Transcript E. Coli Monitoring Data Catoctin Watershed TMDL 2005-2007

Catoctin TMDL Project
Proposal for New Initiatives
to
Loudoun Watershed Management
Stakeholders Steering Committee
February 2008
Loudoun Watershed Watch
Data Compilation and Analyses:
Darrell Schwalm, LWW
David Ward, LWW
Catoctin TMDL Study Findings
• Water quality does not meet state fecal bacteria
standards for recreational use
• Restoration plan based on water quality model:
– Collected data to generate model equations
– Calculated sources of pollution and load from each
– Corrected model findings based on historical data
• No significant point sources of pollution
• Major non-point sources of fecal loads were:
– Livestock
– Wildlife
– Failing septic systems
Restoration Strategy
• Controllable sources are:
– Livestock and human
• Uncontrollable sources are:
– Wildlife – muskrats are major source based on
habitat type
• Load reduction goals to meet WQ standard:
– 100% elimination of livestock from direct stream
access
– 100% correction of failing septic systems
TMDL Implementation Plan
• Developed by state with input from
Stakeholder Taskforce
• Grant funds to
– Hire Agricultural Specialist
– Hire Public Health Specialist
– No other County Roles
• No funds for public education outreach or
stream monitoring
– No WQ data for 75% of watershed
– Little rainfall/high flow data for watershed
– Little tracking of progress for 5 yrs
Volunteer Stakeholder Role
• Community Outreach and Public Education –
Loudoun Watershed Watch (LWW) is to
organize Catoctin watershed events, and
provide community educational materials and
displays.
• Citizen Monitoring – LWW is to provide
complementary monitoring to better define
WQ conditions and implementation progress.
LWW’s Catoctin Watershed Project
• Organized in 2005 by Loudoun Watershed
Watch to help meet stream monitoring and
community outreach goals under TMDL IP
• Grant funding from:
–
–
–
–
–
Canaan Valley Institute
DEQ
Chesapeake Bay Restoration Fund
Loudoun Wildlife Conservancy
Citizen donations
Community Outreach
Projects
• 2005 Riparian Tree Planting Day – Watertown area
with 50 participants and 500 trees planted
• 2005 Catoctin Creek Clean-up Day – Taylorstown
area with 60 participants
• 2006 Riparian Tree Planting Day – Hamilton area
with 65 participants and 300 trees planted
• Taylorstown Citizen Association – Organizes
annual stream days
Community Outreach
Educational Materials
• Pamphlets –
–
–
–
–
–
Citizen’s Guide – Starting a Local Watershed Group
Catoctin Creek – A Community Treasure pamphlet
Catoctin Creek – Water Quality Report Card pamphlet
Benefits of Clean Water pamphlet
Fecal Bacteria in Stream Water: Public Health Considerations
pamphlet
• Website – Educational materials and monitoring data
provided at www.loudounwatershedwatch.org
• Logo – Distinctive logo provided on educational materials
and T-shirts
• Catoctin Watershed Project banners and display
Stream Monitoring
Contributions
• Monitoring began June 2005
– 12 stations
– Twice weekly monitoring
– Over 700 samples collected and analyzed
• Coliscan Easygel protocol to enumerate E. coli.
– Training from DEQ
– Use Leesburg STP laboratory
• Data analytical Reports – 2006 and 2008
• Data and status reports available on LWW
website
Citizen Volunteer Stakeholder’s
Overall Contributions – 2005-2007
Citizen volunteer organizations have made a
substantial contribution to the TMDL IP:
– Community Outreach and Education – publications,
website, meetings, etc. = 1000 hrs volunteer time
– Riparian Tree Planting and Stream Clean-up
Projects = 1000 hrs volunteer time
– Stream Monitoring – 61 sampling days, 700 samples, 1300
lab analyses = 1200 hrs volunteer time
Recognition -- LWW received the 2007 Outstanding
Organization Award from Virginia Citizens for Water
Quality
Outreach and Education
Lessons Learned
• Community outreach can be successful as shown in
2005 and 2006.
