implementation of selected management measures from the lake

Transcription

IMPLEMENTATION OF SELECTED
MANAGEMENT MEASURES FROM THE LAKE
GRANBURY WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN
Final Report
Funding Provided by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality through a Clean Water Act
§319(h) Nonpoint Source Grant from the U.S Environmental Protection Agency
IMPLEMENTATION OF SELECTED MANAGEMENT
MEASURES FROM THE LAKE GRANBURY
WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN
August 2014
Prepared by:
Jody Cason, Texas A&M AgriLife Research
Funding Provided by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality through a Clean Water
Act §319(h) Nonpoint Source Grant from the U.S Environmental Protection Agency
ii | P a g e
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Lake Granbury Watershed Protection Plan and its implementation is the result of collaboration
between numerous groups and individuals. Each have played an important role in the Lake Granbury
Project and its planning, activities, and garnering support from the community. While proper recognition
of every person and organization that contributed to this Plan is not feasible, it is important to
acknowledge that it could not have happened without their dedication. We thank all the individuals,
entities, and organizations for their outstanding contributions of time, effort and commitment to the
development and implementation of the Plan.
We would also like to thank Arthur Talley from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for his
help, oversight, and management of the project.
Funding for this project was provided through a Clean Water Act Section 319(h) Nonpoint Source Grant
from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Special thanks to:
Acton Municipal Utility District
Brazos River Authority
Environmental Protection Agency
Granbury Chamber of Commerce
Hood County
Texas A&M AgriLife Extension
Texas A&M AgriLife Research
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
iii | P a g e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project Title: Implementation of Selected Management Measures from the Lake Granbury Watershed
Protection Plan (WPP)
Project Start Date: September 1, 2011
Project Completion Date: August 31, 2014
The goal of this project was to assist and track implementation of the Lake Granbury Watershed
Protection Plan (LGWPP), assess effectiveness of management in improving water quality, continue
facilitation of the Lake Granbury Watershed Stakeholders Group, provide outreach and education
requested by stakeholders in the WPP and seek funding opportunities to ensure implementation of the
management measures recommended WPP.
Implementation of the Lake Granbury Watershed Protection Plan (LGWPP) began in 2011 in an effort to
improve the water quality of a natural resource that is highly valued by the local stakeholders and
community. Though there were challenges, this project met the measures of success it sought to
accomplish. These were: 1) obtaining funding to implement construction-based management measures,
2) continued coordination of stakeholder efforts to insure implementation of recommended non-point
source management measures, 3) work with local governments to produce recommended regulatory
changes, and 4) increased knowledge of the general public around Lake Granbury of watershed issues
and individual impacts on water quality.
Through this project, the following activities were conducted:







A Watershed Coordinator was funded,
Implementation measures as described in the LGWPP were facilitated, coordinated, and
tracked,
Additional funding to continue watershed protection efforts were pursued ,
Partners and projects available for funding were linked,
Local workshops were held with state, local, and regional agencies and organizations,
Awareness was built about watershed improvement efforts to solicit local support and
participation, and
Water quality data and water related links were posted on the Lake Granbury Watershed
Partnership website that serves as a clearinghouse for continued outreach and education
efforts.
iv | P a g e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................ iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................................................................................................... v
TABLE OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................... vii
TABLE OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................................................... vii
PROJECT SIGNIFICANCE AND BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 1
IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................................................... 4
Task 1: Project Administration .................................................................................................................. 4
Subtask 1.1: Project Oversight ............................................................................................................. 4
Subtask 1.2: QPRs................................................................................................................................. 4
Subtask 1.3: Quarterly Reimbursement Request Forms...................................................................... 4
Subtask 1.4: Contract Communication ................................................................................................ 4
Subtask 1.5: Annual Report Article ...................................................................................................... 4
Task 2: Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and Interim Water Quality Monitoring .......................... 4
Subtask 2.1: QAPP Planning Meetings ................................................................................................. 5
Subtask 2.2: QAPP ................................................................................................................................ 5
Subtask 2.3: Interim Water Quality Monitoring .................................................................................. 5
Subtask 2.4: QAPP Update ................................................................................................................... 9
Subtask 2.5: QAPP Amendments ......................................................................................................... 9
Subtask 2.6: Data Submittal ................................................................................................................. 9
Task 3: LGWPP Stakeholder Group and Executive Committee Facilitation ............................................. 9
Subtask 3.1: Facilitate and Coordinate LGWPPSG ................................................................................ 9
Subtask 3.2: Update Lake Granbury WPP Webpage with Agendas and Meeting Materials ............. 10
Subtask 3.3: Provide Bi-monthly Email Newsletter ........................................................................... 10
Subtask 3.4: Engage LGWPPSG .......................................................................................................... 11
Subtask 3.5: Maintain LGWPPSG List and General Public Notification List ....................................... 11
Subtask 3.6: Track Implementation of NPS Management Measures ................................................ 11
Task 4: Resource Identification and Grant Writing ................................................................................ 11
Subtask 4.1: Resource Identification.................................................................................................. 12
Subtask 4.2: Assist Members in Grant Writing .................................................................................. 12
v|Page
Subtask 4.3: Train EC members to Find and Apply for Funding ......................................................... 16
Task 5: Implementation Education and Outreach Plan .......................................................................... 16
Subtask 5.1: Evaluate Watershed Knowledge and Awareness .......................................................... 16
Subtask 5.2: County Order ................................................................................................................. 18
Subtask 5.3: Outreach to Local Governments ................................................................................... 18
Subtask 5.4: Outreach to HOAs .......................................................................................................... 19
Subtask 5.5: Develop Educational Program and Materials for Home Inspectors .............................. 19
Subtask 5.6: Implementation and Outreach Measures as Outlined in the LGWPP ........................... 20
Subtask 5.7: Track Implementation of Education and Outreach Management Measures................ 23
Subtask 5.8: Evaluate Targeted Outreach Campaign Effectiveness................................................... 23
Subtask 5.9: Publicize LGWPP Efforts ................................................................................................ 30
Task 6: Final Project Report .................................................................................................................... 31
Subtask 6.1: Draft Report ................................................................................................................... 32
Subtask 6.2: Final Report ................................................................................................................... 32
DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................................. 33
Water Quality .......................................................................................................................................... 33
Difficulties ............................................................................................................................................... 35
Drought ............................................................................................................................................... 35
“It’s Not My Problem”......................................................................................................................... 36
Stakeholder and Entity Priorities Not Aligned .................................................................................... 36
Successes ................................................................................................................................................ 37
Adaptive Management through Stakeholder Facilitation .................................................................. 37
Additional CWA 319 Funding .............................................................................................................. 37
Education Campaign ........................................................................................................................... 38
Hood County Order Concerning Holding Tanks .................................................................................. 38
Sewer Expansion in Port Ridglea East ................................................................................................. 38
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................... 39
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 40
APPENDIX A – Management Measure Status Table ................................................................................... 41
APPENDIX B – Funding Sources Table ......................................................................................................... 48
APPENDIX C – Hood County Order Regarding Holding Tanks ..................................................................... 58
APPENDIX D – AMUD Letter Concerning Port Ridglea East ........................................................................ 67
vi | P a g e
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
LGWPP Project Location................................................................................................................ 1
Front page of Newsletter ............................................................................................................ 10
Location of Proposed AMUD Sewer Expansion - Phase 3 ........................................................... 13
Location of SEP funded OSSF repair/replacement projects ........................................................ 15
Watershed Coordinator at Acton Elementary Ag Fair Day - 2013 .............................................. 20
Location of Site 18038 and the AMUD sewer expansion project ............................................... 34
Historical Reservoir Storage - Lake Granbury ............................................................................. 35
Recent Reservoir Volume as % Full – Lake Granbury.................................................................. 36
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1. Sampling Site Number, Description, and Location ......................................................................... 5
Table 2. Parameters Monitored and Number of Samples Taken ................................................................ 6
Table 3. Summary of Water Quality Monitoring Results (September 2011 - August 2014)........................ 7
Table 4. Date, Main Article Topic, and Subject of Stakeholder Spotlight of Newsletter ........................... 11
Table 5. Results of 2012 and 2014 Surveys of General Public on Watershed Awareness ......................... 17
Table 6. Outreach Activities related LGWPP and Lake Granbury Water Quality ....................................... 20
Table 7. Results from Water Day at Acton Elementary Pre- and Post-Test ............................................... 27
Table 8. Results of Survey of LGWPPSG Satisfaction of Education Campaign ........................................... 28
Table 9. Survey of Septic Systems for Homeowners Attendees 8 months After Event ............................. 30
Table 10. Date and Topic of Articles published in Hood County News ...................................................... 30
Table 11. Date of PSA Submission and Topic of PSAs ................................................................................ 31
Table 12. E. coli 3-yr Geometric Mean for the Time Period Ending Before the Project Start Date and
Project End Date ......................................................................................................................................... 33
Table 13. E. coli 7-yr Geometric Mean for the Time Period Ending Before the Project Start Date and
Project End Date ......................................................................................................................................... 34
LIST OF ACRONYMS
BRA – Brazos River Authority
EPA – US Environmental Protection Agency
EC – Executive Committee
HCEHD – Hood County Environmental Health Department
HOA – Homeowner Association
LGWPP – Lake Granbury Watershed Granbury Watershed Protection Plan
vii | P a g e
LGWPPSG – Lake Granbury Watershed Protection Plan Steering Group
NPS – Non-point Source
RC&D – Resource Conservation and Development
SEP – Supplemental Environmental Project
OSSF – On-site Sewage Facility
TCEQ – Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
WC – Watershed Coordinator
viii | P a g e
PROJECT SIGNIFICANCE AND BACKGROUND
Lake Granbury is an impoundment of the Brazos River that lies fully within Hood County, Texas. Figure 1
shows the location of Lake Granbury and its watershed in relation to the Brazos Basin. The City of
Granbury, the City of DeCordova Bend, and numerous residential developments surround this reservoir.
A long-term concern for water
quality, specifically a bacteria
Lake Granbury Watershed and LGWPP
concern, has existed at Lake
Project Location
Granbury due to the high
incidence of historical man-made
cove development and reliance on
on-site sewage facilities (OSSFs) for
wastewater disposal. A substantial
portion of the developed area
around Lake Granbury does not
have sewage collection and
treatment facilities. There are
eight permitted wastewater
treatment plants in Hood County
and the population served by the
existing permitted facilities is
estimated to be less than 50
percent of the current county
population. Development in areas
without collection and treatment
systems currently relies on either
holding tanks or OSSFs and
absorption fields. There are an
estimated 9,000 septic systems
located around Lake Granbury.
Most of the inhabited areas
around the lake are on man-made Figure 1. LGWPP Project Location
coves. The man-made coves are
shallow, dead-end bodies of water with little mixing or interaction with the main body of the reservoir.
In response to stakeholder concerns, the Brazos River Authority (BRA) began a large-scale monitoring
initiative in the canals of Lake Granbury to assess the water quality of the coves. Beginning in May 2001,
the BRA began collecting water quality samples on a monthly basis at over 50 cove locations. Some of
the locations showed no elevated concentrations of E. coli and were later discontinued. Some locations
were added after a year of monitoring as new information was acquired on possible source locations.
The data generated from this effort indicates that many of the canals on Lake Granbury are impacted by
E. coli issues and indicate a concern for public health and contact recreation. The data also indicates that
1|Page
the water quality in the coves is most influenced by the surrounding land use, rather than by the main
body of the lake.
Declining water quality in the canals has begun to negatively affect the contact recreation use of the
canals. Twelve incidents of waterborne illness have been reported to the Texas Department of
State Health Services from Hood County from 2006 through May 2010 with increasing numbers each
year. Lake Granbury is the lifeblood of Hood County, with the majority of the county’s communities
relying on the lake for drinking water, irrigation, industry, and recreation. The economy in Hood County
is closely tied to Lake Granbury and the environmental condition of the lake is crucial to the county’s
residents. In 2006, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and the BRA initiated an
effort to develop the LGWPP to reduce bacteria levels in the lake and its canals.
In response to the concerns of stakeholders, the Brazos River Authority, in collaboration with the local
stakeholders, developed the LGWPP. This plan was developed as a “community-driven” plan that
reflected the local stakeholders’ concerns and water quality data. The overall objective of the Lake
Granbury WPP was to improve and protect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of Lake
Granbury and its designated uses. The plan identified the shared vision of watershed residents, local
governments, state agencies and elected officials and set management measures to reduce the bacteria
concentrations in areas of the lake.
The long-term goal of the LGWPP is to maintain the geometric mean E. coli concentrations in all parts of
lake to 53 MPN/100ml. In order to achieve this the Lake Granbury Watershed Protection Plan
Stakeholders Group (LGWPPSG) selected three types of management measures for inclusion in the
LGWPP, a broad educational program, local orders/ordinances and homeowner’s association
regulations, and physical management measures. The education plan included development and
delivery of programs including: OSSF maintenance education, pet waste management,
wildlife/waterfowl feeding, feral hog control education, and fertilizer application education. The
recommended local orders/ordinances included, but not limited to: a County Order requiring residents
whose properties are in the 100-yr floodplain to submit proof annually of routine maintenance of
holding tanks to the Hood County Environmental Health Department (HCEHD), and restrictions on
feeding wildlife and waterfowl. Recommended Homeowner’s Association regulations include requiring
consultation on property expansions prior to the Homeowner’s Association approving the property
expansion. The physical management measures included replacing individual OSSFs with a centralized
wastewater collection system, stormwater retention ponds, alteration of drainage patterns in specified
areas, and alteration of cove dynamics in specified areas, etc.
Due to the technical nature of most of the stakeholder selected non-point source management
measures and the level of funding required to implement these measures, the stakeholder’s group
requested a Watershed Coordinator for the watershed. This position would assist stakeholders and local
governments in implementing the non-point source management measures identified in LGWPP. The
Watershed Coordinator will help stakeholders and local governments:

Prepare grant and low-interest loan applications for stakeholders
2|Page




Help local governments write local orders and ordinances
Help homeowner’s associations write HOA regulations
Assess milestones, loading reduction and progress towards achievement of the LGWPP goals
Implement the education plan requested by the stakeholder’s.
In order to implement these measures, funding was sought by the BRA. A Clean Water Act (CWA)
§319(h) grant was awarded and implementation began in the fall of 2011. Texas A&M AgriLife was
contracted by BRA to implement much of the implementation activities.
3|Page
IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
Task 1: Project Administration
Objective: To effectively administer, coordinate, and monitor all work performed under this project
including technical and financial supervision and preparation of status reports.
BRA and Texas A&M AgriLife have effectively coordinated and monitored all technical and financial
activities performed under this contract, prepared progress reports, and maintained project files and
data.
Subtask 1.1: Project Oversight
BRA has effectively coordinated and monitored all technical and financial activities performed under the
contract, prepared quarterly progress reports (QPRs), and maintained project files and data. A detailed
listing of activities related to project administration can be found in the QPRs.
Subtask 1.2: QPRs
Quarterly progress reports containing the status of tasks and goals/milestones were completed during
each quarter and submitted to TCEQ.
Subtask 1.3: Quarterly Reimbursement Request Forms
Reimbursement forms have submitted to TCEQ by the last day of the month following each state fiscal
year.
Subtask 1.4: Contract Communication
BRA participated in a post-award orientation meeting with TCEQ. Regular telephone and email contact
was maintained with the BRA and TCEQ. Conference calls were held each quarter with representatives
of BRA, TCEQ, and Texas AgriLife Research by present.
Subtask 1.5: Annual Report Article
An article was provided for the 2012 NPS Annual Report as requested. The article can be found at:
http://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/compliance/monops/nps/annualreports/066_12.pdf.
Task 2: Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and Interim Water Quality
Monitoring
Objective: The LGWPPSG requested interim water quality monitoring to continue to assess conditions
while implementation of management measures is pursued. To develop data quality objectives (DQOs)
and quality assurance/ quality control (QA/QC) activities to ensure data of known and acceptable quality
are generated through this project.
The LGWPPSG requested interim water quality monitoring to continue to assess conditions while
implementation of management measures was pursued. BRA developed data quality objectives and
quality assurance/quality control activities to ensure data of known and acceptable quality was
generated through this project.
4|Page
Subtask 2.1: QAPP Planning Meetings
QAPP planning meetings were conducted. The information developed during these meetings was
incorporated into the QAPP.
Subtask 2.2: QAPP
The BRA submitted a QAPP. The BRA developed the QAPP with Technical assistance from the TCEQ
Project Manager and Quality Assurance staff. All of the monitoring procedures and methods prescribed
in the QAPP were consistent with the guidelines detailed in the TCEQ Surface Water Quality Monitoring
Procedures, Volume 1 and 2. The QAPP was approved by the TCEQ on May 17, 2012.
Subtask 2.3: Interim Water Quality Monitoring
Monthly interim-baseline monitoring was conducted by the BRA for three sites on the main body of Lake
Granbury, eight cove/canal sites in the problematic areas, and five tributary streams. Table 1 includes
the site numbers, description, and location.
Table 1. Sampling Site Number, Description, and Location
Site #
11860
20307
11862
18004
18010
18015
18018
18038
18741
20216
20218
20220
20227
20228
Site Description
Latitude
Longitude
L. Granbury near dam 102m west and 56m north of northern
edge of dam site
L. Granbury immediately upstream of Atchison Topeka and
Santa Fe Railroad; 110m upstream of US377/East Pearl Street
East of Granbury
L. Granbury at FM 51 north of Granbury; 265m west and 69m
north of intersection of FM 51 and Siesta Ct.
Unnamed canal on L. Granbury at the low-water crossing on
Bedford Dr; 255m from the intersection with Indian Gap St.
Unnamed canal on L. Granbury at 3709 Greenbrook Dr.
32.374168
-97.688889
32.442963
-97.767409
32.475227
-97.787552
32.536194
-97.831581
32.485752
-97.816803
Unnamed canal on L. Granbury; 127m south and 24m east of
intersection of Apollo Ct. and Sky Harbour Dr.
Unnamed canal on L. Granbury; 130m north northwest of the
intersection of Mallard Way and Mallard Ct.
Unnamed canal on L. Granbury; 23m south 91m east of
intersection of Hartwood Dr. and East Fernwood Ct.
L. Granbury in canal 296m North and 145m west of Kruse Ct.
at Blue Water Circle
Unnamed canal on L. Granbury; 135m north and 130m east of
the intersection of Dakota Trial and Conejos Ct.
Contrary Cr. 10m south and 114m west of South Chisolm Trail
at Zuni Ct; approximately 90m upstream of L. Granbury
Long Creek at terminus of Long Creek Ct. near FM 51 north of
Granbury
Robinson Creek at Lake Granbury Harbor boat ramp; 514m
upstream of FM 2580 bridge
Stroud's Creek at the south end of Caraway St. in Thorp
Springs
32.492001
-97.777054
32.421749
-97.773521
32.414528
-97.705193
32.389759
-97.700661
32.406940
-97.758000
32.401150
-97.755880
32.528063
-97.816135
32.506010
-97.851080
32.468046
-97.822271
5|Page
Site #
Site Description
Latitude
Longitude
20229
Walnut Creek west bank at Fairway Dr. in DeCordova Estates
32.429750
-97.696280
20230
Brazos River at Turkey Creek confluence at Lake Country Acres
near FM 51
32.558850
-97.796910
Table 2 lists the parameters that were monitored and the total number of samples that were collected
for each parameter. This data has been submitted with QPRs.
Table 2. Parameters Monitored and Number of Samples Taken
Parameter
E. coli
Nitrogen as Nitrate
Phosphorus as orthophosphate
Chloride
Sulfate
Water Temperature
Conductivity
Dissolved Oxygen
Salinity
pH
Projected # of
samples taken
416
416
416
416
416
416
416
416
416
416
Actual #
samples taken
395
392
394
396
397
402
402
402
402
402
As Table 2 shows, the total number of samples taken for each parameter was less than the number of
samples planned to be taken. This was the result of low lake levels. All eight of the cove/canal sites,
were dry at some point during the project. For example, Site #18010 which is located in the Oak Trails
Shores subdivision only had water in it from February to July of 2012 resulting in only 6 samples being
collected instead of the projected 36. Other cove/canal sites fared better resulting in them being dry for
only a few months during the project.
Table 3 summarizes the results of interim water quality monitoring from September 2011 through
August 2014.
6|Page
Table 3. Summary of Water Quality Monitoring Results (September 2011 - August 2014)
Site #
Site
E. coli
Min.1
E.
coli
Max.
E. coli
Geomean
N as
NO3
Min.2
N as
NO3
Max.
N as
NO3
Mean
P as orthoPO4
Min.2
P as orthoPO4
Max.
P as orthoPO4
Mean
Chloride
Min.2
Chloride
Max.
Chloride
Mean
Sulfate
Min.2
Sulfate
Max.
Sulfate
Mean
11860
Main Body Near Dam
<1
23
2
<0.04
0.41
0.08
<0.04
0.37
0.03
63.1
923.1
450.3
38.7
357.7
180.1
20307
Main Body @
Bus377
<1
2400
4
<0.04
0.46
0.09
<0.04
0.10
0.02
24.2
910.0
433.5
20.1
354.9
177.8
11862
Main Body @
FM 51
<1
2400
6
<0.04
0.49
0.07
<0.04
<0.04
0.02
45.0
1003.1
471.1
28.2
406.0
196.2
18004
Canal @ Rolling
Hills Shores
11
270
25
<0.04
0.16
0.04
<0.04
<0.04
0.02
107.8
377.5
234.4
142.3
1440.1
414.9
18010
Canal @ Oak
Trail Shores
2
290
50
<0.04
0.16
0.08
<0.04
0.04
0.02
70.8
242.8
154.1
57.9
109.4
84.5
18015
Canal @ Sky
Harbour
3
7300
99
<0.04
1.28
0.39
<0.04
0.04
0.02
43.9
442.0
139.9
35.0
427.5
113.6
18018
Canal @
Water's Edge
3
980
21
<0.04
0.43
0.07
<0.04
<0.04
0.02
52.2
831.5
374.8
34.4
329.0
151.0
18038
Canal @ Port
Ridglea East
11
580
125
<0.04
0.44
0.10
<0.04
0.04
0.02
59.3
894.3
249.1
37.1
348.8
108.7
18741
Canal @ Blue
Water Shores
2
440
35
<0.04
0.41
0.12
<0.04
0.04
0.02
63.3
922.6
218.3
39.4
359.0
95.8
20216
Canal @ Indian
Harbor
16
>2400
101
<0.04
0.46
0.12
<0.04
<0.04
0.02
53.7
926.4
313.6
34.9
362.2
132.6
20218
Indian Harbor
on Contrary
Creek
2
550
25
<0.04
0.49
0.15
<0.04
<0.04
0.02
54.6
922.4
249.4
35.6
361.4
108.9
20220
Long Creek
2
3700
59
<0.04
1.34
0.31
<0.04
<0.04
0.02
19.5
1183.3
256.6
22.7
392.6
119.9
20227
Robinson Creek
5
2000
73
<0.04
0.11
0.03
<0.04
<0.04
0.02
11.4
70.7
31.2
17.7
87.0
38.9
20228
Stroud’s Creek
2
>2400
48
<0.04
0.86
0.10
<0.04
0.09
0.02
8.7
669.4
87.1
9.6
213.1
51.0
7
2500
80
0.04
30.27
8.05
<0.04
2.45
0.66
71.3
545.2
154.6
47.7
204.9
87.2
1
>2400
13
<0.04
0.10
0.03
<0.04
<0.04
0.02
149.8
1232.8
780.4
69.8
504.0
322.1
20229
20230
Walnut Creek
@ DeCordova
Estates
Brazos River @
Lake Country
Acres
7|Page
Site #
Site
Temper
-ature
Min.3
Temper
-ature
Max.
Temper
-ature
Mean
Conductivity
Min.4
Conduct
-ivity
Max.
Conductivity
Mean
Dissolved
Oxygen
Min.2
Dissolved
Oxygen
Max.
Dissolved
Oxygen
Mean
Salinity
Min.5
Salinity
Max.
Salinity
Mean
pH
Min.6
pH
Max.
pH
Mean
11860
Main Body - Near
Dam
7.0
30.6
20.0
499
3750
2028
<0.5
12.3
8.7
0.2
2.0
1.1
7.4
8.5
8.2
20307
Main Body @
Bus377
7.4
32.2
20.8
286
4010
1978
6.8
14.2
9.7
0.1
2.2
1.1
7.8
8.8
8.5
11862
Main Body @ FM
51
6.7
32.3
20.8
382
4400
2139
6.0
15.6
9.7
0.2
2.4
1.1
7.8
8.9
8.4
18004
Canal @ Rolling
Hills Shores
12.3
28.5
21.1
889
3600
1743
3.7
9.0
6.3
0.5
2.0
0.9
7.1
8.2
7.7
18010
Canal @ Oak Trail
Shores
10.4
28.2
21.2
590
1360
983
3.2
9.9
5.9
0.3
0.7
0.5
7.6
8.0
7.8
18015
Canal @ Sky
Harbour
14.4
31.1
23.2
501
2370
941
3.2
14.4
7.1
0.2
1.3
0.5
7.6
8.2
7.8
18018
Canal @ Water's
Edge
5.5
30.9
20.7
461
3530
1786
5.5
142.2
14.1
0.2
1.9
1.0
7.8
9.0
8.3
18038
Canal @ Port
Ridglea East
10.4
31.0
19.3
483
3740
1245
6.1
11.7
9.2
0.2
2.0
0.7
7.8
8.9
8.3
18741
Canal @ Blue
Water Shores
9.6
29.7
19.9
501
3800
1118
7.1
12.1
9.0
0.2
2.1
0.6
7.5
8.7
8.1
20216
Canal @ Indian
Harbor
10.2
30.9
19.3
474
3860
1488
5.6
13.8
9.5
0.2
2.1
0.8
7.9
9.0
8.3
20218
Indian Harbor on
Contrary Creek
9.3
30.0
19.3
474
3820
1249
5.8
13.0
9.0
0.2
2.1
0.7
7.9
8.8
8.2
20220
Long Creek
6.6
29.5
20.0
457
4880
1542
3.4
13.3
8.2
0.2
2.6
0.8
7.0
8.3
7.8
20227
Robinson Creek
3.6
29.6
18.6
514
759
596
3.3
13.6
7.5
0.3
1.8
0.4
6.8
8.1
7.6
20228
Stroud’s Creek
2.4
30.6
19.5
340
2970
778
3.6
13.9
8.2
0.2
1.6
0.4
6.7
8.3
7.7
20229
Walnut Creek @
DeCordova Estates
5.4
33.3
20.3
643
2600
1110
4.7
17.4
10.2
0.3
1.4
0.6
7.8
9.4
8.4
20230
Brazos River @
Lake Country Acres
4.0
31.9
21.2
852
5210
3353
5.4
15.2
8.8
0.4
2.9
1.8
7.3
8.9
8.2

1
For values that are expressed as averages, half of the limit of quantitation (LOQ) is used when values were less than LOQ. For values expressed as greater than the LOQ, the whole value is
used.
– MPN/100mL
2
– mg/L
3
- °C
4
- µMHOs/cm
5
– ppt
6
– s.u.
8|Page
Subtask 2.4: QAPP Update
The QAPP was updated in May of 2013 and May of 2014.
Subtask 2.5: QAPP Amendments
No amendments to the QAPP were submitted.
Subtask 2.6: Data Submittal
BRA submitted data to TCEQ quarterly. BRA reviewed, verified, and validated water quality monitoring
data before it is submitted to TCEQ.
Task 3: LGWPP Stakeholder Group and Executive Committee Facilitation
Objective: BRA will contract with AgriLife who will hire the Watershed Coordinator for the Lake Granbury
watershed. The Watershed Coordinator will provide a structure and encouragement for continued
stakeholder participation and involvement; arrange and facilitate annual LGWPPSG meetings; and will
ensure activities of stakeholders will advance the goal of implementing individual components of the
LGWPP.
The WC worked to provide structure and encouragement for continued stakeholder participation. The
WC arranged and facilitated semi-annual LGWPPPSG meetings and ensured activities were advancing
the goal of implementing individual components of the LGWPP.
Subtask 3.1: Facilitate and Coordinate LGWPPSG
Lake Granbury Watershed Protection Plan Stakeholder Group (LGWSPPG) meetings were held twice per
fiscal year. Meetings were held on the following dates:






May 23, 2012
August 23, 2012
March 6, 2013
August 22, 2013
February 20, 2014
August 12, 2014
The stakeholder meetings were used to update stakeholders on the progress of the executive
committee (EC) in implementing management measures defined in the LGWPP. The watershed
coordinator (WC) facilitated the meetings in a fashion to encourage open discussion among LGSWPPSG.
During the March 6, 2013 meeting we had guest speaker Keith Kindle, Chief Operations Officer at
Enprotec/Hibbs & Todd, Inc. (eHT) lead a discussion on the Economically Distressed Areas Program
(EDAP). Mr. Kindle, who lives in Hood County and is known by several stakeholders due to employer
being contracted by local municipalities and entities, shared his experience working with municipalities
using EDAP to fund water and wastewater projects. Arthur Talley spoke to the LGWPPSG on August 22,
2013 about CWA §319 grants.
9|Page
Executive Committee
EC meetings were conducted monthly beginning February 2012. No EC meetings were held in the
months from September 2011 to January 2012 due to the delay in getting a watershed coordinator
hired. The EC meetings were used by the WC to update the EC on the education/outreach effort,
present funding opportunities, and solicit ideas on how best to use funding opportunities to implement
management measures. During the LGWPP development, five members were selected to be the EC. The
members represented the following entities:





City of Granbury,
Hood County,
Acton Municipal Utility District (AMUD),
Granbury Chamber of Commerce, and
Brazos Valley Soil and Water Conservation District.
The representative of the Brazos Valley Soil and Water Conservation District notified the WC in January
2014 that he no longer wanted to serve on the committee. The matter was discussed with the
stakeholders during the February 2014 LGWPPSG meeting. The stakeholders put forth two candidates to
fill the vacated EC seat and left it to the discretion of the remaining EC members to select a candidate.
The stakeholders felt it was not necessary to fill the vacated seat with someone from the local Soil and
Water District or even someone from the agriculture sector since the WPP mainly dealt with OSSFs and
had very little in the way of agriculture-related management measures. The EC selected a representative
of real estate interests to serve as the fifth EC member.
Subtask 3.2: Update Lake Granbury WPP Webpage with Agendas and Meeting Materials
The WC updated the LGWPP webpage after each LGWPPSG meeting. Agendas and meeting material can
be found at http://lakegranburywatershed.org/meetings/.
Subtask 3.3: Provide Bi-monthly Email Newsletter
The WC published a bi-monthly newsletter (see Figure 2). This
newsletter was emailed to TCEQ, LGWPPSG, and other interested
parties. This newsletter contained an informational/educational article,
calendar of upcoming events, an article spotlighting a stakeholder, and
a section highlighting an educational fact sheet published by Texas
A&M AgriLife that dealt with water issues. These newsletters can be
found at http://lakegranburywatershed.org/newsletters/. Table 4 lists
the date the newsletter was emailed as well as the topic of the main
article and the subject of the stakeholder spotlight.
Figure 2. Front page of Newsletter
10 | P a g e
Table 4. Date, Main Article Topic, and Subject of Stakeholder Spotlight of Newsletter
Date
2/29/2012
4/9/2012
6/22/2012
7/30/2012
8/30/2012
10/24/2012
12/20/2012
2/28/2013
4/24/2013
5/31/2013
7/31/2013
8/29/2013
11/8/2013
12/20/2013
2/28/2014
4/30/2014
6/27/2014
8/28/2014
Topic of Main Article
WPP and Implementation
OSSF Pump-outs
Pet Waste
Watersheds and Their Importance
Understanding your OSSF
Leaves and Water Quality
Holidays and OSSFs
Water Conservation
Nutrients, Lawn Maintenance
E. coli and Lake Levels
Swimming and Water Quality
Looking Back and Moving Forward
General OSSF
Yard Waste and Water Quality
319 Grant Opportunity
Fertilizers and Water Quality
Land Stewardship and Water
Review of Implementation (Yrs 1-3)
Stakeholder Spotlight
Watershed Coord. - Jody Cason
Executive Committee
Char Hitz
Holman King
Bob Brooks
James McAusland
Jan Caldwell
Lee Overstreet
Marti Nickinson
Marty Vahlenkamp
McGee Duff
Gary Newton
Josh Rosenfeld
Doug Connor
Richard English
Ken Hackett
Mike Scott
Jeff Sammon
Subtask 3.4: Engage LGWPPSG
The WC recognized individual stakeholders and EC member in a “Stakeholder Spotlight” section of the
newsletter. The purpose of this was to encourage participation and highlight individual
accomplishments. Table 4 shows the subject of the Stakeholder Spotlight.
Subtask 3.5: Maintain LGWPPSG List and General Public Notification List
These lists have been submitted bi-annually with QPRs.
Subtask 3.6: Track Implementation of NPS Management Measures
A summary table of NPS management measure implementation has been submitted annually with each
year’s 4th quarter QPR. The summary table can be found in APPENDIX .
Task 4: Resource Identification and Grant Writing
Objective: Identify potential Federal, State, local, non-profit and private sector resources useful to the
LGWPPSG for implementation of the LGWPP and assist individual stakeholders in resource identification
and grant writing for NPS management measures and projects associated with LGWPP goals.
Funding resources were identified by the WC for the stakeholders. Information and assistance was given
to stakeholders on resource identification and grant writing by the WC
11 | P a g e
Subtask 4.1: Resource Identification
Potential Federal State, Local, non-profit and private sector resources that could be potentially useful to
the implementation of the LGWPP were identified by the WC and compiled into a spreadsheet. This was
submitted to TCEQ and can be found in APPENDIX . Stakeholders were notified of these funding sources
as they became available.
Subtask 4.2: Assist Members in Grant Writing
This project requires two grants to be submitted per year. This goal was not met. In total five grants
were pursued with only three applications actually being submitted with plans of one additional
application to be submitted shortly after this grant expires. In retrospect, this goal might have been
unrealistic since it did not take into account that stakeholders willing to take on grants would be
required for success. Local stakeholders were reluctant to seek funding opportunities. There are several
reasons for this reluctance. Primarily, economics prevented most stakeholders from pursuing grants or
loans. Entities were hesitant about pursuing any projects that would cost them money, either in cost
share or interest payments that were not an absolute necessity. The WC was told by the EC member for
City of Granbury that to his understanding unless a grant provided 100% of the funds for the project, the
City had no plans for expanding their sewer system to areas identified as priority areas in the WPP. For
Hood County and City of Granbury, political pressures caused them to focus more on lake level issues
than on water quality issues.
Low lake levels also made it difficult to seek grants to address cove circulation which is one of the
primary management measures. The WC found it difficult to speak about installing equipment to
circulate water within the canal with main-body water while the most of the canals are dry. All of these
reasons limited the number of grants that were applied for during the term of this grant.
Patagonia Grant, Inc. (Aug. 2012) – During the summer of 2012, the WC coordinator identified a
small grant from Patagonia, Inc. Within the Sky Harbour subdivision in an area along Bee Creek, an area
was identified that would be suitable to plant native wetland and aquatic plants. The proposed planting
area would be directly upstream from a culvert that empties into one of the canals in Sky Harbour.
These plants would help reduce bacteria and sediment entering the canal. Initially the Rio Brazos
Chapter of the Texas Master Naturalists was approached about applying for the grant. The WC
presented the benefits of aquatic vegetation on water quality and the grant details at their monthly
meeting. They decided to pass on pursuing the grant. The WC then turned to the Brazos River
Conservation Coalition (BRCC). BRCC is a non-profit organization that is concerned with protecting the
water quality, flora, fauna, and natural beauty of the Brazos River and its watershed between Possum
Kingdom Lake and Lake Whitney. BRCC has members that belong to the LGWPP stakeholders and had
expressed some interest in being involved with the implementing management measures in the
watershed. BRCC was notified in late summer of 2012 of a grant sponsored by Patagonia, Inc. The WC
worked with BRCC to develop and submit a proposal. The grant was submitted on August 28th 2012. In
early January 2013, notification stating that the submitted grant would not be funded was received.
EPA Environmental Justice Grant (Dec. 2012) - In the fall of 2012, the WC identified an EPA
Environmental Justice Grant as a potential finding opportunity. The EC identified Ruth’s Place as a
12 | P a g e
potential partner for the grant. Ruth’s Place is a local non-profit organization that provides free medical
and dental care and other family services as needed to indigent, low income, uninsured, or underinsured families. They have a significant presence in the Oak Trails Shore (OTS) subdivision, an area that
is identified in the LGWPP is a priority area. The WC approached Ruth’s Place about pursuing an
Environmental Justice Grant. The WC and Ruth’s Place Executive Director met discuss crafting a proposal
that would provide OSSF pump-outs and OSSF educational classes to residents in OTS. On November 29,
2012, the WC met with individuals from the OTS Homeowners Association, Ruth’s Place, and Stonewater
Church, a local church that conducts ministry outreach in OTS. The response to the proposal was
generally positive. On December 10th, the WC discussed in detail with Ruth’s Place Board of Directors
the grant proposal. Ultimately the Board of Directors decided that despite some of the health concerns
associated with malfunctioning OSSFs that this proposal was too far outside their mission of meeting
medical needs. They also admitted to some hesitancy about administering a grant of this type. By this
time, the nearing deadline for grant application submittals made it impossible to find another entity to
apply for the grant.
Community Development Block Grant (Oct. 2012) - Acton Municipal Utility District (AMUD)
submitted an application for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) in October 2012 to extend
sewer service in the Port
Ridglea East (PRE)
subdivision. PRE is listed
in the LGWPP as the
number one priority
area for sewer
expansion. This grant
would have be the third
phase of extending
sewer service to the
area and would have
connected 30-35 homes.
Phases 1 and 2 so far
Phase 1 and 2
have seen a total of 72
Expansion
customers being
connected to AMUD’s
sewer system with the
potential of 97 total
connections. Figure 3
shows the location of
Proposed Phase 3
the existing Phase 1 and
Expansion
2 expansions and the
proposed Phase 3
Figure 3. Location of Proposed AMUD Sewer Expansion - Phase 3
expansion. In the
summer of 2013, the application rankings were published and AMUD’s proposal was ranked very low
13 | P a g e
placing there grant outside of funding consideration. AMUD stated that they would continue to seek
funding for Phase 3 with future CDBG applications.
FY14 CWA § 319(h) Grant (Oct. 2013) – Texas A&M AgriLife submitted a grant proposal in October
2013 that would continue education/outreach, provide a watershed coordinator, secure commitments
of homeowners to replace/repair about 30 OSSFs, and digitize the remaining OSSF records of Hood
County. Support for this grant came about after Arthur Talley of TCEQ spoke with stakeholders. Texas
A&M AgriLife decided to sponsor the grant application after it became apparent that the local
stakeholders were not willing to administer the grants themselves. Hood County only agreed to partner
in the grant when it was assured that no non-reimbursable money would be required of them. This
grant will begin in September 2014 with a goal of signing up 30 homeowners for OSSF replacement
within 18 months.
Supplemental Environmental Project (Spring 2012 and Summer 2014) – A Supplemental
Environmental Project, or SEP, allows entities found to be in violation of certain environmental
regulations to fully comply with the enforcement process while voluntarily taking a positive step toward
enhanced protection and improvement of the Texas environment. If a SEP is approved a respondent
may offset a portion of an assessed monetary penalty by taking on an environmental-enhancement
project or contributing to an existing environmental project in, or near, the community where the
violation occurred.
The Texas Association of Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Areas has a pre-approved
state-wide SEP. This pre-approved project states that the RC&D will coordinate with city and county
government officials and private entities to repair or replace failing or inadequately designed OSSFs for
low-income households with “low-income households” being at or below the 80 percent median income
level for households in the county where they live.
The WC contacted the President of the Leon Bosque RC&D Council in early 2012. The LGWPP and the
possibility of using SEP funds for OSSF replacement in Hood County were discussed. Dr. McFarland
stated SEP funds had been used in the past to replace some OSSFs within Hood County and that the
county would be considered for the application of SEP funds in the future.
One OSSF was replaced with an aerobic system in 2012 at a cost of $5960. This replaced a system that
was recommended by the HCEHD because of known problems. In spring 2014, the director of the
HCEHD was notified of the possibility of up to $40,000 of SEP funds being available. Hood County
submitted seven names of individuals to the RC&D that were experiencing malfunctioning OSSFs. The
RC&D then must verify that the individuals are eligible for the funds. At the time of the writing this
report, all individuals have not been verified. Five of the names submitted to the RC&D fall within the
Lake Granbury watershed. The OSSFs that have been replaced or repaired in Hood County with SEP
funds and that are within the Lake Granbury watershed can be found in Figure 4 and as follows:
2012
4510 Village Ct.
Granbury, TX
14 | P a g e
2014
3309 Sagecrest
4228 Terrie Lee
712 Holly Hills Cemetery Road
6015 Hunterwood
703 Branding Iron
Granbury, TX
Granbury, TX
Granbury, TX
Granbury, TX
Granbury, TX
Figure 4. Location of SEP funded OSSF repair/replacement projects
FY15 CWA § 319(h) Grant (July 2014) – Texas A&M AgriLife submitted a grant to continue the work
began in FY14 CWA § 319(h) grant. This grant will replace or repair OSSFs at the residences of the
homeowners whose commitments were secured during the FY14 319 grant. It will also continue
education and outreach efforts within the Lake Granbury area.
15 | P a g e
Subtask 4.3: Train EC members to Find and Apply for Funding
Throughout this project, the WC has worked closely with EC members to educate members on the
process of finding funding. Monthly EC meetings often included information on funding opportunities as
evidenced by the EC meeting minutes submitted with the QPRs.
Task 5: Implementation Education and Outreach Plan
Objective: The Watershed Coordinator will facilitate implementation of the LGWPP through outreach
and education activities in the Lake Granbury watershed. Texas AgriLife Research, who will be employing
the Watershed Coordinator, has existing educational programs for many of the areas requested by the
stakeholders in the LGWPP. However, AgriLife does not have existing programs for two of the
stakeholder’s requested topics. The Watershed Coordinator will develop educational programs and
materials related to septic tank inspections during the home inspection process, and how to discourage
feeding and the congregation of waterfowl and wildlife. TCEQ, BRA and AgriLife will work together to
ensure existing materials developed for other projects are used appropriately and will not recreate
existing materials. Additionally, the Watershed Coordinator will: 1) implement the educational program
included by the stakeholders in the LGWPP; 2) work to increase public awareness regarding water quality
around Lake Granbury; 3) increase natural resource literacy among residents of Lake Granbury; 4) in
cooperation with other Lake Granbury work groups, develop educational strategies to increase
awareness of contaminant sources and BMPs to limit contaminants from reaching the lake; 5) increase
awareness and community involvement in implementation of the LGWPP; 6) establish a brand for the
LGWPPSG; 7) develop partnerships for message distribution; 8) create microcampaigns for specific target
audiences; and 9) establish a practice of ongoing educational campaign evaluation
Education and outreach was conducted with a multi-prong approach that included: presentations to
local groups, sponsored events, newspaper articles, public service announcements on local radio/TV,
printed fact sheets, a digital presence of a website and Facebook page, and bi-monthly newsletter.
Subtask 5.1: Evaluate Watershed Knowledge and Awareness
In the summer of 2012, the WC conducted a survey of Hood County residents to assess knowledge and
awareness general watershed protection principles. The same survey was conducted during the summer
of 2014 to assess the effectiveness of the education program. Table 5 contains the results of the 2012
and 2014 surveys.
16 | P a g e
Table 5. Results of 2012 and 2014 Surveys of General Public on Watershed Awareness
Question
Q1. Which of the following best describes
the location where you live in relation to
a watershed?
Q2. Where does stormwater runoff go
when it rains?
Q3. Which of the following do you
believe contributes the most bacterial
pollution to Lake Granbury?
Q4. Do you believe the way you care for
your lawn and house can affect the water
quality of Lake Granbury?
Q5. Does your house have a septic
system?
Q6. If yes, have you had your septic
system inspected within the last 5 years?
Q7. Do you believe that an improperly
maintained septic system can contribute
to the contamination of surface water?
Q8. Do you dispose of your pet's waste in
the trash?
Q9. Do you believe pet waste can
contribute to the bacterial contamination
of water?
Q10. Do you believe that feeding
waterfowl can contribute to bacterial
contamination in water?
Q11. How would you rate the water
quality of Lake Granbury and its
creeks/streams?
Possible Answers
* denotes correct
answer
Near a watershed
In a watershed*
Not familiar with the
term
To lake/creeks after
treatment
To lake/creeks
without treatment*
I don't know/Never
have considered it
Industry
Private Residences
Sewage Plant
Yes
No
I don't know/Never
have considered it
Yes
No
I don't know
Yes
No
I don't know
Yes
No
I don't know/Never
have considered it
Yes
No
Don't have a pet
Yes
No
I don't know/Never
have considered it
Yes
No
I don't know/Never
have considered it
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
2012 Survey –
% of answers
given
22.0
71.2
6.8
2014 Survey –
% of answers
given
43.8
43.8
12.5
0.0
6.3
98.3
90.6
1.7
3.1
6.8
88.1
5.1
84.7
15.3
0.0
6.3
87.5
6.3
84.4
15.6
0.0
72.4
27.6
0.0
62.3
35.8
1.9
98.3
1.7
0.0
56.8
46.8
0
47.4
52.6
0.0
93.78
3.1
3.1
31.6
45.6
22.8
81.0
12.1
6.9
37.9
27.6
34.5
87.1
0.0
12.9
70.2
15.8
14.0
72.4
6.9
20.7
0.0
24.6
56.1
19.3
0.0
20.7
62.1
17.2
17 | P a g e
The 2012 and 2014 surveys both resulted in a high number of people identifying residences as the major
contributor to the bacterial contamination in the lake. Surprisingly, there was a decrease in the number
of people that could correctly answer whether they lived in a watershed. The survey resulted in slight
increases in the awareness that pets and waterfowl can contribute to bacterial contamination. There
was actually a decrease in the number of people that believe that improperly maintained OSSFs can
contribute to the contamination of surface water. This could be attributed to the fact that a lower
percentage of people that had OSSFs took the survey in 2014 and that these people are less aware due
to lack of applicability to their daily life.
Subtask 5.2: County Order
HCEHD, with assistance from the WC, drafted an ordinance regarding holding tanks and pumping
records. Originally, an order was to be drafted that required all homeowners with holding tanks to
submit pumping records. However, the county commissioners did not want to place a mandate on
homeowners that were properly maintaining their holding tanks. Consequently, the order was drafted in
a manner that would require property owners to have an on-going scheduled pumping contract if their
holding tank was found to create nuisance condition as defined by Health and Safety Code Chapter
366.02 (6). This process of drafting this order began in the fall of 2012. The Count Order was approved
by the TCEQ on April 30, 2014 and became effective in Hood County on that date. The TCEQ approval
letter and County Order can be found in APPENDIX . Section 10(E) contains the adopted language.
Subtask 5.3: Outreach to Local Governments
The WC conducted outreach to local elected officials and other local government officials. Outreach to
