Pooled Monitoring Initiative’s
The Chesapeake Bay Trust, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation through the Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Anne Arundel County, Baltimore City, Charles County, Frederick County, Harford County, Montgomery County, and the Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration, the Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection, and other partners announce a Request for Proposals for its Restoration Research award program. The goal of this research program is to answer several key restoration questions that are a barrier to watershed restoration project implementation. Funding partners hope that answering these questions will ultimately lead to increased confidence in proposed restoration project outcomes, clarification of the optimal site conditions in which to apply particular restoration techniques, information useful to regulatory agencies in project permitting, and information that will help guide monitoring programs. This program supports the Pooled Monitoring Initiative which is designed to connect key stormwater and stream restoration questions posed by the regulatory and practitioner communities with researchers. This program also supports research for pollutants of emerging concern, “trade-offs” and more. Each year the top research questions are added to this RFP and some years past research questions are cycled off while we await findings to inform the next question’s iteration. The Pooled Monitoring Initiative pools funding resources to answer your top research questions and deliver the results back to you for use.
What this funds: Research to address one or more of the key restoration questions listed in the Request for Proposals (RFP).
Who can apply: Both not-for-profit entities (academic institutions, non-profit organizations) and for-profit entities are permitted to apply.
How much can be awarded: Funding partners have allocated approximately $1.3 M for this research program. Literature reviews will be funded at up to $50,000 and there is no cap for research projects.
Is match required? Match is encouraged but is not required.
Information Session: An online information session will be held January 5, 2024, from 12pm to 1pm EST. Register at https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZ0rceygqzMjGtwSlMQPgyiWjTKqRj3q7Jx4
Application Process: The Chesapeake Bay Trust’s applications are all submitted through an online system. If you have questions regarding the application process, please contact this program’s manager, Sadie Drescher at 410-974-2941, ext. 105.
Program Status: Closed
Deadline was January 25 2024 at 4pm EST
Click Here to View Previous Request for Proposals (RFP)
Questions & Technical Support
Sadie Drescher
sdrescher@cbtrust.org
(410) 974-2941 x 105
View the Trust’s Application Accessibility Statement
Click Here to View the Trust's Accessibility Statement
Additional Information
| Year | Award Amount | Organization | Project Title | Project Description | Research Question(s) | Final Products | Primary Contact(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | $292,606 | University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science | Quantifying the ecological uplift and effectiveness of differing stream restoration approaches in Maryland | This proposal focuses on how different restoration approaches (floodplain, channel, and instream habitat modifications), restoration age, and their landscape context affect ecological uplift via structure (benthic macroinvertebrates) and function (whole-stream metabolism) and if uplift is detected downstream of restorations. Our partners (Montgomery and Anne Arundel Counties) will help to identify at least 40 existing restorations for our triplet (upstream, restored, downstream) sampling design in a rigorous statistical framework with sufficient power to detect differences among approaches. We anticipate quantifying maximal, potential, and realized uplift in order to identify realistic goals and expectations for differing restoration approaches. | FY 15 RFP Q2: What is the impact on habitat and biological factors of different stream restoration techniques? | Final Report | Dr. Robert Hilderbrand |
| 2015 | $299,034 | Smithsonian Institution | Evaluating the Performance of Regenerative Stormwater Conveyances in Urban Versus Rural Watersheds | We will measure removal of nutrients and suspended sediments by Regenerative Stormwater Conveyances (RSCs) and relate removal efficiencies to impervious surface in the watershed and the rate and variability of water inflow. Using continuous monitoring and automated sampling we will accurately measure RSC performance under a range of flow conditions in watersheds with contrasting impervious cover. We hypothesize that RSCs reduce flow variability and remove nutrients and suspended sediments with decreasing efficiency as inflow rate and variability increase. Groundwater studies at one RSC will investigate sources of dissolved iron and transfers of nutrients from surface to groundwater flow. | FY 15 RFP Q1: What is the impact on nutrient and sediment loads (flow and concentration) of different stream restoration techniques (e.g., regenerative stormwater conveyance, natural channel design, valley restoration/legacy removal, other), keeping site conditions constant? FY 15 RFP Q2: What is the impact on habitat and biological factors of different stream restoration techniques (e.g., regenerative stormwater conveyance, natural channel design, valley restoration/legacy removal, other), keeping site conditions constant? Questions 1 and 2: How do different stream restoration techniques compare in their abilities to improve aquatic habitats and to remove suspended sediment and nutrients from runoff? -from the researcher’s application FY 15 RFP Q4: What is the impact of land use on the nutrient, sediment, habitat, and/or biological impacts of a restoration practice of a particular type (e.g., regenerative stormwater conveyance, natural channel design, stream valley restoration/legacy removal, other)? How does site condition, such as the land use, watershed condition, and/or valley type, determine water quality, habitat, and/or biological benefit? Question 4: What is the impact of land use on the nutrient, sediment, habitat and/or biological impacts of a restoration practice of a particular type? -from the researcher’s application FY 15 RFP Q7: Iron can occur naturally in the soil and the groundwater. What restoration techniques are associated with increases in iron concentration in the surface water or sediment and for how long do any increases persist? What is the impact of the iron on biological resources? Does the iron originate from the materials brought on site for restoration or does the iron originate from natural sources (e.g., materials brought to the site for restoration may add to the natural background levels, may exacerbate the iron concentrations that occur naturally, may oxidize the iron during construction activity, and/or other factors)? Question 7: How does RSC construction affect iron oxide precipitation downstream of RSCs? -from the researcher’s application. | Final Report | Dr. Thomas Jordan |
| 2015 | $145,284 | Straughan Environmental, Inc. | Biological and Suspended Sediment Disturbance: Wet and Dry Construction | This study will quantify how sediment load, biological impairment, and riparian disturbance are related to wet or dry construction techniques. Three stream stabilization projects in Howard County, Maryland will be divided into wet and dry construction areas (treatments), and discharge and suspended sediment will be monitored at each site. Repeated measures ANOVAs will be performed to compare wet and dry construction treatments and the upstream control with respect to suspended sediment load and benthic index of biologic integrity. | Construction Techniques – FY 15 RFP Q6: What is the difference in effects on water quality (turbidity), riparian habitat, and other biological effects between stream restoration work “in the wet” (construction without diverting the stream) vs. work “in the dry?” | Final Report | Justin Haynes |
| 2015 | $88,076 | Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University | Improving the success of in-stream structures | The overall project goal is to improve the application, design, and success of stream restoration structures. A literature review of design recommendations and the physical, chemical, and biological impacts of instream structures will be conducted. Additionally, a field-based hydraulics study on a new instream structure, regenerative stormwater conveyance, will test the hypothesis that relative bedform submergence provides better flow velocity predictions than traditional roughness coefficients. This information will be summarized in a series of design guidance fact sheets, reviewed by practicing stream restoration professionals, a peer-reviewed journal article, a project web site, and at conferences and workshops. | Stability- FY 15 RFP Q8: What design and construction factors, such as construction material type, material size, and/or extent of keying a structure into the bank, are correlated with structural instability for certain site conditions, such as soil type, hydrology, slope, flow, vegetation, and/or contributing drainage area? | Visit the webpage: Virginia Tech In-stream Structures Download fact sheets: ● J-Hook Vane ● Cross Vane ● W-Weir ● SPSC ● Single-Arm Vane | Dr. Theresa Thompson |
| 2016 | $217,322 | Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University | Improving Success of Stream Restoration Practices – Revised and Expanded | This project will improve our understanding of the conditions under which stream restoration practices “fail,” with the long term goal of improving the overall application, design, and review of stream restoration projects. Information from this study will provide guidance on factors that indicate the risk of project failure, such as watershed size or impervious land use or channel specific stream power or relative floodplain width. | Stability of stream restoration practices and elements of practices FY 16 RFP Q8: How well can various modelling approaches predict the structural “success” or “failure” for the various stream restoration techniques and structures? What variables must be included in the models to make accurate predictions for stream restoration “success” or “failure” at the site? FY 16 RFP Q9: What are the flow conditions under which different in-stream channel structures (e.g., vanes, step pools, constructed riffles, large woody debris) or approaches (e.g., RSC, NCD, stream valley restoration/legacy sediment removal) function and remain stable? What are the energy tolerances beyond which the structures or approaches begin to fail? | Final Report submitted 6/1/22 and added to website 6/21/22 | Dr. Theresa Thompson |
| 2016 | $177,329 | University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science | Evaluating the Effectiveness and Sustainability of Novel Stream Restoration Designs for Coastal Plain Streams in Maryland: Integrating Existing and New Data from Stream Restoration Monitoring | We propose to synthesize an extensive hydrochemical database from stream restoration sites in MD and DC to answer key questions pertaining to restoration effectiveness, sustainability, and ecological habitat condition. Stream restoration types include regenerative stream conveyance, step-pool conveyances, and valley restorations /stream-wetland complexes. We will address several questions and hypotheses. Our primary focus will be to determine the impact on nutrient and sediment loads of different stream restoration approaches. We hypothesize that results will be highly variable among restoration techniques, but that most designs will result in quantifiable reductions in nutrient loads. | Q4 Effectiveness of stream restoration practices accomplishing water quality goals, differences among stream restoration techniques | Final Report | Dr. Solange Filoso |
| 2016 | $199,992 | Towson University | Determining the effects of legacy sediment removal and floodplain reconnection on ecosystem function and nutrient export | Legacy sediment removal and floodplain reconnection projects decrease floodplain elevations and increase groundwater levels, potentially increasing nitrogen cycling and habitat for native wetland plant species and decreasing erosion of phosphorus laden sediments. The proposed study assesses the efficacy of four legacy sediment removal and floodplain reconnection projects that range in impervious cover and vary in length by a factor of 4.5. By sampling within longer projects at several locations, we can determine the relationship between project length and degree of mitigation and whether this relationship varies with the amount of impervious surface in the watershed. | Q 6 Effectiveness of stream restoration to accomplish water quality and habitat goals – Effects of site condition on outcomes of stream restoration technique(s) RFP 16 Q6: What is the impact of site condition (such as land use, % impervious cover, watershed condition, existing habitat, and/or valley type) and/or watershed position (headwaters vs. downstream near the receiving waters) on the nutrient, sediment, habitat, and/or biological impacts of stream restoration approaches that aim for different function (e.g., floodplain reconnection, frequency of inundation, bank stabilization, etc.) or that use different techniques (e.g., RSC, NCD, stream valley restoration/legacy sediment removal)? | Final Report | Dr. Vanessa Beauchamp |
