University of Maryland Sea Grant Extension outlines watershed and stormwater support for Prince George’s County
Loading...
Summary
University of Maryland Sea Grant Extension told the county committee it provides watershed protection, training and project implementation across Central Maryland — including Prince George’s County — and offered to supply a district‑level map of partner organizations and outreach metrics. Staff said projects show measurable runoff and nutrient reductions but long‑term behavior change is slower to quantify.
Amanda Rockler, a watershed restoration specialist and interim Sea Grant Extension director at the University of Maryland, told the Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment Committee on Feb. 12 that the Extension’s watershed team focuses on measurable water‑quality improvements and reducing climate‑related flooding across Central Maryland, including Prince George’s County.
Rockler said the team coordinates capacity building, grants assistance, on‑the‑ground project implementation and community engagement. “We help achieve measurable improvements in water quality,” she said, and described programs that range from small conservation landscapes and rain gardens to stream restoration and community stewardship training. She said the program covers Howard, Montgomery, Anne Arundel and Prince George’s counties and that statewide specialists support issues such as septics and emerging contaminants.
The presentation highlighted the Watershed Stewards Academy, a 16‑week train‑the‑trainer program housed with the Anacostia Watershed Stewards nonprofit that requires participants to implement an actionable project; a Chesapeake Bay Professional Landscape Certification for practitioners; and microcredentials for high school and community college students focused on design, installation and maintenance of best management practices.
Rockler described local work in Prince George’s County — including projects in Watts Branch and community outreach on stormwater and mosquito awareness — and said Extension regularly partners with local governments and nonprofits to write grants and manage projects. When asked how many organizations Extension works with in District 4, Rockler said partnerships are project‑based and offered to provide district‑specific lists, reach metrics and a partner map. Committee staff agreed to collect and circulate those records to members.
On funding, Rockler described varied support across the team — some positions fully state‑funded, others via grants or county dollars — and estimated personnel costs for the statewide program at roughly $1,000,000 (she characterized that figure as a rough, “low‑ball” estimate). She emphasized that Extension provides ongoing, long‑term technical assistance rather than one‑off grant consulting. “We are a free resource. We are paid with tax payer dollars,” Rockler said, noting the office works closely with communities over time to implement and maintain projects.
Committee members and county Extension staff also described local program outputs: master gardener volunteers, 4‑H programming, nutrition education through federally funded EFNET efforts and leveraged county funds that Extension staff said have historically stretched a county contribution (noted at approximately $208,000 annually) into about $1.25 million in services through state and federal matches.
The committee requested follow‑up materials, including: a district‑level partner list and map, counts of partner organizations and participants in county programs, and a clearer budget breakdown for county‑funded versus grant‑funded positions. Rockler and Extension staff agreed to provide those materials to the committee.
The committee chair closed the discussion after members expressed support for restoring local funding to fill vacant Extension positions and to help sustain program delivery.
The committee adjourned after a brief motion and voice vote.