Hood County officials was more productive than with the City of Granbury. Hood County officials have
been very involved with the LGWPP implementation and have stayed well informed due to the County’s
representative to the EC. HCEHD Director James McAusland has been very active in the implementation
of the LGWPP and has served as an effective channel of communication between Hood County, the EC,
and the WC.
The City of Granbury, however, has been less involved than Hood County. Efforts made be the WC to
talk with the City Manager and City Council members were often forwarded to the EC representative for
the City who has been absent from the majority of the EC meetings and has had little contribution. In
January 2014, the WC talked with the mayor and city manager of Granbury about the city’s involvement.
Mayor Hulett affirmed the City’s desire to be involved with the LGWPP. Since that time, the City’s
activity with the EC has attended a few meetings.
The idea of ordinances or orders prohibiting wildlife and waterfowl feeding around Lake Granbury has
only been briefly discussed. The Hood County EC representative stated that he had briefly discussed
with some county officials and stated that there were questions of whether they had the authority to
issue such a prohibition. They also stated that if they did have the authority they did not feel they could
effectively enforce it. Discussions with the City of Granbury have not occurred due to their lack of
involvement.
18 | P a g e
Subtask 5.4: Outreach to HOAs
The WC reached out to many of HOAs around Lake Granbury especially those identified in the LGWPP as
a priority area, such as Sky Harbour, Port Ridglea East, Oak Trail Shores and Arrowhead Shores. Many of
the priority areas in the LGWPP are HOAs associated with lower income residents. These HOAs in
general do not have much involvement from the residents so engaging the residents through the HOAs
was difficult. Most of the priority HOAs were not particularly receptive to distributing educational
materials or hosting educational events due to their expected lack of participation from residents.
Several HOAs allowed educational materials to be displayed at their HOA office while other just did not
have the facilities to display such materials.
Several HOAs (Oak Trail Shores, Arrowhead Shores, and Sky Harbour) were approached about the
possibility of draft regulations to require consultation with and approval of HCEHD prior to approving
construction permits for home additions that rely on OSSFs for wastewater disposal. While all agreed
that it would address an issue of concern, none were interested in pursuing that action. Discussion
between the WC, the Director of HCEHD, and the president of the Hood County Coalition of Property
Owner Associations (HCCPOA) produced the concept of a voluntary approach to address this issue. On
March 7, 2013, a process was presented to local HOAs to ensure that alterations to the primary living
structures under their authority do not cause the original design capacity for the structure’s OSSF to be
exceeded. Currently, alterations such as adding a room or changing one trailer house with another
require the homeowner to submit the proposed changes to the HOA’s architectural committee for
approval. The proposed process would require that the before the architectural committee approve the
proposed alterations, the homeowner must get the HCEHD to state that the changes would not cause
the design capacity of the OSSF to be exceeded. This would be accomplished by submitting a form to
HCEHD. Once the homeowner has received approval from HCEHD and the architectural committee is
notified of approval, the architectural committee can then approve the homeowner’s permit to alter the
structure. The meeting was attended by persons representing 21 HOAs.
According to HCEHD, in the months following the meeting there were several requests for approval
through this process. However, since more recently HCEHD has not seen as many requests for approval
through this process. The assumption is that there might have been some resistance to the process from
residents, and the HOAs are longer requiring HCEHD approval. Efforts to reach the president of the
HCCPOA to follow up with attendees have been unsuccessful.
Subtask 5.5: Develop Educational Program and Materials for Home Inspectors
The WC developed an educational material for home inspectors on how to properly assess OSSFs and
material discouraging the feeding of waterfowl. The material for each topic included a slide
presentation, a one-page fact sheet, and a brochure. The material was placed on the Lake Granbury
Watershed Partnership website at http://lakegranburywatershed.org/resources/.
19 | P a g e
Subtask 5.6: Implementation and Outreach Measures as Outlined in the LGWPP
Presentations were given to
community leaders, local civic
groups, non-profit organizations
and schools (see Figure 5). Two
presentations were to be given
each month with one additional
presentation each quarter
resulting in a total of 84
presentations made during the
project. Table 6 is list of all the
presentations given in support of
meeting Subtask 5.6 of this
Figure 5. Watershed Coordinator at Acton Elementary Ag Fair Day - 2013
project.
Table 6. Outreach Activities related LGWPP and Lake Granbury Water Quality
Date
Event or Group
Topic
# of
Attendees
Target/
Non- Target
10/11/2011
10/24/2011
Project Meeting
Texas Well Owner Network
Meeting
Hood County Master Gardner
Training
Baccus Elementary
Chamber of Commerce's Env
and Water Committee
Optimist Club
KPIR radio audience
Homeschool students
Education and Outreach Plan
Watersheds, Water Quality,
Bacterial Contamination
Watersheds, Water Quality,
Pesticides, Fertilizers
Erosion and Soils
WPP, education and outreach
plan
WPP, Watersheds, Bacteria
General watershed education
General watershed education,
NPS pollution
WPP history and implementation
2
75
Target
Target
42
Target
81
8
Target
Non-Target
20
Area-wide
8
Target
Target
Target
≈20
Non-Target
WPP history and implementation
Water Conservation, NPS
pollution
30
23
Non-Target
Target
WPP history, NPS pollution
12
Target
Rain Barrel construction,
reducing run-off
Reducing Bacteria Contamination
Surface water pollution
4
Target
25
≈77
Target
Target
≈85
≈85
≈85
Target
Target
Target
11/14/2011
12/6/2011
2/13/2012
2/28/2012
3/16/2012
3/16/2012
3/29/2012
4/18/2012
4/23/2012
4/24/2012
5/7/2012
5/10/2012
5/21/2012
5/21/2012
5/21/2012
5/21/2012
Clean Rivers Program Steering
Committee – Brazos River
Intergovernmental Coalition
Master Gardener Community
Education Class - Landscape
Design and Water
Conservations
Brazos River Conservation
Coalition
Rain Barrel Class
Rotary Club
School-Oak Woods
kindergarten
School-Oak Woods 1st grade
School-Oak Woods 2nd Grade
School-Oak Woods 3rd grade
20 | P a g e
Date
Event or Group
Topic
# of
Attendees
Target/
Non- Target
5/21/2012
5/21/2012
6/25/2012
School-Oak Woods 4th grade
School-Oak Woods 5th grade
Granbury TV
≈85
≈85
Area-wide
Target
Target
Target
6/27/2012
20
Target
8
Target
7/17/2012
Pecan Plantation Breakfast
Club
Chamber of Commerce Env.
and Water Committee
Radio interview - KPIR
Area-wide
Target
8/2/2012
Texas Master Naturalists
25
Target
8/11/2012
8
Target
8/21/2012
Brazos River Conservation
Coalition
Radio interview - KPIR
Area-wide
Target
9/15/2012
Booth at Fall Market
??
Target
9/19/2012
9/20/2012
KPIR - radio show
Granbury High School Aquatic Sci. and AP Env. Sci.
Septic Systems for Realtors
KPIR - Radio Show
WPP history, watersheds,
bacterial cont. and solutions
WPP history, watersheds,
bacterial cont. and solutions
e. coli reduction through
wetlands
swimming related illness and
water pollution
e. coli reduction through
wetlands, Grant opportunity
e. coli reduction wetlands, Grant
opportunity
Importance of Septic Tank Pumpout and zebra mussels control
Septic Systems, Lawn
maintenance
Lawn maintenance
Water Quality and Non-point
source pollution
Septic Systems
Septic Systems, Website, grant
opportunity
WPP, septic systems, grant
opportunity
WPP, septic systems, grant
opportunity
WPP update, past grant
opportunity
OSSFs, HOA regulations, event
planning
Area-wide
120
Target
Target
11
Area-wide
Target
Target
26
Target
12
Target
9
Non-Target
2
Non-Target
Educate new county official on
WPP
Educate new county official on
WPP
Septic System
repair/replacement opportunity
Watershed Protection and septic
systems
Watershed Protection and NPS
pollution
Watershed Protection and NPS
pollution
Water Cycle, nps pollution
1
Non-Target
1
Non-Target
30
Target
25
Target
12
Target
17
Target
≈88
Target
≈106
Target
7/16/2012
10/10/2012
10/23/2012
11/29/2012
4/18/2013
Oak Trail Shores HOA/
Stonewater Church
Ruth's Place Board of
Directors
Chamber of Commerce Env.
and Water Committee
County Env. Health director
and Pres. of Hood County
Coalition of POAs
Meet With Jeff Tout - New
County Commissioner #3
Meet With James Deaver New County Commissioner
Oak Trail Shores Yearly HOA
Meeting
Hood County Coalition of POA
Meeting
Kiwanis
4/18/2013
Hood County Democrats
5/22/2013
Acton Elementary Kindergarten
Acton Elementary - 1st grade
12/10/2012
1/28/2013
1/31/2013
2/21/2013
2/26/2013
3/1/2013
3/7/2013
5/22/2013
21 | P a g e
Date
Event or Group
Topic
# of
Attendees
Target/
Non- Target
5/22/2013
5/22/2013
5/22/2013
5/22/2013
6/28/2013
Acton Elementary - 2nd grade
Acton Elementary - 3rd grade
Acton Elementary - 4th grade
Acton Elementary - 5th grade
Met with County
Commissioner Candidate
Butch Barton
Native Plant Society of Texas
- Prairie Rose Chapter
Met with Granbury Mayor Pro
Tem Nin Hulett
Meeting with County
Commissioner County Env
Health Director
Hood County Commissioner's
Court
Septic System Maintenance
for Homeowners
Intergovernmental Meeting
WPP
≈103
≈99
≈95
≈111
1
Target
Target
Target
Target
Non-Target
WPP, NPS pollution and wetlands
15
Target
WPP and funding opportunities
1
Non-Target
319 grant opportunity
2
Non-Target
319 Grant Opportunity, WPP
5
Non-Target
Septic Systems
20
Target
Project Update, Grant
Opportunity
Erosion, NPS pollution
30
Non-Target
111
Target
Erosion, NPS pollution
103
Target
Env Education for students;
water body monitoring
Env. education for students
6
Target
2
Target
WPP importance and city’s role
2
Target
WPP, OSSFs
Project Update, 319 Grant
proposal
Rainwater harvesting and
reducing runoff and NPS
pollution
Water quality update, WPP
update
28
30
Target
Non-Target
26
Target
19
Target
7/2/2013
8/13/2013
8/29/2013
9/10/2013
10/1/2013
10/23/2013
10/24/2013
10/24/2013
11/1/2013
12/12/2013
1/21/2014
4/15/2014
5/7/2014
Water Day Acton Elementary 4th grade
Water Day Acton Elementary 5th grade
Env. Education meeting
Meeting concerning possible
Env Ed program
Meeting with City of Granbury
Leadership
Optimist Club
Intergovernmental Meeting
5/19/2014
Rainwater Harvesting
Workshop
7/10/2014
Rotary Club
Every effort was made to meet the goal of two presentations per month plus one additional per quarter
for a total of 84 presentations. However, as can be seen by Table 6, the total number of presentations
was only 64. Looking at Table 3, it is evident that the number of presentations decreased in year three.
There were multiple factors for this. One is that there are a limited number of groups with in Hood
County that presentations can be made to. It seemed that a saturation point was reached in the final
fiscal year. The drought also affected the number of presentations given. Some groups only wanted to
hear about lake level issues, while others wanted avoid any mention of the lake because of the
22 | P a g e
emotional impact the low lake levels were causing. Whatever the reason, the result was that water
quantity trumped any talk of water quality.
However, efforts were successful in mitigating the shortfall of 20 presentations. Five interviews were
given on KPIR 1420 AM. This is a local radio station that has a coverage area that includes 50,000
people. The interviews covered several topics, including the LGWPP, E. coli contamination, OSSFs, zebra
mussels, lawn maintenance, and NPS pollution solutions. An interview was also conducted on
GranburyTV (Charter Cable channel 27). This is a local public, education, and government (PEG) channel
ran by the city of Granbury. This topics discussed included the LGWPP, E. coli contamination, and NPS
pollution solutions. Additionally, two videos were shown on GranburyTV. One video was a five minute
video on conventional OSSFs. The other was a 3 ½ -minute video on aerobic OSSFs. Both videos covered
operation and maintenance as well as contacting links to the Lake Granbury Watershed website and to
the Hood County Environmental Health Department. These videos were originally produced for the
Dickinson Bayou WPP but were not specific to any one watershed.
As stated there was a shortfall of 20 presentations. If 20 people were assumed to attend each of the 20
presentations not conducted, then there were about 400 people that were not reached that otherwise
would have been. The viewership/listenership of the six interviews and the two videos is difficult to
calculate. PEG channels do not have Nielsen ratings and the KPIR radio station was unable to provide
data on its listenership. Despite the lack of hard data, it is not unreasonable to assume that the six
interviews and two videos reached significantly more than 400 people.
Subtask 5.7: Track Implementation of Education and Outreach Management Measures
A summary table was produced each quarter documenting the education and outreach activities
conducted. The table includes area/group/event served, date of service, number of people reached, and
topics covered. The summary tables have been submitted to TCEQ with QPRs.
Subtask 5.8: Evaluate Targeted Outreach Campaign Effectiveness
Evaluating the effectiveness of an educational program is essential. Three instruments were used to
gage the educational campaign. The first would be used to assess attendee satisfaction of events and
workshops and the effectiveness of message. The second was developed to assess the LGWPPSG’s
satisfaction with the education campaign. The third instrument developed a database of attendees
which was then used to survey attendees several months after select workshops or events to determine
if they had modified their lifestyle in order to incorporate the practices discussed during the event.
Event Evaluation Instrument and Results
Evaluation surveys were circulated at selected events to assess the effectiveness of the outreach and
presentations. Two types of surveys were conducted. One used for adult attendees evaluated the
content, perceived changes and economic impact, and the value of the activity. For events at schools a
pretest/post-test evaluation was performed. These surveys were conducted by Texas A&M AgriLife
Extension. The following are the results of the evaluated events.
23 | P a g e
Master Gardener Community Education Class - Landscape Design/Water Conservation:
On April 23, 2012, the Lake Granbury Master Gardeners and the Hood County Extension Agent
sponsored a Landscape Design/Water Conservation class. This was part of the Hood County Master
Gardeners Community Education Program. The class was primarily about landscape design and water
conservation. However, reducing non-point source pollution was also highlighted. A survey was given
that asked respondents to evaluate the content, the value of the activities prescribed in the class, and to
indicate whether they anticipated taking prescribed activities. The results of the survey were as follows:
Number of Participants: 23
Percentages based on 18 respondents to the survey (Response rate = 78%).
Overall:
 100% of respondents were mostly or completely satisfied with the activity.
Content:
 94% of respondents were mostly or completely satisfied with the information being
what they expected.
accurate.
easy to understand.
 100% of respondents were mostly or completely satisfied with the completeness of
information given on each topic.
 94% of respondents were mostly or completely satisfied with the timeliness of
 100% of respondents were mostly or completely satisfied with the helpfulness of the
information in decisions about your own situation.
 89% of respondents were mostly or completely satisfied with the quality of course
materials.
 100% of respondents were mostly or completely satisfied with the relevance of the
examples used.
Anticipated Changes & Economic Impact:
 100% of respondents plan to take actions or make changes based on the information
from this activity.
 93% of respondents anticipate benefiting economically as a direct result of what they
learned from this Extension activity.
Value of Activity:
 100% of respondents said that the information and programs provided by Extension
were quite or extremely valuable to them.
 100% of respondents would recommend this activity to others.
 100% of respondents would attend another subject offered by Extension if it addressed
a specific need or interest of theirs.
24 | P a g e
Ag Fair at Oak Woods Elementary – Water Conservation and Surface Water Pollution:
This event was used to introduce kids to various aspects of agriculture. The students rotated between
different stations including one station that was on water. The WC talked with the students about water
and its importance. This included the need to conserve water and limit pollution. This event used a pretest and post-test to determine how well kids understood the material presented. The only question
asked about water was related to conservation. As this was an event planned by the Hood County
Extension Agent, the questions asked of students was selected by the agent. The results were as follows:
Question
Q14: It is not important
to conserve water
because we have more
than we’ll ever need.
Yes
No *
I don't know
No Answer
Pre-test –
% of answers given
20.5%
64.3%
14.1%
1.0%
Post-test –
% of answers given
16.7%
74.1%
9.2%
0%
Ag Fair at Acton Elementary – Water Conservation and Surface Water Pollution:
This event was used to introduce kids to various aspects of agriculture. The students rotated between
different stations including one station that was on water. The WC talked with the students about water
and its importance. This included the need to conserve water and limit pollution. This event used a pretest and post-test to determine how well kids understood the material presented. The only question
asked about water was related to conservation. As this was an event planned by the Hood County
Extension Agent, the questions asked of students was selected by the agent. The results were as follows:
Question
Q14: It is not important
to conserve water
because we have more
than we’ll ever need.
Yes
No *
I don't know
No Answer
Pre-test –
% of answers given
17.8%
67.2%
12.9%
2.2%
Post-test –
% of answers given
18.7%
75.8%
5.0%
0.5%
Septic Systems for Homeowners Workshop:
This workshop was sponsored by Lake Granbury Watershed Partnership and Texas A&M AgriLife
Extension and discussed the parts and functions of OSSFs and the need for maintenance. A survey was
given that asked respondents to evaluate the content, indicate whether their understanding of OSSF
topics increased, and to indicate whether they anticipated taking prescribed activities. The results of the
survey were as follows:
Number of Participants: 23
Percentages based on 13 respondents to the survey (Response rate = 57%).
Overall:
 100% of respondents were mostly or completely satisfied with the activity.
25 | P a g e
Content:
what they expected.
accurate.
 92% of respondents were mostly or completely satisfied with the information being easy
to understand.
 92% of respondents were mostly or completely satisfied with the timeliness of
 85% of respondents were mostly or completely satisfied with the helpfulness of the
information in decisions about your own situation.
 85% of respondents were mostly or completely satisfied with the relevance of the
examples used.
Level of Understanding: (% of respondents who increased their understanding of . . .)
