Upload
others
View
7
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The EPA 319 NPS Approach
April 30, 2013UNH NE NPS Tribal Workshop
Forrest Bell and Emily DiFrancoFB Environmental AssociatesPortland, ME and Portsmouth, NHwww.fbenvironmental.com
Offices in Portsmouth, NH and Portland, ME
Small business founded in 2001 to provide lake assessment, protection, and restoration assistance
Work with public sector clients located throughout New England
Non-point Source ID, Monitoring, and Impact Mitigation
Surface Water Quality Data Analysis
Watershed Restoration & Management Plans
Meeting Facilitation and Public Participation
Pollutant Load and Water Quality Modeling
Technical Report Preparation
FBE is working closely with NH DES and local stakeholders to address bacteria and nutrient loads and mitigate adverse impacts.
Collaboration with numerous stakeholders & town officials
Collaboratively created list of potential pollution sources
Prioritized pollution sources for mitigation
Current BMP design and construction oversight; Septic loading analysis & public outreach
FB Environmental Associates
Engaging Local Landowners and Businesses in Addressing
Non-Point Source PollutionForrest Bell, FB Environmental Associates
Phyllis Ford, Spruce Creek Association
FB EnvironmentalPortsmouth, NH
Part of NH Department of Environmental Services 319 Grant for High Quality Waters funded by the US Environmental Protection Agency
FBE Developed Watershed Management Plan – key to success was high-level stakeholder involvement
Because we care about the health of our lakes and want to keep them clean for future generations to enjoy.
If a lake doesn’t meet State standards it is required.
PastPoint source pollutiondischarged from pipe
PresentNow polluted runoff or nonpoint source pollution (NPS) from many smaller, diffuse sources
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANNING
Build Public Support
Inventory of the Watershed
Define the Problems
Set Goals
& Develop Solutions
Create an Action Plan
Implement &
Evaluate
WatershedManagement
Cycle
Nutrients
Salts
Sediment
Other
Oils and Greases
Bacteria
Water quality sampling
Water quality data review
Modeling
Watershed surveys and Field Reconnaissance
Mapping
Other
Routine watershed sampling
Stormwater outfall sampling
Tributary sampling
Bracket sampling
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
Low High High
Review existing water quality data◦ NH DES◦ Municipalities◦ Local watershed associations◦ Local universities
Data sources◦ Existing TMDLs◦ RIDEM◦ Local watershed
associations◦ Local universities◦ Beach sampling
program ◦ Shellfish program◦ Non-profit groups
Identify potential pollutant sources
Identify locations for structural and non-structural BMPs
Smoke Tests
Canine Detection
Pipe from Dishwashing
Station
Evidence of Dumping of
Kitchen Waste
Outlet
Sampling Sites Site Description Enterococci(colonies/100mL)
Beach Seepage K5Dry area where original seep was
found --Fort Foster K5 Surf Zone 40
Beach Seepage K4.5 Wet seep 146
Beach Seepage K4.2.5 Tidal pool 41Beach Seepage K4 Wet seep --
Fort Foster K4 Eastern Surf Zone 112Fort Foster Culvert Culvert draining marsh (dry) --
Fort Foster Coffer Dam Downstream edge of marsh 109Outhouse Pipe No flow --
Fort Foster Upper Marsh
Upstream portion of marsh near road 569
Sampling Sites Site Description Enterococci (colonies/100mL)
Canine Response
Beach Seepage K5Dry area where original seep was
found -- YesFort Foster K5 Surf Zone 40 Yes
Beach Seepage K4.5 Wet seep 146 YesBeach Seepage K4.2.5 Tidal pool 41 Yes
Beach Seepage K4 Wet seep -- YesFort Foster K4 Eastern Surf Zone 112 Yes
Fort Foster Culvert Culvert draining marsh (dry) -- YesFort Foster Coffer Dam Downstream edge of marsh 109 Yes
Outhouse Pipe No flow -- YesFort Foster Upper
MarshUpstream portion of marsh near
road 569 Yes
Area of interest
Marsh
Outhouse
Water Quality Analysis
Collect & Summarize Data
Determine Median WQ Value
Compare to Water Quality Standard
Determine Assimilative Capacity
Set WQ Goal
012345678910
1991199219941995199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011
Parts P
er Billion (ppb
)Mean Annual Total Phosphorus
Station 1‐Fullers Lake Wentworth, NH
Total PhosphorusTP EC range from 3.2 to 11.5 ppbAverage (median)= 6.1 ppbTrend = increasing
Watershed loading/land use models
In-lake response models Build-out analyses Region 5 pollutant loading modelsOther
Mathematically traces water and pollutants through the watershed
Uses inputs like:◦ Rainfall◦ Watershed boundary◦ Land use maps◦ Septic system survey◦ Local expertise◦ Established lake/river science
Started as a university-level teaching tool Evolved over many years Used on over 30 lakes in NH Consists of large Excel spreadsheet Maps used to create many input numbers Strong local support
Developed10% Roads
2%
Mowed Fields4%
Agriculture9%
Excavation4%
Forest34%
Wetland1%
Precipitation26%
Waterfowl2%
Septic Systems8%
1/3 from forest
1/4 is rainfall
About 1/3 can be managed
Septic Systems can store 1,000 x the concentration of P in lake water.
