Great Works River Nonpoint Source Pollution Watershed Management Plan Works/GWR_Management... · 2012-05-01 · Jean Demetracopoulos Thomas Keating Sarah Schoedinger John Demeteracopoulos

1

Great Works River Great Works River Great Works River

Nonpoint Source Pollution Nonpoint Source Pollution Nonpoint Source Pollution Watershed Management PlanWatershed Management PlanWatershed Management Plan

A Maine Department of Environmental Protection 319 Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Project

Prepared by York County Soil & Water Conservation District

January 2007

2

i

Great Works River Watershed Management Plan - January 2007

Great Works River Watershed (GWR)

Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Plan

Prepared by Forrest Bell, York County Soil & Water Conservation District

in cooperation with the Great Works River Watershed Coalition,

and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.

This project was funded, in part, by an EPA Section 319 grant.

January 2007

The mission of the York County Soil & Water Conservation District is

to provide technical, educational, and financial resources to land users in York County

to promote a quality of life, stewardship and wise use of our natural resources

and ensure the viability of the agricultural sector.

Contact:

York County Soil & Water Conservation District 21 Bradeen Street, Suite 104

Springvale, Maine 04083 207-324-0888

email: [email protected]

I would like to personally thank the individuals on the following page for

providing outstanding community support in this watershed and region. The

citizen volunteers tirelessly assisting the GWRWC, Bauneg Beg Lake

Association, York Co SWCD Board, local land trusts, and local municipalities

are a true inspiration to all of us working in the conservation and environmental

management field. It is obvious that one of the most important resources in this

watershed is its citizens.

- Forrest Bell, Project Manager

ii


Acknowledgements

GWRWC Steering Committee Mike Cannon, South Berwick Nancy Freese, Noble HS Katie Goulet, North Berwick Malcolm Child, South Berwick Ray Smith, North Berwick, BBLA Forrest Bell, York County SWCD Watershed Survey Volunteers

Technical Staff Additional Reviewers Forrest Bell, YCSWCD Don Kale, Maine DEP Jennifer Jespersen, FB Environmental Tin Smith, Wells NERR Tricia Rouleau, FB Environmental Mike Cannon, GWRWC Fred Dillon, FB Environmental Wendy Garland, Maine DEP Nancy Freese, GWRWC Glenn Wilde, YCSWCD Ray Smith, BBLA

Project Funding and Support Maine Department of Environmental Protection US Environmental Protection Agency

Debbie Briggs Bob Hoey Sarah McNair Jeff Brinck Lorraine Hoey Jodi Michaud Bill Bullard Julie Hundley Dwight Montague Laurie Callahan Bruce Jordan Dick Moore Erica Carlsen Shiela Jordan Jan Moore Brad Christo Don Kale Jamie Schoedinger Jean Demetracopoulos Thomas Keating Sarah Schoedinger John Demeteracopoulos Jack Kelleher Marilyn Smith-Church Betsy Finigan Debbie Kreis Rick & Kiki Stevens Donna Flint David Ladd Deb St. Pierre Margo Foreman Tony Lombardi Tin Smith John Forshay Richard Lovejoy Jeff Varricchione Teegan French Nancy Lowenberg Bayse Andra Ventimigelia David Gagnon Fred Luiggi Tony Welch Wendy Garland Linda Luiggi Bill Whaley Heather Girard Renie Martin Ann Whitten Kate Goulet Dan May GWR Watershed Coalition Steve Gray Sue May Owen Hill Jim McGuire

iii


Table of Contents Acknowledgements ....................................................................................... ii List of Figures ............................................................................................... vi List of Tables................................................................................................. vii List of Maps .................................................................................................. viii Key to Abbreviations ……………………………………….…………….……… ix 1. Executive Summary

1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 1 1.2 Description of Watershed ................................................................ 1 1.3 Water Quality Summary .................................................................. 1 1.4 Summary of Watershed Surveys and Threats to Water Quality…… 2 1.5 Stakeholder Involvement ............................................................... 3 1.6 Plan Goal and Objectives .............................................................. 4 1.7 Prioritization of Identified Nonpoint Sources ................................... 4 1.8 Prevention Strategy ........................................................................ 5 1.9 Best Management Practices ........................................................... 5

2. Description of the Watershed

2.1 Location .......................................................................................... 6 2.2 Watershed Map .............................................................................. 7 2.3 Physical Features (Topography, Soils).................................................. 7 2.4 Water Resources ............................................................................ 8 2.5 Land Resources ……………………………………………….…….… 9 2.6 Fish Assemblage………………………………………………....…….. 10 2.7 Land Usage .................................................................................... 11 2.8 Water Usage: Impoundments…………………………………………. 12

3. Water Quality Assessment

3.1 Classification ................................................................................... 14 3.2 Summary of Available Data (Temp, DO, TP, E. coli) .............................. 14

3.3 Summary of Bauneg Beg Lake Water Quality……………………….. 20

iv


4. Water Quality Goals and Objectives

4.1 Goals ............................................................................................... 20 4.2 Objectives ........................................................................................ 20

5. NPS Inventory and Assessment 5.1 Methods ........................................................................................... 21 5.2 Watershed Survey Segment Map ................................................... 22

5.3 Nonpoint Source Survey Observations ............................................ 23 6. Threats to Water Quality

6.1 Survey Results ................................................................................ 23 6.2 Priority Ranking of NPS Sites ........................................................... 24 6.3 Soil Erosion ...................................................................................... 26 6.4 Direct Flow ........................................................................................ 27 6.5 Bare Soil ........................................................................................... 27 6.6 Inadequate Buffers ........................................................................... 28 6.7 Culverts ............................................................................................ 29 6.8 Animal Waste.................................................................................... 29

7. Best Management Practices

7.1 NPS Pollution Control Actions ........................................................ 30

8. Regulations 8.1 Current Laws …………………………………………………………….. 33 8.2 Structures ………………………………………………………………... 34 8.3 Clearing of Vegetation …………………………………………………. 34 8.4 Aquifer Protection ……………………………………………………….. 34 8.5 Flood Protection …………………………………………………………. 35

9. Implementation

9.1 Plan Oversight…….. ........................................................................ 39 9.2 Action Plan ........................................................................................ 40 9.3 Actions to Achieve Self-Sustaining .................................................. 42 9.4 Evaluation Plan ............................................................................... 42

v


CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………... 43 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES CITED…………...………………….. 43

APPENDICES A. Glossary of Terms .............................................................................. 47 B. Rare Plants, Natural Communities and Animals ................................. 48 C. BMP Cost Estimates ………………..……………………………..….…. 50 D. NPS Survey Observations……………………………………….…..…… 51 E. Watershed Maps ................................................................................. 73 F. Special Insert - Bauneg Beg Lake Water Quality ………………….. 84

vi


List of Figures

Figure 2.7.1. Land Uses in the GWR Watershed ………………………………… 11 Figure 3.2.1. GWR Volunteer Efforts 2002 -2005………………………………... 14 Figure 3.2.2. Average Temperature in the Mainstem of the GWR…...……....... 15 Figure 3.2.3. DO Violations in the Mainstem of the GWR ………….…….……. 16 Figure 3.2.4. DO Violation in Tributaries of the GWR ………………………...… 16 Figure 3.2.5. Average Tributary DO Concentrations …………………...………. 17 Figure 3.2.6. Total Phosphorus Exceedence - Mainstem of the GWR………… 18 Figure 3.2.7. E. coli Violations- Mainstem of the GWR…………………….…… 18 Figure 3.2.8. Mean E. coli Counts– Goodall Brook……………………………… 19 Figure 6.1.1. Nonpoint Source (NPS) Observations by Land Use Type……… 23 Figure 6.1.2. Summary of NPS Observations ………………………………….. 23 Figure 6.2.1. Priority Ranking Summary for NPS Sites………………………… 25

vii


List of Tables Table 2.4.1. Great Ponds in the GWR Watershed ………………………………. 8 Table 2.7.1. Impoundments in the GWR Watershed …………………………….. 13 Table 9.2.1. NPS Action Plan ………………………………………………………… 36 Table B.1. Rare Plants, Natural Communities and Animals …………………….. 48 Table D.1. 1999 Bauneg Beg Nonpoint Source Survey Observations…………. 51 Table D.2. 2000 GWR (south) Nonpoint Source Survey Observations…….…. 62 Table D.3. 2004 NGWR (north) Nonpoint Source Survey Observations.……... 68

viii


List of Maps

Great Works River Subwatersheds ……………………………… Inside Front Cover Map 1 Watershed Survey Segment Map …………………………………...… 73 Map 2 Soil Erosion Potential …………………………………………………….. 74 Map 3 Water Resources & Riparian Habitat …………………………………… 75 Map 4 Conservation Lands ………………………………………………………. 76 Map 5 Natural Areas & Wildlife Habitat ………………………………………… 77 Map 6 Land Cover Types ……………………………………………..…………. 78 Map 7 Impoundments ………………………………………………….………….. 79 Map 8 High Impact and High Priority Survey Sites……………………………… 80 Map 9 Special Flood Hazard Areas ……………………………………………… 81 Map 10 Undeveloped Blocks ……………………………..………………………. 82 Map 11 Aerial Photo ……………………………………………………………..… 83

ix


KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS The following is a list of the full names and abbreviations of agencies and organiza-tions referred to throughout this document.

BBLA Bauneg Beg Lake Association

GWRLT Great Works River Land Trust

GWRWC Great Works River Watershed Coalition

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

Maine DIFW Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

MEDEP Maine Department of Environmental Protection

MEGIS Maine Office of Geographic Information Systems

MEMA Maine Emergency Management Agency

MEDOC Maine Department of Conservation

MGS Maine Geological Survey

MNAP Maine Natural Areas Program

MSPO Maine State Planning Office NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service

SMRPC Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission

UMCE University of Maine Cooperative Extension

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFWGOM US Fish & Wildlife Service, Gulf of Maine Program

YCSWCD York County Soil and Water Conservation District

Other Commonly Used Abbreviations

BMPs Best Management Practices NPS Nonpoint Source Pollution

DO Dissolved Oxygen TP Total Phosphorus

GWR Great Works River

1

=

Great Works River Watershed Management Plan (GWR)

1. Executive Summary 1.1 Introduction

The GWR watershed is located in York County in southwestern Maine. The watershed encompasses an 84 square mile area within the towns of South Berwick, North Berwick, Berwick, York, Wells and Sanford. This plan represents another step towards the prevention of nonpoint source pollution in the Great Works River and its tributaries, and the downstream Salmon Falls River Estuary.

The goal of this plan is to advance locally supported water quality goals, objectives and action strategies for protecting the Great Works River and its tributaries. Information about the watershed’s specific NPS pollution problems and natural resources have been collected and incorporated into the plan in order to guide long-term watershed protection and enhancement efforts utilizing Best Management Practices (BMPs).

1.2 Description of Watershed

The watershed area consists of a variety of land uses including forested, developed, agricultural and wetlands. The main stem of the Great Works River flows south and southwesterly from Sanford over approximately 23 miles to the Salmon Falls River in South Berwick. The Salmon Falls River meets with the Cocheco River to form the Piscataqua River, which flows into the Atlantic Ocean at the Maine and New Hampshire border. 1.3 Water Quality Summary

The Great Works River (GWR) and its tributaries have been degraded by polluted runoff and are listed as a High Priority watershed on the Maine Department of Environmental Protection’s Nonpoint Source Priority Watersheds List. The river is the primary nonpoint source contributor cited in the Phased TMDL for the Salmon Falls River. Phosphorus, a nutrient of particular concern for the Salmon Falls River Estuary,

2


occurs in excessive amounts there, and results in frequent algal blooms. Valuable shellfish beds in these downstream estuaries are adversely affected by polluted runoff from the GWR.

Water quality data for the GWR has been collected since 2002 by the GWR Watershed Coalition. High levels of fecal coliform have been found in the main stem of the GWR and several tributaries following rainfall. Data collected from 2003-2005 show that E. coli levels have increased over this time period. Although DO levels have improved in the main stem of the river since 2003, several tributaries continue to exhibit low dissolved oxygen levels, including West Brook and Chick’s Brook. A 2005 water quality monitoring report for the GWR and its tributaries specifically highlighted Goodall Brook, located at the head of the GWR, as a source of contaminated stormwater. 1.4 Summary of Watershed Surveys and Threats to Water Quality

To improve the efficiency of surveying the expansive watershed area, it was essential to phase the watershed survey into several smaller focus areas over time. Since 1999, three watershed surveys have been conducted in the GWR Watershed. The first study, focused on the areas adjacent to the shoreline of Bauneg Beg Lake. The second survey, conducted in 2000, focused on a 68 square mile area below Bauneg Beg Lake to the southern tip of the watershed where the GWR meets the Salmon Falls River. The third survey, conducted in 2004, focused on the remaining portion of the Northern Great Works River Watershed north of Bauneg Beg Lake, including the Goodall Brook Watershed. Volunteers were an instrumental part of the watershed surveys, and were solicited by Steering Committee members and technical staff.

Surveyors ranked problem sites throughout The watershed based on the following criteria:

• Impact to surface water quality • Technical skill level to install BMPs • Estimated cost to install BMPs

Volunteers paddle down the Great Works River collecting information on water quality.

Water quality violations in both the mainstem and tributaries of the GWR include low levels of dissolved oxygen, high levels of total phosphorus and E. coli contamination.

3


The results identified the following as the major nonpoint pollution sources:

• Soil erosion (especially near roads and shorelines) • Direct flow (overland to streams and ponds) • Bare soil • Inadequate vegetative buffers

• Poorly functioning culverts • Inadequate ditches Less frequently observed structures or activities having a negative impact on the quality of water resources were:

• Construction activities • Stream channel alteration • Poorly shaped roads • Livestock in stream

• Trash and debris • Excess road sand • Septic back-up • Roof runoff • Soil stockpiles • Horse paddock

A total of 516 NPS observations were recorded across 275 sites of concern for nonpoint source pollution in the three surveys. Sixty-five (65) of these sites were ranked high priority, one hundred fifty-five (155) ranked moderate, and twenty-three (23) ranked low priority. Thirty-two (32) sites did not have a priority ranking.

1.5 Stakeholder Involvement The GWR Watershed Management Plan is part of a long-term effort initiated and supported by a number of agencies (York County Soil & Water Conservation District (YCSWCD), University of Maine Cooperative Extension (UMCE), Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP), United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and USDA/Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)), organizations (Great Works River Watershed Coalition (GWRWC), Bauneg Beg Lake Association (BBLA), Great Works River Land Trust (GWRLT), Mousam Way Land Trust, Three Rivers land Trust), towns (Sanford, North Berwick, South Berwick, Berwick, York, and Wells), and individuals. These partners have been meeting and working on watershed

Eighty percent (80%) of the identified nonpoint source pollution sites throughout the watershed were rated as medium or high priority for remediation. The major-ity of these sites were located on roads, driveways, parking lots, or residential properties.

4


issues since 2000. Additionally, more than 50 active volunteers have contributed their time and energy into conducting three separate watershed surveys, participating in watershed planning, and sampling for water quality since 2001.

1.6 Plan Goal and Objectives In the spring of 2005, following 319 funding to help assess and reduce phosphorus

loads to the Great Works River, a diversity of partner groups with stewardship interests in the Great Works River watershed came together to form a steering committee. The steering committee is led by the GWRWC. Their mission is to help improve and protect the water quality of the Great Works River and its tributaries. The steering committee identified the following objectives: • Assess the water quality and uses of waterbodies within the watershed. • Inventory the types of land use and the types and severity of NPS pollution. • Evaluate the types and severity of factors that may be affecting water quality. • Determine which NPS controls are necessary to improve/protect water quality. • Develop and implementation strategy to address NPS pollution. • Inform eligible landowners about importance of BMP implementation. • Achieve self-sustaining financial support of the plan. • Evaluate the Management Plan following implementation.

1.7 Prioritization of Identified Nonpoint Sources

Twenty-four percent (24%) of identified NPS sites from all three watershed surveys ranked as high priority, while more than half (56%) ranked as medium priority. Suspected sources of NPS pollution were ranked based upon three criteria: the expected impact they would have on the watershed, the technical skill level to install the BMPs, and how much the BMPs would cost. A problem site with a high impact rating, low technical skill level and low cost scored as a high priority, since fixing it would result in the greatest improvement for the least amount of money. Sites with

Members of the GWRWC and community members discuss water quality goals and objectives at a 2005 community forum.

The doubling of volunteer efforts in the GWR since 2002 is a positive sign that education and outreach is working.

5


lower scores (8%) are also worthy of consideration but should receive attention after the higher priority sites are addressed. Sites without a priority ranking should be revisited in the future. 1.8 Prevention Strategy

Watershed partners can implement a variety of techniques to manage nonpoint pollution inputs, referred to collectively as Best Management Practices (BMPs). They can also review and change activities, regulations, and community awareness to reduce the occurrence of new sources of pollution. In the GWR watershed, volunteers and partners identified a variety of NPS inputs. The most frequently encountered inputs include: direct overland flow to stream/lake, surface erosion (on residential lots, driveways and roads), shoulder erosion (roads), lack of adequate buffers (around lakes and streams), and unstable culverts. The development of an NPS Action Plan should help watershed groups effectively address these NPS inputs.

1.9 Best Management Practices (BMPs)

BMPs are techniques, measures or structural controls implemented to reduce potential pollutant generation and/or facilitate pollutant removal in storm water runoff (USEPA, 1999). There are three general types of BMPs: structural, non-structural and housekeeping.

Thought of as the “hard” BMPs, structural BMPs are engineered and constructed systems used to treat the storm water at either the point of generation or the point of discharge to the stormwater system or receiving waters. Soil reinforcement techniques

An eroding access road in South Berwick requires BMPs such as crowing, regular maintenance, ditches and diver-sion of runoff to buffer areas.

This property along the Great Works River lacks an ade-quate buffer. Revegetating 50 feet back from the shoreline would help minimize NPS pollution.

The greatest concentration of high priority and high impacts sites are located in the highly ur-banized Goodall Brook subwatershed, and around the shores of Bauneg Beg Lake . The GWR Action Plan calls for remediation of these high priority and high impact sites first.

6


use geotextile fabrics and rip rap. Water conveyance BMPs include culvert installation, vegetated/riprap waterways. Water Detention BMPs include sediment pond construc-tion, sediment traps and construction dewatering (MEDEP, 2006a). In 2003 total phosphorus and E. coli were added to the list of parameters, as well as sampling of additional tributaries. Samples were collected every other Saturday from May through September (approximately 9 times a year). Non-structural BMPs can be thought of as the “soft” BMPs. These include a range of management and development practices designed to limit the conversion of rainfall to runoff and to prevent pollutants from entering runoff at the source of runoff generation. Examples of non-structural BMPs include temporary soil stabilization tech-niques such as mulching and vegetating loose soil at a construction site, but may also include education to prevent the generation of pollutants in runoff (USEPA, 1999). BMPs used to prevent sediment movement include sediment barriers, check dams, and dust control techniques. Permanent soil stabilization BMPs in this category in-clude grading and slope protection, establishing vegetation and mulching, and using vegetated buffers. A third, underutilized BMP category includes the Managerial and Housekeeping BMPs. Managerial BMPs involve dust control, fertilizer and pesticide management are also important. Housekeeping BMPs include street sweeping and household hazard-ous waste disposal (MDEQ, 1998), cleaning out clogged culverts and ensuring estab-lishment of vegetation. BMPs in the GWR watershed fall under all three categories, yet the majority fall into the non-structural and housekeeping BMPs. 2. Description of the Watershed

2.1 Location

The Great Works River watershed covers 84 square miles in the towns of Sanford, North Berwick, Berwick, South Berwick, Wells, and York in the southwestern corner of the State. The main stem of the Great Works River flows south and southwesterly from Sanford to the Salmon Falls River in South Berwick. In the upper portion of the water-shed, the river flows in a south-easterly direction into Bauneg Beg Pond, a 188-acre impounded waterbody located in North Berwick and Sanford. The Great Works River is a tributary of the Salmon Falls River, which forms the boundary between Maine and New Hampshire for it’s entire length of more than 40 miles. The Salmon Falls River meets with the Cocheco River in South Berwick to form the Piscataqua River which flows into the Atlantic Ocean, forming a tidal estuary, at the Maine and New Hampshire border. The Piscataqua River is a critical part of the larger Great Bay estuary, which is

7


an estuary of national importance. 2.2 Watershed Map See Watershed Map inside front cover. 2.3 Physical Features The Great Works River receives water from several tributaries within eleven (11) subwatersheds (see Map Inside Cover) including the highly developed Goodall Brook to the north east. The Great Works River watershed drains an area of 84 square miles (53,760 acres) and includes over 192 miles of rivers and streams, a lake and pond sur-face area of 651 acres, and approximately 7,800 acres of wetlands. The average an-nual precipitation is approximately 46 inches (USDA, 2005).

Topography The Great Works River flows primarily north to south originating in Sanford, which is approximately 400 feet above sea level. Topography in the southern part of the water-shed includes rocky hills and ridges ranging from 300 to 692 feet. Mount Agamenticus (692 feet), located on the southern border of the watershed, is the most notable peak in this area. The highest point in the watershed is Bauneg Beg Mountain (862 feet), located on the western border of the watershed in the town of North Berwick. In parts of Sanford, Wells, and Berwick, the elevation drops to between 100 and 200 feet where the landscape is characterized by extensive wetlands.

Soils

There are four general soil associations in the watershed: Colton-Adams-Sebago, Dixfield-Colonial-Lyman-Brayton, Adams-Croghan-Naumburg, and Scantic-Lamoine-Buxton-Lyman. Soils in the watershed are predominantly sandy loams or loamy sands derived from glaciofluvial and glaciolacustrine parent materials. Smaller areas of peat, silt loam, and gravel are scattered throughout the watershed. Rock outcrops are found throughout the northeast and southwest corners of the watershed near Bauneg Beg Mountain and Mount Agamenticus, respectively. Approximately 5,075 acres (9%) of the soils in the GWR watershed are highly erodable and 28,921 acres (52%) are po-tentially highly erodable (Map 2, page 74) (USDA/NRCS and MEGIS, 2005). Highly erodable soils have a potential to erode at a rate far greater than what is considered tolerable soil loss. The potential erodibility of soil is dependant on a combination of factors including rainfall and runoff, susceptibility of the soil to erosion, and slope

8


length and steepness (USDA/NRCS and MEGIS, 2005). A highly erodable soil has a higher potential to negatively effect water quality (PBYM, 2006). 2.4 Water Resources There are over 192 miles of rivers and streams in the Watershed. The Great Works River has one major tributary, the Neoutaquet River. Other significant bodies of water include over 30 lakes and ponds, including 10 great ponds which collectively drain approximately 68,000 acres. Table 2.4.1 (below) contains information on the physical characteristics and trophic status of these water bodies. A great pond is one which is 10 acres or more if naturally occurring and 30 acres of more if impounded (Field, 1994). All of the great ponds in watershed, aside from Old Fishing Pond, are currently enrolled in the Maine Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program, which assess them for clarity (algal blooms) and trends in water quality. Recreational uses vary from pond to pond. Although none of the ponds experience a high degree of motorized uses, Bauneg Beg Pond, Knight’s Pond, and Leigh’s Mill Pond in particular experience a high degree of recreational use. Recreational uses on both Bauneg Beg and Leigh’s Mill Ponds have created shoreline erosion issues (Town of South Berwick, 2004). Ac-cording to Maine DEP, none of these ponds is very tolerant of extensive development, such as building or road construction which might increase phosphorous levels and reduce overall water quality (Town of South Berwick, 2004). As a tributary of the Salmon Falls River, the Great Works River has an influence on

Pond Name Town Surface

Area (acres)

Max. Depth

(ft)

Mean Depth

(ft)

Drainage Area

(sq. mi.) Trophic Status

Cox’s Pond S. Berwick 20 16 10 .89 Eutrophic

Leigh’s Mill Pond S. Berwick 39.5 23 10 84* Eutrophic

Warren Pond S. Berwick 25 32 16 .42 Mesotrophic

Knight’s Pond S. Berwick 49.4 18 9 .39 Eutrophic Beaver Dam Pond Berwick 19 5 2 2.01 Mesotrophic

Little Ell Pond Wells 34 51 15 .75 Eutrophic

Bauneg Beg Lake** N. Berwick 179 29 9 17.7 Eutrophic

Sand Pond Sanford 30 N/A N/A .34 Mesotrophic

Curtis Pond Sanford 12 N/A N/A .07 Mesotrophic

Old Fishing Pond Sanford 17 N/A N/A .13 N/A *Leigh’s Mill Pond is an impoundment of the Great Works River and shares its watershed. **Bauneg Beg Lake is on the Maine DEP NPS Priority List.