• Difficult for a single volunteer group to organize
outreach activities without other stakeholder
support:
– Need non-profit organization for grants
– Need larger number of experienced volunteers
– Need collaboration with many organizations
• LWW sought collaborative agreement and support
from LSWCD in 2007 – LSWCD declined
• LWW’s community outreach program is currently
inactive
Stream Monitoring
Lessons Learned
• Volunteer citizen group can organize
stream monitoring for a TMDL IP
• Monitoring data can assess trends, and
the influence of flows and droughts on
water quality
• A monitoring program based on Coliscan
Easygel costs about $1,200/year, and
grant funds are available.
Status - Agriculture BMP
Number TMDL
Number of
Fencing
of
TargetFencing Livestock Total %
Installed Livestock Fencing
%
Contracted
to be
Fencing
Sub-watershed
(ft)
Excluded
(ft)
Achieved
(ft)
Excluded Achieved
Catoctin Main
Stem
3380
49
52,000
0.07
8440
86
0.23
South Fork
Catoctin
8223
60
36,000
0.23
3825
45
0.33
NF Catoctin
3467
241
45,600
0.08
4490
117
0.17
Totals
15070
133,600
0.11
16755
248
0.24
Livestock contributes 79% of the fecal load to streams. The
modest level of exclusion of livestock would be expected to
cause only a small improvement in water quality.
Status – Water Quality
• Water quality trends vary in different
parts of watershed.
– Affected by small, local, and intermittent
nonpoint sources of pollution
• No substantial improvements
• Difficult to separate impact of drought
from impact of BMP installation
Reasonable Assurance of
Success
• Under DCR Guidelines there should be a
“reasonable assurance” that:
·
Implementation activities will occur,
·
BMPs will be implemented, and
·
TMDLs will be allocated and met.
• DCR relies on traditional incentives with
history of only modest success.
• Current status suggests it is unlikelihood
project will succeed.
Where to Go From Here?
With 3 ½ years behind us, we have learned
that:
– Additional supportive initiatives are needed
in the TMDL implementation efforts
– Additional organizational involvement and
collaborative mechanisms are needed
Additional Stakeholder “Buy-In”
More Catoctin watershed stakeholders need to be
engaged in the TMDL project
Recommended Approach:
– The Loudoun Watershed Management Stakeholder
Steering Committee should be invited to help.
– The Catoctin TMDL IP could become a pilot for
watershed restoration in the County.
– We could use the Catoctin TMDL IP to test new
collaborative approaches between stakeholder groups,
the County, and state agencies.
Community Outreach and
Education Needs
There should be added community outreach and
education efforts that target stakeholders in the
Catoctin watershed.
– Grant funds could be sought to hire a community
outreach educator/specialist.
– The “Education” and “Funding” subcommittees of the
Watershed Management Stakeholders Steering
Committee could be asked to help.
Grant Funds for BMP Installation
• We should try to obtain new incentive grants
and cost-share funds from non-state/Federal
sources to supplement the current Federal costshare programs.
– Funds for alternative fencing systems
– Funds for flood damage repair
• The “Funding” subcommittees of the
Watershed Management Stakeholders Steering
Committee could be asked to help.
• Funding for Catoctin TMDL could be a pilot
for County-wide stream restoration funding
Possible Strategy for
Grant Fund Administration
• Grant funds obtained by Stakeholder Organization
• Funds passed through and administered by
Loudoun Soil and Water Conservation District:
– Hire needed community education specialist
– Provide “extra” grant and cost-share funds as
appropriate to willing landowners.
• Steering Committee would become partner with a
limited role.
Warning!
• The Catoctin TMDL may go away:
– The state may change the water quality
standard and declare that the Catoctin
Watershed has been restored.
– The state may decide they can not restore
the water quality:
• Change the designated use from primary
recreation to secondary recreation
• Leave the fecal contaminate as is, and provide
health warning