| 2016 | $43,949 | University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science | Optimizing sampling frequency and monitoring design to assess the effects of storm water best management practices (BMPs) on water restoration | Our project will target the design of adequate monitoring programs to assess the effectiveness of best management practices (BMPs). Using representative streams from the Baltimore LTER watersheds (and others as available and applicable), we will develop sampling strategies for watersheds with variable percentage of impervious cover, accounting for the episodic nature of high and low flow. First, the project results will benefit existing monitoring programs by providing guidance for sampling strategies capable of producing reliable estimates of comparable precision and thresholds for detecting restoration activities. Second, the project will guide water quality monitoring related to MS-4 permitting and other BMP monitoring efforts. | Effectiveness at accomplishing water quality and habitat goals – Watershed/catchment-scale effects of restoration practices: RFP 16 Q 3: Monitoring is expensive and money spent on monitoring is by definition not spent on pollution reduction implementation. What degree of representative sampling is required to determine levels of pollutant discharge at a county scale? What sample size is needed to capture variability? What is the cost of such a monitoring program? Can a reduced monitoring regime, either in terms of number of sampling stations or parameters measured at a station or a factor such as % impervious surface treated in the region be used as a proxy? RFP 16 Q 1: Watershed Restoration Assessment: What are the cumulative effects of watershed restoration activities within a watershed? Of interest in the restoration community is whether, given the high temporal and spatial variability of nutrient concentrations and flows, a signal from the restoration activities even in a highly targeted, small watershed can be measured relative to a control site (before vs. after restoration activities). A related question: What percentage of the impervious surface in a watershed must be treated with best management practices (BMPs) before a difference can be measured at the outfall? Does BMP type (e.g., stream restoration, environmental site design (ESD) practices, and stormwater wetlands) influence that percentage? Researcher’s application stated the following: The overarching goal of this project is a statistical and modeling analysis to determine optimal sampling frequency and monitoring design for representative sampling of pollutant loads at a local, e.g., county, level (Question #3). The developed sampling strategy will account for pollutant variability due to storm or low flow events and differences in impervious cover. The power analysis of the suggested approach will allow us to tell what should be the scale of storm water restoration efforts, or BMPs, for this signal in water quality improvement to be detectable by the monitoring program (Question #1). | Final Report Liang D, Harris L, Testa J, Lyubchich V, Filoso S. 2019. Detection of the effects of stormwater control measure in streams using a Bayesian BACI power analysis. Science of the Total Environment. 661: 386-392. | Dr. Viacheslav Lyubchich |
| 2016 | $175,730 | Carroll County Government | The self-recovery of stream channel stability in urban watersheds due to BMP implementation | A paired-watershed approach is proposed to evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs on stream channel protection. The research will evaluate the hydrogeomorphic response of BMP implementation in headwater stream drainage areas to determine if reductions in stream energy facilitate self-recovery of stream channel stability. Results will inform recommendations to credit BMPs as a hydrogeomorphic stream stabilization technique for sediment reductions as part of the Bay TMDL. It is expected that implementation of BMPs will reduce excessive stream channel and bed erosion by reducing stream energy resulting in the cessation of erosive flows that lead to the self-recovery of channel stability. | Stormwater Management Assessment, Effectiveness at accomplishing water quality and habitat goals – Watershed/catchment-scale effects of restoration practices: FY 16 RFP Q2: Stormwater Management Assessment: What is the effectiveness of stormwater management practices (implemented, for example, at a level required under the latest stormwater management regulations) on stream channel protection? What percentage of a catchment needs to be treated with ESD practices to reduce water flow enough to protect stream channels? Does location of ESD practices within the catchment make a difference in protecting the stream banks? The specific hypotheses this research seeks to address include: H1: The implementation of BMPs as retrofits will modify the runoff response from the watershed (hydrograph) resulting in a reduction of the magnitude, duration and frequency of erosive flow rates that meet and or exceed Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) performance standards for stream channel protection. H2: The implementation of BMPs as retrofits will create hydraulic conditions that lead to self-recovery of channel stability. H3: The implementation of BMP will decrease sediment loadings downstream as a result of reduced bank erosion rates. | Final Report | Mr. Byron Madigan |
| 2016 | $50,000 | AKRF, Inc. | Meta-Analysis of Biological Monitoring Data to Determine the Limits on Biological Uplift from Stream Restoration Imposed by the Proximity of Source Populations | This study will compile the biological monitoring data at stream restoration sites in the counties of Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Frederick, Howard, and Montgomery. Additional data from the Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) and Maryland Stream Waders, as well as the five countywide biological monitoring programs, in adjacent stream networks will be evaluated as a predictor of biological condition at restoration sites. The hypothesis is that biological uplift (using benthic macroinvertebrate IBIs and metrics, and fish where available) at comparable stream restoration sites will be lower in stream networks in poorer biological condition, with implications for restoration potential and watershed planning. | Stream Effectiveness for habitat – Effects of site condition on outcomes of stream restoration technique(s): Effectiveness at accomplishing habitat goals FY 16 RFP Q6: What is the impact of site condition (such as land use, % impervious cover, watershed condition, existing habitat, and/or valley type) and/or watershed position (headwaters vs. downstream near the receiving waters) on the habitat, and/or biological impacts of stream restoration approaches that aim for different function (e.g., floodplain reconnection, frequency of inundation, bank stabilization, etc.) or that use different techniques (e.g., RSC, NCD, stream valley restoration/legacy sediment removal)? | Final Report | Dr. Mark Southerland |
| 2017 | $199,990 | Arundel Rivers Federation | Assessing Watershed-scale Restoration Effectiveness: Treatment Impacts and Monitoring Requirements | The South River Federation and Smithsonian Environmental Research Center will evaluate the cumulative performance of multiple Best Management Practices (BMPs) at a subwatershed scale. The research team will compare watershed-level discharges of sediment and nutrient pollutants from seven interconnected, restored subwatersheds of Church Creek. | FY 17 RFP Q1 & 3: 1-Watershed Restoration Assessment & 3- Level of monitoring effort (related to stormwater) Effectiveness of restoration programs at the watershed/catchment-scale RFP FY 18 Q1: Watershed restoration assessment: What are the cumulative effects of watershed restoration activities within a watershed? RFP FY 18 Q3: Level of monitoring effort: Monitoring is expensive and money spent on monitoring is by definition not spent on pollution reduction implementation. Can a reduced monitoring regime, either in terms of number of sampling stations or parameters measured at a station, or a factor such as % impervious surface treated in the region be used as a proxy? Research application stated: Specifically, we will address: Do BMPs perform as rated for the impervious area being treated? Are the effects of multiple BMPs along a channel simply additive, or could their effects be interactive (could a BMP enhance the effectiveness of a downstream BMP)? While addressing question A.1 we will also address question A.3 concerning the effort needed to efficiently measure stormwater management at watershed scales. Our proposed monitoring will use a combination of automated flow-paced stream-water sampling and high frequency measurements of turbidity, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and temperature. We will test whether high frequency measurements of flow and turbidity can be used to estimate the fluxes of total suspended solids (TSS), and particulate forms of nitrogen and phosphorus. If this is possible, it could eliminate some monitoring costs. | Final Report | Jennifer Carr |
| 2017 | $200,000 | Center for Watershed Protection, Inc. | Using a Novel Research Framework to Assess Water Quality Impacts of Urban Trees | This research team will quantify the stormwater treatment value of trees across urban forest types. The project will identify urban forest characteristics that influence the water and ecosystems and determine whether more complex urban forest types result in greater runoff volume reduction. | FY 17 RFP Q7: Water quality of an urban tree: Although there are several guidance documents and recommendations for urban tree benefits, the empirical data to determine the stormwater benefits of urban trees of a variety of species are needed in the Mid-Atlantic region. Projects will be expected to fully quantify the stormwater treatment value (volume, TN, TP, and TSS) for an urban tree or stand of trees, with tree species, tree size, tree age, and soil volume as factors. The stormwater treatment value derived from empirical data will be compared to modeled stormwater treatment value (e.g., iTree, Maryland Assessment Scenario Tool, etc.). This study can be a combination of literature review, empirical data collection, and models. | Ponte, S., Sonti, N.F., Phillips, T.H. et al. Transpiration rates of red maple (Acer rubrum L.) differ between management contexts in urban forests of Maryland, USA. Sci Rep 11, 22538 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01804-3 Final Report | Deb Caraco |
| 2017 | $199,314 | University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science | Long-term impacts of living shorelines to Sub Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) habitats in the Chesapeake Bay | This project will assess the long-term performance of living shorelines, a practice of using natural shoreline habitat to prevent erosion rather than hard shoreline armor, as well as their potential impacts to adjacent seagrass beds. | FY 17 RFP Q8c -Resource trade-off of SAV for living shorelines: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) trade-offs in living shoreline projects: Living shoreline projects, by definition, require more cross-shore space than shoreline armor projects, given that the creation of a platform for intertidal wetland vegetation and potentially an associated sill, must extend either into the subtidal zone or into the riparian zone. Such extension means that existing condition in either neighboring zone will be replaced with emergent wetland. With the resurgence of SAV in the Chesapeake, more living shoreline locations will have SAV habitat. How does impacting SAV compare to the benefit of creating intertidal wetland? Under what conditions (e.g., SAV coverage in an embayment) is an SAV impact tolerable? In addition, research shows that the sill can indirectly cause SAV loss to a nearby bed due to the sediment dropping out channelward of the sill and covering the SAV. How can indirect impacts of the sill on SAV loss be better predicted? | Final Report | Dr. Cindy Palinkas |
