Galen RobertsWatershed ManagerNTMWD
December, 2016
Galen RobertsWatershed ManagerNTMWD
December, 2016
Recap from November meeting
• Affirmed Steering Committee Membership
• Discussed Ground Rules for the Partnership
• Introduced sections 1‐3 of the Lavon Lake WPP
• Discussed future meeting dates and times
Steering Committee
• The Steering Committee is the decision making body for the Partnership
• The goal of the Steering Committee is to affirm the consensus of the Partnership and facilitate the development and implementation of a Watershed Protection Plan (WPP) for Lavon Lake
AffiliationCollin County Justice of the Peace
Collin County Engineering
City of McKinney
City of Frisco
Town of St. Paul
Collin County SWCD
Third Coast Bank SSB
Texas Pure Products
Urban Resident
Rural Resident
Ag/Rural Resident
Rural Resident
Local Resident
Real Estate Development
NameJudge Jerry Shaffer
Tracy Homfeld
Joseph Daley
Sean Aucoin
Bob London
Ben Scholz
Kelly Palmer
Bryan Moore
Dave Spadoni
Marylinda Jones
Stephanie Schertz
Bobby Patel
Bill Whitfield
Sue Blankenship
Partnership Ground Rules
• Ground Rules for the Lavon Lake Watershed Partnership are intended to address:
– Role of Steering Committee
– Time frame for project
– Size and function of Steering Committee
– Replacements, additions, alternates and proxies
– Decision making process
Lavon Lake WPP Document Outline
1. Watershed Management
2. Overview of the Watershed
3. The Lavon Lake Watershed Partnership
4. Methods of Analysis
5. Pollutant Source Assessment
6. Management Measures
7. Measures of Success
8. Project Implementation
Draft Section 1
Watershed Management:
• Watersheds and water quality
• Benefits of a watershed approach
• Watershed protection planning
Draft Section 2
Watershed Characteristics:
• Water Resources
• Water Quality
• Geography
• Climate
• Soils
• Land Use
• Ecology
• History
Draft Section 3
The Lavon Lake Partnership:
• Partnership formation
• Public meetings
• Partnership structure
• Ground rules
• Technical advisory group
Discussion & Questions
• Partnership and Steering Committee
• Ground Rules
• Draft Sections 1‐3
Galen RobertsWatershed ManagerNTMWD
December, 2016
Galen RobertsWatershed ManagerNTMWD
December, 2016
Lavon Lake WPP Document Outline
1. Watershed Management
2. Overview of the Watershed
3. The Lavon Lake Watershed Partnership
4. Methods of Analysis
5. Pollutant Source Assessment
6. Management Measures
7. Measures of Success
8. Project Implementation
Section 4: Methods of Analysis
Describe the analytical tools and methods that were used to determine:
• Land use characteristics
• Sources of pollution
• Amount of pollution
• Pollution reduction goals
Methods of Analysis
Existing Studies:
• Technical reports and peer reviewed literature
New Analysis:
• Land use characteristics
• Load Duration Curve (LDC)
• Spatially Explicit Load Enrichment Calculation Tool (SELECT)
Existing Studies
• CWA 319 Sediment and Atrazine Study (2006)
• Simulating sediment loading into the major reservoirs on the Trinity River Basin (2013)
• Modeling Water‐Quality (nutrient) Loads to the Reservoirs of the Upper Trinity River Basin (2015)
Methods of Analysis
Will conduct two new types of analysis.
• Load duration curve (LDC)
• Spatially Explicit Load Enrichment Calculation Tool (SELECT)
Will focus on the sources of pollution that have been identified on the TCEQ Texas Integrated Report.
• Bacteria (impairment)
• Nitrate (concern)
Other Types of Pollution
• What about other types of pollution? (e.g. Sediment, Phosphorous, Pesticides, etc.)
– Will rely on existing studies
– Will identify needs for further analysis
Section 5: Pollutant Source Assessment
1. Identify the sources of pollution present in the watershed
2. Assess those sources of pollution:
• Number and extent
• Location and distribution
• Potential effect on water quality
Pollutant Source Identification
• Stakeholder input
• Existing datasets:
– National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) data
– National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit data
– National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP)
– Landsat 8 satellite imagery (NASA)
Pollutant Source Identification
Potential Sources Bacteria Nutrients Other
Humans & domesticSeptic systems
DogsUrban stormwater
XXX
XXX
X
X
LivestockCattleHorsesGoatsSheepPoultry
XXXXX
XXXXX
Wildlife & nondomesticDeer
Wild pigs
Cropland
Industrial
XX
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X
Pollutant Source Assessment
Spatially Explicit Load Enrichment Calculation Tool (SELECT)
• Estimates the likely distribution of potential pollutant sources across the watershed
• Estimates potential bacteria load from each subwatershed
Pollutant Source Assessment
• SELECT Inputs
– Subwatershed boundaries
– Land use data
– Soils data
– Topography
– Human population
– Wildlife population
– Livestock population
– Daily bacteria production rate
SELECT Inputs: Subwatersheds
16
9
5
27
10
12
14
15
3
813
16
417 11
1819
20
Based on USGS HUC 12
• Numbers grouped by tributary
– East Fork = 1‐5
– Sister Grove = 6‐8
– Pilot Grove = 9‐11
– Indian Creek = 12‐14
– Wilson Creek = 15‐16
– All Others = 17‐20
SELECT Inputs: Land Use Classification
• 2014 National Ag. Imagery Program; 1m res.