Role of Septic Systems in Water Quality
Failing septic systems can result in: Delivery of disease-causing bacteria to
drinking water or recreational waterbodies; Contribute excessive phosphorous to local
lakes and streams via groundwater; Delivery of chemicals and hormones.
Conduct a Septic and Stormwater Survey to help address P and DO
concerns in lake Collect baseline information about the
state of septic systems in the shorezone (250 ft.)
Estimate P loading from septic systems
Educate watershed citizens about NPS
Identify all properties within 250 ft of waterbodiesDetermine sector boundariesPrepare survey maps
11 daysAugust 6th- Sept 12th,
2011 Face-to-Face Visits Distributed brochures
on stormwater, native landscaping, and septic systems
Septic surveys and brochures left if landowner not home
Each property assessed for stormwater runoff
1-10 yrs21%
10-15 yrs10%
15-20 yrs12%
20-25 yrs18%
Greater than 25 yrs21%
I don't know6%
No Response
Not Applicable
8%Other19%
How old is the septic system?
21% = New (1-10 yrs)
22%= (10-20 yrs)
39%= (>20 yrs)
30% = Seasonal
37%= >1 Season
32%= Year-Round Seasonal (less than 50
days/year)30%
More than one season (50-150
days/year)37%
Year Round32%
No Response0.3%
Is this home used year round or seasonally?
20-50 ft6%
50-75 ft22%
Greater than 75 ft
61%
No Response4%
Not Applicable8%
Other12%
What is the approximate distance of your septic system from the lake or
stream?
6% = 20-50 ft.
22%= 50 – 75 ft.
61%= >75 ft.
How Much?
•How Much Land is Currently Available for Development?
Where & When?
•Where & When Will Development Occur?
Effects?
•What are the Impacts from Future Development?
Buildout Results
Growth Rates
Zoning
Existing Buildings
Development Constraints
Assumptions
Buildout Results
Growth Rates
Zoning
Existing Buildings
Development Constraints
Assumptions
1.8% for Brookfield and 2% for Wolfeboro(annually, based on past 30 years)
Buildout Results
Growth Rates
Zoning Existing Buildings
Development Constraints
Assumptions
Buildout Results
Growth Rates
Zoning Existing Buildings
Development Constraints
Assumptions
Wolfeboro =(2,230 units), Brookfield =(86 units)
Buildout Results
Growth Rates
Zoning Existing Buildings
Development Constraints
Assumptions
Buildout Results
Growth Rates
Zoning
Existing Buildings
Development Constraints
Assumptions
Buildout Results
Growth Rates
Zoning
Existing Buildings
Development Constraints
Assumptions
1) Conservation Land
2) Steep Slopes
3) Wetlands
4) Existing Buildings
5) Hydric Soils
6) Highly Erodible Soils
7) Street ROW (50’)
8) Shoreland Zoning
Buildout Results
Growth Rates
Zoning
Existing Buildings
Development Constraints
Assumptions
Buildout Results
Growth Rates
Zoning
Existing Buildings
Development Constraints
Assumptions
1) Building setbacks
2) Min. Separation
3) Street ROW’s
4) Efficiency Factors
9,802 acres of developable land
(44% of the total watershed area within Wolfeboro and
Brookfield)
Zoning District Buildout Units
Agriculture 23Wolfeboro Totals 1,870
Grand Totals 2,264
5716
Commercial ‐ C2Municipal Watershed
394
133
32
General ResidentialRural Residential
WOLFEBORO
BROOKFIELD
Commercial ‐ Pine Hill Road
Residential‐Agricultural
Shorefront Residential
Village Residential193314
0
444658
0
Residential
Residential ‐ Agricultural
Commercial ‐ Central Business
Years into Future
Buildout Date
Brookfield Buildout Units
Wolfeboro Buildout Units
Combined Buildout Units
Estimated Land Area Associated
with Buildout Units (acres)
Watershed Total (Incl. Existing Buildings
5 2017 11 240 251 1087 256710 2022 18 495 513 2221 282915 2027 28 775 803 3477 311920 2032 38 1086 1124 4866 344025 2037 48 1428 1476 6390 379231 2043 60 1870 1930 8356 424640 2052 85 1870 1955 8464 427150 2057 115 1870 1985 8594 430160 2062 155 1870 2025 8767 434170 2072 202 1870 2072 8971 438880 2092 259 1870 2129 9218 444590 2102 330 1870 2200 9525 451698 2110 394 1870 2264 9802 4580Full
Buildout2110 394 1870 2264 9802 4580
*Full buildout predicted for Wolfeboro in 2043, and 2110 in Brookfield
Full buildout predicted for Wolfeboro in 2043 and 2110 in
Brookfield.