| 2017 | $198,332 | University of Maryland College Park | Tree Trade-Offs in Stream Restoration Projects: Impact on Riparian Groundwater Quality | Predicting the impact of tree removal associated with stream restoration on riparian water quality remains a challenge. This project will quantify the effects of riparian deforestation on groundwater quality across urban restored, degraded, and forested reference sites. | FY 17 RFP Q8a -Resource trade-off of stream restoration for trees Tree trade-offs in stream restoration projects: Certain stream restoration practices by necessity can result in removal of trees: 1) trees may need to be removed on a short-term basis for construction site access; 2) trees may be removed for various methods of stream restoration in nontidal forested wetlands; 3) trees may be removed to accomplish legacy sediment removal in which the stream banks are forested; and 4) trees, even when remaining after restoration, may experience mortality due to changes in hydrology leading to higher water levels/inundation. What is the water quality and habitat cost of tree removal of certain practices compared to the benefit of the other elements of the restoration practice? | Final Report Tree trade-offs in stream restoration: impacts on riparian groundwater quality | Dr. Sujay Kaushal |
| 2017 | $180,408 | Versar, Inc. | An Evaluation of Forest Impacts as Compared to Benefits Associated with Stream Restoration | The goal of this project is to better understand the impacts of stream restoration on forest resources. The research team will inventory trees, understory vegetation, and reptiles and amphibians to determine whether there are any potentially negative impacts as a result of positive stream restoration practices. | FY 17 RFP Q8a -Resource trade-off for trees Tree trade-offs in stream restoration projects: Certain stream restoration practices by necessity can result in removal of trees: 1) trees may need to be removed on a short-term basis for construction site access; 2) trees may be removed for various methods of stream restoration in nontidal forested wetlands; 3) trees may be removed to accomplish legacy sediment removal in which the stream banks are forested; and 4) trees, even when remaining after restoration, may experience mortality due to changes in hydrology leading to higher water levels/inundation. What is the water quality and habitat cost of tree removal of certain practices compared to the benefit of the other elements of the restoration practice? | Final Report | Drew Budelis |
| 2018 | $289,903 | University of Maryland Baltimore County | Quantifying the cumulative effects of stream restoration and environmental site design on nitrate loads in nested urban watersheds using a high-frequency sensor network | Analyze high-frequency nitrate and streamflow data from nested watersheds in suburban Baltimore to test how well the treatment train works, how much connectivity between the stream and riparian area will reduce nitrogen, and how impervious area and infiltration practices impact the results. | FY 18 RFP Q1: A1: Question 1 on watershed restoration assessment: What are the cumulative effects of watershed restoration activities within a watershed? | Final Report Assessing urban rainfall-runoff response to stormwater management extent | Dr. Claire Welty |
| 2018 | $177,555 | Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University | Effectiveness of stormwater management practices in protecting stream channel stability | To evaluate the impacts of traditional and stormwater management practices on channel stability, using two extreme development watersheds with high quality data that will be modeled using a watershed model (SWMM) and a channel evolution model (CONCEPTS). Study results will compare the impact of traditional and practices on channel stability to provide insight into the causes of and potential solutions to channel degradation. | FY 18 RFP Q2: A2: Question #2 Stormwater Management Assessment, under Theme A: Effectiveness of restoration programs at the watershed/catchment scale. | TBA | Dr. Theresa Thompson |
| 2018 | $62,459 | University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science | Determining realistic expectations for ecological uplift in urban stream restorations | This research will identify realistic ecological outcomes in urban stream restorations by developing a benthic macroinvertebrate tool to that can be used for planning to determine better successful factors and ultimately better success at the sites selected. | FY 18 RFP Q1, 2, 7, 4 & 5: A1, A2, D7 & B4, B5: My proposed research links to Key Research Questions 1, 2, and 7, and is related to questions 4 and 5. The research addresses so many questions because it is cross-cutting and focused on tool development that can be used more broadly to answer practitioner and regulatory key restoration questions. The results from the methods developed will provide a valuable tool for use in predicting the achievable ecological benefits (Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity), which can be placed in the context of the fiscal and physical costs of a restoration (Key Research Question 7). Planners and Regulators will be able to compare the relative ecological return of restoring a site against other sites. The entire restoration community will benefit from determining the ecological boundaries of what is achievable and from assessing the ability of out-of-channel activities and nearby source streams to promote the presence of taxa not predicted to occur under existing conditions (Research Questions 1 & 2). | Final Report | Dr. Robert Hilderbrand |
| 2019 | $134,000 | Exponent, Inc. | The effect of best management practices on water quality: Optimizing monitoring to reduce uncertainty and maximize scientific value | This project will test whether existing data collected by regulatory agencies in Maryland can detect the cumulative effect of BMP on watershed pollutant export, determine the minimum sampling frequency required to detect this cumulative effect, and establish optimal sampling strategies which can be implemented in contrasting watersheds with varying degrees of impervious surface cover. In addressing these issues, this project will deliver a software tool to guide monitoring agencies on optimal sampling strategies, able to detect anticipated water quality improvements for the least effort and cost. | FY 19 Q1 + Q3: Watershed restoration assessment: What are the cumulative effects of watershed restoration activities within a watershed? + Level of monitoring effort: Monitoring can be costly and money spent on monitoring is by definition not spent on pollution reduction implementation. What degree of representative sampling is required to determine levels of pollutant discharge at a county scale? What sample size is needed to capture variability? What is the cost of such a monitoring program? | Final Report BMP Software Deliverables | Dr. William Goodfellow & Dr. Joshua Thompson |
| 2019 | $125,098 | Tetra Tech, Inc. | Climate Impacts to Restoration Practices | Climate models predict frequency and intensity of rain events in MD will change. Future climate is likely to increase the intensity of rain events. We hypothesize that current rules on design of BMPs and stream restoration may be inadequate to ensure success. We will implement a comprehensive analysis across the state of MD on the range of event intensity and duration under mid- and late-century climate and implications for BMP and restoration design | FY 19 Q5 CC/SW: Climate impacts to restoration practice: Climate change models predict that frequency and intensity of rain events will increase, that growing season will lengthen, and that other processes related to the Chesapeake community’s approved set of BMPs will change. As a result, some suggest that standards for stormwater practices, stream restoration, and other BMPs should change (e.g., plan to treat a two-inch rain event versus a one-inch rain event; design stream restoration practices for more frequent storms). | Final Report Fact Sheet Database | Dr. Jon Butcher |
| 2019 | $150,079 | University of Maryland College Park | Evaluating impacts of freshwater salinization on mobilization of nutrients and metals from stormwater best management practices | Evaluating impacts of road salts on stormwater BMPs and mobilization of associated salts, nutrients, and metals remains a challenge. We propose new experiments in the Baltimore-Washington, DC metro area to quantify the effects of different road salts on water quality across stormwater BMPs. We hypothesize that potential for contaminant retention and mobilization is based on the different types of road salts, threshold concentration levels, and stormwater BMP characteristics. We will evaluate effects of different road salts on mobilizing contaminants across stormwater BMPs and monitor salts, nutrients, and metals in nearby stream outfalls in response to deicing events. | FY 19 Q6 – Emerging Pollutants: Temperature and salt have been identified as “emerging pollutants” of concern by the restoration community, beyond the “traditional” pollutants of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment that have been the focus of much of the restoration community to date. Salt – Which techniques of salt application to roadways will result in less loading to streams? Which BMPs can be used to reduce salt loading to streams? | Final Report Galella et al. 2023 Freshwater Salinization Sundrome Alters Nitrogen Transport in Urban Watersheds Galella et al. 2023 Stormwater BMPs Evaluation of Chemical Cocktails Mobilized by Freshwater Salinization Sundrome Kaushal et al. 2022 Freshwater Salinization Syndrome Alters Retentions and Release of Chemical Cocktails Along Flowpaths Kaushal et al. 2023 Stream Restoration Milestones - Monitoring Scales Determine Successes and Failures Urban Ecosystems Kaushal et al. 2022 State Factors and Stages of Freshwater Salinization Sundrome L&OL | Dr. Sujay Kaushal |
| 2019 | $46,550 | Center for Watershed Protection, Inc. | Literature Review on Techniques to Reduce Salt Loading to Streams | Elevated chloride concentrations in surface and groundwater from road salt is a national concern due to chloride’s numerous negative effects. Existing studies indicate that strategies to prevent chloride loading by reducing salt application are most effective to address this problem; yet, the extent to which these techniques are applied in Maryland is unknown. The team will conduct a literature review and surveys to test the following hypothesis: “Significant potential exists to reduce chloride inputs to surface and groundwater through adoption of salt reduction strategies in Maryland.” and evaluate which salt reduction techniques are the most effective. | FY 19 Q6 – Emerging Pollutants: Temperature and salt have been identified as “emerging pollutants” of concern by the restoration community, beyond the “traditional” pollutants of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment that have been the focus of much of the restoration community to date. Salt – Which techniques of salt application to roadways will result in less loading to streams? Which BMPs can be used to reduce salt loading to streams? | Final Report | Carol Wong |
| 2019 | $251,729 | University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science | Assessing the effectiveness of ESD for achieving stormwater management objectives in the Upper Little Patuxent River Watershed, Howard County, MD | The primary objective of the project is to assess the spatially-aggregated effectiveness of ESD BMP’s in addressing four stormwater management goals at the watershed scale through a comparative experimental study to be conducted within the Upper Little Patuxent River watershed over a three-year period. Effectiveness of ESD implementation in a currently developing watershed will be assessed relative to a “control” watershed that was mostly developed prior to inclusion of ESD BMP’s into development plans. A secondary project objective is to determine how aggregated ESD effectiveness scales as a function of rainstorm magnitude for storms that occur during the project. | FY 19 Q1 + Q2: Watershed restoration assessment: What are the cumulative effects of watershed restoration activities within a watershed? + Level of monitoring effort: Monitoring can be costly and money spent on monitoring is by definition not spent on pollution reduction implementation. What degree of representative sampling is required to determine levels of pollutant discharge at a county scale? What sample size is needed to capture variability? What is the cost of such a monitoring program? + Stormwater management assessment: What is the effectiveness of stormwater management practices (implemented, for example, at a level required under the latest stormwater management regulations) on stream channel protection? What percentage of a catchment needs to be treated with ESD practices to reduce water flow enough to protect stream channels? Does the location of ESD practices within the catchment make a difference in protecting the stream banks? | Final Report | Dr. Keith Eshleman |