Table 2.4.1: Great Ponds in the GWR Watershed

9


downstream estuarine resources. The Salmon Falls River is on the Maine DEP 303d list of impaired waters due to biological and sediment oxygen demand, bacteria, and both point- and non-point source pollution. In the upper Salmon Falls Estuary, oyster reefs, consisting of eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica), ribbed mussels (Geukensia demissa), and blue mussels (Mytilus edulis), were very productive and were commer-cially harvested until 1995, when bacterial diseases caused a catastrophic die-off (Mitnik, 1999). In 1999, the Salmon Falls River Study performed by Maine DEP found 7 miles of the River as it flowed through South Berwick were in non-compliance with water quality standards. Point sources, including waste water treatment facilities, com-bined with water draw downs for drinking water and irrigation significantly impact water quality (Town of South Berwick, 2004). Although 90% of the inputs to the Salmon Falls River are from point-sources, the Great Works River is the most significant non-point source input to the Salmon Falls River system due to its higher flow and slightly ele-vated TP concentration. Inputs from the Great Works River account for more than one-half of the entire NPS loading to the Salmon Falls River system (Mitnik, 1999). The Salmon Falls River is the primary water source for the town of Berwick. Within the GWR watershed, residents of South Berwick and Wells primarily obtain water from private wells. Additionally, the town of North Berwick extracts water from two wells owned by the North Berwick water district between Borrel Rd. and Morrells Mill Rd . There are over 10,400 acres of sand and gravel aquifers in the Great Works River wa-tershed (Map 3, page 75). Of these, approximately 9,200 acres are Type 1 aquifers and the remaining 1,200 acres are Type 2. With a properly installed well, yields of 10-50 gallons-per-minute are expected from Type 1 aquifers, and greater than 50 gallons-per-minute are expected from Type 2 aquifers. 2.5 Land Resources There are approximately 10,609 acres of protected land within the Great Works River watershed (Map 4, page 76). Of this land- 6,186 acres (58%) are in tree growth, 123 acres (1%) are owned by local water districts, and 673 acres (6%) are in farmland. An additional 1,008 acres (10%), including land on Bauneg Beg Mountain, are under non-profit ownership. The remaining 2,619 acres (25%) of protected lands in the GWR watershed are state and town land, the majority of which is in the Mount Agamenticus area in York and South Berwick.

According to the Maine Natural Areas Program (MNAP), the Mt. Agamenticus re-gion is an area of ecological significance which includes rugged terrain, lakes and ponds, and wetland complexes. These upland and wetland complexes are ecologically

10


significant because they contain animal and plant assemblages that are in their north-ern range limits, including at least three animal and 20 plant species. Mount Agamen-ticus is open to the public, with a summit road and marked trails open to hikers, eques-trians, bicyclists and ATV users. Additional MANP areas of ecological significance in the Great Works River water-shed include the Beaver Dam Heath area in Berwick and North Berwick, the Bauneg Beg Mountain area in North Berwick and Sanford, and the Sanford Ponds area in San-ford (Map 5, page 77). The Sanford Ponds area consists of a series of ponds and swamps located on a glacial meltwater formation of kame terraces and eskers. The area includes one of Maine’s largest Atlantic white cedar swamps, as well as Leather-leaf boggy fens, Pitch Pine-Scrub oak barrens, a Pipewort-water Lobelia aquatic bed, and several vernal pools. Combined, the Sanford Ponds, Beaver Dam Heath, Bauneg Beg Mountain, and Mt. Agamenticus natural areas support over 23 species of rare plants and 13 species of rare animals, including the Spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata) and the Blandings turtle (Emydoidea blandingii). Spotted turtle and Blandings turtle are currently on Maine’s endangered species list. For more details on rare species in the GWR watershed, see Appendix B, page 48 . 2.6. Fish Assemblage

The Great Works River has been surveyed by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife since 1958 (Maine DIFW, 2005). Electrofishing results from 1958 to 2001 reveal seven primary species of fish in the Great Works River, including: 5 native indigenous fishes: (American eel (Anguilla rostrata), Golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), White sucker (Catostomus commersoni), Chain pickerel (Esox niger), and Pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus) and 2 annually stocked species (Brown trout (Salmo trutta) and Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) (Maine DIFW, 2005). Four ponds in the watershed, Warren Pond, Leigh's Mill Pond, Knight Pond, and Little Pond, are also stocked annually with Brook trout , Brown trout, and/or Rainbow trout.

Chain pickerel

Pumpkinseed

Brook trout

Brown trout

11


In 1993 and 1996, Maine DIFW also conducted freshwater mussel surveys on the Great Works River as part of a statewide survey to determine the status, abundance, and distribution of the State’s freshwater mussels. Two species were found to be pre-sent: Triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulate) and Eastern elliptio (Elliptio complanata). The Triangle floater is listed as a species of special concern in Maine and is an impor-tant indicator of river health (Nedeau et al. 2000). This species is vulnerable to stresses such as human land use impacts, and could easily become threatened or en-dangered in the future (Maine DIFW, 2004). The Triangle floater and other freshwater mussel species are particularly affected by impoundments—”studies have documented drastic declines in diverse mussel communities following the construction of dams” (Nedeau et al., 2000). 2.7 Land Usage Of the 55,526 acres in the Great Works River watershed, the greatest number of acres are located in the towns of North and South Berwick:

18,908 acres in North Berwick (34%) 15,149 acres in South Berwick (27%) 7,871 acres in Sanford (14%) 6,760 acres in Wells (12%) 4,935 acres in Berwick (9%) 1,902 acres in York (3%)

Land cover in the GWR watershed is dominated by upland forest, with smaller ar-eas of grassland, cultivated land, wetlands, gravel pits, and scrub-shrub scattered throughout the watershed (Figure 2.7.1 – below, Map 6-page 78). Wetlands are the second-largest land-cover class, accounting for over 18% of the watershed land area.

Figure 2.7.1 Land Use in the Great Works River Watershed (GIS data from Banner, 2002).

Water1.2%

(651 ac)

Bare Land/Gravel Pits

0.2%(128 ac)

Wetland18.9%

(10,485 ac)

Scrub-Shrub6.5%

(3,620 ac)

Forested54.0%

(30,006 ac)

Grassland11.5%

(6,378 ac)

Cultivated Land0.2%

(93 ac)Developed Land

7.5% (4,175 ac)

12


Developed land covers approximately 7.5% (4,175 acres) of the GWR watershed and includes three population centers located in Sanford, North Berwick, and South Berwick. The developed land estimate is primarily derived from impervious surface area, and may not include developed land on private, unpaved roads. As such, this number may underestimate actual developed land area in the watershed (Banner, 2002). Berwick, North Berwick, and South Berwick experienced population growth rates in the 1990s of 6%, 13% and 14%, respectively. This compares with 13.5% for York County, the highest county growth rate in the state, and 3.8% for Maine as a whole. Wells and York experienced the highest growth rates of 21% and 31%, respec-tively. Sanford experienced the lowest growth rates in the 1990s, at 2%. Residen-tial housing starts in Wells for the same period reached 49% - the highest in Maine. (SMRPC, 2004) Over half the towns in the watershed, including North Berwick, South Berwick, Wells, and York, currently have residential growth caps in place. According to the Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission, the maximum allowable number of new units per year in North Berwick, South Berwick, Wells, and York, are 33, 40, 132, and 84, respectively (SMRPC, 2005). Most development in the watershed has been confined to single house lots or small developments. However, strip mall and big box developments have sprung up in areas such as Rt. 109 in South Sanford. In recent years, several large-scale development proposals have been defeated, including a casino proposal in 2003 and a liquefied natural gas facility in Wells (SMRPC, 2004).

2.8. Water Usage: Impoundments

There are eight impoundments (dams) within the watershed (Map 7, page 79). Five dams, Bauneg Beg Pond Dam, Staples Dam, Douthy Falls Dam, Great Works Dam, and Leighs Mill Dam, are located on the main stem of the Great Works River (USACE & MEDEP 2003). The remaining three dams, Hussey Plow Company Dam, Cider Mill Dam, and Chamslin Mill Dam are located on tributaries of the Great Works River.

Table 2.7.1 (next page) lists the locations, uses, and downstream hazard potential of these impoundments. The hydraulic height, defined as the vertical difference between the Douthy Falls Dam, North Berwick

13


maximum designed water level and the lowest point in the original streambed, is also listed for each. Hazard potential classifications were assigned by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and Maine uses these classifications to regulate dams for safety purposes. Dams with "High" hazard potential are those which would likely cause loss of life and significant property loss if they failed. "Significant" hazard dams would likely cause damage to property if failure occurred, loss of life is uncertain. "Low" hazard dams might cause minor damage to isolated uninhabited facilities, and loss of life is not expected under failure conditions (MEMA).

There are two dams in the watershed used for hydropower. The Great Works Dam, owned by the Rocky Gorge Group, is located near the inlet of Leighs Mill Pond. The Leighs Mill Dam, located at the outlet of the same pond, is owned by Ridgewood Maine Hydro Partners. Both dams have an installed capacity of 500 kw (Murch, Per-sonal communication). The Great Works Dam project, also known as the Rocky Gorge Project, has been approved and permitted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commis-sion while the Leighs Mill Dam project is exempt from FERC jurisdiction (MEDEP, 2006b). Dams have the potential to cause significant adverse impacts to the ecology of riv-ers and streams by blocking migration of fish to upriver spawning habitat; warming wa-ter temperatures in impoundments, and accumulating sediment, which degrades water quality and often buries high quality fisheries habitat. Studies on the Salmon Falls

Table 2.7.1: Impoundments in the Great Works River Watershed (USACE and MEDEP, 2003). Impoundment Name

(Alternate Name) Waterbody Town Downstream

Hazard Potential

Hydraulic Height (ft) Use

Bauneg Beg Pond Dam Great Works River North Berwick Significant 10 Recreation

Beaver Dam Pond Dam (Chamslin Mill Dam)

Beaver Dam Brook Berwick Low 9 Recreation

Cider Mill Dam Frost Brook North Berwick Low 12 Recreation

Douthy Falls Dam (North Berwick Dam) Great Works River North

Berwick Significant 10 Other

Great Works Dam (Brattle Street Dam, Rocky

Gorge Project)

Great Works River (Leighs Mill Pond

inlet)

South Berwick Low 10 Hydro-

power

Hussey Plow Company Dam (Neoutaquet Dam) Neoutaquet River North

Berwick Significant 14 Other

Staples Dam (Card Mill Dam) Great Works River North

Berwick Significant 14 Water Supply

Leighs Mill Dam (Vine Street Dam)

Great Works River (Leighs Mill Pond

outlet)

South Berwick n/a 30 Hydro-

power

14


River demonstrate that impoundments have been a major cause of water quality deg-radation on the River (Mitnik, 1999). Impoundments (small hydro power dams) along the river reduce flow rates causing dramatic oxygen depletion in the impoundments be-hind these dams during summer months. Elevated chlorophyll levels have also been noted in impoundments (Mitnik, 1999). 3. Water Quality Assessment 3.1 Classification

The Great Works River (GWR) is listed on the by the State as a “Nonpoint Source Priority Watershed” due to having “significant value from a regional or statewide per-spective, and water quality that is either impaired, or threatened to some degree due to nonpoint source pollution from land use activities in the watershed”. The GWR is listed specifically for non-attainment of dissolved oxygen (DO) (low levels). The GWR is designated Class B by the Maine Department of Environmental Protec-tion (MRSA Title 38, Chapter 3): Class B waters shall be of such quality that they are suitable for drinking (after treatment) for fishing and recreation; industrial process and cooling water supply; hydroelectric power generation; and as habitat for fish and other aquatic life. In addition, the habitat needs to be characterized as unimpaired (Title 38, Chapter 3). Dissolved oxygen content should be greater than or equal to 7 ppm (or 75% saturation) except for the period critical to spawning of indigenous fish species (Oct 1st – May 14th) when the 7 day mean dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than 9.5 ppm. Between May 15th- Sept 30th the number of Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria of human origin may not exceed a geometric mean of 64/100 milliliters or an instantaneous level of 236/100 milliliters (2005 standards). Permitted discharges shall not cause adverse impact to aquatic life.

3.2 Summary of Available Data

Volunteers of the GWR Watershed Coalition (GWRWC) have collected MDEP Quality Assured water tempera-ture and DO in the main stem of the GWR and some of its tributaries since 2002. This volunteer effort has more than doubled over the four year period, with more than 270 volunteer hours re-ported each year in 2004 and 2005 (Figure 3.2.1).

GWR Water Quality Monitoring Volunteer Efforts 2002-2005

100

150

200

250

300

2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

# of

Hou

rs

Figure 3.2.1. Volunteer sampling efforts have more than doubled since sampling began in 2002.

15


Temperature In the Great Works River the average water temperature was 18.2°C (64.8°F) for the 2002 water monitoring season, 17.6°C (63.7°F) in 2003, and 17.7°C (63.8°F) for the 2004 and 2005 monitoring seasons. The maximum temperature for the survivability of Brook Trout is 24°C (75.2°F) and they will not grow if the temperature rises above 19°C (66.2°F) (Hach Chemical). The temperature must be below 9°C (48.2°F) for spawning and below 13°C (55.4°F) for the embryos to survive. These readings indicate that the main stem of the river should support Brook Trout as a species. However, since water temperature is highly dependent on the depth, volume and amount of shade, any fish species could be at risk due to the variable flow of the Great Works River. Since the depth and volume of the river rely primarily on weather events (spring run-off and rainfall), it becomes even more important to maintain the shade cover on the river. It is strongly recommended that current efforts of the GWRWC to protect buffer zones on the banks of the river and tributaries be maintained and/or improved to help in the stability of the water temperature and the resulting survivability of the aquatic species. Dissolved Oxygen Overall, the average dissolved oxygen (DO) levels for the main stem of the GWR ranged from 79.1% to 79.5% over the 4 year period - supporting the State of Maine’s Class B designation. However, low DO levels at several sampling locations are cause for concern. Once such concern is the sampling site at Channel Lane. This monitoring site is at the northern end of Bauneg Beg Lake where the northern flowage of the main stem of the GWR widens out and slows down to become Bauneg Beg Lake. This site has had consistently low average DO levels (64 - 68%), and has had levels as low as 29%. The field volunteer monitor reported the increasing growth of algae at this site as the season progressed.

Figure 3.2.2. Water temperature in the GWR was slightly higher in 2002 due to low levels of precipitation, but has remained consistent ever since.

Average TemperatureMain Stem GWR 2002-2005

17

17.5

18

18.5

2002 2003 2004 2005

Tem

pera

ture

(°C)

Year of Record

16


It is important to note that 4 of the 5 sites north of Bauneg Beg that stayed the same or increased in the number of dissolved oxygen violations in the 2003-4 seasons. But in general, DO violations have declined in the main stem of the GWR (Figure 3.2.3). Yet, violations occurred in 29% of all samples over the four year period (166 violations in 575 samples). The high number of violations in 2002 is thought to be due in part to the low precipitation, while the lower number of violations in 2003-2005 may be partly

at t r ibuted to years wi th h igh precipitation and significant rainfall events that helped improve DO levels. A break down of DO violations in the 9 tributaries of the GWR revealed that on average, between 50 and 83% of samples were in violation of the Class B standard (> 75% saturation) (Figure 3.2.4). In 2002, Lover’s Brook was the only tributary sampled. As a result of low DO saturation at all three sites (LB05, LB15, LB50), and the fact that it was the only site sampled, the percent of violations was higher in 2002 than in any other year of sampling.

DO Violations in the Main Stem GWR 2002-2005

2724

5263

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

# of

Sam

ples

/Vio

latio

ns

# of Samples# of Violations

131

166148

130

2002 2003 2004 2005

Figure 3.2.3. DO violations have decreased over the period of sampling, but may be attributed to differences in precipitation.

DO Violations in Tribs of GWR2002-2005

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2002 2003 2004 2005

# Si

tes/

Viol

atio

ns

# Samples # Violations

83%

53%

50% 72%

x% = violations as % of total samples

Figure 3.2.4. The percent of tributary samples in violation of Class B requirements for DO was greater than 50% in all years.

17


A closer look at DO averages at individual sites (Figure 3.2.5, below) shows that only NR50 and BB02 met water quality standards in all years. In 2003, 100% of samples from Chick’s Brook were below 75% saturation. In 2003, 2004 and 2005 West Brook had the lowest average DO concentrations (43-49%), as well as the lowest values among individual samples (23-38%). These low values may be a natural function of the marsh at the head of the brook. Goodall Brook also had consistently low DO values in 2004 and 2005, with samples below 75% in 10 of 11 samples taken over the two year period. This is not surprising considering the urbanized area surrounding the stream. Phosphorus In 2003 total phosphorus (TP) was added to the water quality parameters for the main stem of the GWR. Results of the TP analysis indicate that low level-phosphorus levels improved considerably in the main stem of the GWR between 2003 and 2004. In 2003 the average phosphorus level was 49 ppb (parts per billion), while the average in 2004 was 18 ppb (Figure 3.2.6). In 2005, the average TP increased to 25 ppb. While there are currently no state guidelines for low-level phosphorus, rivers in southern Maine can have TP levels of near 30 ppb. This means that 8 out of 10 sites exceeded 30 ppb for TP in 2003, while only 1 out of 9 sites exceeded 30 ppb in 2004 and 2005. In 2004 Goodall Brook was added to the list of sampling sites for TP based on best professional judgment that a significant amount of NPS pollution was being delivered

Figure 3.2.5. Average DO concentrations in the tributaries of the GWR were consistently below 75% saturation at all but two sites over the four year sampling period.

Average Tributary DO Concentrations 2002-2005

0102030405060708090

100

LoversBrook

NR50 WestBrook

Chick'sBrook

BB02 AB20 FrostBrook

BD60 GoodallBrook

Dis

solv

ed O

xyge

n (%

Sat

urat

ion)

2002 2003 2004 2005

In compliance Class B > 75%

18


to this tributary due to intense development in the watershed. As expected TP was elevated in Goodall Brook in both years, with low level phosphorus levels as high as 110 ppb. While there is some cause for concern at a few other sites along the main stem, the results have not been consistent at the same site over an entire sampling season. In one case high levels of TP were attributed to release of the dam at Leigh’s Mills Pond in 2004. E. coli E. coli bacteria is an indication of the presence of fecal contamination in the watershed. The sources of this contamination could be from point sources such as wastewater treatment plants discharges and/or stormwater overflows. The bacteria could also originate from polluted runoff sources such as pet waste, livestock contamination and/or failing septic systems, or from nonhuman-associated sources such as native wildlife. By itself E. coli is generally not a threat to human health but can be associated with disease-causing organisms (GWRWC, 2004). In 2003 E. coli was added to the list of water quality monitoring parameters for the main stem of the GWR. Revised 2005 standards for E. coli state that waters may not exceed a geometric mean of 64 colonies per 100 mL, or an instantaneous level of 236 colonies per 100 mL. Results of the E. coli analysis for the main stem of the GWR indicate that the number of

Total Phosphorus Exceedance Mainstem GWR 2003-2005

05

10152025

3035404550

2003 2004 2005To

tal P

(ppb

)#

Site

s/Sa

mpl

es

Avg.Total P# Samples > 30 ppb# Sites > 30 ppb

Figure 3.2.6. Average low-level phosphorus decreased significantly between 2003 and 2004, and then increased again slightly in 2005.

E. coli Violations (2005 standards) Mainstem GWR 2003-2005

2003

2004

2005

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

No.

of V

iola

tions

Instantaneous (> 236) Geometric Mean (> 64)

Figure 3.2.7. E. coli has increased in the main stem of the GWR since sampling began in 2003.

19


instantaneous violations increased dramatically between 2003 and 2004 (from 4 to 25 violations), and then decreased slightly in 2005 (19 violations). The overall trend in

the geometric mean E. coli counts indicates that E. coli levels have increased every year since sampling began (Figure 2.3.7). Heavy rainfall that occurred on multiple occasions through the sampling seasons of 2004 and 2005 likely washed polluted runoff with potential sources of E.coli into the river, thereby effecting the high number of instantaneous violations (2003 was reported to be an unusually dry year). In 2004 the Hooper Sands Rd. site in South Berwick (GW30) exhibited the highest mean E. coli levels (142 per 100 mL), which was matched by the Gray Rd site in South Berwick in 2005 (142 per 100 mL). Three sites (Hooper Sands Rd., Dennet St. (GW40), and site GW49 all had consistently

high geometric mean E. coli levels that exceeded standards for all three years of sampling. In addition the site GW85 exceeded standards (113 and 137 per 100 mL) in both 2004 and 2005 (no data is available for 2003). Leigh's Mill’s Pond GW02) was the only site that did not exceed the geometric mean E. coli standard in any of the sampling years. Although, the Bauneg Beg Lake site (GW75) had consistently low levels in 2003 and 2004 (13 and 20 per mL), it jumped to 75 in 2005. While the low levels in Leigh’s Mills Pond and Bauneg Beg are good news for swimmers, the 2005 Bauneg Beg results are of particular concern, and shows that long term continual monitoring is necessary. Goodall Brook was added to the list of sites for E. coli sampling in 2004 and 2005, and is the only tributary in which E. coli data is available. Goodall Brook was in violation of the E. coli standards in both 2004, and 2005 (Figure 3.2.8). As with the main stem sites, intense rainstorms likely contributed to instantaneous violations in 33% of the Goodall Brook samples in 2004, and more than 50% of samples in 2005. Goodall brook is more heavily urbanized than the others, and should remain on the list of targeted sampling sites in the future.

Mean E. coli CountsGoodall Brook 2003-2004

0

50

100

150

200

Geo

met

ric M

ean

(Col

onie

s/ 1

00)

Geometric Mean (> 64) E. coli Limit < 64 per 100 mL

2004

2005

Figure 3.2.8. Goodall Brook, at the head of the GWR, has experienced exceptionally high levels of E. coli since sampling began in 2004.

20


3.3 Summary of Bauneg Beg Lake Water Quality (Also See Appendix F- Page 84) Compared to most lakes monitored in Maine, Bauneg Beg Lake has below average water quality and clarity. In 2006, water quality for Bauneg Beg Lake showed an overall decline, compared to the long-term average for the lake. Despite this slight decline in water clarity, the 2006 concentration of algae in the lake (measured from chlorophyll-a levels) was still near the long-term average for the lake. The concentration of total phosphorus in the water was higher than the historical average, and transparency showed a slight decline over historical measurements. Due to the combination of a slight decline in water clarity and an increase in TP levels, it is important to continue to closely monitor the water quality in Bauneg Beg Lake. Dissolved oxygen loss in the “deep hole” of the lake was similar to historical records, but was more severe in 2006 than the historical average. Severe oxygen depletion was recorded in the deepest area of the lake during the late summer. The consistent loss of dissolved oxygen in the deepest area of Bauneg Beg Lake during late summer suggests that fish habitat may be threatened during this part of the year and that lake water quality should continue to be monitored closely. One possible result of oxygen depletion is the potential release of biologically-available phosphorus from bottom sediments. For this reason, it is important to minimize any additional sediment inputs to Bauneg Beg Lake. 4. Water Quality Goals and Objectives 4.1 Goals While the primary goal of the watershed management plan is to advance locally supported water quality goals, objectives and action strategies for protecting the Great Works River and its tributaries, the specific water quality goals within the plan are focused on ensuring that the Great Works River meets minimum Class B standards and is useful and healthy for drinking, recreation, fish, birds, and other wildlife now and in the future. 4.2 Objectives Objectives of the watershed management plan are focused on improving water quality in the Great Works River watershed for the benefit of fish, birds, and other wildlife, as well as local residents, landowners, and visitors. Water Quality • Maintain and improve water quality by eliminating or reducing non-point sources of

pollution as identified in the Bauneg Beg Lake, Great Works River, and Northern

21


Great Works River Survey Reports. Focus considerable effort to areas north of Bauneg Beg Pond including Goodall Brook.

• Work to prevent future non-point sources of pollution. Habitat • Coordinate conservation efforts to protect valuable habitat for fish, birds, and other

wildlife in the Great Works River watershed and the Salmon Falls River estuary. Recreation • Assist landowners in providing recreational opportunities that are compatible with

high water quality and healthy wildlife habitat.

• Ensure that the Great Works River continues to provide recreational opportunities and aesthetic value to local residents and visitors.

Stewardship/Public Involvement • Inspire people to become active stewards of land and water resources in the Great

Works River watershed by increasing and maintaining public involvement in management plan goals, objectives, and implementation.

• Raise awareness in the municipalities of South Berwick, North Berwick, Berwick, York, Wells, Sanford, and surrounding areas of the connection between land use, water quality, and the impacts of polluted runoff.

• Form collaborative relationships with local municipal officials and landowners. Monitoring and Evaluation • Assess watershed conditions over time to ensure watershed management goals

are being met.

• Continue water quality monitoring of new and existing sites.

• Evaluate repaired NPS sites, and maintain installed BMPs. 5. NPS Inventory and Assessment

5.1 Methods

Land uses in the shoreland zone, in highly developed areas, and in areas where runoff from roads meets local tributaries generally have the greatest impact on water

22


quality, compared to activities more distant from the watercourse because they act as major transport areas for sediments and other pollutants. To assess the degree of NPS pollution across the 84 square mile GWR watershed, the NPS inventory and assessment was divided into three major watershed areas (Map 1, page 73), which were then further divided into twenty-seven minor survey segments. The goal of these surveys was to identify potential sources of bacteria and other contaminants (e.g. runoff, point sources, erosion, sediments, or toxics to surface waters).