Existing P Load (kg/yr)
20‐Year Buildout P Load (kg/yr)
Full Buildout P Load (kg/yr)
Lake Wentworth 931 1521 2261Crescent Lake 467 682 874
Should be viewed as an estimate only
Models and analyses are only as good as the data that goes into them
Growth estimates may change
Buildings are placed first near existing roads, and then randomly across remaining buildable land area.
(Example: Long Pond, Belgrade)
Hubs = 10,403 acres
Buildable Land =2,425 acres
Determine which hubs are most vulnerable to development
Focus conservation efforts
What can the site support? Does the Town have future projects
planned for the area? Who will be constructing? Funding sources? Select greatest removal at lowest cost
BMP Evaluation & RankingRanking Criteria: 1st Round (all 108 sites)Proximity to Lake
Proximity to Tributary
Sediment Accumulation
Ease of Implementation
Land Use
Potential BMP Pollutant Removal
Maintenance Requirements
Tributary Ranking
BMP Evaluation & RankingRanking Criteria:
BMP Costs divided by Pollutants RemovedPermittingDesign
ConstructionAnnual Maintenance
Land TypeLand Area
Phosphorus AppliedRemoval Efficiency
Rough sizing Pollutant removals Engineering cost
estimates
Top 4 BMP DesignsSite 1. Wentworth State Park
Site 2. S. Main Street – (Next to the LakeMotel / Kingswood Condos)
Site 3. Governor Wentworth Highway
Site 4. Camp Bernadette
Top 4 BMP DesignsSite 1. Wentworth State Park
Efficient – Achieve maximum removal
Implementable – Who will construct?
Affordable – How will it be paid for? Preliminary designs are set up for grant fund requests.
Maintainable – Who will maintain & what equipment will they use?
Media Filter Drain
WMP
Community Input
Detailed
Watershed Assessment
Water Quality Analysis
Watershed Modeling
Future Loading & Build Out Analysis
2008 Watershed Based Plan:◦ Watershed signs◦ Local watershed
association website◦ Demonstration sites ◦ Educational materials◦ Spruce Creek “clean up”
days◦ Septic socials
Photo: Phyllis Ford
Public Outreach and Education
2008 - present 319 grants:◦ Direct education of over
1500 people◦ Established Save Kittery
Waters Website◦ Developed Save Kittery
Waters Pledge Program◦ Produced educational
flyers◦ Two tours of BMPs◦ Over 20 presentations
Inventory % lawn area in the watershed to determine overall IC impacts
Spruce Creek Association, YCSWCD, Town $5,000 2009
ACTION ITEM 2: Conduct Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) to identify malfunctioning wastewater systems.
Tasks Sub‐Tasks Who? Schedule Funding Sources*
Eligible for 319 Funding
Approximate AnnualCost**
a). Compile complete septic records in hot‐spot areas
i). Review town records to identify location and maintenance history of systems in hot‐spot areas, i.e. around BCH26A and 11
Town, Consultants
2011‐2012 DES 319 Yes $1,500
ii). Deliver "septic system surveys" to local residents to identify location and maintenance history of systems in hot‐spot areas
Town, Consultants
2011‐2012 DES 319 Yes $2,000
iii). Conduct site visits to identify the location, age, and maintenance history of any septic systems not accounted for through other methods
Town, Consultants
2011‐2012 DES 319 Yes $6,000
b). Dye tests and/or septic inspections at areas with confirmed high bacterial results
i). Conduct dye tests or inspections on any systems already identified as malfunctioning
NH DES, Consultants 2015
NH DES,PREP, CWSRF
No $5,000
ii). Expand the scope of these tests and inspections to include septic systems in areas with confirmed high bacteria counts
NH DES, Consultants 2015
NH DES,PREP, CWSRF
No To be determined
Annual or phased “checks” of the progress EXAMPLE: Parsons Creek Plan◦ Septic milestones: Inventory of septic systems in watershed completed Educational materials developed
◦ Stormwater milestones: Apply for a NH DES 319 grant Potential locations for stormwater BMPs have been
identified
Reduced number of beach closures
Shellfish beds re-open
Fewer algal blooms
Re-run land use loading model and incorporate BMPs
BMP Evaluation & Ranking
Ranking Criteria: 2nd Round (Top 30)
BMP Drainage Area Percent Impervious Land Use Types Pollutant Removal BMP Cost BMP Maintenance Cost
Top 4 BMPs = Most Cost Effective
$ per kg of pollutant removed
On average over a 10 year period
~ $2,000 ‐ $5,000 per kilogram