| 2019 | $195,692 | EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC | Impacts of Regenerative Streamwater Conveyance on Iron in Restored Streams and Potential Effects on Aquatic Organisms | Iron occurrence is likely a result of dissolved iron in groundwater infiltration, disturbed soils at lower depths and the combination of the RSC conditions. Using a mesocosm will allow for a controlled experimental environment to directly address the question: Are there direct or indirect effects of iron to the stream macro-invertebrate community? A field study and experiment will complement the mesocosm study by identifying temporal shifts in stream chemistry/hydrology and iron presence at RSC locations (TBD) while monitoring and conducting caged field experiments on representative benthic macroinvertebrate species. | FY 19 Q10 - iron/stream: Resource trade-offs in different types of restoration projects. The decision to install a restoration project at any given site by definition implies that an existing condition at that site will be modified, replaced, and/or improved. With certain kinds of restoration projects or practices, do the net benefits (nutrients, sediment, habitat, hydrology, biological resources) outweigh the net impacts (persistent and excessive iron floc mats, tree loss and resulting habitat loss, etc.)? | Final Report | Dr. Jamie Suski |
| 2020 | $299,534 | University of Louisville Research Foundation, Inc. | Reliability of Two-Dimensional Hydrodynamic Models for Assessing Susceptibility of Stream Restorations to Flood Damage and Potential Effects of Climate Change | Components of stream restoration projects are often damaged during flood events. This damage is likely to increase under future conditions as more frequent and intense storms occur in the Chesapeake Bay. Two-dimensional (2D) hydrodynamic models are presently used to assess stream restoration practices for vulnerability to damage by floods but their reliability is unknown. In this project, hypothesis testing will be used to evaluate how reliable 2D models are at predicting damage in a representative population of restoration sites. 2D models are then used to evaluate predictions of damage under current and future climate conditions due to both frequent and infrequently occurring events. | FY 20 Q5: How can different restoration approaches or techniques and/or site conditions reduce the impacts of future climate change such as changing intensity duration frequency curves, frequency of storms, and/or periods of drought? | TBA | Dr. Arthur Parola |
| 2020 | $189,248 | Tetra Tech, Inc. | Vertebrate Community Response to Regenerative Stream Conveyance (RSC) Restoration as a Resource Trade-Off | This study will provide a critical baseline for assessing the trade-offs inherent in stream restorations using the Regenerative Stream Conveyance (RSC) or restored stream-wetland technique. Specifically, it will quantify the aquatic vertebrate community changes that should be expected and valued as part of the ecological change resulting from RSC restorations implemented in lowland Coastal Plain streams with nutrient-rich waters. In Step 1, we will define the reference conditions (minimally or least disturbed) for Coastal Plain aquatic vertebrate communities in both streams and stream-wetland complexes, using a literature review, existing Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS), and other data. In Step 2, we will sample and analyze the aquatic vertebrate communities in streams that have been converted to RSCs, along with comparable references. The results of this study will help practitioners and regulators more appropriately quantify the biotic resource changes that occur when defined-channel stream systems with riparian canopy cover are transformed into less-defined stream-wetland complexes, and ultimately quantify those changes along with nutrient reduction benefits. | FY 20 Q10: Definition of reference conditions for lowland Coastal Plain aquatic vertebrate communities in both streams and stream-wetland complexes, using a literature review and existing Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) and other data & Sampling and analysis of aquatic vertebrate communities in streams converted to RSCs and stream-wetlands, along with appropriate references for least-disturbed streams, least-disturbed stream-wetland complexes, and degraded streams. | Final Report Fact Sheet | Dr. Mark Southerland |
| 2020 | $213,857 | Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University | Watershed Effects on Success of Stream Restoration for Excess Nitrogen Mitigation | We will gather stream restoration nitrate removal data and use those in numerical models of stream network hydraulics and transport/reaction to evaluate cumulative effects of hyporheic and floodplain restoration on watershed-scale nitrate load reduction. We will demonstrate our approach in the Gwynns Falls watershed in Maryland. We hypothesize that the relationships between total length of watershed streams restored and nitrate load reduction 1) increase in slope with key watershed controls such as sediment hydraulic conductivity or valley width available for floodplain reconnection, and 2) change shape as the majority of stream restoration projects shift from headwaters to mainstem channels. | FY 20 Q1 & Q2: A1) Watershed restoration assessment & A2) Stormwater management assessment. Our questions are: What is the slope and shape of the relationship between percent of stream network restored and percent nitrate load reduction at the watershed outlet (i.e., linear, exponential, levelling off)? 2. How do the answers to Question #1 above vary with watershed conditions such as a. Distribution of nitrate sources in the watershed (headwaters vs. along larger channels) b. Restoration technique, (hyporheic restoration vs. floodplain restoration) c. Restoration location (headwaters vs. along larger channels) d. Watershed topography (overall topographic relief which controls degree of gaining and hence potential for hyporheic restoration, and valley type/width of valley floors which controls room for floodplains and hence potential for floodplain restoration) e. Soil type (hydraulic conductivity which controls potential for hyporheic restoration). | TBA | Dr. Erich Hester |
| 2021 | $193,772 | University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (UMCES) | Using eDNA methods to extend biological sampling and identify candidate restorations for species reintroductions | Our proposal targets Key Research Question 3 – the effectiveness of biological community restoration at the project scale. Our overarching hypothesis is that stream restorations have created conditions suitable for ecological recovery, but many taxa are not detected due to low abundances or failure to recolonize. We will address both reasons using environmental DNA (eDNA) sequencing to 1) greatly expand detection of fish and benthic macroinvertebrates; and 2) employ a screening tool to classify each restoration’s ecological condition using stream sediment microbial communities with results that closely mirror the BIBI (Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity) score. The screening tool can identify restorations with sufficient recovery potential to begin reintroductions of fish and benthic macroinvertebrates. | FY 21 Q3: We seek a research team to test the hypothesis that individual/species/community seeding/transplantation in urban/suburban restored streams (in which physical habitat conditions would predict them to occur) will result in benthic communities that are more similar to reference streams compared to control restored sites in which individuals/species/communities were not transplanted. | TBA | Dr. Robert Hildebrand |
| 2021 | $201,774 | University of Maryland Baltimore County | Evaluation of watershed-scale impacts of stormwater management facilities on thermal loads to a Maryland Class IV stream using a high-frequency sensor network | We propose to deploy a high-density, high-frequency network of blue-tooth enabled temperature sensors throughout 16 km of a Use Class IV stream (Dead Run) in suburban Baltimore to address CBT 2021 RFP Question 5(a) on emerging pollutants: What best management practice design and siting methods will reduce thermal impacts to Maryland’s Use III and IV streams? At the watershed scale, we will collect high-frequency (5-minute) temperature data from sensors secured to the streambed every 100 m, over all flow regimes (base flow to storm flow), for 2.25 years. Based on watershed-scale observations, we will collect stream temperature data downstream of ~30 BMP outfalls (spanning at least four BMP types) at a finer spatial scale (2 m - 50 m), and a higher frequency (1 minute). We will use this data set to quantify thermal inputs to the stream system from (1) surface and subsurface stormwater management facilities; (2) direct connections to land cover including impervious surface area during runoff events; and (3) effects of air temperature and tree canopy on stream temperature throughout the drainage network. This work will advance scientific knowledge by separating impacts from stormwater BMPs vs. other environmental factors on stream temperature at the watershed scale; the results can be used to inform regulatory policy for setting Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for stream temperature. | FY 21 Q5a: Thermal – What best management practice design and siting methods will reduce thermal impacts to Maryland’s Use III and IV streams? | TBA | Dr. Claire Welty |
| 2021 | $196,183 | The Pennsylvania State University | Impacts of salt loading on nutrient and metal processing in stormwater bioretention | This project addresses impacts of salt loading and retention on nutrient and metals processing in stormwater bioretention facilities. Our approach leverages direct field measurement of bioretention facilities in Lancaster PA as well as controlled bioretention mesocosm experiments. These experiments will help us determine how deicer salt inputs, vegetation, and hydrologic regime individually and collectively impact biogeochemical dynamics and resulting nitrogen and metals removal. | FY 21 Q5b: How do different levels of (road) salt present in a BMP due to road application impact the BMP’s nitrogen removal efficiency and export rates out of the BMP of pollutants such as heavy metals? | Final Report Fact Sheet | Dr. Lauren McPhillips |
| 2021 | $354,576 | Ecosystem Planning and Restoration | Work in the Wet Versus Work in the Dry for Stream Restoration: A Comparison of Downstream Turbidity and Sediment Loads | Stream restoration construction can be conducted both “in the wet” during active base flow or “in the dry” utilizing flow diversions. In Maryland and other Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions, current regulatory practices frequently require the use of flow diversions with the assumption that construction in the dry will result in less of an impact to downstream aquatic health. There is currently limited understanding of the differences between these two methods of construction in terms of suspended sediment release. This research will compare suspended sediment loads and turbidity upstream and downstream of active construction utilizing a stream reach employing “working in the wet” and “working in the dry” methods at three stream restoration construction sites within the Chesapeake Bay watershed of Maryland. The findings of this research will contribute to a growing body of research that will inform the practice and regulatory requirements for stream restoration construction. | FY 21 Q6: What is the difference in effects on water quality (turbidity) and total sediment load delivered downstream between stream restoration work “in the wet” (construction without diverting the stream) vs work “in the dry” (construction accomplished through diversion of the water flow) for streams that are larger than 1st order (e.g., streams that will use at least a 6 inch pump, estimated for base flow of 5.1 ft3 per second)? | TBA | Mr. Rich Starr |
| 2021 | $228,436 | Tetra Tech, Inc. | Climate Change Impacts to Restoration Practices | Addresses Research Question 4, which reads in part: "Funders are looking ...to compare the modeled or measured outcomes of varied storm frequency and duration (and associated flood impacts, loading rates, and % loads reduced...) of current stormwater BMPs to those of a new set of stormwater BMP design scenarios (e.g., evaluating water quality practices such as ESD implemented in a watershed where additional storage such as the 1 year 24-hour extended detention or peak management controls are provided)..." Proposal builds on our previous CBT grant by first addressing methodological questions of LOCA vs. MACA downscaled climate predictions, then applying the expanded set to evaluation of ESD and GI BMPs statewide. Detailed application to a real site is then pursued using the calibrated model for Clarksburg Tributary 109. There are multiple hypotheses to be tested: H1. Problems in the LOCA methodology introduce biases in the estimation of future 1-year, 24-hour rainfall events used to calculate ESD... H2. Despite changes in precipitation by mid-century, current ESD requirements will be sufficient to mitigate effects associated with anthropogenic development... H3. ESD concepts and requirements are applicable and appropriate to management of real watersheds under future climate. Three sub-hypotheses are: • H3a. The historical flow duration curve for Tributary 109 will not change under future climate... • H3b. Watersheds developed under current stormwater management regulations and climate will not experience increased channel erosion... • H3c. Retrofitting existing stormwater management using the future 1-yr, 24-hour design storm will protect channel stability... | FY 21 Q4: Funders are looking for investigators to compare the modeled or measured outcomes of varied storm frequency and duration (and associated flood impacts, loading rates, and % loads reduced for TN, TP, TSS, etc.) of current stormwater BMPs to those of a new set of stormwater BMP design scenarios (e.g., evaluating water quality practices such as ESD implemented in a watershed where additional storage such as the 1 year 24-hour extended detention or peak management controls are provided). | Final Report Fact Sheet | Dr. Jon Butcher |
| 2022 | $244,593 | University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science | Comparative analysis of Maryland highway mini-catchments to assess the effectiveness of bioretention in addressing stormwater impacts | We are seeking funding from the CBT Restoration Research Program to continue event-based hydrologic and water quality monitoring of five instrumented swales at two highway sites (near Ellicott City and Lewistown, Maryland) over two field seasons (~April through October). These data, when combined with extant information from the same swales from prior MDOT-SHA-sponsored research, will provide us with sufficient data to evaluate the relative long-term effectiveness of the swales in addressing stormwater management goals (objective #1); as part of this objective, we will carefully examine the long-term dataset for long-term (i.e., inter-annual) trends in a group of primary runoff quantity and quality variables. In addition, we also seek new funding to develop and employ a scientifically-credible methodology for explicitly testing the extent to which the relative effectiveness of the instrumented swale pairs in reducing N and P concentrations in runoff can be extended to the entire population of swales located in the same vicinity (objective #2). Third, the amassed data, including both runoff quantity and quality variables, from the instrumented swales (i.e., > 5 consecutive years of continuous monitoring) will be used to test hypotheses about stormflow responsiveness to rainfall events of varying mean intensity, duration, and magnitude—and by extension—to climate change (objective #3). | FY 22 Q1, Q2, and Q4: A. Effectiveness of stormwater and stream restoration programs at the watershed/catchment scale: 1. BMP effectiveness monitoring. B. Effectiveness of restoration practices at the project scale: 4. Climate change impacts to restoration practice. | TBA | Dr. Keith Eshleman |
| 2022 | $170,155 | Center for Watershed Protection, Inc. | The Long-Term Effects of BMP Implementation on Stream Channel Stability in Urban Watersheds | The Center for Watershed Protection, in partnership with Carroll County Bureau of Resource Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will conduct a study to evaluate the effectiveness of stormwater retrofits on the hydrogeomorphic changes in downstream channels and subsequent reductions in eroded sediment. The hypothesis to be tested is that implementation of stormwater retrofits in the treatment watersheds will create hydrologic and hydraulic conditions that lead to the self-recovery of channel stability and decreased sediment loadings downstream. The proposed research is a continuation of a previous study that showed that enhanced sand filter and wet pond retrofits reduced erosive flow rates and simulated a hydrologic regime close to that of “woods in good condition.” The study design is a modified version of the paired watershed and before-after-control-impact approaches, where precipitation, hydrologic, hydraulic, geomorphic, and riparian vegetation data was collected at control and treatment sites during the pre-treatment phase and up to two years after treatment. The proposed study will collect an additional four years of post-treatment data to extend the amount of time over which stream geomorphic response metrics are measured and observed, increasing the chances that the study is able to document channel improvements or protection from degradation in the treatment watersheds. | FY 22 Q1: A1 from the Pooled Monitoring Initiative’s Restoration Research Award Program Request for Proposals (RFP): What is the effectiveness of stormwater best management practices (BMPs) at the catchment scale? | TBA | Lisa Fraley-McNeal |
| 2022 | $75,221 | University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science | A POWER ANALYSIS TOOL IN R TO ENHANCE MONITORING STUDIES | The effectiveness of Best Management Practices (BMP) to achieve their intended ecosystem effects varies, which makes it difficult to link watershed restoration activities to reduced loads of nutrients and sediment to the Bay. We propose to develop a R tool to guide BMP monitoring studies and enhance restoration research. High frequency and stream restoration monitoring data collected by previous efforts will be used to develop the package using commonly used monitoring and sampling designs. The software tool will be co-developed by practitioners, scientists and modelers. Statistical modeling results will inform monitoring designs and efforts required to quantify the load reduction from restoring urban watersheds. | FY 22 Q2: Question #2 posed in the Theme A, as described below: Theme A: Effectiveness of stormwater and stream restoration programs at the watershed/catchment scale. Question #2: What are the cumulative effects of watershed restoration activities within a watershed? Of interest in the restoration community is whether, given the high temporal and spatial variability of nutrient concentrations and flows, a signal from the restoration activities even in a highly targeted, small watershed can be measured relative to a control site (before vs. after restoration activities). Specifically, we propose to develop a R tool to assess how the design and sampling approaches used in monitoring programs affect the accuracy of impact detection due to implementation of stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs), including stream restoration. | TBA | Dr. Dong Liang |
| 2022 | $112,000 | University of Delaware | Memories of the soils: Evaluation of soil nitrogen stable isotope as a robust metric to assess floodplain restoration and nitrogen removal effectiveness | Stream and floodplain restoration has grown into a multi-million dollar environmental industry in the United States. However, there is significant lack of information on effectiveness of these practices. We propose the use of stable nitrogen isotope for soils as a robust, integrative metric of denitrification nitrogen removal from restored floodplains. A rigorous sampling and statistical analysis plan with specific testable hypothesis is proposed. This metric could be a valuable tool for practitioners and restoration agencies. | FY 22 Q3: Question B “Effectiveness of Restorations at the Project Scale”. Specifically, we evaluate the effectiveness of stream and floodplain restorations in removing nitrogen from runoff using the soil nitrogen isotope δ15N as a long-term and robust metric. | TBA | Dr. Shreeram Inamdar |
| 2022 | $277,185 | Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University | Identifying restoration practices and landscape variables that increase native plant establishment and mitigate plant invasion | This projects seeks to identify stream restoration practices (e.g., revegetation mixes) and landscape variables (e.g., limits of disturbance) that increase native plant establishment and limit invasion of exotic plant species. Ecological restoration often demands large changes to the physical landscape (e.g., regrading) as well as wholesale reconstruction of plant communities that often leads to failure of native vegetation and dominance by exotic plant invaders. We will survey a large number (50-60) existing stream restoration projects, sampling restored and unrestored reaches, to evaluate our hypotheses that projects that limit disturbance and available resources and achieve high levels of native cover will be the most successful. Our results will provide recommendations on restoration practices to maximize native cover and limit invasive cover across a range of environmental and landscape contexts. | FY 22 Q6: Question 6 regarding “resource trade-offs,” (resource trade-offs in different types of restoration projects. The decision to install a restoration project at any given site by definition implies that an existing condition at that site will be modified, replaced, and/or improved.) specifically with “invasive species in stream restoration and tree plantings” (Vegetation “success” for plant establishment, survival, and ecological benefit: Vegetation establishment efforts are common as both standalone projects (buffers, meadows, etc.) and components of other BMPs (stream restorations, stormwater bioretention, etc.) As practitioners, policymakers, and funders, the community wants to determine how to assess vegetation “success” to guide us for more sustainable, cost-effective, and ecologically beneficial plantings). | TBA | Dr. Jacob Barney |
| 2022 | $315,334 | University of Maryland | Influence of historic and current land use practices on PCB contamination of soils and stormwater sediments in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. | This research study aims to evaluate the historical and current land use impact on the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in soils and stormwater sediments in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed with focus on Curtis Bay. This aim will be addressed by evaluating land use changes through history, influence of urban landscape systems on PCB flows and concentration, while also addressing the social equity and environmental justice context. With information on PCB concentrations in stormwater soils and sediments, PCB removal efficiencies of particulate-bound PCBs from BMPs can be estimated. An improved understanding of the impact of land use on legacy and contemporary PCB sources can be used to translate the results of this project to other areas throughout the Bay watershed leading to PCB load reductions. | FY 22 Q5: Question 5b: ‘Pollutants of Emerging Concern’. Specifically, we will address the question i): are there significant differences of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) across different land use types including industry types and eras of development? Also, based on information collected, we will provide input towards addressing question 5b ii): ‘What are the removal capabilities of different stormwater management designs on reducing toxic contaminant loads?’ with focus on part b): ‘comparisons of effectiveness of different innovative techniques at reducing PCBs and other toxins”. Our project focuses on PCB contaminated sites of Curtis Bay, in the Patapsco River Watershed, but the approach will be extended to other locations throughout Maryland, primarily in Prince George’s County to cover different land uses, eras of development, and household income where appropriate. Historical land uses records will be combined with soil and sediment sampling and analysis to answer question (i), by understanding the co-relation between the land use characteristics and the PCB contamination of the soils and roadway sediments. Knowing PCB concentrations in soils and sediments can allow estimates of potential PCB load reductions from removals in various types of stormwater BMPs and to allow targeting of areas to address sources of the greatest expected PCB stormwater loads. | TBA | Dr. Birthe Kjellerup |
| 2023 | $313,194 | The Pennsylvania State University | Assessing the feasibility of assisted macroinvertebrate colonization in achieving ecological uplift in restored streams | Stream restorations are viewed as a mitigation method for repairing degraded urban and suburban streams, but they typically do not achieve the improved macroinvertebrate biodiversity outcomes that are desired. Here we propose a field experiment and quantitative literature review that will test the hypothesis that macroinvertebrate reintroductions can help achieve ecological uplift following stream restorations. The proposed work will provide data that will indicate if this method could be used to increase benthic macroinvertebrate biodiversity in Maryland stream restorations. All data and results will be made open access and publicly disseminated via presentations and publications. | FY 23 Q3: Biological Community Restoration: Recent research has shown that in many situations, especially in watersheds with relatively high impervious cover, stream restoration may result in improved physical habitats but not restored biological communities (macroinvertebrates, fishes, etc.). The reasons are not yet clear, but three hypotheses are high flows (impact benthic drift behaviors, suspended sediment tolerance, available carbon), the lack of source populations, and chemical habitat barriers (e.g., conductivity, temperature). We seek a research team to test the hypothesis that individual/species/community seeding/transplantation in urban/suburban restored streams (in which physical habitat conditions would predict them to occur) will result in benthic communities that are more similar to reference streams as compared to control restored sites in which individuals/species/communities were not transplanted. As part of this effort, researchers may also choose to test the chemical habitat hypothesis. The research will be aware of and build on, if appliable, a project supported in this program titled, “Using eDNA methods to extend biological sampling and identify candidate restorations for species reintroductions” and other relevant research. | TBA | Dr. Daniel Allen |
| 2023 | $254,014 | University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science | Assessing the effectiveness of green stormwater infrastructure for addressing stormwater management goals at the watershed scale: application of the BACI design | The overall objective of the proposed research is to quantify the spatially-aggregated effectiveness of green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) in addressing the four primary stormwater management goals at the watershed scale. A paired-watershed study (BACI design) will be conducted in two small suburban watersheds in Howard County (Maryland): one watershed is served by traditional stormwater management, while the second watershed is dominated by GSI (bioretentions, dry wells, etc.). The project would seamlessly (and cost-effectively) build on a previous effort (funded by CBT) that has documented several hydrologic and water quality responses to partial GSI implementation including: decreases in total runoff; decreasing event runoff volumes; and decreasing overland flow (“new” water) contributions. We also propose expanding the long-term study to address several water pollutants of emerging concern in urbanizing watersheds, specifically thermal pollution, chloride, and coliform bacteria. | FY 23 Q1 & Q5 (T, bacteria, Cl): 1. BMP Effectiveness Monitoring: What is the effectiveness of stormwater best management practices implemented to address the Environmental Site Design (ESD) sizing criteria in the Maryland Stormwater Design Manual for assessments in Maryland? Does provision of the full treatment volume for the 1-year 24-hour design storm event to address the ESD unified sizing criteria to replicate woods in good condition reduce the water flow enough to protect stream channels? How effective is the BMP (or suite of BMPs) for reducing total suspended solids (TSS), total phosphorus (TP), or total nitrogen (TN)? How do soils and vegetative cover impact the effectiveness of the BMP (load/reduction relationship)? 5. Pollutants of Emerging Concern: Temperature; toxics, particularly polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); fecal indicator bacteria; and chloride have been identified as “emerging pollutants” of concern by the restoration community, beyond the “traditional” pollutants of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment that have been the focus of much of the research to date. Therefore, questions within this area are: a. Thermal – What best management practice design and siting methods will reduce thermal impacts to streams, and in Maryland there is interest in Maryland’s Use III and IV streams (see the Maryland Stormwater Design Manual Section 4.1), and to the watershed? Management practice design/strategy examples to test include various surface ponding and discharge structure configurations, variable media depths in filtering practices, and specific stream restoration design features and types such as legacy sediment removal, stage zero/emergent wetlands, and other management strategies. Applicants should be aware of and build on, if possible, the project supported in 2021, “Evaluation of watershed-scale impacts of stormwater management facilities on thermal loads to a Maryland Class IV stream using a high-frequency sensor network” as described in the 2022 forum presentation available at: https://cbtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/5_Welty-Miller-Restoration-Research-2022-v2.pdf. Current state (Maryland) modeling efforts indicate that a reduction in heated surface runoff in addition to riparian forest buffers to provide shading are necessary to meet thermal water quality endpoints (68o F or 20o C for Use Class III streams). What is the thermal load to and the cumulative impact of thermal mitigation practices in urban and rural watersheds? If possible, explain how practices were combined to reduce thermal impacts to streams. c. Bacteria and Chloride – To better inform choices of existing management options, funders participating in the Pooled Monitoring option in Maryland’s MS4 permit are interested in research that advances existing science related to the baseline conditions and sources of bacteria and/or chloride in urban streams. Funders are also interested in existing or novel sampling and analytical methods that could better quantify pollutants entering waterways and differentiate between the primary sources. Such research may include developing a relationship between E. coli eDNA and E. coli most probable number (MPN)/100 mL, the feasibility of using automated samplers for bacteria sampling in lieu of grab samples, and the relationship between chloride concentration and specific conductance. Ultimately, funders want to use this research to identify new and/or to enhance existing, management measures that reduce bacteria and chloride concentrations in receiving waters. Questions for researchers to address are: i. What are the typical bacteria sources and their relative contributions for urban watersheds? Of interest are methods of sampling (e.g., autosampler vs. grab sampling), developing relationships between eDNA and actual counts of E. coli and Enterococcus, and researching and updating the proportional bacteria contributions to non-tidal stream systems from diverse sources. ii. What are the effects of salt reduction strategies on in-stream chloride concentrations and specific conductance in nontidal perennial streams (12-digit watershed(s))? We realize that sample size, methods used, and replication could be costly and may be scalable. The funders will consider literature reviews and/or pilot efforts for one or both questions. The MDE monitoring guidelines may be used as reference and can be found here: https://mde.maryland.gov/programs/water/StormwaterManagementProgram/Documents/Final%20Determination%20Dox%20N5%202021/2021%20MS4%20Monitoring%20Guideline%20Final%2011%2005%202021.pdf | TBA | Dr. Keith Eshleman |
| 2023 | $188,004 | The Pennsylvania State University | Impacts of Urban Soil Compaction on Stormwater Runoff Volumes and BMP Sizing | Urban stormwater runoff calculations use either the Curve Number (CN) for Environmental Site Design or Volumetric Runoff Coefficient (Vr) for Water Quality Volume. CN and Rv are selected based on impervious area and do not incorporate pervious area runoff; also parameter values are selected based on studies done in undisturbed soils. Compaction during construction reduces porosity and may create a shallow impermeable barrier to infiltration. This study will monitor four urban sites in Baltimore to improve understanding of urban soil infiltration limits and will relate model parameters such as CN and Rv to soil characteristics that can be measured in the field, such as bulk density, porosity, soil texture, initial moisture content, etc. | FY 23 Q1 & Q4 (somewhat): BMP Effectiveness Monitoring: What is the effectiveness of stormwater best management practices implemented to address the Environmental Site Design (ESD) sizing criteria in the Maryland Stormwater Design Manual for assessments in Maryland? Does provision of the full treatment volume for the 1-year 24-hour design storm event to address the ESD unified sizing criteria to replicate woods in good condition reduce the water flow enough to protect stream channels? How effective is the BMP (or suite of BMPs) for reducing total suspended solids (TSS), total phosphorus (TP), or total nitrogen (TN)? How do soils and vegetative cover impact the effectiveness of the BMP (load/reduction relationship)? | TBA | Dr. Shirley Clark |
| 2023 | $54,693 | Delaware Center for the Inland Bays | Reforestation Restoration Success – Measuring Early Forest Development After Land Disturbance with Soil Chemistry and Understory Vegetation | Determining success, detecting change and being able to adaptively manage to increase forest health will answer the questions around resource trade-offs in different types of restoration projects, Question C.6. in the current RFP. Adolescent forest plantings (4-6 year old) will be examined for forest health metrics in both the vegetative community and the physio-chemical soil condition across a range of typical reforestation practices following stream restoration and meadow conversion. Traditional reforestation will be compared with a novel, for the mid-Atlantic, approach known as applied nucleation. Deliverables will focus on understanding forest functional tradeoffs (tree canopy, non-native invasive species, soil organic matter) and the role of newer planting techniques on restoring forest function faster or to a higher level. | FY 23 Q6 (tree planting success): 6. Resource trade-offs in different types of restoration projects. The decision to install a restoration project at any given site by definition implies that an existing condition at that site will be modified, replaced, and/or improved. The hypothesis of the restoration practitioner is that the net condition will be improved. However, a value judgment is placed on the existing condition, (e.g., deeming the existing condition to be inferior to the desired “restored” condition) that is often not based on quantification. In addition, there is an accompanying value judgment on the proposed resulting condition that may not take into account the reductions of certain functions (e.g., removing trees to create a wetland). One difficulty is that the units of the resource negatively affected is often not the same as the units measured to report the restoration work (often, for example, pounds of nitrogen reduced). The goal of this question is to encourage quantification, in some comparable metric, of the resources present prior to the activity compared to the resources available after restoration project installation, calculating net ecological impact after evaluation of individual functional components. Your project should explore the “positive” and “negative” impact for at least two resources using common metric(s) (e.g., vegetation biomass, pounds of pollutant reduced, a habitat metric) to determine the net change. If possible, consider the economic valuation of the resource(s) or ecosystem service(s). With certain kinds of restoration projects or practices, do the net benefits (nutrients, sediment, habitat, hydrology, biological resources) outweigh the net impacts (tree loss and resulting habitat loss, etc.)? Include at least two resources for consideration, such as, but not limited to the following: • Tree planting “success” for plant establishment, survival, and ecological benefit: Vegetation establishment efforts are common as both standalone projects (buffers, meadows, etc.) and components of other BMPs (stream restorations, stormwater bioretention, etc.). As practitioners, policymakers, and funders, the community wants to determine how to assess vegetation “success” to guide us for more sustainable, ecologically beneficial, and cost-effective plantings. Therefore, our top question is: How do we measure tree planting project “success”? We want tree planting projects to be successful in terms of many factors such as site selection; site preparation; size, type, and/or density of plantings; people accepting the project; survivability; ensuring equity* considered in our projects; attaining ecological and habitat benefits; and attaining water quality benefits estimated all while demonstrating cost effectiveness. Researchers should consider the following sub-questions that get at the “success” of a project: a) How does site selection, preparation (e.g., soil decompaction or amendment), and maintenance (including invasive management**) impact the outcome of interest (tree survival, pollutant load reduction/credit)? How do the financial expenses and labor involved with these different preparation and maintenance regimes compare with their respective outcomes? b) How do the water quality credits compare to the modeled credits for tree planting projects (e.g., riparian buffer credits, upland tree planting credits, etc.)? c) For tree planting projects related to stream restoration, how does the transition from forested communities to wetland communities impact soils, tree survivability, and shading of the stream? Stream restoration often entails reconnecting the floodplain to the stream and raising groundwater water levels. How does this change in floodplain connectivity and groundwater levels impact the previously mentioned metrics such as tree survivability, shading, and riparian ecology? | TBA | Megahn Noe Fellows |
| 2023 | $214,838 | University of Delaware | More than dirt: Soil health tradeoffs with stream and floodplain restorations | The key question we address is – Question C - Trade-offs in resource improvements incurred by restoration practices and the resulting net ecological change as measured by a common “currency”. Stream and floodplain restorations can severely disturb and compact floodplain/riparian soils leading to detrimental effects on soil health. Very few studies have, however, quantified the physical, chemical, and biological changes in soil health and if and how they evolve with time following restorations. Here, we investigate the changes in selected soil health metrics for 12 mid-Atlantic restoration sites across four age categories post restoration: 0-2, 2-5, 5-10 and > 10 years. Selected soil metrics will include: bulk density, aggregation, soil texture, infiltration rate, pH, conductivity, nitrogen and organic carbon contents, denitrification rates, microbial biomass including bacteria:fungi ratios, and fine root biomass. Improvement of soil health will result in restorations that are healthy, sustainable, and resilient. | FY 23 Q6 (stream restoration impact to soil health and ecosystem services): 6. Resource trade-offs in different types of restoration projects. The decision to install a restoration project at any given site by definition implies that an existing condition at that site will be modified, replaced, and/or improved. The hypothesis of the restoration practitioner is that the net condition will be improved. However, a value judgment is placed on the existing condition, (e.g., deeming the existing condition to be inferior to the desired “restored” condition) that is often not based on quantification. In addition, there is an accompanying value judgment on the proposed resulting condition that may not take into account the reductions of certain functions (e.g., removing trees to create a wetland). One difficulty is that the units of the resource negatively affected is often not the same as the units measured to report the restoration work (often, for example, pounds of nitrogen reduced). The goal of this question is to encourage quantification, in some comparable metric, of the resources present prior to the activity compared to the resources available after restoration project installation, calculating net ecological impact after evaluation of individual functional components. Your project should explore the “positive” and “negative” impact for at least two resources using common metric(s) (e.g., vegetation biomass, pounds of pollutant reduced, a habitat metric) to determine the net change. If possible, consider the economic valuation of the resource(s) or ecosystem service(s). With certain kinds of restoration projects or practices, do the net benefits (nutrients, sediment, habitat, hydrology, biological resources) outweigh the net impacts (tree loss and resulting habitat loss, etc.)? | TBA | Dr. Shreeram Inamdar |
The Pooled Monitoring Initiative’s Restoration Research Forum is an annual forum in which the most recent restoration research is presented and discussed. At the forum, regulatory staff and practitioners will have an opportunity to ask new questions and clarify the current state of scientific knowledge. Topics include efficacy of research practices for water quality and biological resources, potential chemical impacts, and physical/geomorphic stability of stream restoration.
2023 Forum
Pooled Monitoring Forum June 16, 2023
Morning Session
Presentations
View combined presentations here.
- Keith Eshleman (University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science) Assessing the effectiveness of ESD for achieving stormwater management objectives in the Upper Little Patuxent River Watershed, Howard County, MD
- Arthur Parola (University of Louisville Research Foundation, Inc.) Reliability of Two-Dimensional Hydrodynamic Models for Assessing Susceptibility of Stream Restorations to Flood Damage and Potential Effects of Climate Change
- Erich Hester (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University) Watershed Effects on Success of Stream Restoration for Excess Nitrogen Mitigation
- Jon Butcher (Tetra Tech, Inc.) Climate Change Impacts to Restoration Practices
- Dong Liang (University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science) A Power Analysis Tool in R to Enhance Monitoring Studies
- Tess Thompson (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University) Effectiveness of stormwater management practices in protecting stream channel stability
- Claire Welty & Andy Miller, (University of Maryland Baltimore County) Evaluation of watershed-scale impacts of stormwater management facilities on thermal loads to a Maryland Class IV stream using a high-frequency sensor network
- Bob Hildebrand (University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science) Using eDNA methods to extend biological sampling and identify candidate restorations for species reintroductions
- Lauren McPhillips (Pennsylvania State College of Engineering) Impacts of salt loading on nutrient and metal processing in stormwater bioretention
2022 Forum
Pooled Monitoring Forum June 16, 2022
Morning Session
Presentations
View combined presentations here.
- Erich Hester (Virginia Tech) Watershed Effects on Success of Stream Restoration for Excess Nitrogen Mitigation
- Arthur Parola (University of Louisville Research Foundation, Inc.) Reliability of Two-Dimensional Hydrodynamic Models for Assessing Susceptibility of Stream Restorations to Flood Damage and Potential Effects of Climate Change
- Jon Butcher (Tetra Tech, Inc.) Climate Change Impacts to Restoration Practices
- Theresa Thompson (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University) Effectiveness of Stormwater Management Practices in Protecting Stream Channel Stability
- Claire Welty and Andy Miller (University of Maryland Baltimore County) Evaluation of Watershed-Scale Impacts of Stormwater Management Facilities on Thermal Loads to a Maryland Class IV Stream Using a High-Frequency Sensor Network
- Sujay Kaushal (University of Maryland, College Park) Evaluating Impacts of Freshwater Salinization on Mobilization of Nutrients and Metals from Stormwater Best Management Practices
- Mark Southerland (Tetra Tech, Inc.) Vertebrate Community Trajectory in Regenerative Stream Conveyances
- Keith Eshleman (University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science) Assessing the Effectiveness of ESD for Achieving Stormwater Management Objectives in the Upper Little Patuxent River Watershed, Howard County, MD
- Erin Knauer (Ecosystem Planning and Restoration) Work in the Wet Versus Work in the Dry for Stream Restoration: A Comparison of Downstream Turbidity and Sediment Loads
Panel – How are we using the Pooled Monitoring Initiative research?
If interested in watching panel, go to timestamp 1:54:33 in the recording here
Panelists
- Jessica Martinsen (USEPA) Represented by Sadie Drescher (Chesapeake Bay Trust)
- Ari Engelberg (MD DNR)
- Amy Stevens (Montgomery County, MD)
- Mike Galvin (Maryland Stream Restoration Association)
- Sarah Koser (Chesapeake Bay Trust)
2021 Forum
Pooled Monitoring Forum June 16, 2021
Morning Session
Presentations
View combined presentations here.
- Arthur Parola (University of Louisville Research Foundation, Inc.)
Reliability of Two-Dimensional Hydrodynamic Models for Assessing Susceptibility of Stream Restorations to Flood Damage and Potential Effects of Climate Change - Keith Eshleman (University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science)
Assessing the effectiveness of ESD for achieving stormwater management objectives in the Upper Little Patuxent River Watershed, Howard County, MD - Sujay Kaushal (University of Maryland, College Park)
Evaluating impacts of freshwater salinization on mobilization of nutrients and metals from stormwater best management practices - Jamie Suski (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC)
Impacts of Regenerative Streamwater Conveyance on Iron in Restored Streams and Potential Effects on Aquatic Organisms - Mohammad Al-Smadi (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University)
Effectiveness of stormwater management practices in protecting stream channel stability - Cindy Palinkas (University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science)
Long-term impacts of living shorelines to Sub Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) habitats in the Chesapeake Bay - Sujay Kaushal (University of Maryland, College Park)
Tree Trade-Offs in Stream Restoration Projects: Impact on Riparian Groundwater Quality - Deb Caraco (Center for Watershed Protection, Inc.)
Using a Novel Research Framework to Assess Water Quality Impacts of Urban Trees - Theresa Thompson (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University)
Improving Success of Stream Restoration Practices – Revised and Expanded - Tom Jordan (Smithsonian Environmental Research Center)
Watershed Scale Effects of Urban BMPs on Loads of Nutrients and Suspended Solids - Byron Madigan (Carroll County Government)
The self-recovery of stream channel stability in urban watersheds due to BMP implementation - Vanessa Beauchamp and Joel Moore (Towson University)
Determining the effects of legacy sediment removal and floodplain reconnection on ecosystem function and nutrient export - Claire Welty, Andy Miller, Jon Duncan (University of Maryland Baltimore County)
Quantifying the cumulative effects of stream restoration and environmental site design on nitrate loads in nested urban watersheds using a high-frequency sensor network
Keynote Speaker
- Karen Dinicola, LG, LHG, EIT, Senior Policy Lead, Ecology Water Quality Program HQ (Lead for Washington State’s Pooled Resources program)
Pooled Stormwater Monitoring
2020 Forum
Pooled Monitoring Forum June 9, 2020
Morning Session
Combined Presentations with Translation Slides
- Jon Butcher (Tetra Tech, Inc.)
Climate impacts to restoration practices - Roxolana Kashuba (Exponent, Inc.)
The effect of BMPs on water quality: Optimizing monitoring to reduce uncertainty and maximize scientific value - Cindy Palinkas (University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science)
Long-term impacts of living shorelines to Submerged Aquatic Vegetation habitats in Chesapeake Bay - Tess Thompson (Virginia Tech)
Linking stream restoration success with watershed and design characteristics - Bob Hilderbrand (University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science)
Determining ecologically realistic restoration objectives - Jesse Iliff (Arundel Rivers Federation) and Tom Jordan (Smithsonian Environmental Research Center)
Assessing watershed-scale restoration effectiveness: Treatment impacts and monitoring requirements - Carol Wong (Center for Watershed Protection)
Literature review on techniques to reduce salt loadings to streams: Which techniques of salt application to roadways will result in less loadings to streams?
Keynote Speaker
- Tom Schueler (Chesapeake Stormwater Network)
Value of Pooled Monitoring Program & Practitioner stream restoration research needs
2019 Forum
Pooled Monitoring Forum June 12, 2019
Opening Remarks
- Sadie Drescher (Chesapeake Bay Trust)
Forum Introduction - Scott Stranko (Maryland Department of Natural Resources)
Maryland’s Stream Ecology
Combined Presentations with Translation Slides
- Sujay Kushal and Kelsey Wood (University of Maryland)
Tree trade-offs in stream restoration projects: Impact on riparian groundwater quality - Ginny Rogers (Versar) and Verl Emrick (Virginia Tech)
An evaluation of forest impacts as compared to benefits associated with stream restoration - Solange Filoso (University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science)
Emerging patterns of sediment and nitrogen load reduction efficiency in upper and lower stream reaches - Keith Eshleman (University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science)
Stream Restoration Monitoring - Bob Hilderbrand (University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science)
Effectiveness of urban stream restoration for improving habitat and benthic invertebrates - Claire Welty, University of Maryland Baltimore County
Assessment of stream restoration impacts on urban sediment load and comparison with TMDL guidelines - Neely Law (Center for Watershed Protection) and Mitch Pavao-Zuckerman (University of Maryland)
A novel research framework to assess the water quality impacts of urban trees - Vanessa Beauchamp and Joel Moore ( Towson University)
Evaluation of legacy sediment removal and floodplain reconnection as a restoration technique
2018 Forum
Pooled Monitoring Forum June 29, 2018
Opening Remarks
Combined Presentations with Translation Slides
- Tom Jordan, SERC
“Regenerative Stormwater Conveyance (RSC) Performance: The Groundwater Connection” - Vyacheslav (Slava) Lyubchich and Dong Liang, UMCES
“Optimizing sampling frequency to determine pollutant loads and Can we detect effects of stormwater best management practices at watershed scale using two monitoring design types: Before-After-Control-Impact and Before-After (no control)“ - Tess Thompson, Virginia Tech
“Improving the success of in-stream structures and stream restoration practices”
Flow Video - Joe Acord, UMCES
“Quantifying the ecological uplift and effectiveness of differing stream restoration approaches in Maryland“ - Byron Madigan, Carroll County
“The Self-Recovery of Stream Channel Stability in Urban Watersheds Due to BMP Implementation
Keynote Speaker
- Karen Dinicola, State of Washington
“Creating and Implementing a New Regional Stormwater Monitoring Program“
2017 Forum
2017 Forum (6/5/17)
2016 Forum
2016 Forum (6/8/16)
- Keehner presentation and all of the presentation Translation Slides that include take-home points of the presentation and summary of “What this means for me” if I’m a regulator or if I’m a practitioner
- Hilderbrand-experimental design
- Wilcox
- Filoso
- Williams
- Penrose
- Hilderbrand-fish
- Agenda
FY24 RFP Questions, Answers, and Comments
Q #1: We have an existing Pooled Monitoring Initiative award that has not been completed yet. Would this prevent us from applying this year?
A #1: You are eligible to apply this year if you have an ongoing research project in the program.
Q #2: Can we wait to get three estimates for contractual work until after the award?
A #2: Yes, but it will be required upon award. We recommend doing this ahead of the application submittal to best assess costs and be ready to execute the contract if awarded.
Q #3: Is there a different proposal narrative format for literature review applications?
A #3: No, use the same proposal narrative format provided in the RFP and reviewers will understand that some sections may “look different” for literature review applications as compared to proposals for monitoring, modeling, etc.
Q #4: Are there limitations on the project budget or timeline?
A #4: There are no limitations on the project budget or timeline. This is addressed on page 14 of the RFP, “Project timeframe and funding request are not set, and the research project funding request and timeline should correspond with the goals of the project.” The program is looking for the best research to address the question(s). However, consider the total funding available each year and that various funding partners may need to agree to support larger project budgets. See also, the RFP on page 11 that relates to this topic, “Given budget constraints, investigators are encouraged to couple efforts with planned or completed restoration projects where appropriate.”
FY23 RFP Questions, Answers, and Comments
Q #1: Are federal agencies allowed to apply as the prime applicant?
A #1: Yes, this RFP is open to all types of organizations.
FY22 RFP Questions, Answers, and Comments
Q #1: How can I connect with other potential collaborators, e.g., practitioners looking to connect with more robust experimental design staff or research teams looking for sites to study in jurisdictions or elsewhere?
A #1: Contact the program manager, Sadie Drescher, to help make the connections.
Q #2: What indirect should be used for the application?
A #2: The Chesapeake Bay Trust requests that applicants limit the indirect cost to 10% of the total direct cost for the Restoration Research Award Program. Please keep in mind that the reviewers will use the project output(s) per requested amount as criterion for funding decision. See the Chesapeake Bay Trust’s Indirect Policy at: https://cbtrust.org/forms-policies/
Q #3: How will the awards be managed?
A #3: As firm-fixed-priced (deliverables-based) contracts (see RFP page 16).
Q #4: Are there some questions that are more favorable than others to the funding partners?
A #4: All the questions listed in the RFP are viable for funding in the program. However, as we state in the RFP, “The Trust and funding partners reserve the right to fund projects and budget items that advance its mission and meet its specific funding priorities and criteria.” For more details contact the program manager to discuss your question(s) of interest.
COMMENT #1: In further discussion for Question 5bi (Are there significant differences in PCB loadings across different land use types, industry types, and eras of development?) the regulators who helped draft this question state that PCB concentration is more appropriate than PCB loadings (since loadings can be variable and perhaps a poor indicator for potential sources.
FY21 RFP Questions, Answers, and Comments
Q #1: Is there a literature review for the thermal Q5a?
A #1: The Maryland Department of Environment pulled together a literature review in preparation to support the BMP section that will be included in an upcoming Temperature BMP TMDL implementation guidance. The literature reviewed and bullets for the literature review summary by MDE are available at: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1lIZKBTBqwj9ZWbOvPTv_tGtHHbnQ5FLX?usp=sharing
Q #2: The research team includes partners vs subcontractors/contractors, so how do we address question 9 for contractual work?
A #2: If awarded with federal funds the project must demonstrate “good faith efforts” in selecting subcontractors/contractors as outlined in the Pooled Monitoring Initiative’s Restoration Research RFP page 17 Q9 “Contractual Work.” An organization proposed to receive funds other than the applicant organization is a contractor.
Q#3: When I put a bid out for a contractor, do I get to make the final selection or is the Pooled Monitoring Initiative (PMI) involved in the decision? If PMI is involved, do you have a set of criteria that must be followed (lowest bid, most qualified, etc.)?
A #3: If you use a RFP for the competitive bid process then the RFP, selection process, etc. is up to you (we have provided guidance in the past only to help awardees who asked for it). The idea is that you would use a fair process per Title 2 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 200 and if ever asked to demonstrate this process/decision could do so. See also this Pooled Monitoring Initiative’s Restoration Research RFP page 17 Q9 “Contractual Work.”
Q #4: Our contract officer wants to review the resulting contract terms so are those available?
A #4: This question came up in the Information Session on 1/5/21, and after reviewing our contract templates we decided not to post these online since some terms may be updated for this program and the various templates we use may be more confusing than illuminating for applicants. If more information is needed about a potential resulting contract contact sdrescher@cbtrust.org. Also, make sure to review the RFP terms and the application terms with the contract officer.
Q #5: Can you send a past bidder’s application?
A #5: We have past award information including title, abstract, contact information, and final products if available on the program’s website at Restoration Research – Chesapeake Bay Trust (cbtrust.org). However, we do not share past applicant information. Consider contacting the lead investigator for details or posing specific questions and the Trust can respond to assist in application development.
Q #6: We are a University, and we are not eligible for professional liability insurance. The terms and conditions do not require this and therefore, we are asking if this is something required for the University.
A #6: The awardee’s contract will include a term for contract liability insurance coverage in connection with the performance or failure to perform services under the Contract. A certificate of insurance may be used to cover these liability insurance requirements for this program and resulting contract. The Trust will work with all awardees, considering the organization type, and their applicability for and ability to attain professional liability insurance.
Q #7: Can resumes, references, and similar supporting material be provided outside the 10-page response to the 12 narrative questions?
A#7: Yes, these and other materials to support your project proposal may be included in addition to the responses to the 12 narrative questions. Please submit these materials as one file.
See the RFP page 15 for details on this topic under “Narrative Questions.” Also see the note about resumes and page limits provided under question 8 “Requesting organization and qualifications” on page 16 of the RFP.
Q #8: The “Proposal Narrative Format” section of the RFP on page 12 states that proposals shall be organized as provided in I through V. However, the project narrative asks applicants to organize the proposal per the 12 narrative questions. What is your recommendation to meet both requirements?
A #8: In following and answering the 12 narrative questions your proposal will include and be organized by the “Proposal Narrative Format” items I through V that are provided on the RFP page 12.
Efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries call for a significant increase in the number of watershed restoration projects intended to improve both water quality and habitat. The practitioner, regulatory, management, policy, and scientific communities are united in their desire to support the best, most cost-effective practices at the most optimal sites. However, differences of opinion sometimes exist, and questions about the performance and function of some of these practices persist.
The Pooled Monitoring Initiative pools resources to support scientists who answer key restoration questions posed by the regulatory and practitioner communities through this Restoration Research Requests for Proposal (RFP). The research teams then provide the answers back to those who asked the questions for direct application. The goal of the Restoration Research award program is to answer these key restoration questions that serve as a barrier to watershed restoration project implementation. Funding partners hope that answering these questions will ultimately lead to increased confidence in proposed restoration project outcomes, clarification of the optimal site conditions in which to apply particular restoration techniques, information useful to regulatory agencies in project permitting, and information that will help guide monitoring programs.
The ability to pool funding allows for rigorous research to address these large, complicated questions that require robust experimental design carried out by top notch research teams. Finally, the RFP research questions are the result of the top key restoration questions identified for a particular year and the previous RFP questions may be removed while research is ongoing to inform future research direction. See the “Awarded Projects and Final Products” tab on this website for the past research efforts.
Past RFP Questions Combined:
Past RFPs:
- Literature Lists
- Literature List
- Literature List for Urban BMPs (updated 2/2/16)
- Restoration Project Sites
- Given budget constraints, investigators are encouraged to couple efforts with planned or completed restoration projects where appropriate. The Trust and collaborators will work to provide project sites and/or list(s) of relevant restoration projects for your project. Reach out to this program’s point of contact, Sadie Drescher, at sdrescher@cbtrust.org for assistance.
