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

Brief History of Patuxent Reservoirs Partnership
 Watershed Characterization
 Successes
 Challenges
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
History
1996 – Agreement Ratified
creating the partnership
• 7 Partner Agencies
• Established a Policy Board & Tech
Advisory Committee
• WSSC filled admin. and coordination
roles
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
Priority Resources
Reservoirs & Water
Supply
• Terrestrial
Habitat
• Stream System
• Aquatic Biota
6
Priority Resources
Public Awareness &
Stewardship
Rural Character &
Landscape
7
Watershed Characterization

132 square mile
watershed in MD
Piedmont


99% of watershed w/in
Howard and Montgomery
Counties (split by river)
Triadelphia reservoir (upriver) serves as SWM
facility, sediment trap,
and nutrient sink for
Rocky Gorge reservoir
(down-river)
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…
Farm Acres with Soil & Water Quality Plans
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003 2004 2005 2006
AG BMPs INSTALLED (#)
2007
2008
2009
2010
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
More Successes…

Restoration Projects




WSSC-Owned Land surrounding Reservoirs



Hawlings River Stream Restoration
Cherry Creek Watershed Restoration
Reddy Branch Stream Buffer Plantings
DNR Forest Service developed Concept Forest
Management Plan for Sustainable Forests (2007)
Active deer management program
WSSC-funded an Interim Watershed
Management Report (2009)
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)
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)
Local Challenges
Geography of basin and political boundaries


Howard Co. = large %
of watershed, BUT
very small customer
PG Co. = very small
% of watershed, BUT
the largest customer
(of Patuxent water)
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
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
Triadelphia’s TMDL TP Allocation
SCOUR
28%
FOREST
4%
POINT
SOURCES
9%
DEVELOPED
9%
ANIMAL
WASTE
3%
PASTURE
6%
CROP
50%
NON-POINT
SOURCES
91%
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
Partnership Challenges
 Delegation
of Policy Board participation
from executive level to senior professional
staff who have limited authority to commit
funding and resources
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