1 / 24

The Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Partnership: Successes & Challenges

The Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Partnership: Successes & Challenges. 2011 EPA Region 3, States Source Water Protection Meeting June 9, 2011. Steve Nelson Environmental Group Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission. Presentation Outline.

zan
Download Presentation

The Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Partnership: Successes & Challenges

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Partnership: Successes & Challenges 2011 EPA Region 3, States Source Water Protection Meeting June 9, 2011 Steve Nelson Environmental Group Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission

  2. Presentation Outline • Brief History of Patuxent Reservoirs Partnership • Watershed Characterization • Successes • Challenges

  3. Brief History of Partnership • 1993-1995 MC DEP formed the Patuxent Reservoirs Protection Group (PRPG) • Multi-jurisdictional working group • Outcome • Decided to form a partnership for protecting the reservoirs and their watershed

  4. History • 1996 – Agreement Ratified creating the partnership • 7 Partner Agencies • Established a Policy Board & Tech Advisory Committee • WSSC filled admin. and coordination roles

  5. History • 1997 - Comprehensive Mgmt Planning Study for Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed • Defined 6 Priority Resources and 10 Action Items • 1998 – Cooperative Agricultural MOU Established Patuxent Reservoirs Ag Cost-Share Program • New funding source for BMPs targeting small farms • Funded Shared SCD Planner focused on watershed

  6. Priority Resources Reservoirs & Water Supply • Terrestrial • Habitat • Stream System • Aquatic Biota 6

  7. Priority Resources Rural Character & Landscape Public Awareness & Stewardship 7

  8. Watershed Characterization • 132 square mile watershed in MD Piedmont • 99% of watershed w/in Howard and Montgomery Counties (split by river) • Triadelphia reservoir (up-river) serves as SWM facility, sediment trap, and nutrient sink for Rocky Gorge reservoir (down-river)

  9. Successes! • Agricultural Progress • Patuxent Ag Cost-Share Program • Filling a need with small horse farms • Many education & outreach efforts • Horse pasture management • Horse owner survey • Howard and Montgomery SCD accomplishments since 1999…

  10. More Successes… • Restoration Projects • Hawlings River Stream Restoration • Cherry Creek Watershed Restoration • Reddy Branch Stream Buffer Plantings • WSSC-Owned Land surrounding Reservoirs • DNR Forest Service developed Concept Forest Management Plan for Sustainable Forests (2007) • Active deer management program • WSSC-funded an Interim Watershed Management Report (2009)

  11. and More Successes… • Outreach efforts to citizens in watershed • Septic system care workshops • Earth Month Events • Watershed Day and H2O Fest (WSSC Sponsored) • Stream clean-ups (IWLA, other volunteers) • Annual Family Camp Fire at Triadelphia Reservoir • U.S. EPA recognized the Patuxent Partnership as a Clean Water Partner working cooperatively to protect their water resources (2003)

  12. Funding Commitment Level Example (2009) • Annual Total Funding Estimate = $686,200 • Reservoir monitoring (WSSC) = $93K • Trends Analyses (WSSC) = $56K • Outreach (WSSC) = $135K • Admin., Annual Rpt & Coord. (WSSC) = $52K • Watershed restoration planning (PGC) = $50K • Biological Monitoring (HC, MC) = $62K • Ag. Program Oversight (HSCD, MSCD) = $80K • Reddy Branch Stream Buffer Planting = $100K (M-NCPPC, MC, MSCD, DNR)

  13. Local Challenges • Howard Co. = large % of watershed, BUT very small customer • PG Co. = very small % of watershed, BUT the largest customer (of Patuxent water) • Geography of basin and political boundaries

  14. Local Challenges • Limited shared partner agency funding (joint contributions) • Difficulty quantifying agriculture load reductions associated with non-point source (NPS) BMPs • Equine community plays important role in NPS load reductions

  15. Regional Challenges • TMDLs • Needed direction from State/Fed agencies to determine compliance with TMDLs • TMDL Implementation • Who’s responsible? • Recent emphasis on Chesapeake Bay TMDL

  16. Triadelphia’s TMDL TP Allocation

  17. Regional Challenges • County Governments face increasing competition for fewer “environmental” dollars with leaner staff • Daunting MS4 NPDES Permit requirements • Many TMDLs per county • “New and improved” SWM regulations

  18. Partnership Challenges • Delegation of Policy Board participation from executive level to senior professional staff who have limited authority to commit funding and resources

  19. Questions? Contact Information: Steve Nelson Environmental Scientist & Admin. Liaison for Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Group Technical Advisory Committee Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, Environmental Group 14501 Sweitzer Lane Laurel, MD 20707 snelson@wsscwater.com 301-206-8072

More Related