they are found to require equivalent efficiency standards.13 This bill allowed one year for requirements to take effect in an effort to allow developers time to transition and adapt. It has been successfully implemented in many cases, but some analysts argue that regulations are not extensive enough, and many smaller buildings are being constructed which are not required to comply.14 In addition to the 2006 bill, the County has since passed bill 37-06, or the “Green Building Incentive,” which provides property tax incentives for buildings which exceed regulatory minimums, as well as buildings not otherwise subject to regulation, such as smaller structures.15 In 2014, Montgomery County became the first county in the country to require energy benchmarking, or tracking of energy use, using the free EPA Portfolio Manager tool. The implementation of this law will be phased in over several years to allow for adaptation, first applying to County-owned buildings, then large nonresidential buildings, then smaller nonresidential buildings.16 By requiring new construction and certain scale renovations to meet high standards of efficiency and green building practices, this law has strengthened the demand for jobs in green building trades.

Montgomery County Code Article VII. http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DGS-BDC/Resources/Files/LEEDRegs.pdf.

Debunking the “Job Killer” Myth: How Pollution Limits Encourage Job Growth in the Chesapeake Bay Region.

Chesapeake Bay Foundation http://www.cbf.org/document.doc?id=1023.

14 https://www.mwcog.org/uploads/committee-documents/aV1bXVlY20130321082053.pdf.

15 Montgomery County Code, ibid.

16 http://greenbuildingelements.com/2014/04/30/montgomery-county-first-u-s-county-pass-energy-benchmarking-law/.

12

13

8

76 | RCP Technical Summary

Case Study: SolarCity As one of the nation’s largest and fastest-growing solar providers, SolarCity supplies more than one out of every three new solar power systems in the U.S. It employs over 14,000 people, and in 2015 added over 500 new employees per month (on average). It has four regional offices in Maryland (Baltimore, Beltsville, Clarksburg, and Waldorf) and one in Northwest Washington, D.C.17 Solar panel installation is a prime example of a specialized skillset that can enhance existing construction and electrician skills.

Photo credit: www.cleanenergyauthority.com.

Maryland and its Mid-Atlantic neighbors are ideally located for large-scale and home solar installation. According to the Solar Energy Industries Association, “There are currently more than 177 solar companies at work…in Maryland, employing 3,000 people. In 2014, Maryland installed 73 MW of solar electric capacity, ranking it twelfth nationally. In 2015, $410 million was invested on solar installations in Maryland. This represents a 95 percent increase over the previous year, and is expected to grow again this year.”18 This enthusiasm for home-based solar installation shows the promising growth of a renewable energy economy across the region.

Website: http://www.solarcity.com/residential/states/maryland-solar

17 18

http://www.solarcity.com/newsroom/press/solarcity-goes-one-day-nationwide-hiring-spree. http://www.seia.org/state-solar-policy/Maryland.

9

RCP Technical Summary | 77

Agriculture and Green Jobs Prince George’s County has a well-established agrarian tradition with institutions such as Upper Marlboro’s Clagett Farm providing educational opportunities, workshare programs, and community-supported agriculture resources to the County. The agricultural element of the Resource Conservation Plan seeks to strengthen and support rural farms, while promoting expansion of small-scale gardening and farming throughout the County’s established communities. As an emerging field stimulating interest and investment across the country, urban and suburban agriculture can be a major driver of local economic growth in addition to their contributions to community health and environmental quality. Agriculture at all scales stimulates the economy both directly by providing jobs and job training, and indirectly by providing volunteer opportunities and encouraging community service, innovation, and entrepreneurship.

The socially-based positive effects may be even more far-reaching and difficult to measure than economic ones: healthier residents are physically able to work more, mentally prepared for educational opportunities, and gathering places like urban farms and gardens can foster social capital and enhance community support networks. Examples from Maryland and across the country show the ability of agriculture at all scales to contribute to a sustainable local economy.

10

78 | RCP Technical Summary

Case Study: P.A. Bowen Farmstead Brandywine, MD

P.A. Bowen Farmstead, established in 2009 and located in southern Prince George’s County, is a livestock farm committed to sustainable farming, nutrition, and contributing to a strong local economy. The farm is owned by Geoffrey Morell and Sally Fallon Morell, cofounders of the Weston A. Price Foundation, a nutritional education nonprofit.

Photo credit: P.A. Bowen Farmstead.

P.A. Bowen Farmstead is “…a mixed-species pasture-based farm incorporating organic and bio-dynamic methods.”19 One of its main focuses is artisan cheese production from its small, well-tended, grass-fed Jersey cow herd. The farm also raises chickens, turkeys, and pigs, which graze the land in a rotational system, maximizing fertility and production and minimizing environmental impacts.20 In addition to sustainable farming methods, the farmstead adds value to its operation by offering farm tours, classes, and a farm store featuring its own stock as well as products from other local businesses. The farm supports a staff of five full-time employees and one to three part-time staff members depending on need. They also offer an internship program for one to three participants between March and December, which generally attracts young burgeoning farmers.21 P.A. Bowen Farmstead contributes to an economy based on nutritionally and environmentally sound practices.

Website: http://pabowenfarmstead.com/

http://pabowenfarmstead.com/farm/. http://www.greenroofs.com/premium.php?sid=149#.Vl8ojHarS70 21 Email correspondence, Brian Wort, Farm Manager.

19

20

11

RCP Technical Summary | 79

Case Study: ECO City Farms Edmonston and Bladensburg, MD

Since its start in 2009, the educational nonprofit ECO City Farms has opened and expanded two small-scale, sustainable farms in the inner-ring suburbs of Prince George’s County, Maryland. They have grown to a staff of 14, and both farm sites host apprentices, interns, and student groups throughout the year.22 ECO City Farms partners with Prince George’s Community College to offer urban farming and permaculture classes aimed at training budding farmers. They sell Image credit: ECO City Farms. their produce at local farmers markets (one of which they founded), through a year-round farm-share program, and wholesale outlets. ECO City Farms lives up to their motto of “growing great food, farms, and farmers” by supporting and expanding the local, sustainable food system.

Website: http://www.ecoffshoots.org/

22

http://www.ecoffshoots.org/about-us/aboutusstaffprofiles/.

12

80 | RCP Technical Summary

Case Study: Big City Farms Baltimore, MD

Big City Farms is committed to growing the Baltimore local food network, creating good jobs, and transforming neighborhoods. It is a certified B corporation, meaning the company meets rigorous standards of social and environmental performance, accountability, and transparency.23

Photo credit: Big City Farms.

By the company’s calculation, it is able to employ six people per half acre. Its mission is to provide opportunity to Baltimore’s unemployed population by expanding throughout the City. The farm is partnering with the nonprofit Strength to Love II to train people coming out of the justice system as farmers at its Sandtown plot. Big City Farms began in 2010 on just one half acre, and, as planned24, now has three locations: South Baltimore, Sandtown-Winchester, and Windsor Mill Road near Gwynns Falls/Leakin Park.25 Its expansion is a prime example of the growing strength of the local food economy in Baltimore City and across the region.

Website: http://www.bigcityfarms.com/

https://www.bcorporation.net/what-are-b-corps. http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/print-edition/2013/01/18/big-city-farms-plots-plenty-of-growth.html.

25 http://www.bigcityfarms.com/faq.

23 24

13

RCP Technical Summary | 81

Case Study: Real Food Farm Baltimore, MD

As a project of the nonprofit community organization Civic Works, Real Food Farm is a major force in the Baltimore local food movement. They distribute produce via a mobile farmers market (pictured), a farm-share program, Photo credit: Civic Works' Real Food Farm. traditional farmers markets, and through restaurants and retail. Real Food Farm has a staff of 14 and a strong youth involvement program; they employ 55 young people over the summer through two programs, and 10 “Youth Crew” interns during the school year.26 Real Food Farm’s commitment to local food production and community engagement strengthens the presence of urban agriculture in the Baltimore food system.

Website: http://realfoodfarm.civicworks.com/

26

http://realfoodfarm.civicworks.com/get-involved/youth-jobs/.

14

82 | RCP Technical Summary

Case Study: Growing Power Milwaukee, WI and Chicago, IL

Growing Power is a well-known pioneer of local food and urban farming. Among their numerous community initiatives is a successful “Youth Corps” program in both Milwaukee and Chicago. A five-acre plot in Millwood Parks, Milwaukee, is home to one of the first school/community partnerships, engaging residents, youth, and volunteers in urban farm development. In one summer, 13 community youth receive stipends and weekly produce from the garden.27

Will Allen, Growing Power founder.

Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/people/grifray/.

Across several Chicago sites in 2013, Growing Power “…trained and employed over 300 city youth in urban agriculture and community food system development. Through their work in urban gardens and greenhouses, the Chicago Youth Corps learned how to grow soil, vegetables, herbs, flowers, and launched a unique line of hand-crafted beauty, culinary, and craft products.”28 This example of far-reaching youth involvement helps to grow a new generation of Chicago residents who contribute to a strong local, sustainable food economy.

Website: http://www.growingpower.org/programs/youth-corps/

27 28

http://www.growingpower.org/education/milwaukee-headquarters/. http://www.growingpower.org/education/chicago-farms-and-projects/.

15

RCP Technical Summary | 83

Case Study: Chicago Lights Urban Farm Chicago, Illinois Chicago Lights is a community outreach organization at Fourth Presbyterian Church in Chicago. Its faith-based roots give it a strong community presence and membership base. One of Chicago Lights’ many programs is an urban farm developed on an old Photo credit: Ben Jaffe/Chicago Lights. basketball court adjacent to the church. As of their 2014 annual report, the farm has engaged 30 youth in a workforce development program.29 Chicago Lights has “…increased economic opportunities through access to organic produce, nutritional education, workforce training, and microenterprise development. It also provides a safe sanctuary and programs for children and youth to learn about urban agriculture.”30 Website: https://www.chicagolights.org/our-programs/urban-farm/

29 30

https://www.chicagolights.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Chicago-Lights-Annual-Report-2014.pdf. https://www.chicagolights.org/our-programs/urban-farm/.

16

84 | RCP Technical Summary

Case Study: Growing Home Chicago, Illinois Located in the underserved neighborhood of Englewood, Chicago, Growing Home is a nonprofit organization that provides farm-based training specifically for people with employment barriers, providing each individual with 25 hours per week of paid work experience and any additional support they may need in maintaining a life-work balance.

Photo credit: Growing Home.

In 2014, Growing Home enrolled 40 individuals, 85 percent of participants completed the program, and 79 percent of graduates earned jobs in the food chain, from urban growing facilities to wholesalers, retailers, and restaurants. Staff provide additional support services such as housing assistance, childcare, healthcare, and GED preparation. Growing Home partners with Cabrini Green Legal Aid to help participants with criminal records overcome this employment barrier. In 2014, seven participants sealed or expunged their criminal records, helping them along the path to permanent employment.31 Since beginning work in 2002, Growing Home has trained 150 individuals. Of participants between 2002 and 2008, 59 percent were previously homeless and 76 percent were previously incarcerated. The participants experienced only a five percent recidivism rate, compared to Illinois’ 50 percent rate. Ninety percent of Growing Home graduates successfully find stable housing, and two thirds continue on to full-time jobs or further training.32 Website: http://growinghomeinc.org/

31 32

http://growinghomeinc.org/our-impact/. http://www.policylink.org/sites/default/files/URBAN_AG_FULLREPORT.PDF.

17

RCP Technical Summary | 85

Repurposing Buildings and Building Materials, Green Building and Green Jobs Repurposing building materials is an important element of sustainability and resource conservation. It reduces the rate at which debris goes to landfills and supports the adaptive reuse of existing buildings, a useful tool in conserving historic buildings and landscapes. Reuse can reduce the negative environmental impacts of extracting raw materials while making construction and home improvement more affordable.

According to a 2011 report to the EPA, a rubble landfill in Prince George’s County accepted the most (nearly 40 percent) of all the construction and demolition waste in the State—199,796 tons—in 2010.33 While not all of this waste originated in the County, it makes the disposal problem hit close to home.

Deconstruction and reuse in Prince George’s County can highlight its role as a pioneer in building a green economy. By diverting waste from landfills, the County can take the lead in refocusing jobs from waste handling and disposal to materials reuse and repurposing. As estimated by Details Deconstruction, a company profiled below, deconstruction can create up to eight times more jobs than standard demolition when resale and repurposing pursuits are considered. These jobs often call for more specialized training, which can build workers’ transferable skillsets, providing future job and advancement opportunities.

33

http://www3.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/imr/cdm/statereports.htm.

18

86 | RCP Technical Summary

Case Study: Community Forklift Edmonston, MD

Community Forklift, a nonprofit organization founded in 2005 in Prince George’s County, resells and donates salvaged building materials and appliances to the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Since its founding, it has diverted an estimated $12 million worth of building materials from landfills. Materials are sold at 25 to 75 percent Photo credit: Steele Britton, via Community Forklift website. of their retail price, and some are lent or donated to local nonprofits. Community Forklift’s HELP program distributes free items to families in need. In one year, this amounted to $50,000 worth of materials.

Efforts like this can make building renovation and upkeep feasible when they might not otherwise be possible, helping to maintain or enhance property values and community character.

Furthermore, low building material prices help contractors keep projects affordable and workers employed, and the warehouse itself provides jobs for 45 employees.

Community Forklift’s many initiatives help it fulfill the promise of its name; to lift up the community by providing a much-needed, affordable source of home goods and building materials, and economic opportunities for all.34 Website: http://communityforklift.org/

34

http://communityforklift.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/421329-2015-National-Comunity-Forklift.pdf.

19

RCP Technical Summary | 87

Case Study: Encore Sustainable Design, LLC Fort Washington, Annapolis, and Edgewater, MD Encore Sustainable Design, LLC is a woman- and minorityowned architectural firm that specializes in sustainable design and historic preservation.

Incorporated in Maryland in McCormick Goodhart Mansion 2012 with locations in Fort Washington, Easton, and Photo credit: Kenneth Wyner Photography, via encoresdesign.com.

Edgewater, MD, the company has completed numerous significant projects in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Their approach incorporates adaptive reuse, sustainability, and preserving historic context. This promotes maintaining the historic value of structures and their surroundings while ensuring their future utility and efficiency.35 Their restoration work includes the McCormick Goodhart Mansion (currently home to the nonprofit CASA de Maryland), the Bowieville Mansion, the Inn at 202 Dover, and many more across the region.

The McCormick Goodhart Mansion in Langley Park is an exemplary case of adaptive reuse in Prince George’s County. The project was 60 percent funded by historic tax credits, and all work done on the building met or exceeded the standards of the Secretary of the Interior, the National Park Service, and State and County agencies. The building is now LEED Gold certified, and has received the Maryland Historic Trust Project Excellence Award, the Prince George’s County Historical Society St. George’s Day Award, and the J. Timothy Anderson Award for Excellence in Historic Rehabilitation, Most Innovative Adaptive Re-Use.36 It provides significant community value as the home of CASA de Maryland and as a standout historic landmark.

Website: http://www.encoresdesign.com/

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55555104e4b0ee228d0ffcd3/t/55e585c1e4b010f17db2d18f/1441105345043/ ENCORECo_April2015.pdf.

36 http://www.encoresdesign.com/selected-works-source/2015/7/22/casa-de-md.