 (77%) – Understanding of how septic systems are a part of our wastewater
infrastructure
 (85%) – Understanding of how practices in the home affect sewage characteristics.
 (92%) – Understanding of septic tank operation and maintenance criteria
 (62%) – Understanding of how soil treats sewage.
 (85%) – Understanding of how aerobic treatment units remove waste from sewage
 (62%) – Understanding of how a malfunctioning septic system can impact water quality.
 (54%) – Importance of proper septic system operation for protection of public health
Plans to Adopt: (% of respondents who definitely will adopt the following practices)
 (25%) – Implement water conservation practices to limit water to the septic system
 (27%) – Limit organic loading to the septic system
 (33%) – Perform operation and maintenance activities on my septic system
 (42%) – Pump out my septic tank as needed
Water Day – Acton Elementary
Recognizing a greater need for water education a Water Day event was held for fourth and fifth graders
at Acton Elementary. Topics included erosion, water conservation, the water cycle, and water pollution.
This event used a pre-test and post-test to determine how well kids understood the material presented.
The results were as follows:
26 | P a g e
Table 7. Results from Water Day at Acton Elementary Pre- and Post-Test
Question
Q1: Removal of soil by
water, wind or other factors
is called erosion.
Q2: There is no new water,
all the water we have is
already on the Earth.
Q3: Water conservation
should be practiced by:
Q4: Water returns to the
clouds through:
Q5: Which of these are
pollutants when they runoff
into water?
Q6: Water that falls onto
the land and drains to a
common place is called a:
Q7: A curve in a stream is
called a meander.
Q8: Fast moving water
causes _____ erosion than
slow.
Pre-test –
% of answers given
Post-test –
% of answers given
57.4%
89.6%
False
29.4%
6.95
I don't know
13.2%
3.5%
True *
71.3%
79.25
False
24.3%
20.1%
I don't know
4.4%
0.7%
Homeowners
1.5%
5.6%
Farmers
7.4%
11.8%
Industry
8.8%
4.9%
Everyone *
68.4%
68.8%
I don't know
14.0%
9.0%
Rain
10.3%
4.9%
Humidity
1.5%
2.8%
Evaporation *
86.8%
92.4%
I don't know
1.5%
0.0%
Soil
16.2%
29.2%
Oil
14.0%
10.4%
Pesticides
7.4%
13.2%
All of these *
26.5%
38.2%
I don't know
36.0%
9.0%
Watershed *
19.1%
22.2%
Valley
5.9%
6.9%
Pond
27.2%
17.4%
River
30.9%
45.8%
I don't know
16.9%
7.6%
True *
39.7%
76.1%
False
19.9%
18.3%
I don't know
40.4%
5.6%
More *
69.1%
81.9%
Less
8.1%
10.4%
The same
14.0%
4.2%
I don't know
8.8%
3.5%
Possible
Answers
(* denotes
correct answer)
True *
27 | P a g e
Question
Q9: How many gallons of
rainfall can you collect
during a 1 inch rain off of a
1,000 square foot roof?
Q10: The body cools itself
through perspiration and
evaporation.
Pre-test –
% of answers given
Post-test –
% of answers given
14.0%
2.8%
600 *
9.6%
63.9%
1,000
19.1%
20.1%
100
6.6%
6.9%
I don't know
50.7%
6.3%
True *
51.5%
75.0%
False
27.9%
16.7%
I don't know
20.6%
8.3%
Possible
Answers
(* denotes
correct answer)
10
Survey of LGWPPSG Satisfaction of Education Campaign
The WC conducted a survey of the LGWPPSG in order to assess their satisfaction with the campaign and
to solicit inputs for improvements. The first two years, informal surveys were taken by the WC.
Stakeholders were asked during the semi-annual stakeholder meetings about the education and
outreach plan. No comments or recommendations were received by the WC. During the summer of
2014, a survey was sent out to the stakeholders. They were 18 respondents. See Table 8 for results
Table 8. Results of Survey of LGWPPSG Satisfaction of Education Campaign
Very Effective
Somewhat Effective
Slightly Effective
Not at All Effective
% of
answers
given
27.78
44.44
11.11
16.67
Q2. Has the education/outreach program as currently
implemented met your desires and goals as a LGWPP
stakeholder?
Yes
66.67
No
33.33
Q3. Was the message of education/outreach program
clearly defined?
Yes
72.22
No
27.78
--
--
Completely
Mostly
Somewhat
Slightly
Not at All
44.44
27.78
5.56
16.67
5.56
Question
Q1. How would you rate the overall effectiveness of the
education/outreach program?
Q4. How satisfied are you with the following aspects of
the program?
Q4a. The quality of the information given to the public.
Possible Answers
(* denotes correct answer)
28 | P a g e
Question
Q4b. The amount of information given.
Q4c. The helpfulness of the information.
Q4d. The comprehensibility of the information.
Q5. What medium do you think is most effective in
conveying the message of education/outreach program?
Q6a. Would you change anything about the program?
Possible Answers
(* denotes correct answer)
Completely
Mostly
Somewhat
Slightly
Not at All
Completely
Mostly
Somewhat
Slightly
Not at All
Completely
Mostly
Somewhat
Slightly
Not at All
Newspaper Articles
PSAs on Radio
Presentations to Groups
Events/Workshops
Digital (Facebook, Website)
Yes
No
% of
answers
given
38.89
33.33
11.11
0
16.67
44.44
27.78
11.11
5.56
11.11
38.89
27.78
5.56
22.22
5.56
17.65
0
41.18
11.76
29.41
47.06
52.94
Q6b. If so, what?
*Identify pollution problems and correct them.
*Get BRA out of it
*The program needs to be geared to all who contribute to the effect of water quality on
Lake Granbury including businesses and power plants.
*More interaction with public work groups (i.e., Lake Granbury Waterfront Property Owner
Assoc)
*Need City to embrace education and outreach; actually City needs to be educated;
Councilmembers and one County Commissioner spread fear and misinformation thus
making your program more difficult.
*More Community Exposure
*More opportunity to get in front of people to spread the word - hard to do with limited
resources.
Overall, the responding stakeholders seemed to feel generally satisfied with the education campaign.
Seventy-two percent of the respondents stated that the current education and outreach plan was
somewhat to very effective. Two-thirds of respondents stated that the education campaign has met
their desires and goals as envisioned during the planning process. One area that was not intensely
pursued during the grant was a digital presence. The website was used as a clearinghouse for
information and a Facebook page was maintained to disseminate current articles and information.
Nearly 30% of the stakeholders felt that a digital presence was the most effective medium for the
education campaign. In the future, the education campaign will make more of an effort to utilize the
29 | P a g e
Facebook page in the educational campaign. Seven individuals submitted comments on how they would
change the educational program.
Outreach Attendees Database and Survey
A database of attendees was developed from the attendees of outreach events. Additionally, attendees
of the Septic Systems for Homeowners Workshop were surveyed eight months after the event to
determine if they had modified their lifestyle as a result of the information provided during the event.
There were only 6 respondents to the request to be surveyed. The results can be found in Table 9.
Table 9. Survey of Septic Systems for Homeowners Attendees 8 months After Event
Question
Possible Answers
Q1: Have you performed maintenance, e.g. a pumpout, on your septic system since the workshop?
Yes
No
Adopted practice before workshop
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Q2: Do you plan on performing maintenance, e.g. a
pump-out, on your septic system in the future?
Q3: Have you implemented water conservation
practices to limit water to your septic system since
the workshop?
Q4: Have you implemented practices to reduce
harmful items going to your septic system, e.g. food
scraps, prescription drugs, etc. since the workshop?
Q5: Would you recommend this workshop to other
people?
% of
answers
given
17%
50%
33%
67%
33%
0%
17%
83%
33%
0%
67%
100%
0%
Despite the small number of respondents a few general observations can be made. Many of the
respondents were already performing many of the practices that can reduce OSSF problems. This might
be because of the other on-going education activities in the watershed. The respondents also found the
class beneficial enough to recommend to others if the workshop was offered again.
Subtask 5.9: Publicize LGWPP Efforts
The WC developed newspaper articles and public service announcements to highlight educational
opportunities, LGWPP efforts, and watershed management.
Newspaper Articles
Educational articles were written on a one per quarter basis. These articles appeared in the Hood
County News. Table 10 lists the dates the articles were published and the topic discussed.
Table 10. Date and Topic of Articles published in Hood County News
Date
3/10/2012
4/28/2012
6/30/2012
Topic of Article
Introduction to Watersheds
Rain Barrels and Reducing Run-off
30 | P a g e
Date
8/4/2012
11/17/2012
2/6/2013
5/4/2013
7/27/2013
11/16/2013
2/15/2014
5/14/2014
8/20/2014
Topic of Article
Watershed and their Importance
Septic Systems and the Holidays
Water Conservation
Lawn Maintenance and Water Quality
Pharmaceuticals in Water
Is Your Septic System Ready for the Holidays?
Why Water Quality is Important
Public Service Announcements
Public service announcements (PSAs) were run quarterly on the local radio station KPIR 1420AM or
GranburyTV (Charter Cable channel 27). The first eleven PSAs were read on KPIR a total of about ten
times over a period of about 2 weeks. The topics of the PSAs and newspaper articles were often the
same in order to saturate citizens with a consistent message. The last PSA aired on GranburyTV. This PSA
ran twice a day for 3 weeks in August and on into September. Table 11 lists the dates the PSAs were
submitted to radio and TV station personnel.
Table 11. Date of PSA Submission and Topic of PSAs
Date
2/29/2012
4/12/2012
6/19/2012
8/13/2012
11/14/2012
2/20/2012
5/14/2013
8/8/2013
11/11/2013
2/5/2014
5/21/2014
7/28/2014
Topic of PSA
General Watershed
Septic Systems
Septic Systems and the Holidays
Water Conservation
Lawn Maintenance and Water Quality
Hazardous Household Wastes and Water
General Watershed Care
Pet Waste and Water
Septic Systems – “Squishy Feet”
Task 6: Final Project Report
Objective: To produce a Final Report that summarizes all project activities completed and conclusions
reached, and that contains all the reports completed under previous tasks either in the text or as
appendices.
This report serves as the final report that summarizes all the project activities and conclusions reached.
31 | P a g e
Subtask 6.1: Draft Report
A draft report that summarizes all project activities, findings, and the contents of all previous
deliverables either as web links or attached as appendices was developed and submitted. Comments
from TCEQ were incorporated into the Final report.
Subtask 6.2: Final Report
This Final Report provides a comprehensive report of all activities performed during the project.
32 | P a g e
DISCUSSION
Water Quality
Table 12 compares the three-year geometric mean for the time period leading up to the start of the
project ( September 2008 - August 2011) and the time period of the project (September 2011 – August
2014). However, caution must be taken when drawing conclusions from this short term E. coli data.
Several sites went dry during the project. This resulted in only a few samples being collected at several
sampling sites making trend analysis difficult. As Table 12 shows, sampling sites 18004, 18010, and
18015 (highlighted in red) had less than ten samples collected during the entire project. Of the sites with
greater than ten samples, several sites saw an increase in the geometric mean. Sites 18018 and 20216
saw somewhat alarming increases, 163% and 189% respectively. Despite the large percent increase, site
18018 still exhibits relatively low geometric mean. The increase at site 20216 is somewhat more
troubling. This could be due to more aging and/or failing OSSFs being present during the project period
than before.
Table 12. E. coli 3-yr Geometric Mean for the Time Period Ending Before the Project Start Date and Project End Date
E. coli Geomean
9/2008-8/2011
Site #
11860
20307
11862
18004
18010
18015
18018
18038
18741
20216
20218
20220
20227
20228
20229
20230
Site
Main Body - Near Dam
Main Body @ Bus377
Main Body @ FM 51
Canal @ Rolling Hills Shores
Canal @ Oak Trail Shores
Canal @ Sky Harbour
Canal @ Water's Edge
Canal @ Port Ridglea East
Canal @ Blue Water Shores
Canal @ Indian Harbor
Indian Harbor on Contrary Creek
Long Creek
Robinson Creek
Stroud’s Creek
Walnut Creek @ DeCordova Estates
Brazos River @ Lake Country Acres
(MPN/100ml)
2
4
4
98
50
98
8
68
42
35
50
102
68
119
90
26
# of
samples
2011-2014
36
35
35
8
6
9
32
16
14
17
15
34
33
36
36
34
E. coli Geomean
9/2011-8/2014
%
Change
(MPN/100ml)
2
5
5
99
208
99
21
111
35
101
26
62
76
54
80
16
0%
25%
25%
1%
316%
1%
163%
63%
-17%
189%
-48%
-39%
12%
-55%
-11%
-38%
Site 18038, located in the Port Ridglea East subdivision, saw an increase of 63% in the E. coli geometric
mean despite the on-going sewer expansion by performed by AMUD. This is due to the fact the
sampling site is located in a canal that has yet to see its surrounding residences receive sewer service.
Figure 6 shows the sampling location and the sewer expansion that occurred prior to the end of this
project.
33 | P a g e
Site
18038
AMUD Sewer
Expansion- Phase
1 and 2
Figure 6. Location of Site 18038 and the AMUD sewer expansion project
Due to the variable nature of E. coli data it is often more beneficial to look at a data set that covers a
longer length of time. Table 13 shows the 7-year geometric mean for all sites. Seven-year geometric
means were calculated for the time period (Sept. 2004 – Aug. 2011) ending right before the start of the
project. The seven year geometric mean was then calculated for the time period (Sept. 2007 – Aug.
2014) ending with the conclusion of this project. All but one site saw a decrease or no change in the
geometric mean.
Table 13. E. coli 7-yr Geometric Mean for the Time Period Ending Before the Project Start Date and Project End Date
Site #
11860
20307
11862
Site
Main Body - Near Dam
Main Body @ Bus377
Main Body @ FM 51
E. coli Geomean
E. coli Geomean
9/2004-8/2011
9/2007-8/2014
(MPN/100ml)
(MPN/100ml)
2
5
5
2
4
5
% Change
0%
-20%
0%
34 | P a g e
Site #
18004
18010
18015
18018
18038
18741
20216
20218
20220
20227
20228
20229
20230
Site
Canal @ Rolling Hills Shores
Canal @ Oak Trail Shores
Canal @ Sky Harbour
Canal @ Water's Edge
Canal @ Port Ridglea East
Canal @ Blue Water Shores
Canal @ Indian Harbor
Indian Harbor on Contrary Creek
Long Creek
Robinson Creek
Stroud’s Creek
Walnut Creek @ DeCordova Estates
Brazos River @ Lake Country Acres
E. coli Geomean
E. coli Geomean
9/2004-8/2011
9/2007-8/2014
(MPN/100ml)
(MPN/100ml)
23
147
101
12
103
68
65
61
122
69
101
98
26
19
181
88
12
86
52
61
44
87
68
77
84
19
% Change
-17%
23%
-13%
0%
-17%
-24%
-6%
-28%
-29%
-1%
-24%
-14%
-27%
Difficulties
Most any project is going to encounter obstacles that will make meeting project objectives difficult.
Much of the possibility of success of some of the tasks relied on people or entities being amenable to
the proposed action. Subtask 4.2 and 4.3 requires the WC to assist stakeholders in applying for grants
and loans. This task requires that stakeholders be willing to apply for grants or loans. As previously
stated, stakeholders have been reluctant to seek funding that requires any type of monetary
contribution either through a cost-share or interest payments. This reluctance reduced the number of
entities willing to seek grants reducing the likelihood of meeting the goal of two grants/loans per year.
Drought
The drought that began in 2011 has also affected implementation. The drought that occurred that
began that year was the worst single-year of drought in Texas since recordkeeping began. The below
average rainfall caused lake levels began to drop in Lake Granbury. Figure 7shows the reservoir storage
for Lake Granbury from January 1972 to August 2014.
Retrieved from http://www.waterdatafortexas.org/reservoirs/individual/granbury/historical-volume.png
Figure 7. Historical Reservoir Storage - Lake Granbury
35 | P a g e
The drought resulted in the lowest lake level ever (-11.5 ft) being recorded during summer of 2014.
Figure 8 shows the reservoir volume as a measure of percent full for the years 2012-2014.
Retrieved From: http://www.waterdatafortexas.org/reservoirs/individual/granbury/recent-storage-statistics.png
Figure 8. Recent Reservoir Volume as % Full – Lake Granbury
With dropping lake levels, interest and concern in the lake has increased. This interest, however, has
solely focused on water quantity. Over the course of this project the lake level issue has become more
and more contentious. BRA has become a lightning rod and focus of much of the outcry. Due to the BRA
involvement in the LGWPP development and this project, the LGWPP’s legitimacy has been called into
question. Individuals belonging to groups upset with BRA have made comments indicating such
opinions.
“It’s Not My Problem”
Some difficulties in implementation can also be attributed to the specificity of the concerns of the
LGWPP. The LGWPP addressed bacteria hotspots in a few isolated areas of the lake that were caused
primarily by near-shore activities. This somewhat minimized the need for concern in some minds of the
local residents. Over the course of the project, it became evident that some people could not see how
the E. coli issue directly affected them even after the issue had been presented and discussed. For many
residents, their reasoning is that if the lake is not impaired and the bacteria hotspots are isolated in
other parts of the lake then this is not an area of concern for them.
Stakeholder and Entity Priorities Not Aligned
Connecting homes in priority areas to sewer collection systems is the main goal of the stakeholders and
in fact the major thrust of the LGWPP. Portions of Port Ridglea East have been connected to AMUD’s
sewer system with the remaining homes in that area to be connected in the future. Currently, however,
it would appear that connecting homes in other priority areas is still at best several years from
occurring. From feedback received from the City of Granbury, it appears that they do not have any plans
of extending sewer service to the priority areas of Oak Trail Shores, Sky Harbour, and Rolling Hills
Shores. Except for Port Ridglea East, AMUD also does not have any plans to extend sewer service into
other priority areas. The primary reason given by service providers for not extending sewer service is
monetary constraints. The two primary sewer service providers do not believe that financing expansion
36 | P a g e
with loans to these areas is fiscally responsible. Additionally, residents have expressed little interest to
City leaders in extending sewer service to areas in order to reduce isolated pockets of E. coli
contamination in canals not within its current city limits or extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Successes
Despite some of the difficulties that occurred, this project resulted in a number of successes. From the
beginning it was understood that successful implementation of the Lake Granbury WPP would rely on
active engagement of local stakeholders. Throughout this project the EC and the LGWPPSG provided the
support necessary for the WC to carry out the LGWPP management measures and to meet the goals of
this project.
Adaptive Management through Stakeholder Facilitation
Obstacles and difficulties are a part of any project. Recognizing that successful watershed management
requires a long-term commitment to stewardship of water and other ecological resources, flexible and
adaptive management based on new data and observed trends in the watershed is essential. Priorities
can change in the face of on-the-ground experience and future implementation activities should reflect
that. Once implementation began, it soon became evident that other physical management measures
would need to be considered a priority. The LGWPP lists the following physical management measures
as priorities:




regional wastewater collection,
drainage re-routing in Oak Trail Shores subdivision,
catchment basins in the Sky Harbour subdivision, and
improve cove circulation in Indian Harbor, Oak Trial Shores, and Sky Harbour.
Regional wastewater collection is a long-term goal with a high capital cost. The drainage routing and
catchment basins have not been seen as feasible at this time due to the necessity to acquire easements
and land. Low lake levels have resulted in the idea of installing circulation pumps in canals that have
gone dry gaining little support. The WC discussed with the EC and LGWPPSG the need to re-evaluate the
management measures in the LGWPP. In light of that fact, it became evident to the EC and LGWPPSG
that management measures that were discussed during the WPP development and placed with a lower
priority than wastewater collection would need to be considered a higher priority. In late summer of
2013, the EC and stakeholders directed the WC to pursue funding for septic system repair/replacement.
Additional CWA 319 Funding
Because of the LGWPPSG desire to pursue funding for OSSF replacements, Texas A&M AgriLife
submitted a grant that will allow for sources of E. coli in coves to be addressed for less money than
would be needed to connect homes to wastewater collection system. In addition to replacing OSSFs in
priority areas, this grant will also fund water quality monitoring, OSSF permit digitization for Hood
County, and public outreach and education by the WC. Not only will this project implement physical
management measures, but it will also serve to reinforce the educational message to residents. By
seeing OSSFs being replaced, residents will better understand that OSSFs can affect water quality and
37 | P a g e
that actions are being taken to improve water quality. Securing this grant was one of the highlights of
this project.
Education Campaign
For any WPP to be successful, people living within the watershed must be aware of what a watershed is
and how activities within the watershed can affect water bodies. For this reason, one of the primary
thrusts of implementation was education and outreach. Watershed protection concepts were
disseminated through newsletters, PSAs, newspaper articles, presentations to local groups and
government officials, and a website. Sixty plus presentations and workshops were given to over 2,100
residents, community leaders, and students. Eighteen newsletters were produced. Twelve PSAs aired on
local radio. Twelve newspaper articles were published in the Hood County News. These tasks were
undertaken and accomplished with the goal of educating the people living around Lake Granbury on
how they can improve water quality in the lake by adopting a few practices.
Hood County Order Concerning Holding Tanks
One concern that came out of the LGWPP development was that there existed in some areas around the
lake holding tanks that were located within the 100-yr floodplain. The stakeholders had a desire for the
county to develop regulations regarding pumping record for residences with holding tanks. In
accordance to this desire the HCEHD drafted an ordinance regarding holding tanks and pumping
records. The order was drafted in a manner that would require property owners to have an on-going
scheduled pumping contract if their holding tank was found to create nuisance condition as defined by
Health and Safety Code Chapter 366.02 (6). This process of drafting this order began in the fall of 2012.
The Count Order was approved by the TCEQ on April 30, 2014 and became effective in Hood County on
that date. The TCEQ approval letter and County Order can be found in APPENDIX . Section 10(E) contains
the adopted language. The effort by HCEHD Director, James McAusland, to see this year and a half
process through should be commended.
Sewer Expansion in Port Ridglea East
The LGWPPSG saw connecting homes in priority areas to sewer collection service as the primary way to
reduce bacteria loading in the canals. To the end, wastewater collection has already been extended into
one priority area: Port Ridglea East. While the expansion has only occurred in small stages, AMUD has
expressed its commitment to extend sewer collection service to the entire Port Ridglea East area.
Seventy-two homes were connected to the AMUD sewer system during Phase 1 and Phase 2. Even
though funding for Phase 3 was not secured in 2012-2013, AMUD has made a commitment to seeing all
of Port Ridglea East connected to their sewer collection system. In fact, AMUD budgeted in-house funds
to construct the remaining wastewater collection mains in the Port Ridglea East (see APPENDIX D –
AMUD Letter Concerning Port Ridglea East. AMUD has expressed plans to apply for future Community
Development Block Grants to aid low income households to reduce their cost of connecting to the sewer
system.
38 | P a g e
SUMMARY
The overall goal of the LGWPP is to improve the health of the lake and watershed and to eliminate the
contact recreation concerns from the canals. Specific tasks were identified as pieces of the overall plan
that focus on addressing issues of concern in the watershed. The general measures of success related to
this project included:
1) Obtaining funding to implement construction-based management measures,
2) continued coordination of stakeholder efforts to insure implementation of recommended nonpoint source management measures,
3) Work with local governments to produce recommended regulatory changes, and
4) Increased knowledge of the general public around Lake Granbury of watershed issues and
individual impacts on water quality.
All of these measures were met during the term of this project. This project represented the first phase
of implementation of the LGWPP. The actions undertaken during this project were made in an effort to
enact the management measures that were developed with the input of local stakeholders. These
management measures included: hiring a watershed coordinator, seeking additional sources of funding,
assisting local authorities in drafting regulations that would help reduce bacteria inputs in the lake, and
implementing a large educational/outreach program. As a consequence, this project resulted in the
following:








A watershed coordinator was hired
A County Order regarding holding tanks was enacted
6 grants or sources of funding pursued
1 grant awarded for OSSF repair/replacement
Over 60 presentations were given to 2,100+ residents and students
18 newsletters published
12 articles published in the newspaper
12 PSAs aired on a local radio station.
These accomplishments were due in large part to the efforts of the LGWPPSG which began during the
development of the LGWPP and have continued on through the course of this project. The EC was also
instrumental in the success of this project. Their continued input and support aided the watershed
coordinator tremendously in accomplishing the goals of this project. With the on-going support of the
stakeholders and executive committee, future implementation projects will have a high probability of
success.
39 | P a g e
REFERENCES
Texas Water Development Board. “Water Data for Texas.” Accessed: August 2014
<http://www.waterdatafortexas.org/reservoirs/individual/granbury>
Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts . “The Impact of the 2011 Drought and Beyond.” Accessed: August
2014 <http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/drought/pdf/96-1704-Drought.pdf>
40 | P a g e
APPENDIX A – Management Measure Status Table
41 | P a g e
Management Measure Status
Priority
Management
Measures
Watershed
Coordinator
Regional
Wastewater
Collection and
Treatment
Fiscal
Year(s)
FY12
Task/Project
Name
Milestone
Measurement
Milestone
Reached
Start Date
Watershed
Coordinator
Port Ridglea
East Sewer
Expansion
Hired/Not
Hired
# houses
connected
Hired
SEP Funding
OSSF
Replacement
Two grants
submitted per
year; 6 grants
total
Two grants
submitted per
year; 6 grants
total
End Date
Responsible
Entity
Notes
Feb 2012
Texas AgriLife
Completed - Hired
30-35
proposed
connections
Oct 2012 submitted
Acton
Municipal
Utility District
First grant
in FY11
March
2012
March
2012
Leon Bosque
RC&D
Proposal submitted Oct 2012. UPDATE - August
2013 - waiting on official award notification but
unofficial rankings has proposal ranked very
low. AMUD is considering other avenues of
funding. Watershed Coordinator will assist if
requested by AMUD. UPDATE - 12/2/2013
AMUD was not awarded grant. This area
remains a priority for AMUD and is committed
on seeing the entire project complete. UPDATE
- 8/20/2014: AMUD has stated that they will
seek another grant in early 2015 to continue
sewer expansion.
Hood County Env Health submitted name of
resident in need of OSSF replacement. RC&D
contracted to have OSSF replaced.
Second
grant in
FY11
Aug. 2012
Jan. 2013
Watershed
Coordinator/
Texas Agrilife
Research
FY13
FY12
Pursue funding for
all management
measure alternatives
FY12
Patagonia Env
Grant Installation of
Aquatic Plants
along Bee
Creek in the
Sky Harbour
Subdivision
Applied Date - Aug 28, 2012; Not approved for
funding - Jan 2013
42 | P a g e
Priority
Management
Measures
Fiscal
Year(s)
FY13
Pursue funding for
all management
(continued)
Task/Project
Name
Milestone
Measurement
Milestone
Reached
Start Date
End Date
Responsible
Entity
Notes
EPA
Environmental
Justice Grant OSSF pumpouts of Oak
Trail Shores
Two grants
per year; 6
grants total
First grant
pursued in
FY12; not
submitted
Oct-12
Dec-12
Ruth's Place
Port Ridglea
East Sewer
Expansion
Two grants
per year; 6
grants total
Oct 2012 submitted
Spring
2013
Acton
Municipal
Utility district
Potential
Funding
Sources - Task
4.1
Submitted
Second
grant
pursued in
FY 12;
submittednot
awarded
Yes
Talks with Ruth's Place Executive Director
initially were promising. A work plan was
developed for the board of directors. In early
Dec. 2012, the board of directors, however,
decided that a grant of this type was outside of
their mission objective. At this time another
partner could not be found due to the short
time until the Jan 7, 2013 deadline and the
upcoming holiday season.
Proposal submitted Oct 2012. UPDATE - not
awarded. AMUD is considering other avenues
of funding. Watershed Coordinator will assist if
requested by AMUD.
Feb. 2012
Oct.
2012
Watershed
Coordinator/
Texas Agrilife
Research
FY13
FY13
Completed
43 | P a g e
Priority
Management
Measures
Fiscal
Year(s)
Task/Project
Name
Milestone
Measurement
Milestone
Reached
Start Date
End Date
Responsible
Entity
Notes
319 Grant Lake Granbury
Watershed
Protection
Plan
Implementatio
n and OSSF
Remediation
Phase 1
Two grants
per year; 6
grants total
First grant
in FY13;
awarded
Oct 2013
On-going
Watershed
Coordinator/
Texas Agrilife
Research and
Partners
319 Grant Lake Granbury
Watershed
Protection
Plan
Implementation and OSSF
Remediation
Phase 2
Two grants
per year; 6
grants total
Second
grant
submitted
in FY13
July 2014
On-going
Watershed
Coordinator/
Texas Agrilife
Research and
Partners
May 2013 - Hood County decided that at this
time it would be unwise to apply for a grant
with a 40% cost share due to current budget
constraints some of which are a result of May
15, 2013 tornado. Interest was expressed in the
possibility of applying for the grant next year.
UPDATE 8/29/2013 - After discussion with
Arthur Talley (TCEQ), Clint Wolfe (AgriLife), Jeff
Sammon (BRA), James McAusland (Hood
County), and Jody Cason (AgriLife), it was
determined that another effort should be made
to submit a 319 grant proposal with AgriLife as
the grant applicant and Hood County and BRA
as partners. Hood County is interested as long
as match monies can be satisfied by in-kind
services. Approval for Hood County to partner
with AgriLife will be sought before the Hood
County Commissioners Court on Sept. 10, 2013.
UPDATE 12/2/2013 - Hood County approved
partnering with Texas AgriLife on 9/10/13.
Grant application submitted to TCEQ on
10/16/2013. UPDATE: Grant awarded.
July 2014 - Grant Application submitted to
TCEQ .
FY14FY16
Pursue funding for
all management
(continued)
FY14FY17
44 | P a g e
Priority
Management
Measures
Fiscal
Year(s)
FY12
Implementation of
Community
Education and
Management
FY13
FY14
Task/Project
Name
Milestone
Measurement
Milestone
Reached
Start Date
End Date
Responsible
Entity
Notes
FY12 Public
Outreach
Presentations
2 target/
month + 1
other/ quarter
=28 total/year
2 target/
month + 1
other/ quarter
=28 total/year
2 target/
month + 1
other/ quarter
=28 total/year
Draft and
Submit
County Order
24 target +
3 other =
27 total
Feb 2012
Aug 2012
Complete
18 target +
7 other =
25 total
Sep 2012
Aug 2013
9 target +
3 other =
12
Sep 2013
Aug 2014
Order
drafted
and
submitted;
Approved
by County
and in
effect
May 2012
Watershed
Coordinator/
Texas Agrilife
Research
Watershed
Coordinator/
Texas Agrilife
Research
Watershed
Coordinator/
Texas Agrilife
Research
Watershed
Coordinator if
amenable to
Hood County
Digitize
Records
Grant
awarded
to fund
digitization
Oct 2013
Watershed
Coordinator
and Hood
County Env
Health
Director
The FY14 CWA 319 grant will provide funding
for digitization of OSSF records. Application
submitted Oct 2013. Awarded
FY13 Public
Outreach
Presentations
FY14 Public
Outreach
Presentations
Hood County
Order
Support record
keeping activities to
assist Hood County
Health district to
ensure compliance
with existing health
codes
FY12FY14
319 grant Digitization of
OSSF records
FY14FY16
On-going
Complete
Complete
Update: County officials decided to place
language in County Order instead of
Development Regs. Will require approval by
TCEQ, public notice, and commissioner court
approval. Status: Approved by TCEQ and now
effective in Hood County as of May 2014.
45 | P a g e
Priority
Management
Measures
Support
Development of
HOA rules requiring
all new development
or expansion
projects to consult
with Hood County
Environmental
Health Dept. in
advance of HOA
Fiscal
Year(s)
FY13
FY12
Implement regional
ww collection and
treatment - priority
areas, in order of
importance
FY13
FY13
Task/Project
Name
Milestone
Measurement
Milestone
Reached
Start Date
End Date
Responsible
Entity
Notes
Develop
process that
requires HOAs
to consult with
Hood County
Environmental
Health Dept.
HOA rules for
expansion
projects in
advance of
HOA approval.
Regional ww
collection/trea
tment in
priority areas
#2 Oak Trail
Shores and #3
Sky Harbour
Port Ridglea
East Sewer
Expansion Priority Area
#1
Draft Rules
No rules
drafted
Aug 2012
Feb 2013
Watershed
Coordinator/
Texas Agrilife
Research
In general HOAs have not been amenable to
altering charters. March 7, 2013- Meeting with
Coalition of HOAs. A process was laid out to
HOA representatives that would serve as a way
of ensuring that expansions to structures did
not exceed the design capacity of OSSFs.
# of
Connections
0
# of
Connections
72 connections with
Phase 1
and 2
Oct 2012–
submitted
Spring
2013
Regional ww
collection/trea
tment in priority areas #2
Oak Trail
Shores
# of
Connections
0
Aug 2013
Aug 2013
Discussion with City of Granbury has occurred.
Not currently seeking to expand WW collection
system.
AMUD
2012 grant not awarded. Will pursue funding in
2014/2015 Community Development Block
Grant to continue sewer expansion.
Discussion with Doug Conner of Southwest
Water Corp. (SWWC) has occurred concerning
Oak Trail Shores. Not currently seeking to
expand WW collection system due to costs and
inability for private company to use tax/bond
monies. Watershed Coordinator did inform of
potential for private entities to use CWSRF
money for NPS projects. SWWC still felt that it
is cost prohibitive.
46 | P a g e
Priority
Management
Measures
Improve cove
circulation
Fiscal
Year(s)
Task/Project
Name
Milestone
Measurement
Milestone
Reached
Start Date
End Date
Responsible
Entity
Notes
Not being pursued at this time
47 | P a g e
APPENDIX B – Funding Sources Table
48 | P a g e
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
Loan Name
US Department of
Agriculture
Water and
Environmental
Programs
Texas USDARural
Development
Community
Facilities Loans
Website
Grant/
Loan
Matching
Funds
Required
Management
Measure(s)1
http://www.rurdev.usda.
gov/UWEP_HomePage.ht
ml
Both
Varies
2,3, 7
Both
Varies
2, 3, 7
http://www.rurdev.usda.
gov/HCF_CF.html
Details
Water and Environmental Programs (WEP) provides loans, grants and
loan guarantees for drinking water, sanitary sewer, solid waste and
storm drainage facilities in rural areas and cities and towns of 10,000 or
less. Public bodies, non-profit organizations and recognized Indian tribes
may qualify for assistance. WEP also makes grants to nonprofit
organizations to provide technical assistance and training to assist rural
communities with their water, wastewater, and solid waste problems.
Community Programs can guarantee loans to develop essential
community facilities in rural areas and towns of up to 20,000 in
population. Loans and guarantees are available to public entities such as
municipalities, counties, and special-purpose districts, as well as to nonprofit corporations and tribal governments. Loan funds may be used to
construct, enlarge, or improve community facilities for health care,
public safety, and public services. This can include costs to acquire land
needed for a facility, pay necessary professional fees, and purchase
equipment required for its operation.
49 | P a g e
Texas Water
Development Board
Development
Fund
Economically
Distressed Areas
Program
http://www.twdb.state.tx
.us/financial/programs/T
WDF/
Loan
2, 3, 7, 8
Both
2,3, 7
.us/financial/programs/E
DAP/
The Development Fund II program, administered by the TWDB, includes
state loans (does not receive Federal subsidies) for water supply, water
quality enhancement, flood control and municipal solid waste. This
Development Fund II serves the purposes previously served by
Development Fund (Development Fund I), but separates the State Loan
Program from the State Participation Program and the Economically
Distressed Areas Program components. The Development Fund II
enables the Board to fund multiple eligible components in one loan to
borrowers, e.g., if an applicant applies for funding of water and
wastewater components, this is done with one loan. Financial assistance
for Wastewater (Water Quality Enhancement Purposes) may include
acquisitions and improvements or construction of wastewater facilities
such as sewer treatment plants and collection systems. Nonpoint Source
pollution abatement is also eligible. Development of new municipal solid
waste disposal facilities can also be funded. Eligible applicants include
political subdivisions, districts, water supply corporations and access is
on a first-come, first-serve basis.
The Economically Distressed Areas Program provides financial assistance
in the form of a grant, a loan, or a combination grant/loan to bring
water and wastewater services to areas where the present water and
wastewater facilities are inadequate to meet the minimal needs of
residents. The program includes measures to prevent future
substandard development. Eligible Applicants include all political
subdivisions, including cities, counties, water districts, and non-profit
water supply corporations. An economically distressed area is one which
has a median household income that is not greater than 75% of the
median state household income. An eligible economically distressed
area is an area in which:
1. The water supply or wastewater systems are inadequate to meet
minimal needs of
residential users;
2. The financial resources are inadequate to provide services to meet
those needs; and
3. There was an established residential subdivision on or prior to June 1,
2005.
50 | P a g e
State
Participation
Program
.us/financial/programs/SP
P/
Clean Water
State Revolving
Fund
.us/financial/programs/C
WSRF/
Rural Assistance
Fund
.us/financial/programs/R
WAF/
NA
NA
2,3, 7
Loan
2,3, 7
Loan
2,3, 7
Generally, the State Participation Program enables the TWDB to assume
a temporary ownership interest in a regional project when the local
sponsors are unable to assume debt for the optimally sized facility. The
TWDB may acquire ownership interest in the water rights or a coownership interest of the property and treatment works. The loan
repayments that would have been required, if the assistance had been
from a loan, are deferred. Ultimately, however, the cost of the funding is
repaid to the TWDB based upon purchase payments, which allow the
TWDB to recover its principal and interest costs and issuance expenses,
etc., but on a deferred timetable. The intent of this program is to allow
for optimization of regional projects through limited State participation
where the benefits can be documented, and such development is
unaffordable without State participation. The goal is to allow for the
"Right Sizing" of projects in consideration of future growth. The program
recognizes two types of State Participation Projects those that create a
new supply of water and those that do not.
· Eligible Applicants – Political Subdivisions. Districts, water supply
corporations
· Access/Eligibility – first-come, first-served; no PDF; Funs Excess CAP
(Up to 50%);
findings
· Approximate Funds Available - $25 million/year
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) provides loans at
interest rates lower than the market to political subdivisions with the
authority to own and operate a wastewater system. Loans can be used
for planning, design, and construction of wastewater treatment