Potential NPS pollution sites were selected to provide an initial point of investigation. The 1999 Bauneg Beg Survey focused on residential lots around Bauneg Beg Lake. Private roads and town roads for potential NPS sites. The two subsequent surveys, conducted in 2000 (YCSWCD, 2002) and 2004 (YCSWCD, 2005), focused on public and private road crossings within the Great Works River and several of its tributaries. Combined, these three surveys covered the shoreline and adjacent parcels around Bauneg Beg Lake, road and stream crossings, parking lots, fields, stream banks, boat landings, and footpaths throughout the watershed.

Before forming teams and going out into the field, volunteers received training on field survey techniques. This included identifying erosion sites and various sources of polluted runoff, documenting problems, and making preliminary recommendations for remediation. To further ensure accurate data collection, technical staff members served as leaders for each team. In all, more than 50 trained volunteers helped conduct the surveys; record suspected NPS sites, write descriptions, draw maps, collect GPS points, and take photographs. Volunteers located and inventoried 516 hard-to-find and often overlooked sources of NPS pollution in the watershed at 275 different sites. Information gathered in these three surveys were prioritized, and survey results were made available for community discussions (including the well-publicized 2005 Community Forum). Community members were able to discuss the number and locations of NPS sites, the appropriate solutions for problems identified, and guidelines for land use practices that will prevent future problems. These actions and guidelines provide the framework for this GWR Watershed Management Plan.

5.2. Watershed Survey Segment Map Please see Great Works River Watershed Survey Segment Map, Map 1, page 73.

More than 50 volunteers have received training on survey techniques in the field.

23


5.3 Nonpoint Source Survey Observations

Please see Nonpoint Survey Observations, Appendix D, pages 51-72. 6. Threats to Water Quality 6.1 Survey Results

Combined, public and private roads, driveways and parking lots account for 46% of the total land uses where NPS pollution problems occur in the GWR Watershed (See figure 6.1.1). Residential areas ranked second to roads at 30% of the total. The remaining land uses include agriculture (4%), and beach related sources (4%).

Summary of NPS ObservationsGWR Watershed Surveys '99, '00, '04

Culvert

DitchRoad Shaping

OtherTrash/debris

Construction

Direct Flow

Erosion

Bare Soil

Indadequate Buffer

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

No. o

f Occ

uren

ces

Bank Erosion

6%

Shoreline Erosion

8%

Other11%

Surface Erosion

47%

Shoulder Erosion

28%

Figure 6.1.2. Erosion, nps direct flow, and bare soil were among the top three most fre-quently observed types of non-point source pollution across the GWR watershed.

Figure 6.1.1. The greatest number of NPS observations in the GWR Watershed are located at or near roads, parking lots and driveways.

4%

2%2%4%

8%4%

30%46%

Roads/Parking Lots

Residential

Agriculture

Beach

Trail/Path

Commercial

Easement

Other

NPS Observations by Land Use Type

24


Land uses that make up less than 3% of the total (in decreasing order) include; trails/paths, commercial, easements, boat access, recreation, cemetery, logging, parking lot, and dump site. Of the 516 observations documented in the three GWR watershed surveys, 196, or 38% of NPS observations were attributed to problems associated with erosion (Figure 6.1.2). Surface erosion, road shoulder erosion, shoreline erosion, and bank erosion were the major culprits (see inset). Direct stormwater flow was the second most frequently occurring NPS observation, with (108 observations - 21%). Other documented NPS problems that were frequently observed include; bare soil (9%), lack of adequate buffers (7%), poorly functioning culverts (7%), poorly designed road ditches (4%), shoreline erosion (3%), and construction activities (3%) including ineffective silt fences. Poorly shaped roads (2%), and trash and debris (2%) were also noted. The remainder of observations making up 1% or less of the total observations were grouped into the ‘Other’ category (7%). These include (in decreasing order): excess road sand, livestock in/near streams, stream re-alignment, algae in stream, overland flow-pavement, discharge from a pipe or storm-drain, septic back-up, roof runoff, lawn, snow-plowing, horse paddock, and gravel operation. 6.2. Priority Ranking of NPS Sites

Suspected sources of pollution were ranked, based upon three criteria: 1) the expected impact they would have on surface water quality; 2) the technical skill level to install the BMPs; and 3) how much the BMPs would cost. Volunteers and technical staff determined the degree of impact based on slope, soil type, amount of eroded soil, proximity to the lake, stream, ditch or buffer, and size of the buffer. Sites with a highhighhigh impact rating typically had direct flow to a tributary or lake, and greater than 100 square feet of disturbance. Impacts were rated mediummediummedium when sediment was transported off site to a buffer or wetland, or when the total square feet of impact was greater than 100. Low Low Low impact was recorded with sites that had limited off-site transport even if the disturbed area was large. Technical skill level was recorded as high high high when the site required an engineered design, mediummediummedium if a technical person could visit the site and make recommendations,

Lack of adequate buffers on road shoulders causes surface erosion and direct flow to waterways.

25


and low low low if the property owner could accomplish the improvement with or without reference materials. Costs to fix the problem were based on estimates, where high high high costs were greater than $2,500, medium medium medium costs were between $500 and $2,500, and low low low costs were $500 or less. A problem site with a high impact rating, low technical skill level and low cost scored as a high priority, since fixing it would result in the greatest improvement for the least amount of money.

Of the 275 documented NPS sites, 65 sites were identified as high priority (Figure 6.2.1, above). These results are positive in that the high priority sites make up

Surface erosion and overland flow caused by roof runoff and poorly established vegetation involves low costs and skill to fix, and would be a high or medium priority.

Re-vegetating eroded soils along stream banks is a low cost solution with a big impact. A site like this would rank as a high priority.

No. of Sites High 65 Medium 155 Low 23 Not Rated 32 _______________ Total Sites 275

Priority Ranking Summary for NPS Sites in the GWR Watershed

Figure 6.2.1. Almost a quarter of documented NPS sites in the GWR watershed ranked as high priority, while the bulk of the observations ranked as medium priority.

Medium56%

High24%

Not Rated12%

Low8%

26


less than a quarter of the observations and could be remediated within a relatively short time. Additionally, 34 of the 65 high priority sites were rated as high impact, with a majority of these sites located near Bauneg Beg Lake and in sections of the northern GWR watershed (Map 8, page 80). A good management strategy should include attacking sites that are both high impact and high priority first. The medium priority sites, making up the bulk of the NPS sites (56%), will require more time and effort to remedy. Sites with lower scores are also worthy of consideration but should receive attention after the higher priority sites are addressed. Sites that were not rated should be revisited and given a priority ranking.

6.3 Soil Erosion

Soil that is transported to streams, lakes and rivers by the process of erosion is referred to as sediment. Sediment is easily transported after a rain event in roadside ditches, down storm drains, and into streams. Once in the stream or river, sediment can be harmful to aquatic organisms by burying them, smothering fish eggs, and even clogging fish gills (MIDEQ, 1998). Eroded sediment carries phosphorus, a naturally occurring nutrient in Maine soils, which is also the key ingredient that stimulates algal growth in our waterbodies (MDEP and MACD, 2006). Other pollutants such as oil and grease from roads and parking lots; pesticides and herbicides from lawns, gardens and playing fields; and bacteria and viruses from improperly handled animal waste or malfunctioning septic systems attach themselves to soil particles and are delivered to streams, lakes and rivers via erosion. In the GWR watershed soil erosion was the most frequently documented type of erosion and was found at 92 sites across all different land uses. Severe soil erosion occurred most frequently at or near unpaved and poorly maintained private roads, on trails and paths, and near structures such as bridges and culverts. Surface erosion was also seen at different levels of severity on residential lots, near grazing areas, and on several right of ways. This type of erosion is detrimental because it often occurs in conjunction with direct flow to a stream, wetland, lake, or river.

Road Shoulder erosion was documented in 29% of erosion cases, and occurred on private roads, town roads, and state roads. Severe shoulder erosion was most often associated with state and town roads, while moderate

Example of erosion on a road shoulder next to a catch basin.

27


shoulder erosion was documented more often on private roads and driveways. Poor road shaping, and lack of adequate buffers along roadways can lead to direct runoff to waterbodies, and infilling of ditches and culverts.

Shoreline erosion was documented at 19 different lake and stream sites throughout the watershed, with the majority of sites located on residential lots. Beaches, private roads, town roads, state roads, and trails/paths also contribute to shoreline erosion due to inadequate buffers and steep, unstable banks. During rain events, runoff erodes soil and attached nutrients into nearby waterbodies. Unlike other types of NPS pollution that occur higher in the watershed, shoreline erosion has an immediate affect on water quality. 6.4 Direct Flow

Direct flow is overland flow that contributes to increased surface runoff to nearby water bodies. This type of flow is enhanced by, and associated with other NPS problems such as soil erosion, inadequate buffers, and poorly designed or failing culverts and ditches. As rainwater or melting snow flows across paved or unpaved surfaces it can carry a variety of pollutant types into nearby streams. Direct flow was identified in 23% of nonpoint source observations made throughout the GWR watershed.

6.5 Bare Soil

Without a protective cover of vegetation or mulch bare soil is vulnerable to raindrop impact and soil loss by wind and water. Bare soil is often the culprit of many of the many different types of erosion in section 6.4. While soil erosion is most prevalent on steep slopes, it also occurs on level ground. Rain that falls on impervious surfaces such as roads, driveways and rooftops can create concentrated runoff with more potential to erode bare soil leading to

Direct flow of eroded soils to a tributary of the GWR as a result of bare soil and an inade-

Example of an inadequate buffer near a residen-tial property along a tributary of the GWR.

28


overland flow. In the GWR watershed, 9% of NPS problems were associated with bare soil. In the 1999 Bauneg Beg survey bare soil was mainly associated with residential properties near the lake shore. Many property owners lacked vegetation between the house and the lake, while others raked all vegetation and mulch to bare soil. Bare soil in the shoreland zone is especially dangerous to water quality because it provides a direct path for delivery of sediment. In the 2000 and 2004 surveys, bare soil was more often associated with town and private roads. The combination of vehicle traffic and raindrop impact dislodges soil particles making them more available for delivery to local ditches and tributaries. Bare soil was heavily documented at stream crossings, and at right of ways/easements. There was one documented case of bare soil and erosion along an ATV trail at a Rt. 4 stream crossing. 6.6 Inadequate Buffers

Vegetation in the shoreland zone (area adjacent to streams, brooks and lakes) helps absorb fertilizers, sediment-laden runoff and nutrients from developed areas before they enter waterways. Removing vegetation along streams, rivers and lakes may have a number of implications including: direct flow, shoreline and bank erosion, altered stream flow, warming of surface waters-loss of aquatic species and reduced recreational opportunities. Loss of buffers also decreases the amount of habitat available to native species that depend on this vegetation for breeding, and changes the natural scenic beauty of the water course. The network of tree roots along the shoreline (or buffer zone) stabilize the stream banks, holding soil in place. The above ground network of trunks, branches, leaves and needles alters the way precipitation reaches the ground, greatly reducing its erosional impact. The canopy of leaves and needles provides shade to keep water temperature cool and reduce the growth of undesirable algae that can degrade fish spawning and feeding habitats. Cool water is especially important for fish such as the brook trout and brown trout that already inhabit the watershed (WNERR, 2004). Inadequate buffers account for 7% of NPS observations in the watershed, and were commonly observed near town and private roads, driveways, beach access points, residential properties, livestock and horse areas, a cemetery, ATV crossing, and a sewer easement. A 200’ section of the river in North Berwick was documented as having an inadequate buffer due to commercial development. Tributaries or Ponds where inadequate buffers were documented as having negative effects include Adams Brook, Knight’s Brook, Frost Brook, Cedar Mill Pond and Bauneg Beg Lake. Two roads with a number of documented buffer problems include the Twombley Rd. and the Fisher Pond Rd.

29


6.7 Culverts

Thirty-seven separate NPS observations in the three watershed surveys were related to culverts. Direct flow, soil erosion, ditch erosion, road shoulder erosion and bank erosion were commonly reported at these sites. The culprit in many cases was clogged or unstable culverts (inlets and outlets). Hanging culverts, undersized culverts, and culverts with degrading liners were also frequently recorded. Hydrocarbon-based pollution from road runoff also threatens to occur at these sites, making these sites particularly vulnerable to nonpoint source pollution because of the quantity and quality of runoff delivered to the surface water. Among other issues, hanging culverts in particular also represent a threat to fish habitat. Design recommendations for existing culverts include cleaning out the culvert, enlarging, replacing, lengthening, stabilizing the inlet and outlets and installing plunge pools. Areas needing new culverts require proper design to minimize impact on bank side vegetation, reduce erosion, and allow as-natural-as-possible patterns of water flow. 6.8 Animal Waste

Solid waste material from pets, livestock, and wildlife can be a source of fecal coliform contamination of surface waters. There were five (5) instances throughout the watershed where livestock were documented in the stream. These included Adams Brook, Knight’s Brook, the GWR, and two areas near Lebanon Rd and Pond Rd. To reduce impacts from livestock, the animals should be fenced from the stream and a vegetated buffers should be installed. A 100’ section of stream next to a horse paddock near Bauneg Beg Ski Area also has a high potential for contributing contaminated runoff. Planting a buffer of ground cover plants and shrubs would help to decrease bacterial input. Pet waste was documented along the shoreline of Bauneg Beg Lake at five (5) different locations. This type of pollution can be eliminated by simply cleaning up after pets.

Example of a poorly designed, undersized, hanging culvert.

30


7. Best Management Practices 7.1 NPS Pollution Control Actions

Soil erosion is the most common cause of polluted runoff in the GWR watershed, and has been documented in every type of land use - along roadways, shorelines, and on residential properties in both urban and rural areas. In the more urbanized areas of the watershed (e.g. Goodall Brook subwatershed) polluted runoff from large expanses of impervious surfaces can lead to more concentrated stormwater runoff. Conservation practices to mitigate polluted runoff generally focus on addressing two broad concerns: storm water flow control and pollutant load reduction. BMPs will vary depending on whether the developed area under consideration is new or existing. The most effective flow control measures in newly developing areas limit the amount of rainfall that is converted to runoff. In cases where it is not feasible to reduce runoff volumes due to the density of development, BMPs are implemented to reduce pollutant generation and/or facilitate pollutant removal. Best Management Practices, or BMPs, are any structural or non-structural practice to treat, prevent or reduce water pollution. These practices can be as simple as revegetating bare soil and planting shrubs along the water front, to installing sediment detention basins to capture and filter sediments before they enter the water course. Often, a variety of BMPs may be needed to adequately treat NPS pollution. The following list provides examples of many different BMPs that can be applied to NPS problems identified in the three watershed surveys:

Erosion on Roads and Driveways

• Add new surface material to stabilize roadways • Install runoff diverters e.g.) broad-

based dip, rubber razor, waterbar • Install ditch turnouts or diversion

channels to send overland flows to stable areas

• Use Detention Basins at ditch turnouts to retain water between runoff events, and remove suspended sediments and adsorbed pollutants.

• Remove grader berms • Remove excess winter sand • Reshape/vegetate road shoulder

Excess sand left on the road following a cold Maine winter can be a source of NPS pollution .

31


• Reshape or crown road to reduce water on surface • Pave dirt roads • Install permeable pavement to allow water infiltration in high traffic areas

Inadequate Vegetated Buffer and Bare Eroding Soil

• Establish Buffer to reduce direct flow to waterbody • Extend Buffer to a minimum of 75’ on all streams, and 100’ on all lakes. • Plant Trees and Shrubs and ground covers to stabilize soil and reduce runoff • Seed bare soil with grass to provide temporary or permanent cover • Mulch bare soil with straw, wood fiber or chips etc. over a seeded area to protect

the bed from erosion and drying • Use Sod transplants to stabilize erosion prone areas

Poorly Functioning Culverts • Clean out culvert regularly to minimize blockage and backflow • Enlarge, replace, or lengthen culvert to account for type of flow • Install plunge pool to reduce downstream erosion • Stabilize inlet/outlet with rock and vegetation to reduce erosion

Inadequate Ditches

• Install new ditches to capture runoff from roads • Armor with stone to stabilize ditch and minimize erosion by runoff water • Stabilize ditches with a grass to allow for concentrated flow without erosion • Reshape ditches to minimize pitch and maximize storage • Install turnout to convey water to reduce flow to waterbody • Install check dams to reduce erosive flows in drainage ditches/allow revegetation

Direct Flow from Roof Runoff • Install a stone-filled dripline trench to capture and infiltrate rainwater • Install a drywell at gutter down spout to capture water and prevent overland flow

Unstable Shoreline/Beach Access • Revegetate or terrace steep eroding slopes • Eliminate raking to bare soil • Establish a defined path for foot traffic • Install steps to reduce erosion on steep foot paths

32


• Design winding paths to waterfront instead of straight paths • Minimize path widths (must be less than 6’)

Stormwater Runoff in Urbanized Areas • Use Oil/Grit Separators to remove coarse sediment and oils in stormwater • Install sumps on catch basins to capture solids before they enter the sewer

system • Create sediment detention basins to receive, detain and reduce sediments in

stormwater from heavily impervious areas • Use flow control devices to release water at non-erosive flow rate • Install infiltration basins to impound water over permeable soils and allow

controlled infiltration and removal of fine sediments and adsorbed pollutants

Construction Site Erosion Controls • Put up fences and signs to contain damage caused by heavy equipment • Use Grading plans to minimize erosion • Use filter strips and buffers to prevent runoff, and stabilize erosion prone slopes. • Place soil piles where they will not erode into watercourse • Seed and install effective erosion barriers

(temporary BMPs) around spoil piles • Stage projects to minimize area of exposed

soil at any one time • Select and protect trees to the maximum

extent possible, prior to construction. • Dewater with well points/ cofferdams and

pumps to remove ground and surface water from a construction site to reduce scarring and erosion

• Install Filters of crushed stone, straw or geotextile to remove sediment from stormwater before it exits a construction site

Other

• Install watercourse crossings to confine erosional impacts and minimize flow alterations at points of crossing

• Practice good fertilizer management techniques to minimize nutrient inputs to the water course

This catch basin collects runoff from the surrounding paved area and discharges it directly to Goodall Brook.

33


• Install fencing to keep grazing animals out of streams • Properly dispose of used oil and other hazardous waste material • Regularly inspect septic systems for signs of leaks– pump regularly

8. Regulations 8.1 Current Laws There exist a number of federal and state laws designed to protect the environment. These laws are intended to be incorporated into local town ordinances, providing protection for wildlife habitat, water and air quality, and endangered and threatened species. Major laws pertaining to habitat conservation and local land-use planning include: the Federal Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act, all of which are federally mandated laws. Additional laws mandated by the state of Maine include:

• The Maine Endangered Species Act • the Natural Resources Protection Act • the Coastal Management Policy • the Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act • the Subdivision Law • Site Location of Development Law • Wetlands and Waterbodies Protection • Shoreland Zoning Ordinance

Based on the State mandated Shoreland Zoning Act, each of the six watershed towns have developed Resource Protection and Shoreland Overlay Districts. This Act controls land uses and placement of structures within the shoreland zone and helps to minimize the impact of development in riparian areas. Specifically, this Act requires municipalities to establish land use controls for all land areas within 250 feet of ponds and non-forested freshwater wetlands that are 10 acres or larger; rivers with watersheds of at least 25 square miles in drainage area; coastal wetlands and tidal waters; and all land areas within 75 feet of certain streams. Although areas falling under the formal protection of this Act are determined at the municipal level and are enforced by municipal officials, the State has developed suggested guidelines for municipalities to follow. While the Act does not prevent development, it does place conditions on development. Zoning is guided by each Town’s Comprehensive Plan.

34


All six towns have also established Watershed/Aquifer Protection and Flood Protection zoning ordinances which provide varying levels of protection.

8.2 Structures

Each town requires a standard set back of 75-100 feet for all structures, including parking areas and septic systems. Within Resource Protection Districts, York, Berwick, North Berwick, and Sanford require a 100’ setback from the normal high water mark of ponds (including Bauneg Beg Pond), rivers, tributaries, and the upland edge wetlands. The towns of South Berwick and Wells require a 250’ setback from any waterbody zoned as Resource Protection, and 100’ from tributary streams. In general, the towns also have resource protection Subdistricts with less stringent setbacks. All towns in the watershed require that lot coverage within the shoreland zone shall not exceed 20% of the lot.

8.3 Clearing of Vegetation

In areas zoned for Resource Protection, cutting vegetation is prohibited within 100’ of the normal high water mark of great ponds, the Great Works River, and the Salmon Falls River (South Berwick) or within 75’ of tributaries and other waterbodies. Additionally, no cleared openings greater than 250 square feet are allowed in the forest canopy (measured from the outer limits of the tree crown). 8.4 Aquifer Protection

North Berwick, South Berwick, Sanford and York use the 200 day travel line to control and regulate uses near aquifers. Aquifer protection areas consist of aquifers, wells, and aquifer recharge areas, including the overlying land, in which leachable materials disposed of into or onto the land can travel to well sites (existing or proposed) within 200 days travel time – an accepted standard for the filtering of viruses and other pollutants. Uses in this zone are restricted or need case by case approval. Generally, within the delineated area, most uses are prohibited/restricted except recreation areas and residential (non-cluster) development. Animal husbandry or agricultural uses that produce animal wastes are not allowed. Structure and septic setbacks vary depending on the town. Wells and North Berwick use a 250 foot setback for structures and 400 foot setback for septic systems. Wells and North Berwick specify additional restrictions for aquifer recharge areas that lie outside the 200-day contaminant travel zone (more than 200 days but less than 2500 days travel time).

35


8.5 Flood Protection An important element in making flood insurance available to home and business owners is a community's willingness to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances, particularly with respect to new development. If municipalities are not in compliance with updates to their floodplain ordinances, structures within the municipality may be subject to higher federal insurance premiums. Lack of compliance may also affect the level of disaster relief assistance granted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) during flooding events. The federal government also uses municipal floodplain ordinances as a criterion when assessing disaster assistance needs. The Maine State Planning Office’s Floodplain Management Program has drafted model municipal floodplain ordinances to be used by towns. This type of ordinance identifies areas within a city or town that are prone to flood hazards as identified by FEMA flood maps, and establishes a Flood Hazard Development Permit system for construction or development in identified flood areas. The permit system ensures that development standards in flood zones are adequate to protect against substantial losses of structures and requires a site plan of the proposed development (including services such as sewer and water, base flood elevations, and lowest floor of the structure). Currently, all of the towns in the GWR watershed have updated Floodplain Management ordinances. In general, all new buildings and structures including basements must be elevated at least one foot (2’ in York) above the elevation of the one-hundred-year-flood. FEMA creates Federal Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM’s) to be used for assessing the risk associated with insurance policies in coastal flood zones. These maps identify Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA’s) which delineate the 100-year floodplain, indicating a one percent chance that property within the area will flood in any given year (Map 9, page 80). Each town in the GWR watershed has been mapped by FEMA. The most recent maps for the area were developed in 2005. While zoning restrictions in place are adequate to ensure the protection of water resources in the GWR watershed, they are not in reality providing the desired results. This is due to a number of factors including; the complexity of the regulations which makes them difficult to interpret and enforce; a lack of enforcement capability; lack of knowledge and understanding on the part of landowners; and the grand-fathering of previous uses. These shortcomings in Shoreland protection were also noted at the Great Works River Community Forum in 2005.

Continued on page 39

36

Tabl

e 9.

2.1.