35

20

88 | RCP Technical Summary

Case Study: Details Deconstruction Maryland

A social enterprise of Humanim, Inc., Details Deconstruction considers a “triple bottom-line” in its work: social, environmental, and financial. Deconstruction is a greener alternative to demolition, which creates jobs and can provide financial benefits to donors. Deconstruction creates between six and eight jobs for every one job in standard demolition, which includes resale and repurposing trades. The practice of taking buildings apart, repurposing the intact materials, and recycling the rest can divert more than 90 percent of that material from landfills. By donating reusable building materials, donors can gain tax incentives, making deconstruction financially possible. Owners can donate a house or the parts and materials of a house to Details, and the appraised value of those materials can be used as a tax deduction to offset the cost of deconstruction. Details partners with reuse organizations like Habitat for Humanity and Build it Green! NYC to resell salvageable materials.37

Photo credit: Max Pollock, Baltimore Brick By Brick.

Details runs the Baltimore Brick By Brick project, which deconstructs vacant homes in the City of Baltimore. Its mission is “…to create: create jobs for local residents, create value by salvaging building materials, and ultimately create vital spaces where the vacant homes once stood.”38 Through work on just one street and as of May 2015, the project deconstructed 35 houses, salvaged 110,000 bricks, 8,300 square feet of flooring and 21,000 board feet of lumber, pulled over 150,000 nails, and diverted 95 percent of the building materials from landfills, totaling 330 tons of salvaged material, while creating 24 jobs for Baltimore residents.39 Their overall total as of October 13, 2015 is 86 houses, 14,500 square feet of flooring, 230,000 bricks, 51,000 board feet of lumber, 300,000+ nails, and 154 marble steps.40 Website: http://www.details.org/

All photos used in this paper are either in the public domain or are used with permission.

http://www.details.org/social-environmental-impact.html. http://baltimorebrickbybrick.com/theplan/.

39 http://baltimorebrickbybrick.com/.

40 http://baltimorebrickbybrick.com/track-our-progress/.

37 38

21

RCP Technical Summary | 89

90 | RCP Technical Summary

SECTION V:

Green Infrastructure Research and Supporting Documents 2010 Forest Canopy Assessment.............................................................................................................. 92 Forest Fragmentation in Prince George’s County: Measuring Forest Cores and Edges to Determine Fragmentation Trends......................................................................................................... 112 Summary of Water Quality Biological Assessment Studies.................................................................. 124 The Economic Values of Nature: An Assessment of the Ecosystem Services of Forest and Tree Canopy..................................................................................................................... 139 2005 Approved Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan.........................................................Web link only http://www.pgplanning.org/Resources/Publications/Green_Infrastructure_Publication.htm

RCP Technical Summary | 91

2010 Forest Canopy Assessment Prince George’s County, Maryland

Fall 2013

92 | RCP Technical Summary

2010 Forest Canopy Assessment Prince George’s County, Maryland 2000 - 2010

Executive Summary

Prince George’s County has long been a leader in the field of environmental conservation and a supporter of the principles of smart growth. In Prince George’s County, the primary land use document is the 2002 Prince George’s County Approved General Plan. In 2002, the General Plan contained a measurable objective that set canopy coverage goals countywide and within each growth policy tier for the first time. The goal states that the county should: “Meet or exceed the following forest and tree cover goals within each Tier and countywide by 2025: Developed Tier – 26 percent; Developing Tier – 38 percent; Rural Tier – 59 percent and countywide – 44 percent.”

This forest canopy assessment is being prepared in support of the General Plan Update. The purposes of this assessment are as follows: -

to report on regional trends in forest canopy loss to summarize the results of the 2000 Forest and Tree Canopy Assessment to analyze forest loss since 2000 using approved tree conservation plans to evaluate forest loss using a GIS approach for comparison to evaluate what has been accomplished to address forest canopy loss since 2002 to make recommendations regarding future canopy goals

This analysis uses, as a baseline, the data from 2000 that were used to create the canopy coverage goals for the 2002 General Plan. Between 1993 and 2000, annual net losses were, on average, 414 acres per year (see the figure provided below) and between 2000 and 2010 the losses were 625 acres per year.

Between 2004 and 2008, the average annual net losses were approximately 840 acres per year, more than double the average for the previous time period. For comparison purposes, the average annual loss for the 25-year implementation period for the forest canopy goal was estimated to be 310 acres per year in order to meet the stated goals.

Summary of Net Woodland Loss: 1993 – 2010

1993 414 acres/year

2000

2010 625 acres/year 2004 - 2008 840 acres/yr

Net woodland loss = [existing acreage (year 2000)] minus [acres of clearing approved] plus [acres of planting approved]

2

RCP Technical Summary | 93

Recommendations The following actions are recommended based on the findings of this 2010 Forest Canopy Assessment: 1.

Retain the countywide forest canopy goal of 44 percent in the new General Plan for the following reasons: o the 2002 goals have a 25-year timeframe for assessment and only ten years have passed. o the predictions made in the 2000 assessment are generally bearing true. o the goal exceeds the statewide goal of 40 percent.

2.

Prepare a comprehensive forest and tree canopy coverage strategy that addresses the goals and desired development pattern of the new General Plan. Consider including in the strategy canopy goals for designated areas in the new General Plan.

3.

Continue effective implementation of the Woodland and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Ordinance including an increased emphasis on enforcement. Provide training where needed to staff conducting plan reviews, inspections, and other enforcement activities.

4.

Focus on planting and maintaining urban tree canopy as new development shifts to more compact living areas.

5.

Continue to monitor selected metrics to assist in future decision-making.

3

94 | RCP Technical Summary

I.

Introduction and Background

Prince George’s County has long been a leader in the field of environmental conservation and a supporter of the principles of smart growth. Regulations related to forest loss are contained in the County Code. The county’s Woodland Conservation and Tree Preservation Ordinance (WCO), adopted on November 21, 1989, later served as the state’s model for the Forest Conservation Act of 1991, and is the primary tool for preventing forest loss when land development occurs. The WCO was updated in 2010 and renamed the “Woodland and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Ordinance” and can be found in Subtitle 25 of the County Code. The abbreviation of “WCO” is also used for the updated ordinance.

In Prince George’s County, the primary land use document is the 2002 Prince George’s County Approved General Plan. In 2002, the General Plan contained a measurable objective that set canopy coverage goals countywide and within each growth policy tier for the first time. The goal states that the county should: “Meet or exceed the following forest and tree cover goals within each Tier and countywide by 2025: Developed Tier – 26 percent; Developing Tier – 38 percent; Rural Tier – 59 percent and countywide – 44 percent.”

While the 2002 General Plan established what were labeled “forest and tree cover goals,” these goals measured forest canopy only, not tree and forest canopy, because of the limitations of the technology available in 2000 when an “existing vegetation” geographic information system (GIS) layer was used. Unless quoting text from other published documents, for the purpose of this paper the term “forest and tree cover” is revised to “forest canopy” to reflect the limitations of the data gathering. In addition, the terms “woodlands” and “forests” are used interchangeably.

Forest and Tree Canopy Defined

Figure 1. Bowie City Hall – forest canopy on the left and tree canopy on the right.

Forests are generally defined as areas dominated by trees and other woody or herbaceous plants covering a land area of 10,000 square feet or greater.

Forest functions include stabilizing soil; managing stormwater; providing wildlife habitat and forest products; and cleaning the air and water.

Tree canopy is generally defined as the area of land under single tree or small groups of trees that does not meet the definition of a forest.

Tree canopy functions include intercepting stormwater; controlling microclimate; and cleaning the air and water.

4

RCP Technical Summary | 95

Put simply, forests are defined as areas dominated by trees and other woody or herbaceous plants covering a land area of 10,000 square feet or greater. The term used in the County Code is “woodlands” and is defined as: 25-118(b)(72) “Woodland: A perpetual biological community dominated by trees and other woody or herbaceous plants covering a land area of 10,000 square feet or greater. This includes areas that have at least 100 trees per acre with at least 50 trees that are 2 inches or greater in diameter at breast height. This also includes areas that have been forest harvested where the stumps remain in place for future regeneration. The terms “woodland,” “forest,” and “forest cover” are synonymous and do not include orchards or other areas without multiple layers of woody and herbaceous vegetation.”

“Woodland conservation” consists primarily of the preservation of existing forests, reforestation (the re-establishment of forests where they were recently removed) or afforestation (the reestablishment of forests where they have been absent for some time).

Forests provide numerous benefits called “ecosystem services” that include lower air temperatures, cleaner air, cleaner water, improved stormwater infiltration, reduced erosion, improved wildlife and fish habitat, and reduced water temperatures. Forests also produce wood for construction, edible plants, and other less tangible Figure 2: Higher urban benefits such as improved personal well-being. temperatures caused by the “heat As the ecosystem services of forests are lost, the costs to island effect” can be reduced by human health are profound and include higher asthma rates because of forest and tree canopy lower air quality, increased costs for stormwater management (both the initial construction costs and the long-term maintenance costs), increased water purification costs, and reduced value of recreational experiences and forest products obtained from these areas.

The Tree Canopy Coverage Ordinance defines tree canopy as: 25-126(b)(1) “Tree canopy: The land area under the dripline of an existing tree or group of trees or the amount of credit provided for planting trees of a certain species and certain size at time of planting in conformance with the worksheet provided in the Technical Manual.”

Tree canopy coverage, especially in the built environment, is critical to human health by making the built environment more livable. A healthy tree canopy requires careful planning and maintenance – these elements need to be addressed in a comprehensive strategy for long-term healthy communities.

Assessment Purpose and Analysis The 2010 forest canopy assessment was prepared as part of the pre-planning tasks for the General Plan Update. The purposes of this assessment are as follows: -

to report on regional trends in forest canopy loss to summarize the results of the 2000 Tree and Forest Canopy Assessment to analyze forest loss since 2000 using approved tree conservation plans to evaluate forest loss using a GIS approach to evaluate what has been accomplished to address forest canopy loss since 2002 to make recommendations regarding future canopy goals

96 | RCP Technical Summary

The questions raised by the 2010 assessment include the following issues that are addressed in more detail below: 1. Should the canopy goals be adjusted to reflect current trends?

2. Should regulations be changed to address the unanticipated losses in canopy that are being reflected in the data?

3. Will the regulatory changes implemented in 2010 result in a shift in the trends reflected in this assessment?

4. Can shifts in land development types and patterns address the continued loss of forests?

The recommendations of this assessment address the questions raised above as follows: 1. Should the canopy goals be adjusted to reflect current trends?

The goals in the 2002 General Plan were to be measured over a span of 25 years. To date, only the first ten years of the evaluation period have been reported. Because the analysis only reflects the first ten years of the time period, and because a multitude of measures have been and could be put into place to curb these trends, this assessment recommends that the canopy goals remain the same for the General Plan Update as those contained in the 2002 General Plan. The title of the goals should be changed to “forest canopy goals” instead of “forest and tree cover goals” to reflect the data that was used in the past and the trends to be measured in the future.

2. Should regulations be changed to address the unanticipated losses in canopy that are being reflected in the data?

The unanticipated losses occurred during the most active years for land development during the study period. Between 1993 and 2000, annual net losses were, on average, 414 acres per year.

Between 2004 and 2008, the average annual net losses were approximately 840 acres per year, more than double the average for the 1993-2000 time period.

In 2010, the County Code was amended to implement the recommended strategies in the 2002 General Plan and the 2005 Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan. It is anticipated that the effect of these strategies will be to reduce the rate of forest fragmentation and overall losses.

No additional regulations are recommended as part of this study; however, a comprehensive canopy coverage strategy is needed to evaluate the existing regulations further. The General Plan Update intends to redirect development from previously undeveloped sites to redevelopment sites. If this shift is achieved, the annual forest losses will likely be reduced and additional regulations will not need to be adopted to meet the forest canopy goals. Additional attention is needed to address tree canopy coverage goals in urban areas.

3. Will the regulatory changes implemented in 2010 result in a shift in the trends reflected in this assessment?

In 2010, many of the strategies in the 2005 Green Infrastructure Plan were implemented through the passage of a comprehensive package of updates to the County Code’s environmental regulations related to land development.

Moving forward, as more development applications are reviewed and approved under the updated regulations, the overall losses should trend downward, depending on the types, locations and 6

RCP Technical Summary | 97

patterns of development. For instance, development on large, wooded parcels will always result in significant forest losses; development on previously cleared and developed sites can reduce the total annual forest losses countywide.

4. Can shifts in land development types and patterns address the continued loss of forests?

One of the basic principles of smart growth is to build in places where the public infrastructure (roads, sewers, schools, etc.) already exists and to not build where the expenditure of funds for public infrastructure is high. The General Plan Update recommends a shift from previous trends of clearing greenfield sites to a focus on developing sites that have been cleared and developed previously, resulting in a reduction in annual forest losses in the future.

Figure 3. Build here…near Metro, on previously developed sites

Figure 4. Avoid building here…away from public services…on “greenfield” sites (sites that have never been built on).

Previous Forest Canopy Assessment In 2000, a forest canopy assessment was conducted that resulted in recommendations in the 2002 General Plan. The assessment resulted in the establishment of the first “forest and tree cover” canopy goals in the county as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. 2002 General Plan “Forest and Tree Cover” Canopy Goals*

Developing Tier Developed Tier Rural Tier Countywide

Canopy Goal (% of land area) 26% 38% 60% 44%

* The numbers do not add to 100 across the tiers or countywide because they are percentages of different land areas.

The study conducted for the 2002 General Plan used data up to the year 2000, and is referred to as “The 2000 Forest and Tree Canopy Assessment.” The study used historical data from approved tree conservation plans (1993 – 2000) to predict the acreage of forests that would be lost to land development through the year 2025. Land development is not the only cause of forest loss; however, because there 7

98 | RCP Technical Summary

have been limited tools available to measure loss, and because this is an available data source, these data were used to predict future losses.

The method used to conduct the 2010 assessment was a replication of the 2000 assessment method that was used to create the canopy goals for the 2002 General Plan. The assessment used the 2000 vegetation GIS layer as a base layer and subtracted or added forest acreage as shown on approved tree conservation plans since 2000 (forest acreage shown to be cleared is subtracted and forest acreage to be planted is added). This information and past trends were then applied to predict future canopy coverage percentages. The 2000 assessment predicted canopy percentages to the year 2025; the 2010 assessment predicts canopy percentages to 2035. The 2010 assessment uses slightly different assumptions than those used in the original study in 2000 as noted in Section IV below.

II.

Trends in Regional Forest Canopy Loss

The loss of woodlands over time has been well documented in the region and the state. The Chesapeake Bay watershed was once 95 percent forested and now is only 55 percent forested as shown in Figure 1. According to Maryland’s Strategic Forest Lands Assessment (October 2003), Maryland is a rapidly urbanizing state; over the last 50 years Maryland has lost an average of 7,200 acres of forest per year, primarily because of land development for urban uses. The Maryland Forest Resource Assessment of 2010 predicted that between 1990 and 2015 urban development is likely to increase by 48 percent resulting in continued loss of woodlands.

Figure 1. Forest cover in the Chesapeake Bay watershed from 1650 to 2010.

Source: Chesapeake Bay Program, Chesapeake Forest Restoration Strategy

8

RCP Technical Summary | 99

III.