• 2015 Landsat‐8 data; 15 meter res.
SELECT Inputs: Land Use Classification
• Land Use Categories: • Open Water
• Evergreen Forest
• Deciduous Forest
• Mixed Forest
• Near Riparian Forest
• Shrub/Scrub
• Grassland/Herbaceous
• Pasture/Hay
• Cultivated Crops
• High/Med./Low Urban
• Barren Land
Water
Forest
Rangeland
Managed Pasture
Cropland
Urban
SELECT Inputs
Soils data:
• SSURGO Database (NRCS)
Topography:
• Digital Elevation Map (USGS)
Hydrography:
• Stream Network (USGS)
SELECT Analysis
1. Divides the watershed into 30m grid cells
2. Uses soil data, land use, topography to determine characteristics for each cell
3. Groups cells by subwatershed
4. Calculates potential load from each subwatershed based on population inputs and daily E. coli production rate estimates
SELECT Analysis
Wildlife, Livestock, and Human Pop. Distribution
• Existing datasets (NRCS Ag Census, Census Bureau, TPWD observations)
• Stakeholder input
Key discussion points for each category:
• Total population
• Density or stocking rate
• Distribution
Wildlife and Nondomestic Populations
• Species
– Deer
– Wild Pigs
Wildlife and Nondomestic Populations
• Deer:
– 62.5 ac./deer
– Distributed to Forestland
– 1,175 deer in watershed
– Based on consultation with TPWD staff
1 69
5
27
1012
14
15
3
813
16
4 17 11
1819
20
Wildlife and Nondomestic Populations
• Wild Pigs:
– 26 ac./pig
– Distributed to riparian areas (100m)
– 15,900 pigs in watershed
– Based on consultation with TPWD staff
1 69
5
27
1012
14
15
3
813
16
4 17 11
1819
20
Livestock Populations
• Classes of livestock
– Cattle
– Horses
– Goats
– Sheep
– Poultry?
Livestock Populations
• Cattle:
– 7 ac./head
– Distributed to Rangeland Pasture/Hay
– 34,037 cattle in watershed
– Based on 2012 Ag Census data
1 69
5
27
1012
14
15
3
813
16
4 17 11
1819
20
Livestock Populations
• Horses:
– 53 ac./head
– Distributed to Grassland & Pasture
– 4,025 horses in watershed
– Based on 2012 Ag Census data
1 69
5
27
1012
14
15
3
813
16
4 17 11
1819
20
Livestock Populations
• Goats:
– 59 ac./head
– Distributed to Rangeland Pasture/Hay
– 4,070 goats in watershed
– Based on 2012 Ag Census data
1 69
5
27
1012
14
15
3
813
16
4 17 11
1819
20
Livestock Populations
• Sheep:
– 198 ac./head
– Distributed to Rangeland Pasture/Hay
– 1,222 sheep in watershed
– Based on 2012 Ag Census data
1 69
5
27
1012
14
15
3
813
16
4 17 11
1819
20
Livestock Populations
Poultry
• Ag Census data says there are 8,933 layers in Collin County
– Distribute those evenly to rural households in the Collin County portion of the watershed?
– What about Grayson/Fannin/Hunt County?
Human and Domestic
• Septic Systems
• Domestic Dogs
• Urban Stormwater?
Human and Domestic Populations
• OSSF:
– 15,286 homes outside of CCN boundary
– Failure rate based on soils
– Average household size
– Based Census Bureau data
1 69
5
27
1012
14
15
3
813
16
4 17 11
1819
20
Human and Domestic Populations
• Dogs:
– 1.25 dogs per household
– 98,049 dogs in watershed
– Based on Census Bureau data
1 69
5
27
1012
14
15
3
813
16
4 17 11
1819
20
Humans and Domestic Populations
Urban Stormwater
• Can use an estimated bacteria production value.
– City of Austin Study (1997)
• Subwatershed map will look much the same as map for Dog populations.
All Populations
Total daily potential E. coli load ranges from 6.9 x 1013
to 2.41 x 1015
(cfu/day)
1 69
5
27
1012
14
15
3
813
16
4 17 11
1819
20
Discussion & Questions
Spatially Explicit Load Enrichment Calculation Tool (SELECT):
• Datasets
• Inputs
• Analysis
• Results
Galen RobertsWatershed ManagerNTMWD
November, 2016
Galen RobertsWatershed ManagerNTMWD
November, 2016
Meeting Dates and Times
• Partnership meetings are slated for 3:00‐4:30pm at Myers Park on the following dates:
– January 24
– February 21
– March 28
– April 25
– May 23
January Meeting
• Review LDCs and reduction target (Section 4)• Review updated SELECT analysis (Section 5)• Begin to discuss management measures
– In the meantime, please consider what management measures are needed/wanted
– Send me ideas as you have them
Project Website
• Clearinghouse for all information related to the project.
– Meeting info
– Email list signup
– Event registration
• Maps, data, publications, and useful information will be available on the website.
– www.ntmwd.com/watershed‐management
Contact Information
Galen RobertsNTMWD
469‐626‐4637
Jake Mowrer, PhDA&M AgriLife Extension
979‐845‐5366