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