facilities, wastewater recycling and reuse facilities, collection systems,
stormwater pollution control projects. They can also be used for
implementation of nonpoint source pollution control projects. The
CWSRF also includes Federal (Tier III) and Disadvantaged Communities
funds that provide even lower interest rates for those meeting the
respective criteria.
The RWAF program is designed to assist small rural water utilities to
obtain low cost financing for water or water-related projects. The TWDB
offers attractive interest rate loans with short and long-term finance
options at tax exempt rates. Funding through this program gives an
added benefit to Nonprofit Water Supply Corporations by making
construction purchases qualify for a sales tax exemption.
Access/Eligibility – Service area of 10,000 or less in population or a
county in which no urban area exceeds 50,000 in population
51 | P a g e
Texas Department of
Agriculture
Community
Block
Development
Grant Development
Fund
http://www.texasagricult
ure.gov/GrantsServices/R
uralEconomicDevelopme
nt/RuralCommunityDevel
opmentBlockGrantCDBG/
CommunityDevelopment.
aspx
Grant
Small Towns
Environment
Program
nt/RuralCommunityDevel
opmentBlockGrantCDBG/
SmallTownsEnvironmenta
lProgram.aspx
Texas Capital
Fund Infrastructure
Development
Program
nt/TexasCapitalFund/Infr
astructureDevelopment.a
spx
2, 3, 7
2, 3, 7
Grant
Yes
2, 3, 7
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development provides
federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds directly to
states, which, in turn, provide the funds to small, rural cities with
populations less than 50,000, and to counties that have a
nonmetropolitan population under 200,000 and are not eligible for
direct funding from HUD. These small communities are called "nonentitlement" areas because they must apply for CDBG dollars through
Texas Department of Rural Affairs (TDRA). Funded activities include
sanitary sewer systems, clean drinking water, disaster relief and urgent
need projects, housing, drainage and flood control, passable streets,
economic development, community centers, and other related
activities. In fiscal year 2009, TDRA received $73,017,739 from HUD for
the administration of the state's CDBG non-entitlement program.
Communities may apply for the Texas STEP Program by invitation from
Texas Department of Rural Affairs (TDRA) only. The Texas STEP approach
to solving water and sewer needs recognizes affordability factors related
to the construction and operations/maintenance of the necessary water
or sewer improvements and then initiates a local focus of control based
on the capacity and readiness of the community’s residents to solve the
problem through self-help. By utilizing the community’s own resources
(human, material and financial), the necessary water or sewer
construction costs, engineering costs, and related administration costs
can be reduced significantly from the cost for the installation of the
same improvements through conventional construction methods. CDBG
staff will provide guidance, assistance, and support to community
leaders and residents willing to use self-help to solve their water and
sewer problems.
The Texas Capital Fund Infrastructure Development Program is an
economic development tool designed to provide financial resources to
non-entitlement communities. Funds from this program can be utilized
for public infrastructure needed to assist a business which commits to
create and/or retain permanent jobs, primarily for low and moderate
income persons. This program encourages new business development
and expansions. Awards may be provided for construction of a wide
variety of public infrastructure including measures proposed in the LG
WPP such as water and sewer, purchase of real estate related to
infrastructure, drainage channels and ponds, and engineering fees.
Businesses or individuals may not directly submit applications. Projects
must demonstrate project feasibility and financial capability. Matching
funds are required.
52 | P a g e
EPA
Environmental
Justice Small
Grants
http://www.epa.gov/envi
ronmentaljustice/grants/
ej-smgrants.html
Section 319(h)
Federal Clean
Water Act
http://www.epa.gov/owo
w_keep/NPS/cwact.html#
apply
Grant
Grant
None
3, 4
40%
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8
The EPA Environmental Justice Small Grants Program (EJSG) supports
community based organizations addressing local environmental and
public health issues by building collaborative partnerships. Successful
collaborative partnerships involve not only well-designed strategic plans
to build, maintain and sustain the partnerships, but also to work
towards addressing the local environmental and public health issues.
The EPA EJSG Program is a national program with the total funding
available for awards under this solicitation at $1,000,000. EPA
anticipates awarding approximately 40 grants in the amount of $25,000
each.
Under Section 319, states, territories and tribes receive grant money
from the USEPA that supports a wide variety of activities including
technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology
transfer, demonstration projects and monitoring to assess the success of
specific nonpoint source implementation projects. If a state’s funding
plan is consistent with grant eligibility requirements and procedures,
EPA then awards the funds to the state. In Texas, Clean Water Act
Section 319(h) funds are provided only to both the TSSWCB and the
TCEQ to implement their approved nonpoint source management
programs. The Brazos River Authority has applied for 319(h) funds
administered through TCEQ to support implementation of select
management measures from the Lake Granbury WPP, specifically
targeted at hiring a watershed coordinator.
53 | P a g e
US Department of
Agriculture - NRCS
Environmental
Quality
Incentives
Program
http://www.tx.nrcs.usda.
gov/programs/EQIP/inde
x.html
3, 4
EQIP offers contracts with a minimum term that ends one year after the
implementation of the last scheduled practices and a maximum term of
ten years. These contracts provide financial assistance to implement
conservation practices. Owners of land in agricultural production or
persons who are engaged in livestock or agricultural production on
eligible land may participate in the EQIP program. Program practices and
activities are carried out according to an EQIP program plan of
operations developed in conjunction with the producer that identifies
the appropriate conservation practice or measures needed to address
the resource concerns. The practices are subject to NRCS technical
standards adapted for local conditions. EQIP provides payments up to 75
percent of the incurred costs and income foregone of certain
conservation practices and activities. However certain historically
underserved producers (Limited resource farmers/ranchers, beginning
farmers/ranchers, socially disadvantaged producers) may be eligible for
payments up to 90 percent of the estimated incurred costs and income
foregone. Farmers and ranchers may elect to use a certified Technical
Service Provider (TSP) for technical assistance needed for certain eligible
activities and services. The new Farm Bill established a new payment
limitation for individuals or legal entity participants who may not
receive, directly or indirectly, payments that, in the aggregate, exceed
$300,000 for all program contracts entered during any six year period.
Projects determined as having special environmental significance may,
with approval of the NRCS Chief, have the payment limitation raised to a
maximum of $450,000.
54 | P a g e
TCEQ
Supplemental
Environmental
Program
3
A Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) is a means for directing
fines, fees, and penalties for environmental violations toward
environmentally beneficial uses. Through a SEP, a respondent in an
enforcement matter can choose to invest penalty dollars in improving
the environment, rather than paying into the Texas General Revenue
Fund. The Texas Assoc. of Resource Conservation & Development Areas
(RC&D) is funded through SEP funds. Through this is a project (Project 8)
specifically for Water or Wastewater Assistance. Through this project
the RC&D shall repair or replace failing water systems or on-site
wastewater systems for low-income homeowners. RC&D shall use SEP
Funds to pay for the labor and materials costs related to repairing or
replacing the failing systems. The recipients will not be charged for the
cost of replacing or repairing the failing systems. RC&D shall use a
consistent and documented system for determining eligible participants.
Funding through this source may be pursued to replace failing on-site
wastewater systems in areas where connecting to a collection system
may not be feasible in the near future due to physical location and/or
economic constraints.
3, 4
In addition to the Texas Clean Rivers Program and administering 319(h)
funds for agricultural non-point source pollution, the TSSWCB provides
the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) program. The purpose of
WQMPs is to implement pollution prevention or abatement practices. A
site specific WQMP is developed and approved by soil and water
conservation districts for agricultural or silvicultural lands. The plan
includes appropriate land treatment practices, production practices,
management measures, technologies or combinations thereof. In
accordance with the Lake Granbury WPP, individual large acreage land
owners will be encouraged to obtain WQMPs by working with the local
soil and water conservation district (SWCD). There is no charge for
development of a WQMP; however, there may be costs for
implementing certain practices required in the WQMP, for which there
may be financial assistance available.
http://www.tceq.texas.go
v/legal/sep/
NA
None
TSSWCB
Water Quality
Management
Program
http://www.tsswcb.texas.
gov/wqmp
NA
NA
55 | P a g e
TX Dept. of Agriculture
Rural Municipal
Finance
Program
2, 3, 7
The Texas Agricultural Finance Authority (TAFA) provides financial
assistance through loan guarantees to lenders for eligible applicants
who wish to establish or enhance their farm and/or ranch operation or
establish an agriculture-related business. Funds must be used to
improve or assist in the economic development of the rural area such
as: Purchase of real estate, construction of buildings and site
improvements, equipment, water and wastewater systems, and
municipal infrastructure projects. Eligible applicants include city and
county governments; economic development corporations; hospital
districts; rail districts; utility districts; special districts; agricultural
districts; and private water and wastewater corporations.
2, 3, 7
The Texas Enterprise Fund was established in 2003 (and reauthorized in
2005) to allow the state to respond quickly and aggressively to
opportunities to bring jobs and employers to Texas. The funds are used
primarily to attract new business to the state or assist with the
substantial expansion of an existing business as part of a competitive
recruitment situation. Funds are also appropriated for a variety of
economic development projects, including infrastructure development,
community development, job training programs and business incentives,
as well as to attract technology and biotechnology businesses and
support university research. To be eligible for Texas Enterprise Fund
support, a project must demonstrate a significant return on the state's
investment and strong local support. The review process will consider a
variety of factors associated with each project, including job creation
and wages, capital investment, the financial strength of the applicant,
the applicant's business history, analysis of the relevant business sector,
and public and private sector financial support. Before funds can be
awarded, the Governor, Lieutenant Governor and Speaker must
unanimously agree to support the use of the Texas Enterprise Fund for
each specific project.
State of Texas Office of
the Governor
Texas Enterprise
Fund
Databases for Funding
Opportunities
Directory of
Watershed
Resources Boise State
University
To assist watershed professionals in searching for funding programs, the
Texas Water Resources Institute worked with the Environmental Finance
Center at Boise State University to update the Directory of Watershed
Resources to include Texas-specific funding programs.
http://efc.boisestate.edu
/efc/watershed/SearchOu
rDatabase/TargetedSearc
h/tabid/199/stype/3/Def
ault.aspx
3
The Directory of Watershed Resources is an online, searchable database
for watershed restoration funding. The database includes information
on federal, state, private, and other funding sources and assistance and
allows Texas users to query information in a variety of ways including by
agency sponsor, or keyword, or by a detailed search.
56 | P a g e
Fundsnet
Services Environment
and
Conservation
Grants
http://www.fundsnetserv
ices.com/searchresult/13
/Environment-&ConservationGrants/5.html
3
Cyber-Sierra's
Conservation
Grants Center
1
http://www.conservation
grants.com/environment.
htm
Management Measures
1 Watershed Coordinator
2 Regional Wastewater Collection and
Treatment
3 Pursue Funding for All Management
Measure Alternatives
4 Implementation of Community Education
and Management
Fundsnet Services.com's purpose is to help spread the word about
grants programs initiatives, fundraising programs, philanthropy,
foundations and 501(c)(3) non-profits organizations sources by posting
related links on this site. We do not offer grants opportunities and we
do not provide personal financial assistance but a lot foundations,
organizations and private companies do, so we dedicate this site to post
such resources on one place making such grants initiatives and
resources easier to find for those 501(c)(3) organizations in need of a
grant opportunity program to accomplish their philanthropic efforts and
missions.
Free website that provides information on environmental grant
opportunities. Includes links to grant websites.
3
5 Support Record Keeping Activities to Assist Hood County Health Dept. to Ensure
Compliance with Existing Health Codes
6 Support Development of HOA Rules Requiring All New Development or Expansion
Projects to Consult with Hood County Health Dept. in Advance of HOA Approval
7 Implement Regional Wastewater Collection and Treatment - Priority Areas, in Order
of Importance
8 Improve Cove Circulation
57 | P a g e
APPENDIX C – Hood County Order Regarding Holding Tanks
58 | P a g e
59 | P a g e
60 | P a g e
61 | P a g e
62 | P a g e
63 | P a g e
64 | P a g e
65 | P a g e
66 | P a g e
APPENDIX D – AMUD Letter Concerning Port Ridglea East
67 | P a g e
68 | P a g e
69 | P a g e
70 | P a g e

implementation of selected management measures from the lake

Transcription

Similar documents

Award-winning advertising designs and layouts produced

Watershed Committee of the Ozarks

Printable Information Sheet

a fact sheet about this program

December 2013 edition - Lake Maxinkuckee Environmental Council

Fitger`s Lake View Office

GRCC eBrochure - Visit Granbury Texas

Captain Geech

www.afvclub.com - Fort Hood DFMWR

Presented by: