Catoctin TMDL Project

Proposal for New Initiativesto

Loudoun Watershed Management Stakeholders Steering Committee

Loudoun Watershed WatchData 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

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.

Sub-watershed

Fencing Installed

(ft)

Number of

Livestock Excluded

TMDL Target-Fencing

(ft)%

Achieved

Fencing Contracted

(ft)

Number of Livestock

to be Excluded

Total % Fencing

AchievedCatoctin Main Stem 3380 49 52,000 0.07 8440 86 0.23South Fork Catoctin 8223 60 36,000 0.23 3825 45 0.33NF Catoctin 3467 241 45,600 0.08 4490 117 0.17

Totals 15070 133,600 0.11 16755 248 0.24

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 cost-share 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 forGrant 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