GW

R N

PS A

ctio

n Pl

an

GW

R W

ater

shed

Man

agem

ent P

lan–

Janu

ary

2007

GWRW

C GWR C

ommittees

BBLAYCSWCD La

nd Tr

usts

Towns

Schoo

ls Land

owners

Maine D

EP 319

Other

Federa

l

Other

State

Towns

Private

Volunte

er

Res

pons

ible

Par

tyFu

ndin

g S

ourc

eA

ctio

n Ite

ms

Cos

ts

Sch

edul

e

** D

evel

op a

n Ad

opt-a

-Stre

am p

rogr

am in

the

Goo

dall

Bro

ok w

ater

shed

.x

xx

xx

xx

$2,0

00/y

r20

07 a

nd o

ngoi

ng

**U

tiliz

e re

sour

ces

such

as

TV, n

ewsp

aper

, BB

LA

web

site

, pub

lic m

eetin

gs fo

r wat

ersh

ed e

duca

tion

xx

xx

xx

$500

/yr

2007

and

ong

oing

**In

vest

igat

e th

e de

velo

pmen

t of e

duca

tiona

l pro

gram

s in

San

fod

Hig

h an

d Jr

, Hig

h S

choo

lsx

xx

xx

N/A

2008

and

ong

oing

**In

stal

l wat

ersh

ed s

igns

alo

ng ro

ad (e

xam

ple:

"Yo

u ar

e en

terin

g th

e G

reat

Wor

ks R

iver

Wat

ersh

ed")

xx

xx

$500

/yr

2009

and

ong

oing

**Tr

ain

volu

ntee

rs fo

r pre

limin

ary

inva

sive

pla

nt s

urve

y (m

ilfoi

l)x

xx

xx

$500

/yr

Anua

lly-

begi

nnin

g 20

07D

evel

op a

n ed

ucat

ion

foun

datio

n th

at w

ould

rais

e lo

cal

awar

enes

s of

WQ

issu

esx

xx

xx

Goa

l-$5,

000

2007

-200

8

Impl

emen

t an

educ

atio

nal c

ampa

ign

focu

sed

on th

e he

adw

ater

s &

pre

sent

to T

own

Cou

ncils

xx

xx

x$5

00/y

rAn

nual

ly-

Sum

mer

200

7-20

16E

duca

te re

alto

rs a

bout

sho

rela

nd z

onin

g th

roug

h re

certi

ficat

ion

xx

$500

/yr

Annu

allly

-

be

ginn

ing

2006

Dev

elop

a k

iosk

at b

oat l

aunc

hes

with

info

rmat

ion

on

wild

life,

boa

ting

law

s, fi

sh a

nd in

vasi

ve s

peci

esx

xx

xx

xx

$2,0

00/s

iteB

y 20

08

Spo

nsor

a s

emin

ar fo

r wat

erfro

nt o

wne

rsx

xx

xx

x$1

,000

An

nual

ly-

Sum

mer

'07-

'16

**M

ove

haza

rdou

s w

aste

pic

k-up

day

sx

xx

x

**Ad

dres

s w

ater

qua

lity

issu

es o

n go

lf co

urse

s.

xx

xx

Enc

oura

ge T

owns

, SP

O to

incl

ude

Riv

er is

sues

in

Com

preh

ensi

ve P

lans

xx

xN

/AIm

med

iate

ly, a

nd

ongo

ing

Exp

lore

the

idea

of a

regi

onal

Con

serv

atio

n C

omm

issi

onx

xx

N/A

Imm

edia

tely

Enc

oura

ge c

lust

er d

evel

opm

ent a

nd lo

w im

pact

de

velo

pmen

t x

xx

xN

/AO

ngoi

ng

Res

pons

ible

Par

tyE

DU

CA

TIO

N/S

TEW

AR

DS

HIP

PLA

NN

ING

Fund

ing

Sou

rce

** =

hig

hest

prio

rity

37

GW

R W

ater

shed

Man

agem

ent P

lan–

Janu

ary

2007

Tabl

e 9.

2.1

cont

inue

d.

GWRWC GWR Steerin

g Comm.

BBLAYCSWCD Land TrustsTowns Schools LandownersMaine DEP 319

Other Fed

eral

Other State

Towns Private

Volunteer

Resp

onsi

ble

Party

Fund

ing

Sour

ceAc

tion

Item

sCo

sts

Sche

dule

**C

ontin

ue m

onito

ring

the

heal

th o

f GW

R, i

ts

tribu

tarie

s, a

nd B

B La

ke. I

ncor

pora

te m

onito

ring

of

heav

y met

als(

and

stor

m s

ampl

ing)

into

sam

plin

g re

gim

e ( a

t San

ford

Bau

neg

Beg

, and

Em

ery's

junk

yard

si

tes)

.

xx

xx

$3,0

00/yr

Annu

ally

2007

-201

6

**Sy

nthe

size

the

wat

er q

ualit

y par

amet

ers

sum

mar

ized

in th

is re

port

and

indi

cate

whi

ch tr

ibut

arie

s or

par

ts o

f th

e m

ains

tem

app

ear g

ood,

nee

d m

ore

test

ing

to

dete

rmin

e, a

nd lo

ok p

oor.

xx

N/A

Imm

edia

tely

**As

sess

the

impa

ct o

f sto

rm d

rain

s in

the

wat

ersh

ed

and

sten

cil s

torm

dra

ins

xx

xx

x$2

,000

/yrBe

ginn

ing

Sum

mer

20

07 a

nd o

ngoi

ngEx

pand

num

ber o

f mon

itorin

g si

tes

alon

g G

ooda

ll Br

ook

and

in N

GW

R w

ater

shed

xx

x$1

,000

Su

mm

er 2

007

Coa

litio

n m

embe

rs in

vest

igat

e da

ms

issu

ex

xN

/A20

07-2

008

**En

cour

age

Stew

ards

hip

thro

ugh

fore

st a

nd b

uffe

r pl

antin

g ed

ucat

iona

l dem

onst

ratio

ns. H

old

volu

ntee

r w

ork

parti

es to

inst

all B

MP

dem

os a

t hig

h pr

ofile

site

s (w

ork

with

loca

l nur

serie

s to

get

pla

n di

scou

nts

for

buffe

r pla

ntin

gs).

xx

xx

x$5

00/yr

Sum

mer

200

7 an

d on

goin

g

Enco

urag

e en

forc

emen

t of R

ipar

ian

Zoni

ng L

aws

xx

xx

N/A

Imm

edia

tely

and

ongo

ing

Rec

ruit

Shor

elin

e St

ewar

ds to

obs

erve

and

doc

umen

t rip

aria

n/bu

ffer p

robl

ems

xx

xx

N/A

Sum

mer

200

7 an

d on

goin

gSu

ppor

t CEO

's in

mon

itorin

g an

d en

forc

emen

t of

prot

ectin

g rip

aria

n ha

bita

tx

xx

xx

x$5

00/yr

Imm

edia

tely

and

ongo

ing

Coo

rdin

ate

with

loca

l lan

d tru

sts

to a

cqui

re la

nd to

pr

otec

t rip

aria

n ar

eas

xx

xx

N/A

Begi

nnin

g 20

07

BUF

FER

CAM

PAIG

N

Resp

onsi

ble

Party

Fund

ing

Sour

ce

WAT

ER Q

UAL

ITY

MO

NIT

OR

ING

** =

hig

hest

prio

rity

38

GW

R W

ater

shed

Man

agem

ent P

lan–

Janu

ary

2007

Tabl

e 9.

2.1

cont

inue

d.

GWRWC GWR Steerin

g Comm.

BBLAYCSWCD Land TrustsTowns Schools LandownersMaine DEP 319

Other Fed

eral

Other State

Towns Private

VolunteerRe

spon

sibl

e Pa

rtyFu

ndin

g So

urce

Actio

n Ite

ms

Cost

sSc

hedu

le

**D

evel

op g

rant

pro

posa

ls fr

om M

aine

DEP

319

and

ot

her f

undi

ng s

ourc

es to

add

ress

hig

h pr

iorit

y site

sx

xx

xx

xx

xx

x$1

,000

/yrIm

med

iate

ly an

d on

goin

g A

cqui

re fu

ndin

g to

iden

tify s

ourc

es o

f bac

teria

l co

ntam

inat

ion

xx

xx

xx

xx

$10,

000

Imm

edia

tely,

and

on

goin

gLo

ok in

to b

usin

ess

spon

sors

hip

for p

laci

ng w

ater

qu

ality

sig

ns a

t tes

t site

s an

d br

idge

sx

xx

xN

/A20

07-2

008

Dev

elop

and

impl

emen

t a fu

ndin

g pl

an fo

r lon

g-te

rm

road

repa

ir an

d m

aint

enan

cex

xx

xx

xx

TBD

2007

-201

6

Org

anize

a 4

th o

f Jul

y par

ade

yard

sal

e to

rais

e m

oney

fo

r edu

catio

n an

d ou

treac

hx

xx

xx

N/A

Annu

ally

and

ongo

ing

Prep

are

Stre

am R

esto

ratio

n Pr

opos

al fo

r Ada

ms,

Lo

ver's

and

Goo

dall

Broo

ksx

xx

x$2

,000

/yr20

07-2

008

**O

rgan

ize V

olun

teer

s to

inst

all B

MPs

at h

igh

prio

rity &

hi

gh im

pact

site

sx

xx

xx

xx

x$2

0,00

0/yr

Sum

mer

200

7 an

d on

goin

g

**Im

plem

ent B

MPs

xx

xx

xx

xx

x$1

,250

,000

20

07 a

nd o

ngoi

ng

**M

eet w

ith to

wns

to d

iscu

ss fi

xing

tow

n ro

ad s

ites

from

sur

veys

xx

xx

xN

/ASu

mm

er 2

007

**Se

nd p

ostc

ard

mai

ling

to p

eopl

e w

ith id

entif

ied

prob

lem

site

s fro

m s

urve

ys. L

et th

em k

now

they

hav

e an

d is

sues

and

pro

vide

list o

f res

ourc

esx

xx

x$2

,500

Su

mm

er 2

007

Dev

elop

soi

l los

s es

timat

es a

nd/o

r BM

P de

sign

s fo

r all

high

prio

rity s

ites

xx

xx

x$5

,000

Sp

ring/

Sum

mer

200

7

Cre

ate

a st

orm

wat

er re

trofit

inve

ntor

y with

cos

t es

timat

es fo

r Goo

dall

Broo

k su

bwat

ersh

edx

xx

xx

x$5

,000

Sp

ring/

Sum

mer

200

8

FUN

DING

BM

P IM

PLEM

ENTA

TIO

N

Resp

onsi

ble

Party

Fund

ing

Sour

ce**

= h

ighe

st p

riorit

y

39


9. Implementation

9.1 Plan Oversight The GWRWC and partners will need to continue to meet regularly and be diligent in coordinating resources to implement practices that will reduce NPS pollution in the GWR watershed. This task cannot be accomplished alone, and will require the support of a number of watershed groups including the Bauneg Beg Lake Association, York County Soil and Water Conservation District, Maine DEP, local Land Trusts, watershed towns, schools, and individual landowners. A coordinated implementation effort in the GWR watershed was initiated in September 2006. On September 21, 2006 the York County Soil and Water Conservation District, Maine DEP, Great Works River Watershed Coalition and Bauneg Beg Lake Association held an evening meeting to organize community actions in the watershed. As part of this meeting three action committees were formed: • Funding & Planning: • Education/Stewardship & Water Quality Monitoring: • Buffer Campaign & BMP Implementation: These action committees are charged to implement projects and actions with agency and watershed organization support. This action group will meet at least twice per year as part of the Great Works River Watershed Coalition. Highlights of the highest priority action items for each committee are as follows (see Table 9.2.1 on pages 36-38 for a full list of prioritized action items):

Funding & Planning • Develop grant proposals from Maine DEP 319 and other funding sources to

address high priority sites. • Move hazardous waste pick-up days. Education/Stewardship & Water Quality Monitoring: • Investigate educational programs in Sanford High School and Jr. High School. • Develop an adopt-a-stream program in the Goodall Brook watershed. • Send press releases to local newspapers ( Weekly Sentinel, Observer, Foster’s

Daily Democrat, Sanford News) • Train volunteers to conduct an annual invasive plant survey.

40


Buffer Campaign & BMP Implementation • Hold volunteer work parties to install BMP demonstration projects at high profile

sites. • Organize volunteers for BMP implementation projects. • Send postcard mailing to landowners who own property identified as a problem

site in surveys. Let people know about the issues and provide a list of resources.

• Meet with towns to discuss roads sites identified in surveys. 9.2 Action Plan The GWRWC Steering Committee will work toward improving and implementing an Action Plan which consists of action items within six major categories: Education/Stewardship, Planning, Water Quality Monitoring, Buffer Campaign, Funding, and BMP Implementation (Table 9.2.1, pages 36 - 38). This Action Plan was developed to follow-up on tasks developed in the 1999, 2000 and 2004 watershed surveys, and from feedback received by 38 community members and13 environmental professionals at the 2005 Community Forum. Forum participants (local town council members, river abutters, and landowners from Bauneg Beg Pond) formed small groups to discuss critical watershed issues related to water quality, wildlife habitat, recreation, and land development issues that need to be addressed in the watershed. Next, the break-out groups listed and prioritized potential solutions for the issues and presented them to the entire group. These ideas have been incorporated into the Action Plan. This Action Plan outlines responsible parties, potential funding sources, approximate costs, and an implementation schedule for each task within each of the six categories.

Education/Stewardship The Education and Stewardship component of the Action Plan involves a variety of

activities that will be directed at raising local awareness of water quality issues and interest in voluntary BMPs to reduce NPS pollution. Presentations to town councils, realtors, schools, and waterfront landowners are at the forefront of the plan. Informative kiosks at boat landings and utilization of media resources such as TV, newspaper, the BBLA website, and public meetings are also a must. Planning

The planning component of the Action Plan focuses on protecting undeveloped land by encouraging towns to include river issues in comprehensive plans. Additional action items include looking into a regional conservation commission, and encouraging

41


cluster and low impact development (LID).

Water Quality Monitoring While the GWRWC has a strong water quality monitoring component, additional

action is required to monitor the health of the GWR and its tributaries on a long-term basis. This requires seeking funding to continue monitoring of existing sites, as well as the number of monitoring sites, assessing the impacts of storm drains, conducting storm stenciling, and investigating the effects of the dams. To better prioritize monitoring efforts, a further analysis of existing water quality data is also recommended. This can be accomplished by synthesizing the water quality parameters summarized in this report and indicating which tributaries or parts of the GWR mainstem appear good, need more testing to determine, or appear poor. The resulting information could also be presented in map format.

Buffer Campaign

The buffer campaign places a strong emphasis on improving protection of shoreland vegetated buffers, to meet or exceed the existing state guidelines requiring that no more than 40% of existing woody vegetation in the 250 foot wide shoreland zone is removed. Action items include recruiting shoreline stewards to observe and document riparian buffer problems, encouraging stewardship through buffer planting demonstrations, supporting and encouraging code enforcement officers in protecting riparian habitat through enforcement of Riparian Zoning Laws. Additionally, the GWRWC will coordinate with local land trusts in acquiring land within riparian zones. Funding

The funding component of the Action Plan focuses on acquiring funding to support NPS education, monitoring and implementation. Funding ideas include developing grant proposals to address high priority sites, to identify sources of bacterial contamination, to fund long-term road repair and maintenance and to specifically restore Lover’s and Goodall Brooks. An annual 4th of July parade yard sale is proposed to help raise money for the education component of the Action Plan.

BMP Implementation

BMP Implementation is a major component of the Action Plan and relies on the success of many of the other components, especially Education/Stewardship and Funding. Estimated costs for implementing BMPs in the watershed currently exceeds $1,250,000 (Appendix C, page 50), but may be higher. The higher costs are

42


associated with more expensive urban stormwater BMPs in the highly developed Goodall Brook subwatershed. This area needs a stormwater retrofit inventory with associated cost estimates in order to determine just how much more funding is needed above the current estimate. There are several steps that need to be taken over several years as part of the BMP implementation process. These include developing BMP designs for all high priority sites, organizing volunteers or YCC to install BMPs at all high priority and high impact sites, developing a plan to address medium and low priority sites, and revisiting unranked sites. Successful BMP implementation will require strong BMP project management skills involving public outreach, volunteer training, coordination with watershed municipalities, and technical oversight during the installation process. 9.3 Actions to Achieve Self-Sustaining One of the most challenging components of implementing the Action Plan for the GWR will be obtaining long-term financial support. Grants such as the Maine DEP 319 grant, or contracts with local towns are concepts that should be pursued immediately. Community grants will help aid smaller projects, and offset the costs of monitoring and education until more secure funding can be obtained. Ideas for short-term community funding opportunities will require time and annual letter writing campaigns. The GWRWC has considered membership dues as a long-term strategy. Hiring a full or part time executive director has been a successful strategy for other watershed groups in Maine. Another key component of achieving self-sustaining support of the plan is to keep volunteers happy and interested in continuing their work. This can be accomplished by creating and celebrating fun learning experiences such as canoe and hiking trips in the watershed, and holding volunteer recognition ceremonies. 9.4 Evaluation Plan To stay abreast on the effectiveness of the Management Plan, the GWRWC should work towards releasing an annual report (or posting to the website) that highlights the progress and activities in comparison to the timeline set forth in the Action Plan. Tasks listed in the Action Plan should be tracked and recorded as they occur, and new tasks should be added to the plan as needed. Water quality monitoring should be evaluated annually both on a seasonal basis and compared with long-term water quality records to determine if improvements are occurring as implementation proceeds.

43


CONCLUSION

Combined, the three watershed surveys and the water quality monitoring data collected by the GWRWC indicate that the Great Works River and its tributaries are adversely affected by land use. Eighty percent (80%) of the identified nonpoint source pollution sites throughout the watershed were rated as medium or high priority for remediation (Figure 6.2.1, page 25). The majority of these sites were located on roads, driveways, parking lots, or residential properties (Figure 6.1.1, page 23). Thirty-eight percent (38%) of all NPS observations were related to soil erosion (Figure 6.1.2, page 23), or resulted from direct flow of polluted runoff to the stream (21%). Smaller percentages made up a variety of other problems. As a result, water quality violations are considerable in both the mainstem and tributaries of the GWR, and include low levels of dissolved oxygen, high levels of total phosphorus and E. coli contamination. The greatest concentration of high priority and high impacts sites are located in the highly urbanized Goodall Brook subwatershed, and around the shores of Bauneg Beg Lake (Map 8, page 80). The GWR Action Plan (pages 36 - 43) calls for remediation of these high priority and high impact sites first. The medium priority sites make up the bulk of the NPS sites (56%), require more time and effort to remedy, and likely have the greatest cumulative impact. Low and unranked sites are listed lower on the Action Plan, but should not be forgotten since their cumulative impact could also be considerable. The doubling of volunteer efforts in the GWR since 2002 is a positive sign that education and outreach is working. In addition, there are at least three active regional land trusts that have protected many acres of valuable land in the watershed. These current volunteers and the attentive watershed municipalities provide the impetus for future NPS education and implementation in the watershed, and a strong body for reducing the NPS inputs to the Great Works River and the downstream Salmon Falls Estuary.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bauneg Beg Lake Watershed Survey Results (July 2000). Maine Department of Environmental Protection and Bauneg Beg Lake Association. Portland, ME.

Great Works River Watershed Coalition: 2002 Water Quality Monitoring Data Report

(2003). South Berwick, ME.

44


Great Works River Watershed Coalition: 2003 Water Quality Monitoring Data Report(2003). South Berwick, ME.

Great Works River Watershed Coalition: 2004 Water Quality Monitoring Data Report

(2004). South Berwick, ME. Great Works River Watershed Coalition: 2005 Water Quality Monitoring Data Report

(2005). South Berwick, ME. Great Works River Watershed Survey Project (May 2002). York County Soil and Water

Conservation District. Alfred, ME. Merriland River, Branch Brook, and Little River Watershed Nonpoint Source Pollution

Management Plan (November 2004). Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve. Wells, ME.

Northern Great Works River Watershed Survey Report (August 2005). York County

Soil and Water Conservation District. Alfred, ME. Town of Wells, Maine Comprehensive Plan Update (February 24, 2005). Southern

Maine Regional Planning Commission. Springvale, ME. Town of York Zoning Ordinance (November 8, 2005). Town of York. York, ME.

REFERENCES CITED

Banner, A. 2002. Landcover and Wetlands of the Gulf of Maine (GOML7). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Gulf of Maine Program. Maine Office of Geographic Information Systems. Augusta, ME.

Field, D.B. 1994. The Forest Laws of Maine: Fourth Edition. Maine Forest Service.

Augusta, ME. GWRWC. 2004. Great Works River Watershed Coalition: 2004 Water Quality

Monitoring Data Report. South Berwick, ME. Hach Chemical, 2004. H2O University. 19 February 2004. http://www.hach.com/h2ou/.

20 March 2006. Maine DIFW. 2004. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Endangered

and Threatened Species Group Resource Management Report. Augusta, ME. Maine DIFW. 2005. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Fish Stocking

(Lakes and Streams), 1989-present. http://pearl.maine.edu/data.htm. 17 April 2006.

45


Maine DIFW, 2005. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Stream

Electrofishing Surveys. http://pearl.maine.edu/data.htm. 14 April 2006. MEDEP, 2006a. Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Land and

Water Quality. Maine Erosion and Sedimentation Control BMPs. http://www.maine.gov.gov/dep/blwq/docstand/escbmps/. 14 April 2006.

MEDEP, 2006b. Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Hydropower Projects

in Maine. January 1, 2006. MEDEP and MACD, 2006. Maine Department of Environmental Protection and Maine

Association of Conservation Districts. Sewall Pond PCAP-TMDL Report. Maine DEPLW-0735. March 2006.

MEDOC and MGS, 2006. Maine Department of Conservation and Maine Geological

Survey. Aquifer Polygons. Maine Office of Geographic Information Systems. Augusta, ME.

MEMA, 2006. Maine Emergency Management Agency. The Hazards We Face: Dam

Failure. http://www.state.me.us/mema/hazards/dam.htm. 17 April 2006. MIDEQ, 1998. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Surface Water Quality

Division. Guidebook of Best Management Practices for Michigan Watersheds. October, 1998. http://www.deq.state.mi.usdocuments/deq-swq-nps-Intro.pdf. 26 April 2006.

Mitnik, P. 1999. A Phased TMDL for the Salmon Falls River Watershed: Use

Attainability Analysis for the Salmon Falls River. Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Land and Water Quality. Augusta, ME.

MNAP, 2006. Maine Natural Areas Program. Focus Areas of Ecological Significance.

http://www.mainenaturalareas.org/docs/program_activities/land_trust_descriptions.php. 30 March 2006.

MRSA, 2006. Maine Revised Statutes Annotated. Title 38 Chapter 3, Subchapter 1,

Article 4-A, § 465. http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/38/title38ch3.pdf. 24 April 2006.

Murch, D., Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Land and Water

Quality. Personal Communication. April 27, 2006. Nedeau, E.J., McCollough, M.A., and B.I. Swartz. 2000. The Freshwater Mussels of

Maine. Maine Dept. of Inland Fish and Wildlife. Augusta, ME.

46

APPENDICES

Great Works River Watershed Management Plan– Appendix A

47

Mulch: A layer of hay or other material covering the land surface that holds soil in place. It aids in the establish-ment of vegetation by preventing erosion, conserving moisture, and minimizing temperature fluctuations.

Nonpoint Source Pollution (NPS): Runoff that has picked up contaminants or nutrients from the landscape (or air), as it flows over the surface of the land to a body of water.

Phosphorus: An element found throughout the environ-ment; it is a nutrient essential to all living organisms. Phosphorus binds to soil particles, is found in fertilizers, sewage, and motor oil, and is found in high concentra-tions in stormwater runoff. The amount of phosphorus present in a lake determines the lake's production of al-gae. A very small change in phosphorus levels can dra-matically increase algae growth.

Point Source Pollution: Readily identifiable inputs where waste is discharged to the receiving waters from a pipe or drain. Most industrial wastes are discharged to rivers and the sea in this way. With few exceptions, most point source waste discharges, are controlled by EPA.

Runoff: Water that drains or flows across the surface of the land.

Sediment: Mineral and organic soil material that is trans-ported in suspension by wind or flowing water, from its origin in another location.

Septic System: An individual sewage treatment system that typically includes a septic tank and leach field that area buried in the ground. The septic tank allows sludge to settle to the bottom and a scum of fats, greases and other lightweight materials to rise to the top. The remain-ing liquid flows to the leach field where it disperses through soil to reduce the number of bacteria and viruses.

Shoreland: The area of land from the water line stretch-ing inland. The definition of this distance may vary by county zoning and state definitions.

TMDL: A Total Maximum Daily Load is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation of that amount to the pollutant's sources.

Tributaries: Streams or rivers that flow to a large body of water.

Vegetated Buffer: Areas of vegetation, left undisturbed or planted between a developed area and a waterbody that are used to capture pollutants from surface water and groundwater. Buffer vegetation can include trees, shrubs, bushes, and ground cover plants.

Vernal Pools: Seasonally flooded depressions found on ancient soils with an impermeable layer such as a hard-pan, claypan, or volcanic basalt.

Water Quality: Pertaining to the presence and amounts of pollutants in water.

Watershed: The geographic region within which water drains into a particular river, stream, or body of water. A watershed includes hills, lowlands, and the body of water into which the land drains. Watershed boundaries are defined by the ridges of land separating watersheds.

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Algae Bloom: A growth of algae resulting from ex-cessive nutrient levels or other physical and chemical conditions that enable algae to reproduce rapidly.

Best Management Practices (BMPs): Techniques to reduce nonpoint source impacts from construction, agriculture, timber harvesting, marinas, and stormwa-ter.

Buffers (Riparian Zone): Land bordering a river, stream, or wetland for the protection of water quality, wildlife, and/or recreation.

Culvert: A conduit through which surface water can flow under or across roads and driveways. Culverts are usually a pipe and can be made of metal, wood, plastic, or concrete.

Direct Flow: Overland flow of water with attached sediments, nutrients and pollutants which causes increased surface runoff to nearby water bodies. This type of flow is enhanced by, and associated with other NPS problems such as inadequate buffers, and poorly designed or failing culverts and ditches.

Dissolved Oxygen (DO): Oxygen dissolved in the water is essential for all plants and animals living in the water. DO is a measurement of the amount of oxygen in the water that is available to these plants and animals. The amount of DO is used as an indica-tor of water quality and the level of life that the water can support.

Diversion: A BMP used to intercept and direct sur-face runoff. Diversions are usually channels or de-pressions with a supporting ridge on the lower side, constructed across or at the bottom of a slope.

Ecosystem: A system formed by the interaction of a community of organisms with its environment.

Erosion: Wearing away of rock or soil by the gradual detachment of soil or rock fragments by water, wind, ice, and other mechanical and chemical forces. Hu-man activities can greatly speed this process.

Fecal Coliform Bacteria: A group of bacteria that are passed through the fecal excrement of humans, livestock, and wildlife. They aid in the digestion of food. Escherichia coli (E. coli) are the most common member of fecal coliform bacteria. They can be sepa-rated from the total coliform group by their ability to grow at elevated temperatures and are associated only with the fecal material of warm-blooded animals.

Glaciofluvial: Material moved by glaciers and subse-quently sorted and deposited by streams flowing from the melting ice. The deposits are stratified and may occur in the form of outwash plains, deltas, kames eskers, and kame terraces. Glaciolacustrine Deposits: Sand, silt and clay de-posited on the bottom of huge temporary lakes that formed either due to the melting glacial ice or by the blocking out of outlets for meltwater. Sand, silt and clay remains suspended in fast-moving river water, but in slow-moving water such as lakes these fine materials are deposited. Leach Field: The part of a septic system where the effluent from the septic tank disperses into the soil.

48

Scientific Name Common Name Status S-Rank G-Rank

Rare Plants Allium tricoccum Wild Leek SC S2 G5 Calamagrostis cinnoides Small Reed-grass n/a n/a n/a Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic White-cedar SC S2 G4 Clethra alnifolia Sweet Pepper-bush SC S2 G4 Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood E S1 G5 Eupatorium dubium Eastern Joe-pye Weed T S1 G5 Hottonia inflata Featherfoil T S1 G4 Ilex laevigata Smooth Winterberry Holly SC S2 G5 Isotria medeoloides Small Whorled Pogonia n/a n/a n/a Lindera benzoin Spicebush SC S3 G5 Platanthera flava Pale Green Orchis SC S2 G4 Quercus coccinea Scarlet Oak n/a n/a n/a Quercus montana Chestnut Oak T S1 G5 Rhododendron maximum Great Rhododendron n/a n/a n/a Rhynchospora macrostachya Tall Beak-rush E S1 G4 Sassafras albidum Sassafras SC S2 G5 Saxifraga pensylvanica Swamp Saxifrage T S2 G5 Wolffia columbiana Columbia Water-meal T S2 G5 Xyris smalliana Yellow-eyed Grass E S1 G5

Natural Communities Atlantic white cedar bog Atlantic White Cedar Bog n/a S1 G3G4 Chestnut oak woodland Chestnut Oak Woodland n/a S1 n/a Leatherleaf boggy fen Leatherleaf Bog n/a S4 n/a Pitch pine - scrub oak barren Pitch Pine - Scrub Oak Barren n/a S1 G2 Red maple - sensitive fern swamp Red Maple Swamp n/a S4 n/a White oak - red oak forest White Oak - Red Oak Forest n/a S3 G5 Mixed graminoid - shrub marsh Grassy Shrub Marsh n/a S5 n/a Hemlock - hardwood pocket swamp Pocket Swamp n/a S2 n/a Sheep laurel dwarf shrub bog Dwarf Shrub Bog n/a n/a n/a

Rare Animals Callophrys hesseli Hessel’s Hairstreak E S1 G3G4 Coluber constrictor constrictor Northern Black Racer E S2 G5 Enallagma laterale New England Bluet SC S1 G3 Enallagma pictum Scarlet Bluet n/a n/a G3 Etheostoma fusiforme Swamp Darter n/a S1 G5 Sylvilagus transitionalis New England Cottontail SC S3 G5 Thamnophis sauritus Ribbon Snake SC S3 G5 Williamsonia fletcheri Ebony Boghaunter n/a n/a n/a Williamsonia lintneri Ringed Boghaunter E S1 G3 Clemmys guttata Spotted Turtle T S3 G5 Embydoidea blandingii Blandings Turtle E S2 G4

Appendix B: Rare Plants, Natural Communities and Animals in the GWR Watershed (MNAP, 2006).

Table B.1.

Great Works River Watershed Management Plan– Appendix B

49

STATE RARITY RANKS (S-Rank)

Note: State Ranks are determined by the Maine Natural Areas Program. S1 Critically imperiled in Maine because of extreme rarity (five or fewer occurrences or very few remain-ing individuals or acres) or because some aspect of its biology makes it especially vulnerable to extirpa-tion from the State of Maine. S2 Imperiled in Maine because of rarity (6-20 occurrences or few remaining individuals or acres) or be-cause of other factors making it vulnerable to further decline. S3 Rare in Maine (on the order of 20-100 occurrences). S4 Apparently secure in Maine. S5 Demonstrably secure in Maine.

GLOBAL RARITY RANKS (G-Rank) Note: Global Ranks are determined by The Nature Conservancy.

G1 Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity (five or fewer occurrences or very few remain-ing individuals or acres) or because some aspect of its biology makes it especially vulnerable to extirpa-tion from the State of Maine. G2 Globally imperiled because of rarity (6-20 occurrences or few remaining individuals or acres) or be-cause of other factors making it vulnerable to further decline. G3 Globally rare (on the order of 20-100 occurrences). G4 Apparently secure globally. G5 Demonstrably secure globally.

STATE LEGAL STATUS FOR PLANTS (Status)

Note: State legal status is according to 5 M.R.S.A. § 13076-13079, which mandates the Department of Conserva-tion to produce and biennially update the official list of Maine's endangered and threatened plants. The list is derived by a technical advisory committee of botanists who use data in the Natural Areas Program's database to recom-mend status changes to the Department of Conservation. E ENDANGERED; Rare and in danger of being lost from the state in the foreseeable future, or federally listed as Endangered. T THREATENED; Rare and, with further decline, could become endangered; or federally listed as Threatened. SC SPECIAL CONCERN; Rare in Maine, based on available information, but not sufficiently rare to be considered Threatened or Endangered. Source: http://www.state.me.us/doc/nrimc/mnap/factsheets/mnapfact.htm

50

1999 Bauneg Beg Survey # of Sites Ranking Low High

85Costs Low ($50-$500) $ 4,250 $ 42,500

29Costs Medium ($501-$2500) $ 14,529 $ 72,500

5Costs High ($2501-$25,000) $ 12,505 $ 125,000

31,284$ 240,000$

2000 GWR (South) # of Sites Ranking Low High

37Costs Low ($50-$500) $ 3,145 $ 18,500

19Costs Medium ($501-$2500) $ 9,519 $ 47,500

19Costs High ($2501-$25,000) $ 47,519 $ 475,000

60,183$ 541,000$

2004 NGWR # of Sites Ranking Low High

11Costs Low ($50-$500) $ 550 $ 5,500

24Costs Medium ($501-$2500) $ 12,024 $ 60,000

9Costs High ($2501-$50,000) $ 22,509 $ 450,000

35,083$ 515,500$

Survey Low Estimate High Estimate1999 Survey 31,284$ 240,000$ 200 Survey 60,183$ 541,000$ 2004 Survey 35,083$ 515,500$ Total 126,550$ 1,296,500$

Appendix C: BMP Cost Estimates

* Costs for implementing BMPs are higher for the NGWR watershed survey due to the more complicated nature of retrofitting highly urbanized areas. All costs are approximate.

*

51

Seg.

#

Land

Use

So

urce

of P

ollu

tion

Affe

cted

A

rea

Impa

ct

Rat

ing

Tech

nica

l Le

vel

Cos

t Pr

iorit

y R

ecom

men

datio

ns

E1-

1 re

side

ntia

l sl

ight

sur

face

ero

sion

, bar

e so

il,

9'x6

' Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, rip

rap

E1-1

0 re

side

ntia

l sl

ight

sur

face

ero

sion

, dire

ct

flow

to la

ke

44'x

20'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

wat

erba

r/ di

vers

ion/

box

. C

ulve

rt, m

ulch

E1-1

1 re

side

ntia

l la

ck o

f buf

fer,

bare

soi

l, un

st.

cons

truct

ion

site

, dire

ct fl

ow to

la

ke.

Not

e: e

rosi

on p

rote

ctio

n no

t in

plac

e!

100'

x28'

H

igh

Hig

h H

igh

Med

w

ater

bar/

dive

rsio

n/ b

ox,

culv

ert,

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

vege

tate

, new

sur

face

m

ater

ial,

seed

and

m

ulch

E1-1

2 re

side

ntia

l la

ck o

f buf

fer,

mod

erat

e su

rface

er

osio

n, b

are

soil,

dire

ct fl

ow to

la

ke

16'x

32'

Med

M

ed

Low

M

ed

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

terr

ace,

ne

w s

urfa

ce m

ater

ial,

seed

and

mul

ch, d

eten

-tio

n ba

sin

E1-1

3 re

side

ntia

l la

ck o

f buf

fer,

mod

erat

e su

rface

er

osio

n, b

are

soil,

dire

ct fl

ow to

la

ke

30'x

84'

Med

M

ed

Med

M

ed

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

terr

ace,

ne

w s

urfa

ce m

ater

ial,

rip

rap,

wat

erba

r/ di

vers

ion/

bo

x. C

ulve

rt, m

ulch

, gut

-te

r and

div

ert f

low

into

bu

ffer,

defin

e fo

otpa

ths

E1-1

5 A

resi

dent

ial

Sep

tic s

yste

m b

acku

p.

Pos

sibl

e fil

led-

in s

wam

p.

N

ote:

Res

iden

t obj

ects

to o

ur

goin

g on

to p

rope

rty.

H

igh

Hig

h H

igh

Med

U

pgra

de le

ach

field

(s)

E1-1

5 B

resi

dent

ial

Sep

tic s

yste

m b

acku

p.

Pos

sibl

e fil

led-

in s

wam

p.

N

ote:

Res

iden

t obj

ects

to o

ur

goin

g on

to p

rope

rty.

H

igh

Hig

h H

igh

Med

U

pgra

de le

ach

field

(s)

E1-2

A be

ach

acce

ss

beac

h be

ing

used

as

boat

ac-

cess

, uns

tabl

e bo

at a

cces

s,

mod

erat

e su

rface

ero

sion

, bar

e so

il, d

irect

flow

to la

ke, p

et

was

te

13'x

11'

Med

Lo

w

Low

H

igh

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

add

new

su

rface

mat

eria

l

App

endi

x D

: Doc

umen

ted

NPS

Site

s an

d Pr

iorit

y R

anki

ng

TA

BLE

D.1

. N

PS S

ITES

- 19

99 B

AU

NEG

BEG

SU

RVE

Y (s

ee S

urve

y Se

gmen

t Map

, pag

e 71

)

52

Seg.

#

Land

Use

So

urce

of P

ollu

tion

Affe

cted

A

rea

Impa

ct

Rat

ing

Tech

nica

l Le

vel

Cos

t Pr

iorit

y R

ecom

men

datio

ns

E1-

2B

resi

dent

ial

bare

soi

l, di

rect

flow

to la

ke,

shor

elin

e er

osio

n, p

et w

aste

Med

Lo

w

nr

nr

mai

nten

ance

, sta

biliz

e sh

orel

ine

with

rip

rap,

ad

d gu

tters

/sto

ne a

pron

, pi

ck u

p pe

t was

te

E1-

3 re

side

ntia

l m

oder

ate

shou

lder

ero

sion

, di

rect

flow

to la

ke

3'x3

' M

ed

Low

Lo

w

Hig

h ad

d ne

w s

urfa

ce

mat

eria

l

E1-

4 re

side

ntia

l ol

d bo

at h

ouse

foun

datio

n, u

n-st

able

ban

k, d

irect

flow

to la

ke

19'x

14'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

mai

nten

ance

, ter

race

, ot

her-c

lean

out

deb

ris

E1-5

a re

side

ntia

l m

oder

ate

shou

lder

ero

sion

, di

rect

flow

to tr

ibut

ary

15'x

7'

Med

Lo

w

Low

H

igh

eros

ion

cont

rols

, new

su

rface

mat

eria

l,

es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, w

ater

-ba

r/div

ersi

on/b

ox, c

ulve

rt

E1-

5B

priv

ate

road

sl

ight

sur

face

ero

sion

, mod

erat

e sh

ould

er e

rosi

on, u

nsta

ble

cul-

vert

I/o, p

artia

lly c

logg

ed c

ul-

vert,

dire

ct fl

ow to

trib

utar

y

M

ed

Med

M

ed

Med

re

ditc

h, tu

rnou

t, st

abiliz

e cu

lver

t inl

et o

r out

let a

nd

road

sho

ulde

rs, r

epla

ce

culv

ert a

nd m

ake

at le

ast

10' l

onge

r

E1-

5C

tow

n ro

ad

unst

able

cul

vert

I/o, c

logg

ed

culv

ert

M

ed

Med

M

ed

Med

m

aint

enan

ce, r

ip ra

p,

exte

nd c

ulve

rt, in

stal

l pl

unge

poo

l up

and

dow

n sl

ope

E1-

6 re

side

ntia

l la

ck o

f buf

fer,

mod

erat

e su

rface

er

osio

n, d

irect

flow

to la

ke,

shor

elin

e er

osio

n, u

nsta

ble

beac

h ac

cess

25'x

20'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

seed

an

d m

ulch

E1-

7 re

side

ntia

l sl

ight

sur

face

ero

sion

, bar

e so

il,

dire

ct fl

ow to

lake

, lac

k of

buf

fer

12'x

22'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

vege

-ta

te, e

stab

lish

mul

ched

or

gra

vel f

ootp

aths

E1-

8 re

side

ntia

l la

ck o

f buf

fer,

mod

erat

e su

rface

er

osio

n, d

irect

flow

to la

ke, b

are

soil.

Roo

f run

off f

rom

#15

4 ad

ds to

pro

blem

15'x

65'

Med

M

ed

Med

M

ed

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

new

su

rface

mat

eria

l, w

ater

-ba

r/div

ersi

on, m

ulch

fo

otpa

ths,

don

't ra

ke to

ba

re s

oil

GW

R W

ater

shed

Man

agem

ent P

lan–

App

endi

x D

53

Seg.

#

Land

Use

So

urce

of P

ollu

tion

Affe

cted

A

rea

Impa

ct

Rat

ing

Tech

nica

l Le

vel

Cos

t Pr

iorit

y R

ecom

men

datio

ns

E1-

9 co

mm

erci

al,

beac

h

acce

ss

At C

amp

Wab

an b

oat l

aunc

h -

seve

re s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on, b

are

soil,

dire

ct fl

ow to

lake

, uns

tabl

e be

ach

acce

ss

25'x

110'

H

igh

Med

M

ed

Hig

h m

aint

enan

ce, v

eget

ate,

new

sur

face

m

ater

ial,

wat

erba

r/ di

vers

ion/

box

cul

-ve

rt, d

on't

rake

to b

are

soil,

app

ly e

ro-

sion

con

trol b

ark

mul

ch

E1-

9A

com

mer

cial

G

ray

cabi

n on

wat

er -

seve

re

surfa

ce e

rosi

on, l

ack

of b

uffe

r, di

rect

flow

to la

ke

19'x

35'

Hig

h M

ed

Med

H

igh

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

terr

ace,

wat

erba

r/di

vers

ion/

box,

cul

vert

E1-

9B

beac

h, c

om-

mer

cial

se

vere

sur

face

ero

sion

, lac

k of

bu

ffer,

bare

soi

l, di

rect

flow

to

lake

, bea

ch e

nhan

cem

ent

95'x

40'

Hig

h M

ed

Med

H

igh

mai

nten

ance

, ero

sion

con

trols

, new

su

rface

mat

eria

l, w

ater

bar/

dive

rsio

n/

box.

cul

vert,

don

't ra

ke to

bar

e so

il, a

dd

mul

ch

E2-

1 to

wn

road

di

rect

flow

to la

ke th

roug

h bu

ffer,

win

ter s

and

accu

mu-

la

tion,

road

con

tour

ed to

conc

entra

te fl

ow to

war

d la

ke

600'

+/-

x21'

H

igh

Hig

h H

igh

Med

pl

unge

poo

l/ dr

y w

ell,

dive

rsio

n

E2-1

0 re

side

ntia

l se

vere

sur

face

ero

sion

, dire

ct

flow

to la

ke

Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

w

ater

bar/d

iver

sion

/box

. cul

vert

E2-1

1 re

side

ntia

l m

oder

ate

surfa

ce e

rosi

on,

di

rect

flow

to la

ke, r

unof

f fro

m

driv

eway

, wat

erfro

nt e

rosi

on

50'x

30'

Med

Lo

w

Low

H

igh

vege

tate

, new

sur

face

mat

eria

l, m

ulch

, ro

oflin

e tre

nch

E2-1

2 re

side

ntia

l m

oder

ate

surfa

ce e

rosi

on,

di

rect

flow

to la

ke

10'x

100'

Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

ve

geta

te, t

erra

ce, s

tabl

ize

pipe

drai

nage

E2-1

3 re

side

ntia

l m

oder

ate

surfa

ce e

rosi

on,

di

rect

flow

to la

ke, b

are

soil

75'x

100'

M

ed

Low

Lo

w

Hig

h es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, ve

geta

te, d

on't

rake

to

bare

soi

l, te

rrace

, mul

ch a

nd e

stab

lish

foot

path

s, d

efin

e fo

otpa

ths

E2-1

4A

resi

dent

ial

dire

ct fl

ow to

lake

, sto

ckpi

led

soil,

bea

ch e

nhan

cem

ent

25'x

25'

Med

Lo

w

Low

H

igh

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

vege

tate

, don

't br

ing

in

sand

to m

ake

a be

ach

E2-

14B

dr

ivew

ay

bare

soi

l, un

stab

le c

onst

ruct

ion

site

60

'x30

' M

ed

Low

M

ed

Med

ve

geta

te, n

ew s

urfa

ce m

ater

ial,

seed

an

d m

ulch

E2-1

5 pr

ivat

e ro

ad

unst

able

boa

t acc

ess,

sho

relin

e er

osio

n, s

light

sur

face

ero

sion

25

'x8'

Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

bu

ild u

p ro

ad a

t end

of C

orbi

n's

Way

, w

ater

bar/d

iver

sion

/ box

cul

vert

GW

R W

ater

shed

Man

agem

ent P

lan–

App

endi

x D

54

Seg.

#

Land

Use

So

urce

of P

ollu

tion

Affe

cted

A

rea

Impa

ct

Rat

ing

Tech

nica

l Le

vel

Cos

t Pr

iorit

y R

ecom

men

datio

ns

E2-1

6 re

side

ntia

l m

oder

ate

surfa

ce e

rosi

on, b

are

soil,

dire

ct fl

ow to

lake

10

0'x3

5'

Med

Lo

w

Low

H

igh

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

vege

tate

, don

't ra

ke to

ba

re s

oil,

wat

erba

r/div

ersi

on/b

ox.

C

ulve

rt w

ith le

vel s

prea

der,

bury

tren

ch

goin

g to

lake

E2-1

7 re

side

ntia

l m

oder

ate

surfa

ce e

rosi

on, b

are

soil,

dire

ct fl

ow to

lake

25

'x10

0'

Med

Lo

w

Low

H

igh

don'

t rak

e to

bar

e so

il, e

stab

lish

buffe

r, ve

geta

te, n

ew s

urfa

ce m

ater

ial,

wat

er-

bar/d

iver

sion

E2-

18

resi

dent

ial

dire

ct fl

ow to

lake

, bar

e so

il 30

'x30

' Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, do

n’t r

ake

to b

are

soil

E2-1

9 be

ach

ac

cess

m

oder

ate

surfa

ce e

rosi

on, b

are

soil

10'x

160'

M

ed

Med

M

ed

Med

w

ater

bar/

dive

rsio

n/ b

ox. c

ulve

rt, v

ege-

tate

, clo

se o

ff to

veh

icle

s or

new

sur

-fa

ce m

ater

ial

E2-

2 re

side

ntia

l m

oder

ate

surfa

ce e

rosi

on, d

i-re

ct fl

ow to

lake

, ste

ps

30'x

30'

Med

M

ed

Med

M

ed

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

vege

tate

, wat

erba

r/di

vers

ion/

box.

cul

vert,

bar

k m

ulch

E2-2

0 re

side

ntia

l sl

ight

sur

face

ero

sion

, dire

ct

flow

to la

ke

15'x

50'

Low

Lo

w

Med

Lo

w

vege

tate

, est

ablis

h bu

ffer,

terra

ce, a

dd

stai

rs

E2-2

1 dr

ivew

ay

mod

erat

e su

rface

ero

sion

25

'x10

0'

Med

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

vege

tate

, ins

tall

berm

at t

op o

f driv

e-w

ay

E2-2

2 re

side

ntia

l m

oder

ate

surfa

ce e

rosi

on,

di

rect

flow

to la

ke

30'x

5'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

terra

ce s

teps

dow

n ba

nk

E2-2

3 re

side

ntia

l se

vere

sur

face

ero

sion

, dire

ct

flow

to la

ke

50'x

75'

Med

M

ed

Med

M

ed

rip ra

p, te

rrace

, cle

anup

cam

pfire

re

sidu

e

E2-

24

priv

ate

road

sl

ight

sur

face

ero

sion

50

0'x8

' Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, in

stal

l ber

m

E2-2

5 be

ach

ac

cess

m

oder

ate

surfa

ce e

rosi

on

25'x

30'

Hig

h M

ed

Med

H

igh

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

turn

out,

wat

erba

r/di

vers

ion,

div

ert t

rail

and

clos

e of

f se

c-tio

n ad

jace

nt to

lake

E2-

3 dr

ivew

ay

slig

ht s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on, f

low

to

20'x

20'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

mai

nten

ance

, est

ablis

h bu

ffer

E2-

4A

lake

R.O

.W.

slig

ht s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on, s

now

du

mp

leav

ing

larg

e sa

nd re

si-

18'x

12'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

mai

nten

ance

, tow

n re

mov

al

E2-

4B

lake

R.O

.W.

slig

ht s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on, s

teep

sl

ope

with

dire

ct fl

ow to

lake

12

'x10

0'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

wat

erba

r/ di

vers

ion/

box

, cul

vert

GW

R W

ater

shed

Man

agem

ent P

lan–

App

endi

x D

55

Seg.

#

Land

Use

So

urce

of P

ollu

tion

Affe

cted

A

rea

Impa

ct

Rat

ing

Tech

nica

l Le

vel

Cos

t Pr

iorit

y R

ecom

men

datio

ns

E2-5

dr

ivew

ay

mod

erat

e su

rface

ero

sion

18

'x30

' Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

m

aint

enan

ce, n

ew s

urfa

ce m

ater

ial,

wat

erba

r/div

ersi

on/ b

ox, c

ulve

rt

E2-

6 dr

ivew

ay

slig

ht s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on, p

artia

lly

10'x

10'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

mai

nten

ance

, wat

erba

r/div

ersi

on/b

ox.

E2-7

dr

ivew

ay

mod

erat

e su

rface

ero

sion

10

'x15

0'

Med

Lo

w

Low

H

igh

esta

blis

h bu

ffer

E2-

8 re

side

ntia

l sl

ight

sur

face

ero

sion

due

to

roof

runo

ff, d

irect

flow

to la

ke

10'x

30'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

eros

ion

cont

rols

, cru

shed

sto

ne u

nder

ro

of e

dge

E2-

9 re

side

ntia

l di

rect

flow

to la

ke, f

rom

Jav

ica

Lane

and

Eas

t 2

H

igh

Hig

h M

ed

Med

R

emov

e pi

pe! S

ee E

2-1!

Inst

all d

ryw

ell

E3-

1 to

wn

road

dr

aina

ge p

ipe

unde

r stre

et m

ay

carr

y co

ntam

inan

ts ?

??, d

irect

ac

cess

to la

ke th

roug

h sw

amp

area

100'

x100

' nr

nr

nr

nr

re

com

men

d a

look

-see

sin

ce o

ur e

x-pe

rtise

is li

mite

d

E3-1

0 re

side

ntia

l sl

ight

sur

face

ero

sion

, new

out

-si

de c

onst

ruct

ion

near

lake

, di

ggin

g ou

t ste

ps to

wat

er.

CO

NS

RU

CTI

ON

STO

PP

ED

AS

TO

O C

LOS

E T

O W

ATE

R

M

ed

Low

Lo

w

Hig

h m

aint

enan

ce, v

eget

ate,

wat

erba

r/di

vers

ion/

box

cul

vert,

don

't ra

ke to

ba

re s

oil,

slop

e ne

w s

tairs

aw

ay fr

om

lake

E3-2

re

side

ntia

l ba

re s

oil

50'x

50'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

vege

tate

, don

't ra

ke to

bar

e so

il

E3-

3 re

side

ntia

l sl

ight

sur

face

ero

sion

, dire

ct

3'x2

0'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

terra

ce &

veg

etat

e

E3-

4 re

side

ntia

l m

oder

ate

surfa

ce e

rosi

on, d

i-re

ct fl

ow to

lake

5'

x25'

Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, ve

geta

te, N

OTE

:

impr

ovem

ents

beg

un!

E3-

5 re

side

ntia

l m

oder

ate

surfa

ce e

rosi

on, b

are

soil,

dire

ct fl

ow to

lake

, uns

tabl

e co

nstru

ctio

n si

te

10'x

20'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

vege

tate

, ter

race

E3-

6 re

side

ntia

l se

vere

sur

face

ero

sion

, dire

ct

flow

to la

ke

M

ed

Low

Lo

w

Hig

h es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, ne

w s

urfa

ce m

ater

ial,

wat

erba

r/div

ersi

on/ b

ox.c

ulve

rt

E3-

7 re

side

ntia

l Y

ard

- asb

esto

s, in

sula

tion

and

wal

l boa

rd p

iled

in b

ack

yard

w

hich

slo

pes

dow

n to

lake

.

nr

nr

nr

nr

E

d. n

ote:

DE

P a

nd th

e to

wn

of S

anfo

rd

mus

t tak

e ac

tion

to c

orre

ct th

e m

ess

whi

ch m

ost l

ikel

y le

ache

s in

to th

e la

ke

and

poss

ibly

into

nei

ghbo

ring

wel

l.

GW

R W

ater

shed

Man

agem

ent P

lan–

App

endi

x D

56

Seg.

#

Land

Use

So

urce

of P

ollu

tion

Affe

cted

A

rea

Impa

ct

Rat

ing

Tech

nica

l Le

vel

Cos

t Pr

iorit

y R

ecom

men

datio

ns

E3-8

re

side

ntia

l sl

ight

sur

face

ero

sion

Med

Lo

w

Non

e Lo

w

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

inst

all b

erm

to

E3-

9 re

side

ntia

l se

vere

sur

face

ero

sion

, dire

ct

10'x

100'

M

ed

Low

M

ed

Med

es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, bu

ild u

p dr

ivew

ay o

n

E4-

1 re

side

ntia

l m

oder

ate

surfa

ce e

rosi

on,

di

rect

flow

to la

ke

50'x

25'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

vege

tate

E4-

2 re

side

ntia

l m

oder

ate

surfa

ce e

rosi

on,

di

rect

flow

to la

ke

25'x

100'

Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, ve

geta

te

E4-

3 st

ate

road

(r

te. 4

) se

vere

sho

ulde

r ero

sion

, mod

-er

ate

ditc

h er

osio

n, d

irect

flow

Hig

h M

ed

Med

H

igh

mai

nten

ance

, veg

etat

e, b

uild

up

road

, er

osio

n co

ntro

ls

E4-

4 pr

ivat

e ro

ad

mod

erat

e su

rface

ero

sion

,

dire

ct fl

ow to

lake

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

vege

tate

E4-

4A

resi

dent

ial

slig

ht s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on, d

irect

flo

w to

lake

10

'x10

' Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

ve

geta

te

E5-

1

Res

iden

ts (2

of 3

) obj

ect t

o su

r-

nr

nr

nr

nr

E5-

2

nr

nr

nr

nr

E5-

3

nr

nr

nr

nr

W1-

1 re

side

ntia

l la

ck o

f buf

fer,

mod

erat

e su

rface

er

osio

n, b

are

soil,

dire

ct fl

ow to

la

ke

105'

x10'

M

ed

Med

Lo

w

Med

es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, te

rrace

W1-

2 re

side

ntia

l sl

ight

sur

face

ero

sion

, lac

k of

bu

ffer,

bare

soi

l, di

rect

flow

to

lake

, roo

f run

off

40'x

50'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

wat

erba

r/div

ersi

on/b

ox. c

ulve

rt,

othe

r??

W1-

3 re

side

ntia

l sl

ight

sur

face

ero

sion

, bar

e so

il,

dire

ct fl

ow to

lake

2

area

s to

tal

M

ed

Low

Lo

w

Hig

h w

ater

bar/d

iver

sion

/box

. cul

vert

W1-

4A

resi

dent

ial

lack

of b

uffe

r, m

oder

ate

surfa

ce

eros

ion,

bar

e so

il, d

irect

flow

to

lake

70'x

20'

Med

M

ed

Low

M

ed

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

wat

erba

r/div

ersi

on/

box.

cul

vert,

oth

er=s

tairs

-see

she

et

W1-

4B

boat

acc

ess

lack

of b

uffe

r, m

oder

ate

surfa

ce

eros

ion,

bar

e so

il, d

irect

flow

to

lake

, roo

f run

-off

136'

x10'

M

ed

Med

M

ed

Med

es

tabl

ish

buffe

r,rip

rap,

wat

erba

r/di

vers

ion/

box,

cul

vert

GW

R W

ater

shed

Man

agem

ent P

lan–

App

endi

x D

57

Seg.

#

Land

Use

So

urce

of P

ollu

tion

Affe

cted

A

rea

Impa

ct

Rat

ing

Tech

nica

l Le

vel

Cos

t Pr

iorit

y R

ecom

men

datio

ns

W1-

5 pr

ivat

e ro

ad

seve

re s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on, p

oor

shap

ing,

dire

ct fl

ow to

lake

25

0' x

12'

Hig

h M

ed

Med

H

igh

resh

ape

road

or d

itch,

turn

out,

broa

d ba

sed

dip

W1-

6 bo

at a

cces

s ru

n-of

f com

ing

from

the

road

, se

vere

sur

face

ero

sion

, lac

k of

bu

ffer,

bare

soi

l, di

rect

flow

to

lake

, uns

tabl

e bo

at a

cces

s

128'

x10'

H

igh

Med

M

ed

Hig

h es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, ne

w s

urfa

ce m

ater

ial,

resh

ape

road

or d

itch,

see

d an

d m

ulch

W2-

2 re

side

ntia

l sl

ight

sur

face

ero

sion

, bar

e so

il,

dire

ct fl

ow to

lake

20

'x30

' Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, se

ed a

nd m

ulch

, sto

p m

owin

g

W2-

3 dr

ivew

ay

poor

sha

ping

, bar

e so

il, m

oder

-at

e su

rface

ero

sion

, dire

ct fl

ow

to la

ke

21'x

120'

M

ed

Med

M

ed

Med

de

tent

ion

basi

n, n

ew s

urfa

ce m

ater

ial,

rip ra

p, re

shap

e ro

ad o

r ditc

h, s

eed

and

mul

ch

W2-

4 tra

il/pa

th,

beac

h

acce

ss

lack

of b

uffe

r, m

oder

ate

surfa

ce

eros

ion,

bar

e so

il, d

irect

flow

to

lake

133'

x10'

H

igh

Med

M

ed

Hig

h es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, ne

w s

urfa

ce m

ater

ial,

wat

erba

r/div

ersi

on/ b

ox.c

ulve

rt, s

eed

and

mul

ch

W2-

5 re

side

ntia

l la

ck o

f buf

fer,

mod

erat

e su

rface

er

osio

n, b

are

soil,

dire

ct fl

ow to

la

ke

52'x

6'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

vege

tate

, ter

race

the

bank

,

o

ther

(?st

airs

off

bank

ne

ar s

tairs

goi

ng in

to h

ouse

)

W2-

6 re

side

ntia

l ba

re s

oil,

othe

r (sa

nd d

umpi

ng

dow

n ba

nk in

to p

ond)

30

'x9'

H

igh

Low

N

one

Hig

h es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, st

op d

umpi

ng s

and

W2-

7 re

side

ntia

l sl

ight

sur

face

ero

sion

, lac

k of

bu

ffer,

bare

soi

l, di

rect

flow

to

lake

, sho

relin

e er

osio

n

30'x

10' &

30

'x6'

Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, ve

geta

te, r

ip ra

p,

wat

erba

r/div

ersi

on/ b

ox, c

ulve

rt

W2-

8 tra

il/pa

th

slig

ht s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on, b

are

soil,

di

rect

flow

to la

ke

48'x

10'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

wat

erba

r/div

ersi

on/

box,

cul

vert

W2-

9 re

side

ntia

l m

oder

ate

surfa

ce e

rosi

on, b

are

soil,

dire

ct fl

ow to

lake

10

'x25

' M

ed

Med

M

ed

Med

ne

w s

urfa

ce m

ater

ial,

wat

erba

r/di

vers

ion/

box,

cul

vert

W3-

1 dr

ivew

ay

poor

sha

ping

, mod

erat

e su

rface

er

osio

n 13

0'x1

0'

Med

Lo

w

Low

H

igh

resh

ape

road

or d

itch,

wat

erba

r on

S.

side

of d

rive

10' E

. of h

andi

cap

acce

ss,

dive

rt flo

w in

to g

rass

W3-

10

beac

h, re

si-

dent

ial

lack

of b

uffe

r, sl

ight

sur

face

er

osio

n, p

et w

aste

20

' Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, ve

geta

te, d

on't

rake

to

bare

soi

l

GW

R W

ater

shed

Man

agem

ent P

lan–

App

endi

x D

58

Seg.

#

Land

Use

So

urce

of P

ollu

tion

Affe

cted

A

rea

Impa

ct

Rat

ing

Tech

nica

l Le

vel

Cos

t Pr

iorit

y R

ecom

men

datio

ns

W3-

11

resi

dent

ial

mod

erat

e su

rface

ero

sion

, lac

k of

buf

fer,

dire

ct fl

ow to

lake

, 30

'x25

' M

ed

Med

Lo

w

Med

es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, te

rrace

, def

ine

path

to

dock

W3-

12

resi

dent

ial

slig

ht s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on, b

are

soil,

la

ck o

f buf

fer

30'x

30'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

seed

and

mul

ch, d

on't

rake

to b

are

soil,

mov

e pi

cnic

tabl

es

clos

er to

hou

se a

nd d

efin

e pa

th to

doc

k

W3-

2 co

mm

erci

al

slig

ht s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on (f

rom

roof

ru

noff)

65

'x2'

Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

ve

geta

te, n

ew s

urfa

ce m

ater

ial,

crus

hed

ston

e ap

ron

W3-

3 pr

ivat

e ro

ad

seve

re s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on

30'x

15'

Hig

h Lo

w

Med

H

igh

pave

, new

cul

vert

W3-

4 tra

il/pa

th

slig

ht s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on, b

are

soil

Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

te

rrace

(ste

ps),

wat

erba

r/div

ersi

on,

bark

mul

ch

W3-

5 re

side

ntia

l sl

ight

sur

face

ero

sion

(ver

y)

Lo

w

Non

e Lo

w

Med

se

ed a

nd m

ulch

, lea

ve b

uffe

r bel

ow

ham

moc

k

W3-

6 be

ach

lack

of b

uffe

r

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

reta

inin

g w

all n

eeds

m

ajor

mai

nten

ance

or r

epla

ce w

ith

ripra

p or

veg

etat

ion,

avo

id s

hore

line

dist

urba

nce

whe

n pu

tting

in b

oat

W3-

7 dr

ivew

ay

slig

ht s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on

100'

x40'

Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

w

ater

bar/d

iver

sion

/box

. cul

vert,

see

d an

d m

ulch

W3-

8 re

side

ntia

l sl

ight

sur

face

ero

sion

, bar

e so

il,

unst

able

con

stru

ctio

n si

te, p

et

42'x

6'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

don'

t rak

e to

bar

e so

il

W3-

9 be

ach

shor

elin

e er

osio

n 30

' Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, ve

geta

te, r

ip ra

p,

wat

erba

r/div

ersi

on/b

ox. C

ulve

rt at

top

of s

teps

, sw

eep

dirt

off d

rivew

ay b

efor

e ra

in, a

dd s

hrub

/gro

und

cove

r buf

fer o

ff pa

tio a

nd b

elow

rock

wal

l

W4-

1 pr

ivat

e ro

ad

slig

ht s

houl

der e

rosi

on, b

are

soil,

dire

ct fl

ow to

trib

utar

y 40

'x12

' Lo

w

Med

M

ed/

Low

Lo

w

new

sur

face

mat

eria

l, w

ater

bar/

dive

rsio

n/bo

x, c

ulve

rt

W4-

10

resi

dent

ial

slig

ht s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on

50'x

10'

Med

Lo

w

Low

H

igh

terra

ce -

add

1 tie

r, ad

d an

othe

r ste

p or

tw

o go

ing

dow

n to

ste

ps to

wat

er/d

ock,

es

tabl

ish

buffe

r bel

ow te

rrac

ing,

don

't w

eed

wha

ck

GW

R W

ater

shed

Man

agem

ent P

lan–

App

endi

x D

59

Seg.

#

Land

Use

So

urce

of P

ollu

tion

Affe

cted

A

rea

Impa

ct

Rat

ing

Tech

nica

l Le

vel

Cos

t Pr

iorit

y R

ecom

men

datio

ns

W4-

11

resi

dent

ial

mod

erat

e su

rface

ero

sion

80

'x15

' Lo

w

Med

Lo

w

Low

es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, ve

geta

te, t

erra

ce

W4-

12

priv

ate

road

m

oder

ate

surfa

ce e

rosi

on o

n ro

ad le

dge

and

adja

cent

hill

sl

ope

30'x

10' &

30

'x6'

Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

m

aint

ain

road

reta

inin

g w

alls

, oth

er

(tens

ion

pond

beh

ind

with

sto

ne fo

r na

tura

l dry

wel

l)

W4-

14

resi

dent

ial

slig

ht s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on, b

are

soil,

un

der c

onst

ruct

ion

(new

san

dfill

dum

ped

over

ban

k, n

ew d

eck

nr

nr

nr

nr

W4-

2A

priv

ate

road

di

rect

flow

to la

ke, c

hann

eliz

ed

runo

ff in

to s

ite W

4-2B

12

5'x1

2'

Med

M

ed

Hig

h Lo

w

wat

erba

r/div

ersi

on/b

ox, c

ulve

rt

(at l

east

2)

W4-

2B

resi

dent

ial

slig

ht s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on

12'x

12'

Low

Lo

w

nr

Med

es

tabl

ish

buffe

r

W4-

3 re

side

ntia

l sl

ight

sur

face

ero

sion

75

'x12

' Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

te

rrac

e, w

ater

bar/

dive

rsio

n/bo

x, c

ul-

vert,

est

ablis

h st

able

foot

pat

h

W4-

4B

driv

eway

m

oder

ate

surfa

ce e

rosi

on, b

are

soil,

dire

ct fl

ow to

lake

40

'x12

' M

ed

Low

Lo

w

Hig

h es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, ne

w s

urfa

ce m

ater

ial,

wat

erba

r/div

ersi

on/ b

ox, c

ulve

rt, d

iver

t w

ater

into

woo

ded

area

nex

t to

lot #

93,

add

catc

h ba

sin

in w

oods

are

a, s

eed

and

mul

ch, p

ut in

ber

m a

cros

s ro

ad b

y ac

cess

road

to w

ell

W4-

5 re

side

ntia

l sl

ight

sur

face

ero

sion

, tre

nch

cons

truct

ed fr

om ro

ad to

pon

d,

dire

ct fl

ow to

lake

30'x

1'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

terra

ce, v

eget

ate

or b

ark

mul

ch, o

ther

(d

ry w

ell)

W4-

6 re

side

ntia

l m

oder

ate

surfa

ce e

rosi

on

80'x

40'

nr

nr

nr

nr

othe

r (ro

ck w

all)

W4-

7A

resi

dent

ial

mod

erat

e su

rface

ero

sion

, bar

e so

il 20

'x40

' M

ed

Low

Lo

w

Hig

h te

rrace

, add

reta

inin

g w

all,

rem

ove

one

beac

h ac

cess

W4-

7B

driv

eway

m

oder

ate

surfa

ce e

rosi

on,

di

rect

flow

to la

ke

Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

ne

w s

urfa

ce m

ater

ial (

crus

hed

ston

e if

they

don

't pl

ow)

W4-

8 pr

ivat

e ro

ad

seve

re s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on, b

are

soil

M

ed

Low

Lo

w

Hig

h bu

ild u

p ro

ad, r

esha

pe ro

ad o

r ditc

h, 2

ho

t top

wat

erba

rs, r

ubbe

r spe

ed b

ump

GW

R W

ater

shed

Man

agem

ent P

lan–

App

endi

x D

60

Seg.

#

Land

Use

So

urce

of P

ollu

tion

Affe

cted

A

rea

Impa

ct

Rat

ing

Tech

nica

l Le

vel

Cos

t Pr

iorit

y R

ecom

men

datio

ns

W4-

9 bo

at ra

mp

seve

re s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on, d

irect

flo

w to

lake

25

'x10

0'

Med

Lo

w

Low

H

igh

build

up

road

, est

ablis

h bu

ffer w

ithin

25'

on

eith

er s

ide

of la

unch

, new

sur

face

m

ater

ial,

wat

erba

r/div

ersi

on/b

ox. C

ul-

vert

(2),

don'

t rak

e to

bar

e so

il

W5-

1 to

wn

road

m

oder

ate

surfa

ce e

rosi

on

1500

' M

ed

Med

M

ed

Med

re

ditc

h, n

ew c

ulve

rt

W5-

10

resi

dent

ial

shor

elin

e er

osio

n 20

' Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

rip

rap,

veg

etat

e,ot

her (

rebu

ild c

ol-

laps

ed w

all o

r pla

nt s

ectio

n w

ith s

hrub

s)

W4-

13

resi

dent

ial

slig

ht s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on

40'x

75'

nr

nr

nr

nr

wid

en b

uffe

r

W5-

11

priv

ate

road

m

oder

ate

surfa

ce e

rosi

on -

prob

lem

com

es fr

om ro

ad

5'x4

0'

Med

Lo

w

Low

H

igh

eros

ion

cont

rols

, new

sur

face

mat

eria

l, w

ater

bar/d

iver

sion

/box

. Cul

vert

W5-

12

resi

dent

ial

slig

ht s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on, l

ack

of

buffe

r 10

'x25

' Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, ve

geta

te, s

eed

and

mul

ch, b

ring

in te

mpo

rary

ste

ps to

ac-

W5-

13

priv

ate

road

m

oder

ate

surfa

ce e

rosi

on

25'x

100'

M

ed

Med

M

ed

Med

pa

ve, d

iver

sion

W5-

14

priv

ate

road

m

oder

ate

surfa

ce e

rosi

on

25'x

100'

Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

w

ater

bar/d

iver

sion

/box

, cul

vert

W5-

15

resi

dent

ial

slig

ht s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on, l

ack

of

buffe

r, sh

orel

ine

eros

ion

Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, ve

geta

te, w

ater

bar/

dive

rsio

n/bo

x. c

ulve

rt, e

stab

lish

foot

path

to

lake

W5-

16

resi

dent

ial

slig

ht s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on, l

ack

of

buffe

r 5'

x50'

Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, ve

geta

te, r

ip ra

p sh

ore-

line,

add

cru

shed

sto

ne a

pron

und

er

gutte

r

W5-

17

resi

dent

ial

slig

ht s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on ,

bare

so

il, p

et w

aste

7'

x11'

Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

ve

geta

te, s

eed

and

mul

ch, o

ther

(mos

t of

pro

blem

wou

ld b

e so

lved

w/ r

oad

impr

ovem

ents

), cl

ean

up p

et w

aste

W5-

18

resi

dent

ial

slig

ht s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on

10'x

40'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

vege

tate

, see

d an

d m

ulch

bar

e so

il ar

ound

sitt

ing

area

nex

t to

lake

GW

R W

ater

shed

Man

agem

ent P

lan–

App

endi

x D

61

W5-

23A

resi

dent

ial

slig

ht s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on, b

are

soil,

di

rect

flow

to la

ke

nr

nr

nr

vege

tate

, roc

k ap

ron

by g

reen

she

d,

bark

mul

ch b

are

soil

or p

lant

sha

de-

tole

rant

gro

und

cove

r, us

e P

free

ferti

l-iz

er

W5-

23B

resi

dent

ial

slig

ht s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on, l

ack

of

buffe

r 40

' Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, m

ulch

, oth

er (g

utte

rs o

r st

one

unde

r drip

edg

e)

W5-

24

resi

dent

ial

lack

of b

uffe

r, sh

orel

ine

eros

ion

20'

Low

M

ed

Med

Lo

w

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

rip ra

p or

slo

pe b

ack

bank

to le

ss s

teep

gra

de

Seg.

#

Land

Use

So

urce

of P

ollu

tion

Affe

cted

A

rea

Impa

ct

Rat

ing

Tech

nica

l Le

vel

Cos

t Pr

iorit

y R

ecom

men

datio

ns

W5-

22

resi

dent

ial

slig

ht s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on, l

ack

of

buffe

r, ba

re s

oil

20'x

40'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

vege

tate

, sed

and

m

ulch

, don

't ra

ke to

bar

e so

il

W5-

21

priv

ate

road

m

oder

ate

surfa

ce e

rosi

on

100'

Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

w

ater

bar/d

iver

sion

/box

. Cul

vert,

re-

shap

e ro

ad o

r ditc

h

W5-

20

resi

dent

ial

seve

re s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on

40'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

wat

erba

r/div

ersi

on/b

ox.

Cul

vert,

cru

shed

sto

ne a

t roo

f drip

line

W5-

2 re

side

ntia

l sl

ight

sur

face

ero

sion

10

'x20

' Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, w

ater

bar,

mul

ch, d

on't

rake

to b

are

soil

W5-

19

resi

dent

ial

slig

ht s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on, l

ack

of

buffe

r, ba

re s

oil

20'x

60'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

vege

tate

, mul

ch

GW

R W

ater

shed

Man

agem

ent P

lan–

App

endi

x D

62

1-A

E

asem

ent

mod

erat

e so

il er

osio

n, b

are

soil

10' x

30'

H

igh

Med

Lo

w

Hig

h ve

geta

te s

ide

area

s, te

rrac

e w

ith

bark

mul

ch

1-B

E

asem

ent

slig

ht s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on

15' x

10'

H

igh

Med

M

ed

Hig

h se

ed a

nd m

ulch

1-C

R

esid

entia

l st

orm

wat

er d

isch

arge

pip

e co

n-ta

ins

fine

sedi

men

t

Hig

h M

ed

Low

H

igh

mai

nten

ance

, cle

an o

ut c

atch

bas

in

traps

1-

D

Tow

n ro

ad

seve

re s

houl

der e

rosi

on, s

light

di

tch

eros

ion,

clo

gged

cul

vert,

po

or s

hapi

ng

60' +

H

igh

Hig

h H

igh

Med

re

-ditc

h, e

rosi

on c

ontro

ls, r

ip ra

p,

resh

ape

road

or d

itch,

turn

out

1-E

Beac

h

seve

re s

houl

der e

rosi

on, m

oder

-at

e sh

ould

er e

rosi

on, l

ack

of

buffe

r, ba

re s

oil,

dire

ct fl

ow to

riv

er, s

hore

line

eros

ion

H

igh

Med

M

ed

Hig

h rip

rap,

wat

erba

r and

bou

lder

bar

rier,

seed

and

mul

ch

2-A

To

wn

road

(d

irt)

seve

re s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on, s

ever

e sh

ould

er e

rosi

on, p

oor s

hapi

ng,

ditc

h si

ze e

xcee

ded,

dire

ct fl

ow

to tr

ib, s

tock

pile

d so

il

1000

' H

igh

Med

H

igh

Med

re

shap

e ro

ad o

r ditc

h, tu

rnou

t,

w

ater

bar,

dive

rsio

n, b

ox c

ulve

rt

2-B

P

rivat

e ro

ad s

ever

e su

rface

ero

sion

, poo

r sh

apin

g, d

irect

flow

to tr

ib

200'

H

igh

Hig

h H

igh

Med

re

shap

e ro

ad o

r ditc

h, tu

rnou

t,

w

ater

bar,

dive

rsio

n, b

ox c

ulve

rt 2-

C

Driv

eway

sl

ight

sur

face

ero

sion

10

0'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

mai

nten

ance

, vac

uum

cat

ch b

asin

tra

ps

3-A

To

wn

road

sl

ight

sho

ulde

r ero

sion

, uns

tabl

e cu

lver

t I/o

Low

M

ed

Low

Lo

w

mai

nten

ance

, sta

biliz

e cu

lver

t inl

et,

rip ra

p 3-

B D

rivew

ay

bare

soi

l 50

' Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, ve

geta

te, s

eed

and

mul

ch

3-D

Ag

ricul

ture

ne

w s

tream

cro

ssin

g, c

ulve

rt to

ha

y fie

ld

30'

Med

M

ed

Med

M

ed

stab

ilize

culv

ert I

& O

3-E

To

wn

road

m

oder

ate

shou

lder

ero

sion

, m

oder

ate

ditc

h er

osio

n, b

are

soil

200'

alo

ng

road

M

ed

Low

Lo

w

Hig

h ve

geta

te, s

eed

and

mul

ch

3-F

Driv

eway

ba

re s

oil,

unst

able

con

stru

ctio

n si

te

80'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

vege

tate

, see

d an

d m

ulch

, gra

de

3-G

A

g/To

wn

road

mod

erat

e sh

ould

er e

rosi

on, l

ive-

stoc

k in

stre

am

100'

x 4

' M

ed

Med

H

igh

Low

er

osio

n co

ntro

ls, f

ence

ani

mal

s ou

t

TAB

LE D

.2.

NPS

SIT

ES -

2000

GR

EAT

WO

RK

S R

IVER

(SO

UTH

) SU

RVE

Y (s

ee S

urve

y Se

gmen

t Map

, pag

e 71

)

Seg.

#

Land

Use

So

urce

of P

ollu

tion

Affe

cted

A

rea

Impa

ct

Rat

ing

Tech

nica

l Le

vel

Cos

t Pr

iorit

y R

ecom

men

datio

ns

63

Seg.

#

Land

Use

So

urce

of P

ollu

tion

Affe

cted

A

rea

Impa

ct

Rat

ing

Tech

nica

l Le

vel

Cos

t Pr

iorit

y R

ecom

men

datio

ns

3-H

A

g/To

wn

road

slig

ht s

houl

der e

rosi

on, l

ack

of

buffe

r 40

0'

Med

H

igh

Hig

h Lo

w

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

mai

nten

ance

, new

cu

lver

t 3-

I A

g/To

wn

road

seve

re s

houl

der e

rosi

on, m

oder

-at

e di

tch

eros

ion,

uns

tabl

e cu

lver

I/o

, poo

r sha

ping

, bar

e so

il, d

irect

flo

w to

trib

400'

H

igh

Hig

h H

igh

Med

ve

geta

te, s

tabi

lize

culv

ert i

nlet

or

outle

t, se

ed a

nd m

ulch

3-J

Tow

n ro

ad

slig

ht s

houl

der e

rosi

on, b

are

soil

40'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

seed

and

mul

ch, d

iver

t ATV

off

shou

lder

3-

K

Sta

te ro

ad

slig

ht s

houl

der e

rosi

on

Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

3-L

Stat

e ro

ad

mod

erat

e su

rface

ero

sion

, bar

e so

il 30

' x 4

0'

Med

M

ed

Med

M

ed

mai

nten

ance

, veg

etat

e, s

tabi

lize

cul-

vert

outle

t 3-

M

Tow

n ro

ad

seve

re s

houl

der e

rosi

on, b

are

soil,

dire

ct fl

ow to

trib

, sho

relin

e er

osio

n

H

igh

Hig

h H

igh

Med

m

aint

enan

ce, e

rosi

on c

ontro

ls, b

uild

up

rd.,

rip ra

p, re

shap

e ro

ad o

r ditc

h

3-N

Ag

ricul

ture

liv

esto

ck in

stre

am

1200

' Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

es

tabl

ish

buffe

r

4-A

To

wn

road

la

ck o

f buf

fer,

dire

ct fl

ow to

trib

10

0' x

2'

Hig

h M

ed

Med

H

igh

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

re-d

itch

4-B

Agric

ultu

re

mod

erat

e sh

ould

er e

rosi

on, l

ive-

stoc

k ne

ar s

tream

, lac

k of

buf

fer,

no d

itch

M

ed

Low

Lo

w

Hig

h es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, re

-ditc

h

4-C

S

tate

road

/ Tr

ail/p

ath

mod

erat

e su

rface

ero

sion

, bar

e so

il, d

irect

flow

to p

ond

50' x

15'

M

ed

Med

Lo

w

Med

ve

geta

te, e

rosi

on c

ontro

ls, w

ater

bar,

dive

rsio

n, b

ox c

ulve

rt 4-

D

Priv

ate

road

/ tra

il/pa

th

unst

able

boa

t acc

ess,

bar

e so

il,

dire

ct fl

ow to

pon

d, s

hore

line

eros

ion,

uns

tabl

e po

nd a

cces

s

75' x

25'

H

igh

Hig

h H

igh

Med

er

osio

n co

ntro

ls, r

ip ra

p, n

ew s

lope

4-E

To

wn

road

/tra

il/pa

th

seve

re s

houl

der e

rosi

on, b

are

soil,

dire

ct fl

ow to

rive

r, sh

orel

ine

eros

ion

2000

sq.

' H

igh

Hig

h H

igh

Med

es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, ve

geta

te, e

rosi

on

cont

rols

, ter

race

acc

ess,

rip

rap

4-F

Agric

ultu

re

lives

tock

in s

tream

, lac

k of

buf

fer,

mod

erat

e su

rface

ero

sion

, dire

ct

flow

to ri

ver

300'

H

igh

Hig

h H

igh

Med

es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, er

osio

n co

ntro

ls,

cow

s ou

t of s

tream

, alte

rnat

ive

wat

er

syst

em

GW

R W

ater

shed

Man

agem

ent P

lan–

App

endi

x D

64

4-G

To

wn

road

se

vere

sur

face

ero

sion

, sev

ere

shou

lder

ero

sion

, poo

r sha

ping

, di

rect

flow

to ri

ver

0.5

mile

H

igh

Hig

h H

igh

Med

di

tch,

new

cul

vert,

new

sur

face

mat

eria

l, re

shap

e ro

ad, o

r ditc

h tu

rn-

out

4-H

To

wn

road

se

vere

sur

face

ero

sion

nr

nr

nr

nr

stab

ilize

culv

ert I

&O

, rem

ove

debr

is,

plan

s to

repl

ace

brid

ge

4-I

Bea

ch/ r

esi-

dent

ial

seve

re s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on, d

irect

flo

w to

rive

r, sh

orel

ine

eros

ion

100'

x 3

0'

Hig

h H

igh

Med

M

ed

vege

tate

, ero

sion

con

trols

, rip

rap,

w

ater

bar,

dive

rsio

n, b

ox c

ulve

rt 4-

J S

tate

road

di

rect

flow

to ri

ver

50' x

80'

H

igh

Hig

h H

igh

Med

re

dire

ct b

ridge

dra

ins

4-K

S

tate

road

se

vere

sur

face

ero

sion

, dire

ct

flow

to ri

ver,

shor

elin

e er

osio

n 20

' M

ed

Med

H

igh

Low

rip

rap,

wat

erba

r, di

vers

ion,

box

cu

lver

t 4-

L St

ate

road

sl

ight

sur

face

ero

sion

, dire

ct fl

ow

to ri

ver

M

ed

Low

Lo

w

Hig

h es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, m

aint

enan

ce o

f win

-te

r san

d, w

ater

bar,

dive

rsio

n, b

ox

culv

ert

5-A

To

wn

road

m

oder

ate

surfa

ce e

rosi

on, n

o di

tch

100'

Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

tu

rnou

t

5-B

D

rivew

ay/

Priv

ate

Roa

d un

stab

le c

ulve

rt in

let a

nd o

utle

t an

d un

ders

ized

, clo

gged

cul

vert,

di

tch

capa

bilit

y ex

ceed

ed, d

irect

flo

w to

trib

300'

M

ed

Low

M

ed

Med

ne

w c

ulve

rt (la

rger

), re

shap

e di

tch,

tu

rnou

t

5-C

To

wn

road

w

inte

r san

d on

road

50

' Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

cl

ean

win

ter s

and

off o

f roa

d

5-D

P

rivat

e ro

ad s

ever

e su

rface

ero

sion

, uns

tabl

e cu

lver

t I/o

, lac

k of

buf

fer,

poor

sh

apin

g, d

irect

flow

to tr

ib, s

ilt

fenc

e im

prop

erly

inst

alle

d

400'

H

igh

Med

M

ed

Hig

h er

osio

n co

ntro

ls, s

tabi

lize

culv

ert i

nlet

or

out

let,

resh

ape

road

or d

itch

6-A

S

tate

Roa

d/

resi

dent

ial

slig

ht s

houl

der e

rosi

on, s

light

di

tch

eros

ion,

bar

e so

il, u

nsta

ble

cons

truct

ion

site

, dire

ct fl

ow to

tri

b.

3000

sq'

an

d 75

' di

tch

Med

Lo

w

Low

H

igh

vege

tate

ero

sion

con

trols

, see

d an

d m

ulch

6-B

P

rivat

e ro

ad m

oder

ate

shou

lder

ero

sion

, poo

r sh

apin

g, m

oder

ate

surfa

ce e

ro-

sion

, bar

e so

il, u

nsta

ble

cons

truc-

tion

site

, dire

ct fl

ow to

trib

, sho

re-

line

eros

ion

stoc

kpile

d so

ils

150'

x 4

0'

Hig

h Lo

w

Low

H

igh

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

mai

nten

ance

, veg

e-ta

te, e

rosi

on c

ontro

ls, s

tabi

lize

cul-

vert

inle

t or o

utle

t, w

ater

bar,

dive

r-si

on, b

ox c

ulve

rt, s

eed

and

mul

ch

Seg.

#

Land

Use

So

urce

of P

ollu

tion

Affe

cted

A

rea

Impa

ct

Rat

ing

Tech

nica

l Le

vel

Cos

t Pr

iorit

y R

ecom

men

datio

ns

GW

R W

ater

shed

Man

agem

ent P

lan–

App

endi

x D

65

6-C

To

wn

road

se

vere

sho

ulde

r ero

sion

, uns

ta-

ble

brid

ge, b

are

soil,

dire

ct fl

ow

to tr

ib.

40' x

50'

H

igh

Hig

h H

igh

Med

ve

geta

te, e

rosi

on c

ontro

ls, t

erra

ce,

stab

ilize

brid

ge

6-D

To

wn

road

sl

ight

sho

ulde

r ero

sion

, bar

e so

il,

dire

ct fl

ow to

rive

r 20

' x 3

0'

Med

M

ed

Med

M

ed

re-d

itch,

pav

e, v

eget

ate

6-E

To

wn

road

m

oder

ate

shou

lder

ero

sion

, un-

stab

le c

ulve

rt I/o

, poo

r sha

ping

, la

ck o

f buf

fer,

bare

soi

l, di

rect

flo

w to

trib

, sto

ckpi

led

soil

400'

bot

h si

des

of rd

. H

igh

Med

H

igh

Med

re

-ditc

h, v

eget

ate,

ero

sion

con

trols

, ne

w c

ulve

rt, b

uild

up

rd.,

stab

ilize

cu

lver

inle

t or o

utle

t, re

shap

e ro

ad o

r di

tch

6-F

Tow

n ro

ad

mod

erat

e sh

ould

er e

rosi

on, d

irect

flo

w to

trib

30

0'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

eros

ion

cont

rols

, re-

ston

e/gr

avel

sh

ould

er

6-G

To

wn

road

/ re

side

ntia

l sl

ight

sur

face

ero

sion

, slig

ht

shou

lder

ero

sion

, bar

e so

il 40

' bot

h si

des

of rd

Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

ve

geta

te, s

tabi

lize

culv

ert i

nlet

or

outle

t, ne

w s

urfa

ce m

ater

ial,

seed

an

d m

ulch

6-H

To

wn

road

/ re

side

ntia

l sl

ight

ditc

h er

osio

n, b

are

soil

20'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

rip ra

p m

ore

need

ed

6-I

Agr

icul

ture

/ to

wn

road

sl

ight

sur

face

ero

sion

, bar

e so

il,

bare

fiel

ds

M

ed

Low

Lo

w

Hig

h es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, de

tent

ion

basi

n, te

r-ra

ce, t

urno

ut, s

eed

and

mul

ch

7-A

To

wn

road

sl

ight

sur

face

ero

sion

uns

tabl

e cu

lver

I/o,

poo

r sha

ping

, dire

ct

flow

to tr

ib.

400'

x 2

0'

Med

M

ed

Hig

h Lo

w

re-d

itch,

new

cul

vert,

resh

ape

road

or

ditc

h, tu

rnou

t

7-B

S

tate

Roa

d se

vere

sho

ulde

r ero

sion

, sev

ere

ditc

h er

osio

n, u

nsta

ble

cons

truc-

tion

site

, dire

ct fl

ow to

trib

.

400'

x 5

0'

Hig

h H

igh

Hig

h M

ed

re-d

itch,

mai

nten

ance

, ero

sion

con

-tro

ls, n

ew c

ulve

rt, s

tabi

lize

culv

ert

inle

t or o

utle

t, re

shap

e ro

ad, s

eed

and

mul

ch

7-C

To

wn

road

sl

ight

sur

face

ero

sion

, lac

k of

bu

ffer

50' x

30'

Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

es

tabl

ish

buffe

r

7-D

To

wn

road

m

oder

ate

shou

lder

ero

sion

, un-

stab

le b

oat a

cces

s, m

oder

ate

surfa

ce e

rosi

on, d

irect

flow

to tr

ib

300'

x 1

0'

Med

M

ed

Med

M

ed

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

re-d

itch,

ero

sion

co

ntro

ls, n

ew s

urfa

ce m

ater

ial,

re-

shap

e di

tch

7-E

To

wn

road

m

oder

ate

shou

lder

ero

sion

, poo

r sh

apin

g, d

irect

flow

to tr

ib, s

tock

-pi

led

soil

100'

M

ed

Med

M

ed

Med

er

osio

n co

ntro

ls, s

tabi

lize

culv

ert i

nlet

or

out

let

Seg.

#

Land

Use

So

urce

of P

ollu

tion

Affe

cted

A

rea

Impa

ct

Rat

ing

Tech

nica

l Le

vel

Cos

t Pr

iorit

y R

ecom

men

datio

ns

GW

R W

ater

shed

Man

agem

ent P

lan–

App

endi

x D

66

Seg.

#

Land

Use

So

urce

of P

ollu

tion

Affe

cted

A

rea

Impa

ct

Rat

ing

Tech

nica

l Le

vel

Cos

t Pr

iorit

y R

ecom

men

datio

ns

7-F

Com

mer

cial

slig

ht s

houl

der e

rosi

on, m

oder

ate

shou

lder

ero

sion

, bar

e so

il, d

irect

flo

w to

trib

, lac

k of

buf

fer

100'

M

ed

Low

Lo

w

Hig

h es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, ve

geta

te

7-G

To

wn

road

sl

ight

sho

ulde

r ero

sion

, lac

k of

bu

ffer

75'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

new

sur

face

mat

eria

l

7-H

St

ate

road

sl

ight

sho

ulde

r ero

sion

, roa

d su

r-fa

ce b

reak

ing

up

100'

x 5

0'

Low

M

ed

Low

Lo

w

stab

ilize

culv

ert i

nlet

or o

utle

t, re

-pl

ace

culv

ert

7-I

Tow

n ro

ad

mod

erat

e sh

ould

er e

rosi

on, l

ack

of b

uffe

r 50

' x 5

0'

Med

M

ed

Med

M

ed

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

new

cul

vert,

new

su

rface

mat

eria

l 8-

A R

esid

entia

l un

stab

le c

onst

ruct

ion

site

50

' x 1

00'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

eros

ion

cont

rols

, see

d an

d m

ulch

8-B

C

omm

erci

al/

tow

n ro

ad

clou

dy s

tream

, ero

sion

ups

tream

po

ssib

ly fr

om la

rge

grav

el o

pera

-tio

n

500'

of

stre

am

nr

nr

nr

nr

inve

stig

ate

furth

er

8-C

To

wn

road

m

oder

ate

shou

lder

ero

sion

, dire

ct

flow

to tr

ib

50' x

20'

Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

ve

geta

te, e

rosi

on c

ontro

ls, s

tabi

lize

culv

ert i

nlet

and

out

let

8-D

C

omm

erci

al l

ack

of b

uffe

r, di

rect

flow

to tr

ib

200'

of

stre

am

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

vege

tate

, det

entio

n po

nd

9 A

gric

ultu

re/

stat

e ro

ad

mod

erat

e sh

ould

er e

rosi

on, m

od-

erat

e di

tch

eros

ion,

clo

gged

cul

-ve

rt, d

irect

flow

to ri

ver

50' x

100

' nr

nr

nr

nr

m

aint

enan

ce, v

eget

ate,

ero

sion

con

-tro

ls, r

esha

pe ro

ad o

r ditc

h, s

eed

and

mul

ch

9-A

Lo

ggin

g O

p-er

atio

n/ s

tate

ro

ad

mod

erat

e su

rface

ero

sion

50

' x 1

00'

Med

Lo

w

Low

H

igh

eros

ion

cont

rols

9-B

S

tate

road

un

stab

le c

ulve

rt I/o

, dire

ct fl

ow to

tri

b

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

stab

ilize

culv

ert i

nlet

or o

utle

t

9-C

To

wn

Roa

d/Ag

se

vere

sur

face

ero

sion

, sev

ere

shou

lder

ero

sion

, sev

ere

ditc

h er

osio

n, p

oor s

hapi

ng, l

ack

of

buffe

r, m

oder

ate

surfa

ce e

rosi

on,

bare

soi

l, un

stab

le c

onst

ruct

ion

site

, ditc

h ca

pabi

lity

exce

eded

, di

rect

flow

to tr

ib

H

igh

Med

M

ed

Hig

h es

tabl

ish

buffe

r, m

aint

enan

ce, v

ege-

tate

, ero

sion

con

trols

, new

cul

vert,

st

abiliz

e cu

lver

t inl

et o

r out

let,

new

su

rface

mat

eria

l, rip

rap,

resh

ape

road

or d

itch,

see

d an

d m

ulch

, hyd

ro

seed

10-A

To

wn

road

sl

ight

sur

face

ero

sion

, slig

ht d

itch

eros

ion,

dire

ct fl

ow to

rive

r

Low

M

ed

Med

Lo

w

vege

tate

, tur

nout

, div

ersi

on

GW

R W

ater

shed

Man

agem

ent P

lan–

App

endi

x D

67

Seg.

#

Land

Use

So

urce

of P

ollu

tion

Affe

cted

A

rea

Impa

ct

Rat

ing

Tech

nica

l Le

vel

Cos

t Pr

iorit

y R

ecom

men

datio

ns

10-B

Lo

g ro

ad/tr

ail/

path

m

oder

ate

surfa

ce e

rosi

on, d

irect

flo

w to

rive

r 10

' x 3

5'

Hig

h H

igh

Med

M

ed

new

cul

vert,

sta

biliz

e cu

lver

t inl

et o

r ou

tlet

10-C

S

tate

road

/re

side

ntia

l m

oder

ate

shou

lder

ero

sion

, lac

k of

buf

fer,

mod

erat

e su

rface

ero

-si

on, b

are

soil,

dire

ct fl

ow to

rive

r

40' x

40'

H

igh

Med

Lo

w

Hig

h ve

geta

te, e

rosi

on c

ontro

ls, r

ip ra

p,

dive

rsio

n on

brid

ge, g

eo te

xtile

10-D

R

esid

entia

l un

stab

le c

onst

ruct

ion

site

Med

Lo

w

Low

H

igh

10-E

A

gric

ultu

re/

resi

dent

ial

lives

tock

in s

tream

, lac

k of

buf

fer,

dire

ct fl

ow to

rive

r 20

acr

es

Hig

h H

igh

Med

M

ed

esta

blis

h bu

ffer,

fenc

e to

kee

p co

ws

out o

f riv

er

10-F

A

g/to

wn

road

/

resi

dent

ial

mod

erat

e sh

ould

er e

rosi

on, m

od-

erat

e di

tch

eros

ion,

lack

of b

uffe

r, m

oder

ate

surfa

ce e

rosi

on, d

irect

flo

w to

rive

r

40' x

50'

H

igh

Med

M

ed

Hig

h pl

unge

poo

l, rip

rap,

div

ersi

on

10-G

To

wn

road

se

vere

sho

ulde

r ero

sion

, bar

e so

il, d

irect

flow

to ri

ver

200

sq.'

Hig

h M

ed

Med

H

igh

rip ra

p, d

iver

sion

10-H

To

wn

road

sl

ight

sur

face

ero

sion

, slig

ht

shou

lder

ero

sion

, bar

e so

il, d

irect

flo

w to

trib

.

20 s

q. '

Med

Lo

w

Med

M

ed

vege

tate

, ero

sion

con

trols

, bui

ld u

p rd

., ne

w s

urfa

ce m

ater

ial,

rip ra

p

10-I

Tow

n ro

ad

slig

ht s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on, s

light

sh

ould

er e

rosi

on, b

are

soil,

dire

ct

flow

to tr

ib.

35' x

15'

M

ed

Low

Lo

w

Hig

h ve

geta

te ,

turn

out,

dive

rsio

n

11-A

To

wn

road

sl

ight

sur

face

ero

sion

, win

ter

sand

bui

ldup

, dire

ct fl

ow to

trib

n/

a Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

m

aint

ain

road

, rem

ove

sand

11-B

A

g/to

wn

road

/

resi

dent

ial

seve

re s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on, p

oor

shap

ing,

dire

ct fl

ow to

trib

10

0 sq

. ya

rds

Med

H

igh

Hig

h Lo

w

rip ra

p, e

stab

lish

buffe

r, er

osio

n

cont

rols

, res

hape

road

or d

itch

11-C

To

wn

road

se

vere

sho

ulde

r ero

sion

, bar

e so

il 15

0 sq

. ya

rds

Low

M

ed

Hig

h Lo

w

rip ra

p an

d ve

geta

te

11-D

To

wn

road

sl

ight

sho

ulde

r ero

sion

20

0 sq

. ya

rds

Med

Lo

w

Low

H

igh

mai

ntai

n ro

ad, r

emov

e sa

nd

11-E

D

rivew

ay/

re

side

ntia

l sl

ight

sho

ulde

r ero

sion

1

acre

M

ed

Low

Lo

w

Hig

h us

e ph

osph

orus

free

ferti

lizer

11-F

To

wn

road

m

oder

ate

shou

lder

ero

sion

,

dire

ct fl

ow to

trib

. 10

0 sq

. ya

rds

Med

Lo

w

Low

H

igh

vege

tate

GW

R W

ater

shed

Man

agem

ent P

lan–

App

endi

x D

68

TAB

LE D

.3.

NPS

SIT

ES -

2004

NO

RTH

ERN

GR

EAT

WO

RK

S R

IVER

SU

RVE

Y (s

ee S

urve

y Se

gmen

t Map

, pag

e 71

) Se

g. #

La

nd U

se

Sour

ce o

f Pol

lutio

n A

ffect

ed

Are

a Im

pact

R

atin

g Te

chni

cal

Leve

l C

ost

Prio

rity

Rec

omm

enda

tions

1-1

Stat

e ro

ad

Uns

tabl

e cu

lver

t dire

ct fl

ow to

di

tch;

slig

ht ro

ad s

houl

der

eros

ion.

Far

m p

onds

dra

in to

st

ream

w/ s

ome

alga

e pr

esen

t.

150'

x 5

0'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

Sta

biliz

e cu

lver

t by

exte

ndin

g rip

rap

and

arm

or d

itch

w/ g

rass

.

1-2

Stat

e ro

ad

Uns

tabl

e cu

lver

t (fa

iling

bank

on

dow

nstre

am s

ide)

w/ d

irect

flow

to

stre

am a

nd s

ever

e ro

ad

shou

lder

ero

sion

.

75' x

25'

M

ed

Med

M

ed

Med

S

tabi

lize

culv

ert a

nd e

xten

d bu

ffer o

n sm

alle

r stre

am; a

lso

ripra

p sh

ould

er.

1-3

Stat

e ro

ad

Uns

tabl

e cu

lver

t (re

sulti

ng in

fail-

ing

bank

) w/ d

irect

flow

to s

tream

an

d m

oder

ate

road

sho

ulde

r er

osio

n. A

lso

road

san

d an

d ha

ngin

g cu

lver

t.

50' x

5'

Med

H

igh

Med

Lo

w

Res

et /

stab

ilize

culv

ert;

esta

blis

h bu

ffer;

esta

blis

h de

tent

ion

basi

n at

sto

rm d

rain

ou

tlet;

ripra

p ba

nkin

g &

ero

ding

dra

inag

e.

2-1

Tow

n ro

ad

Dire

ct fl

ow to

stre

am; r

oad

sand

fro

m s

torm

dra

ins;

alte

red/

stra

ight

ened

stre

am c

hann

el;

alga

e-ch

oked

stre

am; t

rash

in

stre

am.

M

ed

Med

M

ed

Med

In

sert

bilg

e so

ck in

to s

torm

dra

in a

nd

esta

blis

h W

Q m

onito

ring.

2-2

Par

king

lot

Dire

ct fl

ow to

stre

am; b

are

soil

park

ing

lot;

inad

equa

te b

uffe

r; se

vere

ban

k er

osio

n; s

now

plo

w-

ing

to s

tream

; tra

sh; a

lgae

; cha

n-ne

lized

stre

am; c

logg

ing

culv

erts

.

150'

x ?

nr

nr

nr

nr

P

ave

or a

dd n

ew s

urfa

ce m

ater

ial t

o pa

rkin

g lo

t; ex

tend

buf

fer;

use

curb

ing

or

chan

ge p

low

ing

dire

ctio

n.

2-3

Tow

n ro

ad

Dire

ct fl

ow to

stre

am; r

oad

sand

; st

orm

dra

ins

disc

harg

e di

rect

ly to

st

ream

; tra

sh; c

hann

eliz

ed

stre

am fu

ll of

silt

.

nr

nr

nr

nr

2-4

Rec

reat

ion

Uns

tabl

e cu

lver

t w/ d

irect

flow

to

stre

am; r

oof g

utte

rs d

rain

to p

ark-

ing

lot;

seve

re s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on

edge

of p

arki

ng lo

t dra

inin

g in

to

stre

am; t

herm

al p

ollu

tion.

nr

nr

nr

nr

2-5

Rec

reat

ion

Dire

ct fl

ow to

stre

am; f

ield

mai

nt.

equi

p. &

fert.

60'

from

stre

am

(che

m tr

ansp

ort t

o st

ream

)

H

igh

Med

M

ed

Hig

h N

MP

nee

ded

for e

ntire

site

; ins

tall

crus

hed

ston

e pa

ds fo

r equ

ip w

ashi

ng.

2-6

Tow

n ro

ad

Stre

amba

nk e

rosi

on; n

o sh

orel

ine

buffe

r; du

mpe

d ya

rd d

ebris

. 75

' x 1

00'

Hig

h M

ed

Med

H

igh

Stre

am b

ank

plan

tings

; sto

p st

ream

ban

k du

mpi

ng.

69

Seg.

#

Land

Use

So

urce

of P

ollu

tion

Affe

cted

A

rea

Impa

ct

Rat

ing

Tech

nica

l Le

vel

Cos

t Pr

iorit

y R

ecom

men

datio

ns

2-7

Tow

n ro

ad

Uns

tabl

e cu

lver

t; ba

re s

oil;

seve

re s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on o

ver c

ul-

vert.

50' x

8'

Hig

h H

igh

Hig

h M

ed

Cut

bac

k an

d st

abiliz

e cu

lver

t; in

stal

l pl

unge

poo

l; st

orm

dra

in tr

eatm

ent;

fenc

-in

g fo

r top

of b

ank.

2-8

Tow

n ro

ad

Stre

amba

nk e

rosi

on/

unde

rcut

ting;

impr

oper

cul

vert

alig

nmen

t; st

ream

runs

400

'

unde

rgro

und

in p

ipe.

H

igh

Hig

h H

igh

Med

R

ip ra

p ba

nk; t

reat

sto

rm d

rain

s.

2-9

Rec

reat

ion

Dire

ct fl

ow to

stre

am; s

ever

e

eros

ion

from

adj

acen

t tra

il.

20' x

10'

H

igh

Med

M

ed

Hig

h Br

idge

or o

ther

stre

am c

ross

ing

for t

rail.

3-1

Driv

eway

La

ck o

f buf

fer.

20' x

100

' Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

E

xten

d bu

ffer w

/ pla

ntin

gs.

3-2

Stat

e ro

ad

Dire

ct fl

ow to

stre

am; s

light

win

ter

sand

ero

sion

; sto

rm d

rain

on

brid

ge d

rain

s to

rive

r.

10' x

30'

Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

R

emov

e w

inte

r san

d.

3-3

Cem

eter

y D

irect

flow

to s

tream

; sho

relin

e/

surfa

ce e

rosi

on; l

ack

of b

uffe

r; pa

vem

ent r

unof

f int

o st

ream

.

30' x

10'

H

igh

Med

H

igh

Med

E

stab

lish

buffe

r w/ p

lant

ings

; ins

tall

infil

-tra

tion

trenc

h fo

r roa

d di

scha

rge.

3-4

Cem

eter

y D

irect

flow

to s

tream

; bar

e an

d st

ockp

iled

soil;

slig

ht e

rosi

on;

woo

dy d

ebris

dum

p.

100'

x 7

5'

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

Stop

dum

ping

and

mov

e so

il pi

le.

3-5

Tow

n ro

ad

Dire

ct fl

ow to

stre

am; t

rash

; flo

at-

ing

alga

e; w

inte

r san

d; a

rtific

ial

stre

am a

lignm

ent.

300'

x 2

0'

Hig

h H

igh

Hig

h M

ed

Rem

ove

win

ter s

and

and

stor

mw

ater

.

3-6

Eas

emen

t In

suffi

cien

t buf

fer.

250'

x 1

5'

Med

M

ed

Low

M

ed

Est

ablis

h bu

ffer w

/ pla

ntin

gs.

3-7

Tow

n ro

ad

Dire

ct fl

ow to

stre

am; i

nsuf

ficie

nt

buffe

r; se

vere

ero

sion

; yar

d w

aste

dum

ping

.

150'

x ?

H

igh

Hig

h H

igh

Med

En

gine

ered

sol

utio

n.

3-8A

To

wn

road

D

irect

flow

to s

tream

from

sto

rm

drai

ns; a

rtific

ial s

tream

alig

nmen

t; al

gae;

tras

h.

nr

nr

nr

nr

3-8B

To

wn

road

U

nsta

ble

culv

ert;

dire

ct fl

ow to

st

ream

; mod

erat

e di

tch

eros

ion.

12

0' x

6'

Hig

h M

ed

Hig

h M

ed

Cle

an/e

nlar

ge/le

ngth

en/s

tabi

lize

culv

ert;

inst

all p

lung

e po

ol; a

rmor

ditc

h w

/ sto

ne.

4-1

Trai

l / p

ath

Dire

ct fl

ow to

stre

am; s

ever

e

eros

ion

arou

nd b

ridge

.

Hig

h H

igh

Hig

h M

ed

Res

hape

brid

ge s

houl

der a

nd s

tabi

lize

bank

s.

GW

R W

ater

shed

Man

agem

ent P

lan–

App

endi

x D

70

Se

g. #

La

nd U

se

Sour

ce o

f Pol

lutio

n A

ffect

ed

Are

a Im

pact

R

atin

g Te

chni

cal

Leve

l C

ost

Prio

rity

Rec

omm

enda

tions

4-2

Tow

n ro

ad

Uns

tabl

e cu

lver

t; di

rect

flow

to

wet

land

; sev

ere

ditc

h er

osio

n;

seve

re s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on.

M

ed

Med

M

ed

Med

Le

ngth

en/s

tabi

lize

culv

ert;

arm

or d

itch

w

/ sto

ne o

r gra

ss.

4-3

Trai

l / p

ath

Dire

ct fl

ow to

stre

am; s

light

br

idge

sho

ulde

r ero

sion

;

sh

orel

ine/

surfa

ce e

rosi

on.

Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

R

esha

pe/v

eg tr

ail s

houl

der;

esta

blis

h bu

ffer w

/ pla

ntin

gs.

4-4

Trai

l / p

ath

Dire

ct fl

ow to

stre

am; s

ever

e tra

il sh

ould

er e

rosi

on; i

nsuf

ficie

nt

buffe

r; m

oder

ate

surfa

ce e

rosi

on.

20' x

10'

H

igh

Med

M

ed

Hig

h E

stab

lish

buffe

r w/ p

lant

ings

; bui

ld A

TV

x-in

g?

4-5

Trai

l / p

ath

Insu

ffici

ent b

uffe

r; m

oder

ate

su

rface

ero

sion

; mod

erat

e tra

il sh

ould

er e

rosi

on.

5' x

5'

Med

Lo

w

Low

H

igh

Esta

blis

h bu

ffer w

/ pla

ntin

gs.

4-6

Trai

l / p

ath

Dire

ct fl

ow to

stre

am.

100'

x 5

0'

Hig

h M

ed

Med

H

igh

Inst

all d

itch

turn

out

; est

. sta

ble

ATV

trai

l /

mul

ch e

rodi

ng a

reas

.

4-7

Tow

n ro

ad

Und

ercu

tting

ban

k af

ter b

ridge

.

Low

M

ed

Med

Lo

w

Ext

end

buffe

r w/ p

lant

ings

.

5-1

Tow

n ro

ad

Uns

tabl

e/cl

ogge

d cu

lver

t; di

rect

flo

w to

stre

am.

15' x

20'

Lo

w

Med

Lo

w

Low

C

lean

/enl

arge

/sta

biliz

e cu

lver

t.

5-2

Tow

n ro

ad

Uns

tabl

e cu

lver

t out

let;

dire

ct

flow

to s

tream

. 50

' x 5

0'

Med

M

ed

Med

M

ed

Inst

all p

lung

e po

ol /

dire

ct w

ater

leav

ing

culv

ert.

5-3

Tow

n ro

ad

Uns

tabl

e cu

lver

t.

Low

Lo

w

Low

M

ed

Sta

biliz

e cu

lver

t.

5-4

Res

iden

tial

Hor

se p

addo

ck n

ext t

o po

nd.

100'

Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

E

stab

lish

buffe

r w/ p

lant

ings

.

5-5

Tow

n ro

ad

Clo

gged

cul

vert;

dire

ct fl

ow to

st

ream

. 6'

x 4

' Lo

w

Med

M

ed

Low

C

lean

cul

vert;

inst

all p

lung

e po

ol.

5-6

Tow

n ro

ad

Clo

gged

cul

vert;

dire

ct fl

ow to

st

ream

. 10

' x 6

' Lo

w

Low

Lo

w

Med

C

lean

cul

vert.

5-7

Tow

n ro

ad

Hou

se lo

t pip

e di

scha

rge

to p

ond;

un

stab

le c

ulve

rt ou

tlet.

5' x

10'

M

ed

Med

M

ed

Med

St

abili

ze c

ulve

rt.

5-8

nr

nr

nr

nr

6-1

Tow

n ro

ad

Cul

vert

liner

deg

radi

ng; d

irect

flo

w to

stre

am.

nr

nr

nr

nr

R

epla

ce c

ulve

rt or

rem

ove

linin

g.

6-2

Tow

n ro

ad

Uns

tabl

e cu

lver

t out

let;

seve

re

bank

ero

sion

.

Hig

h Lo

w

Med

H

igh

Arm

or d

itch

w/ s

tone

.

6-3

Tow

n ro

ad

Uns

tabl

e cu

lver

t out

let;

seve

re

bank

ero

sion

.

Hig

h H

igh

Hig

h M

ed

Inst

all p

lung

e po

ol; a

rmor

/resh

ape

bank

-in

g w

/ sto

ne; i

nsta

ll rip

rap.

GW

R W

ater

shed

Man

agem

ent P

lan–

App

endi

x D

71

Se

g. #

La

nd U

se

Sour

ce o

f Pol

lutio

n A

ffect

ed

Are

a Im

pact

R

atin

g Te

chni

cal

Leve

l C

ost

Prio

rity

Rec

omm

enda

tions

6-4

Dum

p si

te

Dire

ct fl

ow to

stre

am; d

ump

site

w

/ app

lianc

es, o

il ba

rrels

, gas

ta

nks,

tire

s, tr

ash,

etc

.

H

igh

Low

M

ed

Hig

h R

emov

e de

bris

; est

ablis

h bu

ffer

w/ p

lant

ings

.

6-5

Tow

n ro

ad

Sev

ere

surfa

ce e

rosi

on.

H

igh

Low

M

ed

Hig

h A

rmor

ditc

h w

/ sto

ne; i

nsta

ll rip

rap.

6-6

Tow

n ro

ad

Uns

tabl

e cu

lver

t; di

rect

flow

to

stre

am; s

ever

e di

tch

eros

ion;

ba

nk e

rosi

on; s

ever

e su

rface

er

osio

n.

H

igh

Med

M

ed

Hig

h In

stal

l plu

nge

pool

; sta

biliz

e cu

lver

t; ar

-m

or b

anki

ng w

/ sto

ne; r

esha

pe/v

eg

shou

lder

.

6-7

Tow

n ro

ad

Han

ging

cul

vert;

dire

ct fl

ow to

st

ream

; ban

k er

osio

n; s

ever

e su

rface

ero

sion

.

H

igh

Med

M

ed

Hig

h In

stal

l plu

nge

pool

w/ l

evel

spr

eade

r; es

-ta

blis

h bu

ffer w

/ pla

ntin

gs; r

ip ra

p.

6-8

Tow

n ro

ad

Und

ercu

t ban

k; d

irect

flow

to

stre

am; d

itch

capa

bilit

y ex

-ce

eded

; ban

k er

osio

n.

H

igh

Low

M

ed

Hig

h A

rmor

ditc

h w

/ sto

ne; i

nsta

ll rip

rap.

6-10

To

wn

road

D

irect

flow

to s

tream

; mod

erat

e ro

ad s

houl

der &

sur

face

ero

sion

.

Hig

h H

igh

Hig

h M

ed

Rem

ove

win

ter s

and;

inst

all r

unof

f

di-

verte

r & d

eten

tion

basi

n.

6-11

nr

nr

nr

nr

6-12

To

wn

road

U

nder

size

d cu

lver

t; di

rect

flow

to

stre

am; m

od. s

houl

der a

nd s

ur-

face

ero

sion

.

H

igh

Hig

h M

ed

Med

E

nlar

ge c

ulve

rt; in

stal

l plu

nge

pool

; arm

or

ditc

h w

/ sto

ne; i

nsta

ll tu

rnou

t; re

mov

e w

inte

r san

d.

6-13

nr

nr

nr

nr

6-14

To

wn

road

U

nsta

ble

& pa

rtial

ly c

logg

ed c

ul-

vert;

dire

ct fl

ow to

stre

am; b

ank

and

surfa

ce e

rosi

on.

H

igh

Med

M

ed

Hig

h C

lean

/enl

arge

cul

vert;

inst

all p

lung

e po

ol;

arm

or d

itch

w/ s

tone

; rem

ove

win

ter

sand

. 6-

15

nr

nr

nr

nr

6-16

To

wn

road

G

ully

ero

sion

from

road

; han

ging

cu

lver

t; m

oder

ate

shou

lder

and

su

rface

ero

sion

.

M

ed

Med

M

ed

Med

In

stal

l plu

nge

pool

; rem

ove

win

ter s

and;

re

shap

e/ve

g sh

ould

er; e

st. b

uffe

r.

6-17

To

wn

road

D

irect

flow

to s

tream

; sev

ere

ditc

h / m

od. s

houl

der e

rosi

on.

M

ed

Med

M

ed

Med

A

rmor

/resh

ape

ditc

h w

/ sto

ne; r

ip ra

p.

6-18

nr

nr

nr

nr

GW

R W

ater

shed

Man

agem

ent P

lan–

App

endi

x D

72

Se

g. #

La

nd U

se

Sour

ce o

f Pol

lutio

n A

ffect

ed

Are

a Im

pact

R

atin

g Te

chni

cal

Leve

l C

ost

Prio

rity

Rec

omm

enda

tions

6-19

To

wn

road

U

nsta

ble/

clog

ged

culv

ert;

dire

ct

flow

to s

tream

; mod

erat

e

sh

ould

er e

rosi

on; n

o bu

ffer;

trash

/de

bris

.

nr

nr

nr

nr

En

larg

e/st

abiliz

e cu

lver

t; in

stal

l plu

nge

pool

; ins

tall

turn

out;

rem

ove

win

ter s

and;

es

t. bu

ffer.

6-20

nr

nr

nr

nr

6-21

To

wn

road

C

logg

ed c

ulve

rt; s

light

road

sh

ould

er e

rosi

on.

nr

nr

nr

nr

C

lean

cul

vert;

rem

ove

win

ter s

and;

arm

or p

ipe

on N

sid

e of

road

.

6-22

To

wn

road

H

angi

ng c

ulve

rt; s

light

road

sh

ould

er e

rosi

on; m

od. s

urfa

ce

eros

ion.

M

ed

Hig

h M

ed

Low

S

tabi

lize/

arm

or c

ulve

rt; in

stal

l roo

f drip

-lin

e tre

nch;

rem

ove

d/w

gra

der b

erm

s;

inst

all r

unof

f div

erte

r.

6-23

To

wn

road

C

ulve

rt lin

er d

egra

ding

; ditc

h ca

pabi

lity

exce

eded

; lar

ge o

pen

law

n.

M

ed

nr

nr

nr

Sta

biliz

e/ar

mor

cul

vert;

inst

all r

ip ra

p.

6-24

To

wn

road

D

irect

flow

to s

tream

; slig

ht ro

ad

shou

lder

ero

sion

; uns

tabl

e ba

nk;

stre

am s

edim

ent f

ence

bre

ache

d.

nr

nr

nr

nr

S

tabi

lize

bank

aro

und

culv

ert.

6-25

To

wn

road

B

are

soil;

sho

relin

e er

osio

n;

seve

re s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on.

nr

nr

nr

nr

6-26

Pr

ivat

e ro

ad D

irect

flow

to la

ke; b

are

soil;

sh

orel

ine

eros

ion;

insu

ffici

ent

buffe

r; m

oder

ate

surfa

ce e

rosi

on.

nr

nr

nr

nr

6-27

Pr

ivat

e ro

ad D

irect

flow

to la

ke; b

are

soil;

sh

orel

ine

eros

ion;

insu

ffici

ent

buffe

r; m

oder

ate

surfa

ce e

rosi

on;

unst

able

bea

ch/b

oat a

cces

s.

nr

nr

nr

nr

7-1

Stat

e ro

ad

Uns

tabl

e cu

lver

t out

let;

dire

ct

flow

to s

tream

; slig

ht ro

ad

sh

ould

er e

rosi

on; b

are

soil;

seve

re s

urfa

ce e

rosi

on.

nr

nr

nr

nr

7-2

Trai

l / p

ath

Bar

e so

il; s

hore

line

eros

ion;

de

bris

/sed

imen

t fro

m x

-ing.

nr

nr

nr

nr

GW

R W

ater

shed

Man

agem

ent P

lan–

App

endi

x D

Great Works River Watershed Management Plan– Appendix F

73

Appendix E: Watershed Maps

Map 1


74

Map 2


75

Map 3

Great Works River Watershed Management Plan– Appendix E

76

Map 4


77

Map 5


78

Map 6


79

Map 7


80

Map 8


81

Map 9


82

Map 10


83

Map 11


84

Bauneg Beg Lake was created in 1895 when the main stem of the Great Works River in Sanford and North Berwick was dammed. Today Bauneg Beg Lake provides the local community with recreational op-portunities such as swimming, boating and fishing and provides valu-able habitat for fish, birds and other wildlife.

Water quality data for Bauneg Beg Lake was collected from 1975 – 1998. The results show that the potential for nuisance algae blooms on the lake is high. The water quality is below aver-age based on measures of Secchi disk transpar-ency, total phosphorus (TP) and Chlorophyll-a. As a result, Bauneg Beg Lake is listed on the State’s “Nonpoint Source Pollution Priority Wa-tershed List” due to poor water quality related to stormwater runoff to the Great Works River north of Bauneg Beg Lake, and from land uses along the shoreline and within the watershed.

Bauneg Beg Lake supports a warm water fishery which includes spe-cies of Brown bullhead, Chain pickerel, Common shiner, Large and Smallmouth bass, Pumpkinseed, White and Yellow perch and White sucker. Cold water fish such as trout need at least 5 parts per million (ppm) of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the water to survive, and even higher levels to grow. DO levels in deeper, colder areas of Bauneg Beg Lake are far below this level as a result of ex-cess nutrient loading and algae production stem-ming from various land uses in the watershed.

Bauneg Beg Lake Protect and Restore-

LAKE FACTS

Watershed: Great Works River Surrounding Towns: North Berwick, Sanford Watershed Area: 16.4 sq. mi. Mean Depth: 9 ft. Max Depth: 29 ft. Surface Area: 188 acres Avg. Transparency: 3 meters Flushing Rate: 8.8 times/yr Watershed Groups: ⇒ Bauneg Beg Lake Association ⇒ GWR Watershed Coalition

Bu

si

ne

ss

N

am

e

Largemouth bass

A clear lake with small algal populations results in deep Secchi disk readings and low levels of Chloro-phyll-a and TP.

85


E. coli continued.

By itself E. coli is generally not a threat to human health but can be associated with disease-causing organisms. Between May 15th- Sept 30th the number of E. coli bacteria of human origin may not exceed a geometric mean of 64/100 milliliters. While E. coli levels were low in 2003 and 2004 sampling years, 2005 was measured at 75/100 milliliters. It is unclear whether the source is human. In the 1999 survey, pet waste was documented along the shoreline of Bauneg Beg Lake at 5 different locations. This type of pollution can be eliminated by simply cleaning up after pets.

Dissolved Oxygen It is important to note that 4 of the 5 monitoring sites on the GWR north of Bauneg Beg stayed the same or increased in the number of dissolved oxygen violations in the 2003-4 seasons. DO levels at the Channel Lane monitoring site at the northern end of Bauneg Beg Lake is of particular concern. This monitoring station is located where the north-ern flowage of the main stem of the GWR widens out and slows down to become Bau-neg Beg Lake, and has had con-sistently low aver-age DO levels (64 -68%), with levels as low as 29%. Dissolved oxygen in Class B rivers should be greater than or equal to 7 ppm (or 75% saturation) except for the period critical to spawning of indigenous fish species (Oct 1st – May 14th) when the 7 day mean dissolved oxy-gen concentration shall not be less than 9.5 ppm.

Water Clarity

Nonpoint Source Inventory

A 1999 Watershed Survey for Bauneg Beg Lake revealed that 131 sites are currently impacting the lake and have a high potential to directly impact water

quality. Many of these sites were located on residential properties and involved lack of adequate vegetated buffers and eroding water access sites. The Great Works River Watershed Coali-tion (GWRWC) in cooperation with the York County Soil and Water Conservation District

(YCSWCD), the Bauneg Beg Lake Association (BBLA), and the Maine DEP has since been taking part in restoration activities funded under a 319 imple-mentation project for Bauneg Beg Lake.

E. coli

Recent volunteer sampling efforts conducted by the Great Works River Watershed Coalition (GWRWC) above Bauneg Beg Lake point to a need for future sampling of Escherichia coli, or E. coli in Bauneg Beg Lake. E. coli bacteria is an indication of the presence of fecal contamination in the water-shed. The sources of this contamination could be from point sources such as wastewater treatment plants discharges and/or stormwater overflows. The bacteria could also originate from polluted runoff sources such as pet waste, livestock contamination and/or failing septic systems, or from nonhuman-associated sources such as native wildlife.

Water Quality

Great Works River Watershed Coalition Contact: Forrest Bell or Mike Cannon

PO Box 143, South Berwick, ME 03908 207-650-7597 or www.gwrwc.org

Volunteers needed for river sampling and lab work

Bauneg Beg Lake Historcial Water Clarity

0

1

2

3

4

1975

1977

1979

1982

1986

1988

1993

1995

1997

Met

ers

Bel

ow S

urfa

ce

BB Lake Min. Transparency DEP Standard

Bauneg Beg’s water transparency declined from1978-1979 was poor through 1988 and began improving in the 1990’s. No new data has been collected since 1998.

Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution - is polluted runoff that cannot be traced to a specific origin or start-ing point, but appears to flow from many dif-ferent sources.

Bauneg Beg Lake Association Meetings Last Sunday of each month ( May-August)

9 am– Fish and Game Club—Sanford http://baunegbeglake.org/

Simple Actions to Improve Water Quality ⇒ Plant a buffer 250’ wide on shorefront ⇒ Cover bare soil with mulch & ground covers ⇒ Pick up after pets ⇒ Terrace steep slopes ⇒ Create meandering paths to lake vs. straight ones ⇒ Volunteer to support the watershed effort

Dissolved Oxygen- Bauneg Beg Lake

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

DO (ppm)

Dep

th (m

)

Low DO levels at monitoring sites on the GWR above BB Lake may be an indication of low DO levels in lake.

86


E. coli

Recent sampling efforts in Bauneg Beg Lake have included the monitoring of Escherichia coli (E. Coli) bacteria at both the inlet and the outlet of the lake. E. coli bacteria is an indication of the presence of fecal contamination in the watershed. By itself E. coli is generally not a threat to human health but can be associated with disease-causing organ-isms. The sources of this contamination could be from point sources such as wastewater treatment plants discharges

and/or stormwater overflows. The bacteria could also originate from polluted run-off sources such as pet waste, livestock contamination and/or failing septic sys-tems, or from nonhuman-associated sources such as native wildlife.

Dissolved Oxygen

Dissolved oxygen (DO) in lake water is critical to the survival of all plants and animals, and therefore an indicator of water quality and the level of life a waterbody can support. Bauneg Beg lake has a history of DO depletion in deep, cold areas of the lake (below 4 meters), with DO levels dropping from 8 ppm at the surface to 0.2 ppm below 4 meters. Recent DO levels in Bauneg Beg Lake have shown a similar trend. Dur-ing the most recent sampling event, September 2006, DO levels dropped from 9 ppm at the surface to 0.2 pmm at 5 meters. This means that the lower half of the lake has very little oxygen available for plants and animals.

Current Water Quality Trends: Bauneg Beg Lake , 2006

Results of 2006 E.coli sampling in B. Beg were generally well below the DEP criteria of 194 colonies per 100 millili-ters. However, an elevated reading was noted in late August.

Water Clarity The secchi disk transparency (SDT) of a lake is a measurement of how deep into a lake the sunlight can penetrate. Factors that interfere with light penetration include algae, water color, and sediment. Since algae is usually the most abundant factor, measuring transparency can be a way to measure the algae population.

Bauneg Beg Lake Historcial Water Clarity

0

1

2

3

4

1975

1977

1979

1982

1986

1988

1993

1995

1997

Met

ers

Bel

ow S

urfa

ce

BB Lake Min. Transparency DEP Standard

Bauneg Beg’s water clarity declined from1978-1979 was poor through 1988 and began improving in the 1990’s. No new data was collected between 1998 and 2006.

The water clarity in Bauneg Beg Lake was near the DEP limit in June, July, August and September of 2006.

Bauneg Beg Lake 2006 Water Clarity0

1

2

3

4June July Early August Late August September

Met

ers

Bel

ow S

urfa

ce

DEP Standard B.Beg Min. Transparency

Bauneg Beg Dissolved Oxygen, 2006

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 2 4 6 8 10DO (ppm )

Dep

th (m

eter

s)

June JulyEarly August Late AugustSeptember

Inlet OutletJune 50 10July 13 20

Early August 3 8Late August 127 6September 11 1

2006 Average (Bauneg Beg

Lake)41 9

DEP Limit 194

E.Coli (col/100mL)

Documents

Great Works River Nonpoint Source Pollution Watershed Management Plan Works/GWR_Management... · 2012-05-01 · Jean Demetracopoulos Thomas Keating Sarah Schoedinger John Demeteracopoulos