Trends in Forest Canopy Loss in Prince George’s County

In 2001, the Prince George’s County Biennial Growth Policy Plan recommended the completion of an assessment of canopy coverage in order to set goals in the 2002 General Plan. As part of the General Plan’s Technical Summary document, a forest canopy assessment was completed. Although it was completed in 2002, it is referred to as “The 2000 Forest and Tree Canopy Assessment” because this study utilizes data from 1993 to 2000.

One of the first trends evaluated in the 2000 Assessment was past forest canopy coverage using available data for the years 1938, 1965, and 2000. Because the technology used was limited to tracking forested areas, this data reflects only forest canopy and not forest and tree canopy. Table 2 shows the acreage of canopy coverage over time and Figure 2 shows the trends over time.

Table 2. Forest Cover Comparison (% acres by year studied) Growth Policy Tier Developed Developing Rural Countywide

Year 1938

1965

2000

36% 41% 51% 43%

25% 44% 59% 46%

25% 40% 61% 45%

Note: All of the percentages were calculated using the growth policy tier boundaries in place in 2010.

Figure 2. Forest Losses in 1938, 1965 and 2000 by Growth Policy Tier

150,000 125,000

Acres

100,000 75,000 50,000 25,000 0 1938

1965

Developed

Year Developing

2000 Rural

Countywide

9

100 | RCP Technical Summary

Figure 2 shows: -

The Developed Tier experienced a significant decline in forest canopy between 1938 and 1965 when this tier experienced rapid development. Although development continued between 1965 and 2000, the rates of development and forest removal declined.

-

The Developing Tier experienced an increase in forest coverage between 1938 and 1965, consistent with regional trends, mainly due to the abandonment of agricultural land that naturally reverted into forests. This was offset by some development activity but the effect was an overall increase in the acreage of forest cover within this growth policy tier.

-

The Rural Tier continues to be characterized by agriculture, forest conservation, and low density residential developments. In 2000, the Rural Tier passed the Developing Tier in total acres of forest.

The countywide trend shows there were more forests countywide in 2000 than were present in 1938, despite a decrease in forest canopy coverage from 1965 to 2000. However, the character and distribution of the remaining forests is vastly different in 2000 than in 1938. As is true for many communities that converted from rural communities to a suburban character from 1938 to 2000, forests have become increasingly fragmented with smaller blocks of forest remaining. Additionally, fewer large blocks of forest area remain in the more urbanizing segments of the county, where their benefits are most needed.

Throughout all the analyses contained in this and previous assessments, a margin of error should be assumed. With large data sets spanning large geographic areas such as Prince George’s County’s 485 square miles, margins of error of one to two percent can be expected. The figures contained in this and previous assessments should be considered broad analyses that were conducted for the purpose of providing a framework for policy decisions, not for setting specific or regulatory thresholds.

IV.

Review of the 2000 Forest and Tree Canopy Assessment

The 2002 General Plan set forest canopy goals countywide and by growth policy tier. Table 3 provides the forest canopy percentages that existed in 2000 and the canopy goal set for that area in the 2002 General Plan. As noted above, only forest canopy, not forest and tree canopy, was measured because of technological limitations.

Table 3. Forest Canopy Percentages and Goals

Developed Tier Developing Tier Rural Tier Countywide

Canopy Coverage in 2000 25% 40% 61% 45%

General Plan Canopy Goal 26% 38% 60% 44%

Note: All of the percentages were calculated using the growth policy tier boundaries in place in 2010.

The canopy goals reflect the expected growth countywide and the desired development pattern of the 2002 General Plan. In the Developed Tier, the goal was set at slightly higher than the existing level to address the need for maintaining existing forest canopy coverage and to ensure a focus on tree planting 10

RCP Technical Summary | 101

throughout existing and redeveloping communities. Development was anticipated in the Developing Tier, so the canopy goal was set lower than what was existing in 2000. The Rural Tier goal was set at a percentage comparable to the existing canopy coverage to acknowledge past trends and in anticipation of additional conservation efforts adjacent to sensitive natural features.

In order to determine the appropriate goals for the 2002 General Plan, statistics from approved tree conservation plans (TCPs) from 1993 to 2000 were used to determine past trends, that were in turn used to predict future annual amounts of clearing, preservation, and planting through 2025. These data are contained in the woodland conservation database that is maintained by the Environmental Planning Section of the Prince George’s County Planning Department of M-NCPPC. Within this database, there is a quantitative description of each TCP. Some of the data tracked includes: • • • • • • • •

TCP number (year in which the TCP was accepted for review and a tracking number) The approval date The growth policy tier where the site is located The gross tract area The existing woodlands (in the floodplain and out of the floodplain) Amount of woodlands to be cleared (in and out of the floodplain) Amount of woodlands to be preserved (in and out of floodplain) Proposed acres of afforestation or reforestation

This provides the necessary data to perform the analyses regarding existing and projected preservation, planting, and clearing. In order to conduct these analyses, the following assumptions were applied: •

Data prior to 1993 was not used because the overall calculations were different and would not compare to data collected after 1993.

•

Properties and activities exempt from the local requirements were not included: state properties (unless review was delegated to the county), properties in the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area, logging operations conducted more than five years ahead of land development, agricultural activities, clearing in public utility rights-of-way, and clearing associated with power generation stations.

•

Acres of woodland cleared on properties less than 40,000 square feet in size, woodland cleared on properties with less than 10,000 square feet of woodlands at the time of application, and woodlands cleared as part of permit applications for clearing less than 5,000 square feet were not included in the net loss acreages because these sites are exempt from the requirements unless the property has a previously approved tree conservation plan.

•

The clearing, protection, or conservation occurred within the same year as the original TCP approval. (In actuality, some sites may be cleared or planted in later years.)

•

TCPs for off-site woodland conservation banks were not included in the calculations because this acreage is already accounted for in the calculations for net woodland loss.

•

The acreages reported are based on the originally approved plan without accounting for revisions.

11

102 | RCP Technical Summary

•

The TCPs are implemented as approved with no variations to the approved limits of disturbance in the field.

•

The growth policy tier designations that existed prior to final approval of the 2002 General Plan were used in this portion of the study because they were the only designations available at the time.

•

The 2000 GIS vegetation layer representing forest canopy was correct and presented the baseline upon which the projections were based.

The forest canopy coverage annual net losses, based on approved tree conservation plans in the growth policy tiers and countywide from 1993-2000, are shown in Table 4. Annual net loss is calculated by taking the amount of existing forest, subtracting the amount cleared and then adding the acres planted.

This calculation results in an average annual net loss of approximately 414 acres per year from 19932000.

Table 4. Acres of Woodland Loss Per Year 1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Total

Avg.

Developed Tier

121

65

92

33

42

24

21

18

416

52

Developing Tier

153

423

546

305

305

250

251

182

2415

302

Rural Tier

25

116

28

103

11

3

158

32

476

60

Countywide

300

604

666

441

357

277

430

232

3307

414

In order to set canopy goals for 2025, projections needed to be made into the future. Using the following assumptions, the percentages of canopy coverage that were predicted to remain in future years are provided in Table 5: •

Based on past trends, it was assumed that the average annual woodland loss would remain constant for the first ten years (until 2010) and then decline by five percent per year because the area of woodlands available for clearing and preservation would be reduced over time.

•

The future amount of forest canopy coverage due to existing tree growth was not factored into the projections because trees grow at different rates and predicting these growth rates over 25 years is difficult if not impossible.

12

RCP Technical Summary | 103

Table 5. Percentage of Projected Canopy Coverage in Future Years From the 2000 Assessment 2000

2010

2020

2025

GP Goals

Developed Tier

25%

25%

25%

24%

26%

Developing Tier

40%

39%

38%

37%

38%

Rural Tier

61%

58%

58%

58%

60%

Countywide

45%

43%

43%

42%

44%

The goals in the 2002 General Plan could have been set at the 2025 projected percentages; however, the goals were selected to be at higher levels than the predicted 2025 levels because it was assumed that the strategies contained in the 2002 General Plan and 2005 Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan would be implemented to address forest loss and fragmentation.

V.

2010 Forest Canopy Assessment

Using data from approved tree conservation plans from 2000 to 2010, and necessary adjustments to the data reported previously for the years 1993 to 2000, the methodology used in the 2000 canopy assessment was replicated. The same woodland conservation database was used with the same types of data being reported.

Study Assumptions All of the assumptions from the 2000 Assessment were carried over into the 2010 study, with the following additions or changes: •

The 2000 Assessment did not account for revisions to the previously approved tree conservation plans. For the 2010 Assessment, because revisions become more important over time, adjustments that resulted from plan revisions were included in the year the revisions occurred.

•

The growth policy tier designations as of July 2011 were used for this analysis. The tier boundaries changed as master and sector plans were approved between 2002 and 2010. The changes in the tiers are considered negligible in this study because of the large areas being evaluated.

•

Whereas the 2000 Assessment assumed that the rate of woodland loss would remain constant for the first 10 years of the projection, given the recent economic downturn and the reduced levels of annual net loss of forests, the 2010 Assessment assumed that the backlog of approved plans that have not been implemented would be constructed first with no new losses in the first ten years.

Because these acreages are already accounted for, they would not result in additional clearing in future years. This is a conservative assumption and was used because of the uncertainty of when the pace of development would return to normal levels.

13

104 | RCP Technical Summary

•

From 2020 to 2035 this assessment assumed that the annual woodland loss would decrease by five percent each year. This is the same assumption as in the 2000 Assessment, but is for a different time period.

2001-2010 Data Reported The forest canopy coverage annual net losses based on approved tree conservation plans in the growth policy tiers and countywide from 2001-2010 are shown in Table 6. Annual net loss is calculated by taking the amount of existing forest, subtracting the amount cleared and then adding the acres planted.

Table 6. Annual Net Forest Loss (acres) 2001 - 2010 2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Totals

Avg.

Developed Tier

77.9

20.8

44.3

18.7

109.7

108.8

166.9

166.3

-6.6

2.4

709.3

70.9

Developing Tier

363.7

475.4

512.1

1052.1

606.2

881.7

385.8

427.4

137.3

50.0

4891.5

489.2

Rural Tier

108.6

96.8

175.0

79.9

102.4

58.9

26.2

9.8

-12.0

2.7

648.4

64.8

550.2 593.1 731.4 1150.7 818.2 1049.4 578.9 603.6 118.7 55.1 6249.3 Countywide (Note: negative numbers reflect situations where more planting occurred than clearing; figures are provided to one decimal place because some of the data reflects numbers in the single digits; rounding of numbers may result in minor discrepancies in the totals)

624.9

The time period depicted contains some years where development activity was robust and some years where activity tapered off. The reduction in forest canopy coverage lost in less robust years of development activity is not a result of better regulations or improved preservation techniques, but of fewer projects clearing fewer acres of forest countywide.

The resulting data shows a countywide average annual net loss of 648 acres per year from 20012010 as shown in Table 6, compared to the average annual net loss of 414 acres countywide from 19932000 as shown in Table 4. When reviewing the entirety of the data set from 1993-2010 the average annual net loss is approximately 531 acres. When the 1993-2000 data is adjusted for revisions to approved TCPs the annual average net loss is approximately 563 acres.

Based on the assumptions used in the 2000 study, the predicted average annual net loss of forests over the 25-year goal period was 310 acres per year. The study assumed that in the first ten years (from 2000 – 2010) the annual losses would reflect the previous trends of forest loss of 414 acres per year. The data show that from 2001-2010 the average annual net loss was 648 acres; however, after 2008 the annual loss dropped significantly.

Because of the economic downturn and the slowing of forest loss, future implementation of the environmental regulations passed in 2010 on all projects, and the recommended shift in development priorities, the predicted future annual losses of forests should not be as dramatic as those seen in the period from 2004 to 2008.

14

RCP Technical Summary | 105

Projections to 2035 To project forest loss to 2035, the data from the approved TCPs through 2010 were used as a baseline. From 2010 to 2020 there was no assumed change in the percentage of woodlands in each tier and countywide (essentially a no net loss assumption based on a backlog of projects yet to be implemented). From 2020 until 2035 it was assumed that the annual forest loss would decrease by five percent each year because more new projects will be built in the future on already developed sites resulting in fewer acres of overall forest loss. In addition, during this time period there will be fewer acres of forests that remain.

Using these assumptions, the forest canopy coverage percentages contained in Table 7 are predicted. Figure 3 shows the existing and projected acreages of forests in each tier and countywide using the data from the previous trends analysis, the 2000 Assessment, the 2010 Assessment, and the predicted amount of forests in the future.

Table 7. Predicted Forest Canopy Coverage Percentages 2010 Assessment

Developed Tier Developing Tier Rural Tier Countywide

2010 24% 36% 61% 42%

2015 24% 36% 61% 42%

2020 24% 36% 61% 42%

2025 23% 35% 60% 41%

2030 23% 34% 60% 41%

2035 22% 33% 60% 40%

2002 GP Goals 26% 38% 60% 44%

Note: The 2010 Assessment used 2005 data as a starting point for the predicted future forest canopy, resulting in lower than predicted percentages in all categories than in the 2000 Assessment.

While it may be difficult to meet the forest canopy goals in the Developed and Developing Tiers given the predictions of this assessment, the Rural Tier will likely hold fast at 60 percent and the countywide forest canopy coverage will be at or above the state standard of 40 percent in 2035.

15

106 | RCP Technical Summary

Figure 3. Previously Existing, Current and Projected Forest Acreages

By Tier and Countywide

160000 140000 120000 1938

100000

1965 80000

2000 2010

60000

2035

40000 20000 0 Developed

Developing

Rural

Countywide

In summary, the annual forest loss from 1993 to 2010 exceeded the predicted levels. However, because there have been several years of limited development, and reduced forest removal, and because the latter years of the predictions assume reduced loss, the total forest losses for the 25-year period (20002025) are likely to be close to the predicted levels. In the future 25-year period (2010-2035), if the trends continue and development shifts away from greenfield sites, the stated forest canopy goals can be met by 2035.

VI.

Verification of Predicted Losses

Technological advances between 2000 and 2010 were significant with regard to capturing forest canopy data using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). In 2000, the GIS layer used to establish the baseline was created using aerial photography and human interpretation. This methodology is difficult to accurately replicate because the data captured by one individual in one year can be very different than the data captured by another person in a different year. In 2010, the technology evolved to the point where high resolution aerial imagery and radar technology could be used to capture both forest canopy and tree canopy in a GIS layer. This methodology is more reliable and replicable because it relies on repeatable computer technology, and human error and differences in interpretation are removed from the analysis.

Using the new GIS methodology to evaluate the results of the predictions made in 2000 resulted in a comparison that was somewhat “apples to oranges� in nature because the technology improved 16

RCP Technical Summary | 107

considerably in the ten year span of the assessment. However, given that the areas being studied are large (the county is approximately 485 square miles in size) the methodology used to evaluate broad trends in forest canopy loss over time was deemed acceptable.

A study of “urban tree and forest canopy” was conducted in 2010 using a 2009 vegetation layer that was created using high resolution aerial imagery and LiDAR technology. LiDAR uses light and radar to measure the height of various objects and when combined with aerial imagery results in a very accurate forest and tree canopy delineation.

The 2010 study captured both forest and tree canopy, while the vegetation layer in 2000 captured only forest canopy. In 2010, according to the “urban tree and forest canopy study” the county contained 52 percent forest and tree canopy coverage: 44 percent forest canopy and 8 percent tree canopy.

Figure 4. Illustration of the Use of LiDAR in Detecting Tree Canopy

For the purpose of comparing forest canopy to forest canopy, the 2010 study was separated into forest canopy and tree canopy, using the definition of areas that can be used to meet the code requirement (areas of canopy that are 10,000 square feet or larger and are at least 50 feet wide).

Table 8. Comparison of Predicted Forest Canopy Coverage (2000 Assessment) and Mapped Forest Canopy Coverage (as of 2010)

Developed Tier Developing Tier Rural Tier Countywide

Predicted 2010 Forest Canopy Coverage 25% 39% 58% 43%

Mapped 2010 Forest Canopy Coverage 27% 39% 59% 44%

2025 Canopy Goal (% of land area) 26% 38% 60% 44%

Given the margin of error of one to two percent, the 2010 mapped forest canopy coverage data set validates the methodology used in the 2000 and 2010 Assessments to predict future conditions and verifies anticipated percentages. Moving forward, the GIS technology used in the 2010 mapped forest canopy coverage analysis should be used to measure changes in forest canopy over time.

17

108 | RCP Technical Summary

VII.

Forest and Tree Canopy Goals – Present and Future

The 2010 Forest Canopy Assessment evaluates the status of a 25-year goal only ten years into implementation. The annual acreage of forest loss shown on approved tree conservation plans between 2000 and 2010 exceeded what was predicted in the 2000 study (537 acres per year actual versus 414 acres per year predicted); however, if the annual forest canopy loss acreages are reduced over the remaining 15year period, the goals should be attainable. The annual forest canopy loss acreages can be reduced by: 1. Implementing the 2010 regulations regarding forest conservation: 2. Increasing enforcement efforts to curb unlawful and unnecessary forest clearing.

3. Implementing new General Plan priorities and policies that shift development away from forested parcels and onto properties that have been previously developed.

4. Increasing the focus on urban tree planting.

These recommended methods to attain the forest canopy goals are discussed in more detail below.

1. Implement the 2010 regulations regarding forest conservation.

In 2010 the Prince George’s County Code was amended to implement the recommended strategies in the 2002 General Plan and the 2005 Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan. The majority of the plans that were approved in 2010 and 2011 were not subject to such new requirements because of grandfathering provisions in the legislation. No additional regulations regarding forest canopy coverage are recommended as part of this study because the regulations adopted in 2010 should prove sufficient to curb previous trends of forest loss and fragmentation. Once these regulations are fully implemented and become the norm instead of the exception, the rate of forest and tree canopy coverage loss should decrease.

The current regulations, adopted as part of the Prince George’s County Code in 2010 as a result of implementation strategies contained in the 2002 General Plan and 2005 Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan, include: •

The minimum area that can be used to meet the woodland requirement was increased from 2,500 square feet to 10,000 square feet to match the definition of a woodland. This should result in larger blocks of contiguous woodlands being preserved.

•

The minimum width of areas used to meet the woodland requirement was increased from 35 feet to 50 feet for preserved areas.

•

The minimum width of stream buffers was increased countywide from 50 feet for all regulated streams to 60 feet within the Developed Tier, 75 feet within the Developing Tier and 100 feet within the Rural Tier.

•

The elements to be contained within a regulated stream buffer were revised to include all slopes 15 percent and greater into the buffer, or “primary management area.” Previously, the slopes had to be on highly erodible soils or at a pitch of 25 percent or greater to be included within the regulated stream buffer.

18

RCP Technical Summary | 109

•

A new Tree Canopy Coverage Ordinance was adopted that requires certain properties to provide a minimum amount of tree canopy based on the zoning. More intense uses have a lower requirement because of the need to meet other requirements related to parking and traffic flow.

Less intense uses where more land is available for tree planting, such as single-family detached housing, have a higher tree canopy requirement. Implementation of this ordinance will be key to meeting the canopy goals in the Developed Tier.

Moving forward, as more development applications are reviewed and approved under the updated regulations, the overall losses should trend downward, depending on the types, locations and patterns of development. Development on large, wooded parcels will always result in significant forest losses; development on previously cleared and developed sites can reduce the total annual forest losses countywide.

2. Increase enforcement efforts to curb unlawful and unnecessary forest clearing.

Regulations on land development activities require solid and defensible enforcement mechanisms. The Prince George’s County Woodland and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Ordinance is the ordinance that enforces the state Forest Conservation Act. It states that clearing of more than 5,000 square feet of forest requires an approval in most instances. With the creation of the Department of Permitting, Inspections, and Enforcement, the county has demonstrated a commitment to focusing on enforcement of the regulations. Additional training of inspectors and review staff on the applicable environmental ordinances is recommended in order to more efficiently and effectively enforce the existing regulations.

3. Implement priorities and policies that shift development away from forested parcels.

The second method to reduce the annual forest acreage loss is to adopt and implement priorities and strategies in the General Plan Update to shift new development away from parcels that are currently forested and undeveloped. By increasing opportunities for redevelopment in already established areas versus continued growth on greenfield sites, not only will forest loss and fragmentation be reduced, but market demand can be met for multi-family housing located near transit. It is likely that the previous trend of clearing 500 to 800 acres of forests per year will not continue if priorities are shifted to the development of mixed use communities in locations where the supporting infrastructure already exists.

4. Increase the focus on urban tree planting.

Increasing the focus on greening the built environment will not only provide more tree canopy coverage overall, and bring with it all the associated benefits, but it will also make the new and redeveloping communities more livable with pleasant outdoor spaces to live, work, and play.

VIII. Conclusion In order for Prince George’s County to meet its overall economic, social, and environmental goals, it is imperative that the forest canopy goals be addressed and efforts continue to meet the state goals. The existing canopy goals should be maintained, and policies and strategies should be implemented to support these goals, in order to continue to increase the quality of life for citizens in Prince George’s County.

19

110 | RCP Technical Summary

In addition to supporting development in concert with the desired development pattern of Plan 2035, the following actions are recommended: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Retain the countywide forest canopy goal of 44 percent in the new General Plan for the following reasons: o the 2002 goals have a 25-year timeframe for assessment and only ten years have passed. o the predictions made in the 2000 assessment are generally bearing true. o the goal exceeds the statewide goal of 40 percent.

Prepare a comprehensive forest and tree canopy coverage strategy that addresses the goals and desired development pattern of the new General Plan. Consider including in the strategy canopy goals for designated areas in the new General Plan.

Continue effective implementation of the Woodland and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Ordinance including an increased emphasis on enforcement. Provide training where needed to staff conducting plan reviews, inspections, and other enforcement activities.

Focus on planting and maintaining urban tree canopy as new development shifts to more compact living areas.

Continue to monitor selected metrics to assist in future decision-making.

Acknowledgements The following employees and interns of The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission’s Prince George’s County Planning Department contributed to this study: CJ Lammers, Master Environmental Planner; Kim Finch, Woodland Conservation Program Coordinator; Taryn Sudol, Intern; Kate Fritz, Senior Planner; Barney Green, GIS Specialist III; John Groeger, Intern; and Colleen Shipley, Intern Data Sources: Prince George’s County, Preliminary General Plan, Technical Summary, M-NCPPC, February 2002 Tracking Woodland Loss, 2000 – 2010, M-NCPPC, Taryn Sudol, December 2011 A Report on Prince George’s County’s Existing and Possible Tree Canopy, University of Vermont Spatial Analysis Lab, October 20, 2011 Photo Sources: M-NCPPC, Department of Parks and Recreation; PGAtlas.com; Google Earth; ThinkGreenDegrees.com

20

RCP Technical Summary | 111

Forest Fragmentation in Prince George’s County: Measuring Forest Cores and Edges to Determine Fragmentation Trends I.

Overview

Forest blocks are large, contiguous areas of forest that are important, because they provide many ecological and socioeconomic benefits such as biodiversity, carbon storage, habitat for wildlife that require interior forest conditions, pollutant uptake, and processes critical to protecting our air, water, and soil. Forest fragmentation, or the breakup of forest blocks into smaller, more isolated remnants, is a constant threat to the health and vitality of the County’s forests. As Figure 1 shows, fragmentation also results in an increase in forest edge and losses in the all-important core forests, producing additional negative effects as existing habitat and ecosystem services are disrupted.

“Edge effects” refer to the change in wildlife populations or community structure that occurs at the boundary of two habitats such as the boundary between a forest and urban area. An increase in edge facilitates the penetration of sunlight, wind, rain, and pollution into previously shaded interior forest areas which, in turn, causes a change in air temperature, soil moisture, and light intensity. With these microclimate changes come changes in plant species mix and, typically, the spread of non-native, invasive plants and animals along the new forest edge. In addition to changes in the forest ecosystem, numerous studies show increased damage to individual trees at or near the forest edges (tree failure and loss of major branches) because of the loss of tree canopy support from other trees at or near the forest edges, further threatening the integrity of the core forest.

Figure 1: Creation of forest edge as a result of forest fragmentation One large piece of forest area

Fragmented pieces of forest area

Core forest

Forest edge

Source: eSchoolToday, 2010

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the trends in forest fragmentation in Prince George’s County over time and to present the possible negative ecological and environmental impacts associated with forest fragmentation. This study uses industry-accepted metrics including total core forests that meet the state’s definition, total forest edge area, total edge length, and edge density. Forest edge is defined as the area of the forest that is within 100 feet of the forest edge.1 Measuring changes in the amount of forest edge is one of the most commonly applied metrics for measuring forest fragmentation (Meneguzzo, 2006; Swift, 2010).

Another method for calculating the forest edge area and core forest was developed to measure habitat for forest interior dwelling bird species (FIDS). This method measures forest edge as forested areas 300 feet or less from the nearest forest edge and core forest as area greater than 300 feet from the forest edge (Department of Natural Resources). FIDS measurement is specifically for the forest interior dwelling bird species habitat. The purpose of this study is to address the fragmentation of forests, not specifically habitat, which is why the 100-foot edge area is used instead of the FIDS buffer of 300 feet.

1

Forest Fragmentation Study 1 112 | RCP Technical Summary

The GIS layers used in this study are those provided by The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. It should be noted that while the data capture methods were similar in the years 1938, 1993, and 2000, the 2009 data set contains more precise delineations of forest and tree canopy coverage because of improvements in technology. Adjustments were made to the data sets used to provide a more cohesive comparison.

This study is only intended to demonstrate broad trends—the data should not be used at a smaller scale than has been provided herein.

II. Introduction to Forest Fragmentation

KEY FINDINGS: • Over the study years of 1938, 1993, 2000, and 2009, the County’s core forest acreage has decreased.

• Over the same period, the length of forest edge, the acreage of edge forest, and the forest edge density, have all increased.

• These metrics indicate that forest fragmentation is increasing in Prince George’s County in the same way it is occurring in many growing communities.

• In 2009, the County contained more edge forests (51 percent) than core forests (49 percent) for the first time.

Forests are an essential component of the natural landscape. In addition to providing a habitat for forest-dwelling species, the forests’ “ecosystem services,” such as lower air temperatures, cleaner air, cleaner water, improved stormwater infiltration, reduced erosion, and stable air and water temperatures, also provide numerous benefits to people. They also provide economic benefits as wood for construction, edible plants, and other less tangible benefits such as aesthetics and improved personal well-being. As forests are lost, so are the environmental and human benefits they provide. Additionally, when forests are lost to development, fewer trees are available to sequester carbon dioxide and other pollutants, and there are fewer places where stormwater can easily infiltrate into the ground (USDA, 2015).

As the ecosystem services of forests are lost, the costs to human health can be profound and can include higher asthma rates because of lower air quality, increased costs for stormwater management (both the initial construction costs and the long-term maintenance costs), increased water purification costs, and reduced value of recreational experiences and forest products (2010 Forest Canopy Assessment).

Figure 2: The benefits of forests and the effects of forest edge and fragmentation

• • • • • • • •

Forest Benefits to People Improved air quality Carbon storage Improved stormwater infiltration Improved water quality (by reducing runoff and maintaining stable water temperature) Reduced erosion Stable wildlife habitat Lower air temperature Economic resources

Contiguous forest areas provide greater benefits to people, plants, and wildlife than fragmented forests

Effects of Increased Forest Edge and Fragmentation • Smaller core forest area—habitat loss • Edge effects (change in sunlight, rainfall, and soil as the result of exposed edge) • Spread of invasive plants, animals, and insects that thrive at the forest edge; loss of species that require interior forest conditions; introduction of disease (e.g., Lyme disease from white-tailed deer) and insects from adjacent land uses Leading to: • Increase in species isolation • Decline in population size • Decline in species richness and viability • Decreased biodiversity • Extinction or blight • Increased stormwater management costs • Increased costs associated with pollution and climate change Fragmentation weakens and degrades forest health by increasing “edge effects” and reducing core forest area, sometimes to the point of pest infestations or species extinction

2 Forest Fragmentation Study RCP Technical Summary | 113

A recent study completed by the USDA Forest Service concluded that Prince George’s County’s 52 percent forest and tree canopy coverage provides the following measurable ecosystem services to people: Forest Service Cleaner water: Cleaner air: Less carbon:

Estimated Value $12.8 billion annually $21 million annually $16.6 million annually

As forests become smaller and more fragmented, these ecosystem service values will be reduced, because small patches of forests do not function as well as larger, more contiguous blocks.

Loss of Forest Acreage The 2010 Forest Canopy Assessment showed predicted losses of forest canopy coverage based on approved tree conservation plans. The study concluded that with the implementation of the updated environmental regulations contained in the County Code that were updated in 2010, it will be possible to meet the Plan Prince George’s 2035 Approved General Plan (Plan 2035) goal of maintaining the County’s 52 percent forest and tree canopy coverage.

Loss of Habitat Populations of many species are more viable in forest blocks than in forest fragments, resulting in fewer species of all types in a forest fragment than in an area of the same size in contiguous habitat. Smaller areas are also less likely to hold as many habitat types as larger areas. The farther apart habitat islands are from each other, the greater the impact, because fewer species will be able to migrate among them, leading to a decline in genetic diversity and potentially extinction. Numerous studies have documented that habitat loss is the most important factor influencing specie extinction (Fahrig, 1999; Swift, 2010). These studies and others agree that the magnitude of ecological impact due to habitat loss is exacerbated by the fragmentation of the remaining habitat (Didham, 2010).

Edge Effects Forests weakened by fragmentation become more susceptible to damage and stress from insects, pests, and diseases and can degenerate into a condition of chronic ill health (USDA). This is because fragmentation causes changes in the flow of water, sunlight, and nutrients called “edge effects,” which in turn impact the native species and ecosystems (Murcia, 1995). The influence of the edge effects (whether positive or negative, intense or mild) varies depending on the types of land use, the abruptness or gradient of the land use change, and the type of species being evaluated (Fahrig, 1999; Ewers, 2005). Figure 3 shows an abrupt edge from a new roadway through an existing forest. The abrupt edge exposes the forest to edge effects including increased sunlight, increased temperatures, wind, noise, litter, and more. The disruption can have devastating effects on species and plant communities that cannot adjust to changes, such as the level of sunlight, rain, and noise, and may either die out in the case of plants or be forced from their habitat in the case of mobile inhabitants (USDA, 2015).

Forest Fragmentation Study 3 114 | RCP Technical Summary

Figure 3: Edge exposes the interior of forests to stressors

Stressors (sunlight, noise, wind, invasive plant species and others) can alter the natural landscape.

Source: USDA Forest Service, A Snapshot of the Northeastern Forests

Invasive Plant Species The new edge also makes it easier for the entry of invasive plant species. Invasive plant species are highly adaptable, and these species may alter the forest landscape or disrupt native vegetation or specie populations in a relatively short time. Figure 4 shows an infestation of the invasive Kudzu vine. Kudzu can quickly alter a forest community and kill or damage other plants from its rapid growth. Native plants in the area are at an ecological disadvantage to the fast-growing invasive plants that can lead to the extinction of the native plants either locally or regionally. A more gradual edge has greater biodiversity and acts as a natural transitional area between land uses. Fragmented forests with highly irregular, convoluted boundaries are more likely to experience edge effects than adjacent habitats with less convoluted edges (Collinge, 1996).

Figure 4: Kudzu grows fast and dominates natural landscapes

Photo by Kerry Britton

4 Forest Fragmentation Study RCP Technical Summary | 115

Parcelization Exacerbating the effect on loss of habitat, edge effects, invasive species, and other threats is parcelization, which refers to the ownership of forest land by multiple owners. With control of forested land spread across multiple owners, shared management and long-term goals for forest conservation or coordination to deal with forest health issues, which may arise are, much less likely to occur.

Figure 5 shows a simplified rendering of how forest parcelization can quickly alter the forest landscape leading to fragmentation. In Maryland, as much as 76 percent of total forested acres are privately owned with most owners (75 percent of that total) owning woodlots of fewer than 10 acres.

Additionally, small parcels of forest land are more likely to be converted to non-forest uses such as residential or other urban types of development (Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 2008).

Figure 5: From a Snapshot of the Northeastern Forests

Parcelization

Fragmentation Source: USDA Forest Service, Northeast Area (October 2005)

III. Methodology: Measuring Forest Fragmentation This report uses industry-accepted metrics to measure forest edge area, forest edge length, and forest edge density in the study years of 1938, 1993, 2000, and 2009. Fragmentation is indicated by increases in edge area, edge length, or edge density (Meneguzzo, 2006).

A. Measuring Edge Area The USDA Forest Service uses the measurement of forest core areas that have forested buffers of at least 100 feet on all sides, with no minimum core area as shown in Figure 6 (USDA, 2000). The 100-foot-wide buffer is substantiated in a study by Rannet, et al, who found that the significant difference in the composition and structure of vegetation increased between 33 and 100 feet from the edge (Hellmund, 2006).

For this report, forest areas that met the definition of forest contained in the Code of Maryland (greater than 10,000 square feet and at least 50 feet wide) were used for analysis. The results are presented as total acres of forest core and edge and as the percentage of total area that is forest edge. GIS analysis of core and edge area relied on countywide forest and tree canopy coverage data from 1938, 1993, 2000, and 2009. The results section of this report discusses the increase in edge area, indicating that forest fragmentation is increasing over time.

Figure 6: Core Forest, Forest Edge Area, and Forest Edge Definitions

- Core Core Forest Area: area Area furtherfarther than 100than ft. from forest edge Forest Area: 100 feet from forest edge

c::J Forest Edge Area: 100-foot buffer from forest edge

.....·

Forest Edge Area: 100 ft. buffer from forest edge

: • • •• Forest Forest Edge: Linear measurement of perimeter Edge: Linear measurement of perimeter

Forest Fragmentation Study 5 116 | RCP Technical Summary

B. Measuring Edge Length While the amount of edge (in absolute terms and as a percentage of overall forest area) is important, there are other ways to measure the complexity of the forest edge. Total edge length and edge density (ED) are two such metrics which are able to account for the shape and boundary of the forest area. Total edge is measured as the perimeter of forest area (see Figure 6, on previous page). Total edge was calculated in GIS by converting total length to area. This is important, because convoluted edges are more likely to experience the ill effects (Collinge, 1996). The results section of this study discusses the increase in edge length observed over the study period.

C. Measuring Edge Density Edge density measurements can be used to evaluate the impacts of convoluted forest boundaries, which commonly occur after development occurs. Forest edge density, also known as perimeter/area ratio, is calculated as the length (in miles) of edge forest divided by the total forest acreage in the area being studied.

The resulting ratio is the miles of forest edge per square mile of forest land (adapted from Meneguzzo, 2006).

This ratio allows for a better understanding of the complexity of the forest edge.

A higher edge density ratio means that the proportion of edge to area is high and/or more convoluted.

Figure 7 displays how fragmentation of forests causes an increase in the amount of edge and thus produces an increase in edge length and edge density. The results section of this study discusses the increase in edge density observed over the study period, indicating that forest fragmentation is increasing over time.

Figure 7: Edge Length and Edge Density as edges become fragmented (Adapted from EU 1994)

Equal forest area 640 acres

Length = 320 miles ED = .5 miles/acre

Equation 1: Edge Density

Length = 499.2 miles ED = .78 miles/acre

Edge Density (ED)= E A

Where E equals total edge (miles) and A equals total area of forests (square miles)

IV. Results A. Forest Edge Area Figure 8 displays the total acreage of forest core and edge for each of the study years. Over the study period, the County has experienced a decrease in the acres of core forests and an increase in the acres of edge forests.

While this is to be expected, as population growth and urbanization in the County have resulted in the 6 Forest Fragmentation Study RCP Technical Summary | 117

clearing of forested areas for development, in 2009 (the most recent year for which data are available) the percent of total edge forests exceeded the total core forest acreage for the first time (51 percent edge forests to 49 percent core forests).

Figure 8: Acres of Edge and Core Over Study Years

Acres of Edge and Core 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0

89,926

Edge Forests = 51%

87,523 77,092 60,802

60,749

44,271

1938

72,289 69,955

Core Forests = 49%

1993 Edge (acres)

2000

2009

Core (acres)

B. Forest Edge Length As forests become more fragmented, the length of their boundary increases. Over the study years, the County has experienced a clear increase in edge length. As edges increase, interior forests will face greater stress from neighboring land uses and invasive plant species.

Figure 9: Edge Length (miles)

C. Forest Edge Density Edge density is a metric that can be used to interpret the shape of the forest boundaries within an area. An increase in edge density indicates that the edge is becoming larger and more convoluted and, therefore, more susceptible to negative edge effects.

Forest Fragmentation Study 7 118 | RCP Technical Summary

Figure 10 displays the change in edge density, calculated as total edge (in miles) divided by total forest area (in square miles). As expected, edge density is increasing over time, meaning that the edge component of the forest is making up a larger proportion of overall forest area in the County. The ratio is the miles of edge per square mile of forest land (Meneguzzo, 2006).

Figure 10: Edge Density (miles of edge per square mile of forest land)

V. Study Conclusions and Recommendations Forests are valuable ecological, environmental, and economic resources that provide direct and indirect benefits to people. While normally the overall loss of forest area is the focus of concern, the threats from forest fragmentation can be just as devastating. There is no shortage of evidence showing that important habitats are lost and ecosystems are disrupted by the fragmentation of forests and increases in forest edge.

Fragmentation of forests can reduce the amount of stable, core forest conditions that are essential to the survival of certain animal and plant species, while also providing the highest concentration of benefits to humans. Meanwhile, an increase in fragmentation also increases forest edge, which often invites invasive plant species into these valuable forest patches.

In addition to the physical fragmentation of forests, parcelization can also adversely impact the long-term health of forest patches. Parcelization can compromise the management and protection of large blocks of contiguous forests and can increase the risk of fragmentation. One owner within a contiguous block of forest can make a management decision that influences the integrity of the adjacent forested properties. In Maryland, as much as 76 percent of total forested acres are privately owned.

The creation of new forest edges is an unfortunate consequence of land development in forested areas. While the County has several strategies to maintain and preserve forest and tree canopy, special attention should be paid to the forested areas having the highest ecological value. Protecting large, contiguous blocks of forest and limiting edge effects in these blocks is essential to maintaining the ecological, environmental, and human benefits of these areas. Coordinating the management of forest area across multiple owners will also become increasingly important.

The research conducted as part of this study resulted in recommendations on ways to reduce and/or mitigate forest fragmentation. These ideas could be included in the Forest and Tree Canopy Strategy to be prepared as recommended by Plan 2035. Recommendations include: 8 Forest Fragmentation Study RCP Technical Summary | 119

•

Evaluate the Woodland and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Ordinance and the erosion and sediment control regulations for ways to reduce forest fragmentation during the land development process.

•

Prioritize the planting of newly created edges when forests are cleared. Planting newly created forest edges with a strip of caliper-sized trees could provide the shading and buffering effects needed to reduce the growth of invasive plants.

•

Emphasize the retention of connectivity of forest blocks and patches when reviewing land development applications and selecting land for permanent protection.

Forest Fragmentation Study 9 120 | RCP Technical Summary

Appendix A: Forest Fragmentation Study Methodology This study evaluated forest core, forest edge length, and edge density using forest cover data from 1938, 1993, 2000, and 2009. The following five steps outline the methodology used for this analysis. It is important to reiterate that data capture methods used in the years 1938, 1993, and 2000 were different, and at different scales, than those used in 2009, which influenced the measurement in absolute terms and limited the ability to compare specific amounts directly. However, directional change and trends in how forest fragmentation is occurring could be ascertained from the data available.

Step 1: Create Forest Canopy Layers for 1938, 1993, and 2000 Amend the existing 1938, 1993, and 2000 “vegetation” layers to exclude pieces of canopy coverage that do not meet the definition of “woodlands” in the County Code (areas less than 10,000 square feet in size and less than 50 feet wide).

•

Buffer in the polygons 25 feet with the results buffered out 25 feet. This provides a crude 50-footwide check on the data and removes features less than 50 feet wide. As a result, there is a slight loss of edge and smoothing of features. The loss is deemed insignificant at the countywide scale.

•

So that only areas of forest 10,000 square feet or greater are included, polygons smaller than 10,000 square feet are removed.

•

The result is a feature class of forest area greater than 10,000 square feet in size and at least 50 feet in width.

Step 2: Amend the 2009 Forest and Tree Canopy Data Layer Amend the 2009 Forest and Tree Canopy layer to remove the “tree canopy” portions and keep only those areas that are considered forest (same steps as above). The 2009 FTC layer was previously divided into forest canopy and tree canopy, so this step only entails a capture of the forest canopy polygons.

Step 3: Create forest core and forest edge attributes in new forest layers •

The 1938, 1993, 2000, and 2009 forest layers are “buffered in” 100 feet. A “TYPE” field is added in the attribute table and entered as “edge.”

•

Next, the forest edge layer is joined to the original forest layer from Step 1. The “TYPE” field is amended for non-“edge” attributes as “core” to represent areas of forest core.

•

This creates one forest layer that delineates forest edge and forest core.

Step 4: Calculate forest core and forest edge (acres) •

Forest core and edge are calculated using the “Summarize” function in ArcMap. Results are converted from square feet to acres.

•

The results are calculated as a percentage of total forest edge and forest core for each study year.

Step 5: Calculate edge density Forest edge density is calculated as the total length of forest edge in the County divided by the land area of the County (Meneguzzo, 2006).

Edge Density (ED)= E A Where E= total edge (miles) and A= total area (ac) 10 Forest Fragmentation Study RCP Technical Summary | 121

Appendix B: Data Discussion Existing countywide GIS layers for the study years 1938, 1993, 2000, and 2009 were used in this study. The accuracy of these data are limited by the prevailing technology used at the time of data capture. Vegetation layers for 1938, 1993, and 2000 were generated by manually digitizing aerial pictometry for each year. This method naturally leaves the data open to human inaccuracies. The 2009 data were derived from LiDAR data sets, which use radar technology and highly accurate satellite imagery. The difference in capture methods, scale, and technology between study years severely limits the ability to compare specific results over time (for example, to say that large forest blocks decreased by X acres between 1938 and 2009 would not be appropriate). Instead, this study provides a “snapshot” overview of forest fragmentation to demonstrate broad trends over time.

The improvement in the technology over time means that later data are more accurate than earlier data.

Because of this, when data are compared across study years it appears that the total amount of forest area has increased over time (as displayed on the top Total Forest line in Appendix Figure 1). In reality, the total acreage of forests did not necessarily increase, for example from 2000 to 2009; rather, the ability to measure forest canopy countywide improved. Even with this increased ability to capture forest canopy coverage, the areas of core forest decreased over the time period of the study, validating the trend.

Appendix Figure 1: Forest edge and core acres compared to total forest area

Acres of Edge and Core 160,000 140,000

148,325 134,197

137,841

142,244

77,092

72,289

120,000 100,000

89,926

80,000 60,000

87,523 60,802

60,749

1993

2000

44,271

69,955

40,000 20,000 0 1938 Edge (acres)

Core (acres)

2009 Total Forest

Forest Fragmentation Study 11 122 | RCP Technical Summary

Bibliography Anacostia Watershed Society. (2014, 6 12). Kudzu Removal: Next Steps. http://www.anacostiaws.org/news/ blog/tags/34 Collinge, S. K. (1996). Ecological Consequences of Habitat Fragmentation: Implications for Landscape Architecture and Planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 36:59-77. www.researchgate. net/profile/Sharon_Collinge/publication/223563064_Ecological_consequences_of_habitat_ fragmentation_implications_for_landscape_architecture_and_planning._Landsc_Urban_Plan/ links/0c96052d8985b4a32e000000.pdf Didham, R. K. (2010). The Ecological Consequences of Habitat Fragmentation. Encyclopedia of Life Sciences A21904. https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:EP101968&dsid=DS1. eSchoolToday. (2010). Forest degreadation and fragmentation. http://eschooltoday.com/forests/what-isforest-degradation.html Ewers, R.M. & Didham, R.K. (2005). Confounding Factors in the Detection of Species REsponse to Habitat Fragmentation. Biological Reviews pp. 117-142.

Fahrig, L. (1999). Forest Loss and Fragmentation: Which Has the Greater Effect on Persistence of Forestdwelling Animals? http://glel.carleton.ca/PDF/landPub/99/99%20Fahrig%20Forestry%20Book.pdf Hellmund, P. S. & Smith, D. (2006). Designing Greenways: Sustainable Landscapes for Nature and People, Second Edition (pg 94).

Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Watershed Services, and the Maryland Forest Service (2008).

Maryland Strategic Forest Lands Assessment. http://dnr2.maryland.gov/forests/Documents/sfla_ report.pdf Meneguzzo, Dacia M. & Hansen, Mark H. (2006). Quantifying Forest Fragmentation Using Geographic Information Systems and Forest Inventory and Analysis Plot Data. Eighth Annual Forest Inventory and Analysis Symposium, http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_wo079/gtr_wo079_143.pdf.

National Association of State Foresters (NASF). (2010). Maryland’s Forest Action Plan. www. forestactionplans.org/states/maryland.

Southern Forests for the Future (n.d.). Biological Consequences of Fragmentation. http://www. seesouthernforests.org/case-studies/biological-consequences-fragmentation Swift, T. L. & Hannon, S.J. (2010). Critical thresholds associated with habitat loss: a review of the concepts, evidence, and applications. Biological Reviews, pp. 35-53. http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/documents_ staticpost/59540/82534/Critical_Thresholds.pdf The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (2013). 2010 Forest Canopy Assessment, Prince George’s County, Maryland.

USDA. (2015). Western North Carolina Report Card on Forest Sustainability. http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/ pubs/39419 USDA Forest Service. (n.d.). Eastern Forest Environmental Threat Assessment Center. (2015, Retrieved from landcover maps. http://www.forestthreats.org/research/tools/landcovermaps?searchterm=Landcover+map

RCP Technical Summary | 123

Summary of Water Quality Biological Assessment Studies Conducted in Prince George’s County, Maryland Introduction The Biological Assessment of Streams and Watersheds in Prince George’s County is a series of reports which characterize the annual results of two biological surveys over a 13-year period, resulting in a countywide assessment of water quality. These reports provide a snapshot of stream and watershed quality based on bioassessment surveys completed by Tetra Tech, Inc. under contract with the Prince George’s County Department of the Environment (formerly the Department of Environmental Resources). Funding was also provided by The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission’s Prince George’s County Planning Department.

The reports measure water quality in three ways: 1. Estimates of degraded stream miles (percent) rely on an established protocol which extrapolates site-specific biological assessment results to the watershed or watershed group level.

2. Site-specific biological assessments are made based on the Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI), an established protocol which measures relative ecological degradation based on the abundance and diversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates (insects, crustaceans, and other small species whose presence can be used as indicators of water quality). The index score is translated to a narrative rating of good, fair, poor, or very poor for individual sample sites.

3. Visual-based physical habitat assessments are translated into physical habitat scores of comparable, supporting, partially supporting, or nonsupporting for individual sample sites based on an established protocol which rates the quality of riparian areas, overall stream stability and substrate condition, and reflect the potential of the stream to support healthy ecosystems.

The purpose of this summary is to present the results of the assessments completed to date in order to evaluate how the measurable objectives of the 2005 Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan (GI Plan) have or have not been met, and to make recommendations for future sampling and assessment of water quality in streams.

Background Prince George’s County is home to over 621 miles of known streams within three major river basins: the Patuxent River basin covers roughly the eastern half of the County, the Anacostia River basin covers the northwest portions, and the Potomac River basin covers the southwest portions. Map 1 displays the 3 river basins and 41 subwatersheds in the County, subwatersheds are numbered 2 through 42 which are consistent with the delineations used by the Prince George’s County Department of the Environment.

1

124 | RCP Technical Summary

Map 1: Prince George’s County River Basins and Department of the Environment Subwatersheds

2

RCP Technical Summary | 125

The water quality in the County’s streams has been deteriorating over time but prior to the use of biological stream survey studies, a reliable and replicable method for measuring long-term stream and subwatershed health had not been established at the County level.1 The 2002 General Plan contains a measurable objective to address the important issue of water quality: “Protect and enhance water quality in watersheds by, at a minimum, maintaining the 2001 condition ratings of all watersheds countywide.”

The 2001 condition ratings were based on a model that was used to predict water quality ratings based on existing development and potential future development (based on existing zoning of vacant or underutilized parcels, using 42 subwatersheds numbered 1 through 42 in alphabetical order). The model’s ratings were superseded in 2003 when the first round of the County’s biological assessment of streams was released—representing the first data set based on actual stream sampling and not modeling. These data were used in the 2005 Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan to set two measurable objectives based on the Round 1 data; however, because the 41 watersheds had been previously reported as 42 watersheds in alphabetical order as part of the General Plan preparation process, the same numbering system was used in the Green Infrastructure Plan (42 subwatersheds numbered in alphabetical order). The watershed numbering used in Rounds 1 and 2 are provided in Map 1 and are consistent with the numbering and naming used by the Department of the Environment.

The two measurable objectives (numbered 5 and 6 in the GI Plan) addressed the need to improve the biological integrity and habitat ratings. They were similarly worded as follows: “By the year 2025, improve stream habitat in each major watershed to elevate the Benthic Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) rating [or habitat rating for objective 6] of the watershed by at least one category using as a baseline the 1999-2003 biological assessment of the streams and watersheds of Prince George’s County completed by the Department of Environmental Resources.”

The plan acknowledges that future sampling would be needed to measure the change in biological integrity or habitat over time: “Tracking this objective: The County has just completed its first round of five-year samplings covering all watersheds. As the rotating sampling efforts are completed in the future, the Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity [or habitat] rating will be compared to the previous rating to determine if the rating is higher, lower, or the same.”

1

Water Resource Functional Master Plan. 2010. Prince George’s County Planning Department.

126 | RCP Technical Summary

3

There have been several difficulties in tracking water quality conditions over time as summarized in this report. When the Green Infrastructure Plan is updated, it is recommended that a different set of measurable objectives be used that are consistent with the metrics used in other water quality reporting.

Overview of Data Collection The Round 1 assessment was conducted between 1999 and 2003 and Round 2 was conducted between 2010 and 2013. Some sampling was conducted in the intervening years; however, these data are not contained within the rounds of data summarized by the consultant. The results of Round 1 were reported in the Biological Assessment of Streams and Watersheds in Prince George’s County Round 1, Year 3 (2003) report. The Round 2 results were reported in two documents, the Biological Assessment of Streams and Watersheds in Prince George’s County Round 2, Year 3 (2013) report and the Biological Assessment and Biological Assessment and Monitoring of Streams and Watersheds in Prince George’s County: A Summary of Results from Round 2.

There were important differences in methodology for data collection between Round 1 and Round 2 and between the water quality sampling watershed designations and the GI Plan watershed designations. The sampling scale was changed between rounds in order to bring the Round 2 sampling selection into line with the state random-sampling design protocol. The numbering of subwatersheds in the Green Infrastructure Plan was inconsistent with the numbering in the Round 1 and Round 2 assessments because a previous modeling study in 2001, used in the preparation of the General Plan objectives in 2002, where a 42 watershed delineation and an alphabetical naming system were used.

Summary of Results Before the results are summarized, it is important to note that the sampling is not done on the stream in the same location during each sampling cycle. Sampling sites are purposefully chosen in a random manner throughout each watershed in order to provide a broad characterization of the overall watershed. This is a contributing factor to the conclusion that Round 2 provides a better characterization of the watersheds, instead of providing a measure of change over time.

Between Round 1 and Round 2 the number of watersheds containing greater than 50 percent degraded miles increased from 15 percent to 18 percent. Notable increases in degraded stream miles (greater than a 25 percent increase) were reported in the Paint Branch, Horsepen Branch, and Black Swamp Creek subwatersheds; and in the Upper Northeast Branch/Lower Northeast Branch/Brier Ditch, and the Walker Branch/Crow's Branch/Bear Branch watershed groups. On average, the number of degraded stream miles in these watersheds and watershed groups increased by approximately 47 percent between sampling rounds.

The results showed that two watersheds, Paint Branch and Oxon Run, had 100 percent of their stream miles degraded in Round 2. The only statistically significantly change between rounds, as reported by the consultant, was in the Paint Branch watershed where percent of degraded stream miles increased from 37.6 percent in Round 1 to 100 percent in Round 2. Notable decreases in degrade stream miles were reported in the Upper and Lower Anacostia (Watts Branch) watershed and the Southwest Branch watershed.

4

RCP Technical Summary | 127

The increases and decreases in degraded stream miles, over such a short time frame and with limited sample sizes, are most likely to be corrections to the base information and a greater clarification of actual stream conditions. They are less likely to reflect actual changes in, or trends regarding, water quality.

The lack of statistically significant change in water quality measures demonstrate that water quality in the County has not changed considerably since the early 1990s. According to Tetra Tech, this is not necessarily because efforts of the County (and others) to improve water quality have failed but rather that the additional water quality stressors have outpaced restoration efforts: “…restoration and protection activities may have been overtaken by new stressors and sources introduced by ongoing development, expansion of areas of disturbance and urban/suburban areas, and aging infrastructure. This suggests that the County’s investment in environmental management may be assisting the watersheds in “holding their own” in the face of ongoing development, increased population, aging infrastructure, and new and unknown stressors and has helped prevent conditions from being even worse, thus allowing a partial statement of success to be made. There is substantial additional effort needed if aquatic biological conditions (as the principal indicator of watershed health) are to move in the desired direction. The assessment similarities suggest that stressor management, whether in the form of stormwater (or other) best management practices (BMP), control of chemical pollution as toxics or nutrient input, or enhancement of physical habitat conditions, has been insufficient to reduce stressor loads to the degree necessary for biological recovery.”2 The 2005 Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan contains two measurable objectives that use the Round 1 data as a baseline. Objectives 5 and 6 state the goal of elevating the B-IBI rating and the visual physical habitat rating of each watershed by one narrative rating by 2025. Because the objectives are intended to be assessed in 2025, the data collected in 2010-2013 is only about 10 years into the 20-year evaluation period.

In addition, water quality takes a long time to correct itself even if significant changes in land use patterns have occurred, which is not the case. Based on the Round 2 results it appears that that Objectives 5 and 6 may not be met by 2035. The lack of significant difference may also suggest that the timeframe between sampling periods was too short and/or that the results reported in Round 2 confirm the results found in Round 1.

Ongoing and consistent data collection will enable the County to characterize watersheds over longer periods of time. Staff recommends that future water quality assessments continue to use established state protocols and to utilize methods that will allow comparisons over time. This may include replacing water quality measures of B-IBI and physical habitat rating with percent degraded stream miles as a more appropriate measure of water quality for watersheds and watershed groups.

2

Biological Assessment and Monitoring of Streams and Watersheds in Prince George’s County. Summary of Round 2. 2010-2013.

128 | RCP Technical Summary

5

Measured Results Percent of Degraded Stream Miles Percent of degraded stream miles and percent change between rounds were reported within individual watersheds and, when the number of sampling locations was too small, the subwatersheds were grouped.

The results are shown in Table 1.

While the percentage of degraded stream miles increased in some watersheds and decreased in others between Round 1 and Round 2, these changes were not statistically significant except for the Paint Branch watershed, which reported a 62.4 percent increase in degraded stream miles. Spice Creek and Black Swamp Creek showed an increase of 14.3 percent and 74.8 percent of degraded stream miles; however, since these subwatersheds had 0 stream miles sampled in Round 1 there is no ability to report the percent change accurately.

Table 1: Estimates of Biologically Degraded Stream Miles.

Assessments based on the Maryland Biological Stream Survey’s Benthic-Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI). The watershed identification numbers are in parenthesis. This table is from the Biological Assessment and Monitoring of Streams and Watersheds in Prince George’s County Round 2, Year 3 Report (2013).

[See next page for Table 1.]

6

RCP Technical Summary | 129

Table 1: Estimates of Biologically Degraded Stream Miles Strea m mi l es (1s t-4th order)

Potomac

Patuxent

Anacostia

Major Basin

Watershed Paint Branch (05) Indian Creek (07) Upper Beaverdam Creek (08) Northwest Br. + Sligo Creek (09+14) Upper Northeast Br. + Lower Northeast Br. + Brier Ditch (12+15+16) Lower Beaverdam Crk (19) Upper Anacostia River + Lower Anacostia River (Watts Branch) (20+22) Upper Patuxent River (02) Walker Br. + Crow’s Br. + Bear Br. (03+04+06) Horsepen Br. (10) Folly Br. + Baldhill Br. + Lottsford Br (11+13+17) Northeast Br. (Western Br.) (18) Southwest Br. (21) Spice Creek (32) Black Swamp Creek 36) Swanson Creek (37) Mataponi Creek (38) Lower Patuxent River (39) Collington Branch (40) Western Branch (41) Charles Branch (42) Oxon Run (23) Henson Crk. + Broad Crk. + Hunters Mill Crk. (23+28+29) Tinkers Crk. (25) Upper Potomac River + Swan Crk. + Lower Potomac (26+30+33) Piscataway Creek (27) Mattawoman Creek (31) Pomonkey Crk. and Zekiah Swamp Crk. (34+35)

Total 17.00 20.40 16.30 11.90

Round 1 Round 2 Change (%) (%) (%) 37.6 100 62.4 58.3 44.5 -13.8 62.6 71.5 8.9 100.0 100 0.0

15.10

74.2

99.9

25.7

16.20

91.4

71.4

-19.9

6.70

100.0

67

-33.0

43.90 13.40 9.90 15.00 9.90 17.30 16.00 10.60 15.90 24.20 65.90 29.20 38.30 24.50 10.90

62.4 29.9 33.3 65.3 74.7 89.0 0.0 0.0 25.2 18.2 54.9 58.2 33.4 20.0 100.0

52.6 59.9 74.7 83.4 49.8 57.1 14.3 74.8 14.3 0 57.1 33.3 50 40 100

-9.8 30.0 41.4 18.1 -24.9 -32.0 14.3 74.8 -10.9 -18.2 2.2 -24.9 16.6 20.0 0.0

30.90

85.1

71.5

-13.7

16.60

66.9

71.4

4.5

8.10

39.5

24.9

-14.6

56.90 35.60 12.59

14.9 46.1 24.6

37.5 26.7 40

22.5 -19.4 15.4

The number of watersheds containing greater than 50 percent degraded miles increased from 15 percent in Round 1 to 18 percent in Round 2. Compared to Round 1, Round 2 showed that the percentage of biologically degraded stream miles was 52 percent countywide, a three percent increase from Round 1 (Table 2).3 At the basin level, 79 percent, 53 percent, and 47 percent of stream miles in the Anacostia, Potomac, and Patuxent basins, respectively, are classified as having degraded water quality in the Round 2 report. This is an increase of 7 percent in the Anacostia River basin and 2 percent in the Potomac and Patuxent basins from the first assessment.

3Biological

Assessment and Monitoring of Streams and Watersheds in Prince Georges’ County. Round 2, Year 3. 2013.

130 | RCP Technical Summary

7

Table 2: Change in Round 1 (1999-2003) and Round 2 (2010-2013) Percent Degraded Stream Miles Anacostia

Patuxent

Potomac

County

Round 1

72%

51%

45%

49%

Round 2

79%

53%

47%

52%

7%

2%

2%

3%

Percent Change

Results are not statistically significant. An increase in percentage change in degraded stream miles between Round 1 and Round 2 is in red.

Map 2 displays degraded stream miles in each subwatershed or subwatershed group by 10 percent gradient categories. The map shows that, as expected, there was a higher percentage of degraded stream miles within the Anacostia and Patuxent River basins.

[See next page for Map 2.]

8

RCP Technical Summary | 131

Map 2: Percentage Degraded Stream Miles in Round 2

9

132 | RCP Technical Summary

Benthic-Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) and Physical Habitat Quality Assessment Water quality assessment for B-IBI are reported as a narrative rating of good, fair, poor, or very poor.

Physical habitat quality assessments are reported as narrative ratings of comparable, supporting, partially supporting, or nonsupporting based on points scored in the visual-based physical habitat survey.

Objectives 5 and 6 in the Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan were to elevate the B-IBI and physical habitat ratings by at least one narrative rating by 2025 (using Round 1 results as a baseline). For the purposes of the Green Infrastructure Plan, the physical habitat ratings were converted to use the good, fair, and poor narrative labels for ease of comparison.

Table 3: Narrative Ratings

What Does it Measure?

Narrative Ratings

Benthic-Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) Measured type and frequency of benthic insects Good Fair Poor Very poor

Visual-Based Physical Habitat Quality Assessment of stream’s capacity or potential to support healthy biota Comparable Supporting Partially supporting Nonsupporting

Round 2 results showed no statistically significant changes in the narrative ratings from those reported in Round 1 (see the table in Appendix A: Mean B-IBI and Habitat Rating by Watershed Number and Watershed Group Results from Round 1 and Round 2). Ten years into the implementation cycle and Objectives 5 and 6 of the 2005 GI Plan have not been met.

In both rounds, the average countywide water quality rating using the B-IBI was POOR and the average physical habitat was PARTIALLY SUPPORTING. In Round 2 no watersheds were rated as good, only 10 percent were rated as fair using the B-IBI. The majority, 51 percent and 39 percent respectively, for a total of 90 percent, were rated as poor or very poor (Table 4). Using the visual-based habitat quality, only 17 percent of watersheds were found to be supporting while the majority, 46 percent and 37 percent, for a total of 83 percent, were classified as partially supporting or nonsupporting (Table 5).

Table 4: Results of B-IBI from Round 2 by Watershed Count

Percent

Good

0

0%

Fair

4

10%

Poor

21

51%

Very Poor

16

39%

10

RCP Technical Summary | 133

Table 5: Results of Visual-based Physical Habitat Quality Assessment from Round 2 by Watershed Count

Percent

Comparable

0

0%

Supporting

7

17%

Partially Supporting

19

46%

Nonsupporting

15

37%

The time period between rounds reflects roughly half of the 20-year timespan planned to meet the objectives in the Green Infrastructure Plan. Because water quality changes cannot be observed in short time periods even if significant land use changes occur, water quality monitoring should be continued at the subwatershed level into the future to measure changes over time.

Recommendations The lack of a statistical changes between the results of Round 1 and Round 2 can be viewed as demonstrating that measures taken to change land cover conditions and improve water quality have not been effective thus far. Ongoing development, increasing population, aging infrastructure, and other factors are not going to improve this situation without significant changes. It appears that additional effort is needed if aquatic biological conditions (as the principal indicator of watershed health) are to move in the desired direction.4 However, it is still important to note that efforts at sediment or stormwater discharge control, pollution prevention, trash pickup, and engendering community stewardship have likely had some local successes and associated benefits which may not be reflected in the data yet. Local or small scale activities such as these, if applied at broad scales in a rigorous manner, can collectively lead to overall healthier watersheds.

The Round 2 report contained no recommendations. Recommendations were provided in a supplementary report by the consultant. In their Biological Assessment and Monitoring of Streams and Watersheds in Prince George’s County: A Summary of Results from Round 2, Tetra Tech provides the following recommendations to improve water quality methods and strengthen future water quality assessments.

Tetra Tech Recommendations: 1. Continue routine and consistent watershed-scale biological monitoring into the future.

Judging effectiveness of countywide watershed management and the cumulative effects of water quality improvement strategies requires routine monitoring of biological conditions conducted consistently over an extended timeframe.

2. Continue efforts to improve overall ecological conditions.

To make investment more effective, a Targeted Linkage Analysis is recommended to help better understand the links between the stressors causing impairment and their sources so that it will elevate confidence in prioritization and design of restoration and protection measures.

4Biological

Assessment and Monitoring of Streams and Watersheds in Prince George’s County. Summary of Round 2. 2010-2013.

134 | RCP Technical Summary

11

3. Perform source-stressor-response linkage analysis.

A focused effort is recommended so that understanding gained from the linkage analysis and biological assessment results can be used to enhance decision making in prioritizing watersheds for protection/restoration, and to specify the kinds of management activities that would be most appropriate.

4. Enhance prioritization of watersheds, and restoration and protection activities, by integrating knowledge from linkage analyses.

Prioritization of restorative efforts is needed to address the Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) requirements. Targeted analysis would allow the County to spend money more wisely, meeting both the regulatory requirements, and improving biological conditions of the streams and rivers.

5. Use biological assessment results and linkage analyses as input to Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) implementation and WIP. [No additional explanation of this recommendation was provided.]

Staff Recommendations After reviewing the Round 1 and Round 2 results and Tetra Tech’s recommendations, staff recommends the following actions moving forward:   

  

The Round 2 assessments should be used as the baseline assessments for water quality monitoring moving forward.

Long-term, consistent sampling and monitoring methods should be carried out for the next 20 years to provide the data needed for an accurate assessment of water quality changes over time.

The GI Plan update should shift from using watershed narrative ratings to assess trends to degraded stream miles as the measure for comparative purposes over time to be more consistent with the WIPII reporting.

A better connection is needed between data collection and decision-makers regarding water quality so that the data collected are used for making water quality improvement decisions.

The individual sampling site data from both rounds should be used to better evaluate where water quality improvements should be focused.

Water quality monitoring should be continued at the subwatershed level or subwatershed group level to measure stream water quality over time. The groupings of subwatersheds should remain consistent with those used in Round 2.

12

RCP Technical Summary | 135

Sources: Tetra Tech. Biological Assessment and Monitoring of Streams and Watersheds in Prince George’s County.

Summary of Round 1. 1999-2003.

Tetra Tech. Biological Assessment and Monitoring of Streams and Watersheds in Prince George’s County.

Summary of Round 2. 2010-2013.

Tetra Tech. Biological Assessment and Monitoring of Streams and Watersheds in Prince George’s County: A Summary of Results from Round 2.

GIS Data Layers also provided by Tetra Tech.

Prepared by: M-NCPPC staff including CJ Lammers, Project Manager, and Angela Martinez, University of Maryland Graduate Research Assistant.

13

136 | RCP Technical Summary

Appendix A Mean B-IBI and Habitat Rating by Watershed Number and Watershed Group Results from Round 1 (1999-2003) and Round 2 (2010-2013) Sampling. Watershed numbers correspond to Department of the Environment watershed ID. Table reprinted from Biological Assessment and Monitoring of Streams and Watersheds in Prince George’s County Round 2, Year 3 Report (2013).

Narrative Ratings: B-IBI Rating: G=good, F=fair, P=poor, VP=very poor Physical Habitat Rating: C=comparable, S=supporting, PS=partially supporting, NS=non-supporting

14

RCP Technical Summary | 137

15

138 | RCP Technical Summary

THE ECONOMIC VALUES OF NATURE: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES OF FOREST AND TREE CANOPY Prince George’s County, MD | April 2015

RCP Technical Summary | 139

THE ECONOMIC VALUES OF NATURE Introduction

In 2013, the United States Department of Forests and trees provide multiple benefits Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service Northern to the people who live and work near them. Research Station calculated the ecosystem service values of the county’s forest and In Prince George’s County, Maryland, 52 tree canopy. The team used the USDA Forest percent of the county’s 485 square miles Service i-Tree model (www.itreetools.org) are covered by forest and tree canopy. to measure the economic values provided This natural resource is an integral part of by the county’s forest and tree canopy the infrastructure of the community and (cleaner air and water, reduced emissions provides benefits to both people and the and cooler communities). The modeling environment called “ecosystem services”: system known as i-Tree was developed by cleaner air, cleaner water, reduced the USDA Forest Service and is widely used greenhouse gas emissions and cooler across the U.S. The system uses local tree, communities. environmental, and population data to estimate various ecosystem services and The information provided in this report is the result of an evaluation of the economic values derived from forests and trees. value of the ecosystem services the forest and tree canopy provides and the associated Key Findings dollar value of these services to the county. This study marks the first time that the For the purposes of this study, the forest values and benefits of Prince George’s and tree canopy has been separated into County’s forest and tree canopy coverage forest canopy coverage (wooded areas a have been quantified. Following are some minimum of 10,000 square feet and at least of the study’s key findings regarding the 50 feet in width equals 44 percent) and tree economic value of the county’s 52 percent canopy coverage (small fragments of woods forest and tree canopy coverage: or individual trees equals 8 percent).

• The county’s forest and tree canopy improves air quality by removing more Assessment Methodology than 5,100 metric tons of air pollutants In 2011, the Spatial Analysis Laboratory per year–a service worth $21 million at the University of Vermont (UVM) annually. (See pages 3 and 4) measured the county’s forest and tree canopy coverage. Using high resolution remote sensing data from 2009 that was able to capture individual trees as short as 6 feet tall, UVM determined that the county contains 160,947 acres of forest and tree canopy coverage, equivalent to 52 percent of the county.

Plan Prince George’s 2035 Approved General Plan icons from left to right: Natural Environment; Land Use; Community Heritage, Culture, and Design, Transportation and Mobility; Public Facilities; Economic Prosperity; Healthy Communities; Housing and Neighborhoods. For each value discussed in this report, the associated Plan 2035 icons are displayed at the top of the page.

1 Prince George’s County’s Forest and Tree Canopy

140 | RCP Technical Summary

•

Prince George’s County’s forests and trees help prevent water pollution by reducing the amount of polluted runoff by 4.3 billion gallons per year.

Removing pollutants from the same amount of runoff would cost the county approximately $12.8 billion annually. (See pages 5 and 6)

•

Each year, the county’s forest and tree canopy absorbs 211,000 metric tons of carbon–a service worth $16.6 million annually.

Prince George’s 2009 Forest and Tree (See pages 7 and 8)

•

The amount of carbon stored over the lifetime of the forest and tree canopy is estimated to be 5 million metric tons, valued at $395 million. This is equivalent to the carbon dioxide emitted by five coal burning power plants.

(See pages 7 and 8)

•

The forest and tree canopy also helps keep communities cool by shading homes, breaking up urban “heat islands,” and releasing water vapor into the air. In areas where more forests and trees are present, summer temperatures can be reduced by up to 1 degree Fahrenheit.

Direct shading of the ground and release of water through tree leaves can result in temperature reductions of 9 to 13 degrees. (See pages 9 and 10)

These findings demonstrate the economic value of preserving and enhancing the county’s existing 52 percent forest and tree canopy coverage.

“The nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased, and not impaired, in value.”

— Theodore Roosevelt

Canopy Coverage

Forest Canopy (44 percent) Tree Canopy (8 percent)

Road

The Economic Values of Nature: An Assessment of the Ecosystem Services of Forest and Tree Canopy

2

RCP Technical Summary | 141

CLEANER AIR How Values Are Measured

In the American Lung Association’s recent State of the Air 2013 report, the county received an ozone grade of F and a particle pollution grade of C for the number of days annually with unhealthy air. Poor air quality is not just a county issue; the entire Washington metropolitan area is designated by the U.S. EPA as a non-attainment area for not meeting regional air quality standards for ozone (O3) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). However, there have been significant improvements in air quality over the past decade due to stricter regulations to cut pollution from sources such as vehicles and power plants.

Forests and trees play important roles in cleaning the air and making communities healthier places to live. Trees, forests, and urban green infrastructure practices, such as green roofs, help improve air quality by reducing air temperatures, removing gaseous pollutants, and filtering out fine particles that can enter the lungs and cause serious health problems. By providing shade and releasing water into the air, trees lower air temperatures and reduce the amount of power that needs to be generated, resulting in reduced pollution from power plants.

Prince George’s County’s forest and tree canopy removes 5,100 metric tons of pollutants per year a service worth $21 million annually.

3 Prince George’s County’s Forest and Tree Canopy

142 | RCP Technical Summary

The insulation properties of green roofs and – to a smaller extent green walls – similarly limit air pollutants from power plants by improving energy efficiency in buildings.

The USDA Forest Service has developed a series of tools to evaluate the air pollution removal capacity of forests and trees for several common air pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act. These include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), inhalable coarse particles (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). These tools were applied to evaluate how effective the county’s forest and tree canopy is at removing them.

Overall, it was determined that the forest and tree canopy removes 5,100 metric tons of pollutants annually–a service worth $21 million a year. Within the county’s 27 municipalities, trees provide annual air pollution removal benefits of $3.9 million.

Related Strategies

While it is difficult to address air quality in the county because it is a regional issue, the 2005 Approved Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan contains several strategies to address local air quality.

The Green Infrastructure Plan Update should include strategies that can result in improved air quality by increasing appropriate forest preservation and tree planting. Consideration should be given to increasing tree planting in highly populated areas and enhancing urban tree planting strategies. These strategies should favor low-maintenance, long-lived tree species that support biodiversity and that are not pollution sensitive.

Process

The analysis of annual pollution removal capacity and values of Prince George’s County’s forest and tree canopy were prepared by the USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station. This process involved: deriving local hourly data for weather, upper air and surface meteorology, and pollution; deriving forest area data and location-related values; generating annual pollution removal amounts using i-Tree; and generating values based on local incidence of adverse health effects.

Data and Sources

• Local weather station data on air pressure, temperature, wind speed, and relative humidity for year 2008.

• Local air pollution monitoring station data for year 2008.

• 2009 Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) land cover dataset, derived from University of Vermont, Spatial Analysis Laboratory.

• Percent evergreen tree cover derived from National Land Cover Data (NLCD) data and leaf area index values sourced from Modis Satellites and field data (for urban areas).

HOW WELL DOES THE COUNTY’S 52 PERCENT FOREST AND TREE CANOPY CLEAN THE AIR EVERY YEAR?

$ Millons in

Metric Tons Removed

Avoided Costs

1,400 700 0

4.2 3.5 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

2,100

Ozone (O3)

2,800

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

3,500

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

4,200

4.9 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

4,900

Inhalable Coarse Particles (PM10)

12

2.8 2.1 1.4 0.7 0

The Economic Values of Nature: An Assessment of the Ecosystem Services of Forest and Tree Canopy

4

RCP Technical Summary | 143

CLEANER WATER How Values Are Measured

The solution to excessive stormwater runoff is more complex than just planting When it rains, a large amount of water is intercepted by the leaves and bark, allowing more trees or adding more green spaces.

Increasing tree plantings, improving forest the water to slowly evaporate back up reserves, and preserving undisturbed into the air, be absorbed by the tree, or vegetative cover are valuable components be released into the ground over time.

Depending on the size and species, a mature of an integrated strategy to reduce polluted urban stormwater runoff. deciduous tree can intercept up to 760 gallons of water per year, while a mature Related Strategies evergreen can intercept more than 4,000 gallons annually. Multiplied by the number The 2005 Approved Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan established a countywide of trees in a community, the amount green infrastructure network of streams, intercepted can be significant. wetlands, buffers, forests and other areas of Prince George’s County’s existing forest and countywide significance that are critical to tree canopy reduces stormwater runoff decreasing the amount of stormwater runoff by 4.3 billion gallons per year, which is and pollutants that reach local waters. In enough to fill more than 6,500 olympic-sized addition, recent updates to the county’s pools. That amounts to saving $12.8 billion stormwater regulations are encouraging annually on stormwater treatment costs. a more comprehensive, smaller-scale approach to controlling polluted runoff.

Reducing stormwater runoff has multiple benefits. Large amounts of runoff can change stream flow, increase flooding, erode stream banks and channels, destroy fish habitat, and impact water quality.

From a public health perspective, nonpoint source pollution from polluted stormwater runoff has been linked to chronic and acute illnesses from exposure through drinking water, seafood, and contact recreation.

Prince George’s County’s forest and tree canopy reduces the amount of polluted runoff by 4.3 billion gallons per year, saving the county roughly

$12.8 billion annually.

5 Prince George’s County’s Forest and Tree Canopy

144 | RCP Technical Summary

The Green Infrastructure Plan Update should include strategies to promote and encourage the use of green stormwater infrastructure such as trees, rain gardens, conservation landscaping, and living infrastructure such as green roofs and walls.

Process

Stormwater runoff reduction was evaluated by the USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station using the i-Tree Hydro model. This model estimates the effects of the forest and tree canopy and impervious cover percentages on hourly stream flow values for a watershed, as well as changes in water quality using hourly runoff estimates and mean and median national event mean concentration values.

The i-Tree Hydro model was calibrated using hourly stream flow data to yield the best fit between modeled and measured stream flows for one watershed within the coastal

plain. After calibration, the model was run a number of times under various forest and tree canopy and impervious cover scenarios to determine the impact on stream flow.

Average runoff effects per unit of canopy and impervious cover from this modeled watershed were then applied to the watersheds in the county.

Data and Sources

• Hourly stream flow and digital elevation model data from the Rock Creek Gauging Station.

• Local weather station data.

• 2009 UTC land cover dataset, derived from University of Vermont, Spatial Analysis Laboratory.

WITHIN EACH WATERSHED, HOW MANY GALLONS OF POLLUTED RUNOFF DOES THE FOREST AND TREE COVER CAPTURE? Gallons Annual Reduced Value (millions) (millions) 1. BALDHILL BRANCH 49.67 $146 2. BEAR BRANCH 17.45 $52 3. BLACK SWAMP CREEK 66.68 $197 4. BRIER DITCH 39.52 $117 5. BROAD CREEK 51.07 $151 6. CHARLES BRANCH 169.01 $498 7. COLLINGTON BRANCH 191.24 $564 8. CROWS BRANCH 13.09 $39 9. FOLLY BRANCH 58.96 $174 10. HENSON CREEK 190.82 $563 11. HORSEPEN BRANCH 64.30 $190 12. HUNTERS MILL 21.18 $62 13. INDIAN CREEK 128.23 $378 14. LOTTSFORD BRANCH 28.69 $85 15. LOWER ANACOSTIA RIVER 22.46 $66 16. LOWER BEAVERDAM CREEK 134.04 $395 17. LOWER NORTHEAST BR (ANA) 41.24 $122 18. LOWER PATUXENT RIVER 203.52 $600 19. LOWER POTOMAC RIVER 51.12 $151 20. MATAPONI CREEK 184.02 $543 21. MATTAWOMAN CREEK 236.57 $698 22. MIDDLE PATUXENT RIVER 319.05 $941 23. NORTHEAST BRANCH (WB) 65.33 $193 24. NORTHWEST BRANCH (ANA) 68.19 $201 25. OXON RUN 88.05 $260 26. PAINT BRANCH 85.58 $252 27. PISCATAWAY CREEK 467.49 $1,379 28. POMONKEY CREEK 28.64 $85 29. SLIGO CREEK 11.08 $33 30. SOUTHWEST BRANCH 132.68 $391 31. SPICE CREEK 102.34 $302 32. SWAN CREEK 25.59 $75 33. SWANSON CREEK 79.91 $236 34. TINKERS CREEK 145.23 $428 35. UPPER ANACOSTIA RIVER 22.94 $68 36. UPPER BEAVERDAM CREEK 133.79 $395 37. UPPER NORTHEAST BR (ANA) 61.98 $183 38. UPPER PATUXENT RIVER 174.82 $516 39. UPPER POTOMAC RIVER 23.09 $68 40. WALKER BRANCH 16.51 $49 41. WESTERN BRANCH 247.25 $729 42. ZEKIA SWAMP CREEK 74.60 $220 Watershed

40 2

8

13 26

38

36

24

37

29

4

17 35

11

9 1

14

15 13

22

23

16

7

30

41 10

39 12 32

19

6

34

5 20

27

31

21

28

42

33

18 3

Gallons Reduced 467 million 88 million 11 million

The Economic Values of Nature: An Assessment of the Ecosystem Services of Forest and Tree Canopy

6

RCP Technical Summary | 145

REDUCED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS How Values Are Measured

Greenhouse gases are those gases in the atmosphere that trap and retain heat. Since the late 1700s, the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has continued to increase. This rise is considered one of the leading causes of climate change and severe weather occurrences.

Related Strategies

Prince George’s County has prepared a draft Climate Action Plan (CAP) to address the challenges of climate change. It identifies ways to reduce greenhouse gas production from various activities, including transportation and land use. Strategies include ensuring that the county’s forest and tree canopy is maintained, if not increased; One of the most abundant greenhouse identifying opportunities to promote and gases in the atmosphere is carbon dioxide provide technical assistance on sustainable (CO2). Forests and trees can help reduce practices; and the greening of streets the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by and rights-of-way. Because the amount absorbing carbon from the air and storing it of carbon removed and stored increases in their roots, trunks, branches, and leaves. with healthier, longer-lived trees, specific They do this in two ways: first, by absorbing strategies should be put into place to ensure carbon from the atmosphere via the process forest and tree health and longevity. of photosynthesis as trees grow, and second, by storing carbon or “sequestering” Process it in solid form in trunks and branches for Forest and tree carbon absorption and the duration of the tree’s life. storage estimates were determined by the In Prince George’s County, the USDA Forest USDA Forest Service using the following steps: Urban tree field data from 28 cities Service estimated that the amount of and 6 states were used to determine the carbon absorbed by its forests and trees is about 211,000 metric tons per year with an average carbon density per unit of canopy associated value of $16.6 million. This is the coverage. These data were then applied equivalent of removing more than 161,000 to countywide forest and tree cover measurements to estimate the total carbon vehicles from the road annually, or the absorbed and stored annually. carbon dioxide emissions from the annual energy use of more than 39,000 homes.

The amount of carbon stored over the canopy’s lifetime is approximately 5,035,000 metric tons with an associated value of $395 million. That amount is the equivalent of offsetting the carbon dioxide emissions from consuming almost 87 million gallons of gasoline, or the emissions from 5 coal fired power plants.

The county’s forest and tree canopy absorb enough carbon each year to offset the greenhouse gas emissions of

161,000 passenger vehicles a year...and store more carbon than that emitted by

5 coal-fired powerplants.

7 Prince George’s County’s Forest and Tree Canopy

146 | RCP Technical Summary

SSIONS Data and Sources

• Field data and model analyses from several comparable cities and states to estimate sequestration per unit of tree cover.

• 2009 UTC land cover dataset by the University of Vermont, Spatial Analysis Laboratory.

• Percent evergreen (coniferous) derived from the 2006 and 2010 NLCD land cover.

A single tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, and can sequester 1 ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old.

HOW MUCH ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DOES THE COUNTY’S FOREST AND TREE CANOPY ABSORB AND STORE?

Measure Annual amount of carbon absorbed during growth process

Value 211,000 metric tons/ year

Amount of

5,035,000 metric tons

carbon stored

for the duration of the canopy’s life

$16,600,000/year

$395,218,000

Annual: 9,600 tons Lifetime: 228,000 tons Annual: 100 tons Lifetime: 2,400 tons Annual: 3 tons Lifetime: 70 tons The Economic Values of Nature: An Assessment of the Ecosystem Services of Forest and Tree Canopy

8

RCP Technical Summary | 147

COOLER COMMUNITIES How Values Are Measured

lowering urban temperatures has markedly increased. The strategic placement of Urban trees, green roofs, vegetated trees around buildings, impervious areas, landscapes, and forest canopy help keep communities within a healthy temperature and throughout the community matters range. Trees and vegetation cool the air by in terms of energy reduction, cooling, and releasing water to the air and by absorbing other benefits. heat energy. “Oasis effects” of 9 to 13 Plan Prince George’s 2035 has identified degrees Fahrenheit have been measured a greater need for carefully planned and as a result of direct shading of the ground designed urban green and open spaces surface and release of water through that provide multiple ecosystem services. tree leaves. Other studies have found Establishing tree planting and retention that trees can reduce the temperature of strategies to not only increase the urban asphalt by up to 36 degrees and vehicle tree canopy but to target increases in cabin temperatures by up to 47 degrees vegetation in areas where temperatures Fahrenheit. are highest could greatly enhance the The cooler air temperatures experienced in areas with more canopy coverage can have significant positive impacts on human health. During heat waves, communities with ample canopy and vegetative cover stay cooler during the day, which is the time when heat is most likely to reach dangerous levels for human health. Even on regular summer days, trees help temper neighborhood heat. Trees, green roofs, and vegetated areas all contribute to the reduction of heat transmitted to buildings.

Scientists have estimated that strategically planting trees and vegetation for shade can reduce a building’s annual energy use by up to 25 percent.

health benefits and quality of life in affected communities. Combined with information on age, income, and other factors, measures can also focus on ensuring that Prince George’s County’s communities are treated equitably with regard to tree canopy coverage.

Studies have found that trees can reduce surface asphalt temperatures by up to 36°F and vehicle cabin temperatures by up to 47°F.

By taking stock of the canopy and other vegetative cover, strategies to increase tree plantings and green spaces can be developed to reduce the urban heat island effect in targeted areas.

Related Strategies

Over the past decade, the ability to measure and evaluate the role forests, trees, and other vegetation play to help 9 Prince George’s County’s Forest and Tree Canopy

148 | RCP Technical Summary

Process

The average temperature reduction values of Prince George’s County’s forest and tree canopy were prepared by the USDA

Forest Service, Northern Research Station.

The process for determining temperature reduction values involved several steps, including: generating land cover and elevation predictor variables; analyzing county weather data; and generating a map showing average temperature reduction values by census block group.

Data and Sources • • •

2009 UTC land cover dataset, derived from University of Vermont, Spatial Analysis Laboratory.

USGS National Elevation Dataset.

Prince George’s County, MD, weather station data for select days between June 1 and August 31, 2008.

WHAT PORTIONS OF THE COUNTY ARE MOST IN NEED OF ADDITIONAL FOREST AND TREE CANOPY COVERAGE TO INCREASE PROTECTION FROM SUMMERTIME HEAT?

Average Temperature Reduction Benefit (°F) of Current Forest & Tree Canopy

by Census Block Group 0.3°F 0.6°F 1.0°F The Economic Values of Nature: An Assessment of the Ecosystem Services of Forest and Tree Canopy 10

RCP Technical Summary | 149

SOURCES 1.

Akbari, H. 2002. “Shade trees reduce building energy use and CO2 emissions from power plants.” Environmental Pollution 116 (2002) S119–S126. www. fs.fed.us/psw/programs/uesd/uep/ products/12/psw_cufr703_Akbari_ Reduce_Energy_Use.pdf.

2. American Lung Association. 2013. State of the Air Report, www.stateoftheair. org/2013/states/maryland/princegeorge-s-24033.html.

3. Asaeda, T., V. Ca, and A. Wake. 1996.

Heat Storage of Pavement and Its Effect on the Lower Atmosphere. Atmos.

Environ. 30: 413-427 4. Cappiella, K., T. Schueler, and T. Wright.

2005. Urban watershed forestry manual: Part 1. Methods for increasing forest cover in a watershed. Newtown Square PA: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry.

5. Center for Urban Forest Research. 2001.

Benefits of the Urban Forest: Fact Sheet #1. Davis, CA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

6. EPA, 1999. Office of Wastewater Management Economic Analysis of the Final Phase II Storm Water Rule: Final Report. www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/ econ_chap_5.pdf.

7. EPA, 2000. National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report. Report EPA841-R-02-001.

8. EPA, 2008. Reducing Urban Heat Islands: Compendium of Strategies. www.epa. gov/hiri/resources/compendium.htm.

9. EPA, 2014. Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants (www. epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/ancl.html).

10. EPA, 2014. Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator at: www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/ energy-resources/calculator.html.

11 Prince George’s County’s Forest and Tree Canopy

150 | RCP Technical Summary

11. Hirabayashi, S., C. N. Kroll, D. J. Nowak., 2011. Component-based development and sensitivity analyses of an air pollutant dry deposition model.

Environmental Modeling & Software 26:804-816.

12. Maldonado, Jerry, DER, 2014. Numbers based on personal conversation on 1/8/2014. In Prince George’s County, treating 1/2 inch runoff for 1 acre impervious costs on average $80,000.

This converts to $2.95 per gallon of stormwater retained.

13. Nowak, D., E. Greenfield, R. Hoehn, and E. Lapoint. 2013. Carbon storage and sequestration by trees in urban and community areas of the United States.

Environmental Pollution. 178: 229-236.

14. The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission 15. Wang, J., T. A. Endreny, and D. J. Nowak.

2008. Mechanistic simulation of urban tree effects in an urban water balance model. Journal of American Water Resource Association 44(1):75-85.

Prepared by The Low Impact Development Center 5000 Sunnyside Avenue, Suite 100 Beltsville, MD 20705 Phone: 301-982-5559 Email: info@lowimpactdevelopment.org

Prepared for

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission The Prince George’s County Planning Department 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 Phone: 301-952-3594 www.pgplanning.org

Technical Assistance

The research and analysis that provided the basis for this publication was supported by a technical assistance award from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s Local Government Capacity Building Initiative. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute their endorsement by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation or The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission.

The Local Government Capacity Building Initiative is managed and administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. For further information about this initiative or similar opportunities, visit www.nfwf.org/Pages/chesapeake/chesapeake-bay.aspx.

For Additional Information Prince George’s County Department of Permitting, Inspections and Enforcement: 301-883-5710 http://www.princegeorgescountymd.gov/sites/dpie/Pages/default.aspx Prince George’s County Department of the Environment: 301-883-5810 http://www.princegeorgescountymd.gov/sites/environmentalresources/Pages/default.aspx Prince George’s Planning Department’s Planning Information Services: 301-952-3208 http://www.pgplanning.org/Planning_Home.htm Prince George’s Planning Department’s Environmental Planning Section: 301-952-3650 http://www.pgplanning.org/About-Planning/Our_Divisions/Countywide_Planning/ Environmental_Planning.htm

The Economic Values of Nature: An Assessment of the Ecosystem Services of Forest and Tree Canopy 12

RCP Technical Summary | 151

152 | RCP Technical Summary

SECTION VI:

Agriculture Supporting Documents A considerable amount of research regarding agricultural uses and land conservation has been conducted in the last few years. The results of this research are reflected in the recently published documents below. All of these documents are or were available on the Prince George’s County Planning Department’s web page, PGPlanning.org.

2012 Adopted and Approved Priority Preservation Area Functional Master Plan http://www.pgplanning.org/Resources/Publications/ApprovedPPA.htm 2009 Strategic Program for Agricultural Development http://www.pgplanning.org/Projects/Completed_Projects/Recently_Completed_Studies_and_ Manuals/Prince_George_s_County_Strategic_Program_for_Agricultural_Development.htm 2012 Urban Agriculture Study http://www.pgplanning.org/Resources/Publications/Urban_Agriculture.htm

SECTION VII:

Rural Character Background and Supporting Documents A considerable amount of research regarding rural character conservation has been conducted in the last few years. The results of this research are reflected in the recently published documents below. All of these documents are or were available on the Prince George’s County Planning Department’s web page, PGPlanning.org.

2013 Conserving Significant Cultural Landscapes: Protecting the Piscataway and Accokeek Historic Communities and the Mount Vernon Viewshed http://www.pgplanning.org/Projects/Completed_Projects/Recently_Completed_Studies_and_ Manuals/Mount_Vernon_Viewshed_Study.htm 2012 Rural Villages Study http://www.pgplanning.org/Projects/Completed_Projects/Completed_Plans/Rural_Villages_Study.htm 2012 Croom and Aquasco Roads Scenic Byway Plan Elements http://www.pgplanning.org/Assets/Planning/Programs+and+Projects/Community+Plans/ Rural+Village+Centers+Study+Images/Scenic+Byway+Plan+Elements.pdf

RCP Technical Summary | 153

M-NCPPC

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Prince George’s County Planning Department 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 pgplanning.org